The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1973/08/060 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVIC~, INC. . . , ~ , . ,..~, _ ,,.. ,,,,,.. ~ ~ ;;l,ty H~11 llnah~im, Calilor~ia Auqu~~ 6, 197~ A R~~3I1L11A MEl~'fINO 0~' TH8 AlVl1HSIN CITX pL1~NNINfi GOMMI88ION RBGULI-R - 7l r~Qular we,otinp o~ the 11t-ahaim Ciky Plannia4 Coaimi~sion ws4 M~STING oslled to order by Chairman ciauer e-t 1~03 p.m., a quorum b~inq preeAnt. PRSSENT - CH11iRM71Nt ~a~~r. - COMMI98YON~RB~ Ferano, Herbst, King, Ruw.land, Seymour. 1-BSLNT - CAMMI83IONRRA ~ AZlred. PRE8EN7 - A~siatant D~valopmsnt Serviass Diractor: Ronald Thompson Daputy City )~ttnrney: Frank ]'.ovrry 0!lioe Bngineers Jay Tituo Plenning Sup~rvisor~ Dan Mc1o~-niel Zoninq Supervieore Charlee Robarte As~ociat• Planner: E. Ron Co:~traXSA Asriakont Planner: Phi.llip Sch~vartAe Aosietant Plannor: G: Alian Deum Commie~ion 3ecretary~ Ann Krebo PL~DGE OF - Cnmml.asioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Alleqianca to the A?GLEGIANCE Fldq. PRES~NTATION UF - Cha~.rman Gauer preeente8 tho Planninq Commie~ioa'a Resolu- A RESO~,UTIAN 0}" tion of Appreciation to foxmor Commiaeioner Ms~. Richard APpRECIA'PTON (Mir~.am) Kaywood, nati.nq thr-t the memberR of the Commiesion Nho had served with Mrs. Knywood had votad to axtend eaid Rbsolu~ion af Appreciation, and then read aloud Por t~.a bsneftt of tho general public eaid resolution. Mrs. Kaywo~~d, in acceptance, ataL•ed ahe wa~s extremely pKUUd of hRZ t-oting reaord ancl the accomplishments o~ tihe Ci~y Planninq Commiseion during the time ahe sexved~ and tha~ in spite of the lonq hoaze an~d difficult deciaione made, it was made eaeier by thm other memt~era of the Commisaion ~nd the ability of all to di~agree without betnq di~dgreenbl~. F.PPROVAL OF - Approval ef tho minutes of tha meet3ng o£ July 23, 1973, wae THE MINUTES deferre~! to A~.~guat 20, ].973. AREA DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATF•.D BY THE ANAHEIM uITY PLAN N0. 9R PLANNxNG COMMISSION- 204 E~~st Lincoln AvenuB, to coneider altarnetives for secondary c~rcu3.atio~i of pzoper.ties in tha etudy area loc$ted on the w~st side of Sta~e Cc-llege Bqulevdrd b~stwe+en Sawoy Avenue on the north and South Str~et an the south. Subjact area. development plan aae con~inued £rom tha ~uly 23, 1973 meetinc~ to allaw time for staff ta prepare aflditional alternativas to thoae origir-ally presented. Fiqht persona indicated the~r preaence to express their concern and commanta ragardiag the pla~n. Aasi.etant Plaanar Phillip Schwartz• preaented an introductian to Ares DeYel- opmant Plan No. 98, nntinq the locstion of the study axea, t~he reason Nhy aai8 glan was reactivatad, as Mell ns the faot that the plan had bemn c~ntinued from tha medt~.ng o! July 23, 1g73 to dllow time for staf~ to pzepare otrier alternati.ves for cireuZatioa •ng ~ound-a~cter~uation ~evicss~ and th~en iatro- au~ed Assistant Plenner C. 1-l~an Daum, etatinq he pouid prsten~ ths aatual exhibits end findinqs. 73-444 ~ ~ MINUTaB, CITY ~L1~NN~NG COMMI95.ON, Augvat 6, 1973 73-449 ~1REl1 DEVBL~I~M~NT PI+AN NO.~ 98 (Con~l.naatl) Mr. Dsu~ appsar~ad betore Ch• C~tam~~+ion on8 noted th• exiotinq •urroundl.na use~ and usea belnq rnad~ o! ~ubjeot prop~rty, indio~tCinp that ~te!'f nos+ had five •xhibita, ox three mara than had b~~n aon~icl~x~3 pr~viously by th~ Commisaiont that Exhibit "A" wa^ th~ •xhibi.t o:•iqin~lly aonsidered by ~h• ~l~nninq Commie~ion and City C~aunoil in 1968~ that 1~xh:lait "8" hed baen ra- viaed to deleta~ ~ho~e homss lronti.nq on the north ~ida o! Soath 8treet b~tw~~n StaC• Colleqe f3oulavard and Dover street, but atill propQaed ~tubbSnq the all~~ at the lirth mo~t nc~rtherly paroel ot th~ ~~v~n para~ls on Stets Collsqa eoa.lsvaxQ snd providinq access to Stiat• Coll~qe Fioul~va~rcl, and in aQdition, ws~ still propo~inq the oPl~eat cul-d~-oaa ati ths •a~t~rly •nd of St~voy Av~nue. 8xhibit "C" waa then reviswed, whioh indioat~d +~ 4n-loat hamm~rhaad nk~ the a~sterly ond of savoy Avanue and etubbinq o! th~ axi~tin~ 20~tc+ot allsy ap- pcoximately 40 teet ~outh o~ its entryway tram Sevoy Avsnua and providing a candsry accesa retuzninq to state Colleqe BoultivaxQ, indicatin4 that the Zre-lfic Lnqineer hnd aluo r4commended that savoy Avsnue be binckad otf at 9tate Collaqe BouYevard wi*h *he remaininq ~ight-oT-way abanclo^ed and divided batwe~n the parv^~le ,.b~attin~ to the north and south. Mz. Aaum continued roviewi.nq exhj•bita, no~ring Exhibit "v" proposed the instal- lation o~ A block wall at th~ ~ester.l.Y eidd u! the eeoondaxy aooaes aaxose Sevoy Avonue with +~ modified :ul-de~JZIC in the exist!ng right•of-way ot the streot, which would permit ac:ese from Sta~e Collepe ~soulevard to the 20-£oat eecoudary acaaee. Exhibit "E" was then reviawad by Mr. Daum, whiat~ propoaed inatallation of a~ blaok wal.l approximately ~0 feet eaeterly oP tha aeoandery access poir-t on Savoy Avonue, allowing a primary Access to al1 propertie^ ~'rontiing on Savoy Avenue, with the aecondary aacese alley rem~sini,ng npen to Savoy Avenua az-d a r~turn to State C~llege Boulevard, hawever, the Trettic Engineer had reco~- mended on this proposal that Savoy 3',venue b~ blocked oPf from SL•ate College HoulevArd and the remaining riqht-oy-way nbanQor~ed and divided between the paraels adjacent to thd north +~nd south. Finally, Exhibit "F" wna r9viewed, which pr~goaed the Letention of exlatlnq eecondary access and residential uea of subject pzoperties, noting that baeed on the recommenda.~iona of the tha xeport "A Study of the Prob:em of Resider-- tinl ciomes Frontinq on Art~rial Streete", which reoommendod either an 8~faot high acreen landscapfng in the existinc~ parkway between the oi.ewalk and the aurb or an 8-foot hiqh wall at ths proparty line sfdo of th~ side~-alk for those homea in the study azen, nttd that Exhibit "F" also propoeed utilization of existing s~reets and alleys adjacent to subject properti.es and i.ncludec~ the existing traffic c~ntrol conditions on State College Bou].evard and So~xth Street. In conclusion, Mr. Daum noted that in view of the opi~nion af ~he City Traffic Enqineer recor.-mending a block:ng-off ~f the acaess fxom State ColJ.eqe Boulevard to Savoy Avenue and limiting secondary return acce~s to ~t~te College Boulevard to one iocatiun oppasite South Street, it would e~p~ear thnt if thc~ Commiarsion determined commercial usea were appropriate, then Exhibit "C" ehoulc3 be ad~pt~d~ whorein a hammerhead at the eaaterly end of 8avoy Avenue wes propased, vrhiCh would allow for both traeh anrl fire vehiculdr eirculation; ann. that both the E'ire Depm.rtment and the Saiiitation Divisian had indicated thia nroposed occees would be in confozmance with thoir reaQ~ctive stan~Arda. Mr. 'Troy Pewthers, 1915 Uover Plaae, appeare8 beform the Commiesion, no~l.ng hE had been a reaident of this axea ~or spproximately 20 xeara~ thdt the moat pertinent question to be asked and ~n answbr giWen waa why ehould the~ home- owners weat of. subject property be faced trith ~chia pxoblem now before the Commission just becauae two men made an investmant whiah 1:hag ho~9d would pay oft~ h~wevaz, this did no~t jLStify the necosaity of the reeiden~a to appear every time someone wanted to ce~pitalite on th~ir inve~atmentt ~hatc si~ce 1968, the ~reaident~ had to appear xapeateclly before the Planning Coma~iaeinn end City Council reyarding changes in }he area, and all L•hey wan~ed wae to be left alone and simply because two men made an i.nNa~tmant on ~!hich tr.ey admitted paying prpmium prices on th$ as~aumption th~y wauld obtain a~one ck~ange, di3 not juetify tha residents sppeaxing continuously bePore the Commission~ Llldt ch.sngs ~ ~ s MINUTBB, CITY PLTiNNING CQMMISGIUN, Augttet 6, 1973 i3-446 71RE_ 11 DEVEI~OpMEN~ PLl1N N0. 98 lContinued) w~~ not n~a~~~arily e valid xrqument for progrese~ and that he ~y~pathiaeA Mith th• q~ntl~mmn making their i.nve~tment, but tihis did not me+~n th~ adia~n- in~ prop~rty own~r• ~hould change their livinq envi.ronmant t~u aaoominodat~ poor iudQ~ent or mnnetdry gnin. Mr. raNch~re pb~erved that paxnape Messra. Davidoon anct Oleon ~elt they aould p~r~u+~de th~ 1Planning Con~mi ~eion to rule in their favor, c~therwi~a thsy wauld no! h+~v• made th.~s inveetmr:nt, but he could not antertn~n the thought thAt any ~eabMS at th~ Cnmmiesion had given pri.or encuura~qement for •uch n venture, •nd h~ l~~t ths reatdential u9o could still be+ r.etained on 9tuta C~ollago Houl~vaxd, end i.f nat, why had th,e Ci.ty Approved condo~niniums at Waqner. ~v~nuo ~nd StaCe Collage Boulevn.rd whi.ch were now undwx c4i~struction. R~Perenc• wao then made ~y Mr. Pewth~x's to the traffic count a-t the pr~viou~ publia h~sring af 34,000 vehicles now ~nd proj~cted to 44,000 in ten yea~rs •a an argum~nt in favor oE reclaeaification, however, with the complakion of th• Oranq~ Fraeway, tlie traffic w~uld lesAen, not gxow~ dnd that havinq livod in tlnia ares !or 20 yeare ho cou7.d atate with knowledge thet tha noiee levsl o! th~ ar~a had inczeeaed, but it w~uld further ~ncreasa if commercial uae~ of thoas praperties in thd study ar.~a ~aera approved. Nlxo. lludrey Morris, 1931 Savoy Avenue, appeared before tne Commiasion and ^tat~d that the primary affected property owners regarding this ~tudy ~~~re Mr. And Mxa. LUy Cox of 192H Sdvoy Avonue, who owndd the home at the eecond~ry •cC~t~ and 8avoy Avenuo, however, as Mrs. Cox had stated at the laat public hearing, thoy would be out ox town and requested that the Commieeion cor~tinuo conaideration ~f this atudy until September, and ~her~ inquired how it w•ss propoe~d to block commerci.al tra~f~c from uginq Savoy Av4nuo, which wao a reoid~ntial etreoti whereupon the Commission no~ed therc could l~e a block aall. Mr. Nanl McLean, 1915 Daver Place, appeared before the C~mmieaion and requeoted ~'~at the Comcr,is~ion evaluate several pertinent ~oints which were not brought up at th,e laat meetin5, namely, the 49,000 projectad traffic count~ particular~ ly eincc he could not aee how the tratfic would increase after the freaway wae built beca-use the purpoae of the frea~way was to take traffic off the city stz'eots~ khat he had discussed the traffic problem with the Ar.co servico etatlon owner at the southeas~ corner of South Street and State Colleye Boule- v~rd, a~nd ae a resu~.t, he had called the Trnffic Enyin~er regarding thia project, at~d he had been adviaac3 tha~ the Traffic Enqineer could not pr.oject what the amoun+_ of traffic would be on State College Boulevard until a~ter the fraeway waa completed and in operation= that tha groperty owned by Meesrg. Uavideon t~nd Olson on Sta~e College Boulevarcl ar.d other streets was an u.~sigY~t- ~y mesa and looked like a garbage area~ that he further obj~^.ted to the i~ours of the publlc hearings because althouqh ~ome of the ownora of ~he propertie~ were ~AlAridd, noat were hourly employe~e, and one man had beer, threatsned with loas of ~ib job if he agair. took time off to be Present at these heas3ngst that the Amigo Restaur.ant liqhting xeflected into hia swimming po~l., which, in tura, reflected into his bedroom window at niqht, and the only way he could be sure of blocki.nq aut thi.s reflection would be with specially-treAted ehades~ that tho eo-called "home" ad~acent to the restaurant was also a mesa, and the eook far the reataurant lived in the campar parked on this propert.y, which he felt ~ras rad for their neighbor.hoodt and that he would agre~ witih Commioaioner Rowland that he could see no reason for coaversion f.rom a rambling xoulette to Rusaian roule~te. Furthermore, the claim of Messre. Davidaon anci Olaon that they hed paid a premium pricQ waa a basic businesa risk, and if there ware no risk involved, there w~uld be no gain~ thst pla,in workinq people c~ulci not efford homes that cost more than these homea in the a•abject aree, and doctore and atkorncys in other areas wanted tc maintr~3n their reaid:ntial area juat ae the ~5 ~ami~ies in tnis arPa did not want their residential environment dea- •~tayed by ewo men; and that thia area comprised a mixtuze of Ameriaa with every race, czeecl and color living in mutual respect for almoet 20 yQSra, thez'afoze, he aould request that the area be retained for residential use. THE HP':,RING WAS CLGSE'D. ~ ~ MINUTEB~ GITY PLANNING CUMMI86TON, 1luqttRC 6, 1973 73~447 AREA AwVE1~OPMENT PL~N Np. 98 ~Contiihued) Commie~~ioner Fsrano inqui.red which o! th~ •xhibit~ pre~entsd by otalf did Mr. P~wthera lr~vor~ wher~upon Mr. P~wthar~ state4 h~ wne r.~ainat nl.l. o! the pro-~ pGaa~lsr that at th~ leRt publio h~~rinq th~ hoinoownor~ were not os~aniaad and nt the last hearin~ it wes untlor~tood that the decieion weuld b• an oither/ar oelectian'. Commiaeioner. Fare.no inquired. wheth'r MX. pewthers wae aware o! th~ lmat that rxhibit "F", i.! adopted, would prae~r.ve tt-o area !ur rea~identi4l uoe~, r.etain- ing the exieting trel~ic pattnrn boCh pr,imary and escondary e~caapt thet the property owner would be aDle to conetrur.t an e-foo~ wall behind Ch• ~i~ewalk or planx an e-foat hiqh lendoaape akrip in the psrkway to provfQ• ~ound- attenuation fram noigea of tretfic cn Statc~ Colloge eoulevardt wharaupon Mr. Pewth9ra requeeted that thia Exhibit "F" be review.d egai.n. Mr. Daum notad th3t Exhibit "F" would Qermit eithar an 8-looC hiqh ma~onry wall bohind thg aic]Qwalk or an 8-f.oot high lmndacaped Rtrip i.n the parkway behind the aurb whl.r.h would serve to ehield tt~a ra~ident~ whu wou7.d ramain there fron tratfic noiaes, however, ~chera would be no zono chenga recommended. no.r would ther9 be any cha~nqee in the •xisti~nq oizoulntion patt.er~n. Commisaioner Farano notod thmre appeare8 not to ba r clear enough unAer$te~n8- tng ae to the responeibility og psyinq tos tho wall or planting oP the land- scaping, but he would like to strasr that th~ individual prnpmrty owner would not be xequired to provide this wall or lana~aapl.ng, hoKever, if they eo desireci, the coat wuuld bo borne by th• prop~xky ownar for landscaping or wall, but it would not be necessary to proaso~ e variance be:'ora the Planning Commis- eion to psrmit this~ and thdt he wae tr~-inq to q~t a clear under9tanding of, how the residents in the area felt abaut th~ dilisr~nt exhi.bit~ preser,ted= whereupon Mr. Pewthers staked that if ~hb rsrl.Q~ntiwl u~~ wa9 propoeeci to continue, then he woiild be ir. fav~r of. Exhibit "F" . Commisyior.er Farano tihen inyuirad p! Mr~. f~oxris which exhibit she pzePerredj whereupon Mrs. Morrie atAtad it would •ppa~-s that ~xhibit "F" would be ~he least destructive to the neighburhood, thaxafore, ahe would be in favor of Exhibit "~"' . Mr. McLean indicated he was in favat of Eathibit "F". Mr. Daum again reiter.ated that tha conditions would xemain tY~e eama for thesa c~omes on State Colleqe Bou~.evurd b~tween Snvcy Avenue and South Stree~, and no commercial development would b~ propoeed undar Exhibit "F", however, the residents would be qiven the optian of canstructing the wall ox planting the landECapit-q at their own expaneo. Commissior.er Seymour inqu! ze+cl c~! r~L•af! whore the traffl.c count pro jections were obtained since both Meaer~. P~wthars and N~Lean had indicated their in- veetigation revealad there would be la~~ traffic v~heri the freeway was co~npleted and open, and he wou~.d agreo with thi~ aasuwptlon be,cauae of what happened tu Garden Grove Boulevard after the Garden ci=ove Freeway wac openec7, therefore, he could not undex'stand how the projection af an inc.rQase of. 10~000 vehicles co~ld be accurate and inquired whetiher thia increase took into accoiint traffic that would be oxiting the freeway at ve-rious ox~t points. Office Engineer Jay Titus stated he did nat katiw where trieso truffic projections were made ~or ten yeara from now. Commi.s~ioner Seymoiir noted that he h:ad raiead the que~tion eeveza2 P.earings aqo on the traff.lc projections f~r State College Boulevard, and it apgeared the Traffic EnqineQr q+~ve those fiqe~resi whereupon :~r. Ti.tua notod that the traffic count south of South 3treet on Stata Colxeqe Boulevard in 197~ was 45,OG0 vehiclas p~r day and north of South 3treAt it wae 39~0~0 vehicles per day. Mr. D~:um advisad the Cc~amiasiQn thet the figuras eet forth in the report wer~ calculations made by th~e Planninq eta1~l, Commies~onez 5eymour then ie~c~uired Mh~ther these projectione~ taok into secount the completion o! the Oranqe Freewayt whor.upon Mr. Daum repl~ed negatively. ~ ~ t4iNUT~S, CITY kI.ANNINI~ COMMiSgiON, Auguet 6, 1973 73-448 AREA DEVRI~OFME~iT PLAN NQ. 98 (Continued) Commisoioner S~ymour further i,nqulred o! Mr. Titus whether thors would b~ s decroase in the 35,000 vehiolas par day upon completion ~f the lrecway~ wh~rs- upon Mr. Ti.tus replied tha~t ha ~ar~onslly lelt it wou3.d, but ho oould not etate by what amount withoat luxther sCuQy. Mr. Georga Coiline, 1923 9avoy Avenuo, advised th~ Commission that he had some inlormation r.egerding tra~ttio oounGs rinoa he hed lived ~n the weet eidq o! Santa FA 9tze~t and Willow Avenue in L,~ng D~aah before the+ 8an Diego ~'reewsy wae completod, and tha~ +sron we~e completely ~ammed, but when thb Preeway was oQened, this area became a deaerted villaga and even the o~orss cXoeed up in the area, ~haze~ore, aongi.deretion ehould be given h.G when tl~e lrseway waw completed, dn~ he lelt thet 5L•nte CollegA Huulevard w~~uld aqAin be +~ ~tr~et it w~uld be a pleaeure ~o cr.o~ae, Chairman Gav.er inquired whethar the Com.nisaio~n wiehed to make a deciaion thie dnto ar conti.nue it and ache~ule it Por an evening meetinq as aug~ee~.ed by Mr. MaLeun. Mra. barbard Col.lina, 1923 Savoy Avenue, noted that the Planninq Commiasion knew at the last public hearing that Mr, Davidson would be on vacatlon and that Mra. Cox had alsa stated they would be out of town, thc+re°ore, eh~ fe~lt e decieion ahould be mado this da~a. Commisal~ner Seymour concurr.ed that tha ~ouree a# act~on eot forth by Mre. Colline was correct, however, the Commiasion nc,eded more exhibi.ta and thosa all resulted in the queatiion ha had raised aevara3. l~earings ~go. which wae, clid thoae l~or~eg on State College Baulevard providQ a ~~iitablo l.i~rinq enviran- ment~ that hF would like to ttssur.~ the residente af tne azea thaL the Commis- sion's primary concern waa the living environment of re~i.dente of the c:ity, not w}~ether thFre was a profit or loes on the part of two indivi.duals, n~r was th~ CommisA~,.on cnncerned with ~ha r.iqhts of inveators or speculators of land becausa the Commiasion, from the bEg.inning, was concerned that residents of. thoae homes on State Coliege Boulevaza have a desirable li.ving enviconnentt that he appreciated thc concern of the nQighbora to the west who di3 not want their neigt-borhoo3 to be dieru~tec~ by cummercial u~es, but cor.sideration ahould a,~o be given to p~ople living on S*_ate Collegp Boulevard who would po3sibly be faced with 50,000 vehicles per da3-, and if that were tu happen, than somPthing would have to b~ 3one to pzovide a better living envi~onment, hovrever, the infermation preaentQd to the Commission at thi~ haaring - it kae not only a realistic possibi.lity and posaibly a real.ity - thrtt there 'would be less traffic on State Cullsgs :,oulevard rttther than more as prea~nteci in the original hear~ng, and until th~ Commission was presented evidence to the contrary, the sound-a~.tenuation d~v'icea proposEd in Exhibit "F" , whiah wo~ild paxmit con~truction of an 6-foot hiqh wall or ~n 8-.foat high l.andscaped strip, ohould handle the job far the present, and ~when the Orange I~'reeway was cum- plet2d, it would appear the traffic on State c;oZl~ge Boulevard would decreasc, then the Commission would want to retain the~se homes f.or r.esident:al usas, how~vex, when the nctse became unlivable for ttioae homes on State College Bouleva~d, aomething would have to be done, and he wanted to aseure Che adjoin- ing property owners to the west they would be retaininq their presen~ living environment, h~wever, in order co do so, he would then recommend that Exhibit "C" be ronside.~ed. Commiasioner Herbst concurred with the statamentQ mude by Comn~isaioner Seymour, noting that Chairman ~auer many times in th~ past years had atatecl the City should provic3e the sound-attenuation devices for those homes a~ljacent t~ heavl.ly-traveled arterials rath~r than perpetuatinq a strip commercial aitua- tion along these atraets since the City had more than enough strip commercial, and if the City allowed strip commercial to aontinue, there nevc~r wauld be a desirable downtown shopping centert that he iiad been opposed to strip cc~mmercial devblopmen~ in this ~r~a evQr since i~e inception, but he would 'like to a8vise thosA oresent in the Council Chrmber that another property owner on the stramt coul~i request commercial zoninq on the proFarty and the Citx di~ not have the right ta deny him ~he right to request it, and ~he reei9~nts of the are~ wauld have ta continue to defend their right to maintain this area Foz roeidential naQ. L._J ~ ~ MINUTFS~ CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION, Au~uet 6, 1973 93-4;9 AAEA DL*VL.LOPMENT FLAN _NG__~____9Q (C~ntinuod) Comml.seion~r Kinq inquired whether th~ Com.nission had pzQmiaed I~tr, D1lV~,dM011 thnt tha Co.nmi~sion aould not vota a~ hio pr.oparCy on this deta~ K:~~seupon f:oma~ieaianer Seymour steted tria~t ths ramn~i~~ion wss only ~ckinq on ~ch~ eru+s Aevelopm~nt. plan snd ~i:+t the~ recl~~~ifi~ation patition o! tdoe~ra. DWviElAOn end A.l~on, hc evez, !! tno CommiM~ion •doptad ~xhibiC "F" xnd rscommendpd sama ko the ..ity Councll, ~hie would be in!liaative ot MhdC would tsappen to Mo~ore. Da~vidson and olaan'g propsr~y. Cummise.toner Herbxt notad that th• C. mn~is~ion eevera,, months aQo tzad oon- ~~drrP9 and recemmendaci dieapproval o! the Yeclaveification ot two lots oWned by Mee~re. De-videon a-na Oxec,n, but upon preeentation o~ reviaed p lAna for tha Commixaion i:o coneidor~ rha Cora;ic~e~.c+n deL•ermi.ned khet the rnutte+r would huve to ba eet for public hearing, anQ the aree~ dmvelopment plan was reactiv~ted with a numbex of new exhibite pruannted !or the Commi.seian's aane i9eraCion. Commiasi.onox Se~ymoe~r offered Reeolutiun No. PC73-167 end moved fo r ite pASSaqe snd adaptian to ndopt nnd recommend to tha C.ity Council adopt•ion a! Exhi~il.t "F", AreA UeveloPment Plan N~. 98, as tho moat logical man~~er to ratain xho homee looated on the west eido of stato Colloge Buulevard b~t~veen Sdvoy A•~onue nn3 South Street Eor rasi.d~ ntial piirpoeee and still provide the eound-attonuation devices to pr.ot9 ~t theae }IOiAPB Prom traffic nai sea a].ong Statr~ Colle+ge Boulevaxd, baeed on the fwet that evidenco was preP entAd that ~~ ~ traffic dlonq Starc+ College f3oulevnrd would decrease conaidezably uQon t,,.+ completion ~P the Grdnge Frdeway~ and thak at euch t~me ae it Would appea~ thesF homee were not Ziva~lA, qven with tho eound-attnnuation devic~a, ~hat Exhibit "C" woulcl appear to be thQ most appropriate manner in which to convert tho~se homea fronting on Statd Colleye Isoulovarci between Savoy Avenue and South Streot. Pri~r to roll call, Commi.ssinner Fazanu Atated that Commiasloner Seymour•e rosol.ution ahould be mare subatantive, An~. it ahould be made clear. th~t any turther dQCfaion on roclasbification of i.he prpperties on the west eide af State Co11P~e Bouldvard should be held i ~ abey+~nce until the City could qlean some experience from traffic pAtterns upan cocupletion of the Orange Freeway. Comm~.aeioner Rowland observed there would be no way that traffic would in- c. eaae on State Coll.eqe Boulevnrd upon completion of the fre~+way , and it wou18 have no empiri~cal precedent. Commissioner Seymour then amanded his res~lution as follows: CommiRSioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC73-167 and moved Ear its paasage and adoption to udopt and r~co~r.m~nd to the City Council the ado~tion of Exhib iti "F" of Araa llevelopment Plan 1N~:. 98 as hainq the moat logical manner ir~ which ~o retain the reslden~ial in~pgrity o£ the homes fronting on State Colleqe 3oulo- vard which would ~rovice sou:~d-attenuat.ion devices to protect these homes from traffic noises aa.ong State College F3oulovar.d, bas:d on the fact that avidence wxs presented at public hearing that the Craf.fic along State Colleqe Bouleuard would dec:rease cunsiderably uonn romplstion and opening cf the Orunqa Freewdyt that i.t wou13 be ~urther recommendsd that khe City Council. hc~ 3 in abeyanue anx further reclassificaLi~:,r~ of thoge properties along State Cclleqe HoulevarS until such time as evidence c~ald be g:.eaned from traffic patte rns for Sta~te College Boulevaxd resulting frc~n the o~.enx ng and use of the OraZye Freeway. Furthermore, in the everit auch traffic pAtterns did change along State Colleqe Soulevar3 and the reside-its af i:lhe hcmea would be affected by the incrRase in traffic, t'~ac ixhibit "G" would appear to be the moat appropriate m~nner in Which ~o provid~ the r.esi3encs to the west with the protection of no more cc~mmercial traffic enexo~scliment into the residential area, while atill provid- ing adequate tra~Efic cixculation for those properti~e frontinq state Colleqe Boalecard between Savoy Avenus and S~uth Streat. (See Fteaolution Book) Os~ roll. call thd foregoinq reaolution was passsd by 'tlie foll~wing vote: :~:L;;: COMMISSIOI~ERSs Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Kinq, Rowland, Seymour. NOFS: COMMISSxONERSr None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONSRSt Al~.red. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITX ~L7INNING COMMTSSIOtJ, Auqu~t 6, 1973 73-450 ENVIRONMRNT~IL iMP71C~ - PUBLIC tiL11RING, RAI.PH E. AND 'ViQLA B. POH~ ~0396 ti~nCa RBPORT N0. 97 Ana Cany~n Rond, An~h~im, Ca. 9Z806t AN7~HEIM HxLLB, YNC. 71ND TEXACO VENTUR88, iNC., 380 J-haheim Hills Ao~d, RLCL~8S2FxCATiON Anaheim, Gx. 9Z806, Own~r~~ SOUTNWEtiT p1tOP~RTiffi8, INC., NO, 73~74~11 c/o Timothy Unqer, p. 0. iiox 5387, OxNnpe' Ca. 9286fi, Aqer~ti pxepe~rty depar~b~d as ~ An ixreqularly-el~ep~d CONUITIONIIL U8~ parcel o! ls~id conois~ing o! npproximatoly 14 aar~~• P~RMiT N~). 1415 havinq e Pxontaq~ ot epproxl.matoly 814 feet on ~ha e~~t ~~ eida o! Anshaim Hi:lla Rped, h~ving ~- m~ximum depkh oi T~NTATIVE MAP UF appiaximat~ly 97S te~t, snll boi.ng locnt~d spproximately TRI-C~ N0. 8409 21~~ le~t oouth o! kha contorline of Santn Ana Canyon Rosd. PropArty ~resontly alassitied ~i-A, AGRICULTURAL, 20N E . ~QUEBTED CLASSIFICATION: K~2. MULTTPLE-FAM~LX RESTDENTIAL; 20NE. REQU~8TE0 CONDITIONAL U3E: E3TA8LISH A 1,L9-UNIT PLANNED RESIDEN'1'IAL DEVEL- O~MENT WITH W11IV~R Gk' (A) MIFiIMUM BUILDYNG 3ITE AREA~ (B) MINIMLtM BUILDING SIT~ WIDmH, ANq (C) RE(~UIR~D FRONTAQ~ ON A DEDTCATEA STRF:~:T. TENTATIYE TRACT REQUE3Ti ENGINCLRt ERVIN ~NGINL~ERING, 729 S~uth Fark View st~ceet, Loe Angelne, Ca. 90057~ propoaing to ~ub- divida a lN-acre pareel into 119 R--2 zoned lc+~n. Ch+air:aAn Gc.aer noted that one of the petitionere, Anaheim Hi.11s, had eubmittod a lettar requesting cont~.nunnco ~F subject petiti.one and Environment~al Impdct Report, Five peraona indioated their preasnce in opposit{on. 1•ir. John Melliok, repre~enting Nnahoim Hills, advised the Commission that a continuance w~s requested hecause at staf~ lavel technical problema r~roae whir,h *hey wanted to resolva bPfore pzesentinq the petitiona at publia lieaciny• Commiss~oner Farano noted that perhaps the Commisaion miqht wish to act on the EIR beoause what the Commiesion did miyht affeat the rc~claesiiication of th~ ~~roperty . De~uty City Attorney Frank L~wry advised the Commiasion that the Commisaion's action or. the r:IR woul.d have r,o effect or baeis for the request for aontir.uance si.nce the Commisaion could recummend only what aou].d bs dane and the Council would take the final acti_on on ~he E1R. Zoning Superviaor Charles Roberts inqui.red of Commiasioner Farano whetlt~r he wa9 making reference to the fact that the FIR Roview Committee h~d recommended tha~ EIR No. 97 not be adopted as the Council'~ statement, and if the Cummis- aion made their fselings known, that between the time of thi.s actic,n siid the Co~..miasion conai9rratior. of the reclasalEi~cati.on petition at , ublic hear4ng, Ar~aheim Hills might c~nsiclor the points of deficiency ~o tha~t ataff could recommend that this EIR could be aao~tQa. Commissic^ner F3rano noted that staff had recommended the EIR r~ot be adopted as submitked, and +:he Planninq Cumr,tission ahnuld consider it on its prese~nt statua so that the ~pplicanL• k.new nf the Commisaion's atanding o:i the EIR nnd could mako changas recommended by the Commiasion when tbls was officially c~neidered and the Comrai~:eion would be presente~A with a clean appliration, a-nd that !~e d{.d not care to hear the applicati.on if the EIR was not acceptable as submitted. Chairman Gauer then stated that ratl ar than consider any furthe • evidencp on this item, i~ be taken up in its lor~ical sequence of i~oms scheduled. ~See page 73-462) • ~ ~ MxNOTEJ, CITY PLANNYNG CUMMIRB:[ON, puguet '~'''' 73-451 J1REA D~VELOPM~N'~ - CON7'INUED PUBLIC H~ARTNG. INITIATGD BY Tfl6 71N?-NEZM CITY PL11N N0. lli PLANNING COMMiS8I0N, 204 Ee-iC Linaoln Aver~us, to con~iQer ~ACOndasy accose aalution !or pzoper~iss loaatod on the north side o! 1.tnaoln Avenuer 155 tset ea~t oP State College Houlovsrd axtending e~etarly s~,proximately 1.000 fee~t. RECLASSIFYCATION - CON'~INIIED 1~UALIC HL~J-RING. 11L81ERT R. aRADLEY, 12882 l^is7.d- NO. 73•~74~2 etone Drive, sArt~ 1-ns, Ce. 92705, Ov-nex~ property deearib~d _,.____,.~ -- se ~ An lrka3ularly-ahap~8 ~~aro~l a! lar~d havi.nq A rontaq~ CONDITIONAL USE of epproximat~ly 58 4'aet on th~ nozth ~ida ot Lincoln Av~nu~, PERMIT N0. 1412 q a meximum depLh o~ ap~:roxlmxt~l~+ 203 leet, and being havin , located approximal:el~r lOQO leet ~+det at the centorline o! 9tata College Houl~verd. Proper~X gra~ontly cldeaitiod R-]., ONE-FAMILY RE5TD4~N'I`SAL, ZON~. REQUESTLD CLI~SSI~'ICATION s C-O, COMMFF"'IAL AFFICE, ZONE. REQUE9TED COHDITIONAL USL~: ESTRBLISN A COMM~RCxAL OPFICE IN AN EXIS'~`CNC, STNGLE-FAMILY RJ:&I~ENCE~ WAiVIN(: (A) MINIMUM LOT ARET-, (D) MINIMUM SYDU XARD SETUACK, ;C) MAXiMUM PEI~M~TTED CiEIGHT, AND (D) R~QUIREU MASONRY WAL[, ABUTTING A RESZL~ENTIAI~ 7,ONR. Subject petiticne were cuntinued ~rom thA mee~inq oP July 9, 1973, tc~ allow time for the proparation and udvertising o~ an area development plr~n. A~eociate Planner N. Ron Contreras presented Area Deva7.opmont Plan No. 113, nntinc~ the loca~io of the pxopert9, i-dicating that it :.ontained eeven lots located west of Olana Way end olevE~n l~ts located esat of Olana Way. The u~de eotablished on theae prcporties wae aleo r.eviewed, ae wel'1 as tha ad'j4ining land uaes, previoua zon'. ng action on the property, and the Axistinq cirav.lation, noting thnt the conr.ern of khe Commission expresaod under Reclaseificatiox~ ho. 73-74-2, whiah imp~emente'~ th~ area dovalopment plan, was to provida eome secondary access other th ~t the existing alley to thQ north; that the single- ~amily homes franting on hard Terzac:~e had their qareges Iocat~d to tha rear. of tY-e propezty wl.th acceas from the 20-footi riqht-of~way a11~oy which also aarved thooe properties fronting on Lincr].r- Avonue~ that fau~ of the proportle$ were granted cnmrc~eraial office usey, and the appr~ved loc~t ~n £ar off-etr.eet park- ing wae t~ the rear of tbe stxuctuzec~ with acc~sA frum the a11ey~ that a pre- vioue request for a circul ar driveway unSer Conditional Use Permit Na. 1293 a~ 2137 E+sat Lincoin Aver~ue was d~nied by tho Planning Commisaior, on Ma~ch 6, 1972, however, the propPrty ].ocated at 2233 East Linco].n Avenue had both a ~ir.cular driveway and alle,y access, but that pruperty wa~ conaiderably larqer than the one mentionedJ that Exhibit "A" indicaCed a 2C -fuot wide alley to be w~~~ned to 25 feet in order to ac~ommod~te two~way tratfic, and the City Traffic EngineAr felt tY-is addi~ional right-of-way would be mere deairable Erom the standpoint of rwo-way circu7.ation, howevar, it miqht not be practical to obicain this addit.ional right~of-way where cot~mercial dev~lopment had nccurred or the trash enclosure areas had bec~n built on the property Zine such aa ome of the two-car qar~gPS. Furthermore, there ronre power poles located along the south aicle o`_ the alley adjacent to oubjeat propertieat and that in all likelt- hood~ aff-atreet ~-arking wouid ~indoubteclly be utiliaec~ by the omployees, while customera would be parking ~~ri Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Contr~rae furthsr notecl that it ha~ baen the City Traffic Engineez''s experienae that where an all.ey had access dir~ctly onto a primar,y highway and wher~s curb pdrking w~s permitted, the local bueinessea b~gar, requesting "no parking" eigne due to the lack of viaibllity for vehicles a:tempting to exit onto a~r.imary highway. and ~.n conc:ueion, in the ~piniox~ uE the Traffic Enqineer~ it w~uld be preferable to have alley accese fr~m ~lanr W~y and Ward Terraae onlg - it would probably be unnec;~asary to ha~ie a-n additional aliey acceas from I.incoln Avenue to aerve those properties locate8 betwesn Ola~a Way and Paradise Lsne. Yurtlie:mor.e, in view of the kinds of commarcial office us~es tha-L• would locate within the subject area, in part dae to the sizo of exieting lots, it was anticipated that no~ that much addi~ional vQhicul~-r tr.Rtf: ~ w..~~ld ba generated, nor would it glace any undue burden on the local etreete, thezefore, the need for an additionat A11ey eccesb point from Lincoln Avenue wauld not be rPqui~~d. ~ ~ ~ NIINUTB&, CITY PLANNINC COMMI88ION, Hugu~t 6, 19?~ 73-~452 AR671 QEVELO?M$NT PLAN W0. 113, R&CLASBIFICATION NQ. 73-74-2, AN~ CONDIT~ONAL I)SB 7ERM~T NO. 141Z (Continued) Mr. Contr~rao, in r~v~.~win~ eta!!'s r~oomme~ndation, not~d that the eLa!! r~com- n~~nd~a ~xhibit "~" ba adopted as th~ mu~t appropriata raoane o~ p:~ovidinq acosss to ths r~ar p~rkinq ~roar oi eubjaot propartics whiah would invorporata an ~QA~tional 5 l~~t o! dedio++tl.ori alonq Chs all~y, which, in turn, wauld krovid~ tara-May Cratt~c L•o o~rva ~hose properti~~~ that snast o! the parkiny NpdCSo vrould hava t~ bs locateQ 5 fost Prom the propazty line in orllar to ~rovidc far a 2S-lovt turning nr~n to gain noaeae to tho~. par~cing arnas and tho~e buei- n~~r~s alydady es~nbliehed. Chsirmon Gsuor inquired wheth~r the Traflic Engineer roaommendsd thdt tbore be no park~.nq o~t Lineoln Avenuot ~''~err.upon Mr. Contr~re~s otated tt~ut ~.f anothes seaondazy aaaev~ were eppraved, tk~e looal bu~inesees would, in +~11 lika.lihood~ aak for no psxkln~ nn Linaoln Avenue neua.use o* inacae~~i~il~~y and 'line-ol- sight !or thore~ praperties ex121ng on the eacond~ry aoceabea. Chnirman Gsuer inqu~red ae to the protection that would be aftorded ta the r~eillAnts on the north aid~ of the alley~ whareupon Mr. Contrerae natod thet the parking wau~d be et the rear, and ecreeninq device$ aould bo roqutred alony tha vrell, howev~r, in all likel#.h~aod, this would not saroen the parking from th~ alley unless aondl.tiona wera impoeed on the progerty on Lincoln Avonue . Three pezsone indicated tl~eir pa•esance and i~niereat in the proposed ar~a development plan. Mr. Sam Ta~lbman, an employee o f Tariq Shnmmis, drehltect, noted 1:hat Mr. Shammis laad two commercidl C-o str.uctuses on Lincotn Avenue in ~he atudy aren and hQ wae emplayed in tho are a at 2239 East Lincoln Avenuet that they presently d~d not havs a block wa- l alon g the rear propezty line, and he wad pr.eaent at tho meetinq to obtaln i~~formrk ion roqarding thia atud,y and wauld suqgost that aubject area develop~nent plan bu continued to ellow tihem time to study ~he proposal to reaah a conc'luaion . Mr. A. R. e> >alny, owner of. ttx e property at 2211 r^.aet :.incoln Avenue, appear~d before the Commiasion and etated his reclasgification petition No. 7J-7~-2 s.or C-0 zoning precipitated tl~R area development plar, before the Commis9loni that the de~.:iaion on k~is petition was held in abeyance until the aren deve~opment plan could be prepareds that Mr. Shammie' propertie$ were in a different poai- tion than his wae r zlthough th ey hnd been qra~nted ~-0 zoning, they did not ha-ve the block wall, while hie property already had one, and any change ae it per- teined to Area Develapment Plan No, 113 would n~t affect him as much aa the ~djoininq p•ropertiesi ancl th~t he had no turther com^~~^ts reqarding the aren devel.opm~nt plan. Mr. 5chwartze advieed tha Commias~on and Mr. E~radley Chat i f 4he exhibit for Area Devalopment Plan No. 113 w~-s adapted, there would be additiongl dedicatian required, und it mi~ht mean relocation of some of Mr. Bxadley'$ exfeting `acili- ~cies at Che xcaar of the prope rty line. Mr. Bradley atated that althougt. he ba8 received the Report to th~ Commiesion, he did not knaw that addlti.on al d~~{ catian would be required for alley widening, and pe rhaps khe gazage wau.td 21ave .. be xemoved, which would give th9m addi^ tional pdrkinq snvway. Mrs. Earl Chambera, 23Q8 East Faradiea Road, ~ppeared 'befoxe ~he C~mmisaion and ecte~l that moat of the residenta could not attend because of their worktng hours, therefore, ahe was g•resent to represent~ thetar that ehe &id not know whethar she wss for or aqains t the ~ropc,sal aince she did not know if required park~.nq had been reeolved by ths Commiseion. Mr. Schwartse nated that the erea devolopment plan was a stud,y of secoadary circulation, and th~re might be r~ parking pr~blem to tt~e rAax of theee proper- ties and along Lincaln Avenue , but he did not thl.nk there would be a parkinq problem alonq Par~sdise Roa3. Mrs. Ch+~mbsze noted from observation that the e~~qineeriag oflice of Mr. Shammira appeared not to qive any parking problen~, and it any other busin~es was pro- pased for theae psopexties v~ould be ae ~ittle prcblen to thn reaidenta, then they would not be obje~tinq to it. l_,I ~ ~ MINUTRS ~ C1TY PLANNINC: COMMI~i8I0N ~ 11uqu~t 6, 1y73 73-a53 11RE71 D~VffiLOPMBNT YLAN NO. 113, RffiCL1~98YFYCATION N0. 73-74-1, AND CONpITI0N11L USE P1lRMIT Nc?, 1411 (Continu~d~„~ Commipsi.on~r P'axano abr~rvee that ths urea d~velop~d~nti pl~n bsloro th~ Commi~- ~ion wae oimilar ta th~ problam jas~ oonoid~rsd !or tho~e prap~xti~s alonq 3tiat~ Collsq~ Aoulevarcl, and xN Commio~ionos Rowland explsi~.~sd~ wh~n th~r~ aaa ~ prob].~m, th• City tried to r~~olvo thttt probi~m tor ~I~s pro~~r~:ie~ on thA skr~t~t qivinq tha problsm, hopev~r, by ~o aoinq, the ~roblsm wa• than •xt.~nd~d to bhs rear ~~~r o! hom~o, and p~zhap• thp poopl4 on wlaxd Terr~a~• i! th• realsseifiaation and a~rea developmani~ plan wsr• approved, would b~ in a porition !or which they did not b~rgain wh.n they purrha~~d their hom~e, •n1 th~ C~mmie- sion had no al~~rnative, ther~Poro~ he would lih~ tu ask Otlios Engin~ar Jay Titus wheth~r ths City ~nyineer had oonai.dared abandlonmant o~ Alane Way trom the exigting torminud at I~incoin llvenua to the alley • parhxps a nda exhibit whoul~l. be pr~pered taking this irto conaideration, thereby oontmining all those properki•e alonq Lincaln Avenue i:-~m acasee ko end lrom the a~ta7~ on ssid streak so that th4 reeidente to the north oi the allay woultl noC have ~he a-iley turnad int~o a commercial alley whore tha rear ysrde ware~ th~r~ and whaxe most tlid their outdoqr living~ Chat tie could not hdlp but wondor whoth~9z tharn wsre more viable alternatives, and he w~uld lika+ to havw more tima ~nr acAditional etu6y by staff anfl the ~ngineering Divieian to mxplore the po~aibillty of abandonmer.t of U.lana Way. Commieeionec Seymour inquired whethar there wau~.d be any prob?.em oreatPd for Mr. Bradley i.f th~ arAa davel.opment pla~n And reclaeei~icatl~n were aontinued Eor Pur~her atudyr whereupen Mr. 13raa3.ey stated tihare would be no proble~, and he wnu7.d nat ~bject ~o a continunnce. Commisefoner Farano offered e~ motion, aecondad by Commieaioner Saymour and MOTION CARRiED, to contin~ie considoxation of Area Development Plan No. 113 to the meeting o~ Auguat 2Q, 1973, d!zectiag at~tf to proaent viable dl~ernatlve,a with the poaeibility of con~aideration of abandonment o! Ulnna Wa~y extending from L~naoln Avenue to th~ nlley to the north. Commissioner Farano off~ered a motion to continue con,eideration ot Reclnsalfi- cation No. 73-74-2 and Con~iitional Use Permit N~. 1412 to the meetinq of. Auqust 20, 19']3, to sllow time for addi.tional oxhibite and a~.ternativea to be prepared on Aren Davelopment Plan Nu. 113r with khe possibility a~ considerinq discusainq theee alternativas with residdnts alonq ~TaYd Terrdae. Corna-iaeioner Seymour seconded tbe mctlon. M~TION CARRIFD. ENVIRONMENTAI, IN9PAGT - C~NTINUED PUB~~IC HEARTNG. ANAHEIM HILLB~ INC. llND REPORT NO. 96 TEXACO V~NTURE3, iNC.~ 380 Anaheim tiilla R~ad, l~naheim, Ca. 92806, Ownart requestinq permiaeion to ESTABZISH A CONDITiONAL USE PRIVATE '~ENNIS CZUB on property deacrl.bed ae: An PERMIT NO. 1406 irregularly~shaped parcel of land ~onsistinq oF approxi- mately 13.2 acz~s, havinq a maxi~aum depth of mnprc+xi- mntely 320 fdet, having a£ront~qe of approxi.m+itsly 2500 fe~t on the wast side o~ AnAheim Hill$ Road, and being Zocated st the northwest cornex of Anahaim Hilla and Nohl Ranah Roads. Property preaently clas; ed "'~ , ACRIC'JLTURAL ~ ZONE , Subject pe ~n wa~ continued frcm the maetinga af July 9 and 2a, 1^73, st the requeat of : petitioner to resolve development probl~ms. No one xppeared in oppoaitl . Althouqh tho Repart to the ~ommi.osi4n was not read at the public hearinq, it is referred to and mede a part of the minutee. Mr, .~ohn Melliok, ~repraaentinq J-naheim Hills, appeared bafore the Con~miaeion and noted he Mas the p~ojeat snqinear of this de~elopm~nt~ that they proposec~ an 11-court, private tennis club lacility parallel to Anaheim Hills and Ols~ Santa Ana Ce~nyur, ,Rosd to Noh1 Raneh Raa~d~ th~t a clubhouae pae proposed~ that 7 ot the 11 covc;:s wnuld be lighted, 5 imme8iately and 2 mora if tha ligh~ed courta became popular~ t~dt memberst_ip would be a pr3vate. non-proprietary ~tub with annual dues and f~as on a monthly basis~ the.t ownership Noulc3 reraain Nith l-naheim xille and then indicAtad on the plan~ where caurts Mould be located, indicaCinq th~t •v~n thouqh thia abuttad the fiood c4ntxal ahaanel, thay had had a number o! thingo done whic:h had been bugqaeted by the Oranga ~ ~ MINUTEB, CITX PLIINNIN(i COMMI88TON, Auquet fi, 1973 7~'~5'~ ~AL iNPl1CT REPORT N0=96 AND COt~pITxON1-L p E 1tE~t~~ N0. 140G (C~nt'd County aload Control DiAtriat~ that~ th~y woniQ not int~rtsre vrith the City'o d~dio~tion t4 kh• Coun~y ~or aoa~o• Co th • llood oontrol ah+~nnel bsaauo~ aP th~ dual us• ov~r e 95-laat eseem~nt~ and tha~t AnaY~eim Hilla had eubmitted Aoth an indem~iity xnd lanAeca~,e agraem~nt to the City !or appraval. Commi.a~ion~r fiauar inquired whethar tha petitiones wa• ap~-r~ o~ tlha laot ~hat theze Mould hsva ~o be e yate in the oh~iri]ink lenc~ ta allow tor aoqea~ to the floo~! cc-ntrol ahannel by Co~anty truoka ~or me-intenance hurpo~eo so tha! they would not have to •neer the tonni• club faoilitisa~ whc+zeupon Mr. M~lliok eta~tad thoy had been worki»g with etalL regarding haavy truakb b4ing abl• to uoQ khe acceaa for maintenunce o! ~he channely and tha~ there would b• no zeapon Por keys for thie gata baing retuined by ~he tennio olub eince thi~ Mould not Ae the entra~nc:e to the tsnnio laoi~ity, which wauld }~ave s oarv zadiu~ thAt would be adequaCa to a'llo~r ~or fire ~-nd sRni.tt-tion vdhiclss wi.th- out hnving to go through the club aaaeae. Commir:~ion~r S9ymour inquired wheth~nr the petitionar had oonsidsr~Q tha efleate o~' night-lightinq on the caurte a• it p~rteinefl to the adjoininq sinqle-l~mily hqa-es tu *_he weat~ whereupon Mr. Melliok etated that ttt• only uee abuttl.ng thie lacility would be un top of the hill whiah would be looking down on tha aaus~ta, ancl ~he loweat pa~is of tihose homeK were a~bout 60 faat abov~+ the lloar o! the .ourt~ and were Eurthar aet back lram trie property linee eo th~~ theix 1l,v~.nq rooma ~rould not look dowa on the aouxts. Commieaioner SeXmaur stnted he w~a more cancerne3 abou~ night-1lghting in~o the baaroomg of these homes~ a~riereupon Mr. Malliak etated that tha polee they were Qsopoainy tn l.ight tho tennir~ courte would be a~ maximum of 30 Eeet hiqh and were deeigned where rhey would not reEl~ct upward ao that the asmbient liqht level wuuld not afFect theao homes, a].thouqh thera was a poegibility that aome qt the liqhting would bouncc~ otf t}~o courta, but not 60 leet inL•o the asea to +sff~+ct th~eQ hamesj and that after 9~00 p.m., these being privat6 courte, the liqhta erould bE o~~ n court-to-coi~rt basi.s, but all llghts would be o£f by 10s00 p.m. Then, in further repnc~naa to CommisaionQr Soymaur's ques~Cioninq~ stnted that they proposed a madi ~zeak at the entrgnc.e of the facility ao that g~aeats leav~ng would be able 4:~: ~uss over ta the northbound lane withuut any probleri~, ar,d the eucalyptu$ tree~ on the one side would be zetainec3 and meint ined, and tttese would add further to the light reduction beca.uae they were on 5-foot centsrs. THE HEAAING WAS CLOSED. r,ommissi.oner Seymour offeze~ a motion, saaondQd by Commieaioner Rowland and MOTTiN CARRIED, that the Plannir.~ Commiesion, in connec~ion with the filinq of Enviranmental Impact Report No. 96, rinds and doterminea that the ~r~viron- ment,.l Tmpact ReQ~rt R~view Committee determi.ned that the report is ~d~quate as an informative docum~.n4 And foll.ows the City's eatabllahed guidelines and there: would be no signifioant a~veree envi.ranmgntal im~act~ th~arefoxe~ the Planning Commisai.on reccn~mends to the City ~;,~in~ii that eaid report be adopted as ~he City Council's Envi.r~nn,ental Impact 3t+~tement. Commissione•r Seymour offered Resolution No. PC73-168 and moved for ite pasanqe and ~doption to grant Petition for Conditional Usa Permit No. 1406, subject tc• ~onditions, aubject to atipulationa by the petitioner that haurs of operation woUid pe no latar tnar~ iu:UU p.m.t that lighting would be a maximum of 30 feet in ha3.ght, and all liqhtii~q would be direc~ed away from the sinqle-~amily rQeidenta to *:~e wesc whiah were located 60 feet above the ~loor of thRe~e courtsr that the exiatinq qrovo og eucAlypt~.r~ t~ees would be r.eteined and maintai.ned= and that the mainten~-ncn and indemni.ty agreemente would bA sub- mit•ted to the City P.ttorney's offico f~r approval. (See F.esolution Book) On roll call the fore~oing resolution wad pasaed by the fo?lowing vote: AYESs C~i:in1SSI0NER~s Farano, Gr~uer, Herb~t, KiticT, R~wland, Seymour. NOES: COMFIISSIONERSs None. ABSRNT~ COMMIS5IQNERS: Allred. S ~ ~ MINUT~B, CITY' PLANNING COMMISSION, Auqurt 6, 1g73 ?3'4Sg RgCL718liIFIC~ATION - CONTINUED PUHLIC HEAATNG. ~HARLEB ~NU ?HYLLIS EIGHY~ER, N0. 73-74-3 6888 Leileni I~ens, Cypre~a, Ca. 90630, OMa~r~t BiLL PHICLPe, 1095 North Main Strs~t, Oranqa, CA. 9~667~ Agsntt prop~cty VARI~l~ Np. ~5~9 desaribad es~ 11 ran~angulerly-oh~ped parnel o! land hsviny~ n~ron~ege of a~pproximately 110 ls~t on Che eouth ~ai.da oi Urange Avenue, having a maximum d~ptt- o! xp~raximately 204 E~~t, a~nd DeinQ locatad npproximntaly 4a0 E~~t Meat o! tha o~nt~rline oP We~tsrn 1lvenue. Pro~er~y pre~ently c1AS~itied R-1-, AGltECULTURIIL, ZON1~. REQUE9TLD CLASSIFICATIONt R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIP.L~ ZONE. REQUE9TBD VARIANCk~ s WAxV~R OF' MAXIMUt9 I'ERMTTTED HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF R-A ZONED PROP~R`i'Y TO ESTABLISH A 15-UI~IT 71PARTMENT COMPLEX. Subj~aat ~etitiion~ were conti.nuod Pram tha meetinqe o! July 9 and 23, 1973, to e].1ow tima for tha p~ti,tioner L•o z~eviea plane to ~rovide fox tire a~nd traeh vehicle o~.rouletian, No one Appaaxed in oppoeikion. 111t)iough the Report to the Co~mmir~sion was not r.ead at the public hoarix~g, it is rePerred to end made s~ part of tho minutes. Mr. William PhelpR, agen't ~or the petitioner, eppeareci bHfare tha Commiaeion and etatod he did nat feel he could ever eeti~fy the Sanita~tion Diviaion, although h now had aatisf.ied thb Fire Departmentt that tho stnn~lards of the City of Anaheim as set forth by ths Senitntion Di.vision for tra9h pick~up and trash containera were not realietic in hia opinion becauge tho ordinance atated that trash r,ontainers were permitted ~.n li:~u oP pick-up, anfl one could ha~~•e trash pick-up by a private ~ompany, but th Cade etd:.ed "i,~ lieu of" and not a demand that it ne dones *hat this wae only a very amall lat ancl from the frant of the property to the front doo~ aL• the rea~- was onl~- aLout 150 f~etr that if he compl~ed with ~he requirements of th~ Sanitation Diviaian, atmoet 21'b u! L•he pzaperty wou'ld be daavoted ta krash pick-up faailitien in lieu o~ someone taking the trash containera 32 feet to the sidawa7.k' and that he had made a chAnge to the plans, how~ver, r.t~e plans still did not mec~t the •nppxova~l of the Sani.tation Divi.r~ion. Commiasioner Seymour inquired how Mr.. Phelps proposed that tha tr.ASh be picked upt whereupon t4r. Phelps atat~d there was nothin~ in the ardinance that rc- quired the trash trucke drive onto the property to pick up trash~ that tie wou3.d ~ugqeat the manager of the a~artmente pueh the traeh receptaal8e to the street for pick~up; and t.hat the Sanitation Division Atated that most people did noi• take these receptacle~ away Erom the aurb but tY~ere were lawe that governed tYiis. Mr. Phelps then preaented pict~•,~~~• indicating ~he amount af land that would be taken if he complied with thc :~ani~ntion Divislun reqiiirementst that he had contacted thc~ trash collocti~n co~npany and presented hia proposal to them, and thsy had advised him they wculd p~ck up trash From sL~.ch a facility si.nce thare was no probl~m, and no did not k:.J47 on what basis the Sanitnti.an Divieom m~cle thair requirement~ aince the ~-rash colleaL•ion campany di~ not feel there was a prc~blem. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commiseioner Farano atated that it would be up to the Gommiesion to detarmine whethez or nat alternatives gxeaonted w~re accepitable. Commisai~oner Se,ymour inquiced whether the Commiseion had approved 78-Poot turn- around radius, And what waa the status of ~hese turn••around area requirem~nts at the present timea whereupon Zoning Sugervisor Charlea Robexts statec! that the 54-foo~ diameter turn-around we-e adopted advexal years ago, but two ~o three months aqo there was a pr~poeal by the Sanitdtion Diviaioa before tha Commiesion fox a 76-foot diameter tux•n-around raSius, how~ver, the Commieeian dec~.ded not to adopt it. Coma~iaeioner Rowland notsd that the Sanitation Division had preaented certaia hammerhea-d configurationa which they Ee~t were accoptable. ~ ~ ~ MINUT~B, C=TY PLANNIt~1G COMM:y:~TON, August 6, 1973 73-~456 RECLA98IF'tCATION N0. '~3-74-3 AND V1-RIl1NCE ~0. 2529 (Gontinuhd) ~,- .M Commis~l.on~r Faraao stat~d it was~ hia raoollcction Chat the Commi~sion hed reque~tsd lurthsr explora~ion !or s].tarnativs~, but the Gommiesicn cYid not outri~ht Aen~- the 76-l~at di.nmetor turninq xadi~xs ox tha hammorliead oonfigiir~- tiane but wanted th• 8anitAtion Divi~ion tu •xploro thi~ PurCher. Mr. Rob~rte notsd r.het the 9tzoet~a and 3~nitetion Dieision had b~~n vrorking on this problem and perh~+ps took it as a~'•~+niel reqarding the 76-loat diamatax turning ra6lue and the el~ernativeo ~zaeeented to the Commia~ion when th~y wese praoentad at the laet aonaiderntion h the Com~~~lo~ion. Commiseionor Rowland stated that ~ho ~~mmission had r~c~uested alternativaa £rom the sanitnti.on Divioon which the~v o~uld qenarate, and thi• waa tha zeaeon why the Plannirtg Commi~si.on di.d not adopt tt~a recommendatione made by ~he S~nitation bivieion at that timet whereupon Mr. Rnberte noted that the oriqin~l pr.oposal b} the Sanita-ti.on ~ivi~ion had two alternatiwee, but, e~t that Nork ee~si~n the Commiaeion had re~ected them and requeeted othess which had been done ~rith six ~.o sevan altdrnuti.vee. Commiasioner Farano noted that Mr. Phelpa had been pre~sent at one of the work eessions, and one oF the altarnative~ explored and c~ ldarefl wae havinq t.raeh bine pushed onto L•he street fox aolleation~ that the Commiseion ha~d eeen ~ome picturee oF this manner of handling traeh and it looked rather diemal, and M.r. Phelpa' prapueal wae one of ths alternaLives which the Commission hed rA- jeated~ ~hat he did no~ know if the Commieeion ehould consider thie now, but he would aqree with Mx. Yhelps ko take 20t of e perean's proper~y to provide trash pick-up wae unreaeonable, a-nd maybe the Gomm~saion ~hould look nt this aa ts mutual give-and-take by the City and tha developerP that the petitioner hnd pzovided the requirement of Commissioner 3eymour reqarding gire truok. turn- around area, however, there a~peared Co be no density :hanqe with the dlternu- tive development, and the alternati.ves preaented, the Commisoion would have to "taka it c+r leave it", and the Commisaion had once left it bePaxe, and he was not auze he wanted tq accspt thoa~ slternative~. Chairman Gauer inquired what w~u1d compel an individuv~l to take the traeh out ~r bring the traeh containers back in ngain. Commisaioner Farano oheerved tha~ the p~ctures that had been nreeented ahowed treee :rasii Pacilitie$ were never taken bACk a~nd peaple were deliverinq their trash zeceptaclea riqhL• to the aidawalka adjacent to the atreats. Commis~ioner Rowland observed that this wns a matter of management, and if these were left out, they could become a traffic hnzard; that there was another problem, in his estimation, and that was ttie location of the trash collection area in thta particular plan b~cause it wa$ nat convenient to thd residents c^f thE facilit~j that the plan did not have any saving qrace other ~han belaboring the Co~e in density, and even though it wss a small~ diffir,ult parcel to develop, he had ~een nothinq in this proposal to wa.rrant sacrifici.ng at that density the a~ldition of thi~ propos~~l aince he thought it •aould not mdd anything tc the community valuea. Commiasioner Herbat noted that th~a Sanitation Division had ineisted upon a 76- foot ~iametor radius turn-ar~und for trash pick-up. Mr. Sr.hwartze stated that tl-~e Sanitation Division was not necosaarily asking Eor th~a turn-around diamAter but for a posaible solut3on such ae had been preaented on ather pieces of property, and this proposal did not provids u solution ~ that the oriqinaJ. plan submitteQ indicated a numaer o£ bins were pro- po~ed to be located at the curh, which were not acceptnbl~ to the Sanitation Divieion, and the poLitioner hacl again mat with them asnd t:~e propoeal. h~+Eore the Comn~ir~eion was tha resu'!t of that ~neeting, huwever, the only chaage that he could aee wae ~rtividinq two larqa bii,s for the emaller bins, and ae wa~ previoua Ly indicated, this wo»ld zequire the Sanitation txuck to pull in at the frrnt of the proporty and load ~heRe b~ns and then back up onto ~he etreet, e~d the trash goople ~elt thls wns not an a-cceptabl~ aolution. but aoneidoxing the aite plan propoebd, perk~aps this was the best alteraative. ~ ~ MINU'1'1~8~ CITY pLANNINC COMM288ION, Auqu~t 6~ 1973 73"4ST ItECLABSiFiCATION NO 73-74-3 1-ND Vl-RII-NC8 NQ. 2529_ (Cantino~ed) Commi~sion~r tierb~t ub~~rv~d that ~h~ ~ta!! indioet~Q ~hsy Ma~ild roquir~ th~ 7b•toot diamst~r kurn-~round er~+a but p~rhap• tho ~amo aauld b• aooompli~rhell Wikh a 54-Paot di.ataat~° turn-axound and .: hammazhea~~ that he Noula airaqr~• ~+ith Mr. Phelps b~o~u~~ it r-as hie opinion the dsvolop~r wa~ tryl.nq to g~t too great e density on the prop~rty. ~hera~cr.e~ i! th~ h;mmwrh~R~! w~r• prnvidod, thie Would givo e~me tuxn-Rround while st~:l not taking w~ra.Y th• l~nA whioh a 7G~P.oot di.a~tieter turn-uround wauld. Comu-isei~nes Farano noted that ~1~8 Commission had be~n as on th• City BCdlL than the pstitioner/aQ~nt bec:auow e~alt the Commiesion Mould liks ooma other aiternativa~, and a-t smsei~na whoze poaeibly CommiAeioner Herb~t may not hAVe determined that i.! a 76-loot diametar turning rddiur wexe suddle the developmant, not haLp the pxoblem. hsrd, ~.! not harder, he-d bemn toid that one o! tha h~e~ririq be~n presant, it wa~ required, ~his would Mr. Phelps obaervad tha~t the Sanitation Di~rision stil.l insirted upan the T6- foot diemeter turninq radius- or A 40-toot hnmmerhead, end th~y would nok aecept anythinq el~e b~ce,u~e Mr. Lewis sa ~tAtad, sad that a new thought was bzought up by Mr. Robertn, namely, that tha Cl.ty had no~. approved this type af. development, theretore, the iaeue Nas forned. Commiesioner Farano th~n statad tiznt if Mr~ Pholps h~d preeenkad a viable alternative solution in whioh the 76-taot did~etez ~urninQ ra~d~ue wa4 not indicated, i~ would be given fair considexation by tha Commi~aeion, and that he wae surA the Sanitation Diviaion euperinten9ent a-ould be amanabl~ to eom~~ tl,ing better then preAen~tad. Mr. Phelpa again reiterated the ata-tea~eat that the or3inence did not require whnt the Sanii:ation Diaisian auperi.ntendent was requasting~ ev~n thouqh having presented these plana tc the trash pick-up company reprc~aentativea who had et~atAr] they saw no problem in col~.ecting traeh from thie proper~y ae propoeed, Commiuaianer Fc~rano nffered n motion, secondec! by Commiasion~r Rowland ancl MOTION ~ARRIED, that the Pl~snnl.ng Comminsion, in connection with an exemption declaza~ion atatua request, finds +xnd de~ermines th~t the proposal would have no significatzt envir~nmental impact, and, thereforz, recommends to ths City Council that no Environmental Ympact Statement is nec:essary. Coramissioner Fsrana offered Resolution N~. PC73-169 and moved for ite pd~sage ancl adaption to reaommend to the City Cauncil approval of Petition for Reclas- sification No. 73-7A-4, aubjcct to conditiona. (See Resolukion Book) On roll r.all the fareqoing resolution was pasaed by the foliowing vote: AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, K~nq, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: CUMMISSION~;RS: None. ABSENT: COMMI:SSIONERS: Allred. Commiseioner. Far~no ufEered a m~tion to 38ny Pet.ition fox Varianae No. 2529 an th~_ baa's th~t th~~ pQtitionar wAS not providing a viable alternative for tras!, remo 1 purpoaer othsr than puahing bine onto *he street frontage. Deputy Cit,y Attorney rrank Lowry ndviaed the C~mmfesi.on ~hat the onl}• raquast for variance l~etore ~he Commisaion was the w+~iver af the buildinq heiqht. Commissioner I'arano noted that the pot~.tion nlso included plane and epeci~i- cations~ that he rea~lize this petition deal.t only with the one-etory height limitation, and in hia denial he would suqqeat tha~. the plaae in any future conaideration of thie item be subjact to apACific planr~ aince he objeoted to the density ~f th~s pro~ect, not nec9aearily the heiqh~ waiver, nnd thie was the crux of• thE pr~blem. Comanissioner Seym~..z nated thnt this particul~x variance requeet ~tac of s technical nature becauea of the eurroundinq pr~gerty befng aqricultur0, and when the Commi~s~on was talking r.bout denaity, this development Ma~ it- com- pliaa~ce with Code requirementat 1hs~t the pzimary problem was the matter of trash collection, althougri no epsaific gui.delines had been adopted by the ~ ~ ~ MINUTSB~ CITY PLI~NNING C:OMMI38ION, Auguit fi• 1~~3 73-459 RECLJ-897FICATiON NO._73-74-3 AND V1-RIANCE NO. 252~ (C~a~i.nuae!) Ciky, tharslors, khe City had not rubmirtod e-ny athe~r viabl• ~ltern~~eiv~~ oth~z than requirl.aq Z1• o! khe propsz~y !ar vehicular oircula-tion !or trash pink'up, vovarinq so muah o! th~ prop~rCy wi.ba dsphr-lt to x~aah ~h• r~ar o! th• propsztyt thAt th• Commi~sir,n haa been in numerou, work •assions r~qa~rd~ inq thi~ trash polle~tion prob],~n~, sn3 it wa~s very ap~ar~:nt in kho~o work ses~ion• that there w~re no oth~r elLernakivoa, a~nd a dsnisl o! thi~ graj~ct bas~d on tha Puot that th~ Sac~itati.on Division said they wou14 not s~prov• o! the propoeed method o! handling trash pick-up wa-e not a~roper r~ason, l:''AxA- ~orao subj~ot patition cau1~Y be approwed ~ub~eat to raquiring that thu de~v~loper p~~o~nti plans tar trx~h truck oirculati.on to th~ Plsnninq Commi~~ion and C1ty Cauncil for apprnval priar to ~h~ i~auanc~a ot a bui].ding permiC. Commiaaioner Fere~nu then aithdr~+w hi• motion f~or denial. Mr. Robezte adviAecl the ~nmmisaion that although a c~•.di~tion o! approv~l of khe realaeAifivation requirad dsvslopwent of L•he ~radh enclaaure in eoooxdsnae Nith speci£ica+.ione an lile i.n the Direator of publio warks' o!lice, thiA ~couid not be tho qoverning Pec~or oP ~h~e problem ra5ardinq traah piak~up as hnd beon diecueeed at thia hs+~rin~, tharafore, tha Commia~ion miqht wieh ~o amend ane of the nandi.tians ot epproval, if eubjact petiriort were approvad, Co z~aqu.ire submittnl of pl~+ne !o= treah truok oixculation prior ta the ieouance of s k~uilding permit. Commieeioner Fa~rano offerad Rae~lutinn No. PC7a-170 and mavad far its p~eesqe end adoption to qranL• Petition for Variance No. ZS29, s~ibject ~:o ~ondltion~ and reQuiring that tha developer shall suk~mit :,lans for tresh truck circulation to the Planninq Commiaeion and City Counail for approval pri~r to the iasuence ot a building permit. (See Resolution Hook) On ro11 call the foreqoing reaolution was pansed by the followinq vote: A:ES: COMMlSSIONERS: Farano, ~auer, Herbsi:, Kiny, Rowlan~~ Seymour.. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Dlone. AB3ENT: COMMISSIONER3s Allred. Com~-fsgioner HeXbst noted tha~ t;~ ~:.oL~.am L•ha d~valop°r ~as far_inq wae the ~act that he was propoeiaq 15 unita on only one-half acre, and althouq!~ thia met thd minimum requizemanke of the City of Anaheim, it wa~ eacrificing eomr~ of the aervices that the Clty p.rovidsd. C~mmiosioner Seymour noted that thirs wae correct, however, the Saaitation Divison was aleo zequirinq that 21$ of the prc~pertX be eaphal.ted for trash picic-up, which he felt was unreasonsble. Cummiseioner Herbs: noted that Mr. ?helps, the desiqner of t?iia project, had been before the ~ommiesion a number of times bofor~ and all of his p~.ans had the bareat minimums and he reduced "to the bone" all the normal amenities which the Commis~sion and City wgre c~esirous of obtaining for d~r~lopmants of thie type. ~~gsg - Commisaioner Seymour oifered a motion to recase the maetinq f~r ten m~.autee. The mee,ting receeaed at 4:05 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Gauer reconvened i+~ meeting at 4:15 p.m., Commieaioner Allred beinq absen*.. ~ ~ ~ MINI)TES, C.xTY PI,ANNINO COMMI88IbN, Auqu~t 6, 19'/3 '13-459 RE~CI+1-98IFIC~-TION - READV~RTIBED CONTINUED PUSLIC NRARING. 1'NITII~T1iD 6Y '~'NE N0. 73-74-10 ANAIIEIM CITY PLIINNIN6 COMMI39ION, 204 Ssst Linooln Av~nust -"'~'-'- prupoiinq tha~ prap~rty tle~cribaQ d~o An irx~qularly- ~hsped paro~l of land coneiating oP. approximet~ly 2.4 sox~~, inaludl~nq a 250-loot l~nqth o! K~Chzyn Drive~ at the northwa~t corn~i~ of Linooln 1-vsnue and exookhcr~t Streat, h+~ving fron*.aqes o~ approxi.mat~ly 220 leet on the Meat ride o! ernokhuret Str~e~ and approximately 650 la~t Oh ths nurth aide oP I~inroln Av~nue b~ reolsosiiied xram th• R-~-, AaRICUt,TUR11L, xONE Co th• C-3, HL~AV': GOMMERCIAL~ ~ONB. 7-s~i~tant P~annar Phil,tiQ Sahwarte~ rsviev-ed tha loaetian of subject propsrty, u~~r •~kebliok~md ia clo~e proximity, Ch• rudson !or rea~dvexti.oing aub~wat pexition, and the ~xistinp u~~~ on the property which ~`re davalop~d whil~ tho pro~erty aes undor the juri~diutinn oP ~h• Count.y, namely, a Jaok-in-the-8o:., ~ aarNSah, e bank, and a^ervio~ ~tction~ that et the laet public h~arin~ the Commi~rion determined thet the petition should be readvartisod beaau~e •om~ o! thr uees were nppliaabla to the C-3 Zone onD.y ar~d ~ot to the C~l Zon~, whiah would make thesc~ exiatinq ueea nonoonforming uses~, th~rmfors, the Commia- ~fon would have to deterrnine whethez that portion aP the Kathryn-Lindoay A~inexation was suita~ble for C-3 aaning or a lesser commorcidl ~one. Mr. Osoar Lou~ierba.ck, c~ne u~ the property uw~nere, indicaL•ed he hac3 nothing lurthur to add to the propc~sal. ~HE HLARING WAS CLOSEG. Gommiesioner Herbst noted that one of the thinge thnt c~ncerneii him was the l+~ek pf landecepinq einae ~the C-3 Zone ~af the City of Annheim did not ao opecity, but he was not oppused to tha usee alr4ady esta~bliahed, but he wante~l the eite development standarde of the C-1 7one applied to these oxistinq neee, eepecially along Lincaln Avenue. Mr. Louderback appeared befnre the Commiseior, and note ~ tbat he was one-}idl~ oWner of. the property that was deve.loped sincg 1965i that they had owned s:he property since 1954, ancl e~t the tfine they had purchaeecl the property, evory subSiviaion home was already buil~~ tha~t they tiAd met all of the requir~menta uf the County and the City of Anaheim and thought they had submitted their plane to both the Planning Depdrtme~nt and to the C3ty of Anat~~im Buildinq Depertments that thcy had ~ot develope8 a portion of the land a~ the time the uriqinal C.-3 zoning Was appravedt an8 that the concern expressed by Commis- eioner Herbst regarding landrsc~pinq - if somethiny r~sasonable wss proposed, he felt that this could be done. Commissioner Herbst was af the opinion that 3± would be desixable to give the zoning for the usea that werG already eetablished so that cne u~aa wc~~l~ !?e conforming, but he woul,d like to tte thia into tlie C-1 landacaping standt~rde along Lincoln Avenue since the proportfee were surroundeS by C-1 uaea, there- ~oro, he felt thie propexty ehould aoriform with the same aite dc:velopm~nL• standards ae t:-os~ prapertics that had devel~ped in L•he C-1 'one, and he did not object to tha C-3 Zone sinca he did not want to eatnb].iati nonconforming uees, Ch.aixman Gauer inquired whether i.t would be proper to 1i.mit the uses that had been established si.nca there w~uld be aome C-3 uses that the Commisaior. woulci not deP~.re for that area. Commiaeion~r Harbat noted that there was a carwadh ~nd tire sa~.ea thsre. which Nould require e conSitional uAe permit. or va~riance if the zoninq was estab- lished as C-1 in order to make them legal. Zaning Superviaox Charlee Roberts advi~ed the Commiseion that the carws~h still Nould requira a conditlonal use purmit whethsr. i.n the C-1 or C..-3 Zcnet that the bank was permitted as a matter of riPub tn klte C-1 Lonet tl~~at the Jeck-in-thR- Box at Kt~thryn Drive and I,incoln Avanue wcu~d alao require a conditl.~na1 uae permit regnrdlesa of the zoning upproved, and the service etation at the cosner was nermitted as a mattex of riqht in th~ C-1 ~onar while the t~re anles wae permitted ae a matter of rlght in the C-Z Zone. ~ ~ ~ MINUTRS~ GITY PLANNING COMMI38TON, Augu~t 6~ 1973 R6CL1~88IFIC1-xION N0. 73~74-10 (Continued) 73-460 t1r. Loud~xbeck notec~ that Chsro aao a motel among th• properties daveloped on th• nvrth ~ida of z,inculn Avenue whioh Mas a G-3 uae~ that on the ~outh ~ide, ta th~ •uuth o! thb aervice~ rtation, aas A bowlinq a-ll~y, whioh wa~~ al~a a C-3 usa, although it might heve bqen psrmitted under a conditionAl, u~e~ p~rmit ~n th~ C-1 2one, however, ha waa coaoarned ubout what would happen to him so • propsrty owner i~ he hsd to raplao~ the dxisting u0e~ ix over one-h:.l! o! tiha prop~rty was dernuliehed at rcme lutura dstst rhat he was lully awaxa o~ th• tact that ha cauld obtain a oonditional u~a permit far the use thst pre~antly axietmd, but• he Wou1Q pr~tar tha~ tha C-3 Zone b~ pesmitted on Che prop~rty as it wes dsvelo~ed und~r that partioular sane while uncler tha juri~- diotion o! khe County, ainoe he dicl not ~prant to be put o~it o! busine~e ' n livo to t~n yearA . Comminsioner Herbet inc~uired whsthar Mz. Loudexback v~aa aware of the numer~us u~ep pezmitted in the C-3 Zone, which wQUlc3 be totally incompatible with the surrounding land ueasi whexeupol Mr. Loudorback 4tated he 11Rd 160 teec o! property along Brookhuret 5treet e+nc9 90 ~set along Linco'ln Avenue and hud n lea4e thet would extiend ~0 1990, and ~~hare wr~n nothing he aould da, howevar, h• would not permit tearinq Qown the car~rssh end eatablishi.nq a repair ehop iP eomoone requested that. C~mmiaeioner Herbet inquired whethmr the pr.operties would heve to be advertieed !or a conditional uae permit if C-1 zoninq w~re recommended for approvel~ wher.eupon Mr. Roberta atated ~hat all the uses preser~tly existinq on the pruQarty would be allowed to continuo withouk any further ac~ion ~P a condi- tional use permit, but the ltbera]. reedinq o^ the Code waulc~ mean a nonconform- inq use cauld not be xeplaced. Ntr. Loudorback notzd ..i~at in 1958 they hed bosn granted C-3 zoninq by the City ~ounci.l, howevor, this was not finalized b~oause he failed to meet the condi- tions of tk-~ resolutian in a qiven timF, theretare, he felt he wa~a not asking for ar.yth~.ng unreasonable by requeating C-3 zoning on the pruperty now. Cou~~r~iRSioner Herbat noted that thie zoning was gran~ed thirteen yeara ago, and looking at thia ae a Commiesioner, tt~e petitione= had not complied with the rea~lvci.o,: of intent durinq that time, thua the Commission must look at this t~e the conr~itiAns prssently existoii, but he did not eresrit to put~ out of bueinesa thoge that ware estabYiehed, but since the eurroundinq uees were all developed with C-1, it would appear the C-1 ;Gone wa-e more a~ppropriate. Mr. Louderback noted that 1:he qentlAmt~n leasing the carwa~h property stated he wae unable to develop the adjacuat propexty bQCause of the limitatiane of tho psaperty, and the property at ~he no~ctheaet corn~r af Brookhurat and Linaoln Avenue wae prese,ntly being used a-s a used csr lot. Commisuioner Herbst noted that that pzoperty was operatinq under e conditional uee permit in the C-1 Zone, howeves, !f :rtr. I,oudarback wae desirous of de~elop- ing e~nytY~ing that waa not permi.tted in the C-1 Zone, th~n he c~uld request a aonditionnl use permit~ that he objected to u~dn~ of the C-3 uses becnuee they r~ere inaampat~ble, an3 Mr. T,ouderback coulc~ sel;l h~s property and the propezty could then be davel.oped with more intease C-3 usea. Mr. Louderbac;s aqain reiterated the fact that he had developed the property believ~.nq he had C-3 zoning in the City of Anahaim, and if the Commiseion ao desira~, they could reclassif.y L•he uadeveloped portian which had fi0 feet al.ong F3xookhurat SareeP. as C-l. Mr. Roberts inquired whether Mr. ;~~uderback w$e concernad about the axisting uses not rem~sinittgi whereup~n Mr. Lou~~rbeck stated that f.t was posaible ~hat thA walk-up restaurant wou.ld go out of ~xietence, and i;h~ rather nice enela~act z~staura~nt on the ~outh siSe of Lincoln Aven~xe had been cloeed upt tha~t he bellaved somethinq would happen, and fiee dif/ have an intended ueed aar lot oparator who wanted to go in, buk becaure of the daxay in information ho hed zeoeived, ha no lonqor becnme interesked~ and then in reply to Ct,airmen Qau~r'e yuestion, etAted that the carwarh wae a very substantial apezdtion end t'~ey had very little competition since ths Lralfic flow into the ar~a Nae oxceilent~ and thdt the carKash aornss the e~tr.eet waa an U.nattended caraash and did not affeot their particular ap~rati.on. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auguat 6, 1973 73-461 RLCYLA892FIC11Ti0N NO. 73-74-10 (Contij~u~ed) Commia~ioner Herbet then ree8 eome o! th~ p~rmittsd a~ee i.n thA C-~ ~on~ whioh h• lelt w~r~ inaompatible end whioh h~ lelt woulQ ba permitted by right i! thi~ C-3 Zon~ wara egtabli~hed an Che propezty. Commisaioner saymour obeerved th+-t lrum his uadezot+-ndinq of the proLlem, it would nppear the moat nQpr~pziate zoainq would be C-l, which Kould provide the prot~otion tram .lees than deairabla use• aa onunoisted by Commie~ion~r H~rbst, althauqh thw propezty~ owner wae ooncernad that hs would lase hia riqh~ to u~e tha pxopozty as it Axieted in the event of c+ 4ir~a, and inquixe~l wh~ther ~.k vra~ ponsibl~ to zone the proparty to C-l~ e~tAbli~hirtg only tha per.mitted usse th~ Commi&a~ion we~ntad for the »roparty. Deputy City ~ttorney Frank Lowry advise3 thst th• City no longer establi~h~c9 epeailic uoes in ~ yiven zone, and all the usea preeently exigting were non- contorming u~sed. Comml~sioner seymo~.~r offered a motfon, aecondod by Commieeionez Rowland and MOTIOq CARRIED, that Cho ~lanning Commiesion, fn cannection with dn ex~nmption declaration status roqueat, finde sncl datarm~.nes thet the proposal woul.d lhave no si~niticant environmental imPect, nnd, t.harefore, recommd»da tn the City Council thnt na En~vironmenta.l Tmpact Statement i.e naceas~ry. Cainmisaioner Seymnur offered ~ta0olution No. PC73-171 end movec5 ~or its paseage and adoption to recomrt:and to the City Counail that Petition for Reclaeeiticd- tion No. 7^ 74-10 be approved .for C-1 &or.~.ng and etaff ahauld be di.rected td initi.ate variances or condit.tonal use permits to allow the exiating, noncontorm- inq uses as conforminq usea, said uetitions to be at the expenee of. the Cityt and aubject to ~~ond3tions. (SeP Re~solutiun Hook) On roll ca11 the foregojng seeolutic,n was pesaed by the following ~vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, ~lerbst, King, Rowland, F,exmou . NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None. ABS~NT: COMMISSIONERS: A17.re3. VARIANC~ N0. 2521 - CONTINUED PUBLTC HEARING. MUI.LER HOLDING & TNVES~MENT CO., 6363 Sunset Boulevard, Sut~a 700, Hollywoofl, Ca. 90028, O~rnerj AI~VANCED EQUIPMENT CORP., 241 CrascenC Way, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, AqentJ requesting WAIVER OF THE Rr'QUIRED 6-F`OOT MASOIVRY WAY.L AR4UNU pN OUTDOOR USE TO PaRMIT A C1iAINLINK i'ENCF. on property describad ad : A rectanqularly-ahaped parcel of. land consistinq of approximately 1.3 acre~A, havinq a Frontage of approxi~ately 160 feet on the wesL• side of Creacent Wa,y, h~svinq a maximum depth of approxima'tely 354 feet, snd beir-q loca~ked approxA- mately 915 ~aet north of the centerline ot Lincoln Avenue. P~operty preaently classif~ed M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Sub~ect pstition was continued fx.am the meetinq of July 9, 1973, a:. ~he request. o£ the petitioner. No onA ap~9areQ in opposition. ~lo one appeared to repre~ent the ~.~titioner. The C~mmiaelnn de~cermined that thAy hacl q,uestiore to ask of the pptitioner, tharefure, since he kiad re:~uasted the continuance oriqinally, ~omeone ehoulc~ b~ there to repreaeiit the peti~ioner~ whereupc-n NLr. Roberts noted that st~ff would conta~t the ps~itioner t~ determ3ne whethAr or not a further conti~iuance would be reque~eted. (See page 73-462) ~ w s ~~ ~ MINUTEf~, CxTY kL1~Nt~INC COMMI38ION, Auguet 6, 197~ 73-481 E't~1VIRANPI~NTAL IMPACT REPnEtT NO. 97r RRr'LA98Y.k~'ICIITION N0. '13-74-].l, CO[v'~ITIONIIL I1:3E P~RMZT NU. 1415 ~ AND TBNTATIVE lMJ1p 01F TRACT NO. 8409 (Conk~nued lrom p~qa 7 3~4 S 0 ,~~ _ -- C1r. Jam~h 8ar~.~ic, repzee~»*ing Anaheim tii13~, nota3 that etthough ~ub~s~~ petition was not th• next itom on the aq~+nQ.., th~y h+~d r~qu~st~d d tM0-w~~k oontinuwnae t.o r~~olve prablems ~~r~s~ncsd by rta!!, •r~d he under~Cood ~h~re ~rero ~~v~ral people ~rsAane who wantad to .~ear what war pxopos~d~ Chat th• ~taP~ had ind3cakdd on the tt~po~rt t~ the Gommicsi4n that th• Enviranmat-tdl Impaot Report ns~do.l aQdi+cionel inlormRtion aecarding t~ tihe EIR R~viaa Cam- mittes a~ tcr •lt~rnata typ~e o! ].and uass, tharwlore, they would lik• to hsve this kim• to review thi~, a~ we27. se heve th~ petit+on readwerti.se3 to ~.nalufl~ waiv~r o! a bloak wall. Ghairman ~:auer noted thec Commiarioner Farano had rec~ueetee eome input as to tha RIR lrom the xeelclante preaant in oppoeition. Commis~ioner Faranu ateteQ that ~he r~oomarendation ot otstf thet the Lilt ~e aubmitted by t.he applicant not bm s3optea bv the City Cou~cil wae for. tha rea~eon that it di.d not oxploxe and utata 4uEfioient inlormation +~e to sl4~rnn- tive dovelopmer' H of the proFer:.y, end while he was fully sware of the 4'act t1tAt tha Commi~..ion only recommanUa osi the Atlop~iun or dieap~roval of an ETR, he thouc~ht it wpa appropr.iata to hear thP EIR ~o th~st tti~ Commiesion could make a~-propriate recommendc~t~ona to imt~rc ,~e the EZR an thut ~.t would be aQapti- able and acceptable at the ti.me the ott-er getiti~ne were conaider~d. Mr, Barisic etdted he wa~ awara ~f th.~ deficienciee of the EIR, and tt~e propoeed purchae~+r had adviaed him reqarding the~o dgEicianc3os as to +alter~ native land uaes witl: r.ommesciel z~inq on the prop~~rty and lower dannity eince they •vera propusiny a higter ~ensity, an~l hc had nlready contecked the com~any ~-repe~ring the ^zR tc, p~~•~vide this additlo.~al intormt-tion. Fouz person~ in:~'cated thelz pres:~~nce to expzes~ concern regarding the propo~el. Mrs. Mary Di.nndarf, represen~:i.ng tY.e 9anta Ana Canyon Improvement Aaeociation, indicated that 954 of tti~e homeuwners had eigned the ~,et.tinn and a number of them wanted L•o be pre: .c tu p rer~ent their opposltion, therefure, iL• subj'~ct petition were gaing ~o be contir-ued or readv~r.tiead, t.hc~t t.he Can:.~.~iasiur, aon- sider ache~dulinq it for ~n eveninq see~sion. Deput.y City Attorr.ey Fran.k Lowry ~dvised the Commis~io,~ t~at t.he item could be sr,hedule3 ~or the e~aning i.f the pd~itio:~or did nnt c+b ~~. t; +hezeupon Mr. Baziaic stated t}iat he had no abiectio~~ to a~n evening meeting. Commissioner F~irano ~f':ere~~ a motion, seconde~ by Cummiesioner Seymour and MOT20N CARRIEU, that Envir~~nme~nta3. Impact Rep~r:. No. 97 ~ Reclass± fication No. 73r74-11, Cnnditional Use Permit No 1415, and Ten~atiivo Ndp of Tract No. 0409 be continued to tha moetinq o~ Augus~ 20, 1,973, ta e.llow time for the readver- ~isemen~ of the r.onditional us .: permit to incl~:de wa~i~•er of the =equired 6-fcot *nasonry wal'., and thaC said item be scheduled for. an evening see~ion at 7s30 p,m. VA1txANC~ NO. 2521. (C~n'_.in~.~ed fram paqr 7Z-d5].) AsslatA-,i Planner f~hilli~. sclnwartze adviaa~ t~a Commission that he hr3 cont~cted ~he petitioner, who had informed him that a M~, Wolff would bo proaent D4 th~ ha~arinq, and if he waa not prdsentr thsn he woald request a twc-week continuan~n. No one was present to repx~sent the petitionez. Cc.m~niseioner Herb3t ~ffered a mot~.on, »~c.onded by CommiasionAS Farano ar-d MOTION CARRIED. to cocitinue considerat;ion of Petition tor ~_~..iance No. 2521 ta the meeting cf September 5, 1973, to allow rirr:e foz ~he petltioner to be preaent. _:..~,r~d ~ ~ s MINUT68. CITY pLANNING COMM7sSI0N, " 'uA*. 6. 197'j T3-463 RECL1-SSI!''ICl1TION - PUDLIC HEAR.T.NG~ FRANK LUKRIJII BJA2EVICH. 3915 Wert Oranq~ ~p. •»_74-~ Avsna', Anaheim, Ca• 9Z804~ ALEERT R. AND CECELII- L. SI-NDOVAL, 3b08 W~st Oraaq~ Avanue, J1ne~h~im~ Ca~. n2@04, VARII~NCS NO. Z532 Ownere~ LE ROY RODE ~ ASSOCIATEBr 1440 South St1~t~ Col].~g~ Doul~vard, Anaheim, Ca. 92806~ 11q~nt~ prop~rty Aa~crib~d ae ~ An irrsgularly-eh~~ed pdre~l o! land consiet4ng of sppreximately 5, 1 aar.e• , heving e lrontags of eppraxim~t~ly 360 fa~t an Ctze north oid• o! Orange Avrnus- hevinq a mnxi~.um dcptl~ ~f a~ppzoximacaly 820 les~, and boing looacsa approximAtely 150 lest eart o! ~~ uunt~rlina o! Via Vico Circle. Property presently ctassilied R-J-, AGRIGL' ~~URAL, 20N~. RF.QUESTEP CLIISSIFICIITIONt R-3, DIULTIPLE-H'AMILY RESId~NTIAI~~ x4NL*. REQU~STED VARIPI~~CEt l9AIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM BUILpING NL~IGHT WY'THIN 150 FFFT OF 11 RL~3IDENTIAL ZONE AND (D) REQUIRFO 6-FUO'T HIl3N MA90f3RY W1\LL AD,7ACENT TO J- SINGLE-FAMI~,Y ZONE TC1 L+STA9LISH A 146-UNIT, TWO-3TORY APARTML~NT COMFLF.X. Fourteen per~ons indiaated their preeence in oppoeiti.an. Commisaionex Rowland atatad that beca~uAO of n poesibl~ conflict oE intezeat, alnce he wae aeeociated with thn aqent fo.r the petitiAn~r on other iteme, he Nould withdraw Prom any participdtion in gulijact petitions. Commisaioner Rowland lert the Counail Chamber eC 4:50 p.m. Asof.stant Plnnnor Phillip Schwartze ravie~red the lo.;ation c~t eub ject proper*_y, ueee es tabliehe,3 in cloae proximi.ty, end the pxopobel to develop un l,l-building, 14G-dwelling unit, two-story apartmenC complex~ thnt there wou1~3 ~ie 68, 820- square ioot, two-bedroom unita~ 4, 833-squaro foo*_~ two-bedzoom unite~ and 76, 713~equare ~opt~ one-bedro~m units on ~ groea land area of 223, 200 square feet and a ne~ ldnd area of 193,BOQ equure £eet, deducting for the acceee dr.i~vo~ thsr the building site area per dwalling un:.t would be 1308 aquaro feet. and the coveraqe woulc'! be 458, or 33.2 vn.ita per nat acret that the total .7round floor. reci~ation are~a w~.xld be~ arproxim+stely 107,OQ0 equaxe f~set or Y25 square ieot pez dwelling un.t. said recrea*_ianal fa~ilities ha~ing escond-£i~or patios nf 60 sq~aare feet each, n 1500-gquare ~oot reareation builAin,q, ewimmin4 pool, and s 1200-aqudre ~oot hobby r~~omr that ncc~sas t+nA pYOpxit~the gro5~it~t20sfe~t tko-way drive off Orange Avenue which would entoz and P P'' Y fram tha east9rly property line, ~r~~vidi.nq access to the carport~ around tt~e perimete~r o£ tho prcpertv and would enter/exit the property 20 feet from the aesterly property ~,~I1P., said drlve Froviding acceae for a total ~f 148 r.overed and 7f3 ~pan parking spacee, the minimum number r~quizea~ that landecaping detail.s were not inclvded ir, the submitted plana, howAVez, the ~eticioner had tated Y.hey inte.~ced to p.r~vide landcsuapi.n3 Fully in kea~ing with contem~orary standarc :t that no b-foot masonry wall was~ indl.cated on tne plana in ::he intar- spacPs adjacent Y.o the single-family ~one to t~•e weet and north and that there ~aould be 14 stac lard tra~sh storAqe unita at s ven loct~:ione on he perimeter driv$ . rir. Sc:nwartze, in reviewing the evalumtion, nat~d that the Anahe~m Gener.al Plan designated the subject property as bein~_ suit:able for medium-d~neit}• xesidentia,l devElopment~ thst singl.e-familv rasidents ~n the ar~a i-ad expr~ssed corzcern re~ardi.ncJ r.?~A propospd two-atozy, unite in nroximity tc~ their hoinea nr.d the r~sultant line-of-.;.ight factora and attenc ~ni: invagion of Frivacy they felt would occu.r~ tttat the potit.'on~er had indicatecD the r~~flence o! the 6-foot hig~. masonsy wall adjr+cent to t.ha a.ingl~-familv zoned pro~erties wae an uveraight, and the wa1.l wou?d be insti-11e3, therefor~, the advertiaed wt~iver would not be rsgufrsdi and that th~e w~lk±nQ distancea to tha cnrp~rt apacas vrere on tlie vesc~e of exceediu9 tltF inaximuti dietance of 200 fee't from a dwellinq unit to be served, thersfure, the Commisfiun miqht ~vish to have the space.~ epecifi.cally numbered and asaiqned tu insur.e ~hat the minimum dietence Pro~ unit to parking apace would not ' e exceecled. ~ t the c'ommiasi~n un4 st~te3 LeRoy Ro~e, aqent for the pet~.Liuner, aPpeare bo axe ~ he would liN . to point~ out, in renard to the findinqs of the gspozt to the Commisaion, somQ of khe Qrobl~~e r.el.tted since 4TO oeedst~~have~noewindo~redona 55 fE~t tzo~ iho R-1 pro~ or~: iae ~ ho~re.ver, they p P ~ ^~ ~ MINUTES ~ C.'ITX PLA@!NIN~' COMMI59IUN ~ 111]Qtl/t 6~ 373 73-464 ~~~LAS&TI~xC11TI0[~ N0~73-74-7 RNO VARTANC~ N0. 253Z (Coi~Cl.nu~~d) the sida• laainq ~h~ tir~ql~-t~mily hameer that thera wou7.!! ba only 2A unite ~o a!leat~d, snA th~ di~tanoe varS.ad lrom e7 ta 45 loet for th• apartmeat~, however, ~oaauaa o! th~ carporte propoeNd on :.t+e pariu~~ter ot' Ch• pr.operty, the lin~-ol-~ight !or a~~~xean 5 faot, 2 lnohee tall ~oul~ b• et the top oP the wi.ndaws a! thes~ hame~. Chaizman Gauer abs~xve3 that the City of. Ananaim had been lace~d by a law e~uit_ by oLher Buans Fa~rk roui~lent~ becauoe~ o! the 150-loot :+uic~ht re~uiremen* at ~he ~ity ~! Anah~im wtiich wue nat obearved when the ~pezkmei~ts wore built 3uot aouth of Li.neoln Avenue on tha wept side af Knott 3treat. Mx. Roso indicated that thy ~ns-story height limi.tnti.an in ths City ot Du~ana Park wae ~~ 50 toot camFsred Co 1-nahAim's 15Q feet, and C2~• City of Anahcim in the pab. .i~d granted weivet aP this requirament whera ather citiee did n~k. reguira the ssme aett~rck, and that the ~chaol site tu the eaet waa still zoned R-A. Then, in rAeponao L-o cc ~m~nto mndm by Chairmdn Gnuar, Mr. Rore ete.Y.ed the R-1 to the west and nar~l~ ~•as in tho City of Buena ~erk, vrhile the Ox~~~y~-- view Junior High 8chaol was locat:od to l:he ~art in the+ City o! 1-nRheim, but the res~dence~ t~ which he reYerrad in t~e ~ine-oP-eiqht exhibit wer• thoee reaid~ntial homee to tha west and north wharN 29 units wou13 b• tna3ng the R-1 z,ropertiaei that two thinr~R could be dona to take care of this problem, namely, to block tha vievr by not having nny wi.ndowa or the ~nrporta since they wou]d ~ftect~.vely block dny view of L•he ren iclences to thR weat a~nd northr thdt whare no carpor.ts were proposed, they F~lsnne~ to have c~ 6-foot maeonry wdll with landacr~inyr and that. if the problem etill t~xlt~tod~ t.hose windowa would then ~e louv~re3. Mr. Roae then etated that L•ne roport ksy t.he Envir~nmentnl Impmct RepArt Review Committee rec:mmended Chat an EIR be aubmitted ~rimarily because of the fact that the 15U-foot, ox-e-•etory heiqht limitAtion wns not beir.g adht+red to, but he could see nc reaean for filing ,en EIR hocauee of that. In ~ddition, the Anaheim Genera]. Plan projected thia property ~qr medium~-density reei.dential usst thst if anyone wae c~ncerned about childron walking in front of theae ur.ita, this development would be complstoly wnlled '•-~ and that they were meet- iny all of the re~quiremente of the City of Anaheim except for the 150-To~t, onR-story height limitation, although Huena Park only ^eauire,d 5~ feet. Commiseiuner King inquired whethar the petittone2 was not Planning to conetruct a wall along ~hP east Ride~~ whereupon Mr. Rose atakea there would be a completa enclosure ef these fac111tiea except for the fronc facing Ora,nqe Avenue, and they ware implemPntin~ the General Plan while L•ha variattce did noC affect the enviranment. Mr. Douy Hawk~s, 6710 V~,a Rivi.era, Huena Park, sppeared be£ura the Com~,ii~sion in opp~~.i~ion, atatinq he repressnted the resider~ta on t1n nor~h aids uf sub- ject px~operty~ that thay as a group were opposed to th~ propoaed reci~ssifica-~ tion to mulCiple~-faraily resiclential develogment ein~~e mora than 30 units per acre were proposed, while only 4+ unite Per acre woulci b~~ peXmitted wiCh sinqle- family homas; that there ~ould be a considerable incrc~as• in trttffi~ ~o the area witYi a 14r1-unit complUx, which could mean 296 ~a8ditional vehiclee tv the areeo tha*. this would averload tha existing echaol lacilities an~ could msan buaeinq children to walter xnotk Scho41 on T~a Palme- Avenue, and thia wde veritie~ by ta.lking with the Superintec~den~ of. the Ca:itralia Schoc.l Distri~+,;, that they furcher weze opposec to t.h~ requested waiver of tha one-stary heiqh~ ~imitation to permi± two-story npartmenta ir. cloae proximi~y ~o the sinq~le-faan~ly homea eince his calr,ulati~•~~s indic.ted the line-af-aight would be 58 faet, not the a8 fee* indicu~.ed by Che agent for the petitionez, bscause maet peopAe were not 5 feet, 2 inchea tmll and wi~th the pro~osed sotback, it woul~ mean resi3ente ~f the seaond-floor un+ks could Iook int~ hfa living~oa~a ar.d bedraom even if a 10-~foot wall wera ar~natructedi that a precedent ha~ been eatabliAheQ in the Gity of Cypreas where mult~ple-femily development occurred a3jrcont to the tract ir. w2±ich he lived wherein tray ~~~ore required tc construct 10 to 1Z-foot hiqh block waZla at no coat ~U the aingle-fa~mily homca, therefore, thio cantinuitX o~ requ~.ring thnt eam~ hefqht wal]. ahould be maintai ~ed both in height and ~~ateriaZe if eub3eot patitiona wera a;~pr.oved~ that he preeent].y had a 6-foot hiqh wall adjacen~ to eubjeat.r~roperty, howevar, i~ the h3gher wAll he AL' • gested were conetructed, it a~hauld he maintaine~d both an the R-3 aide and~ the ~ ~ ~ M'GNUTE3, CITY PLANNJNG COMM78SION, August 6, 1973 73-~465 RECL'ASSI1^ICA~ION N0. _73-74-7 ANU VAR~ N0~_253? (Cuntinued) R-1 side by tha p~titionaz i t eub ject petitian~ wer~ approved~ that throy would lurthsr. Auyqest tha~ euk~jsot petitiong be continuod uo that thnee ~~r~one with- in 3n0 feet wha a~re not not:.!l.ed cculd be heard, and thiB ehou~d be oontireuAd to a niqht mo~*_inp ta allow woxking peopl• w'ho co~ltl nat tak~ time o!! lram work C~ ba ~.rss~nt, howover, he would lurther roaon;men~ that th~ Commirel4n deny r~ub jeat pe ~itior.~r . Mrr, . c:l,era ttighlill ~ 94~ 7 Vie Vic ~ Circla, Buena Park, appeared b~lore ~he Con~ ~iesiun in appositiAn, otating uhe concurred with the ekatemer-t~ made by thf ~revioua oppoait~ion but •hm ~urkhor wnnted ta state rh~t the trnet ~~ha~ 1{•~ed in we• oi~ly a ona••etroet t. act, while the f.iret oppoa~ttan wa~ pdrt oP d vnry largo, r~inqla-Pamily tract~ kha~t thuy wore being aiirrounded by multipla- lemi.Zy (ievelopment from Valley View to WeRt~rr: Avenue ~nd more wsra bc~ing bu1.1L all o! tl~e tim!~ - thie was very d~.Pfic;ult for ~hildren in the tr~cC becau~e they could only ~ley with other children in the some trect since th~re aaa no eccosa to other trect develupm~ats, and with apartments b~ing enolosed as tt~1.s wae propo'ed, the childran of thbt d~vel~pmen~ would also only be eble to plt~y with t3iose :l.n the apArtmc+nt cnmplex~ thnt the children would hav~ to walk on OrAnge Avonue paet the hiqh eahool ~~and through the church ~roport,y, and the ohl.1liron from the deve].opment would also have tu walk in t' e s~me 6lrection to qo to achaol, and Alnq diA not know haw lonq thb church wou1S slJ.ow the ohi'ldren to cut throu,qh their ~~ropertyr that the gxi.ncipe~. og the aohool had diracted that tl~e r•h~.ldren muat not walk down Oranqe Avanue to Knott StrE~et beaa~~se of ~u trnffic pr~blom beceuge oE the hilY, effoct on Kitot~ Stzeet, and thir was .e reaoon for their walking through t:~e churah ~3ta, but if they , Laced Cho avarage unit size, thie would mefln 3U0 adul~s and 225 children, nnd if thi.s were developed Aa a s1n~71e-family trn::t, tFis wou].d mea~ only 20 hame~t~ or a. totnl of 150 peop].e and thair repreaentativo animal~ ~?n thia 5-acre parce'i; that they presently hed di.fficulty leaving the;.r tract beca~se of tho traffic fram Cypreae College, and ~he wauld aesume that wtth that mniiy mor~ people there would be that many moxe care w~th two cars for eaah famil;~ ~nd oomet•iines more, which wc~uld add to kho alreadl difficult traffic pro'r~lem~ arid ttidt. not everyone on Via Vico i:ir.c?a had recc.ived a legnl notice, t~-erefore, ~ha woul.d suq~eat thuX. sub ject petitiona b~ continued bacause of that. Zoning Sut.~ervia~r Char.:ee Robarts noted that in addit~i~ ~o publication in the newspapor, th ~roperty had beAx1 posted, as well as the submission of l~agal notices to pr~L~erty owners ~-itY,in 300 feet, and from an analysi~s og the ma3~~inq list, it would a+ppear thrt the majority af the people on V~a Vico Circla hau beer, ,iotified. Mr. Rose, in rabuttal, state~, tha~t mentian made by the npposi~ion as to the line~of-:3ight, for a 6-foot 1~erson i~ ~uld be 5 feet, 6 inchee, ~,nd this wns the reason he used tlie S~foot, 2-inch avera.~e heightt that *_~iey would cio anything to stop tYie view of the ainy].p-family hames' propdrty by proved20gunitserytihat high~:r walls or tha 6-foot wall and screen landscaping for mention mad.e as to overloading o£ ~ha schools, the oppcsition shoul3 check atatiatics which the DevQlopment Services Department had regdrding the number o~ ~chAOl chi3dren £rom one and two-bedroom apartments, :nd the Commieaion was fully A~dtre of t~L~JSE atatiatics j that the tenancy of thia type of development wauld not ovezload a school rs wnuld happen if s~ngle-fsmily residential deveJ.- opmen~ were p"l..nncdl tha~ gince the Gdnera], Plan :.ndirated medium deneity for this property, they wc~r~ complying wi~h this, and the trafPic fr~~m `iia c~ev~l- opment would aot be of concern eincn the Traffic Enginesr had not prea~nted nny undas~rable cornmente re~iaxdi.ng the propoeblp that they rad no control ov~r the ch~ldren gattiny to achool, thia waa somethi.nq beyond their controlt thet they werc developinq this prop~rty ix~ accordance wit.h tha City's r.equiremente, ar.d sidewalks would be conatruct~ed in the Front of the px~perty ~~h.~ah would allow children ~~ have r~ bett~r means af goi.ng to schonlt tht~t mention made ae to main~enan~e of the wal.l, they ~~~o iJ.d be glad to atipulate to providinq e stvmpatone wall which woula be the color of. aa.obe, and there would be no main- teriance requirad o! that~ an3 that they wauld try to '~elp in whatever manner they could to assure the aingle-fx:,~ily reeidents of a pruper l..ving enviroa- ment because they were fully +sware of the pzoblem that exiated beae~ je of the c'.~cumstances fio[n the aurroundin~ citif~~. THE HEARIN~ WAS CI.OSE9. ~ ~ ~ MTNUT~E3~ CITY pLANNING CUMMI~38ION, Auqu~t 6, 1973 73-4FE, RECLA9SIP'ICATION N0. 73-74-7 AND VA~txANCE I~O. 253~ (Continue.l) Commis~ion~r Herbeti ob~arvad that ~t had be~n a loiiy tims since t~h~ Planning Commieei.on hd~l sean a dovelopmont o! thiq ty~e beaauro thay had r~quired e petbeck o~ 10 to 20 ~est from oinqle-lamily zones, anc9 he did not think he weuld l.ike to live i.n a ainqla-lamily s~cne with a 240-loot huilAin wa:1 lacing himj tl~at thi~ dev~lopm~nt NOl11d be d~prsaie+tinq tha value r,ho~s homeu einca tha peti.tioner wa. prapoainq ta abut these homae with SO-foot long wall without any open epace aith an evera~e o! Z5 le~t fz•o-n t:he homes. Mx. Roee observed thnt he w+~n tha one who had initiatsd rho oax?~orte ~e~vera]. yeard Ago before the ~ l.ani~ing Gommiasion. Commieeionsr Herbst furthAr noted tltat sv Chough t~ieae panple who wero Qresant in ~ppooition ~era riot rcotd~n e~ Artatioim and the City of 8uens paxk hAd only a 50-loot setbdck requ.iremen~, he wae m~re ooncerna~d with the living c,nvizonment of the reeidante in their rear. yards, a.nd he fslt that a wall gave n~+erson a phobi.a, ac leaat he had that se ation. Commiesionez Farano note~ thn:. t~he opposition nad expradaed tha deeire t~~ have -~o vieunl intrueion oP th~ir properti.es from the d~artments, and one had evFn inAicated thaL• a 12-Paot weli ehould be pravided, however, he 31d nat: know t.ae diff.erence i~ttween the line-of-aight of n.ld-Foot qat- ~~ wali. or a- 12-foot b:~ock wall. Commirsioner Herbet further noted that the ~ommiasion mugt redliae thia wae a 6-lU• ~~~~~ '~~igh, 240-fuot loa-g wall abutting thd we<.C a~i' north si.dea of th~ property udjacent to R-1. Co~rmissioner. King inquir~d ~~cCher 14r. Hawke+s stAted he wee ir~ Pavor of a 10 or 12-foot hiqh wallt whezeup~n Mx. Hawke~ atatod that ho would not favo.r uither a 10 or i2~foot hiqh wall~ that accc~rding L~~ ttieae plane, a~ 10-foc~t wall would be L•:~e minimum to assure ++n,y privacy with tr.o qara~s~.s abutting the pxopertie3, and e•re n without the wa~] there would be •-~m~ str.~ tures. Comuiissioner Farano inquired how th~ single-family xesidents would Feel ab~ut a deries of twu-atory liomoa which were permitted by the City of. Anaheim~ where- upon Mr. Fiawkes etated that he 'vould not like two-story homes eit.her. Cnmmisaioner Seymour notad that he had em~athy with Mrs. Highfill, however, a ~roparty owner could not mfford to ke~p his property vacanL• ao th~t ci-ildren could walk to schoult that there wus no ordinnrce in ~he City of Huei~a Park ox Anehei~n that would stop people from building a two-•story homet tha~ he want.od to protsct the resic3ential environment of thoae in objectinn, while still letting the prap4rty nwner realizo so~e return from his proparty. Commisaic.ner Harbst stated that he ~•~~u1d not vote in f.avor of thia pro~ec*, primarily because it was prop~~ged ta 9nclose `tii.a d~vel.opnient with ].0-foot hiqh garaqe wella immediately sdjacent to the sinqie-family praperties; that the Con+mission lxad allowed this before, end aitex havinq viaited some oP the de~elo~,mentE upon completion, tho Commissicar felt that the riqMts of the single-family residenta were not heinq protected, and he felt there ~hould >>e at leaet a l0~foot atrip of landsaaped setbr~r_k and in aome cases 20 feet ahould be requixedi that although the ~eroral Plan pxojected this propezty for medium-denaity re~idon~tinl uee, the ty,~p of denait}• proposed would not be caneidered favorably if it wexe con'ti~uoua to other Anaheim R-1 aub~iivintons baca e o.f the 150-foot one-~tory height limitatiot~, even though he was ~ware+ of the fact that Busna Park onlX rey,•ired a 5U-focc setback. Commieai.oner Farano rstated he wou].d be in favor o~: what Commisaionsr Herbet etated if he could be convincod that `here was a problem :,rith tt~e well. Commisaioner Herhet notAd that in the paet where R-1 propezty existed a~d multiple-~family development was propased adjacent to it, the Commission limd require8 a 10 to 20-toot landacaped buffez aetbe~k befare the garagea ware conetructed a~nd then an apartment complex waa adjacent to t:he qnragea, and that thfa had been in practice in Ana~heim for some time. LJ ~ MINUTE9~ CI~Y PLANNING CaMM788I01N, AugupC 6, 1973 ..1-467 R~CLJ-SSIFTC~,TION Na. 73-74-7 ANU VAR]:ANCE N0. 2532 (Con~inuad) Commia~ion~r Saymour in~uired whett-er rqpresentativ~s o~ the City of Buona Park rlenning Department ha3 avbmi~tied any oamm~ntt wh~reupan ?oning sup~rvi~ox Cha_:~~• RobarLs r.end the l.etter t:om th~m in whfch oppoeitio:~ wa~ expras~ed to th~c laat that ths peti.tionor v-ri not proposi.ng a miniu-um 6-foot high well. Camm;e~ioner ~+~y~nUUr nat~d Chen iG would app~ar tha~ the City of BLUna Pr~rk lalE that khe exia~tii~g baeic lence ahauld be regla.ced with n por~nn ent wa~l. +~nd nothing wae mention~d about the pa*baok !or two-s~ .~ry ~partnier ;:~t whare- upon Mr. Roberts etated that i n a~l], li.kelihoad nathing wes mentio, ad e~baut the height waivor becaue~e oP thr~ 50-loot ee'baok requiremont. Commissi~ner Seymou.r th~n ir~q»irad whethar ~.hia devel.opmen~ would be wikhin the rRquiremente o! Che City of. B~i~n~ Pnxk ~ subj~ct property were developed ncc~rQing to their etande~rde~ whureupon Mr ttobexte noted thnt i.n additlon to Che cade r~quixaments, ttie City ot 8uena P zk aleo hAd ~rchitect•ural requird- mento, review of epacif~.c plane, etic. whic,~ could be used tn detern~ine the appropria~tenees o! rn dovelo~ment. Commiseinner Seymour t:hen obsarvod t:~a1: perhapa ~he Anahaim Planning Com«~i: eion ehauld viaw th ~ proponnl ae to whot;ier or not it conP.ormed tn the req~~lrenPnts of the aity in which the reoidente reeided. Commiasioner herbat noted that the devaloper wea qaining in the number o£ uni~~ complying with the City af Buenn Park zequirement ~or setbaak and ~ould ge~ considezably lees if bevelopecl in the City ~P Anaheim ei ~ develc~~n-e~nt atand- arda if thia property abut.ted R-1 in Anahaim, and he cuuld not draw an,y die- tinctian between R-1 in one city ~r anottier city when a-djacont to R-3, there- fare, thi.s landscaped setbACk ehould be provided as w+~e r.equired oR R-3 in Anaheim eA thak the R-]. ree~i~et~te would not havo to look at a rathcsr unattrac- tive blank wall. Commibaioner Far~ano inquired wt~ether Commisaioner Herby:. fali: that theae R-1 r.eaidanks wpre entitled to or ahauld receive qreater px'otection from ~tie City o~ Anaheim than L-hey woul.d receive izo;m their own city~ wheraupon Commi~Eioner Herbal: stated that if thie property wEre: in the City af Buona Par.k, they miyht not x~ne it R-3 since R-1 development had alroady occczred to both the west and no ^th . Commissioner King inquired whet?~rr Commxgsioner Herbst wa.s p: _~oeing land~scap- ing in the form of a row of treesj whereupon Comn-issioner ~1er~st sta~ed there would be treea and high ahrubbary as had been requirgd in Ar~aheim, and an example wo~ild be at Romneya Urive and Stat~ Colleqe Boulevard, however, when that development was fixst propoaed, they did not provido the landeca~p~d buPfer, but aiter aume ti.me they finally accaded, and thie wt~s a very attractive dev~~.- opment; ~nd th~~ the City t~ever permittod commeroial developments ad~a~ent to R-1 to develop in L•Yae manner pr~poaed, theref~re, wtiy ohould Anal~ ~im p:rnit this R-3 develogmont to ~~roject a 240-foot garaqe wall adjacent t~ thQ R--l. Commissianer Hsrbst then inc~uired cf tlie architect/agent whether or not these proposed cazporta could be relocated~ whereupo;~ Mr. Roae s~atecS that ~his woulE! effectively eliminate mari~ carportg and cz~ste ~.~ad ~pace 5f moving the car- p~rts to the opposite eide of the accessway - tt,a.s would mean breakinq up both aides of the deaign prapasod for these units. Chairman Gauer noted that snother development wherein tihe lnndeca~ped etrip was required wa~ lo~ated at Ba11 Road and Brookhurat St~ee*. . Mr. Roae~ gtated his onYy reason for heaitati.ng ln provi.ding thia landeaapirg strip was becausa he wo+uld have to discuss this with the uwnere slnca thie would mean a losg of some unite. Comxnissionar Herbgt ebaervecl that the F~ropoeed development, hocauee of the diff~rence in setback between Anaheim and ~u9r.a Park, ~eant this development h+sd increasad the number a~ unite over that which w~uld be permittel normally in Anaheim. ~ ~ ~ MxNUTES, CITX PT,ANNING COMMISSION, Auquot 6, 1973 73-469 REQLAS$xFICATTOt. N0. 73w74-% AND VA~I]-NC~ N0. 253Z (C:~~~~.rued) Commiesioner FarQiio inquized wh~th~r oonsidaration xai qivsn to opoa parkinqt whereupon Mr. Ros~ ~tatAd thst cov~r~d parkinq would h4v~ to be provid~d al~eNhare, 1-~wever, it tha ~ommi.apion dst~rmir~e8 thet R-3 zoninq wa~ spprapki~ eta, tho:~ perhAps eomF altarn~tlva could be propooo~l. Commiasion~r Herbdt aqain rsiterated the lect 4~~e~~ bc :aune ths Cit, 8u~na Fark pern~iL•t~d anly u 50-loot eingla-~tory eetb~+ak i•~i two-etory apertment~ ad~aoent to R-l, tha developer wae g~ining caneidArab,.y muge unit~~ wh¢-anpon Mr. Roae ateted that it only e 6-~oat wnll werv prapos~c~, this ~~uld c1misat the requeet o! ths ad~acent :z-1 ~raperty owner~ o~ had requ~eo~ea ~ higher wall to insur• thair privr~r•, ther~';~ e~ it would b~ up to the R-1 xeaidsnte as to what thsy wanted. Cammineioner Hezbat ~tated that wauld be up to the Anaheim Fl.nning C~mmis- rion and th~ City Gouncil ta det c.. i.ne whnt wr~e- a good deve?.opman~ f~r Aneheim nnd what protection ta give these peoplo~ ttie-t he did not fael the ~ommiseion bhpuia dagrsda theae R-1 re~idences even ~ti:ugh they w~re loaated i.n the City o! Buena Park~ wheroupun Mr. Rose et.aked thmt thie wall cou?.d be brokan up in l0~foot aegmants. Commisdicner kiurbot Atated he was re~uea~inq coneiderati.on, o~ a G-taot wall at the prnpert,~ line wtth a 10-foot str.ip of aareen lnade~aping +~s e~ bufFex be- tw~an the R.••3 dnd thti ~t-1 because this had been xoquired oP ott-nx dev~lapments i~ Anahaim, and even a 20-foot 9etback was required in eome inatancus. Aftor fu~-~her fliecu~sion regnrding the J.~sndacaping and poesible open perkiag adjacent o the ].~nduoapinq, Mr. Rcse atated he c~uld not make any con-mitmgnka without ~nsu].ting the pro, ::sty ~r:ner. Mr. Rase, in reaponse to questicni~ig by Commiraioners r•a~eno and Herbat regarc:-~ ing whethar the arc •itect c~~naidere~i thie plan ae it c~nAtit~uted a fa~vurable plan snd if the Ccmmission denied the requeet fur waiver of the one-staXy hc~i.ght ]imitation adjacent to the R-l, o~ated that to dev~x~p in that fashion w~.uld mean the loss of many unit~ and probably the land woa~.d noL• be developed. a~:-~r~ thie wae one re~-son why i*. had not be~n developed i.n tl:e pa$t was tl-e height limitation of apartments. Mra. HignfiZl inqu5.red whether subject propezty was nlready zonec1 R-3 since she could aot underata•d with all the diecuesion going on whather the zoniny was in effect. Commisaioner Seymau~• advi.sod Mre. Highfill that tho Ax~ahefm Genorai plan, a maater plan of development for the citx, projected ~his property for me.'jum- deneity residenriel use, and the realasaification pa~ition before }he Con~~+i +- Bian was a request to imgl~w~ent this depiqnaCion, evan thouqh the p.ropezty wo~ still R-A which permitted one residence ger aare, and thut the applicant had the rigt~t ~.o requ~st what was being propoaed 0accept thrzt he ~-ae also requestic g ~aiver of one oi the eite developmenk atandar~ls of the R-3 2one. Mr. Roae then advised the Commission L•hat th:• petitioner. re~tuested that the Commieeion ~ake ~son~e action today .rather thar. continua-nce s~r revisod p1an~. Commisaioner Farano cffezed a motion, sAC~~nded by Commiesi~~rer seymour and MOTION CARRIED (~ommiasioner Herbst votiaq "no'"), that the Pl.ann~nq Commiesion, in conaection with an ex~mption declara-tion atatus requeet, tinde and deter- mines Chat the propoeal would havo no siqnifiaant environm~ntr.l i.mpaat, alth~ugh the EIR Roview Committac recommended that t~e regu~.:t ~or exemption ..tatus be de,niod on the bae~ie that the petitioner wae propusing twd-atorv cone~.ruction w'.thin 55 feek o! a einqle-family xone, while the c:ity o! Anaheim required a z>4-foot aeparation, how~ver~ the Cos~misaion tiad determined that the City oP Suena Park in rvhich the bxiatii:q ~ingle-family homes were lo::ated roquirad only a 50-ioot ~uilding setba.,k Par ~xo-atory, multiple~fdr~.ly reaidentia: corlstructfon, th~retore, the Plann.iaq Commiss:on reoommend~ to the City Council that ao Env±ronmentdl impact Sta~.e•-ent is neoosaary. • ~ ~ MINUT~S, CITY PLANNxNG COMMISSION, Augu~t 6, 1973 73-469 RBCI.A88It^ICAT2QN NU. 73-74-7 AND V!-RI11tJCE N0. 25~2 (Cuntina~d) Gommi~~ionar Hexb~t olYor~d Rasolu~ion tao. PC73-172 and mave~d !or it~ pa~~~4~ snd adopt~on to racomm~nd to ~he City Counail dies~proval oT P~titi~n ;Eor Raolas~ifiaation No. '73-74-7 on the baoio that t`-e ~lans pzopoo~d Ay the patitioner. C1id not offor proper a~n~l adequdt~ ps.~oteation for. thp ].i.vinq onviron- ma~n~ o! the exieting adjoining lt-1 reeidanto to the woet a~id noreh in Lhe ~itx o! ~ac~nd Park~ that th~ petitionAr wa~ unwtllinq to oonuidor ~xeParinq ane preao~ting revi~~d plane npon rec~ueet hy tho Pla~-~~ing Commiaeion to try to ra~soY u the p~~blema ot concarn exprenssd by the P~anninq Commis~ion end the adjoining eingle-tamily xeeidante~; that althouqh thc :ommieeion wa• not adv~rra to the zoninq r.equast, t:he aubmittisd plane o! de~~elopment vrould noti bs oompla- m~ntery to the araa becauae thay would provide only gr~raqa wr.lla as buli`sring ~o thg exioti single•-family homeN tu the weat and nnrth axound the g~riphory of the properLy, anQ the Plannang Commiaei.on, in ~the pAat, had required tht~~ wh~r.e ~r••.ltiple-femily dwellinqr+ were propoae,d adjncont to eetabli.ehod s.inqle~ tamf].y davel.apmente in tha City ot Anaheim, that landecx~•1 bufP~ariny, e~e well ae dietance, ahould be provided to minimize the maeoi.vc~neas anr~ inveeion of privacy which two-~tory apaztmenta preeented when in auch al.oae praximity to eingl~0~family residential. homes. (See Resolution Book) On roxi call the foregoic-g reaolution waa passed k~y tt-e fallowing vot AYEBo CCMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Harbet, King, Seymoux. NG::S: COMMIS3IONERS: Farano. ABSEN^o COMMx8SI0NERSs Allred, Row:land. Commiseioner Her.bet ot~exod Reaolution No. PC73-173 anci movad ~r ite p~egaqe and adoption to deny petition for Variance Nu. 2532 on the b+~~~.s that tha ~'lanninq Commis~ion hud =e~ommended c9lsapproval of the reclas:ification of the propertv. theref: a, the vaxiance patition wo~xld~ not be appllcable to the property under the exleting ~onin3= and that the petit~oner was unwillinq to conaid~r preparing revised plana upon requQSt by ti~e Planning Commissinn to try to rer~olve the problema of concorn axpzeasec~ by the ~lanninu Commiseion dnd the adjoining eingle-fnmi.ly reaidents. (See Reaol~ition Baok) On roll ctc11 the foregoing rer~olution was pr~,~ed by the ~ollowing vot:e: AYES: GOMMISSIONE RSs Gauor, Herbst, Kinq~ Seymour. NOES: COMMiSSIONERS: l~arano. ABSFJNT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrod, Rowlan8. VA1tIANCE NO. 2534 - YUBLIC H~ARING. DAZE E. APIU SARAEI A. F'OWLER, 1a30 South Grand AvPntie, Santa Ana, C~s. 92705, Owners~ requeeting WAI'~ER OF THE REQUIRED 6-~FOUT HTGH MASONRY WALL AnJACENT 'I'O A ItESIDE;N'1'IAL ZONE TO C~NSTRUCT AN INDUSTP,IA~, BUILDING W2THOUT T~E REQUIRED SCRE~NIt~G WAI,L ALONG AN ADJACE:NT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY or~ proper4:y described aa: A rectangult~rly-ahaped parcel af lt~nd conaisting of' approximateJ.y 4.9 aarea, her-ing a fron~age oE approximately 315 faet on thp west aide of Mtller ~treet, having a maximum c'.apth of appr~~ximately G14 feet, ar.cl being lacated approxi- maL•ely A00 fee~ north of the c~nterline of Mi-aloma Avenue. Propert,y pre~ently cl.aes~fa.ed M-1, LZGFIT 7N~USTR7AL, ZONE. Threg pereons indiaated th~ir presence iii oppos~`ion. Asaietant P.l~nner ~hillip "~:1iw~rtze reviewed t.he location of subje~r. proparty, ~iaes esL•abli d in cl~se proximity, and the pzoposal to develop a 60,254- squar~ .faot ird•.istria~ ~uildinq without th.~, required 6-foot hiqh ma;onry walla requirec3 ay.onq ze~idential buundaries to the east and wast of eubj~r,t propertyt tha~ t'~a propos~ad buildinq xould be approxi~ately 225 f~et wide, 270 feet ~eep, ansi ~2 feet hiqhr that thc~ buils~ing would be set back 2u feet from the residen- tial prup6rty (R-A) to the eaat and 55 feet from the sesidential property (R-R) to th~.. west= thaL vehiculax accese wou~d be pxovided by two 35-foo'; wida drive- waya eff Millez Stzeet, ona driveway heing located 20 feet sast of ~he west~rly property line and the othei drivuway at the eabterly ~,roperty li.net that plaz~~ in''cata ~ row of 9~-deqree pa~king apaass adjac~nt to the westerly property line an~ also parking n1o-~g tha weaterly side of tha building and to thc+ front • ~ ~ MtNOTEB~ C~TY PLANNING COMMx~S~hN, Auquat 6, 1973 73~a7p V71RI]~NCS N0. 2534 (Continusd) cnd rasr o! th~ buJ.ldinq~ that an und~valope.l area to the raar ^P Cha ~trip~d psrkinq nt the r~ar o! thA buildir~q would •llow lo.r addition~i parl:inq and poa~ible luture expan~ion~ that th~ pze~ll.oainazy plane did nc+t india~t~ th~ loc~:ian a! tra~h atorage nr~e•, ^iqning or a~cursty 11.~7hting, how~ver~ kha p~kitionsr had indic~+tod to etaft th~~ a ptandard trn~h stora~ie ~re~ aould be looatod to khe rear o! thA build.tng i.n • mennsz asti.tactoxy o ttie 9Anitetion Divi ~on~ and that eir~cs no P~~noe or w~ll o! any ~ype aae prupo~ed, thQ p~tl.- tion atwtecl tl~at no outdoor stor.aqe wa~ •ntici.peted At t-tiis _ime. Mr. Schwartse, in revi~winq `.ha •valuat~on, r-oted that eta!! had reoeiv~d e letter lrom thn ac9j~crnt r~eidan~ial proparty to the south, nAtinq thst~ they woul~! like to go on rscord as •xp~otiny a block Na1X to be ronsCtiuut~d around tY~i~ devalopment iu epmpliance with thp City o! Anaheim'e atandard4 of Qavel- apment, and since eubject property wes oon~iderably hiqher thAn thE~ aA~aaent prop~rty to tho south, they wer• also aoncsrna!! with the poseibility ot having a r~taini.ng wall and for adequate dreinage eu that ~ho lower parcels wvulr! not euft~r lrom run-o~f from subjac~ propsrtyi and Sec~ion 18.52.06U(3)(a) o! thu M~1, Light Induetri+alr Zone eito 9evolopm~nt gt•$ndnrde wa~ then road. Mr. Larxy Be~ins, 1324 Chapman, Or.anqe, nppear~d bAfare thA Commiaaion ropxe- sAntinq r.he petitioner, etnting ther. 1Nr Fow2~,r had devclopAd M-1 p.roperties and others had devolope~Y a-long Millex S~:reet in ~he pnstt that khe petitioner was aware that the proper.tieu in this er~~a were chanqing to industrial, there- fore, the petttioner wns not internatod in epondinq $5~~00 to bu~ld a ecreen wsll en the south aide for purpoeee ae eta~ed in the repo.rtr that thi~ Kas an exceseive~ coat and would not provide protectfon for th~ prop~rty to khe south~ that there woul•' ne no parking abutting the property line and Chere would be no he~d~ight F~~•~lamt and ttiat he wae available to anywer quentionet w~hereupnn Chairman Cauer inquired whether he wae willinq to provide a bond in the ~ver~t the reaidontial usAe were cantinued there, to ineure developmant af the wa11 at *'~e expiration of the time limitation. Mr. Bevins replied that he was sure tha petitioner would be willinq to dopasit a hond, however, six~ce he felt this woul~ be developed for industrial rurpor~od, the sdjointng groperties would eventually ~urn to ~n~lustria.L ueas. M.r. Robert Angle, 1341 North M+tler Streat, appeared beforQ the Comniiesion in opposition, noking thati h~, owned the propeity on the ~outh of the propoe~ed Y~uildina, and he could assure r.he pc:+itioner an3 the Cammiasion that he aauld not dev~elop his property 3n the near tut~are= that the peAple renting the pr.op- erty now had ema71 childrenJ that hA had s~~n some af the buildinys vuilt by Mr. Fowler which were leased out to peoplo, a:~d t.he adjoining pr.operty okners would not know what type of business wauld be movir.g into theae "Eper," buildingo, thezefore, they were opposed ta wai~er of the r.equired 6-foo~, m•r.sonr,y wrll~ that contrary t~ what was stated, ther.a were reaidento to tha north dnd weet of subject ~roperty a11 zoned R-A, and one was a flcwer. farm which woul$ be ad- veraely afFected by fumee from autom~biles driving in and out of thie deve~loF- ment~ that he had a petition signed by tha pro~erty owners on all sides of sub;ect proPar~y, including the people acroes the atreet= and then read eaid petitian of opposition. Mra. J. I,. Sullivan, 1373 Mi11Ar Str<~et, appeared before thg Gommisaion in opnosition~ noting ahe abutt~d aubj~ct property to the northwestj that +~ recaining wall wauld be required to hold bnck a chanye in e]evation of eubject prooerty from their property~ tha~t in her le~ter to a represent~tive oE the Developmant ServicQS Departmr~it, ~hey had inquired as to M-1 at~•ldarda end requeated that a 6-~00*. wall be conatsucted and at the sa~nE t,ime, a retaininq wall be zequired to xetain a 4-foot fill d~rx and a 6-foot ~vAll to tho west and north sides adjacent to the Sul.livan propertyr that other reeidents on Mi'.ler Street wa.^.ted the wall as well - this wa~l waa nece~eary to protec;t the ro~iden- t~al ,._operty from vehicular traffic noisee and dirt pollution. Mz. Bevina, in rebuttal, stated he was sure the Qetiti~ner aould i,. wi1).inq to pravide a bond if, in the futuxe~ a wa)l wr~tld be requiredi that he wae !u].ly aware of the fact tr.at a man'e homQ was hie caetle, however, he ~ot~ld loak aekance At cae oF the reaidentia~l propertie~ where all klnds of vehicleP r+aro e e~wn around this properky, ~horetore, he was wondering who was acreenir-q~whu, a..thouqh at preaer-t theee v~hicle~ did not prove a problem for tho petitioner, ~ ~ ~ MINUTF.B~ CTTY PLAhNING COMMISSrr1N, Au57u!+t 6, 1973 V11Rxl-NCI~ I~O. ZS31 (Conti~nu~d) 73-4T1 but h• di8 not ~~wl the petition~r woul~ h~ i.mpu~inq eimilar typ~ rubbi~h po,ll~ttion o^ h3~ pro~erty. Commiesioner Sa~rmour inquir~d wh~x op«o~lic us~a were ~lanned Por. the p~~opoxty, or would thie be a•tar.~wsd i.ndustrial "ap~c" rui.lding which wonld b• l~a~~d out. Mr. Bsvin• repliad tiiat h~ dld not 1-noa whe~t Mr. Fowler.'s plane ware. Mrs . 9u1' ivan notedl thnt M.x~. ~~ ~l~r h~lJ s pip• aampeny naar th~ir propert,y t ti~at ~he did noL• ~eel thu deve~.opment o! ~ub~eat property lfk1011.1l~ b~ pexa~itted unle~s the ed;~oininq property ownera v+~r~ a!lorded rome proteution lrom whst- zver uea might be estab~.ished i.n this indu~tri.nl com~lex~ and thdt ehe was ~rimarily ooncezned abo~at a retdinir~q w~ll and nothinq waa eaid nhout trat, ~•. sn thc~ugh tho elevation oP euL• j~ot ps:op~rty wt~s 4 l~et highe~r. than h~Y p rope rty . THF :tEARIN(; W? .i CLOSED. Commiesianer Seymour oba~erved that a men's homo wae his c~Rtla whether it wa~ ~nly wartt~ .6,000 or $~00,000, dnd h~ ~a~~ould be atrordecl the enme kind of protection, ~herefore, he could not sae where poaring u bond woul~ o~fer nny pxota~tion fox these ai~ngle-Family ryuidentiet uees, par.tiaularly c~inae the residec~~e :~;.~ ~ndicatad thelr lntenti,an o! residing there indefini~ely. Commi~nsioiier :~eymour offered a n~otion, aqc~nded by Commisetonez Kin~ A~d MOTION CAR~txr~, that the Planninq Commiseion, in connecti.on w+th an exer~ption dec].era- tion •+tus xeqnast, fin~la And determinee thdt th~: prupoa~l wou]d have no ~iqnificent anvironment~t imp.act dnd, therefore, recommenda to ~t.e City ~ounvil that no En~ironmental xmpact Statement ie nocee~aar.y. Commieaioner Seymour offexed R9so~utien No. PC7~-174 end mc;ved for its pa~eaaqe and ~doption to ~dny Petition for VaxiAnce No. 2534 on the basis that no herd- ahi~.~ha1 been px~ven by c.he p~titione+r except an economic re^son~ that the petitionex would be depriving the adjol~ninq aingla-::amily hozneowners oP the protection ~hey ~leeded ~r.~m in3.ustrial usee by leseeea of this property presently unknown since theae woul3 only lse "spec" hui.'_din,qs and the bui? al.ngs could bo occupied by lnduatrial usas that mighC be harmful to the existing residsntial uaest that tilere were no exceptianal ar extraordinary circun,vtances or .:un~itions applicable to the properCy involved or to ths intende~ use of th~e property tYiat dtd not apply genPrally to the propert~~ or clase of use in the vicir.ity a.nd zune . i See Resolution 8ook! Prior to roll call, Otfice Engineer Jay Titue ~dvieod the c"~mmission thrxt ~he potitior~er would not necessarily have to prov'idc~ a retainii~g wall but cov~2.d elope h=s pro~,erty, however, ~.he petitioner might find some differont raquire- men+: as it pertr,ined to the Buildinq Cade. Commiasioner Seymour state,d th ~:h0 petitioner would have to meAt Codo _.~ it ~ertained to grading and wall nstruction. CommiesionFr Farai;o ab~Arved tha* the pzoporty in question wa~s surrounded by other property whi.oh haa a resol.ut:lan of inter~t to M~l, ~nd wher.Y.er n0xt x~antl: ur next yeAr, *he adjoining =rc,aertieb edjacent to single-family usee wou18 have to construct thf, required ~ras~nry wall, as well~ t~ af£ord the protection naedeLi. On roll call the foregoinq z•esolution was pas~sed by the followtng votes AYES s COMMISSxOt3RRS: Farar~o, G~suer, Herk~st, S~:ymour. N(OES. COMMISSIONER.Ss King. AB3E[3Ts COMMISSIUNERBs Allred, Rowland. ~ ~ ~ MINUTIlS, CTTY PLANNING GAMM3SSION~ Attgust 6, 1973 73'~~~ V11Ri11NCE N0. 2535 - PUBLIC ~iBARiNG. COMET, iNC., k. O. aox ~366, Surbank, CA. ~ 91510, Ovrnart OEORG~ COLLZN3, 1265 Eaet Linaoln l~v~nu~, ]lnahuim, Ca. 92805, 1lyonti Yeqllestinh PIAYVEk 0!' kSRNI'PT~{D t1d1l8 TO ~STABLISH MOTORCYf:LE BERVICI~ 11ND REPlITR IN CONJUNCTIU~ WITH BXISTYN(3 tIOTORCYCLL ACCE890RiE8 A~iD S~L88 an property d~aoribed ~s: A reatanqulRrly- ~hdp~d p~ra~l ~f ldnd aon~ieting a! agproximataly 1,3 acre~, hav~ing a iro~tape o! •ppzuximately 160 l~~t on the nozth sida o! Linooln Avenue, i~evin; • maximum d~pth ot approxime~ely 43C teet, and b~inq luuatQd +~pprnximat~ly 350 leet ~a~k oL th~ v~nterlina oP East stxaat. Frop~rty psa~en~7.y c~aesitied C-1, GEN1~R11L COMML~RCLAL~ ZONE. '~he Ccn~mi~tion Secrctary indicated one, letr~et waw ra~e~ved in oppo~ition. Al.though the R~p~rt to tho Commia~ion wse not xead at t'~e ~ublia t:sari.nq, it is rafmrred to and made ~, part o~ the minuto~s. Mr. Gporge Collitie, agent for the patit~.on~r, ~+.pp4nx'ed tiefore the c^ommisaion a,nd noted that he hed beAn nparatinq a euloa~ s»d eervt~e uf n,otoroycle vehiala perl:• !or tome tima on thd propaxty, how~+•~ar, the •t,oninq F.nt~roemer~+. of.~icer hed contaated him r~nd tald him that tl~e u3e would ~. ba p~rmitted, ai~~] he would have to obtain approvr-1 0£ a varianaa to: tha us~t th+at children in th• az~s liksd to uee the di.rt area for runninq their motar.Uikes, howovc+r, n~w motor- bi1~e• wMich they waut~l nav~ woul8 -~e teatad an subject progerty~ +~nd thst 1! mubiect pm~itian were not appruved, thia would creato a rsal hnrdship. The Cammi~eic+n 8ecretar~ then reAd the let~ar oY oppodition Prom the Alpfia eexa Ccmpany. Mr. Coll~.ns, in rebuttal, noted that their fsciliEy +~as S.ocatec~ on the o~poeit,e aide of the building e~way from the Alpha Beta Compan} ,~•nd their property was naL beinq ueed for parkinq purpoaeo ~ f:hat hie l.anc~lord had advised hi.m the exieting buildingo ~rould be cgmo7tsh~d and rabiiilt, using somo of the curzent uni~~pr~ved ~ropertyt ?nd that eeveral A~.pha ',eta employees were sunning t;~eir mo+carcyalar c; the unimproved propvrty durinq Cheir lui~ah h~ur~- TH~ HEARING WAS CLOSL~D. Commiasi.oner Farano inquireS far wh~m did Mr. Collina do his zopair and aervice~ ~vht-reqpon Mr. ~o111n~ stated tY~at kheae ~~~~are Penton motorcyclea~ ~hat he wes a fzanchise de~._er and wae psogo~i.ng to sell motorcyclee. Comn-iPrxoner Farano noted tt~a*. if tha netitianec were an author.ized franchir e de~ler to oel~ motorcycles. ~ was not authorized to sell these vahi.cle~s in ~.he exis:~.ng zono and inqt• ! whe•~he~ thss~ uaee were pQrmitted in tho C-1 ?,one, Zoninq Superviaor Charles Roberta noted thdt the C-1 Zona was ~~n sub~ect y~ro~ert_v and Cho uses montion~d were C-2 usoo, 1~owever, he was permittea to eall aaoea- eor.i.er~ only, and the sale of motozc~ycles would ~ie a C-2 use. Commis~ioner Farano notad that he Mas aware tY-at in the sa'le of motorcy~lue they had to perform warranty work, b~t the zon:.ng on the pxo~erty would not allow the eale and .rapair wo.rk of motuacyclee. Ch~ir:nan Gauer inquirAd how and when did the peti'tioner establish this fsailitvt whereupon Mr. Coilins stated that the prop~xty wae vacant and the windows had been broken, and after he had rented e~ paxtion of the ~ui.lGing and ins~r~llad lYaodllqht~a, the beau'ty shop movcd !n next door to him and the-~ ~ dental 'laboratory, and now x real e~s~nte agent had moved into the buildinq aftox what he felt wa~ baaause he had up,raded the p+'~rezty, an$ he ha8 been succ~aeat~tl ~e~ugh in his exiginal locac~on in a sma~lez• area to warrant moviny ta the trox~t of the build :q. In add~".i~~n, he had a licenae to opeza~e this facility, and there Nere o~_her deal~rehipe iii Anaheim i: ~:~o comn:~rcial zane also operatiiaq- Commlae~~ner Faera~na noted that sv3n thouqh the getitioner had a].icenoe to operate, thl~ did ~not Authorl~e him to circvmvenr. the requisements of the zaninq r.eSulati.+nn, end then inquired whether the Depar~ment of Motar Vehiclee hnd ioeued him a~ ~ i r,ena~et whereupon Mr. Colli.ns replied affirmat•ival~. ~ ~~ MTNUTFG, CTTY PLANNING CQMMYS~YON~ ~ugu~t 6, 1973 73-473 V~R7ANC; , 2~35 (Continuod) Commiesion~r eeymour note4 that whmra th• other 8~al~r~hipa were looat~Q in tha commeraial zones, c:h~y h~d ~ ditt~rent zan~ than the propsrLy iR whiah Mr. Collino we~ l~aa~ed, with tha~ b~ing haavier zoning, ~nd in tnor~ xnaations thsy M~~~ ~lqo pozmittad to do r~pair on th~ro ~Q1:oray~~lea. Ch~irman Gnusr noked thst it miqht he appzopriat~ ta p~rmit thi~ ue~ to De o~tabli.shed until the petitioner ~~imael! d~molished the •xi~tin~ buildinpr and r~].oanti~d Che str~aaturoa, ~r. ~hiah time the petitlon~s aould than r~q~oe~ C-2 zo~iinq i! he deeired to etAy in tne aa.m~ looation. Deputy Ci~cy Rttarney Frank Lov~ry abvi~ed kh• Comm~~sion that aub3ect p~tition oot~ld be approved for n spacitia tims. Commiosionar P'ar~no inquired wha~hsr th~ petitionar d.lapia~ye~d hie mo*orayale~ outdoaret ahareup~n Mr. Coilins sta~ted that Y~e di.d notc, hor+~v~r, the other mo~oxayole ahop~ dia dieplay thei.ra outdo~ra. Commis~ionsz Seymrur offered +s motion, aaconde~d by Commiaeioner HerbNt anfl MOTxON CARRIED, that the PlaT•~iinq C~mmiseion, in conaectio-s with an exemption dea~.ara~t~on statva xequeet, find~ and datarmi.nee Chnt th~ ~ropoaa-l. v-ou~d have no signiEicant environmental impa~cr, an~;, et~erefora, recammende to th~ Ci.t~ Cc+unnil khat na Environmental imp~ot 8~eatement is neceseazy. Commiaei~nmr Seymcur atfered Reeolution No. RC73-175 and suoved fur its paaeage and adoption to qrant petition !oc Vmriaace No. 253~ for a perio~! ot ane yearo oubject~ ~o conditions, on the besi~ L•hat the aqent f~r the petitioner had in4ica :~3 t14e ownez would redevelop the p,r~perty within a year~ and if the agent ~t that time desiY ad to remain n~ thi.e loc~;.ion, he wuuld .have to ol~ta~.n C-2 zoning for the uee ~r relocate in a C-2 zoned area. (See Resolution aook) prior to roll call, the Commiseion inquired whether or not thesA motorcycles wc~rn rovvdd up for teating purpos~a outdoors~ whe.~~upon Mr. C~•llins 0ta`•ed t;hey were revved up within th~ ahop, and ttie be~auty ehop next dnor had i. dicated they did not even hear the motorcycles beinq teated. Commiasioner King atated tse would not vote tor s pe~i~~.on where motorcyclea rrere being r@vved up 3.n this particular azea. Comm:'eaionar Farano wae of the opinion thnt if eub~ect peCition w~re appxovod or eve~~ C-2 zoning wore approved, th~.s would sta-rt an t+utomobile daalerah~p on the property, which could be detrimantml ta ~ha sm+~11 r shops loca~.ad in th~s nroa. Cammiasicnor So~+mour noted it was hia undureta»ding from etAtementa made by Mr. Collins that this was nat part of th~ subgtantial poxtion of hie bu~ineea~ which was accec~soxies +and psrt~, and would c,nly be on the servicinq o£ new v9hicles on warranty. On roll ^all the for.ogoing resolution was pase~d by the Poll.owinq voce: AYES: CQMMTS~IONE RS; Gauar, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: C~DiMIS5IONERS: Farano, King. ABSENT: COMMISSIONE RS: 1111red, Rpwland. CONDxTYANAL tfSL - PUBLIC HFARING. xHURM'1N 1~. ROCK ANA LARRY THOMIPSON, 295Q PERMTT N0. iA03 East Lr Jolla Strc~e~, Anah~im, Ca. 928Q6~ Ownerat requee+t- ing permi.~pion tn ~STAHI.ISH A CONTRa1CTO~t' S STORAGE YARD WAIVING (A) M7C:IIMUM LIANDSCAPEG FRONT S~TBl-CK, (B) 1tEQUIRED 6-FOOT HIGFi SOLID MASdNRY ~QALL ENCL~3ING Ot1TA00R STORAG~ AREA AND ~C1 MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACEB on properl:y Qeacri.bed ag: 1~ rectangularl7-shaped pArcel aP land conaieting of apQroximately 4.4 ncres, t~aving ~ fr.:,;lt~qe o! appzoximately 29H feet on the south aide~ p! La Jolla Street, he-v~.ny a maximum depth d~ approxi.mately 640 feet~ and baf.r.g locaked at thd nouthoast corner of' La 3'ol.lu Streot and lt~d Gum StseE :. Propertiy presently a1~-ssifiAd M-i, LEGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZOt3E . No one spFeared to repreeen L-ha petitianar. ~ ~ ~~ MINUTE9, CITY ~LANNIN~ COMM*88ION, Avqust 6, 19%3 73-474 CONDITION~L USa P~RMIT NA. 1403 (Cant~nu~d) Zoninq Suporvieor Charles Roberto a3viaMd ths Commiosion thet ho had attempte~ ta cantaat the petitionar, howevar, beaauee ai the l~te hour had not reo~ived any r~tgon~e at the numbar in~ioato~l. G~~aiia~ionar Farnno o!lexa3 a motion, odconded bX Comuii~sioner Seymour nnd MOTION C~R,RI~D, to cont~nue Petition for ~nnditi~onal Laa H~rmit No. 1403 to th• me~tinq o! sopt~mber 5, 197z, in ordez to allow tim~ !~r the ~~etitlon~r to bs praoent to ~n~wer Commissxon q• tidning. CUNDTTIONAL i19~ - PUHLIC HEAItING. ~r1AH~IM W~ST LTDi P. 0. Bov 307, Turtin, PERMIT N0. 141ti ~a. q::680, Owne~~ FI:,IFYO LEPORIR, 31Sa Kest r.incq'ln Aves~ua, Ar~eheim, Ca. 9Z804, Agenti requa inq pazmi~4lon to L~3TABLI9H ON-t3ITE AEFR ANU WINL 9ALES YN CvNJUN~7':...N hITH A11 EXISTING PE9TAURA~IT on pzoparty desariued aa~ An frregularly~shspeQ parc~+l o! 1~nA consiat.ing o! approximmtaly 4.57 ecres at the •outheast corner o! Liacoln sod Westarn 1-venuds, hevinq a~pzoxi~.ate frontaq~es ut 29:` feet on the eoueh side ~t Lincoln 1-vanuc and 315 ~eet on the w~et aido pt Western Aver>>ie, and hr~ing a~ ma~ximLm dmpth oP approxim~Caly 58~1 teet. Prope:tx pre~~e:itly claes.lfic~d C-lo C3ENERAI COMMIERCIAI~, ZONE. No one appeAred in oppoaition. Although the R~port L•o the Con;miaF~lon wes nc: zead ,~ the+ publ.ic hearinq, it is re~arred to ~nd mado a pnr~ uf the minutes. Mre. ~ilippa Lepore, repr.esentix~g the dqent Fur the pet.itianer, a!'p~r~re~d betnre th9 ('om_uission and etiatdd that thc~y pxnpoaed to aell beer and win~n in conjunc- 1:io~~ ~~iL•h tt:e eale of food and thu~t they proaently did nht pr.ov~de enteztain- ment, and Lhan in reaponse ta gusAtioning by ~he Commieaic~n, etated thnt tboy wore a eept~rate ~`aaility frc.m Mimi'c~ (a taverni and that they would noti hava d bar in thia ree~taurant. THE HEAI~ING WAS C~,O5ED, Co~nmissioner Farano of~err9 a mo*.ioz, so~;onded yy Commisaioner Herbst And MoT7nN CARRIED, t.hat the planninq c:amuisaion, in connection with an exemption declaration atatus iequest, fin~da ar~d det~rminea that the pxopasal woulrl t~ave no eig«ificant environmerskal impact a~id, theretose, recommH•~3s to the City Council that no ~nvironmentA.l Impact Statemont 1A necasa+sry. Commissic+ner Farano offere3 Rasolution No. PC73-t76 and mc~~ed ~ar ita passdge and adogtion to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit .lo. 1416, aubject to canditiane r.+nd the added condi~ion that th~ petitiondr v~ould. have no liva entortai.~me~it as etip~ilated to by the ~etitionar. (See teaolution Bonk? On roll cal.l tl~e forogoing resolution wae pasaed by the follawing vote: AYESs COMl~I53I0NE1tS; Farano, Gauer, Herbat, King, SAymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEN'T: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland. AMRNDMENT TO 'P:'PLE; 10, - PUBL'!C HEARING. INITIATE~ BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLA[~NI'NG ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE CUMMIS5IdN, 20~5 East I~.{.ncoln Avenuet t~~ oonsider ~mdnd- ~ menta to Title ].d-Zoninq o~ the An~he~.m Nlunicipa' Code, Sectiona l:f.ls, R-E, Roaic~Pntial Estate, zone, PAr- mittad Pr.imarp Structures and :ISea, ~e~.witted A~c~asory SCruct~res anQ Tat~d Uoea, an3 Front~On Lots. Assistant qevelopmen~ Services Diractor Ronald Thompson adviaed the Commission that representatives of the Pezalta Hille Improvement Aaeociatian had adviaed him they liad add:tional information from the 4-H Glub regardinq thm nt~mber of animeia per acre or parcel that would be p~rmitted, d:~d oince tihie information wae recent.ly raceived, they were requesting that the public h~a.rinq an Chagter 18, 18, R-E Zone regetrdinq anitael malritenance and house move-ons be a~ntinuecl for e~ver.al weaY.a untll t:~ey h~d ~enough input to presen~ to atatt ar,r] thd r,on-mi ssion . Commie~aioner Herbst affered d motion, szconded by Camm.iee~icner R'arano +~nd MOTION ~ARFtIL~D~ to continue conaideratic , ~~ Acnendanent to :itia lA, A,~aheim Munici~nl Code, Chapter 18.18, R~~ Zone, ko th~ meeting of Septemhar 5, 197', for additional eeudy by the Paralta H±1~$ Impr4ven+ent A~eociation a.nd $taff, reques~inq tha~ aai~ ammndments bo pieaer~t~ec: tc the Cameaieaion a~. e woxk aeseion on Ruquat 2y, 1973. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNINC; COl~MIS~IQN, August b, ].97~ 7:3-Q75 RRPORTS AND - IxFM NQ. 1 R1CCnMMENDATIONB PAOPOSAL FOR MAJOR REVI9ION3 TO THE ANAFiS2[d ~~ MUNI('.XP~L ZONIING CAA~. Planning sup~xvisor pon MopaniAl advl.sed the Gommieeion ~.hat Che intant of Chis ~roposal wr+• Aa inAi~eted by Cho City Atto-:ney that An,y ahan~e^ to the ~aninq c:ode ahould eome thraugh tha C3.ty Council, nnd sinco thin MOU7.Cl b9 a maior OV61Tf1dll,L o~ the 1-net-eim Municipal Code, Titld 1f3, atsf! pa~ xequesting t1isL• tha Commiesion r.ecommcncl to Che CitX Cauncl.l tha~t the ('iky Couna:tl u~~n~i.Q~r khe naed and denirAbility lar. amondment ot' tihe Zoning Code in aocurdanca wi,th tit~e propoael ae out7.ined, and if. th~y canourrsd, to rofer it back to the Planning Com~nie~i.on for e~I~L•ailed stu4y end zeviaw ~-nd .urther rocommendatiane. The Commiasion woe of the apinior~ thnt changes of thie megn~.tu~fe and volume ehould be aubmitted und~r separata ~over to the Planning CommiAaion ratt:sr than mnking it e oaxt oP th• agend~ :For pub'.ia heering, And perhap~ it miqht be wise to review it et n work eassion. After further discuesion wi.th the staff ~+nd Aeputy City Attornsy l~rnnk Lo.+ry roq~rding tl~e ~act khat thie was ~ baeic outline o~ propoeed chanqea and not a getailed outlina, and einoe ~he Council would have to de~er~al.ne whether or not i~ was apQroprtate end desirable to ~rocaed with L•his rathor. t~ngkhy a~mendment of Tit14 18 which would eneompa:~a every facet of the Z~ning Code, that t~.~ Commission m~.ght request the City Cauncil to meke thie determina-tion be~ara any Furtnez• otudy nt woxk easaion wae mad~. Commiseionor FierbAt offered a motion, secondod by Commisaionnr Fara-no and MOTION CARRTE~D. to recommena Co tY~e Ciky Counci]. t~ r~~iew and con~ider the need and deeir~bility for amendmont of the zoninq Coda in uccord~nGS with tha proposed outline ee aubmitted by ata~f marked Exhibl~t "A", and i!` euch a1~+~ngAs were deemed apprcpriete, to z~fer it back L•o tho planning Com..._~eion for a detaile~d study and review and later recommendationa b;y the plani~ing ~ornmiesien. ITGM N0. 2 CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 939 (F~irmo:it Sc)~~.~1) - Roque3t for approval to move-on two educxtianal classrooms, constxuct a rebtroom fncility, and provide an asphalted parkinq area. Assistant F: ~nner Philli.p Sahwsrtze reviewed tbe lacation of. ~ub ject property, usoa eatablished in close p soximity, pxevious zoning action on the property, and th~* requeet of :.he petitioner, notinq that the City Council, at ita Jttly 1Q, 1973 moetinc, authorized the pet'~:ioner to move ur.-site p•rchaaed build- ir,ga at his own risk pendi.ng renewal of tlae conditio~tal uso ~+ermit~ that in cam~lisnce with thc~ July 10, 197~ City Council action, the petitionor requeated an extenai~n og timF which was granted by the Planning Commisei.an on J~ly 23, 1973j and that the Plannine~ Cornmission miqht wish to detezmine if k'he peti- tioner's rEquQSt was subetan~ially in campli.ance wi.tl the original approval of Cor.ditional Use Pe~mit No. 93~s ~r whet.her, in fact, another public hearinq should be held an thi$ matC~r by s:bmiCtal of r~ new conditiur.al use permit applicat•ion, Furthermar.e, the petiti.ar.ez, Mr., Kenneth holt, ~vae present ta anqwer questiona. Mr. Kennett~ Holt, reprersenting the owner oP subjoc~ propeXty, appaared be~are the Commission and stated that the City Council had qranxed aQpzoval. of the mo~.a-~r. at his own risk pending renc~wal of tha condition~l uswd permit a~nd ap~roval of the revised plans, and then indica'te4 on th~ r.evieed plrns the :Location o~ the buildinge, noti.ny tY~ak he wanted the Commisaion to determine ~w~Athcr t•k~eso plana ~-exe in confor~lanc•e wi~ the oriqinally~appraved condi- tional usa permiL•, and in response ta Co~amfseion queetioninr, sti~-ted the~t: most of tha childrAn were b ueaed in by ~rivate bus ta tha ocho~l, hawevpr there were aome parents wh~ brosght and picked up their o:zildz~nnr ~+ut that wae a very sma~ll percentage ot the sL•udent enrc~lment~ that they d3d noL have u oircular .:rivm~ that they ht~d been at thie l.ocation f.~r 10 yoarar that they presen -1y ha~ +~n enro].lment of a50 cliildren, and approximate~ly 30 to 3S children wer9 brouqht ~o scho4l by thsir parentst that it a+s~n dnticipate.i the student enrollment would r4mair the sa~ne, howeve ~, by thr epec~.al move-on buildinga they wer~q a~.temptincc to qet rid of a crowded claeeraom condition, ~ ~J ~ ~ M=NUTER~ CITY PLANNTNG COMM'I89ION, 71ugu~t 6, 1973 73-4'~6 ITJCM N~? (Cortinu~d) and the r~+-aon he had requsst~d Counci.l's approvAl ~ox thir move-~on war b~- oaune he had bid on Ch~r,~ building~, how~v~s~, thay heci tu ba r~mov~d imm~di- ataly lrom Lh~ir lnaa~tion in ssne~ 1-na~ anQ that it Mne hop~~4 •ventually to hevs a stud~nk Anrellman~ o! 40d e Ludents i~' the Cammis~ion would •llow l~t. 2oninq Su~ervi~ox Charles Roberte n~ted tAat v+hen Cunditi~nal Us~ Permi.t No. 939 was ariyinslly epproved, tha plar.p ir-dioatad thez~o +~oul~i be a oo~-b~n~tior- of ala~sroom• •n4 a~siatenanon ~aolliti~r ~or buee4, and the westaerly portion Npuld ba a r~oreation~sl area~ ~hat thin was~ *ha mar~a~r in aliiah the praparty aad d~v~loped now~ en4 th~e revis~d pZano cov~rad ~uet the vary e~anterly end ot tho prapurry where the potitioner pro~;o~sed to m~t-e-on th~~ buildinyr• ahiah Nere in the ~hotograph oubmitted. Commio~ioner Farano inq,uired whAt hsd hsp~en~,c4 ta i:ho l.ub~ aay ~nd L•he tool shed~ etc. for upka~ap of the busee~ whor~upon Mz. Holt eLat~d thet they ha~a por~able builAinqa ~or tha tool et~xage, ancY they di.~! not i.ukend to have the covexeli lube bayt that they would 80 only very li.ght meint~nanco at the buaeR an the property, and no heavy averhaul maintonanco would F,e ~ione~ nr~d ~inat the liqh~ msl.nter-anae vroulcl be done in the bu~ parki.ny area. Commiseionex Farana 1~nquired whether theee portable buildlnqa waul~ be moved l,nto the area whera the lormez bus~ niaintenanae and buo storage area ~as located ~or maintenance purpouba t whereupon Mr. tiolt atated the buildingr that thay wore propoaing to move il~ were ueed ae alessrao~ae ±n the 8anta Ana sch~ools and. would, be lacat6d on thase p~r~ione that wexe indicatad by CommSadioner F'+~xe-no. Continued diacusei.on wms held by the Commia~ic~n regaxding the proposal, and upon its conclueion, Commi~sionez' Ii~r.bst ottered a motion, ecconded by Cammisaioner Farnno, to se~ Pox ~urilic hearing conaidere~tion of Conditional Uee Permit No. 939 at the earlieat posaible de-tar that developmant plana ehould be submittod, as well as the filing ree paid by the petitioner, on the basia that the ad~acent property ownere should be affarded the oppor~unity to exprase their opinione, end if this were not aet for publ~.c hearing, the Commiseian would ba negating the right~ of the ad;~oini.ng property owners. ITEM N0. 3 TENTATIVE MAP AF TRa-CT NOS. 6215 AND 8219 (Anaheim Hille) - Approval of pzecl.se plnns of development - Pxoperty located on the south slde of Canyan Rim Road approximatoly 2100 leet eaer o£ the conterline of Nohl Ranch Raad. Aesistnnt Plar-ner Phillip Schwartze raview~sd the location of ~ubjeat property and *:,s zoninq sction on the property in which the two trACts had be~+n approved for ~ubdivision intc- 76 R-1 zoned lota an February 21, 197's, aubject to condi- tionsr tihat Condition No. 12 aP the Plannia~g Con~mission approval of' t3-eae tracta spocified t.hat pri.or to apgroval of the final traat me-p- final apecific p1Ans aliall ~e euk~mitted in acaordance with the provieinns oP tho PC, Planned Community, 2one i i:hat Reclasei~ication No. 71-72-44 propoeed PC zoning ioX the T-naheim Hi~le ara++~, and ~hie ~+-ag appraved in September, 1972, deeiQnatinq aubject proFerty ~or development under R-1 standa~:de~ and that a r~view b;~ ~taff o! the aubwitted final specf Yic pl anrs indicdted these u-ou2s be in c~n- formanco with the atandards oP the PC Zor.,e. Commi~ssionex Y.exb.st offarad a e~ot3.an, seconded bY~ovem~inalns~scificaplanaTvfN CI~R~tIEU (Commisai.oner Seymour abstaining) , to aPP P Tentatlve Map o.f Traat Nos. a215 and 8219, xecommending that the City C~~incil .,f:1,.:^7e Bd~C~ pl.dr:8. ~ ~ ~ M2NUT~3, ~ITY :~I,]-NNING f.OMMI8SI0N, Auguet 6~ 7.973 73-477 I'!'~M N0. 4 GENCRAL PLAH 11M~NDMENT N0. 129 - 9xopdaing amendm~~~c to ~he Circu]ation Alemant o~ tha aun~ral Pia~n - Hiqhway Riqh~~-of-W~y ~nA Art~ riai 5tr~+t~ and Hi.ql~wa~y~o. Chwirman c~AUOr weo of kh~~ opinio~n that tha CommtN~ion ehould nct set thie !oz publio heari.ng ~until a ~+~~rk aa~ai~on had be~n held bsuaus~ o! th~ y~QSAibl• wany ohsngoe that miyht ooour. Ae~istant pla-nner finlph Campton advi~ed no* to~~ invulvsd, althaugh the aompleke Commiesion Par cc,nsiderst~.on, xnd a!ew to be colle tor atreate oince tho loaal and A CO11leCt01C etreet re~uirwd 64 fc~~t. Cha Commiasion that the ahangee r-~er~ text tt+~d baen submittad to the planning looal dtreet~ wQr~ now beinq pxopooed atroet require+d only a 60-foot aidth Chairm~-n Gauer indioated ~khat the farmex Commisgionez ;loe Thompson •ta~~sd he Nould nevez vote to require people to dedl.aate th~+i.r prope.rty far atxaat~ wide~r-- ing purpoeea. Mr. Compton noted that Che~e amei~flmenta were reQuired in cr~ier to upd~+tm the O~~neYal Pian to bri~.nq it into aonEosmanaa aith th~ County's Mnwter Plan oP Artax3al tIighwaya, whtch wae in aonnwctian wi.th a finanoe program fox etraats nnd highways~ and thia 9hould have beers comglete~ and Piled ~+ith the County ia Juiyo Commiseion~r Herbst inquired whmthur or not the~ Commi~ael.on could hold a work eeaeion if aubject General P1an amex~dment wer~ set for pub7.ic heaii~ng in ~ix waeks bevauee thgro might be u~ma etreets tha Commieeion miqnk ba in disagrac~- ment. w~.tl~, and tlie Cammiaeion ehould hnv~a A chAnce ta et~dy thia rather than cona.i.dar l•.hie for. a weeken~'. OfEice ~.nqineer J~y Titua, in response ~o Commisaion quoetionl.ng, staL•ed that tha anticipat~d traffic flow c~etermined the ciaesi~icutioa of a strer~t, an~ thp claasifiastion of the street determined tho xight.-ot-way width. Commissi~ner Seg~mour offezed a motion to set fur public heazing conai.derat.~.on ~f General Plan Amendment No. 129 ta the mee~inq oi September i7, 1973, to allow time for the, Commi~sion to hold A wark ~u~sian xo consider thia Ae wall as chanyes to the Zoning GrdinancQ. Commissionex King eeconded the rnotion. MOTION CFIRRIED. TTEM N0. 5 WOItK SESSION Diacusaion waa hci•z by t~.e C~mmiasion as ~~ tlie appxoprfaCe time to hold a woxk seaeion tr~ cana:t,9er both the General Plar- Am~ndment No. 129 and 2~mendmen¢ to Tit.le 18, Cr~.apter 18.1~ of the Anaiheim Muni.cipal Code, and upan it~ concl~i- slon, it wag d:,term3.nei that a work session be huld nn Auguat 290 1973, ~t ?:00 p.m. ITE'.4 Ir'0. h GAi1F. ARCADEB 2oning Supex~-ieor _nar?og ~tabexte noted that ~h~e Planning Gommieeion on July 23, 197a~ recommenaad to the Cit;- C~uncil that mn intierpretatian be made thar gax+e arcades ~.~ere sisailar irs ct:axacter to boveiinq ail.eys, billiard center~, an8 ~.'.ot-c~r racing centeza k~as~d on informatian provide8 by the woning Di• :mc,n ang ehauld riqhtfully be peraeitted ir. the ~aame zanee ne these o~her aaes wora per~nitted, howevex, tho Commi~sion furthar noted ~hat accordir~g to tho infor- mat~on supp~ind by the Zaning Divi~on, the C-R 7.one wauld not pexcuiC aimile~r uee~ unla~s approved under ~ aondit3onal use permit, and chie wa~ erroneous inlorma~ion which staft had qivea the ~ommiea±~n e1.nu:, it we~ 1'ound triak bowl- ing elley8 were parmikted by riqbt rathex th+-n by conditicnAl ~xae p9rmit in trio C-R 2one, there~~~re, staf~ wc'=1d racomm~and tl~at the plaaninq C~~mm~saion amend their origfnal recoramende+tion ~~ pravfde thar ga~me araadae b~ permi~ted ao a matter of riqht in tha ~-R, C-l, C~2, a~nd C-3 Zonoa, and ~hAt ~hey not be per- mittecl ia the C-Q nnd C~H Zonea. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUT:~9~ CTTX BLANNXN~ COMP~xQ8~0~1~ ~~~u~~ ~i ~~~f~ ~3'"~A78 xT$ ,[~f~~,6 (Continuod) Co~miosionor esymour otPsroll a- ma~ion, s~oanaod by CammiR~i.o»~x King ,~n~Y MoTICN CA~RIItDr ~p x~oommond ta ~hs Ci~y CaanoiJ. tA~C ~h• Q~tne az~o~d~o b• por~eiaLa~ in tha 0•Rr Comm~rcial.-Rears~~tio~, Zoa~ by right srid tha* Lha Cammirel,nn'+~ ariqi»~1 r~aoamsnd~~ion r~par~i.nq qamq aroade~t be aaande~l Co peza-it R• a me~tt~.r, ot xi~lht r~id qame araaa~e in rhe C~R, C-1~ C-2, =nd C~~ 7tona~+ and thet th~y nAt ba p~rmitted in ~he C-O ~and C-H 7onea. 1~D~OURNlI1~NT - Ther~ bm3.nq no tuxther buoineao ~a dli~ouce, Gommiseianer Seymaur o ltered a motion to wdjourn ~h~ m~~t~ng. Co~nmi~4ios~~r Kinq neeondad th~+ me~l,on. MnT~ON CARRIED. Tha meet3ng a~d~ourned +~t 7:00 p.m. Respadttu~ly ~ubmitt4dr ~~ LJ ~/~.~J~Q~ -G„ ANN KRR88, ~eorstaxy 1~nah~im City Planninq ~Amaal.:ge~on J1K ~ nm A