The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1973/12/270 R C 0 FRICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. , ~ . .. . ~ ~ ~ C~.~.y .lal]. Ax~aheim, Ca1ilornid D~3cemb~r 2i, 1973 A REGULA~A ADJOURI3ED l~ET2NG OF _THE 1~NAHEIIK CITY PJ~11NN:[NG C.OMM?SSION FECULAY2 ~ A rec~ular adjourned meeting of the Anaheicr~ C~ty ~'lanni.mg AU~ ~vRNEp Commi~~ion was ~alled t~~ ordor by Cl-a.i.r.man Gmuer at 2 Y00 p.m. , ME?~TING t~ quoYUm bginq pre~ent. PF.ESCNT - CH~IRMAN: G~u~r. - COMMISSJONERS: A11re~a, rurano, Herbet, King, Rowl.dnd (Who er~tared thd Cauncil Chamb~r at 2:3Q p.m.1, Saymraur. ~BS1~NT - CGMM~3SxONERS: ~1on~-. pRESENT - Deputy City AttornFey: Frank Lowry OfficQ Enqineer: Ja~~ Ti~us Zoning SuQervisor~ Gharles R~berts Aesiata~nt P1a.nner: Ralph ComQton Commiasion Secret.a.ry: Patricia Scanlan PLEDGE OF - Ccmmiss~.oner Hea~bst led in the Pledge a£ Allegiance to thH 1~LLEGIANCF I'lag of tha Uni+:ed Statea o~ America. .~PPRDVAL OF - Conuniesion~ THF MTNUTES Allred and m«txnq of REaIG'NAT:[Ot~l dF PLANNING - (,"QMMISSIt~N SLCRL'TARY _ .~..~--_-.. ar Ki.ng off~red a motion, saconded by Commiasioner MOT.LON CARRIED, fco approve the minutes ~g the Noc~~~r 26, 1.973, a~ submiticed. Chaiiznan Gauer pre~ented letter of reaignat~fon from F ianning Camic~isoion Secreta.r~~ Ann Krebs, aaifl zesignati.on to be. ef~ective January 2, 1974. Gommissianer Al.lred offPre~ 2 motion, seconded by Commissioner Herb~~C ar:d MQTION CARRIED by uxsanimo~is vo~ke, to accept ~he xeaignation of A~nn Krebs with •regret as she had served ar~ Flanning Commission Se~retary for thir~een years in a fine and efticient -nanner. Further, that th~ Plannirl~: C~mmiss.ion extended best w3.shee to Nliss Kre~s aa she entered her retirement. Canuniaeioner Farar_o off.er~d a tnotion, r~econcied by Commissir~ner SeXmaur and MOTI:ON CAR~2IED by unan mous ~•ote, tha~ staff b~ direc~ed t,o prepare appropria~tg r~solution o~ aparecia;:ion to Mi~~ Kxebs. ~POII3TNlE~1T OF PLANNI ~~iG - Zoning Supervi~or Charle~ Rabert~ in~rod~xaed Mxs. CnMMTSSTJN SEC~tETARY Patricia B. Scanlan '~a th~: Pla~n~.ng Comm~ls~si.on ~d " recommended her to assum~ the position nf Plannir~g Commission 5ecretary. Commis~ioner Seym~c,r offered a mati.an, seconded L~; Cornr.~tss~.one • Farano »~z~d MATI0~1 CARRIED by ~.nanimous vote, to appoint Mrs. ~atxicia B. 5c~nla~n to the posik~on of Plarlni~ng Commission Secxetary effecti.ve i.ttmiediat~sly. ENVIRONMENT.AL TMP:~^T - REPORT N0. lU8 CONL~TTIVNAL USE PERMIZ` NO . 14 36 T~NT.ATIVE MAP GF '1`RACT NOa . 845.`i AND 8456 PU33LIC HEARING, A@7AFiE:CM HZLJ..S, INC.; TEXACO VFNTTJRES, INC.~ 38d Anaheim Hx11a Road., Anaheim, Ca. 9c807, OwT!~rs; 31M~RI~AN HOUSIlVG GUILU - T~OS ANGELF~, 409 ~~s~~rly ~Place, No. lOSo i~~w~art Aor~cn, Ca. 92660, Agen~. PropeX~y deacx~ib~?l as: An irregularly-ahaped parcel o~ land r,ansi~ting of approxiinatcly 29 acres, havi.ng frontageK of a~proximately 444 feeti on t.he north s3de and 937 ~est ~n thR south side ~~ Canyon Rim R~ad, having a maximum deFL•b af app.r.oximat~aly ~89 fe~~, ~nd being locatod approximatel.y 1200 feet ea~at of t.~-e cen~erline of Nohl Ranch Road. Propex~y pre~entl~~ cyasai~ied R~A, AG~I~ULTURAL, ~ONE. 73-~732 ~ ~ ~ MSNUTES~ CI'L'Y PLANNTNG COMM~SSTON, UeCemi~t~z' 27r 1~7a 73-733 ~NVIRQI~1MiENTAJa II~AG"i' RF:POR"~' N0. 108, CCINDI'~IpN~AI. USF PEiRMIT ?.~C~. ].b36, P,ND TENTI~.TZVF: MAp 0~' TRACx_NQ~. 8455 ANA 84~6 .(~o~ d) ~ REQiU~~TEA CONUI'PICINAL USE ~s ~STftBLISH A 1.22-UN"!7' ~ ONE A~1D TW~ S7`Q~v FLANNFp AESJQENTIAI~ DEV~TaOPNIENx, WATVING~ (A1 RECUIR~IS ~~T I'ROIJTAG~, (fl) NIINIMUM LiUILn1NG ~~:C'CE .A~%~~ (C) MIN~M~IM ~UILUTL~IG SITE WIDTki i(A) MINYMI',M D78T7~-NNCL~ IiE''"~F~.EN ~UILT~YNGS, (E) MINIM[lM YARD AN~ HUI'LDING SETt~A(:K, (~') IREQUI~ri 6-FOOT MAS()NRY T1AX,L, AEiUmTIP~G R-A ZQI1E, A~1D (G) MAXIMLTM AYtII~AING Hr.IGtiT WITHIN 15Q FE~T qF A S'IN(3~E-F'AMILX RF.STUENTIAL~ ZUiVE BOUN DARI . TLNTATLVt3 T~tACT R1:QUESTS: D~VEI~OPF;4+., 1~MERIGAN HOtISING GUIY,q, 409 WeatQrly PLdCE~~ iJU. a.OS~ NeWpUICt I3~Et9.Ch~ C•a~ 926G0. ENGZNFER: WILLDAN ENGINEERING AS!~OCIATES, 125 South Claud~.na St.r~~t~ Anahei.m, ~:a. 92~OS. Subjec~ ~rac~e aY~r~ propaaed For subdivision as foll.owa: Traat No. 8455 - 15.6 acrea -`!3 R~2 zoned loi:el Trar.t Nu. 8456 - 13.1 a~cr~s - 49 R-~2 zonec7 lotc. Subject p~tition~ raerE car~tinued from ~he maetinq of Navembt:r 26, 1973~ in c~rder.~ f.e~r the poti.S ioner to submi~t r~vieed plana. Zani-ng Superv9.sor ~"hai•le~ Ro1.7arta noted ~or th~ Cummission tliat t,ne petitioner was r.equeAking an, t1C1Cl~.tlOlli31 tvro-week continuance ~r.i nzder to s~;~btnit the revi.~~d plans. Cnmmissioner Kinq offerec~ a moti•on, seconded b}~~ ~~~mmi3si.oner H~rbst and MOTZON C[~RFtIED (Comm.ii3s_~oner Rowland was aba~nt) , to ft.rttier continue public heariz~g and considera~tion of Envi.ronmenta.l IMpact Repor.•t No. 108, Condi~ianal Uae Permit No. 1436, and Tentative Map o~ Tract N~is. 6455 and a4S6 to the meeti.ng oa.~ ~a~nur~r.y 7, 1974, aa r.equested b~~ the pe~i+:.io~ner. EN'. iRON ~'NTAL IMPACT - PUI3LZC HEARING. S`rATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMEDTT QF Los Angeles Box 2304 4 P 7 ' REPOItT N0. a.07 "'- ~ , , . . , ION~ ~ii.atrict T12ANS~ORTA'7. C<3. 90054 and PRUilENGTO E. YORBA, c/o Albert Yorba, RECI~ASSIF'ICATION 209~.1 Esperanza RUad~ P-nahei.m, Ca. 92$05, Owner~= Suite uel Drive 366 San Mi Y N0. 73-74-27 -"~ "'-' , g , WZL~,IAM F. ZYON GOM~AN 20.1, Ne~vport B~ach, Ca. 92660, Agent. Property de~- VARIANCE NO. 25G5 cribed as: An irregular•ly-shaped parcel o£ land con- '- -"` si3ting of appr.oximately 23.7 aczes, having a frantaqe TEN'i'ATIVE MAP OF of approximately 72U feet on the south side of Imperial ~h of approximataly fi40 ximum de i TRACT TIO. 8511, 1 N0 p ng a ma Hxghway, hav being located n~rthwestezly of the inter- and feet . REVISIQN . ., section of Orangethorpe ~i-,~enue and I'•~eria]. Fiighway. Property ~resently classz::isci ~^v'JNTY A1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. REQUESTED C]'.ASSIFICAT ION: R-2, MULTIPLE-FA~IILl` ItFBIDENTII,I~, ZONE. REQUEST~D VARiANCE: WAIVERS OF (A) MAXIMUM PERid:CTi~'n H2:iGHT WZTHiN 150 FEEx ' ' TING A I OF A~i R-A 7,QDlE AND (B) REQUTR~D MASUt7RY F]ALL Ak~U SINGI~E-FAMT~Y RFSIDENTTAL ZONE~ TO ESTABLTSH A 248-UNIT MULTTPLE RESID~NTIAL' Dk:~LOPMENT. TENTATIVE TR70.C'1' 1tEQ[JEST: DEVELiJPER: WxLL' 7RM F. LYON COMPANY, 366 San Mique3. Drive, Su~.te 201~ Newport Be~ch o Ca. 92660; ENGINEE~: TOUPS ENGINEERING, ING., 107~0 North Main Street, Santa Ana, Ca. 9270J.. Subjec.t tract is proposed far subc93vision into faur R-2 zoned lo~a. Suk,jeat petitione were aontinued from ths moet±ng of Novembsr 26, 1973, for ~khe ~etiti~ner ta su~mit revised plana. 1~ppr~xi.m.+~t~ly twenty persons indicated tt:eir preaence in oppasition t.o aubject petitione. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING (:CMMIS5ION, D¢~c:omber. ~7, 1.973 7:i--734 ENVIRONNQjNTAL INlPACT REP~RT NO. 107, RECL~ASSIFI~.~~TION N0. 73-74-Z7, VARIANCE N0. 2565 AND TENTATIVE MA~ OF TTtACT N0. 8511, REVx8I0N NO. 1(Cor-tinved) Zoniny Super.vieor Che~rl~~ kaberts reviewed the location oE e~ubject property ~ Anc~ t.he auY~r~~undinq land usos and ststed when the ~etition~r wae befor~ the Planrir.g Commiesion on November 26, 1973, thorg were sevoral aoncerr-e ex~re~sed lay the Commi.s~ion rele~tive to the site p].~r- r~nd th~ petitioner had aubmittad re~~sed pl.ane which hopefully would r~~alve some of the conaernaj that the xe- vised plr~n~ r~Pl< r.t~d 13.4 ~wQlling units per acre and the co~verago o£ the ~~ro jpct wa~ rs~proximatoly ~5~ j th~.t an~ of. tl-~e aoncarna hdd bean accass itito the :lndividual gar~ges th~~t wer.e a pr~x•t of the dwelling unit complex as it wr~s diffioult to get some automobiles t.hrougr. the 8-foot garage c~oors, and the pQtition~ar was now ~roposing te have 9-faot wide yaragoar that oic~ht of the bui].d~nga ~n the xevia4d plans at tY-e ~outheast end of aubject prop~rty would !~e wi.r,hiii 150 foot of ~he ad~jacent R~A zon~d proper.ty immedi~tely ta the e~stt that the R-A Zone is tQChnically a siriqle-family rosider~~i.al. zon~, howe~~er, th~ Anahei-n ~nsral Plan ~3esignate:d t.hat partiaular property aa being apprupri- ate for medium deneity re~idential dev~lap~nent, which would be the City of Anahei,m R-~3~ Zone, and the petittaner htxd indicat~sd they w~uld propose R-3 zon- i:~g and develapment on thE~t prop~rty at a lateX datet ttcat aoncarning the roquost for wr~iv-~ of the 6-.foot znasonry wall abutti~ng the single-family rasidential zonc~s on ~h~ north anc] 3auth, the property would be pr~posed For development of R-3 ~t a].ater date and tho petitione,r's revised p~.ans indicated the in~ent to aon8truct a 6-foat high masonry wall at ~hN top of the alope instead af at ~he tae of ':.tiF slo~e al.ong the w~at property line, which abut~ the I~S-5000 Qubdivision, s~~id placement to be at the top of the slope in order to p.rnvide the maximum degzae of privacy to the sin3lc~~-fa~.i~.ly residence~; th.at the pel:itioner had al~o ind:icated ths intent L•o landscaFe the glope area be- tween the pro~o~ed wall and the existing prnperty line ~n order to provide z~ddi'tiAnal scxeeninq ta bufi'er the axea.; that concernf.•Ag fi.he trafftc accer~5 to suo~eat prnperty, the Commissinn had expreoaed r,or1~ern ~~er the proposal to e~Gtend Gresthill llri.ve throu~gh tize project an~i it was suggested that Cresthill be laoped ~iaak thro•aqh the adjacent -:irig'le-family tract to prPVQnt an increase in n~ultl.ple-family rssidentia.l ~raffi.G goi.ng through the single-fami'-y sub- division; that since the Noveinl~er 26, 1973 meeting, the Traffic Engirieer had ~onducted some additional stu~;ies on ~he mattex and m~de some projections baged upon past experience ancl was recommending that the strPet b~ connected w~th thE existin~ street to allow foz fr~e movement of the exieting singlQ- family subdivi.sion and the prok»sed pra;ject, if appxoved; that the •traff.ic studiea indicated ~hat with thE~ stzeet ex~ended fr~m th~ mul~iple-£amily pro- ject ~o the single-family tract, there would actaa'l1y be fewer cazs at the inter.section of Cresthill and KE~l.logq than there would be if there was notririg built immediately east of the si.ngLe-family subdivis~.on~ and the rationale was th~i~ some of the people in tlie s.ingle-family eubdi.vi~ion would use Cresthill Drive to tznvel in a southeast d:irection .rather than goit~g back out to Kellagg; that 3.t shnuld be noted on the rE~vised plans rha~ a street had not been extenc~ed at the southeas* corner af the project as i~ was shown an the ari.ginal plan and a private street was now indicated to be loc~ated in that area with no ~rovisio~i for stubbing the street into the Eas~erly boundary; 'that the Traf~ic Engineer was of the opinion 'that it was vpr:Y importan*_ that ~his publiG street be ex- t~ndsd with provi.sion for extension to the property ta th~ east in ordYr that it could be turned into Orangctt-.arpe pvenu~ at a].ater d~te to ar.commndate th2 adda.tional traffic th~t would be generated by tlZe proposed R-3 proiect; that concerning the inadequacy oz l~ack oi paz3cing, th<: rPVis~d plans provided addi- tional parking and ~hc rat.io was approximately 2.A s~acea ger dwelling unit, that said additi.Unal parking spaces v~-ere provided in 8ev~ra]. locations, includ- ing to the rear of many af the building complexea and near the recreational arei~, and in all G~3'~38 open space was furth:er reducedf and that req~rding trash co7.:'ection, i.t should be note3 that in two or three inatancss it wou~.d b~ neces- sar~~ for soma of the r.~sidei~.ts ta c~rry th~ir trash conta~.ners down l~-ivewaya for 1~.0 to 190 fe~et. Mr. Roherte cor.hinued bX stating the Anaheim Genaral ~lan de~iqnated the subject pra~~erty fQr medium-density r~s~c~anta.al deve~opm~nt which cou].d ?~e implemented by L~.tilizinq eith~r, th8 R-~2 or R-3 zonxn~ atanda-zciaj however, the petitioner was proFoaing a~leneS.ty actually less than wh~tt would be perm~~tted for a typical rental complex in tY-e R-2 Zon,e but the densi.ty ~MCeec~ed what hmd gener~lly be~n approve~l as far ~s condomin~ums or planned unit developmenrsf that as a ma~ter of p~l:icy, th~ Planning Cammission and City Cour~cil ha~ adhaxed to a m~xi.mum of 12 u~~lits per n~t reaic~ential acre and t;ze petitioner wa~a pro~osinq 13. ~1. n LJ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION~ D~aemb~r 27, 1.973 73-735 ENVSRGNME:yTAL IMPACT R~POR'r NO. 1U7, RECLA: SIFICATIQN NO. 73-74-27, VARIAI~CF; N0. 2565 AND TENTATIVE r1AP OF 'PNACT N0. 5511, REVISIqN NQ. 1(Continu~d) ~ ~ir. Peter Uchs, ~xecu~tiv~e Vice President, William S. Lyon C~mpany, appeared before the Commiaei.ox~ a8 ~epresentative oE the agent fnr tha peti~ioner, And stated Mr. ~toberke had c'~.eaueaed mo~t of the char.JQe that h+~d been inr.orporaL•e~l in the revised planat th~~ fol.lowing thair prasentuti.on ~~t Nove,mk~er 26, 1973, and in light of the comman~.R ~nafla at that time, a number o! che.nge~ had bedn mad~ to thPir p1anJ t}~a~ they had met twico with r~p~esentatives of th9 homd- owners who lived in the adjmcent einyle-Family aevelapmenti that h~ felt the meetings wera pxoductive .:nd he appreaiat~d the hamec-wnera' reApon~ible approach; that concerning the garage aizo, these were now 9 fee~ inatee-d oP 8 feat anA that the Commi.ast~n'g aoncer.n was a valid crit.iciem ar~d they were consic:aring changing tho remaining unirs in their exiating progzam ta aacomno~~.te the wido•r op~ning= thr~t Fheir previoua parking ratio had been 2.01:1 which met Cod~+ BtAIlC~B'1C15 but tha Commis~ion ~~mmented that there was not ~::~ough gueaL• park~.ng prc~vided, ax-d they were proposing 88 addittonal opan par.king epaces, i.nereaaing the rati.o to 2.43s].1 that they had tried to di~tri~ute th~ additiona7. parking spaces evenly throuyhout tha pruject and even~ a:ea wa.s adequately s~rviced, however, ~he open parkirig apaoes were kept- zo the bsck of the buildings or in a consolidated parking b~xy to redu~~ tha viuual unattr~ctiveness a£ cara parked on the streeta~ tha*. if thF adjacent R-A paruel was developed, ~he vaziance req~;ested canaerning rnaximum permitted he~.ght within 150 feet of an R-A 'Lone would nat be required; and that th~y were no lang~r requ9st~.ng waiver of th~ required block wall adjacent to ~he axiating single~Pamj.ly dcavF,lopment since they wer~ pr~posiny to put a block wall at the t~p a£ the slope and further propoaed to construct. ~, row of aingle-story du~lexeg at that end of rize pr~~iact, as well as ta land~cape the area between the exiscing grapestake fence at the toe of t,ie slupe and the propoaed bl.ock wa~I at the top of t.he slope, to grevPnt the narth fr~m movinq down ~he a:.ope during rains s~nd a:.so ~c.o correct an unsi~htl~ condition and creatP a f.ea"linq of priv~cy at th~~ boundary. N,r. ~chs prer~ented sl.ides showing the slope at the nox~h end of the s-ub ject property anii stated the~ plan was tu lower the bank, construct the blc~ck wall at the top ~f the slape, pull the toe of the sLope back 3 fee~ to prc~vide for a drainage well tu ~ollect the r.ainwater in the area and run same oui: to Cresthill Drive; and that the l.andscapi.ng nn the slope would be cammonly main- tained, professianally. C4MMISSIONER R7WLANn EIYTE~D THE CQUNCIL CIiAM~ER AT 2: 30 P.Nl. i ^^ti..7I"i wi~.it ~al~ OVl{:rVy Mr.. Ochs Continueci by stati.n~ n cc:~n~~ '"- " `~-^^' wX*'P1-?~i nn at ~the southeast carner of subject ~roperty, such an ex~.ension would represent an extreme hardship in t:erms of economics and los~ denaity ancl in their opini~n was a poor plan; that they proposed to provide pedestria~. connectior-s so there would be the ability to circulate baak and forth but that the stxeet connection wAS not necessary,• he showed plans indicating private cul-de-5ac stre~~ts coming from the public street, versus the public straet goitig through the project and indicated that the jog in the street justified the conizection as ii: di.scouraged through tra££ice Mr. Ochs continued, trie reason ':h~y 11ad not changed the den~ity ~was because of the economic c~ifFiculty ~his project created; t.hat thex were compellsd t~ leave the c;ensit,y unchangec~; ~that ~hey w~ ^e still pzov.iding approximat~ly 12 acrpA of ope:~ space, which coinci..~enta.lly was t.he same amount provicled in thQir existing project wl-~ich had 70 r~~r~~ uni~s using the ooen space; that in conjuncti~n with thP open space at the end of '~hP unita, the 2'7-~oot distance proposed fo~ a few of the units between ~xnita ~till gave an open fee~.- ing; that concerning density, the survey conducted by Dr. Car1 Ndrerosei af Urban Land Institute indicated one pxedominant findin~ tha~ the more 3e~nse a condominium project, the mnre dissatisfaction; howeve.r, in hia oPi.nion this was not true on a blanket basi.s because there were gooci planning considerati~ns that could reduce ~he feeling of densi~y in a person's mind~ that by having buiidings with four unil:s ea~ch, having a combination of single and two-s~tory, with distinctiv~: architecture, saund~-proofing and pa~ty wa11s, enclosed patios for mo~t of the units, and the er~closed garages in an ~ttempt to get cerz; ofE tl~e street, they had created a very attrac~ive li.ving environment for xhe people who would li~-e i:hexe . • ~ MINUTE~~ CI'~k PLANNItvG COMMI.SSION, Uacembex 27, 1973 73~736 ENVIRONNiE~!T~1L IMPACT REPORT I30. 107~ RE(:LF.~3` SIFTCATIQN NA. 7a-74-27- VARIANCE N0. ~505 AtCD TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAC.T N~11 R~VxSYON_N0. 1(Con~inuod) Mr. M. E. Adamea, 1915 ~ldmr G1.en Ci.role, Anaheim, appoared batore Che Commia- sion as spokesm~nn f~r the reefden~s o~ tha adjac4nt eirigl4--lamily dovel~~~mant in op~oeition to eub'ject peti,tior.s, arid read Pram a pr~~are@ etatemont that their objections war~ bneod on four major poi~nts: 1) the reguest for waiver of the required b].oc3: wall which wou].d ~hatter the in~~gri.ty o! kheir eingle- ir.mily community and impase on their right to privacy- 2) suah a develapmonk w~~uld have a~~eqative i.mpmct on thair investmont in theiz~ hamee, 3) the openinq of Cresthill Drive which would present a tz~emenc:oua eafet,y ht~zard to their. children due to incraased v~niculRr traffic, and 4) the propos~d ~ranaition from a low-denei~x area to a high-density area was too abrupt~ that they hac~ met with the d~veldper e-nd Ci~.X Traffic Enqinear r~nd gome ot the circumetancaa had changed; 'that the Wi~llian~ 5. ~.;-o:~ C"ompany had agread ta withdraw their xequest for ~rariance allrnrir~g th~m to diapense w~.th the block wa].1 abutting the sit?gle-famil_}~ cievelopment as the re~~ised plane would ~.nclude a block wa].l at leas~`. 6~eet in height t~o be placed at the top of the slope adjacent to th~ir tr:~at; that the rasidents were gl.ad to have th3s wa13, however, they did not consicler it to be a cancQSS.ion to the homeawnere aince t:he zorqing rogul~-- tions wer~~ already in their ~avor= tha~ wh~.le the disc~iseions ~cone~rning prop- eri;y valueaz rnighC be purely academic at present, hiarory and sny r.eputable real estate brokex wauld suppart the conte~tion of deael~ra~ed a~?preciati.on due to the presence of hxgher density dev~lopment which was ad~acent to and most importantly acc~ssible to the single-family neighborhaod; that the Traffic E.Zg~neer was rocommer~d~ng that acaess be yr.ant•ed through Cresth~.11 priv~= tYiat the opez~ing of ~hia street into the high-denai~y area w~uld cr.eat~e aiz unneces- sary increase in traffict that the deve2r~per had altered the traPPic p~tterz~ somewhat so as to slightly lessen the number Af veY±icles oince it ha,d bepn propoaed to a1Zow traffi~c frcym the apaxtment a~mplex, which waa planned on the eastern boundary ~~f subject property, t~a fl~~w through to the aondominium area; that the plans had been changed to seqrEgate the areA so far as v~;hicular traffic was concerr.ed; furtl,~x, that ~ome streets had been laid aut to induce traffic to use ~he Urangethorpe e~:it; howevPr, the residents were sti~.I. con- cerne~ ab~uL kh~ C.re:.,thi11 access; that the Traffic Engin~er had brought ~u~ ~;everal fire, sa£ety ar,d emergenc;~ re~asans for op~ning ~he street; ar~d that v:ilile these reasons se~med certainly valid when prasented they ~oulcl not he:.p ~but asls why there woulc be any differ~nce from tl~e present ei~uation att~r the land was devel.nped, since they were presen~ly living wtth the so-called hazards; tP-~at i.f the hazards were sc c{reat, the str~et should have been put thiaugh alread~•, and £or those r~3~ons he railed tu se~ ths Tratfic Engin~er's reasoning ax~d the necessity fcr a thr.o~igh s~reet; and that ii it was f~.nally determined necessary to t-lave access fc~r emergency reasans, he ~vnu7.d ~agges+: that it be just far emnrgency acce~s ar~d i;hat everyclay vehiculax traffic be blockc.d off. M~, Adamec continued by ~tating that their majar cotitention was tht~t they eonsidered the a.rea to be too clense; that they k~oulc3 not tai9h ihe proposed way of Iife imposed upr,n them agaii~ as most of them had moved from ~ha~ ~ype ~n~ vironment; that it was thcir op~.nion that fi.he pr~pased type of c~evelopme~nt wa,~ genezally s~l~-~contained and grl~1ted access fro~r~ a main thor~~ughfare; ttaat the groposed arrangement would grant accPSS thr~ugh the resid~z~tial area arid vixtually piace the residents in 1:he same c~nviranment from which they came; that they would suggest to the Wi',!.xam S. Lyon Company ~.hat thPy cansider ~inqle-family dwellings, s~.ngle-f~.~~ily candominiums such as Woodgate, r,r at least single-story 3uplex buildir,ga; that the~ w~u].d welcome anything that wauld low~r th2 densi~;~ and maintair. the rural atmosphexe that the vi~w of the surzoundinr~ hills naw o.`.fered; that t21e prog~sal w~uld change the area into a crowded cii:yfied environmentt and tl~at since th~ Planning ~oanmiasion had ex- preased some disp~.e4su.r.~ with the ~irst unit being develaped by the William S. Lyon Company, he would d:.ecourage haviny more of the s amo. I:~ r~buttal, Mr. Ochs sta~ted he believed the prirt~ary opposit.inn to the project from the ad3a~ent residenta stemmed from the Cuestion of acceee thrdugh Crest- hx11 Drive, more than from ~he projQCt itsE~lf; that the buffer had now been provided for those unita immn~iately adj~~:ent to the aingle-famiYy developmer~t; that because of t~ha terrain ~nd cnaract~r of the 1and, the single-fami.ly dwe11- ings further back from t.he pzoperty line of subject property wouLd ter.c3 nc~t even tn seP the build.3.ngs on th3e aitef that the subject ei~.e was preaently unsightly and had no subetantiul character in and nf it~olf, an~i what~ver the ~ ~ MJ,NUTES~ CxTY PLAIZI~ING GOMMTSSTON, December 27, 197.~ 73'~~~ ENVIRONMENTAL :LNIPACT F,EPORT N0. 107, RFCLASSI~'ICATION NO. 73-74-27, V'AItIANC~ N0. 2565 AND TEN'rATIVP; I~IAp OF TRACT NO. 8511, R~VISION N0. 1 (Continuod____)___,_ d~vel~apexe did it wou].d be an improvement; that r,omparing dAnaities, he could i~n~erstai~d why the single-family rt~sicAc~nts h~ad ~~i~ferent po~nt o~ viewt that i~ it wd8 e~cnnomicall~- fedsible to build m~re single-£~imily dwnllinqa similar to tho adjacont trac'c,, the trenaition zone would then be mc,vod to ar~other po~.nt, howev~r, it would et17.1 oxiet sinc~n the exi.ating condamini•ame wouzd providc~ it whcraver the sinqle-fa-mily stopped and with that i.n mind, Mr.. Oct±e atated th9 d~ovelapers h.ad done wtiat they aould to mc~et tl~-e ab jocti.one nna that the~ raet was up ta th~ Planninc7 Commieei~n. Mr. CharZes Rober.te pz'ASanted anc~ Xoad a.letter dated November 27, ~.973 fro~n tihe Placenti~. Unx£ied ~chool nfstxict in o~~position to subjeet petit~.onq. In rebuttal, Mr. ochs st~ted that when the oriyinal project wr~s under conetruc- ~inn which wae apprcved ap~roximately tw~ y~ara ago, the Placenti~- UniP.i~d Sat~oa~. Di~trict had a population projoctian for studenta= that the current enrollment f.ar the first 100 units waQ less than one-half the projeatinn and if. that trend continue~~, the ~kot~.]. of thttt p•ra jeci~ plua the proposed pro jeot wou~d havs no mor~ stu~iants than the nr.~ig:lizal prejeotion; and ~hdt if the cnnetructi~n neei.s ant:lcipated over two yoars ayc were nut met, he did not know how much tine the achaol d~atrict rieeded to meet the n~:eds. THE PUbLIC HEARINu WAS CLOSEU. Cammi.asianex Kinq noted ~or the Cammif~sian t:h~~. Section IIr, It~m G af Environ~ mental Im~act Report No. 107 shoul~ be changed fr.om "Southern Countiea Gas Gaanpany" to read "Southtjr~s Califozn.iP~ Gas Company." Commissi.oner Farano offered a motion, seconded by C~mniisaioner Herbst and MUTION GARkI~;D, that the Pi~nning C~~mmission in connection with ~he filing o.f Enviranment.al impact Rep~~rt No. 107 find~ and deter.mines that t2ie EIR R~~view Commi.ttee determined tha~: ttie .repor.t ie a3equate a~ un informative dociunent and fnllows the City's a~~tab~ished gu.idelinss and that there would be no Eignificant adverse envixonmen~al impacts; and, therefare, the Planning Co~nission reccmmend~ to the City Council that a~id re~~art be adopted as ~.he Cauncil' ~ Environmental I~npact St.ai;~:nent. Commissioner Seymour notec'~ there 2iad been a great amount o~ work and ~ome i.nc3ividual communir.aticn and gor-8 thinking on the part of both the developQr and thE homeowners and in ilis opi.nion their. problems were very suacinct; that becaus~e of the fac~ that tlie adjacent oubdivison was ].ower density, his per- sonal experienc~ was that thzrE~ would not be a loss of property value, however, a highez der,sity in con juction wi~th a rur--down neic~hborf:ood na doubt would affect the value of the hom~~s. He indica~ed some concern regarding ~he atreet throuqh the projec+: and the e:{tremel y hazar~3ous Lurn that wou7.d have to be i~egc~- tia~ed at the jog. In r~:Fly to questi~ning ~af Gommissinner Seymour, Office ~:ngineer Jay Titus advise~ it: was probably intended that Cresthill Drive go thrQUgh the project a~d noz~m,.~l].y when there are turns sucl-~ as that, the speed of the traffic wouYd be slawed down; that .long, stra~ghL• streets tended i:o in- crease the speed ~f the trai'fic; t~owev~r, he did not feel the two 90~ curn;s were hazardaus; further, that slnae the branch of ths street was not proposc:d to be cul-dP-saced, no spec.xal traf£ic signi~,g or dev~ices wauld be necessary as it did not seem to be a problem. Comr!iissianer 5eymour state.d regardinq accessib~.lity, kie did not li.ke to ga against the experta, howe~~er, in a laym~an's opinion, hQ did not see th~ need for ACC~t381b7.~.lt~- th.raugh the singlA-£amily subdivisionJ rhat it did not appear to be that much fa.stez or convenient to use that xoute to Orangethorpe as it wau~cl to use Kellocl~ Street= that the accessibil:.ty pr~blem in r.is opinion could best be resolved by providinc~ tl~e emergency access only an3 at some future time this could be changed if necessary, Commisaianer Seymour nated 'that the Planning Commission policy was to approve 12 unita or less per acre in the SL1b~2Gt. are~ ar.a that the Commiasion w~s no~a faced with a densit~ in the proposed project of 13.7 unita per a~re, snd ~here waa no way he could vote for that type den~ci~y at the eubject loca~ion. He fur.ther stated 'that he would prefer to ask the petitioner if he would la.ke a co. ~r~uarice in order to revise the plans wi~h lower density to more canform with ~.t~e Commiseion's ~,alicy . . ~ ~ MTNUT~:S, CTTY PLANNING CUMMI98ION, t?~camber 2'1, 1973 73-73f1 ENVTROIVM~NTAL TMPACT [t~PORT NO. 1Q7, RE3CI~AS3I~'TCAxTON NO. 73-74-27, uARIHNCE N0. 2565 AND 'I'ENTATIVH; MAP OF T~ACT NO. ~511, REVISION N0. 1 (Con~inumd) Mr. Oche etaked tt~oy would be hnp~y to t~aok a~ the dena,~lty prob].am and re~-work the planl Chat ~-e i~e underetood Commisaionez ^eXmour, thA ~mergenay ~rccee~s at Cr~athill Dri~ve wuuld be+ for lires, otc, j~nd that thatc skre~et would ;~a cul-de~- aacbci. In r~gard to tha extenei~n of khe publio gtreet a~ the 8Al1t:Y1E~dRL' cornez oP sub,~ect progerty, hc r~dviaed thi6 oxtenoion would preaentlX creet~ very ~oeri.aua c^anomi~ prob2,eme Por khe devolo~er. Comm'_.~~ionar H~rbet gtatod he wc+i-ld ].ike 1:a hear th~ 0~'tice Engi.n~~r's commertts regarding the Creethil.l Dr~ ve aaceaR ; th~+t th~ omergency-only acces~ would limtk it to em~r~ency vehiclee only, hawevex~ grom the ~ize ~f the area it ap~Qared thia might be limiting govd scund planni.ng ir~ that ragr~rc~J that all ovez the City, the~a was R-3 zontnq r~kruttinq R-]. and th~ str~et patterne were in tt,e bes~ intereat of the generdl publiai ~nd thdt L•he airculr~~iAn paktern b~i.ng praposed wa~ wel]. desiyn~ci. He further state~d that reqdsding den~it,~, it woulcl have to bo lower to be within tha.etandArc~s :ier~taEare aAC by the Planr.ing Coynmis$ian~ that the petitioner k~ad riot lower~d the ~onsity r~ince t:~e Planning r_ommiesion rQViewed ths project on Novembez 3G, and by lowerixig the densitr it would he].p thei project. Concernirig t'.te propused Qarkinq opacea, h~ atat~c~ if th~a aub ject propsr~ty was deve~op~d RS-5000, each home would hav~ appr.aximately 5~arking spaaas or 16 apace~e for 4 liouaes ~nd the propoeal al- lowed on].y 10.8, ancl he questioned why a fourplex wAe coneiderecl with leas res tde^t~ or guesta per home . Mr. Oahs statad 4~8 of the buyRrs wer~ t~ingleg, not fumil.ies, and that thc~y did not have children an~d thP =ouxplex units did nat gererate more; khat ~here would r.ot be a parking grob).Qm and the propooed pr~ject would mnr~ than ade- quatc~ly eerv~e its resid<..zts. Commissioner. H~rbet inquired regardi~ng the developer's long-ra..ige planning wh ~ these particular homes got cheaper, that the des•elopment would be cons~ructed for adult living bia~~ i;hia might change ~ln the f.uture; and what would '-~e the change of pattern, He ~tated that the parking being alloe+~t~d ~v~n i.n RS-5000 developments was not adequate. Upon inquiry of ComRCisaioner Fsrano, Mr. Ochs staced st the last meeting there was concern regarding park~ng, acces~, ax~d densiiyt and thett they wAr~ still trying to pare the prr~posal dawn t~ ~ be~ter pro ject . Chaircnan. Gauer cammented that although 9-foot garag~~ door.s were be~_ng prupc~seci ~ there was not very much r.~om between tk~e buildingsp and that a large car would have trouble getting i.n+~~ the garages if they we e too close ia~ether. Commis~ioner Seymour offered a mation, s~conded ry ~~n.nir~r~ioner Fa~ano and MOZ'ION CARRIED, to reopen the he~ring and cantinue cansid~ration af Envxron- men±al Jmpa~ct Repor.t No. 107, Rsclassifica~ion Na. 73-74-27, Varianae No. 2565, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 8511, R~vision No. 1, to the meeting of January Z1, 1~74, to allaw time for ~h.E petitionei to submit re~ised plans wi~.h speci f.ic emphasis cn denai.ty and p~rkinq. Mr. Roberts inquired if the Commissi~n had de€init~ feelings regardiz~g the proposed circ:ulat.ton, and Commiseian~r A11rad stated the ci.rcul~tiion should be as waa now propoe9d wi th Cresthill nrive to be extended through to the ad~oi.n-- ing single- far.:~.ly subdiv~isi.on, h~wever, it sh~uld not be extended through to Orangpthorpe to the proposed multip.le~family area. The Plannin3 Commi,ssion an~~er~d into di~aussic~n with tk:e Office Engiiteer regard- :ng the extens ion of Cree ~11 Drive at the s~uth~ast enr3. of sufi ject. pr~perty anci Mr. iitus adv~ised n~t coo muah wou' a be gained by extenc,.inq the atreet t'~rough tha~ development as tho a~.ternat~ rout~: to Orangethorpe Averiue would be moxe acceptabla~ a~id Commi~ssioner Seymour noted that at auch time a~ the multiple-family dovelopment to tihe aGUtheas~ would be prgsente~, th~e reaidents of ~khe subjQCt project would tt~gn be opposed to the access and traffic from that development. Commiasioner Saymouz cantinued Y,y atating in his npinian ther~ Y~ad to he an im~aginati~re way ~o provide grotection for the ~-SQ00 subdivisi~n from throuqh traffi~. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITX PI,A,NNING COMMISSION, Uocc~mber 27, 1973 ~~'73~ ENVIRONMENTAL I:MFACT - PUSLTC HEARTNG. EANA G, , JACK M. ANU BERNAR130 M. YURBA, 'REPORT NO. 104 5~ 40 Ea~t 8ante Ana Can~~on Ro~.d, Anak~eiin, Ca. 9280'1 T ! ~~~ DONAI.D L. B1tF:N COMPANY . 152~3 Vtantura Buulevard, Shermdn I2FC~A98IFICAmtON Oaks, Cd. y1403; AA1D SANTA ANA VALLEY IRRI~TION COMPANY', N0. 73-7 4-25 154 No~cth Glrx~t+41.1, Ura~nge, Ct~. 92666, c~rn~ra f HEItNARD --~-'"""-""~' M. YURBA, 12S ~auth Cla~udi.:a :itroet, An~heirn, Ca. 92805, VARIfiNCE NO. 2563 Agent. Prc~~t~rty degcribed ae: An irreqularly-ahapecl - paxce~ of land ~on~isting of appr.oximat~ly a acrES at thA nortt~weeL• corn~r o~ Snnta Ar.a Cttnyon Ra~.d und xmperial Highway, havi.ng r.ppraximate f.re~nt.ac~ee af 520 fe~et on ~ha nor~h side o~ 3antu Ana Ganyon Road and 750 feot on the west ~ida of I.mpexial Hiqhway. Property pree~ntly claeaifiod R-A, AGRICULTURAT~, xONE. , REQUESTED CLA33I~'I~:ATIUN : C-1, GENERAL COMMEI.RCIAL, 20r1E . REpUF3TED VARIANCE: W?~IVER FROM T1IE AEVLLOPMENT ST1~INDARUS GF S~EN ~C C~RRIDf)R (SC) ~.~V~RLAa' ZON~ OF (A) B~fY~DING S~TSACK FROM EXPItESSWAX, (B) HUILDING 3ETnACK FRG'~1 MAJOR ARTERIIIL HT.G[-iWAY, A~ND (C) LANDSL'.APED SETBACR TQ ESTABI,ISH A PLANNEA COMI~IERCII~,L SHOI?FINt; CENTER AND MOTF~.L. Sub3ect petitiona wer.e continued f.r~m *.he me~at:inge of 1Nuvember 12 and Dacem}~er. 10, 1973, :Ln ~rd~r for the petitioner to prepare ~cidition~.l plans. No one ~ppearod fn opposition to subject ~et.itiuns. Mr. Bernurdo Yorba, the petitioner, appearec3 before th~ C~mmiseion and ~.ated he had m~t wtth City Staff to gain thdir rec:ommendaticn~s for. changas to t2is proposed detrelopment a1: the sugqestion ~~f th~ Plannin3 Commi.ssion; that the recommendations of thd Stuf.f had been reasor~ab].e ancl ~aceptablej that his i~i- tent was to concentrate tY-e cumanercial d~:velopment. to provi.de go~ds and services locally in the ~anta Ana ~anyon to reduce tKaftia to other ar8~as for thc purpo~a uf shopping; 'that he was s4aking an opperi:unity ~o develap clients and i:enants for subject propertyl that in his opinion the vital it~m had been ~hat pre~iae plans would. be required pr~.ox ta Planning C~mmiasion and Ci.ty Cauncil revicw anc~ aFpxoval. aind he would stigulat~a to prov~iding aame since that seemed t~ be standar~ operatint- procedu.re for ~Yie City E«amirsiRtrat.ion and should be able to be continued; that the pronosal was a diffE: ~ent cancept for a shopping center ag it wae a different class of commercia~. dev~lopment than would be found in a standard shopp~ng centeri that ik would have a restaurant and would pr.ovide supplemental and complementary services ta the axisting shopping center in the area +~o accommudate the proiected populati.c~n growt.h in the ^znyon. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In regly to questions from Cacnmissioner Seymou.~, Mr. Yorba stated concerning justif~cation for the r~alassification and var'.ances that the waiver of the setbacka was necessary due primarily to ~he c~n~iguration of the land; that subject pruperty was difficult to develop because of traffic problems including the ab sence of acces s along the n~rth edge af t;ze propert~ and the fi~•e-way intersection; that they proposed to abandon. or effect a closuxe of a aortion of Old 5anta A.na C~nyon Road; ~that the proposal was t~ tie twn piecea of property together with a new acceee p? an; thai the new access plan had been sub jectod to study anu ;.eview by the City Traffic Engineer and an :~ndependent traffia engineering f:irm~ that to develop an even fiow of traffic and not distu~b the existing sxngle-family house locatad on the adjacent ~t-A parcel, tY:ey were propc~sing to ofLP~~•t the centarline of the stre~t, ahown at the extreme west of subjPc'~ ?r.operty, 22 Feet aastwar3t that the existing single- famil~ house wAS own9d b~ Mak,~]. Yorba an~ in time thia property cnuld conceiv- al~ly be developed with A similar use to that being pxapo~ed, or at lea~t it :aould eventually becoa~e ava~labl.e for development. Gommisaion~r Herbst ..oted ~hat by addinq the adjacent R-A parcel for s C-1 use, therA would probably be too much commercial at ~hat particular intereaction. In rebuttal, Mr. Yorba etated that it was the aonsensu~ of the Hi' 1 and Canyon c~er.eral Flan that the bulk of tlze commeraial shauld be lr~cated at the sub~ect intersection. ~_~ ~ ~ MINUTFS, C.LTY PLANt~ING COi ~MI55I0N, DacembAr 27, 1973 73-'740 ENVIRONMFNR'AL IMPACT REPORT NO. 104, 1tECL' A~a3TFTCAT~ON N0. 73~-74-25 AND VARTANCE N0. 2~63 (Continu~ed) . - Cammiesioner Nexbat IlOt~~L r1'tAt a pre~vious aommc~rci~l cent~+r had be~n di~- d~proved by the Pl~nning Gasroni~~ion wM~ah wde sub~equentl}~ a~pprovod b,y the City Council and now the planning Commis~ion waa beinq faaed wit:h ~ddi~l.nnal. comnercial fox tho area. Tha Plannin~g rnmmie~sion entered into diacuas~.on with Mr. Yorba ~:oncexn:iny khe am~unt af commercia : dQVelopment in ~tho C.anyon are~a an~ a ne~d for a b~lance of uees ae a phil~eophy of tha Commioe~ion, during wh~ch C~mmissinnor Seymoui steted there ahou ld be a balanae, 1:hst ii. mac~~, good sEsi~se tu devc~lap aubjeck property ~e comm~rcial, hawever, by creating c:c~mmsrcial zoning, a hard~hip v~c~uld thereioy be craated ~hr~t would require the reques~ed varl ancog. Comm.~,ssionex Nerbst' etat~d a motol at th~a sub~ect 7_0~ -+tion waB ~+c~~ptable, however, a aeparate+ commercia~. building wae noti that he could agree wtth t:he concept of a combination motel and commercia] bui.lding to c3erve the patrons of said motel., rai:her than Fervinq peGple from the outlying areasJ thdt the only it3m he disagxee~ with was thc~ o~~ c~mmercial buildi ng and on that basis hc would disagree with thQ proposE~9 conc.~pt s.ince he did not feel thAt one pArticular entity was l~~rqe ei~ouqk~ tu aerve the ~th~~ ar~as and shauld be inore i.n can junction wit;: tho motel. Mr. Yorba indicat~d he dreaded the ide~ of conaidering a can~~E~n:Lerzce market at th,e ~ubject location and statp~ in addit~.on to the pro;~lerof~ already me.r.~- ti oned, thera was a SAVI ri.ghi:-of--way and s gas line i:hrough 1:he F rnperty-; t: ~t they were proposi.ng to lzave a Bank of America, a savings and laan, a Thrifty Drug Store, a Spz~ouse Rei.tz devel~pmont, a Vons Mr~rke~t, a hardware store, a^~•_-~aard Oil facilii:y and some side ~hopa~ tihat the ~proposecl pl.ans were ve~_y mucY~ in accordance w~th pr~vious plans submit~ed to dev~lop ^ubject property; that nothing t~ ad been spared for the quality thA~ was desirable in *~-e are:~.; that he wauld be proposinc; all th.ree corner~ at thia intezsecfi.fan to tie together and hav~ the same qu~+tit,y o:~ ~perat~.ons; that: this interssc- tion was t.he g~t~~way into ~'-~ ,eim Hi'l:l~ and ~t~at the Commiesj.on we~uld recall how he had complained in t~~e pas~ concern:ing overhead wires, etc. , because he wanted u.~ aest for the arca. Upon c~uPstioning of Commissioner Seymour, Mx~. Yorba advised that ~he previ.ous plans for. development at subjeci; location requir~~1 variancc~s far the aetbacks for t~.e bank, however, those se~ba~ks prese.:~l~~ ~questeQ were Y~s~thez away from the curb line; that the bank wa~ propos~d ~ b~ 25 feet fron- the curb line of Impe~ial I~Iighway and approximmtely 45 feet from tt--e curb lire of Santa Ana Canyon Road, du~ to the configuration of the lttr~d; tha~ th~ s avi.lgs and ~.oan wo•aid reqLtire ~he same setbacks as the bank: and that i.f the two parcels could not ~e ~leveloped as one parcel~ the northexly par~el would then bE dpveloped independently _ Conar~~ssioner Herbst stated he would not uate f.or blanket C-]. zoning on gub;ject prope,r~y ~~ithaut precis~ plans; that he ~anted to tie the p~irticul.ar uses to thP zoriing sincs it wa~ an irxegularl.y 4Y:aped par~el; that :i.f ~omewhere down- ~tream ~the petitioner~ decided th.ey did not want to build tl.~os~ eni:ities di.s~ cussed without precise plans, ,.hey would have the v, zicle t~~ buil.d wh3tever C-1 uass ttiey wanted. Mr~ Yorba stated he understood Cnmmi~sioner Herbst's sta~tem~ent:~ 3nd that this had been the general atti+:ude of the Planning Commission, h~~wever, if he was t~ld he could dev~lop C-1, he could then proceEd to ob~Rin tenanta and cli.~nts for the proper~y t that he could not underetand ;ahy every resolutxon o~ the Planning Commiseinn anc~ City Council had the canditi.on that p~~ciae p].ans were required and thie ~ied h1s hands. Com~missianer Herbet explained th~t the reasona for th~ preci~e pianr~ were Chat beautiful con~epta were p~esented which looked good on the+ pr4pertiPS but once tha C-1 Lare wa~ obta.ined, the developera did not use the c:oncept glana and ~roceeded to build whatewer they wanted, and ~his could coriceiva~bly happen on the subject apglicationr ~hat Mr. Xorba was working with a gra~lem piece of property, by his own ac3mission, and tihc~ concept being pr~pc7sec~ s eemed ta be apprapriate, and with a set of plans to accom~as~y it, the :soning cnight be granted; tl~at i.f thp FrApasa~. remained a convept, ;~e could no~ vote Lor itj anrl that if 'the cancept was not good enouyh to waxrant gre~:ise plans, then perhaps the petitioner waa not so2d ~on it hi.mself. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITX PLANNINu COMMISSION, Dacember 27, ].973 73-741 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RE~ORT NO. 1Q4, FtECLAS5IFICA'r~ON NU. 73-7~4-25 ANQ VAR~ANCF, N0. 2563 (Continuet~) .,.., - ----~ Co~niseionex Seymour noted tor the Commie~iqn thd+t by reclassityi.nq euuject property to C-1 a~nd danying tha VAr~a71Ce8s the~ GommiOSion wou3.d ba sayinc~ thsy were not w~.l~ing to ].ook a~ nny variances ~or the Qrape~t~ unti~l the Commi~si~n was pre~enked wi~h ~reaiee pl~n~. Commiasionar Rowland offerod a moi:i.on, s~aanded !~y Cammir~~ionar Seymour an3 MUTION CARRIEA, ~taat the Pla~nning Comrnle~i~n in cannection w~.th the lilinq o: Environmen~al Impact Repc~rt Na. 104, finds and dnter.minee th~xt the LIR ftoview Cammit~tee determine8 that the repc~r~. was ade,qunte ns~ an in~orma~tive document and fo],lawed the City' g eat.ab~.~.ghed quide~inaa, and that: ~Chere wou]'~ be no eignificant Adveree environme.ltal impactst theretoxe~, the Plxn~inq C~mmim~ion rscommende ~o the City Ccuncil th~-t that portian oP said EIR No. 104 , xe i.t pertaine c~enerally to C-]. zonir-g and nc~t to the cancaptual nlan~s as gubmitted, be aclopi:ed as the Cauncil'e Enviranment~l ImQda~ Statemeut. (:ammission~ ~° Rowl~ti~d offered Rosolv.'cion No. PC'13-263 ancl movc~d fQr. ite p~-aaege and adoption t.A recommenci to the City Cc~uncil ~hat P~tition i'or F.eclas~~Pia+x- tior. No. 73-74-2~ be a~proved, ea~~abliahit~q a rasolution oP tntent to the C-1 Zone on aubject prop~rty, euti;jec.t to tha c~nditi~n that pr~cise plans~ ehall be aubmi.tted far appr:oval prior to the i.ntroduation af an ordinttnce r~zoning subject property, sh~wing building locati.onra in rel~~.i.on ta the axistinq single-family homes anc~ ~:.ne sei:ba,ak requ~.r.emf~nta gr-a c~ther develop- ment standarda of th~ C-1 Zone ~A~~d the ~cenic Corridor (3C) C-ver7.ay Zone, including glat plans, floor plar~ , elevations, aigning, llghtf.ztg~ and raafing and landscaping trc~a~menti that e acoeas points shall be sub~~ct to review and appr.oval of the T~affic: Engineert an: subject to ~onditions. (See Resalution Book) Commiesiuner Rowi.and not~d his mati~r~ wa~ ba~ed ~~n ':he fin~ings that subject property was appropri~te zor C-1 development due ~o r.he aon~iguxation of the Zand and from a land uae at~ndp~intt that ciue to ¢hc~ Rceess, it was not eui~- ab].e for R-1 deve].opment! t.tiat it was not suitablo for ~r~ultipl.~-famil,y devel~- opment and was too small. fo~r a plani.ea unit dev~lapment. The foXegning motion carried hy the foZlawing vote~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: AllreB, F`arano,•Hexbst, Kii~g~ ~taw~.az~d, Seymaur, Gauer. NQES : COMMISSIONERS x None . ABSENT: C'UMMISSIONERS: NCne. Cor•umissianer ~ierbst suggeste~ th~t pertaaps the p?t.; ~ia~ ~~ r wou~. '~~i~ski to wi~h- drsaw the subject reqixest for Variance No. ?.563 ~~ntiZ s:.ch time as t.h~ r~q~uest- ed precise plans were aubmitted. Therdupon Mr. Y~.,r'aa stated he woulc! with8raw reque~t for Varianr4 ivo.. 15F3 on th~ basis tha~ i'. !~~ov~a cextainly bc•. wiee since there wa~c a posaibi la ~y tht~t th~ s~thacks be;r~q r~ques~^d might deviate whenever prGci~e ~~.«n~ w~~re pr~sen•ced. VARIANCE N0. 2570 - P(~BLI~C: HEARING. DAVTD R. DO~:RING, 1203 Wes;: Lit'-COln Avenue, Anaheim, ~a. 92805, Owner; r~c~~aesting WAIVERS OF (A) PERMITTED USE~S, (B) FtEQUIRED 5-~'q~OT HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL, (C) REQUI~2ED b`RONT SETBACK AND (D) RFQUIRED LANDS~~IPING IN FRONT ~ETAACK TO ESTABLISH A Ct~M1~RCIAL PARKING IAT IN THE R-3 ZQNE on property c~oscribad a~ . A portion of a recta.ngularly-st~aped parcel of land consisting of ~pproxi-- m~tely .45 acre, ~~.id p~~tian having a frontago of appror:imately 92 ieet on tYi~ south side r~r Diamond Street, having a maximum depth o'' approxtimateZy 132 feet, a~nd being loca~eci appraximak~ly 80 feet west of the cs~nterline of Carletnn Avenue. Property presently claesifi.ed R-3, MU~TIPLE-FAM~LY FLESIDEN- TIAL, ZONE. ^wa persona indicated their pre~e~nce in oppoeition to subject petitian. CJ ^~ ~ NINUmES, CZTY PLANNiNG ~QMMISSION~ U~:c~mber 27~ J.97~ 73-742 VARIANCE N~. 2570 (Continuod) zanin~ Suparvisor Charlee Ro}~erte revi.ewed the loc.atian o~ auh~eat property, uers eatabl.iehec~ in claed pr~ximity, and the r.equest for wai.vera nncl mtatec~ that the propor~ed ~aar.king lat. waul+i no~ be A~1L~I'Ill~ttiCC~I u~;e ±n t.hc~ R-3 Zanet kh~C the pAtitio•~ar was praposing 2: paz~king epaaea on tt~c:~rt:lon of sub~ect pro~+mrty ac~d the primary intanded uee for the pc~r.ki.nc~ wo»id b~~ for the Marquis Bdr which w~a located to the~ ~outh of aub~oc:t propEtrtyt ~:hai: the propoeal was to pavo tha pasterly 92 fe~t o! tha entir.a pa~r.el cai.th t1:~~"+tl.n,j,~,;, k•ith 8 tiO~A1 af ~50 feet ~n the aouth sic~a of. DiAmond ~tr~at with no 1~rcdar~uped sar.bnck j an~ that the petita.qner was propoeing to use nll af th~: axistiny f.encing in ita exietinq lc~cation on the property which nacessi.~a~tc~d a waivc•~r as enumeratQd in the Stai`f Report #:o the Cc~mmiasion. Mr. D~avid bo~ring, 1.A1G Weet Diamond, Anaheim. the petitionQr, appc~ared ~e~or~j the Gotronission And e~ated that the~ parcel on which the park.ing 'lat wa-s pro•- posecl wns I~0 feet by 135 ~~at ~na he was p~upasing to aea 88 feat of it Por parking; khat ha wae xskiny for the parkiny lo~ ~~ serve his reotaurant at 120~ West Lincoln Rvenue, t~ buAinc~ar~ raaidei~cQ on the necond fl.oar o~ the building at 1206 Weat Diam~ndo a hause a~ 147 Carlet.on Avenue, and 1214 Wost Aiamond, wtiich ia 62 feet wee~ of the proposed parking lot; and upon request o£ Commisaioner ~'arana, ha sta~-~d ho owned th~ bar and restaurant at the ~ubjocC loca~:ion, tha~ he pr~eaently op~xatACl the r~stauranz and witt~ln eight montha he wauld be nperurinq ~t~e bar as tY~e cuxrent leaaQ would be up at th~t time. Commiasioner Seymour inquired of Mr. Doc~ring~ ix tlie newsldtter which the C~mmi.eAioners were in posseyaion oF was identi fied wi.i:h t~.F~ Marquis Bar ~atab- liehment, if Mr. D~ering was familiar with the KWIZ radi.o editorial concerning that cstablishmenL, if in Mx. Doering's opini.on t}ie estab7.ishment wag a swing- ing nightcluk~, ~nd if at said establishmant singl~g, ~wosomes and thr~essames, Qtc. , could get L•ogether, az~d M~. Doeri.ng signified in the ~f£irmative to al]. of. said questions. Mr. Doe:ing f.urther. t~tated that the es~abliahment. was a maeting place for people with libQra? ide~a to meet more of the ~ame. Com~nissiorier. Seymour stated th~t his positic~n in t1~~ subject matter was that tie would n~t approvP an extensian af the cocktail ]ounge in the ar.ea thaY. was o~~ned and operated by the petitioner, or th~ requ~sted parking lot; tha~ in th~ previaus applica~tiuns of th~ ~etitioner, thE~ Cammisafon and the Ci~y Couiicil had be~n completely misl~d and i3ow, followinc~ an action of the zoning Enforcement Officer regarding illeg~al parking~ i:r~e petitioner• was requpsting approvr~l of a v~ri~nce that, in his opinion, would p~rmit the operations af the petit.ioner ~o be c;arried on on a~reater acalez and that in his per:~onal oFinion the petitioner did r.ot have the x'ight to aperate in this City at all, Yn re~ly to a requeat fram Commissi.oner Allred for the procedure the Plann~.ng Commissio:~ skiould follr~w in considering thE subject petitlon~ Deputy City Attorney Fr3nk Lawry a3vised ~he Commission's jurisdiation was conc~rncau with t.he use of ~'~e land ar~d the agplir_ation being presented; that he was not say- ing ~he Gommission clid not have investigator.y powers thr.c~ugh Cwty Staff; tha~ he did nat recall. th~ specifics ~oncerning the previous peti.tiQns filed by th~ petitioner and canside.red by the Planninq Commission and City Cot~nci]. Gnd he was not aware of an,y laws that had been broken by ~ha petitioner, other th%,~ those reported by the Zoning ~nforcement Officer. regarding the illegal land use on subject property which ~he petitiorier ncw was seeking to legaliza, and in that respect the petitioner was in no different position than ~tny other person ~~ho had for instance j~rry-rigged a p~tio; tha~ if the pe~itioner wae in violation of ~he Code pertaining to ha.s current uses, then ~hat would be a matter for the City and/or tho court to eliminate, if thEre w~a such a problem; and that to k~is k.nowledge there was no active file on the petiti.oner or his establishment in the Ci•~.y At~orney's ~ffi.ce currently. Upon inquiry of Chairman Gauer, Mz~. ~oering indicaL•ed he had no further state- ments exrept that he was pres9nt to reguest a variance. ~ MINUTE~, CITY PLANNSNC. GOMMIS~ION, Ueoember 27, 1y73 ~3~~43 VARIANCE NU. 2570 (Continued) _____-~_, __._ Mre. Merqarat Sullavan, 1122 Diamc~nd ~treet, Anahaim, Appedred bAf~re the Commiasi~n and stated ~he liv9c~ just around Lho corner from tt~e Maxquie Harj ~ha1: whon thc~ petitioner wae planning tl~e Marquie Bnr, ahe appe~axed at that kim~~ in oppositioi~ befora the Plenning Commission and the City' Council. nnd the conditi.onal ur~e permit was r~aniedJ that subsequen*.ly Mr. Dac~ring viyited her at hc~x home and convinced har thA~ ho wes es~.ablighing a roput~ablo buai- r~eer~ which woul.d bP vory nice, nnd legal= that fol~owing her diecuoeions with Mr. D~~ring, she consented to withdxaw her oppositic~n eir,ce ahe w~,s of thA opini.on ~hat tri~ bar w~ul.d b4 a plACe whero ni~.e coiiplea would ~c~m~ in tk~e eveni.ng after work and would eit dowrt n.nd have a drinr, and haw did shP know tl~ey wer.~ goiny to axchange partn~re= x.hat from wiiat ~he h~d h9tard, ther.e was a lot of proatitutinn gui.ng on and she did not want that type of ~sctivity in har neighborhoodt that i.f M: ,~oering had oxtra ~arkin , she di.cl nnt know wtiu would be parking thPral ~t~at Mr. Uoertiig had furi:her auvised tsor thet if ehe contl.nued to oppose him, he cou:ld have a lic~uor li.cense th~re for a drinking bar tind s~zvd sandwiches~ that th~ n~i.ghborhaod hud a parking problam due t~ the :~ar and th~it Mr. Doering had promised her that non~ of the ~atrone or employt~es wauld par.k in fr~r~~ of her hame, however., there had been 3.n3tances whare this had occ:urred . MY. Roberts noted ~}tat a lettar hgd b~~n filed by Mr. F. t3. Morr.i.s, 1224 Wegt Diam~nd Street, Anaheim, who was in oE~poaition to aaid pe~ition. THE PUBLIC HEARIIJG WAS CL'05ED. In rebuttal, Mr. Doering s~atad to his recqllect.ion t~e had never told an un- truth to anyane; that regarding proatitu'ces on his property, he had called the Palice Department nn ~everal occasions as he di.d not be].ieve in pro3ti- tution and dicl nut cater to thatf that in his opinion he had one of the niceat bars .~n town, i~t wa~-~ c~uiet, and the patrons were a nice group of. peop~e; tl~i~~ the main problem appeared to be over ghilosophiea; that whatver he catered to, it would probabl,y disayrEe with a lat of people; that his typQ of operntion was a matter of choice and philosaphic~lly i*_ was d~Y,.~table, hawever, he did not come be.fore the Planninq Commiss:lon to debate philosophies bixt to requ~st a variance. Coznmissioner Farano inquired how Mr. Daering could state that he operated a s~tisfactory and zeputabZe institution; ~h,at, referring to a clasaified ad that was ap~nsored, he would aa11 the acti.vities pc>rnographic; that h~ wnuld Like ta review the ~~titioner's application and the entire hi.Rtory of the operations at the subject location in order to better act on the subjeci: petition and insLire i:hat all bases were covered. Commiesioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Co-nmissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED, to reapen the public haaring and continue consideration of Petition for Variance No. 2570 to ':.he meeting of. January 21, 197a, in order to allow time for the Commis~ion to xevie:w subject petition and fi.les con- cerning subject pro~erty. Commissioner Farano noted for the Cc,mmisaion that what goes on inside the ~, ~lls of a building or. st.ructure was tY~e prerogative of tlze inhabitant~s, but that the kind o£ land use and atmu~phere a use draws to the neighborhood was what the Plantiing Commission would draw their attention to. He clirected St~ff to obtain a cany of the KWI2 editorifil referrad to at this meeting. REC~SS - Chair~an Gav.=~ :'.~aclared a ten-minute recess :*_ 4:05 p.m, RECONVENE - Chairman .~ er rec~nvened the meeting at 4:15 p.m., Commissi~n,~r Allra~ beinq absent. ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S, C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, Deaember 27, 1.973 73-'lA4 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. STATE INDU3TRIFS, 3383 Eust Gagc~ A'ar~nue, pERMY~~ t~~. 1442 Hun~inqton Park, Ca. 9U255, tawnort requeeting ~~~rmi~~i.or- ~ ~o iCSTAA~LISH A PI.APINFA UNIFxED TNDUSTRIAL ~~RVIC~ ~ENTER INCI,UpING A M()TEL, RESTAURANT, A~JD RETAIL SERVxCE 3HOP4 WITN W1~IVERS OF (A) PE22MITTEd USE3, (B) MINIMUM REQUIRLD NLiN~ER OF PARKING ~3PACES, AND (C) TYPE~ AF 3IGNS F~EFtMxTTEU on property cleecribed a~: An irregst- lerl~r-~shaped parcel of lanc~ coneisti.nq of approximatel.y 15 RcrQ~, havin~g d frontac~e of approximAte].~r 503 Leet on tho south eide ot L~ Palmx Avenue~, h~vi.ng d maximum dopth o£ approximatoly 1020 fe~t, and b~~.ng ].o~nted approxima~tvly 250 fecat weat ~f t.h~ centerline o~ KrAemar. BoulovArd. Prapoxty prasent:ly claeai.fiod County l0A -M1-20,000, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DT3TRIC'~` (Reso'lution nf. intent: ta M-1, LT~HT TiJdUSTRIAL, 'LONE) . Nc~ onee appenrod in opposition ta eubject petttinn. Althaugh tlae Report t~ the Commiedion wae nat road at th~ ~ublic hc~arinc~~, ~.t ~s referred ~o ~nd made a par~. of the minutes. Mr. Axthur H~~kell, re~resentiiig th~ pr.opexty owner, app~cared bFfo.re the Commission and state3 t.hey were in t.he procea~ of nogotiatiilg with R~mad~ Tnl~a for t:he purchxse of subjc~ct pro~erty sub ject to the condi.tional uge. pexmit and the ~-equested variance8. Mr. ;Tohn }3runo, repxesen~irig RamadA Inns, x~ppeared befare the C~mmi~aio~ and upon inc~u~.ry of Chairman Gauer, he stated the prapo~ed ~arkinr f~r tha moi:e:l was accura~e. Zoning Superviaor Charlee Roberts nated for the Cc~mmi.ssion that t.~~~~ ~~t.i ~.aneac's calculatione for tiie Qroposed xestaur~n~ wore baeed on C-1 ~t~ndar.ds for tne entire building and did not i.nclude the C-Z requirements pertaaninc~ tc:, b~nq~zet rao~r~ facilities; that based on th~ C-1 standards, the pr~~osed p~:~:r;c:i.i'~3 for their totz~l res~:aurant area would m~et Code~ requirements, how~ver~ ~.nr.~.;~cling t~hc C--R reqtiiremeiits for the proposed banquet room would result ~.n a:~hoxtac~.^ ~f 11 parlcing spaces; that the plan: indicated 13 additional spuce~~ wa~.ilca bc: x'e:'•quired for the proposed industrial uses and combining thia with th.E:: mat~c:l~r~~>t:.~~.~irant complex shortaqe, the total deve].npment wa~ 24 parking s~,ar_e;s :;hr~r!:. Mr. Bruno assurEd the Planning Commission that based on Itam~~+ci~~ ~r.~-ni~' pa€~t e.x- pex~ience of operating sr~me 200 matels, the parking spaceq bf;.ing px•c7pa:~~sc~ was mo~°e than ~adecst•.ate . iTpon inc~uiry of Commissioner FI~rbst, Mr. BrunQ stated tlie r~omme~r.ci~-J. us~3 w~~re or:Lente3 to the motel customers onlyt that the rea~~n io~: ~~ro~,>ac3inc~ ~t~~ p].ac~ *_h~~ ~ammerci~al uses at the sub jert location was because ~aF t.h~* larg~: surround~ inq ma,~~ifacturing area and most of those peogle wc~rking ir thr~ ir.c~c~stzial arfar~ wo~ild p~'~bably use these com¢~-ercial faci.liti~s a~so; t.t-aa~ cunc:~~rr~:,.c~a the cc~rz~er ~s~~, he stated who ~a~uld oUject if some commercial w.1N s~zc~c~ssf'u]. a.si i.ts ~~zrF~c.~ra~:: woiald be to serue the people would stop there and usc~ i.t:. Cc~tunissior~er HerY~st noted that commercial and industria.2 traific wese not compatible; that there was no objection to a mo~e1 ~nd no ~~i~~ ~c~.i.on ta the commercial uses as long as tihey aerved the tenants c~f saic~ mot.el anly; tha~t. th.ere would be objection if th~ usea were sold off ~~ s~par~,te ~.:!-~tities; tti~t t.Ytr~e City had conuner~cia? ar~as set asido for commexc~ et7. usez :~- d. t~he are~a shou.Ld nut be hroker. down; tha~ certain commercidl uses u.n~3c~:c cc:ndi*:ior~al u3o ~Pt'm~-~~ ar~d varianres har3 been permitted in the City to k~~ i.n~t:r~gi:ated wir.h inclusr.ra.al; hc~wever, ta ~pprove a blanket C-1 uee in an M-:t ,ir.ea~hG rou~d~na~~h~;£~~~~ tho st+bject inc~ustrial arw_a was quito well protectc.d ~~~ .:x~~.~aY-- caiztrol channe'l, etc., and did not intrude in~~a r~e~i.denti~l or comn~erci~l and ~tr.~e industrial deaerves ju3t ~s much integrity~ a~~ci that he wnul.d noi. ].:i.k.e hh~~ iclea of allowing commercial right un La Palma :?~ven~q, callinq it cammex<.lal, arid wi~h the possibility of having th;~ entitias sald uii: s~parately. Mr. Hask~*11 stated that it appoared if comm~rcial did n.~~t b~long at the .sub~ect locatian, it wo~ild fail and then be eonvezt~d tc- M-L ur..e~3 that the builc~ings would have 10-foot wide dpors, etc.t that tho devel~pma~n~ would ha~~ th~: bQn~fit of their past exp~rience; and tha~ the propa~ea use~ w~ulc~ be con~pniene: to the industrial populatian a~ the subject loce~tiarl and in tn~ are~. ~ ~ • MI.NU'~ES, CImX ?LANNING COMMI5SICN, llece~mbist' :c7~ ~.973 i3-7g5 C4NDITIONAL U3E PFRMIT N0. 1442 (Coa~inued) .~....__._._.,._..~...._.._--.-- Commisaionar Herbet further stated he cou~d envisi.~n some flexib~.lity with the 20-foot wido building aecti~na but kl~e u~ee woul~ have to be integratc~d wit~h commQrcia~ ~ as hP di.d not wiah to replace~ thq int.egratefl aaneept wii:ti fragmnnte~ inrluotri.al and comm~rc:ial parcel~. N~. Haekell fuxther adviaed tt-ey were proponing 38 unite ruid that the lurqeet ~~~nit was 30 fQet by 80 ~c~et~ that ~rom hia e~katigtics, there were far toa few ~~.~vel.opment~ such ~s the une being pr~pos~d, which catered to the true neede o~ the papulation~ and i:hat atArting out lit.~],e wae what made Ameri.aa. TEi.; ~U~LtC HT:P.RING WAS CLOSED. t:pon inquiry of Chairman Gauer, Mr.. Nick Hai, engineox for tY-c ~~rop~rty owner, ~~att~d ~n Decc~mber 2~, 1973, he had ~ubmi.tted a plan showing traeh »tora~e far ~h~ ~uuject developmant, as raquested by the Sanitat.ion Division a~nd in c~»~~~s'rt-- ~a~ce with City requirementa. Mr. Hc~~kell :~~r~t~d ~.here was an error on the first pags of the Staff Report ta t~.o Comir~i.a~i.ar~ whi..ch indicated a total of 166,121 aquar~ feet, for the manufac- ~.url.ng and w~z~rohauain~;~ ~rea of the propased devnlopmPnt~ that he had used t'iqure~ from ~n~ather developnient which did not apply to the pr.oposal at hand ~n~i t~xe cor~c~at figure should have been 156,121s that the problam concNrning oarkinq apase~ :~Pemed to stem £rom tha~ er.rur and that they ac~ual].y wE~r,.e in txc:eea of 1:he ~arki.na ~-equiremQntf that they rad inve~tted approximately $35,Q00 in plana azld drawi~~gs ior the subject d.evelopment and ha implored thF Commission to t.ake khat into consiaexation. Gommigsi.oner 5eymour otfered a motion, seconded by Cammia~ioner xing and MOTIO~ ~AF.RIED (Conu~~iss.ioner Allred be.ing abgent) that the Plannlr~g Commissi.nn, in cor-r~ectian wa.th an exemptian d~claration atatus request, flnds and determinee t.hat t.he proposa]. would have no signi.ficanfi. e:~vironmental impact a:~d, therefore, r.ec~mmend~ to thc. City CutinciA that no Envitonmental Impact Sta~ement is necessary. C~mmiasioner. HerY,zt stated he would offer a resoluti~n to approve Petition for Conditxonal ?7se PEr.mit No. 1442, anc3 to deny waivers f~r permitted uses and minimum number of required parking spaces, and thereupon the Planning Commi.sg.ior~ en~ered irito ili.acussion regarding said petition and conditians of appro~~al, duiir,g wra.c21 C,'~mmis~ioner I3erbst indicated the usea az~d conditions approved k,reviously fdr t.he Dunn Prope.rtie~ dev~slopmenL ~n ~3a11 Road should be the pro- ~Pdtare the C~~:missxon shou].d fo~.low, allawing retail distributing firms, but no sZler~ to the general public and that the li.st of uses had been submitted ttiat w~uld specifically become the tenanta and approval of tlze petition was tied ta that l~st, with any other uses being sul~ject to l~lanning Ccmir.ission review and appr~val. Commissioz~er Herbst continued that any use:: approved for an ~.ndustrial cam~:lex wuuld be allowec3 at tk~e subjeat location; that the peti~ ti~ner cauld complX with the parking requirement e~~en if he had to reducz the ilwnDer of buildin~~s; that. by having ~ny commercial uses, it would be ~.o txis advantage ~o have more parking th~.n was considered necessary at this time. Mr. Roberts noted for the Commission that if the entire property was developed indu3 tri a7. , the •required park~.ng would be reduc~ed cunsiderably . Conan.issioner Seynx~ui• inquirea if the p~.:.itioner wag desirous of a continuance to xework the plar a to more canfarm t~~ the suggestion:: of tl~e Planning Comznis- ai~n and Mr. fiagkell indicated he wou].d request a continuance on the matter. Chairman Gauer no~ed for ~he petitioner th~t he could obt~.in tt-ae referenced list ~f commercial uses fram the Planninq Divisit~r-; and that atherwise it appeared the p~atit~oner would b~ held to ~hA ir,duatrial usos proposed anci the m~tel. Comm,issioner Herbst withdrew the f~~rego~ng motion to grant Petition for Condi- tionul Use Farmit No. 14~42 and thereupon Commissianer Seymour offered a moti.~n, eacanded by ~cm-miasioner King, and M~TTON CARRI~D (Commissioner AZlred being r~bsent) tc reop~n ~he pu)~l;.c hearing and continu~: consider~tion cf Petition fAr Conditional Use PeLmit N~. 1442 to tha meet~ng of January 21, I974, for. the po~itioner to submit revised plans. • ~ MINUT~B, CI2'X PLANNYNG COMMISSIbN, Dec~+mber 27. 1973 73-746 CONOI'PIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIN~3. LEE C. AND JOAN tI. S1IMMIS, 94 Liada lslm, P~RMIT N0. 1443 Newpart BeACh, Ca. 92660, Ownerst rnqueekir~g p~rmisaion ~o -~~- L~;AI3LISH A PLANN~D UNIFIEb INDUSTRIAI, B~RVTCE CENTER T~TITH RETAIL DISTRIHUTIN~ AND S~RVICE HUSINESSES P~tIMARILY S~RVING CpMM~'RCE ANQ INDUSTRY WITH WAYV~RS AF (A) PERMITTED USES AND (B) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARK~NG on proper.ty described ass Parcel 1- An irraguldrlx~-ehnp~d parcel o~ land con~igting of appraximr~tely 9.3 ~cxas, heving A frontage af approxima~ely 8J0 feet on tho ~ast side or ~IaZldx 5~ree+~, havir.g a m~xfmum depth of appro~cimat~ly 890 feQt, and be~inq located approxinintaly 3bd feet noxth af tha cdr-terlinn ~f Crescent Avor~ue, and fuzther de~ariboc~ ua 704-720 Valley Stroeti and Parcel 2- An ir.regul.arly-ahaped parcel af. .land noneistinq Af approximatAly 3.9 acro~, having a fxontage of approximately 487 teet on the north aide uf Craecent A.vonue and having a fxuntage of approxim~tdly 240 feet on the~ east sido of Valley Stroe~, and fu~ther de~cribed as 2],O1-2121 Weat Crc~scent Avenue. Praperty preaently clasaified M-1, LIGHT INpUSTRIAY., ZONE. No OI1@ appeared in oppasi~ion to subject~ petition. Al.though the Report to ~he Commisaion wa~s not read a~ the pub].ic hoarinc~, it is refnrrQd co ancl marie a part of th~ minutea. Mr.. Leaaon Pom~rAy, the architect for thc~ proposed developmc~nt, appeared before the Commisai~n and sttstQd they wer.~ saeking flexibil~.ty o£ uses withln a pru~ pused complex= that the deaign of the building would be on a madulsr basi~ L•or multi-tanant ~ccupancyj that there w~~uld be an i.r.ter-mix of u~ea, including offices, industri~l, and incidental comaneraial; ~hat there wvutd be intearaction within the com~lex between the users ana t~i~ Pmphasis would be on amall. usersj that due to the pr.aperty being separated into two parcels b~- the Or.ange C~unl:y Flood Control Chatinel, they would suk,divide into several amallsr aectiona flexible enough to handle varied type user spac.e requirements; that the d~vel- oper, Don Ko11 Company, had ex~erience with approxianat~ly 5 m~.llion square feet of this type development throughau~ the country; that they wauld work out a ratio to relate the parking ar~d maintain the prop~r mix= that the mxx might contain 60$ industrial, 30~ affices and 10~3 incidental can~.aercial; that the uommercial uses wa~~ld inclu3e thase which would support the ~vera~ll industr.~.al park, sur.h as a bluepriz~ter with g.raphic aupplies, and not re~ail with showroom qenerating traEfic, but that the developm~nt wauld be basically a~n indust~3.a1 park; tliat the restaurant would pr_obably bF a sandtaich shop to support 4hF p~oj~at and these weie commor. in most industrial areas. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Upon inqu.iry of Gommissioner Seymou.r~ Mr. Pomeroy s~ated the DO71 Kul]. develc~p- ment in sauthern nrange County had the 60-3Q--10 mix ratin, and tY~at one narking ~pace for 350 squarc~ feet of building apace '~~d been provided; thAt cwo of the praposed buildings wou].d have good exposure Qn Cresc~nt Avenue and Valley Street and th~re would be amp1P parking around each of khe proposed buildings to support the uses; that the proposal was nat in.~ense on of.fic~ space al~hough thpy ex- pected to have user~ such as contracL-ors, photogr.aph~rs, insurance, attorn~ys, accountants, general busir~ess uffices, architect~, engineers, graphic arts, eto.; that the Zaning Ordiz~ance did nrt a11ow some of these us~s, such as buginess officFS with servi.ces to Lhe general public= however, Lhey wer~ stipulating to a maximum of 30$ of the developn~ent. for. office space. C~mmissi.oner H~erbst noted for the Cammissihn that the subject develapment was planned very poorlx; that he recognized that being an indus~.rial complexr the development would be difficult to service, hawever, the plans indi.cated a21 thQ trash storage encloaures to be out in front, the different uaers wauld be har~ to find, that the type users of the complex would need t~ be serviced by Yieavy equipment txucka, and in his opinion the project was not dpsignad industrial; and that each building should ha.ve its own trash area. Mr. Pomeroy stated 30-foot. wide drives were being provide3 with 50-foot turnf.ng rada.i; that the uses would be light industrial and woul.d not requira to ~e s~rviced ~y~ majc,r trucks, that therP wauld be a lot of landsca~ing and o~e~ space in the planx end that the City Sanitation Diviaion had bean vury tough in th~ir requirements regatding trash enclosurea. Upon ir.quiry of Commiasioner ~~ymaur, Mr. Pcmaroy atated the 30~ office ~pace would probably be conl:ained at the front half of the buildingaj howev~r, if a tenant wanted a particular spaae it would pr~bably be made availnble. ~ ~ ~ MII~U'~E3, GITY 1'LANN~NG CQMMISSION, Uecembex' 27~ 1973 73"~~~ CONDYTIONAL ~)S~ PERMIT N0. 144a (ContinuoQ) Commieeioner 8aymuur aantinued by sta~inq the Cifi~y had development standard~ a.nd the ~etitioner wae re~queetinq ~lexibility without develppment ~tendards~ that with the uncertainty ~e to the number ot different type usere, the City aautd r.ot, apply stAnd~.r.de ~;~enertt7.ly inoorporateQ in theae coneideratione~ ~ th~-t why could not th~+ developer "ave apeaitiaa and au~ outllne oi' his pxojaoti And that previoua developere had furniahod lieta a! pa~en~ial uaors with any AddJ.tional u~es boing ~ubje~t t~ Planning Cammieeion roview and approval. Commis$ionar Farano nated that the develo~ament, as preaE~nted, could win~l up d,~ a~ hodgopo~fge a~ ~sesj thdt it would be diffiault ta balanee ou~ the uees as th~ t~nanks were obtained= that if the pc~t~tionar wunted to develop and meke part of the building suitable far offic~ apacn, he should indica~a which oneaJ howaver, the plans pz•egentod showed cAmmercial c~oors next ta gtass-lront office spacat and tl~at he was talking ~bout of~ice uses that wou'ld implamerit the in~lus- tria3. dBpElCtB. In rebuttal, Mr. Pomeray reite~ratod that t.hey had destgned 5 milllon sguare feet of thie same ty~e dev~lopmant with ~triat c~rchitectural control ~nd th~y were trying to aqua.l thaL•, qualit,y. Commiasioner Herbst noted ~hat the Plann~.ng Comtr~iesi.on had previ.oue].y mllowed certain typc~s of commercial uses to s~srvice the industrial areas and the pra- pr~sal woul~ go another step further and a11ow of.fice sp~co in industrial axeas; that 3Q~ of Lhe development would be a comane~rcial o~f9.ce complex and there~or+s another breakdc~wn of ~he induatrial integri.tyt t.hat there caere some oSfice uses that wovJ.d ePrv:t~e an industrial area, how~ver, 308 was much ~ou hiqhJ that the peti.tioner wa~ requesting commercial usas to ~ervica the community a.nd if th~.s was pez~ittdd, the other buildings in the development would never rAach full occupancy. In rebuttal, Mr. Pomeroy stated that they were not~ asking for an office park and that their development: at State College and Cerritoa was simi7.ar to ~he pro~,osal . Upon inquiry of Commi~sioner S~ynwuz, Mr. Pomeroy in.~icated he would request a continuana~ in order to su~mit revis~3 plans. Comml.ssioner Seymour off~red a motion, seconded by Comn~iasioner Kiz~g and MOTION CtiRRIED (Corruc-issioner Allred ~e~ng abs~nt) t~ reopen tlie public hearing and continue cansider.ation of Petition ~or Conditjon~l Use Permit No. Ig43 to the meeting of Janua.ry 21, 1974, in order for the pQ*~~.tionE:r to submit revi.sed plan~~ . CON~II~IISSIONER R.OWLA~VA LErT THE COUNCIL CHAM9ER AT a: 30 P.M. CCNDITIONtiT, USE - PUBLIG HEA.RING. BRWKMpRE ARMS, 1752 Langl~y Avenue, PERMIT N0. 1444 Irvine, Ca. 927Q5, Ow~nerl DR. ROBERT NEVIN, P• C~. Box 5320, Fullertoz~, Ca. 92635, Agent= requesting p~rmisair~n *_v ESTABL~SH AN ANIMAI~ CLTNIC on property described as: A rectangularly--shaped paxc~l af land consisting of approximately one~~-guarter acre, having a froeitage of approximately 60 feet an the east side o£ Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth af a~pxoximate~.x 175 feet, and t~eing located approximately 428 feet nortti of the centerline of Ball Road, and fur~her des- crib~d as 936 South Brookhurst Stxeet. ~ro~pe.r~y presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMI~RCYP.~, ZO~IE. No one appeared in opposition ta subject peti~ion. Alttiough th~ Raport to the Commis~ion was not read at th~: pLblic hearing, i~ is referred to and made a part of. ~he minutea. Dr. Robert Nevin, the petl.tioner, appeared befare the Cammission and stated the subject property was eminently suited for the p~oposed usej that there was a need ~~r veterinary services in the areat t:'~t r.:~ had been active in the estab- lishment of thr~e or fouz anima~. hospi~ta].g in Orange County; that hp was awxre o~ +'le conc;ern regarding the praposed traeh storage area, however, he woulci st.pulate to aonformance•with t~e City re~uirements. • ~ MIrIU'T'ES, C~;~X ~'I~INNING GOMMI38ION, Dec~mbex 27, 197? 73-748 CQNDITIQNAL USE PERMI~ N0. 1444 ~Con~i.nued) Upon inquizy of Commi.ssior-er Kinc~, Mr. Nevin etipulate~d there woul<1 be no out- danr fa-,ilitiee= ~nd thdt dll work and ack~.vit.ies would be pertornied within tihe bui~.dinq. Dr. Nevin stated xegardi.ng overnight badrd~ng of anima].e, that ther.e wor~ surgicnl casa~ wh~re tha enimals were unddY treel:ment that wou1Q ::equire them to be ~Cept overnl.ght~ that ouL of 40 pakients beinq txeated in a dny, 5 to 7 might nee~ to be kept ~vernightt that mos~ oP ~he enim+ale k~pt overnight wez~ undex sedatinn3 and nr. Nevin a~tipulated that Animal8 waul.d be kept overnight only undor the conditi~na so described. Upon inquiry of. Commiasionex Seymour, Dr. Nevin eti~~ulat~•d that the ExiFtinq landscaping planters located at the erxatern pr.opexty lina ~:~au~.d ba planted with troes in canf~rmanne wi~h C-1 Zane development ~tandarc;a. Commissioner King o~fered a motion, P9conSed by Commieeioner ~~Pymaur And M~OTION t',ARRI~D (Commissioners A].lred r~nd RowlAnd beinc; aY~sent) th~t the, Planning Commieaion, in connectinn with ~n axemption c~eclaration status request, finda ancl det~rmine~ that the proposal would have no si~nif~.cant enviraz~~ner~tal impnc~ and, thexeFars, recommends to the City CoLincil that no Cnvirc~nmental Impa~t Sta~emerit was necessary. Commissioner King affered Itesolutfon No. PC73-264 and moved for it~ passage and adoption to grant PeLition fox Conditional Use Per_mit Na. 144~+ eubject to tha conditi~n~ that there ahall be no outdoor facilil:ies and anv ^_~Nos~ci animal ~:una ~r warda r~hall be located within the confines o£ t.~_ uui~ding, and that there shatl be no boarding of animals, with the exception that si.ck animals sti11 ~xnder treatment shal'1 be permitted to be k~pt nvernic~ht, as necesaary, as stipula~ed to by trie petitioner~ tha~ the Existing landscaping planters located at the eastern praperty line sitall. be plant~d wi~h trees in confoxm- ance with C-1 'Lone d~velopment standards, as stipulated to hy the ~~titioner; and subject to condition~. (See Resolu~.ion Book) ~n roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 1~YES: COMMISSIONERS: ~arano, Herb4t, King, Seyanou~, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIC~NERS: None. ABS~NT: COMMISwIONERS: Allred, Rawland. RECLASSIFICATION - PUSLIC HEARING. -NITIATED BX TH~ ANAHEIM CI7.'Y P?,ANNING NO. 73-74-32 COMMI3SInN, 204 Easi: Linco].n Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; proposing that property described as: ~1 rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 12 acz~s ].ocated northw~sterlv of the inters~ction o~ Anahei-a Ha.11s Roa3 and Nok~l Ranch Ro~ad, the easterly propprty lin~ being ap~r~ximat~. iy 1.40 feet wes : of the centerline of Hillcrest Street, be rEClassifisd iYrm the COUNTY J.00-E4-2~,000, SMALL ESTATE DISTR]:CT to ihe R-A, AGR'tCULTURAL, Z~~NE. No one appe~red in opposi~ion to subject pet~tion. A~.though the Report to ~he Commission was not read at the public hearix~g, it is re~erred to and made a part of the minutes. Zoning Supervisor ~hars~s Roberts presented subjecc Reclassification No. 73-74-32 for consideration and stated that the pro~posal was to rezone subject praperty to the R-A Zone upon annexation ~.o the C3.ty and wuuld ~st3blish a resolution o£ intent to R-A zori=ng irnmediately. Commissioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CARRIED (Commissicnera Allred and Rowl~na beir.g absent) t2iat t~~e Planning Commission, in connection wi~h an exemgtian declaration status r~quest, fincia ar~d determines tha~ the praposal would have no significant environmenta~ impact and, therefore, recoxtrtnends to the Cit~ Councii that no Enviranmenta.l Imp~ct S~atement was necessary. ~ ~ MINUTES, CI~X PLANNII~G COMMISSION, D~aember 27, 19i3 73-~49 R~CLA~3IFIGATION N0. 73~74-32 (Con~inuad) Commi~aioner Herbat oflerAd Reaolution No. PC73-265 and m~vad for i.ts Qassage arid adoption fio rraammr~-c! t~ the City Council approva~], o! Rerlas~ifiaation No. 73-74-32, subjeat tn tl~~ aondi.tians. (See Reeolutfon Book) On roll Gall the foregoing reaolution we~c~ pxssec~ by the following vote: AyEge GONMISSiONF.RSs Far~no, NOEB: COMMiS5I0NERS: None. AHSENT: GOMINIS~IONERu s A11X~a, EIc~rbt~t, King, Seymour, ~ai~er. Rowlanc~. RECLASSTFICATION - PUIILIC HEARING. TNYTIATED EY TH~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAidN1~VG N0. 73-74-3~ CUMM1SSxON, 204 F.ast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805= -- - prapaaing that praperty ~eacxibed s~: Parcel 1- Approxi-• mat~ly 105 acres genarally lnc;ated betwean Magnolia Avenue rind Hrookhuret 5treet ~nd between Linc~ln and CreA^ent Avenuas (Anah9im Munici- pa1 Golf Coureo)J Parcel 3- Approximatoly 56 acres lacate.~ betw~en Harbor F3oulevard and West Stxest (AnaYseim Conven~i~n Center)t Paraal 3- Approximately 144 acres lacated between Sta~o Co1,~ege Boulevarli and the Orange Fr~eway (Anaheim 5tadium)i and Parcel 4- Approximate~y 235 acrea locat~a sau~kh•-:asterly af the intera~ect.iun of Ar-aheim Hi11s Road and Nc~hl Raneh Road and betwt~en Ctinyon Rim Road and Wa.lxcut Canyon Ro~d (Anaheim Hilla Golf Courae) be r~cXa~si- fied from the R-A, AGRICCiLTURAL AND M-~, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES ta tho PR, PUIiLIC RECREI#TSONAL ZONE. No ox,e appeared in op~oaitton t:o subjeot pet,ition. Although the Report to the ~ornmissic~n was nat read at the pul.~].ic hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutpa. neputy City At~orney Frank Lowr} noted for the Cammisaion that subject rec].asai- fication consiated of foux parcels of City-owned prapert~ commonly kr~awn as thz Anal:eim Municipal Golf CourSe, t,he Anaheim Convention Center, the Anaheim Stadiu ana the Anaheim Hills ~olf Course; and that subjea~ reclassification was neces- a~xy t~ place certain City-pwned praperties, curr8ntly used for recrea~.ional purpasea, within t.he newly-created F R, Publ~c Recreation, Zane i.n o*:der to maintain and promute the orderly cievelopment and contro). of land use within the Ci.t;v. Camanissioner Seymour offered a m~tion, :;econded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Co~nissioners Allred and Rowland being abaent) that the Planning Commission, in connection with an exemptian dec?aration status request, finds ~nd determines tk~at the p*-oposal would have no signifiaant environmental impaat and, therefore, recomm~nds to the City Council that no ~nvironmental Impact Statement is necessary. Commissianer I-Ierbst ofFered RPSOlution No. PC73-266 and moved far it.s passage and adopti.~n to r;.c~mmend to the City Council approval o£ Reclassification No. 7:.-74-34 based on those findings sei: forth by the Deputy City Attozney. (See Resolution Book) On r.oll call the foregozng resolut~.on was p~1saed by the followi.ng vote: AYE5: COMMISSIONE Ri: F~rano, NOES: COMMISSIONERSi None. ABSFNT: COMMISSIONERS: Allzed, Her~s~, King, Seymour, Gauer. Row]. 3nd . ~ ~ ~ MINCITES, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSI~N, l,~embox 27, 1973 73-750 REPUR'~S AND ~ ITEM N0. 1 REL'~)t~NDATI0N3 Ar A~F PROPERTY ACQUISITION FUR ""'-."`-'~'~~~-~ PUBLIC SCHQOL SITE. Zaning Supervi~ar Cha~~.ee Raber.ts preaanted ~ xequest lram the 1?~.acentia Unified 6choo~ Uietxiat ~or approval of. acqul~sitian c+f a oite, 8.6 ~cree in aire, locate~d approxi.mata~.y 1~,U00 feet oast o! the cenkerllno of Fairmont Boul~evdrd r~nd appr~ximntely 23Q feet nor~~ nf the centerl,ine ot ~a Palma Av~nue, to be devel~ped wi.th an elemantary echoolj a~pproval by tha GitS• Pl~anning Commieeior~ br,inq a 5tato r.equirement. Mz. Rnberts advia~d the pr~apu~~l would be cor.eieto~nt with the City af Anatiei.m's ldn~ uee poliaias~ and that subject property wae daetgnated on th~ Anane~m Ger~er.al klan fox low~medium resic3ential d9velopment and the achool fecilitX wauld be a compatiL~e use. Comrnisaioner 5eymour oflered a motion, s~conQed by Connnimeionwr I:ing and M~TION GARRIEA (:.`ummiasione~ra Allred and R~wlancl ~eing abc+ont) ~hat t.he Planning Camm~saion hereby approvse acquieition of sub~ac~t site, in the City o~ Anaheim tor dovelopxnert as a public school stt~e on the ..aeie that pubZi.c schc~ole ara ~ermitt9d usee in the R-A, Agricu],turel, Zone, elthough the Analieini Gener~]. Plan indi~atea the area for loa-m~dium reeidential developmen~. imFM ~o. 2 P~ PO ~D R~;VISIQN TCJ ZONING CODE RF:LATIVE TO AU~'QMOBILE SERVI(;E STATIONS. A le~ter from the Weetern Ai.1 and Gas Aesocia~:l~n dated Decembar ].0, ].973, c~mmenting on th~ proposed ordinance revision was presentsd. It was no~c~d that some of the comments in said le.~tter relatisd to ~he abatement af vacai~t se~-vice atations, which was not afEer~ed by the proposed rev~.sior~, and some suc~gestions were made for minar changes in the wor.ding of the pz~opoapci revision, whicli in Staff'a opinion would be extrsmely difficult ta ma~ke and would not appear to have an,y material effect un the proposed re•~igian. The Planning Cnmmisaian generally concurred that ~he ~oxegoing ietter be rec~ived and £iled. IT~;M NO. 3 CONDIT NAL USE PERMIT NOs 115 ~ R~ques~ for interpretation of revised pa.rsna su~~Lantial.ly in conformance. Zaning Supervisor Charles Roberts pxesented subjec~ m~ttter and stated a bui7.~- ing ~pplication had been filed to e:~:~and ~he church Eacil.ities at 192G West Ball Road; that the property inunediatelx east of suk,ject propertx was devel4~ed with a wedding chapel; that wk~en the co~nditiona~ -~zse permit was originally approved in 1961, the plans ~.ndicated a:xpansion at a future date; that when the ~riginal church sL•xucture was devel~ped, the bi~ilr.lin,q was lacatec~ 10 feet away from tY-e east property l.ine; tha~ the cJrouYid floor of thg new building ~aas t0 feet fr.om that pro~~erty Zine and the ~ecand story was cantilevexed ~o be 5~eet fzam that progerty line. Mr. RoberL-s continued by rec~uesting Plari- ning ~_~mmisaion determinakion as to wh~ther or not the r.evi8ed plana were in accardance with the ini:ent of the Cummission's original a~provdl= that some a~.ternatives mic~hk be 1) approval as propoaed with the building seL• back 5 fee~t fram the side prop~xty line; 2) advise the apglicant that he must a~bide by the 10-f~ot side property line; or 3) order a public heari:~g to cansi.der an en- croachmenk mor~ than 10 feet from the side proper.ty ~.ine. Commissioner Herbat stated if n 10-foat aide se~back was approved at the original public heaY•ing, he did not ~~el the intent of the Plazining Commiiasion was to allow 5 f~~t and upon comment fram Commissioner Seymour that the Plar.- z~ing Comm~ssian did noG know wheth,er. the weddiny chapel would QpposA the 5-foot s~tback, Goimnissioner Herbst a~ated h~ would not ab;ecti, howevar, the wed3ing chapel ahnuld be made aware of th~ mattex and p~rhaps ~he applicant could abtain a letter. approv~l from said wedding chapel and if the appl~cant was unable to obtain a lette;to the matter ehoulfl then be spt foz publi~ r.earing. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY E'LANNINt. GVMMISSION, Daaemb~r 27, ].973 iTEM N0. 3 (ContinUed) 73-751 Mr. RoUerte clarif.ied that in tha event ~he Applic~nt obtdin~d a Y~tter of app~~ovdl from th~ wedding ahapol, Staff c:ould then approvn the bui.lding perrni.t w3~th a 5-foot eetbdck at the oaat proporty line. Commiesionex Herb~~t offerod A ~ru~Y.~on, seconded by ~ommieeianer Se~+mour mnd NqTION CARRIED (Cormnic~aione.re Allrc+d and Rowland being nbaent) t~ appxove revisod pluna for eubject development with ~-£oat east eide eetback, gub~ock to tha applicAr~t obtai.ning a lettor ~f approval from che pr.operty owner im- mediatalx eaet of eubject propertyi and tha t in the e,vent thA applicant is uneble t~ ob~ain aaiR letter df mpproval, tho me~ttar shall be aet for publ~c h~aring. t~EM NO. ~! '~- ~' 0. 1314 ~ Fropoeing to eatebl.ish vazioua uaea in the R-A 2ane as aubmitted in l.he G-l, C-~2, and C-•3 2anea •- Reque~t for termination. VAFtI3~NCE Nd. 1465 - Propoeing to Eatahllah a mote]. in the x-A Zana - Reque~at f.or terrni.nAtion. COHDITIONAI~ USE P~FtMZT N0, 577 - lteque~ting ~o eatnblish a restaur~nt with 21 cammon ea~~.i.ng conaes~ione with commen di.ning area and aocktail ].ounge and wair~er of the 35-foot heiqht limitetion - R~~3uest for L•ei~nin~tion. A reques~ L•or teimination of eub ject p~:'~itiona, a11 app].ioabl~ to property ].ocated o:~ the north aide of Katell~ AvenuE, ~pproximately 285 fe3~ wea~t af tha c~ni:erline of Clementine St~eet, waa preson~ed. It wae noted that ~he legal ownc.r of. sut~~c~ct. propart;- ~~as requestinc~ said termi~raatione o~ the bas;s r~t norie of the uaes ha~l b~en es~ab].iehed on i:he pro~orty whiCh was c-•wrretit__.y vacant. ~'amm~~~ioner Farano otfered Resolution No. PC73-267 and m:~ved for its pa~~age an~ adoption tc~ terminate nll procas~inys of Va~iance Nu. 1314, as requested by the petitioner, (See Rasalution Book) On roll call the foreqoing r~eolution was paeaed by the following vote: AYES : C. IMI5SION~R, s Herbst, King, S~ymour, Gauer . NOES: COMMISSIONEIiS: Nane. F.BSENT: COMMISSI4NERS s Allred, Row~.and. Cammiaeione.r Far.ano offered Resolution No _ PC73-266 and mov.:~ ~or it~ passaq~ and adoption to terminate all prQCesdinqs ~f Variance Nc~. 1405, as reques+:ed by th~ peti~ion~r. (See Re~olutian ~ook) Cn roll. call the foregoir~q rese~lution was pasaed ' rhe ~.lowxng vote : AYES: CUMMISSION~RSx Hexbst, Kiag, Seymour, Gauer. 'NOES: COMMISSIONl~RB: NOY19, ABSENT: COMMISSIbNERS s Allr~d, ita~wland. Commissioner Farano ~ffered Reeolution No . PC73-~269 and moved for i.ta passage and adapzion to terminate~ all procee~lings af Condi.ti~na~ Uae Permit No. 577, as reque3t.ed by the petil:fonnr. (5~~e Res~olutiQn Aook) Or- roll call the foregoincr ~esolation wa.s paaeed by the folluwir-g ~rute : AXE5: COMMISSxC`N~RS: I~erbet, 1Cinq, ~~ymour, Gatter. NOES: COMMISSIQN~i~: None. ABSi,NT: COMMISSIONERS: AlllCed, Ptowland. s ~ ~ MINUTES, GITY pLpNNING GOMMISSION, Ib~emb~r 27, 1973 ~13-~52 TTEM N0. 5 c~3~~F0 THL ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL' C~JDE - ZONING -~ STGNS, ADVERTTSING SIGNS AND 8'.'.`RUCTURES. Aaeistant Planner Ral.ph CompL•on preeanted Statf Repe~r~. ta the t'pmmioaian ancl commented therean. Th~ Planning ~ommiseion entera~9 into diecu~ston xegar.ding tt.oir thouqhte and oommente ~at the ~oint work ~eaeion of the City C~~uncil and Pldnniny Commisrsion he].d Oc~aber 24, 1972 ~ fo] l~wing which Commisaianer Herb~t o!lare~l a motion~ seaonded by Commisaionar Seymour and MOTtON ~ARRIED (Com~n~l.ssia~era All.red ancl Rowland be~.ng abAent) to set £or pub~io hoaring consi.c~eration af ~m~ndment to Anahei.m MuniciFel Code, mitle ].8, Chapter 18.G2, 'Lo~~ii~g C3de+ - Sign~, Advertis~ 3ng Signe and Struoturea, to be scheduled at the discroti~n o£ th~ De~velopm~enti Sorvices bapartment Statf . :LTEM NU . 6 F' NAL' T~T N~J. 8215 - Request for eunnszdmont of wall r,ondit~.on. Request fram Weskfielcl Development Company for amendme.zt to conditi.on of approvRi on Tzact IVo. 8215 aoncerning fencing w~~ pres~nted . T1: was pro-~ posed that a c~mbin~tion of 3~Foot, 6-in~h and 6-font wrou~ht iran fenaes with 8-inch by 8~inch wood posts along Canyon Rim Road b~ ~rovided in lieu of a 6-faot masonry wall along Canyon Rim Ttoad iii some locait~.one anci a 6-foot openwork wall in other locations adjacen~. to Canyon ~tim koad. Depui~y Ci~y Attorney Frank Lawr~- advised that Commisaianer S~ymour. was reqiiestiny to abstain from any disc.~ssio~n and v~ting on ~he sub~ect matter as he had a possible c~nflict of interest. Thereupon, Commiesioner S~symour left the Cauncil. Chamber at 4:30 p.m. Commisaioner. King of~ered a motion, stacnded by Commissioner Horb~~ ~ ~ TlOTION CAIt:tIED (Commissioners Allred, Rowland and Seyn!QUr. being abC~ ~ that the waJ.1. as proposed b~~ the developer be and hereny is appr.ov~:l anc~ that Condition No. 3 of Tract No. R215 be revib~d ta xead as follows: ( 3) Th~t a 6-~~ot, dECOr~tivQ, ogenwor.c wall shaZ1 be const~ructed at the tnp of ~lopa Rdj~cent ta Canyon Rim Road on Lot Nos. ]., 2, 3, 4, 5, 43 and 72 but that saici waJ~i may be re~uced in height to 42 inchF~ an the fron~ portions of Lot l+ios. 43 and 72, and that ~ 42-inch, de,cbrative, opeiiwork ~~all shall be con s~truc~ed on the ~.og o.• s lope ad~ 3cen~ ta Canyr~n Rim Rcad on Lt~t Nas. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33• 34, 35, ?6, 37 , 42, 47, 48, 49, 50, S1, 52, 53, 74, 75 and 7~, Reasona ~1~ landscaging, inclu3inq i rrigation facilities, sha11 be i.nsta.~ted within thP slope areas of each lot adjacer~t ta the roaclways a~nd in t'~e street parkw~ys. Flana for sai.d landscapinc~ shatl be subm~.tted to and sub~~ct to the appraval o~ thp Park;uay Mai-itenance Super- intendent. Follawing installation an~ accept~nce, the propexty owner shall assume re~~xnsibi.lity for maintenanc~ of said land- acaping to the lot lines, regardless of the locat ion of the walls. The City of Anaheim shall assume r~pgonsibility €or maintenance of landsca~-ing in tY.e Canyon Rim Road riqht-c~f--way. COMMISSIONER SEYMOUR ENTRRED THF. COUN~IL CHAMBE:t AT 4:40 P.D9. i ~ MzN11TES, CiTY PLANN~N~ COMM][S820N, llec:omber 27, ~.9'73 73~753 ITEM N0. 7 CATION NO. 72-73-10 (Lcaadership Houaing 3ysteme, Inc.) - Request ~or appxoval of precise ~lane. Znning Supe.rvisor Charlna Ftobarte nat~ed that tho Fotltloner wae dutrmittiny praciae ~lane as requeet~d by Candit~ion No. Q ~f Re~salui~.ion No. 72R-406 in con~lection with Reclaeai.fic~tiui~ :10. 72-73-1Ot that ~h~ Commi9eion wou~.S recmll the hiatory of the pra~ecr ard dl~o that severr~l, mor~tha ago preci,as Qlans were~ conaidered .ox th~, f.i~ ~t tx~act of. aubject devAYopment and th~ Planning Commission dicl rtot ppr~~.~e thoes plt~n,~ which eubsequently werra approved by the City Counci:l. ; triat the pro~aosal pre -~i1:1y beFore th~ Cem- miesion wa~ f.ar. approval of L-lae pzeciee plana for t..~: remaining 758 af ~he total projer..tj that t.he ~lar~a being aonaiderad appeared ~o ba eubetar~tially th~ dame ae th~se Ap~~xoved :~~~ the Ci.ty Counai.t f.or the fi.rs~ phaa~ o~ the developmant w:.t;ti a little mare wooc~ and stucco than wae ahawn on the oriqinu]. plane t and that r~ problen~ ha3 b9on noted by the Bui ldi.ng Divieion rela.'~i.ng to water 19.n~s in Trnck N~. ?945 being that eaid wai:er lines wexe lUCated 7 Fe4t outnide i:he tract az-d were requir~d t~ be located totall.y within t.he trac~. De~uty City Attorney Frank Lowry noted for the Commiegion that the precis~ plane for the firs~ tract in subject development cauld not be apprav~d until such time ~s the plans ~ere changed since anXthi.nq to do ~.•ith water or sewer lines we::e required to ~e on-sitet that the devel~por had internal pxoblema and thak the City Attor~7ey had spoken to the dev~eJ.opor sev~z'al ti.mes r~qaz~d-• ing tk~a mr~t~er. Commis~i.oner Hezbst offered a motion, seconded by Cvmmiasioner 5~ymour and MOTION GAEtRIED (Commissioners Allred and Rowlan~d being a~isent) to continue sub ject reques'~ far appro~ ai of preciao plans t~ s uch time as the de~~e.Zoger has resolved the. problem perta~ning to water and sPwer lin~a in the fir~t pha~e ~f subje;;t developm~r~i: (Tr.act No. 7945) . ITEM N0. E3 REQU~ST FOR CLAR.IFICATION OF S IGR' ORDINANCE. Zaninc~ ~upervisor CrAarles Rob~rts ~resentpd request from QR5 Corpoxati~n to.r permission to eonstruc~ a double°faced elecLrical adv~rEising display sign with a snlid pole cover over a two-pipe structurs at 2952 West Lincolr~ Avenue; and ~tzted that rh~ proposed sign would resemble a washing machine; and that Stafi had r•eviewed subject requ~st and advisad thn ~,etitione.r }~~t the propo3E~d "pole cover" and ts-foot, 2-inch by 6-foot. wide panel c~nst~- tuted a portion of• t'~e display surface and was r.equir.ed to ba a mi~nimum af 8 feat above gradQ to provide ~isual distance for automo}~ile traffic. Upor. inquiry of Commissioner fierbst, Mr. Rob~rts advised that tYp~.ca?. monument sigr.s were not as hi3h as the prop4sed s i gn; an8 that Staff was not interpr2ting the proposed sign as a monument s ign. Commissioner Seyanour offered a motion, seconded by Commissiar~er King ~and MOTION C~IRRIED (Cammissioners Allred and Ro~wland be~ng absent) , that ~he Planni.ng Cc.mmissian hereby concur.s with the intP~~xetat.~on of the S4aff. ar~d therefore sustaina St.aff's o;.iginal re~ommeYidation, allowing tY,e proposed sign ~without rh~ pole caver. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CI'CY PLANNING COMMI3~ION, Uaaembnr 27, 1973 73-754 I'~~M NO. 9 ~3'~SF~~, U3E PFRMIT NO. 1272 ~ Submiasior. nf revised plane. ?,oning Sup~rvi.~or Charles Rober~s preaented requeet for approval of revie9d }~lana f.rc~m the C'Meara, Ch~ndl~er Corporat:ian, to permit ~he constructi.on o~ two, two-et.~r,y uffice aomplex ^tructure~ containing ~ rostaurant tu~d coffe~, ahop, a commerciel bank, r~ eavinge and ].aa~n L~uildlny and d private health club on proparty locdted aouth and eaat of the sou~hea~t carner oP Sta~te Colleqe Boulevard and Bdll Road, with froni.ag~~s on those ka-o stzeete. Mr. Roberta advieed that tha eubmltt~d plana :ndic:ated ue~s provious]y approved under Conditional Usa Permit Nos. 1272 a~~d 6~0, however., l.ho propoeed bank and eavirige and loan building wero not specific.slly mrntionod~ thmt the Anahaim General Plan designa~ed ~he subjc~ct pro~,orty as being appropr.iate for r.ommarcial uses r And that the P1~tnning Commigsian was boi~ng rc~ueatec to detsrmine whether the revised plan~s, as s;iUmit,ted, ware sttbstantiall}• in conform~~-r~.ce witi~ the intent of the Cr~mmission's ~pproval of Conditional Uae Permit No. 1272. Commi~ai~ner. Farano offered a matian, secondQd by Commissioner King and Np'~•TON 1:1~RRIED, that thQ Planni.ng Commissiun k~ereby finds and detc~r.mines that the revised ~,~lans, as submitted ' for subject developrnent,are suha~tan- kially in conformdnce with tho in~er~t of the Gommiseion's ap~r.oval of (;onditional Uae Permit Na. 1272, by RQSOl.ution Nn. PC73.-216 dat~cl November 1, 19'71. ITEM IJO. 10 C D T.~ONAL US~ P~RMIT NO. 1202 - Requeat to constr~~ct room addii:i~~n. Zoninq Supervisor Charles Roberts presentr~d r.equeat frorn a property owner in the Ranchn Yo.rba condominiums for ~ raom atldition and sta~ed the applicant had c.anstructed a pati.o slab ~nd was now requ~sting to gnclose sa~me and have ~an open archway in~o the liviiig raom3 that buil.d~.ng permits had previaualy been issued for patio awnings and other patia a~vera which did nat appear to contradict 'he cpen space features of the private recreattonal areas of each dwelling unit in tawnhoase and condominium complexPa; and that the Plani~ing ~ommission sh~v.lc~ cletermina whet.her the proposal was appropriatc and whether it wou13 ae~ ~ precRdent fur other similar requesta. Comomissionei• Farano offered a nx~tion, aeconded by Cqmmissi~ner Seymour ar~d MOTION CARRIED (Co~missionars Allred and Rav+rland heing absent) to require that the petitioner file the appropriat~ petition +~o construat a room addition, which cov~.d be coneidpred at public hearinq. AD.7~URNMENT - There being no further busineas to discuss, Chairman Gauar offered a motion, seconded by Co~tunissioner King and MOTIdN CARRIED (Commiasionsrs AZ~.red and Rowland bping abaent) to adaouzn the meeting. The meetinq adjourr~ed at 5s50 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, , ~-~~/~ ~~.~~~~./ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretnxy Anaheim City Planning Commiasion PB5 : hm