The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1975/08/040 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, I~1C ~ ~ ~ Clty Hnll An~~helm~ California Au9us t ~i, 1975 REGUI.IIR MEETIt~r, OF TNE l1NAi'~IM COTY PLANNINf COMMiSS10N ~_, ,_ ._ _ --- REGULAR - A regular meetin~ of the Anahelm f.lty Plannin~ Commfsslon was called to MEETING order at 1:3n p.m. In thG Councll Chamhcr, a qu~~rum bein~7 present. PRESENT - C~1~1 RMAN: Farano - C~lP1MISSI~NERS: Barnes~ Herbst, Johnsun~ Kln~~ Morley~ Tolar ABSENT - COMMISSI~NE:RS: None Al.SO PRESEM7 ^ Frank lcrwry Jay Titus Ronald Th,ompson Kn rnvlton Fernald Coulter Hooker Annika Santalahtl Allan Daum Patricia Scanlan peputy City Attorney Office Engineer Developn~ent Services Director Redevelopment Agency Director Ass(stant Planner Zoning 5upervisor Assistant Zonin~ Supervisor Commisslon Secretary PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Tolar led in the Pledge of Alleglance to the Flag of the ALlEf1ANf.C Un(ted States of America. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner h~orley offered a mot(on, seconded by Commissioner Tolar and THE MINUTES MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano abstalning since he was not prese~t at the mesttng in question), to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 7, 1975, as submitted. Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissi~ner Morley and MOTI~N C4RRIED~ to approve the minutes of the meetinc~ of July 21~ 1975, as submitted. RECLA5SIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. NOR'EAST PLAZA, LTD.. c/o Mark D. Leff, N0, 74-75`41 120 Ei Camino Drive. Suite 110~ Beverly Hills, Ca, 9~21z (O~+ner); BILL PHELPS, 1095 North Main, Suite S~ Oranne~ Ca. 925h7 (Agent). TENTATIV~ MAP OF Property desc.ibed as: An irrPgularly-shaped par~el of land con- TRACY NQ. 8710 sisting of approximately 16 acres located on the west side af Kraemer Boulevard between Crowther Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue~ having approximate frontages of 620 feet on the south side of Crowther Avenue~ 160 feet on the wCst side of Kraemer Boulevard. and 46n fcet on the north side of Qrangethorpe Avenue. Property presently classified CL (COMMERClAL, LIMI7ED) 20NE AND CH (COMMERC~AL, HEAVY) ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOPM RM-120Q (RESIDENT!AL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. TENTATIVE TR~1CT REQUEST: ENGINEER: HALL S FOREMAPI, INC.~ 253~ Narth Gra~d Avenue~ Santa Ana, Ca. 92701. Subject property is proposed for subdlvision into 7 RM-17_00 zoned lots. The sub.jer_t petltions were continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 7, 1975, for the petitioner to submit development plans and an Environmcntal Impact Report. it was noted that th petit oner was reque;ting an additional four~week continuance to the meeting of Se~tembe ~ 3, 1q75• Commissioner Johnson clffer~ed a~motion, seGOnded by Commission~r Morley and MOTIO~ CARRIED~ to furti~:r c~;,cinue the public hearing and considerati~n of Petition far Reclassiflcation No. 74-75-~+1 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 8710 to the Plannirg Commission meeting of September 3~ 1975, as requested by ihe petitioner. 75-3~3 ~ ~ ~ MiNU7~S~ CITY Pl.l1NNING COMN~ISSIOIJ, August 4~ 1975 ~5"354 EPIVIRONNENT'11L IMPIICT - CQNTIFIUEp PURIIC HEIIRIN~;. 9RIGHAM Y~UN(; IINIVF.RSITY, !'~~ Eost 13-i AND REPORT NOS South Tomplc Strcet~ Selt Lak,c City, Utah f3~~111 (~lwncr); . 13(, MATRFYE'I< H~~MFS, INC., ~, Q. Box 141~~ Uplc~nd~ Ca. 917(lfi ' (~qent). Pr~pe-ty descri~r.~.i as: t1n Irra~~ularly-shnped ~arcel VARIANCE N(1. 7.77_4 ~f Inn~l cnnslstf ~~ oF approximnte~y 1';7 acres locnted nort~n ~~' and we,t af rh~^ fnter,ection of La Palma llvenu~ ~nd Euclld TCNTATIVE MAPS OF Stree[~ h~ving appro~;imate frontnges ~f 20Q~ feet ~7n the~ nnrth 7RACT NOS. 8775 sldn of L3 Palmo Avenue ~~nd 5~~ te~r ~n thc wcst slcle of ~uclld ~ 8793 A7g6 ~~95 Street, Froperty presently classiflecl RS-A-h3~~~~ (RESI~ENTIAL/ ~ ~ ~REVISIONS N0. 1) AGRICULTURl11.) ZOPIE (WI1'H A RFSOIUTI~IN OF iNTfNT 7Q RM-2~~U0). VAfiIANCE RERUL'ST: WAI VER OF (~) REQUIREMFNT TIIAT AlL LOTS FRQNT ON A PUdLIC STREET AND (B) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SE1'BAC~,~ TO C(1t;~TRUCT A 22h-LOT, MUL7IPLE- ~AMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELnPM[PJ1'. TEIJ7l1T1 VE TRACT REQUf:STS : E~~GI NF.Ek: W I LIDAP! ENGI NEER I N~ /15S(1C I A'ES ~ I 25 South Cl~udlna Street~ An~heim~ Ca. 92R05. SubJect praperty is proposed for subdivision as follows: Tract No. ~775 (Revision No, 1) - 40 RM-2400 lots -~7 ~anfts 7ract No. 8793 (Revisi~n No. 1) - G6 RM-2~~~~ lots - 62 units TraGt No. 8795 (Revision No. 1) - 75 RM-240~ lots - 71 units Tract No. II79~ (Revision No. I) -~+3 RM-24~0 lots - 42 u~Its The subJect ~et(tions were conxinued from thc Planning Commfssi~n meetinq of July 21~ 1975- f~r the petlYloner to submit revised ~~lans. Two persons indicated their prescnca to inquire regarding the proposal ~nd to make certain reminders to the Planninc~ Commission since the proposal was a revision of earlier development plans for the sub)ect property. Mr. Ben say~ 21G8 West G~ayson Avenuc, Anaheim~ ap~eared before the Planning Commission and Indicated concern regardin~ the rev ~ed plans and especfally in regard to drainage f~r the entlre proi:rty. Ch~irman Farano ascertained that there appeared to be na new evidence to be presented by the opposttinn or other interesked persons and, thereupon~ declared the public hearing ~losed to public discussion. The Planning Commission inquired if any changes had been made to the plans submttted at the July 21~ 1975 meeting~ whereupon, Mr. Jim Christer,sen, representi~g the agent for the petiti~ner~ appeared and stated he felt there was a misunderstanding by the Commission in ~hat the proposal was being looked upon as a single-family development when it was essentially a multiple-family deveiopment; that walkways and bicycle paths were being provided throughout the proJect for commuting to the common recreational areas within the development; that under the previous multiple:-family developmcnt plans for the property there was a requirement that none of the rec,uired guest parking spaces --~uld be more than 200 feet from the units, and they were proposing to comply with that requiremene with the longest distance being 175 fe~t~ that in some instances~ they were providing as much as 31 to 32 feet in the driveways~ while in otl~er iristances they wer~ providi~g only 9 feet sinc~ thr. proposal was according to the prev(ous concept for develapment of the property; that some of the buildings on the plan would be mnveu back to allow for guest parking in the front of the units, if desirable; that na carports were bcing provlded; and th~t they would be providina a total of 78$ off-streeY parking spac~s or 3.7 p~rking spaces per drlelling unit~ and the Code required only 2.S off-street parking spaces per dwell:ng unit. Mr. Christe~~sen indicated that renderings of the proposed condominiums or townhouses and the maJar recreational areas were available for viewing and~ upon request by the Commission, said renderings were Pxamined by thE Commission. In response to quasttoninc~ by Chairman Farano, Mr. Christensen stated the proposed development wauld be an enclosed community. Chairman Farano requested Mr. Chr(stGnsen to follow the site plan on the wail wi±h the pointer tu indicate th~ walkways for at) of the residents to use in reaching the cammon recreational areas; whereupon, Mr. Chris~ensen did so~ indicating that the green areas were bigger than they looked; and that there wo~ld be meanderi~g sidewaiks and, in some cases, there wuuid not be sidewalks per se. Chairman Farano approached th~e po~ted plan and inquired if the lines along the back of the residential structures indicated or suggested a fence; whereupon~ Nr. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ Auyust 4~ 1975 75-~55 F.NVIRbMMCNTAI IMPACT aEPORT NOS. 13~~ 1~Np 13~i; VARIANCE N0. 2724; AND YENTA7IVE MAPS OF 1'RACT NOS. 8775. g793~ ~795~_879~ (RF'JISIONS N0. 1) (Cc~ntlnubd)„__ l,hrist~nsen Indicnted In the affirm~~cfv~, stitln~i th~~t th~ fences would be va~ying hci~hts and same ware tn comm~n areas; that very few ~f the lots w~u~d h~va low block w~lls and they had considcred havir~c~ walkways in those areac~ howevcr~ becaust of th~fr ex~crlence wfth re4l~tent.ial burc~larles, thcy fclt it was a bad situ~~tlon to opon the rear of thc homes to bur~lars by glvin~ an alleyway to get Into the homes, ntc.~ and thit sltuatlon could n~~t b~~ affnrded. In rasponse to questlonin~ by Commissloner K(ng~ Mr. Chrtstensen reafflrme~~ hls prevtous stfpulation to prc~vide for 'i-foot side yArds for the detached dw~lling units~ s~id side yards t~ be utilized ag an easement for recreat(ona) purposes nr~ly and, furthermore~ said recr•eatlonal easements shall be Included in the ~CF,Rs fc~r the subJect development. Chairman Farano inqulred recl~rding the proposed drafnaye for the property, and ~eputy CitY Attorncy Frank Lc~wry adviseu that an agreement betwer..n the Orange County Flood Control Distrlct and Matreyek Homes~ calling for tunnelinq under the adJ.~cent freeway to connect with the Huston Street ChAnnel will be considered by the City Council wtthin a few weeks. The Chairman recognizcd Mr. 9en pay fr~m the floor~ whercupon, Mr. 6ay reminded the Planning Commission that at the last City Council hearing on the subject propcrty In October, 197~+~ the Council had agreed that they would personally look at the drainage plan for the whole development since s~id plan~ as submttteci~ ignored the west side of Che pro~erty; that the underground drainage ~ras presently the same as originally submitted with everythinc; on the west side of thF lakr. being ru~~off tnto his tract which was immedlatel;~ west of the subJect property; and that it wa~ !iis understanding that until such tir,e as the drainage plan was approved~ whether formally or in- formallyo there c~~uld not be any go-ahead on any part of the development af the subject propercy. In respons~ to questioning by ChatrMan Farano~ Office Engineer Jay Titus advisP~ r'~at a gener~-! drainaye candition was incyuded in the Interde~artmental Committee recommendations~ however~ said candikian did not specifically address the probl..m rrwntioned by Mr. Bay. Commissioner Nerbst took exception to the proJect, noting that the remarks made by Mr. Christense~i regarding parking spaces were confusing with respect to measurements~ quantities, sethacks~ etc.; that he was aiso concernPd about the fenc~s going through the proJect and knowing where the common open sF~ace areas were located; that if the proposed concept aras to be approved, then the residents were entitled tc, some ~f the amenities of R-1 livtng since the proJect would end up as a sinyie-family type de~relopment; that narrow streets wsre propased, with no on-street parking allowed. and with 16-foot drivea~ays~ for instance~ the cars would wind tip out in the street; that tlie Code requirements for develapm~nt zones such as proposed dId not allow less than 25-foot lon9 drivaways or ntherwise ttiey were required to have three- car c~arages and automatic gara~e door oneners for the 6 to 10-fo~Y long driveways; and that he was also concerneci about the square foatage of the dwellings compared to the size of the applicable lots. Mr. Chris[ensen stated the driveways would vary between 18 and 35 feet long; that 206 parking spaces would be provided in the driveways in front of the garages; that 43 additlanal off~street parkin~ spaces for ~uests were bein9 prcvided as a ~evision to the plan submitted at the 'ast meeting; that, in some cases~ there woutd he no parking spaces provided outside the 9arages and driveways; in some cases, :here would be one such parking space, and in other cases. there would be two su~h parking spaces; and that tne gararyes with less than 18-foot long driveways would have off~ street guest parking within the 20~ feet requir~d distance, Commissioner Herbst further noted that he felt the subject proJe,,t was dic,ressing from the rPquirements in other r.on~s which should apply to tl,is proJect, Chalrman Farano added that a diffcrei~t label wa~ beinc~ placed on the development znne which the subJecZ proJect was trying to come into; and the Commissior~, whether they iiked the proposal or not, and whether they wantcd to allow this kind of deviation~ shoulA racognize it for what it was; and that the petitioner had the opportunity from the last meeting to amend or change the proposa) along the lines of ;he Commis~lon's discussion. In response, Mr. Christensen stated they were coming in under RM-2400 zoning, however, they were mae*.Inc~ the standards of the RM-4000 Xone; that Cammissioncr Herbst appeared to be lookin~ at the property as though it had no zone at all; khat th~ developer had not vlsualized th~ items being opposed by the Commission and~ although the developer had improved the proJect over what it was previously~ they d~d ~ • s MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Augu~t ~~~ 1975 75-356 ENVIRv".r~£NTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. ~3W AM~ ~36: VARIANCE N0. 2724; AN~ TENTATIV~ MAPS OF TftACT NOS. 8775~ 8793, 8795~ 8796 LREVISIONS N0. 1) (Contlnued) nnt wtsh to foo) anyone; tl~at the rcvlsed proposal would beneflt the sch~als, the streets and the trafflc situation; that they reCO9~~~~~ that Cl~ey were pionacring wlth someth(nq different~ howevery there was A very ctefinite need f~r thc proJcct; that thny had chacked out tt~e previously-approved proposc+l tor the dNVelopment of thc property ~nd could not clr.valo~ ki~at product; and that, If they had presentad the proposcd pro)ect first, rather than the origina) proposal~ lt would be different also, in hls ~pinion. Mr. Christensen continued by stating they would prefer not to hnve tc build the lake~ hawever~ It was necessary for the adequate overflav of drainage in the area; that thay were sellfng the park site to the Clty for less than one-hA1F thelr owr~ purchase pric,e; that no nther b~iilders had to do the things they had to do; that Comnissloncr Nerbst had made some c~ood ~ugqesttons during the puhlic hearfng, howeverY the developer was provtding about all they could with thls plan; and th~t, regarding setting a precedent, every pro,Ject should stand o~~ fcs own merit and otl~er praJects shr,u) d iiot be pol nted :o, In response to questic~nin~ by Commissloner Natbst, Mr. Chirlstensen stated tiie dwellings would be sold off as townhouses~ attached r~nd dEtached~ with the indiv(dual lots and wher~ the lots back~d to each other, thE~e would be fences, Cc~mmissioner Herbst n~ted that some of the lots were SOOb square feet in size and he questtoned how any raom addttions or alterations to the structures would be handled. Mr. Chrlstensen replicd that the owners would be restricted by the CCbRs and w~uld not be able to make any changes or addltions ur~less the homeowners association approved and thc owne~ was able to comply with the Building Code requircmenls. Commissioner Johnson noted that, in his opinion, the previous proposal for development of the property had more open space~ and not iust corners being referred ko as apen space. In response, Mr. Christensen siated they were propostng more than Che 40$ required open soace for eith~r the RM-24Q0 or the RM-40~0 Zone. 7he Chairman recognized Mrs. D~vid A. Reed~ 914 North Fairview~ Anaheim, from the t`ic3or; whereupon, Mrs. Reed indicated her concern as to the remaining properLy to be developed at the subject location, being that there were approximately 137 acres involved and the proposal was for only 33 of those acres. Mrs. Reed stated she lived Just across L~ Palma Avenue frum the entrance to the subJ~ct property. Lhalrmcn Farano suggested that Mrs. Reed discuss the development of the remainder of the property with Mr. Christensen after the meeting. Caaemissloner Herbst noted that in order for him to vote for the subject proposal, he would hava to have rmre specific plans indicating the items being discussed and in quastion ~t this meeting; and that the numbers involved were very important Yo any decision he might render concerning the proposal. Chairman Farano noted that, with numbers~ the Comm(ssion woulri be able to ascertain the applicable requ=~pment for automatic garage door openers~ etc. Thereupon~ Mr. Christensen reviewed the number and types of parkinq spaces being proposed, being 424 spaces in enclosed garages, 20G spaces in driveways, and ~58 spaces in guest parking areas~ totaling 78~1 paricing spaces or 3.7 off-street p~rking spaces per dwelling unit; that, also, they had indicated on the plan some revt,ed building setbacks to a11ow for parkiny in the driveways ana ~~h~re the additional setbacks cauld not be accommodated, they I~ad provlded the add.~tianal parking spaces elsewhere but within 175 feet of the dwelling units; and that '~ dwelling units, at the rtr~st, did not have parking provided ln the drivea~?y~~: Carimissianer Herbst further clarified that if the r~r~posal was far RS°5~~n develnp- ment~ 1060 off-street parking spaces would t~e reyuir~d, or 5 spaces per dweliing unit~ and the living ervironment proposed was the samc: ~s RS-5G~^; that the proposal~ if approved, would set a very d~3ngeraus and und~sirable precedent; that he could understand the hardship with reiat'.onship to the allowance for the lak~; which r~as for the drainage of the surrounding area and that some speclal consi:'eration ~hould be ¢orthcoming in that respect; that the planned community developments were for the purpnse of having something bet:er than Just an R5-7200 ~rea~ howaver~ the proposal had less parking and less usable sPaee, althaugh there were some combined common and rec~eatlanal areas which were fenced in, ~n~ the questions ~ • ~ MINUTF.S~ CITY PLANNING CQMMISSiON~ August 4~ 19?5 >>-357 ENVIFtONMEN7Al. IMPf1CT itEPOR7 NAS. 134 ~ND 136; VAhIANCE Nn. 272h; AND TENTATIVE MAPS OF TRACT NOS, 8~y. 8,J9~. 879,~i. _~7' ~~REV1510NS Na I~ Continued) __ belnq raised were I~ased on thc fact that the proposnl was not for ~lnnned community developme~t enc' not an R5-77.~~ cievelopmnnt, since It was sor~~ of both and the conside,~~tl~n of It by tl~e Pl~~nn+nn Commisxlon was ver/ seriou~ because~ tf approved~ therc would bc rtare Ilkc ft or worse; th~t without the fence, the proJect minht bc mc~re of a planned communlty developmcnt~ slnce with tl-e fcnce, tho pr~perty would betong to tha individunl property owners and there would not bc thr. intendad apen spacc; and tht+t~ In lils opinlnn, the lendinc~ (nstitutlo~s would br: looking at the proJuct ~is single-famlly dwell~nc~s nnd all the p~ople would h~~vo for recraAtlonal purpc~s~x was n clubhouse dawn tho ~oad and ~ctu~lly o~en space was non-~xistenC. Commissfonor Marley concurred that each pro.~ect ali~uld stand on its own merit and nnte~l th.~t the dcvcloper had gone to cc id~r~blc trouble with the prcJnct~ a?ihough It wns difficult to make a de.:(~1nn sincr, there were many frin~e areas to consfder. Commissinner• Tolar offered a motlon, seconderl by Canmissianer K(ng and MOTION CARRIEO~ thflt Supplemen2 No. 3 to Envlronmental Impact Re~ort Na. 134 (Supplement to EIR No. li3)~ having been considercd ~his date by the Ctty Planning Commission and evidence, hoth written and ~ral, having been presented to sup~lemcnt sa{d draft o~ Suppiemcnt No. 3~ the C(ty Planning (.ammission belle~~es that sald dr~ft d~es Gonform to the C(ty an~ State Gutaellnes and the State of Callfornia Envlronmental Quality Act and, h.ised upon 5UC:F1 ir.formation~ daes hereby recommend to the Clty Council that khey certify sald Supp'ement Nc~. 3 is in comp~tance with said Environrtx~ntal Quality Act. Corm~is~toner Morlc:y offered Resolution No. rc7y-167 and moved far its p~issage and ado~~~ion~ that Pctition for Variance No. 2724 bc, ard hereby is granted, qranting wai~ier of the req~ai remen* that ~11 lots front ~n a publ ic street on thP basis tl-,at 1R$ of the proposed lots take access from privete streets, said rots to be developed witli both r~sidences and recreatiunal areas~ and that similar waivcrs have been pr~viausly appruved by the Plannin~ Commis~ion to all~~w for residents~l planned unit developmenc; g~anting waiver of the minimum sideyard .tback~ in part~ to F~ermit zero side yarcii for the attacheA dweiling uni~s and 3^foot side yards for• the detached dwelling unlta~ as stipulated to by the petitloner~ on the basis that the detached dwelling unit walls facing said 3-fo~t setback will have no windows, daors, ~r other openinys and that said 3-foot setback will be uiilized by the owner of the adJoining lot as an easement for recreatianal purposes on~y and, furthermore, said recreational easement sha11 be included in the CC6Rs for the subJect developrt-ent; tfiat the petltioner stipulated to pradidiny automatic garage doar openers for the proposed garayes fronting on pr{vate drives and having driveways ':s than 25 feet long; and that the 7B8 ~arking spaces represented by the petitioner at the publlc hear(ng shall be provided in conformance with the minimum dimensions specified by the Zoning Cude; subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommenclations. (Se~ Resolution Book) Ch~~irman Farano inq~lred if it would be appropriate to add a conditicn of appro~~al requ+ring revlew and approval of the drainage plans for the west side of ;he s~bJect praperty by both the Gity Council and the City L'ngineer; whereup~n, Mr. Christensen st~ited suah a condit(on was not fmposed with the previous approval for development of thP property. Mr, Lowry advised that such a conditicn was not appropriate for the su~~]e°ct petltion for variance, and Mr. Titus advised that a ~ener•al condition re~~arding drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer was included in the Int:~rdepartment~l Curnmittee recommendations for the subJect tentative tract m:eps. On roll call, the foregoic~g res~lution was passed by the following vote: AYI:S: COMMISSIQNERS: BARNES~ HERBST, KING~ MORLEY~ T'OtAR N~I:S: COMMISSIONERS: JONNS(1N, FARANO AB!~ENT: COMMISSfONERS: NONE Canmissioner Herbst noted th~~t he had no arc~ument with the foregoing variance, how- ev~er~ h~ did not feel the submitted tentative tract maps met the standards for pl~anned community development and~ therefore~ I~e would votE "no~" realiztng that t`~e developer had go~e a long wa~y, In conGlusion, he noted [hat the open space sh~uld e~ot be fenced off, as propos~ad~ and suggested that if the Pla~ning Cammiss(onsfiould vote to approve the tentativ~~ tract ~.ps~ the revlsions sub~nitted at this meeting should be inr.orporated as paTt of satd maps. Commissloner Morley offered ~j motion~ seeonde~i by Ceximissioner Tolar and MQTION CARRIF.D (Commissioners Nerbs[, Johnson and Fa~ano vutinc~ "no"), that Yent~tive Map of Tract No. ~1775 (Revision No. 1) be ar.d he~eby Is approved, subject to the following condltlons: • s ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CAMPIISSI~N~ August 4~ 1975 75-358 E~IVIRONMEN7AL IMPACT REPOaT NOS. 1~~~ AND 136; VARIANCE N0. 2724; AND TENTATIVE MAPS OF TRACT NOS 877$ L 879~, ~7~ ~~~6 (REVI S I ONS N0. 1) ~Co~~t i nued _ 1. '~hat the approva) of Tentative Map of 7ract No. ~i775 (Revlsion No. 1) Is grantod subiect to comptetion af Reclas~ific~tian N~. 73-7~~~3~i and approval of Va r i an ce No . 1. 7?. 4. 2. That sh~~uld ~his suhdtvision bc develo~cd as mo~r th~n ane subdivislon, each subdtvislon thereof shal) be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all luts within thi~ tract sl~all be served bY underground ut•illtles. 4, That a flnal t~act map of subJect propertY si~all be subm(tteJ to and approved by thc Ctty Counctl and t!~en b~ recorded in the office of the Orange ~ounty Racorder. 5. That the coven~nts~ conditions and restrictlons shall be submitted to and approved by the Ctty Attorney'a Office prlor t~ City Cat~ncll approval of the final t~a.:t map~ and~ further, that the appr•oved covenants~ condltions and restrlctlons shall be recorded concurrently wlth the flnal tract mr.~p. 6. That prlor to filing the f(nal tract map~ the appllcant shal) submlt to the City Attorney for approval ~r da~lal a complete synupsis of the pr~posed functtoning of the operating corporati m(ncluding~ hut not llmitecf to, the articles of Incor- poratlon~ bylaws, proposed methods of mana~ement~ bond(ng to insure maintenance of common property and bulldings and such ot~er information as the Clty Attorney may d~:sire to protect the Clty~ lts citlzens, and the purchasers of the proJect, 7. Th~t street names ahall be appraved by thc City of An~heim prior to approval of a final [ract map. 8. That drainage of subJect propei•ty shall be disposed of in a manner that is satl~factory tc~ the City Englneer. y. That all private streets shall be develaped in acco~dance with the City of Anaheim's stanciards for private streets. 10. That the owner(s) of subJGCt property shall pay to the Clty of Anahe~m the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu ~ees as determir.ed toebmiaPPsoissued,bY the CitY Council. ~said fee~ to be pa~d at *.he time the building p 11. That v~ehicul~r access rights, except at street and/or alley apenings~ to Lr~ Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to +.he City of Anaheim. 12. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be ner.essary by the Chief of the ~'ire Department pri~r to commencement of struct~~ral framing. 13, 7hat all publtc street and storm drain improvements within this tra~t and Tract Nos. 8793 (Revision No. 1)~ 8795 (P,evision No. 1) a~d 8796 (Revision No. 1) and ±he lake within Tract No. ~793 (Revision No. 1) shall be dev~loped concurrently with the first phase of con~truction of satd tracts and shall be completed prior to final building and zoning inspecttons of the ftrst phase; and that a bond in an amount and form saClsfactory to the City shall be posted i guarantee the ultimate tmprevement of sald public streets and of the lake. 14. That the subJect property shal) be develaped precisely in accordance with exhibits submitted and approved in conJunction with Variance No. 27Z~~• Commissioner Morley offered a motions seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED (Conxnissioners Herbst~ Johnson and Farano voting "no'')~ that Tentative Map of Tract No. a793 ~Revision No. 1) bc and hereby is approved, subJect to the foliowing conditions: ~ r..~. ~ ~w • MINUTES~ CITf PLAHNING COMMISSION~ August 4~ 1975 75- 3 59 ENVIRONMENTAL IMF'ACT REPOR'f NbS. 134 AND 136; VAAIANCE N0. 272~;; ANO TENTATIVE MAPS OF TRACT NQS. g775. 8793. a7,~5. 87~6 (R£VISIONS N0. 1) (C!~ onklnund~~ 1, That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8793 (Revislon No. 1) is granted subJect to complation af R~cla~siflcAtlon Na. 73-74-36 And approval of Variance No. 2724. ?., That should this subdivtslun be develaped as mor~ than one subdivision, ~ach subdivislon thereof shall ba submittecl In tentative form far appraval. 3. Th~t all lots within thl~ trect shal~ be served by underground utilitie s, ~~, That a final tract ma~ of sub.jecc proper~:y shall be submittad to ancl ~~pproved by tV~e City Councll and then be recorded in the off(ce ~f the Uran~e Co~nty Reseorder. 5. That tha covenants~ cnndit(ons and restrictlons shall be s~ibmicted to a nd approved by the Ciey Attorney's Office prior to Ctty Counr,il approval af the fina) tract map~ and, furthfer, that the approved eovena~ts~ cond(tions and restrletions shr.ll be recaraed concurrently with the fin~) tract map. G. ThAt prlor to fil(ng the fin~l Cract map, thc applir.ant shall suhmit t o the City l+ttorney for approval or denial a complete synupsis of the proposed func tionirig af the operatin~ corporation Including~ but not lim(ted to, the artictes of ln eor^ porakton~ bylav 3. proposed rnethads of rn~+na~ement~ bonding to (nsure maintenance of comnon property and builclln,ys and such other inform~tion as the City Attorney m.ty desire to pr~tect the City, tts citi~~ns. and the purchasers of the proJect. 7. That street names ahall be a~proved by the City of Anal~elm prior to a p prov~l of ~ f'inai tract map. 8. That dratnage of sub.ject pr~perty siiall be dtsposea of in a manner th a t ls satis~actory to the City Engineer. 9. That all private streets sh~ll be developed in accordance with tl,~ Cit Y of Anaheim's stanoards for private streets. ~p. That the c7wner(s) of sub,ject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation ;n-lieu fecs as dnkermined tc~ be approprfate by the City Council, sald fees to be paid at the time •he bullding permlt is issued. 11. That vehicular access rights, except at st, ~ andlor alley openings, to Romneya Drive and l.a Palma Avenue shall be dedicated co the City of Anaheim. 12. 7hat fire hydrants shall be installed and charged 35 required ar.d det ermined to be necessary by the Chief af the Fire Department prior to comrnencement of structural framing. 13. That Romneya Drive shall be construct$d with Lwo 12-Poot wide parkwa y s and two 26-foot wide roadways, separated by a 12-foot wide planted median. 14. That all public street and storm drain imp~ovements withtn this trac t and Tract Nos. 3775 ~Revision No. 1)~ 8795 t~~vlsion No. 1) and 8796 (Revision N o. 1), and tha lalce within Tract No. 8793 (Revision No. 1), shall be developed concurrantly wtth the first phase of construction of said tracts ar~d shall be compleCed p ~ior to final building dnd zoning inspections af the first nhase; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City shall be posted to guarantee thP ultimate improvemant of said oublic streets anJ ~f the lake. 15. That prlar to issuance of thP building permit on the flrst phase of c~~n- struction, snecific plans for the develo~xne~t of the lak~ must bc~ .ubmitted ~ o and approved by tlie Fianning Commission and City C~unctl. 16. That the subject proper*.y shal! be developed precisely in accordance with exhlbixs submitted and approved in con,lunction with Variance No. 2724. Commissioner Morley offered ~ motion, seconded by Commissioner Toiar anrl Mt1T~ON CARRIED (Cortmissioners Herhst~ Johnsnn and Farano votinq "no"), that Tentative Map of Tract No. A795 (Revision Flo. 1) be and lierehy is approv~c~~ subject to the followinc~ conditi~ns: . ~ q • MINU?ES~ CITY PIANNING COMMIS5l~)N~ AugusL h~ 1915 ~5"3~0 EI~V 1 RONMENYAL I MPACT REPORT NbS . 13-i AND 13b; VAltl ANCE N0. 2724; AND TENTAT 1 VE MAPS OF TRACT NOS. 87Z5. a79~,. A195~ 8796 (REVISIANS N0. 1) (Continued) I, Th~t tha approva) of Tentatfve Map oF Tract No. fl7'1~ (R.evislon No. 1) is ~raiited suh.ject to completton of Reclassification Mo. 73-7~~`3~+ A~~ appravAl of V~rl~nce No. 2]'2~~. 2. Thnt shauld this sub~ilvision be developnd as morc than one suhdlvision~ ~ ach subdivision thereof sliall be suhmttted In tentr~tivo fc~rm for apprc~val. 3. That all lats within this trACl shal) ba served by underground utllitlas. 4, That a ftna~ tract map of subJect property shall be submitted to and approved by th~ City Cauncil and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Reco rder. 5. That the covenants, condltions and restrictt~~ns shall be submttted to an d epproved by the City Attorney's Offlce prior to City Council approv~l of the flnal tract mAp, ~~nd, further~ that the appro~ied covenants~ condiilons a~~c1 restrictions shall be rec~rded concurrently with the final tract mep. 5. Tl~at prtor tu filing the final tract rtiap, the applicant shall subrnit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed functio ning of the operating corporati~n includin~, but not limited ta, the articles of inco r~ poratlon~ bylaws~ proposed methods of man~gement, bondin~ to insure maintenance of common praperty and butldin9s and such other infurmatiun as the City Attorney ma y deslre to protect the City~ its citizens, and the {,urchaser~s of the proJect. ]'. That street names shatl be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 8, That dralnaqe of subject property shall be dtsposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Enylneer. 9. That all private strtets shall be developed in accordance with the Cirv of Anaheim's standards for private streets. 10. That the owner(s) of subJect property shall p~y to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-ifeu fees as determ(ned to be appropriate by th~ City Cc+unzil, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 11. That veh(cular access rights, excapt at street and/or alley openingsy to Romneya Orlve and La Palma Avenue shall be dedicatad to the City of Anaheim. 12, 7hat fire hydrants shall be instalied and eharged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Oepartment prior to rorm~ncement of structural framing. 13. That Romneya Drive shall be constructed with two 12-foot wide parkways and two 26-foot wlde roadways, separated by a 12-foot wide planted mcdian. 14. That all public strect and storm drai~ improveme~~ts within this tratt a nd Tract Nos. a775 ~Revision No. 1), A79'~ (Revi~ion No. 1) and 3796 (Revtsion No. 1)~ and the lake within Tract !?v~ ~793 (Revision No. 1)~ shall be develo~~ed concurrently with the first phase oF construction of said tracts and shall be cumpleted prio r to ft~al building and zoning inspections of the first ph~se; and that a bo~~d in an amount and form satisfactory tn the City shall be posted to guarantee the ultimate improvement of said public streets and of the lake. 15. 7hat the sub,ject property shall be develo~ed precisely in accordance with exhibits submitted and approved in con,junction with Va~tance No. 272~-. Commisstoner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commissi~ner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED (Commlssioners Herbst, Johnso~ and Farano voring "~a"), thal: Tentative Map of Tract No. S7yG (Reviston No. 1) be and hereby is approved. sub.ject to the following eonditions: ~ ~ ~ MINUTF.S~ CITY PLANNING CQMMI5SION~ August 4. i97'S 7S`~61 ENVIRQNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 134 ANG 136; VARIANCC N0. 2724; AND TENTATIVE MAPS OF TRACT NOS 8~75~ A79~, 8795. Sy96 (REUISiON~ N0. 1) (Contl~ued) 1. That the flpprovAl of Tentativc Map of Tract No. 479F~ (Revis(on No. 1) is gronted subJeet to completlon of Reclasslficar.ion ~~o. 73~7~~-36 ~nd approval of Variance Na. 2724. 2, That shoulcl thls subcilviglon be cieveloped as mora thnn one :,ubdivtalon~ each siibdivl~~on t hereof shal~ be submitted in tentative foim far approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underg~~un~ utilities, 4. That a flnal tract map of subject property sh~~ll be submltted lo ~nd approv~d by tha Cfty Council and then b~ recordcd tn tho office of rhe Orange County Recordar. 5. That the cove~~nts~ conditions and restrictions shal) be submitted to and approved by tho Clty Attorney's Office prior to Clty Council d~(~!bVBI of the f(nal tract map~ a nd, furthery that the apn roved coven~nts~ conditions and restrictions sl~~ll be recorded concu~rentiy wi th the fina) trect map. 6. That prlor to fllinq the final tract map. the appiicant shall submlt to the City Attorney for approva) or denial a complete synopsis af the prop~~sed functioning nf the oper+~ting corporatl~n including. but not ltmlted ta, the articles uf incor- poratton, by iaws~ prop~sed methods of management, bonding to insure maintenance of common pro pe rty and buildings and such othe r inFormatlon as the Ctty Attorney may des t re to p ~otect the C i ty ~( ts c i t i z_~s, and the purchase:rs af the pro~ ect . 7. Tha t s:reet names shall be a pFroved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final t raGt map. 8. Tha t drainage of subject pro perty shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the Cfty E~gineer. 9. Th a t al) prtvate streets shall be developed in accordanc~ with the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets. 10. Th a t the owner(s) of subJect prope ~ty shall pay to the ~ity o~f Aja~~ib tthe appropriaxe park and recreation in-1 i eu fees .~s deterrrined to be app p Y City Council~ sald fees to be paid a t the time the buildinq parmit is Yssued. 11. Th a t vnhiGUlar access rtqhts, except at street and/or alley openings~ to Romneya Drive shatl be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 12. Th a t Flre hydrAnts shall be installed and charged as required and deCermined to be nece s sary by the Chief o~ the Fire bepart ment prior t~ cnmmencement of structural framing. 13. Th a t al) public stre~t and s torm draln lmprovements within this tract and Tract Nos. ~775 (Revision No. 1)~ 879~ (Revision No. 1) and 8y95 (Revlsion No. 1), and the lake r~~•i~in Tract No. 879'i tRevts~on F~o. 1)~ shall be developed concurrently with the fi rst phase of construction of said tracts and shall be campleted prior to final building ~nd zonin9 inspections of the first phase; and that a bond in an amou~t and form satisfactory to the City shall ae posted to guarantee the ultimate improvement of said public streets and of the lake. 14, That the sub.lect property shall be developed preclsely in accordance with exhibits s ubmitted and approveo in conjunction with Variance No. 2724~ VARIANCE NO. 272~ - PUBLIC NEARING. JOSEPH M. ANTON, 1016 West Ploneer Drlve, Anafieim, Ce, q28~5; requesting ~dAIVER OF (A) PERMITTED EAVE PRf1JFCTION, (R) MINIMUM NUMB ER OF PARKING SPACES~ (L') MAXIMUM BUILDING HElGHT, (D) MINIMUM STRUCTURAL Sf.TRACK, (E) MINIMUhS SE"TBACK LANDSCIIPING~ ANQ (F) REQUIRED MASONRY WAIL, TO C~NSTRUCT A SPECIAL?Y MARKET on property describe As: A rectangularly- shaped pa rcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Harb o r Boulcvard~ having approxtmate frontagess of 102 fset on the so uth slde af la Palma Aven ue and 165 feet on the east stde of Harbor Boulevard~ and furthe r descrlbod as 95A North Harbor Boulevard. Property presently class(fied CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMIY~O) Z~NF.. ~ (~ ~ ~' MINUTES~ CITY PI,ANNIIIG COMMISSION, Auquat ~+~ 1975 VARIANCE N_ 0. 2720 ~Cont~inued) 75-362 SubJect petftlrn- wae continued from the mnetlnc~ ~f ,~uty 21, 1975~ fnr th~ petltloner ta submlt mnre Information and rRVised plsns. No one indlcated ~holr prnsence In opposition to subJect petltion. Although the Staff Report to th~ Plenning Commissl~n dated August 4~ 1975, WAS nc-C read at the publlc hRAring~ s~id Staff Repart is referred to ind made a part of the minutes. Nr. Robert .lohnson~ tho archliect for th~e prnposal~ appeared before tho Planning Cc~mmisalan '_o answer questians. THE PUBLIC HEARINC WAS CLOSFD. Mr. Johnson explelned that, 6n cc~mpllance wlth the Gomrnissian's suggestion at the last mneting~ an alternatlva plan liad bcen developed to turn the building around t~ face Harbor Boulevard~ and tha result waa only 9 parking sRaces~ a reduced turning radlus~ and less landscapin~~ ar~d the tenant dtd not want to proceed on that basis; ond that~ in his opinion~ the original plan was better with respect to tlie driveways. In response to questionin~7 by thc Pla~ning Commfsslon~ Mr. Johnson stated tha drlveway on La Palma Avenuc would be combined with the alley and that the driveway at tha southwest corner of the property an Narbor B~ulevard would be eliminated. Commissioner Herbst noted th:~t there was concern tf~~t the people leavtng the parcel could create a hazard on Narb~r Boulevard and therefore, only right turns sl~ould be allowed on that strePt. Upon further yuest~~~i~9 ~~Y tlie Fianninn Commission, Mr. Johnsnn stated the praposed structure was a prototypa; that th~ bullding could be moved G inches to the east to el(minate thP need for the walver of permitted eave prnJection, if the Planning Cc-mission so desired; that it was possible that the trash pickup would be better if the storage area was moved with the back of it to rhe building on the east slde~ hc~wever~ the doors would encroacFi slightly into the alley when opened~ if the huilding were moved the 6 inches as m~ntioned. In response to questioning by the Planning Commission~ ~taff advis~d that the petitioner had previously stipulated that a rnasonry watl was existing alonc~ the scuth praperty line and, on that basis~ the advertised waiver of the required masonry wall was not necessary. In response to further questioning by the Planning Commissi~n, thr. petitioner stipulated to reposittonln~ the trash sterage area in cnmpliance with thie requirements of th~ Sanltation Division for accessibility; that the property would be posted for right turns only onto Harbor Boulevard for traffic safety, sub,ject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer; that conditional dedication would be made to the City for the wldening of La Palma Avenue~ conditioned upon the City's need far the additional right-of-way; and that steps w~uld be taken to insure that the no(se generated by the proposed use~ including the roof-mc~unted equipment~ would not exceed 65 dt~A at the property lines adJacent to the resident(ally developed properties. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Comr~issi~ner Johnson and hi0TI0N CARRIED~ that tl~e Planning Commission daes hereby recommend to the Clty Council that the subJect proJect be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report~ pursuant to tlie provision5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commiss~oner Hzrbst offered Rzsolution No. PC75~168 and moved for its aassage and adoption~ that Petftion f~+r Variance No. 2720 be and hereby is grar.ted~ in part~ granting waiver of the permitted eave proJectlon on the basis that said walver is mtnimal, as proposed; granting waiver of the minimum number oi` parkinG spaces on the ~asts that although 17 parking spaces ar~ presently proposed, 5 are located with!n the ultlmate rigfit-of-way along LA Paln~a Avenue and would be rtmoved by widening of said street~ hawev~r, it cannoZ presently he determined at what time satd wtdenin~ will occur and. ' -, a hardship would be created if satd waiver wer•e not granted; eiranttn~ of the minimum building h~ight on the basis that other structures in the _ ..~s comparabie in height and t~i~: u~aiver is mintmal ~ as proposed; granting wa,. r of the minimum structur~l setback on the aasis that the petttioner demonstrated that a hardship would be cre~ted if said waiver were not granted due to the size and sha~z of the property and the petitloner stipulated to re°pasitioning the proposed trash storage area located within the setback area to satisfy the requirements of the Sanitatio~ ~iviston for accessibility; granttng ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CiIY FLANNING COMMIS~iON, Au~ust 4r 1975 VARIANCE M0. 2720 (Contlnu~d) 75-363 walver of the minimum setback Iandeca~ping oti~ the basis that tho m~Jortty of the proposed landscaped planter alo~g La Palma Avenue is located withln ehe urtfmate right-of-way and when sald street is widened~ p~rtlons of the landscaped planter wauld be removed And, the,refare, a hardshlp would be Greated if siild walver were not granted; that welver of the raquired masonry wall is determinecl to be unnecessary since the petltionnr' stipulated *_hHt a 6-foat high masonry wall preaently exists alo~g thc aouth property line; sub_~ect ta the further stipulati~n~ of the pet(tioner and subJnck to condlcions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call~ the for~gatng resolution was passci by tha follawinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARN~S. HERBST~ JOFINSON~ KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR~ FARANO NQES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE VAftIANCE N~. 27z) ° PUHLIC HEARING. F, J. JUHNSON~ 17182 ~-rmstrong Avenue~ Santa Ana~ Ca. 9z71~ (Ov+ner); AMERICAN BAKERIES~ 7222 F.~st Gage Avenue, Los Angeles~ Ca. 90040 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ~IGNS~ (B) PERMITYED SIGN LOCATION~ APID (C) M1NIMlIM DISTANCE 9ETWEEN SIGNS~ 'tQ C~NSTRUCT A FREE-STANOING S1GN on property d~sscribed as: A rectangularly-shapnd parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.8 ~~rres having ~ fronrage of approxi- matesly 325 feet~ beina l~cated approximately 18!i feet nc,rth af the centerllne of South Street, and furth°r d~scrlbPd as 711 Soutli East Street. Pr~perty presenily classified ML (INnUSTRIAI.~ LIMITEQ) ZONE. SubJe~t petition was continued from the mcetin~ ~f July 21~ 1975, for more informatton. It was noted that a+'elephone communicatian had been recelved indicating that Mr. Fordiani~ the repre5entative for the petitioner~ was still on vacation and that no one else was available or knc~wledgeable to answer the questions propo~nded by the Commiss:on at the previous meeting; and, tlierefore~ a continuance to the meeting of Septembsr 3~ 1975, was being requested. Camnissioner King offered a motion Lo further continue the public ieari"as~requested sideratlon of the sub_ject petition to the meetinct of September 3, 975, by the petitioner. Mr. [ltll (Murray, owner uf the sign company involved, appeared before the Planning Cort~mission and requested that the public hearing be held as schecluled and that he would an~wer any questions the Commission might have reqarding the signs and the property. Follov:ing discussion with Deputy Ctty Attorney Frank L.owry~ Chairman Farano honored the request of Mr. Murra;~~ whereupun, Commissioner lCing withdrew his motion for the continuance. No one ind(cated thelr presence in opposition to subJect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission Jated August 4, 1g75~ was r~ot read at the public hearing~ said Staff Re.port is ~eferred to an:~ made a part of the minutes. THE PUBL~C NEARING WAS DECLAitED CLOSED so that the Commission could ask questions af the agenC for the petitioner. Chairman Forano inquired why the existing free-standing sign couid not ~e c~nsolidated with the proposed sign so that a walver would not be requlred and also whethe:~ a lot split could be made to sotve the need for a waiver~ whereupon~ Mr. Murray inc:icated he could not answer questiuns related to the lot split; hawever~ the existing sign was located on tfie r~ortherly portian of tf~e sub]ect property which was divldGd by bumpers and, also, struc~urally speakinc~ there was no way for the exi~ttng structure to suvport another sign but would have to be rebullt with new footings~ a nr• oole and a new sign at substant!al cost; that they wouid have been glad to have ~ • ~ hll NUTES ~ C I TY PLAPIN 1 NG COMMI SS I ON ~ Augus t 4, 1975 ~5" 3b~ VARIAtJCE N0. ~21 (Cont~nu_d) provlded c~mbined signln9 at the be~inning; nnd that: the cxisting sl~n was sst low end wAS quitn a ways away from the subJect ~tructuro and/or portion of the propa~•ty under c~nsideratian, sald existing sign be(r~g epproximately 2U fcet north of the centcr ~f the entire property. Chalrmen Farano tl~en madc ar~ obse~vatlon khot the layauc o` the property dld ~tve the impres~lon or appearAnce that two lots wera nvolved. Chalrnw~n Farano then (nquired if Mr. Murray was awAre that whan The tilp~o{sotcxnus operatlon was approved by khe Planni~n Commisslon, it was with the petitloner'~ st(pulation tli~t no ~dditfonal slgning would be needed. Mr. Murray dld not respand. fommlgsloner Tolor notcd it appeared the Commisslon could not procced with an actinn on the subJect petitio~ until the questions regardin9 the possible lot split~ etc.~ were answered. Commissloner Fa~ano entered into discussion with Mr. Murray concernlnc~ the timing of the proJect a~d when the sic~n com~~any had become involved~ whereu~on~ Mp. Murray stated his company was res~nsible for all of The Htppopotomus store sign work; and that the sign company became (nvolved with the sub)ect prope~ty in approximately February or Marcf~, 1975• Thereupon~ Commissioner T~lar offered a motion, soconded by Commissianer Morley and MOTION CARRIED~ that the public hearing and consider~tian ~f Petition for ~Jariance No. 2721 be and hertby is continued to the Planning Cammission meeting of September 3, 1975, for more Information. CONDITIONAL USE - i'UBLIC NE/1RI~~G. FRED SQTOMAYER~ 7Ai- North East Street~ Anaheim, Ca. PERMIT N0. l143 92805 ~~~er); requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING PRE-SCHOOL (READVERTISED) WITtI WAIVER OF MINIMUM SIOEYARD SETBACK ori property described as: A rectangularly-shap~d parcel of land conyisting of Tpproximately .46 aCre h~ving ~ frontage of approximatcly 73 feet on the east side of East Street•~ having a n~aximum depth of approximately 271 feet, being located approxl- mately ?_i2 feet south of the centerline of l.a Paima Avenue, and further described as 744 North cast Street. Property presently classified RS-720~ (P,ESIOENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. Two persans indicated their presence in opposition to sub.ject oetition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Allan ~aum read the Staff Report to the Planning Cortmission dated A~.~gust 4, 1975. and satd Staff Report is referr~d to as if set farth in full in the minutes. Mr. Fred Sotomayer~ the petitioner, appeared before the Planning Commission ~nd stated he had no qualms about the feeling of the nelyhbors. however~ he had welcomed the neighbors to find .~ut about the program being offered at the sub,ject location and, to date~ none of the neighhors had taken advantage of the invitations to attend coffee klotsches and~ therefore, the neighb~rs did not know how the children were being treated and how the school fclr. about the neighbors; that he vras tnterested to hear from ~he neighbors who were present ~ this mee*.ing; and~ in his opinion, the sub,ject use was good for the children, the neighbonc~od, and the schoc~ls in the area. Mr. Stanley Szot, 727 North Juniper Place, Anah°im~ appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition and stated he was opposed to any reduction in the existing rear yard setback of the subJect property; that the subject use was originally to have a 100-foot rear setback from the east prQperty line; however~ presently there was a cyclone ftnce approximately 35 feet from said property line; that they had been unable to sell their home because of the noise from the sub]ect property; that the area between the cyclone fence ai~d the property line looked like a city dump and if the 'Loning Enforcement Officer investigeted it~ he probably only saw the front of the property; that approximateiy 71 feet along t~~c rear property line of the subject proNerty abutted his property; and that he w~s interested to know more about what was being proposed at this time but was definite ~ opposed to any further rEduction of the rear yard setback. L_J • ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ August 4. 1975 75~365 COHDITIOI~AL US~ PERMIT N0. 1143 (a~ADVERTISEQ~ (Con~,,. t~,~ d) Nia~~t Denlsc+ Szot~ 727 North Juni{~nr Plece, Anaheim~ appeareci before tha Planning Cammisyion In oppositton and sCated the s~ib,ject usa was en (nvnelon of her family's privacy; Chrt the nolse durlnci the dnytime wAS unreal~ wlth the scroartiing of the aldes And teachara; that they had tried to sell thelr home hut wr.re unable to do so because of the nolse; that shc understood that the structuras were bullt on the subJecc property and tl~en the ~ner came !n for the permits~ Including f~r the barn- Ilke structure In the rear yard setback between the fe~ccs~ rnd constructlon had progressively moved toward her pr~perty llne; that the noise factor was driving the whole nelghborhoad "bananas"; that a 6-foot rmsonry f~nce was supposeci tc hsve bnen constructed alon~l the reflr property 11ne so that the children on the play~round appt-ratus lacated on the propP~ty could not look Into her praperty and, si~ce her prop~rty was considerably hic~her thAn thc subJcct proparty, they had no pr{vacy at all; and that it was not fatr for t~ie subitct property to invt~de the privacy of th~ ne!Ighbors or to cause any morc {~roblems than presenCly extstecl wfth the use. In rebur.c~l, Mr. Sutomayer stated hc would construct a 2~^foot fence If he were permitttd [o do su; that by providing the buffer area beCwecn the two fences in the rear yard~ hP was losinn the usc of a substanti~l p~rti~n of the property which he was stlll rr.qulra~i to pay taxes an; that~ regarding nolse~ the prP-school opencd at 5:30 a.m. and Che child~•en were not allowed to go out until after hreakfast. or about g;00 to 9:3~ a,m.~ and the children were brought inside from Il:iS ~'~•m, to 3:15 p.m• but ~ere allowed to go outside around 4:0~ p.m. under wcil-supervised conditions; that tne use was a nursery schoc~l ~nci eliere was no way the chi ldren could be hidden from the ns~ghborhoad; and that hi•. neighbor on xhe south who would be most directly aff~cted by the requested waivFr~ had indt~ated no op~ositton whutsoever. TI~E PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Cortnnissioner Tolar noted his main concern was that the petitioner was enJoylnc~ ~ com-~ mercial usr_ with residences completely su~rounding it; thit he was not opposed to the use, as such. but tfiere was a pr•oblem with one neighbor b~:iny deprived of his privacy; and that, if the structures were n~t proposed to be expanded toward the easterly praperty line, then the quEStion would be whether the expande~l use would create more of a probleR~ for the rest of the neighborhood. In response, Mr. Sotomayer stated the structures would not be extended to the east; that the S additional children they were requesting to have would ~t mean a substantial difference in ti~e present enroliment; anci Chat the proposal was simply to add a classroom which was badly needed during the rainy season~ and would not inctude a bathroom. In response to questionin~ by Ch~irman F~rann, Mr. Satomayer stated the space between the two fences in the rear yard was used as a st~rage area for trash~ building material debr(s~ etc,; and periodically he wouid hire a truck to h~ul it away. Thereupon~ Chairman Farano suggested that the Zoning ~nforcement Officer be directed to check the subJect property and if any such storage was taking place on the grounds of the subJect property~ a citation be issued to the ~roperty ownar. The Planning Comm(ssion questioned the petitioner further and Mr. Sotomayer responded that the ages of the children were be.t~+een 2 and 6} years; thai the playground equip- ment was about 6 fee~ high, however, there was no play equipment locatFd ~Nithin the 40~foot rear,yard setback between the two fences. 1'he Planning Commission entered (nto dtscuasion with Mr. Sotomayer regarding an arpropriate buffer for the neighbors to the east~ whereupon~ Mr. Sotomayer stated there was a row of trees within Yhe 40° TO6C $etback~ or a total of aphr~ximately five trees alongsicle the chainlink fence. Chatrman F~rano noted that ine lan~lscaping prese~tly p+'ovided r~•s by no means considered dense and he inquired tf the pet(tio~er would be wlllinq ta provide dense landscaping. Mr. Sotomayer inquired why he was not able to utillze the buffer area, especialty with the ~ense landsc<~p!ng, and he stipulated he would plarst the addikional trees. Commtssioner Tolar noted that the dense landscaping should be planted atong the masonry wall at the ~ast property line for the best buffer. Mr. Szot stated he thought the legal notice indicated th~ petitioner was proposing to expand t~ the east; and that the 'Loning En~forcement Officer had not been oUt to the propcrty to ~heck the rear yard or the City would know therG was a trash problem; ar.d that he would urge the City t~ do so. . ~ ~ MINUT~S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 4~ 1975 75-366 CANDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO t143 READVERTISED) (Continued) In respai~se to q~estioning by ChAlrman Farano~ the petitioner stipulnted that the fe!nced oPf area ~lonz the east woulci not be utilized for kFie st~ra~e of trash~ braken ~Inss~ or other undes(reble materlal~ and that hc woiald maintAln sald arr.A, Commissla~er Johnson Indic~~ted his concern rec~erdinc~ the use which was permitted under the c~nditl~nal use p~rmit and Che fact thr~t tho pGtitioner had not met the orlginal eondlttons of approval. Thereupon~ Zoninn Supervisor Ann{ka Sant~lahtl reviewcd the previous pr~posal and the conditions of approv~l for the propert~. Discuysion pursued regarding all of the structuras which presently existed on the subJect property~ the px~ct measurement of thc buffer arer~ between the fences to the ~33L~ thc exlsLing trees, etc.~ falla,ring whlch the Plunning Commtssion req~~ested r.a ~eview recank rerial .naps of thc prop~erty. FtECESS - At 3:2~ P~n~.~ Chairman Farano declared a recess, ~~- RECONVENE ° nt 3~30 p.n,.~ Chairman Farano reconvene~l the meeting, with all -""'"-" Cammi ss ioners bet rig present. Followlny revlew of the aerial maps of the pr~operty, lt w~s deterrr.ined that the site plan ~ubmittad by the petitioner did not include all of the property and that an app~•oximately 20x20-foot structure indicated by the petitioner as a storaqe and workshop buildin~~ was sit.uatsd adJolning the west side of the exi.,cing chainlink fenc~~ sald bullding havincl no electricity, being approximately S feet F~igh. and constructed with a building permit. The petitloner clarified that the bu(lding show~i on the north approximately a0 to 90 feet from the c.,sterly property ltne was the pre- schr,ol and kindergarten classroorr~ constructed approximately five years ago under a build~ng permit~ ~t whlch time the number of st~dents was incr~ased to 56 (1969)~ and that the small structure located in the northeast corn~r of the property was a sinAll tean~to storage shed used to store broken glass. Regarding the enrollment, Mr. Sotoma~yer stated during the vacation period thay anticipated 38 to 45 st~dents and during other perlods~ they anticipated having approximately 51 to 52 students; ancl th~t normally out of 56 students, 5 or 6 were absent, however, if the attend~nce was over the parmitted numher, the children werc sent home, Commission~er 7olar noted that the subJect use was not permttted in a residential zone and to further complicate matters and allow more children was something he r,ould not Justify si~ce there was no hardship to be shown. Commissioner Johnson concurreci. In response to yuestioning by Commissioner Johnson~ Mfss Szot stated the subject pruparty was at a lower 3~ve1 than her property and~ therefore~ the children were abte to look over the fence into her backyard and home from the play yard equipment; and that 1t was not true that the chilclren were not allowed out until 9:00 a.m., sfnce sometimes th~y were out at 7:3~ a.m. Commissioner herbst noted ~hat the 6-foot high masonry fence should have been constructed fram the hiqhest grade of tlie two properties to give the privacy needed by the Szot family. {t was noted that the Director of the Development S~rvices Dep~rtment had determined that the proposed activity fell within the definition of Section 3•~1~ ~lass 1, of the City of Anaheim G~~idelinas t~ the Requ(rements for an Environmental Impact Report and was, therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Cammis~ioner Johnson offered a resolution and maved for its passage and adoption, that Pctltfo~ for Canditional Use Permit Mo. 1143 (readvertised) be denied on the basis that the present use is not satisfactory to the neighborhood and the petit'oner has not complied with the conditi~ns of tlie original approval oF the use. Commissioner Tolar took exceptioii to the foregotng resolution~ n~~ting that although h~ was in favor of ~ommissioner Johnson's reasoning~ on the ather hand, the problems would still exist with the neighbnrs and there were already a great number of children at Che subJect locatiion. Commissioner To~ar suggested that perhaps consideratlon should be give~ to granting the subJect petition ~vith the candition that thc masonry wa11 along the easti property line be raised~ the tree screen buffer be installed~ and the trash storage problems be resolved. Ccxnmissioner Herbst and~thata byagrantingftheepetition,5the9Commission wo~ldtbe ableStoU~accomplishethat ~ ~ ~ M1NUTfS~ CITY I'I.ANNING COMMISSION~ August ~~~ t975 75'3~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1143 (READVCRTISEU)(Continued) end; And that I~e recoqn 1 z~d that. when tlie use wis or I~~ 1 na 1 ly p~rml t ted ~ tl~erc was a grov~ of ar~nne trees tn thc rcar yard and now it was prncticfllly hnrrcn. Thereupon~ Carenissl4ner Johnson withdrew the foregoin9 res~lution ta deny thc SUh.fCCi pcl'(tiQn. In response ko questl~ning by the Planning Commission, thr. petlt(oncr further stipu- Eated to prnvidi~c~ tr~~sh stnrage ar•eas in accordance wtth approved plans on file with the offlcc of thc Director of Public Works; th~t~ for Chc purp~sc of buffering~ a solld nwsonry walf would be constructed along the east p~operty llne, s~id wal) to be 6 feet above the hlghesl gra~fe, and thaC a minimum 5-foot c~allc~n size~ Arl~ana ~ypress trees. on 2-f~ol centers~ would be planted ~long tnc enst pr~pert.y Ilne. and a landscapinc~ plan for same: would be submitted to thc Development Service~ De~~artmtnt for approval. Commiss~oner K(nc~ offered itesolutinn No. PC75-169 And moved for (ts passage and adop° tion, to grant Petition fo~ Conditional Use Permlt No. 111+3 (readvertised) far a maximum of 64 chiidren~ grai~tinq wa(~~er of tlie minimum sideyard setb~ck on the basls that thP pruposed additlon i; an extension of an existing building which is located 5 feet~ more or less~ from the south property line and. fuR•thermore~ the ad,jacent property owner Lo tha soueh has no obJe::tion to the propo~.~l; sub,ject to the stipulations of the peiitloner and subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee reccxr-mendations. (See Res~lution Book) On roll call~ thr forG~ioing resolution was passed by the follc~wing vote: AYES: COMMISSIdNERS: NERBST, JOHNSON, KIPJG~ MORLEY~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: BARNES, FAfiAP;O ABSENT~ CONMISSIANERS: NONE CON017i0NAL USE - PUBLIC HFARING. CROCKER NA710NAL BANK~ ~+53 South Spring Street~ PERMIT N0. 155~ Los Angele$~ Ca. 90013 ~~ner); TNE CNURCH IN LOS ANGELES, 328 West -' L(ncoln Avenue, Anaheim~ Ca. 92805 (Agent); requesting ~+ermission to ESTABLISN A CHUR~H MEE'~ING HALL WIT!i WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A rectargularly-shaped parcel of land con- si~ting of app~oxtmately 0.'i2 acre having a frontage of approxlmately 100 feet on ths south side of Lincoln Av~nue~ having a maximum depth of approximately 140 feet, being located approximately 131 feet east of the cen~erline of Helena Street, and further described as 328 West l.incoln Avenue. Property presently classified CG (COMMERCIAL, GENERAL) ZONE. 7wo persons indicated their presence in opposition to subJect petition. Assistant Zoning 5upervisor Allan Daum read the Staff Report to the Plan~~ir~9 Commission dated Auqust 4~ 1975~ and said Staff Repott is referred tn as if set forth in full in the minutes. Mr. Max Rapoport~ 1202 West Kimberly Stre~t~ Anaheim, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeartd before the Planning Commission and stated they were proposing to use the subJect property until their permanent facility on Ball Road w2s ccn- ~tructed, and constructian was scheduled xo begin within 26 days; and that the build- ing on the subJnct prope.rty was adequate temporarily end f~r that reason he did not feel there would be any problems. M~s. Victor Nentges~ 2~4 South Heiena Street, Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Commission tn opposition and st~ted there was an existing church within two blocks that had no parking of its own and was usin9 buth straet parking and parking belonging to nearby banks~ etc.; that both the existing and petitioning church met at approximately th~ same hours during the evenings and an ~reckends~ with thatr peak attendance; that the extsiing church accupied all of t~e parking lot on Oak SCreet and thc cars were bumper-to~bumper along the neighboring str~ets, taking up all the parkirrg in front of the restdences in the area; that the people in the area could probably let their canpany (visitors) know in advance when to visit so they could find a place to park, however~ the resid~nts in the area deserved some consideration; that there were also shoppers wl-o parked in her area and with the churches tt was difficult for the residents to ever have ~ parking space on the str^ets near their homes; that the subJect church appeared to be holding meetings in tne breezway of the bullding, which was liks a~ e~ho chambc~r; that sl~e understood that the 9~~ of Mierica and Unltod Californla Bank had allowed the sub]ect chu~ch to usa their parking lots but the people were not staying in those lots and were using all e,f the • • o MINUTF.S, CITY P~11NP~IP~G COMMISSI~M~ AJQU4[ ~i~ 1975 75-)~~ CQNDITIONAI. USE PFRM17 N0, ',143 (READVERTISEp) (Cuntinued) adjoining streets~ also; and th~~t shr. h~d t~ ch~se memhers of the connreqnt(c~n out of (ter parkin~ In ba~ic of her b~sinesti~ which she did not feel was qulte rl~~ht. Mr. Henry ~usch appe~~red beforr, thc Pl~~nninq Ca~~mfssl~>n and stited hc owneci adJo(ning property and had no ubJectlon t<~ the ch~:rch, hc~wever~ the ~ne pr~blem which cancerned hlm was the ever~inq park(nc~ on Wednc~~leys and Frid,~ys sincc evening shnppin~ was probably the best in the week and bus~nesses in the aren werc b~cominc~ uncertaln as to wlzax was going Co happen; and that hc: was inCerest.~ci t~ know if [he parking for the church fnr nt least a short perlod of [ime cc~uld he restr~inecl~ especlaliy during holidays, ro help thc businesses out. TIIF. PUBLIC HE11kIFJG WI1S CLOS~D. DeF~uty City Attorney Frank Lowry adviscd th~t thc extcnt nf thc sugqc~sted remcdics by Mr. [~o~ch would be enforcement of tha two-hour iimit f~r parking in the area, In response to questloning by Cammissi~ncr Tolar~ Mr, Rapop~rt sC~~ted the permenent church fac~lity would be completecl in approximately six to nine rr~nths. Mr, kapopnrt further stated they were tryiny very stron~l'y to 11mIC thelr congret.~tlon to use the parking lot and not to ever park in front of residences in the area~ althouqh len~!11y they wer~ allowed to park in the streets~ accurding to the City Attorney's Otflce; thflt the church was activoty rel~~~bilitatinc~ young people from narcotics and thase people were becor..~~!! industrtous in the community; that he, himself~ was an actlve speaker throughout the county with respect to the program of the church wh{ch was a maJor factor agalnst narcntics ~nd a service to the community; tF~at~ in his opinlon, what the church w~~s doing for the community would mnre than offset any problems that might be experienced with parking in the area; and that thcy had tried desperately to find an adequate Cemporary faciliky for the church. In respon3e to questloning by Commissloner Kinq~ Mr. Rapoport stated the noise from the breezeway was created by the congregation visiting while gatheri~g pamphlets and other material from a table that was pleced in the breezeway and sometimes becoming exuberant, however, that situati~n could be corrected; and that he would stipulate that no meetings would be held in the breezeway af the building, in the parking lot~ er on the streets in the area. Commls~toner garnes inquired if the church could wark with the ather church in the area and perhaps meet at different times~ whereu~~an~ Mr. Repoport replied that his congregation fully parked in the parking lots adjacent to the banks and not on the streets~ and said parking lots were more than adequate for their purpose~ with 135 parking spaces. Commissioner Ki~g noted that from his observation of the churches' parking habits, Mr. Rapoport's statement appeared to be true. Mr. Rapoport further stated that any abuse of the on-street parking was not due to ttie church. Commissioner Johnson noted for the petitioner that one of the Interd~partmental Cortmittee recommendations contained in tlie Staff Report to the Planning Commission required that plans for the pr~posecl seatinq arrangement shall be submitted to and approved by the City Fire Marshal; whereupon, Mr. Rapoport acknowledged said con~ition. It was noted that the Director of tltie Dev~lopment Services Department had determfned that the proposed activity fell within the definition of Section 3.~1, f.lass 1~ of the Clty of Anaheim Guidelines to ~he Requirements for an Environmental Impa~t Report and was, therefore, categor(cally exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Commissioner Kin9 offered Resolution No. PC75-17~ and rr~nved For its passage and adoption~ thaC ?etition for Conditional Use Permit No. 155~+ be and hereby ie granted, for a time period of one year to expire on August '+, Ig76; granting walver of the minim~~-i number of parking spaces on the basis that adequate parkinc~ is available in the ad,jacent two-hour City parkinq lot and the peti~ioner st+pulated that members of the church's cungregation will not park on the streets and in front of residential properties; and subject to the stiputatlo~ by the petitione~ that there will be no meetings he1~1 outside the building at the subJect location and specifically that na meettngs will be held in the breczeway of the butlding, in the parking lot~ or on the streets in the area. (Sce Resolutlon 9ook) On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passad by the follc~wing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ HERB''T~ JONNSON, KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR, FARANO NAES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIOPIERS: NONE ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, ~:ITY PLANMINf COMMItiSION~ Auyust -+~ iy75 75-369 VARIANCF N~. 2725 - PUE1LIf.I1F~RIN~~. RQBFRT F, AND JELEl1N S. MONT~OMERY~ 7~8 North West Streec, M~helm, Cn. 92~~1 (Ownefs); requestfng iJAiVER OF (11) MINIMUN SI~~E:Yl1RD SLTIIACIC A~ID (C) MINIMUM NUMBEft OF ENCLOSFD PARKI~~G SPACE~ TO ESTA,DLISII TNRf.F L~TS on ~roperty de•:crlbed ast A rectanqulnrly-shaped parcel of l~nd con- sisting of approxirTM~tcly 1.7 acres havinq a S`r~ntarye of npproxim.~tely 23~~ fe~t un khe e~st gide of' Wesc Strect, h~ivinci ~ m~xlmum depth of approximatc~y 222 feet, bcing Ic~cnted approxim~tcly 2£t4 fer.t n~~~th of the centcrline of Ploncer Urive~ and further descrlbed as 7Q8 NArth ku~t ~cre~t. Pro{~erty present7y classifled R4-IO~Q(10 (RESIDE~~TIAL~ SINGLF:- FA11 I LY } 7.OMF.. Tw~ persons indic~ted their ~resence in oppositlon t~ subJe~t petltion. and it wos noted thnt ane letter was recaived in opposl~i~n. Upon questioning by Chair~n~in Farano, the petitioner and those present in oppos(tfon waivecl thc ful) readin~ of ttic Staff Report to the Planninc~ Commfssion dated August 4~ 1975; however~ s~ld St~ff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr's. Jdlean S. Montclomery, the pet(tioner~ appeared befo~e tFic Planning Commission anci stated the subJecC property, cansistirg of 1,2 acres~ was for satc and althouhh they would iike the property to bc kept as ane little estate~ they had been approached hy bullders and~ in an effort to be able to I~ave some say about thr, number of trees to be remc~ved and the size of any lot~ they liad chosen to proceed with the subject variance; that they did not wisli to destroy the char~cter of West Street; that they had contacted the property a~+ner directly across the street and they had no objecttons whatsoever but were in favor of thc proposal; that the south s(de of the propertv was locaCc~d on a floocl control channel and w~s a place where sorr~rtime: on Fridays ~nd Saturd~ys teenagers llked to congrec~ate; and on occ~sions, t~e neigltt,~rs had called the pol(c~ rec~arding the ~atherin~ place, however, if that portion of thc. property was developed with a home th~re would be more Jurisdiction over wh~t went on there; and that tl~ey were still planning to pursue sellin~ the property as one piece, hr~:^:er~ if that was not possihle, then thn~ were askinc~ for the privile9e ~f dividing it themselves to have some control, Mrs. William Fackiner, 7-+~ North West Street, Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Car,mission and stated tHerP were two properties between her property and the subJect praperty; that she had lived there for approximately 17 years and had been a resident of Anaheim for the past 50 ye~rs; that she regretted the encroachm~nt of density in Anaheim~ which gave a feeline~ of closing in; that the ~>etitioners were good friends and she respected their wishes; that they sh~red the irrigation privile9as together ~nd Mr. Fackir~er kept the irrigation tally fer the entire neighbor,iood; that. althoiigh there was definitely n~ persanal or spitefu! origin in their association and her remarks, she did ob~ect to the width of the lots being n~rrowed to 71~ 32 and 83 feet (n the area; t~~aY she was aware that anothar property owner with a very wide lot~ Mr. Ulrich, had submittPd a letter in oppositi~n, and their properties had remained as originally laid out; that the ~n~:~iler lot widths were not as co~iducive or in harmony with the rest of the immediate block; that they were acknowledging the problem at the flood control channel; that they were also opposed to the proposed sideyard setback tvaiver, since they tiiemselves had to construct properties in compliance with the current requirements of the Building and Zoning Codes, etc,; and that she joined Mrs. Flarence Nefrin and Mr, Ulrich in opposition to trees being remoyed and the ::ensity proposed in this very nice ne!ghborhood. THE PUBLIC FIEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to question~ng by the Planning Conwnission, Mrs. Montgomery stated the existi~~g home was very old and had been compietiely remodeled, and the carport was not enclosed since yarages were not required at the time th~ home was constructed; and thax the small strip of land Jutting out at the northeast corner of the subJect property was to become a portian of an adJacent parcel which would be resolved at the time of saie of the properiy. Commissioner John,on noted that ha could understand tf~e concerns of ihe neighbors; hawtver~ he felt the proposal was fairly clase t~ the 9~ foot lot width regutrement and the lot area< were substantially larger th~n the minimum 10~00Q square fcet required in 2he RS~l0,000 Z4ne; and, ac,Jiti~nally~ if the h~use did not e::ist ln the center of the propertY, the Commi~sion would have an easier time telling the property owner to divide into two lots~ rather th~n three. Commissianer Herbst noted that it appeared other propertles irt the ar•ea were enJoytng lots narrowzr than 9~ feet; that the Corrtmissl~n would be reluctant. except that the ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CiTY PLANNING COMMISSI~N, lluqust ~+~ 1975 ~~"37n VARIl1NCE: N0. 2725 Cont{nu ~ed) square feot of are~ wns subatnnCially greatc~r thpn th~ requlreme^nt fur thc z~m e~ and the older valucd ho~~es wou~' have to bc torn down to divtde~ the propcrty Into two lats; and thac t~y c~r~~ntin~ _he ~roposed lot widthi~ Lh~ aren could still be mnintalned in i~~ presAnt fa~hion; th~t certnin 9+~lldinq Godc pr~vislons pertaininc~ to flrewalls would ba r~:~ulrod in connection with the rrtent~~n uf lhe carport~ and ,aid cArport would not detcr from the rest of the nelclhh~rho~d~ in his opinian. Gommisslonar Farano added th~t due to ~osts involved for :an appropr(atc flrewali. thN petitl~ner might find it more feasible tc- remave sald carport ~nd co~struct a new garac~e in ~'+ccordance to the Code~ in wl~lch case the walver would n~~t he appll~nule. The P~n~nin~ Ccxnmissian entered into discusslon re~arding the trecs on the property~ d~~ring which th~ pctit(oner statec{ there were approximately 1~S trees, including avocAdo~ fruit and a few shide trees, and Cliat a maximum of five would prnbably be removed. Thn Commission indicated t!~ey would I(ke to re.strict the removal of mo~e than ~ive trees; whereupon. Dep~aty Clty Attorney Fr~nk Lor~ry ar~~ised that the Tree Pre~ervatinn Ordinance applled only to the Scenic Corrldor and that a condltion attaCh~d to the subJect petition regarding the trces would not bt approprl:,te. Commissioner Her~st nutecl that the word of thc petitioner should be ~icceptable to reliev~ the Commission's concern regardinc~ the tree removal. Comnlssloner Nerbst offered a~r.ion, seconded by Commissloner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED, that the Plannlny Commission recommends to the City Council that the ~ubJect proJect be exempt from ihe requirement to pre~are an Environmental Impact Report, pursuant ta Che F,r~visions of the Cal(fnrnia Environmental Quality Act. Gommissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC75-171 and maved f~r its passaqe and adoFtion~ that Petition for Variance No. 2725 bc and hereby is granted~ granting waiver of the minimum lot wi~lth on the basis that a I~ardshi~ would be creat~d if saicl waivers were not granted since other properties in the immediate area are en,jaying lot~ narrower than 9Q feet and~ furtherrmre, the proposed lot areas are substantially larger than the minimum 10.00~ square feet required in the RS~10,004 Zone~ in a:ic:ition to the fact that a single-family residence is existi~sy or~ tf~e center ef subJ~et praperty; qrantt^g waiver of the minimum sideyard setback on the basis that ~ caroort is exlst~ng within the mtnimum required sideyard setback and, furthermorey the minimum lot widths proposed would be further reduced if th~e proposed minimum sidPyard setback were increased and, therefare. a hardship would be created if said watver were not granted~ provided however, that certain Ruilding Code requirements pert~ining to fire~~ralls shall be ~nmplied with in connection with retention of the carport; granting waive.r of the minimum number of enclosed parkinc~ spaces on the basis that the existing carport is a nonconforming, legal means of prnviding enclos~d parking on the subJect property and, therefore, a harrlship would be created if satd waiver were not granted; subject to conditions. (See Resolution ~aolc) On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~ote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ HERBST, JOHNSON~ KING~ TOLAR~ FARAN4 NOES: COMMISSIaNERS: MORLEY ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: NONE VARIANCE N~. 2726 - PU9LIC HEARING. ROBERT P. HALL~ a32 '~Jhiting Woods Flace, Glenda~e, Ca. 9120$ (Ow.ner); UNITEU SIGN SERVICE. Attn: C. R. Gemmell, 10859 ~herman Way~ Sun Valley, Ca. 91352 (Agent:); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS, (B) PERMITTED SIGN LOCATION, (C) MINIMUM DI~TANCE BETWEEN SIGNS, (D) MAXIMl1M SIGN HEIGHT ANb (E) ~ilNlhiUM SIGN HEIGNT TO CONST~UC7 SiX FREE-STbNDING AND TWO WALL SIGNS on property described es: An irregularly-shaped parcel ~f land consi~ting of approximately 5 acres haviny a frontage of approximately 7~~ ~-'.et on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 45~ feet, being located approximately 660 f~et north of the centerline of Orangewood A~~enue~ and further described as 2025 South Manchester Avenue. Property presently classified CH (COMMERCIAL, HEAVY) ZONE. No one indicated their ~resenc:e in opposition to sub,ject petition. Although *_he Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 4, 1~75~ was not read at the public hearing~ sai~ Staff Report is referreQ to and madz ~ part of the minutes. ~ ~ ~ MINUT[S, CITY PLlIlJNIM1; CQMMISSION, 11u9ust. h. 19/5 7S"371 VARIANCE N0. 272G ~f_ontlnued) Mr. C. R, Gerrmr.ll ~ representinn the ~~c~ t for thc petltlonor~ appe~re~.l befare the Plannir~q Commission .~nd st~t+~d the pmposai was Co prnpnrly ident(fy the car salc~ rnd servlce huslness on th~ b.jcct pro~crty, ylvin<7 proper informatic~n reg~rdrnn t.he locat lon ~f the use~~ 5, sh~r~room, shl pping :~nd recei vinn ro~m~ etc, ; th~~t the ob jectivc was nc+t ~ ' nt i fy thc dealr.rship wi th n huqc s Inn i~ut, t~ -•' .c the Inform~tlon loe~~tec Stratr.qlc places nn Che property; th~it the propn,e~d sl~1n are~fl wfls far less th.~n that ~~Ilor~ed by Cr~dc~ Since a total sinn r,re~+ ~~f 136 square fcet was pr~posed; and th~t the proposed slyninc~ woulrl •~nh~incc •h<~ dc~lershl~~ m~re thAn havlnry one ovcrpowcring siqn. TNE PUBLIC Nf11RINf, WA'; CLOS~p. Canmissicmcr King noted th~t the nel~hbc.~ring MazJa sign w~s m~st attract(ve .~nd he indfcated thit ~~ slmilar si~~n mic~ht be approprlale far the subject prapr.rty; whercupon, Mr. Gemnell ~tated thc tiazda sl~n was dr.slqned fnr a Mazda deaiership ~nd the ~~roposed sign wis designed for a Volvo deaicrshfp. The Flanning Comnlssion entered i~t~ discussion rennrdin~ [hc repetitious informatfon contalned un [he pr~posed siqnr,, and it was determine~l th~t wfth thr removal of the word "Vol vo" f rom four of the s i c~ns ( Nos .-~ ~ 5, ~ and 7) , anct reduc i rig cn~ s i gn to a maximum of 4 feet ~nd the si~n area of each si~~n to 3 square fe~t and if said siyns wn~P rot vf s ib le from the adJ~~cent p~~bl ic streets, said s fnns would be cons id~ered d(rectional anu wo+~ld not ~equire :i Cade waiver; wnere~:i Mr. Gemmell stlpulat~d ta mc~d i fy the s i gns to comp' y wi th the req ui rements for d i rect i ona 1 s i gns and to relocating sign No 4 a~ay fr~m the fnlersection ot the street anc' dr,veway ~long Manchester Avenue. In response to questioning by Commtssioner Darnes, Mr. Gemmel~ stated trio of the proposed signs (Nos. 1 and '2) were to be li~hted and th~~t tlie proposed 30-fnot siqn would nor. affect the adJacent resiJentlally^zoned property to the south which was currently d~evelaped with a rtabiiehome park, sald sign being a minimum of 27.0 feet away . It was noted that ihe Direr,tc~r of the Development Sarvices Department had de*ermined ,'ar tha proposed acti~iity fell wiChin the deflnition of Sectio~~ 3•O1~ Class 11~ of thr City af Anaheim Guidelines to [he Requirenents for an Env(ronmental Impact Report and was, therefore, categorically exempt from the require,nent ~c file an EIR, Commisstoner Tolar c"ferRd Resc~iution No. PC75-17z anci moved for its passage and adoption, that Petition for Varlance No. 2726 be and hereby is granted, in part, granting waiver of the pcrmEtted number of free-standl~g signs to permit three Free- s*anding sic~ns consisting of one existing `':e-standi~g siGn o~ the northerly porti~n of subject pro~erty and two pranosed freE:-standing signs on the southerly portion sinc;e the petitioner stipulated that Four of the oroposed stgns (Nos. ~i~ 5, ~ and 7) will be modified to co-~form to the requiremenes fo• on-site directi~nal signs not designe~ to be viewed from the street, said four signs being a maximum of 4 f~ret in height, 3 square fcet in sinn area and not visible from the adJacent publ(c street; granCing waiver of the permitte~; sic~n i;,;.a•~~~~, in part~ to permlt one of the approved free-starding signs ~No. 2) to bc. ,ocated within the prohibited dlstance from the adJacent p~~rcel to the south (said permitted distance requirement being less than 120 feet) since the petitioner st~pulated that the oxher four sic~ns (~~os. 4, 5. 6 and 7) for which the walver was originally requested will con~Form to the requirement~ for on-site direttlonai signs, 3nd said permitted si~1n shall not be closer than 65 feet from the south property line; granting walver of th~ minimum distance between free-standing signs~ in part, to permit three free-star~dinq ~igns (Nos. 1 and 2 an the southarly rortion of subJect propertv and the exlsting sigrs on the northQrly portion), sald sl~ns being a distanc~ of 210 feet and 215 feet apart~ said walver being granted in part slnce the petitior+er stipulated that the other four signs (Nos. ~-, 5~ 6 and 7) wlll zonform to the requirements far on-site direcCional signs; granting waiver of th~ permttted sign heiyht within 75A feet of a residei,tial structure on the basis that the Pianning Cortxnlssion has previou~ly gra~ted sir~ilar waivers in the immediate area, safd sictn (No. 1) to oe a ma...'^~im of 3~ ~aet in height and located a minimum of 220 feet from the adJacent residentially zoned property to the south whlch ls currently deyeloped with a mobiletiome p.~rk; that waiver of the minlmum sign height is determined to be unnecessary sincp tlie petitioner stlp~~iated ~ ~ ~ ~ MINIlTES~ C17Y PLANNING CQMMISSIUN~ Augusc li, 1975 VARIANCE N0. 2726 Cont(r~ued) 75-372 to relncntin,i the affoccnd sfqn (No. 4) awny from the inter~ect~~~n of thc strcet and drlveway aloi n Manchester ~ enue •iiid sild sign wll) be modified to conform e~ the requirement for on^sit~^ dlr•ectional siqns; sub.~ect to t~~e co~ditlon khot tlie suh,ject property sh.~ll be devel~aped preciscly in ac.u~rdanc~ wfth the submitted plans~ as modtf(ed by rhis resolutlon; and subjcut to Interdeparkmental Comntttee recanmend..~lnns. (Sec Resolution I~ook) On roll call, the forec~~ing resolution was passecl by the followin~~ vo:e.: AYES: COMrIISSI~NERS: NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMr11SSIONERS: I~NVI[iUNM1LNl'~L IMPACl' RI~PORT N0. ].33 VARIANO~C N0. 272H BIIRP~C.S~ HERBST~ JOHNSQN, KING~ MOftLEY~ TbL11R~ FARIIKO NONF NQNF - PU~L1C E~CAP,IN(3. 0. MIC[-fAli;I~~ INU. , P, 0. Box 278 ~ Midway CitY ~ Ca. 92655 (Owner ); E2AAD AND I30YER NNGINRICRING C0. ~:14h8 ~ I3eaoti Dlvd. , Suii,e R, WR:~troinai;ei~, Ca. 9?_G83 (~nvlneer). 1'roperty da~oribdd a~: A rootangulsrly-shapod pai•oa1 of lund oon:ii:si;.ing of approx~cai;ely 1Ei aoro~ loaatod P.~i tf10 SOII'~IlOQU~L aornor of Vc~rmont Avonuo and l~a:st Stroe~t having approxime,ta fronta~;es of 733 foet on the eic~~ti;h sid~ o:f Vermont Avenuo and ~,18t3 fo~t on tho ea3t hide of ~~~st Street. Pr~c~~erty ourrent;l.y o:l.a:+:~ified RS-A-43~OU0 (RIES7P.EI`Pi'IAL,/AGRIC fI1CUML)ZONL. T~rfl'ATIV3~ MAP or ~rr~nc~r. N0. 875~i ('. ~VISION NU. 1) R3~QiJ~STFD VAItIANCE: WA~Ik~R ~I' MINIt~4UM DIS'CANCP~ BETWhII~N RUILDINGS. TEPITATNE T~ACT REQUEST: SiJfiJECT PCiOPERTY IS PROPUSFD D'OR ~UF3UNISION INTO A 119-I,0`P ~ RM-4UOU SUT1UIViSIOIv. Two per"ons indioated their presenoo in opposition to sub~eai; petition. Upon questiontng by Ch~irman Ferano, those persens present in opposit3.on and tho pei;ltion~r waived the ful]. reodinE of the Staff Rr~port to the F1e~nning Commission dated August 4, 1975; h~wever, ae-id Staff Roport is r~iferred to and made a pari; of tha minutos. pdr. C. J. Jones, President of C. Miohael, Ino.~ the petitioner, appeared before the Planning Commission and ststed ~;hat in Ootober, 1974, the ~ity Counoil approved development of th~ ~ub,jeot property ae a 156-unit, 157-1.ot RM-4000 oondominium pro~oot; that ~the ourrent proposal was f'or 119 units, redu.:ing the density from tl:e origingily' approved 11.9 to 5.9 units per aore; that they were proposing to have 36-foot wi3e private streets; that the propo3ed centrsl rearestion aroa would have full k:~~ohen faoilitias, eto.; that the sub~eot araa was not oonduoive to a more oapensive dwelling uni~L and the praviously propu~ed units were in the $4`L,000 and up priao range; that the industrial are~ to the west oY sub,~eat proporty was a draw-baok ~to selling more expenaive uiiits; that~ although the proposal wes not the liighest use of the property, it was the best us:; erd the.t the rooocimended cond3.tions of approval set ~'orth in the Staff Repoi•t were aooeptable. ,dr. Jone~ then presented a rendaring o: the development. ~tlr. i~. Grani; Robinsor_, ].3UG1 16-ch S~troet ~ R~dlands ~~ppearod before the Planning Commissicn and stated hs wa3 one of the owners of the ad,jaoent industrial propez•~y; that the ir.dustrla~. development was exis~cing and was picneers in the aree., and he di.d no~t wani; the futuro residents of +he propo~ed developwent to come along snd lator ob~eot to the indu^trial dNvel- opment; thst he wiahed. to go on record a~ stating therc~ wa~ a real ure~inago p.roblem in 'che area; that his uwn develonment had not helped the drainage problem eny and thoy had not reelized it would be so diffioult to drain ~Llie water away, and sny Rdditional development vrould further inoreaso the drainage pruGlem; that iF ''t,he propose,l was not in oonflini, with the Codo and we~s not request3.ng waivers ~ then he wouJ.d not be opposod; and i~hei; the industrie~l development had been in the a:ea for approximately 12 yeara and they did not wish to have their "home sweet• home" disturbod, so to spesk. Chairman Fare~no noted thet the sub~eot property had alreedy reoeived permission for re3iden- tial zoning; whereupans Ddr. Robin~on stated tl:e proper~ty was proviously c~ sohool site. Mr. Clyde b'arrow, 1023 Sout.h_ Uove Plaoe ~ Aneheim, appe~sred befoz•a the Coo~nission in oF;~o ~i- tion and siated that previously he had mede personal aontao't with approxim~ately 95~ of the residents in the area and they were all for the original proposal, and they hoped to think thet a neighb~rhood wou?.d always be improved by somethin~ new ooming i.nto it; that the oor.dominium aonoept, with the perpetual upkeep and roaintenance, should be a weloome improve- mont; that he ob~eoted to the proposnd sma~.ler lots e.r-d ti~e proposal whiah appeered to be R-1 (RS-7200~~ but, teohnioally w~s not; that the dwellings wt~re not s~ngle~family residenoec, ea ~aoh; that the buf~~r zonea were difYerent and not 2U feet as originally proposed; and s • ~ M'.CNU'rll> ~ OTl"t PI,JINNINCI COMMISSTOPJ ~ AuEu:~t n,].97`~ 75-373 p;I~Z N~l. 133 , VARTATJCr NU. 772ti ~ AND 'I'~NTATI.JI~ MAI' UP 'PIZAQT N0. ti75~~ (Ilov. No. 7. )(oontitiued ) that the oxi3ting r•e~~ident~ wo~~:l.d probably n~~1, f'eo1 Lho ::ame a:i before, b~it '~~•.:~~' ~a oppo;;od. In i~obut,t,al, Mr. Jono~i ci,ated two nl;orrn dre~in~ had alr•oudy bden ~~,pi~ovc~d by tria City IDngi.n~er and they woro slao willtng 'to work with h1r. l~ctrrow :~inoo they did r~o`, intdnd to ov~rbuild the area and wsntod to ~tsy with:Ln what wa;~ 81reRdy oxiui;iii~,, nrloo-wi,~e ~ 1'0~• reai.danti.a.l. ddvc~l.- opment. 'PIII? P;IDLIC EIICAFi1~1C3 WA;~ OLUSEA. Cowni:~~i.oner Tu7.ar n~ Led that the F..c~nning Cor:unis,~iun foarod tho type pro,joot propoac~d ~li~oe it wou7.d be uoi~~i.ddr~~l a~ Rn RS-72UU devolopmet~t by the lending in~titutiur~s ~ wheri in realit,y it wa~ a oc~nclominium pro,loot wit.h z~o Uuftor zono ar~d with pe-rlcing problein~; i;hat the aooen3 to thc~ reaz ~3Rtiori aroa ~vas nu~t ~e~ti:~faotot•y; thai; ~~182•e wore a riumbor of problem.~ with the pi•opuaa.l th~t di.d n~~t oxi:~t with th~ originc~l plan aii~ thnt he would di:~Mg.ee 1;hc~t Jones t;te originnl pt•opo;~a~l oould nc~1~~ ba suocac~sf.ul in tYio ~uU,joot Rrea. Ir~ ro~n~ns~ , 9~~'t0(1 'tillb,y had overy intention of bul1ding the [tM-4i)OG devolopment whon ~.t wa approved; however, it wu., i;oo expensivc~ for 3ale:~ ~~ir~oo t,rle aveY•age Pr&ldd tl~o~i'E+'f0I•e'~(,1;l~oy&did'Jriot $39 ~99~) wlth 5U~ ot' tli~ peoplo not be~.ng f~U~~Wft3 i 1 a~wa ito build. ~ feel i;ha1; the $42r~~~0 t° $45~U~U prioe t~nng- Y Oommi.3:~iotier IIerbst cioted sovec•al uride.~ir~ble a:,peutc~ oP the pr•opoual, boin~ thFl zoro :Lot lines, privato ~treet:~ tht~t would booume publia, ~ai~os rsnd guards, yub~l;e~ndard arivaw~y oonrlii;ions, subatanderd lot SL'1,63~ tho oomUiniiig of the multiplo and sing].e-family reyiden- ti~1 zone into ~ non-exi~tont rcne, fenoes whiot~ eJ.iminated the open spsoe, baak yards abuti;in~; existir,g :~ingle-fHmily re~idenoos e,nd r~o bu:ffar zono~. He furthor notod that, in his opinion, ~ttie propo~a7. wa~ ~ grid '~ypo sma17 1~~ development and, although there might oorioeivably be a need, the aaenj.tios ior the RI~rt-401~U Zone wore vory nooessary and ~uoh a pro,j~oi; wauld aet an undesirable orooedent f.'oi• the City of Anahe~im; thereforo~ he would not vote in favor ot: the Present proposal. ~hai.?•man F'e.rano noted that he wa:, also opposed to ttio proposad r~• '~ct, but on the bc~sis that it was a otie~l.longe and a- ;c~u1t ~(~t~:lris't the City's 3:i.tiglo-f rosidential Cod~ and was c~ot:ling more thQn a singl~-family, 40U0 square foot loi,; ~! tho P:l.~nning Commission had lorif~ roao~nized the neod for dii'forent typo hou:~ing, :~owevor, ~ new ouncc~p~L or zone shoulct be developad cri an organized ftnd oontr•ol].ed basis; and that he would ltke the P:lenning Commission to consider gi.ving City sta£f direation to devolop a new ~et ot standsrds for the use of small lots. ~ommissionor Tolar oonourred i;ha~t Qpproval of tYib proposed development wou''.d very defir~itely sot an undesireble preoedent; and th~t .ie did not feol i 3 develo~,er ~vould he penalized if th~ projeat was RS-5UU0, and ~uch ~ plan would rroUably bo s muoh more marketable p:oduot. ;J'ir. JonA~ indioatecl ~that sinae sltnost a majority ~f the °lanni.ng Commissioners had indicated negative fee~ings toward thv pro,jeat, the pet3tioner would re3peot~ully request a contin~~ance to the meeting of August 18, 1975, to oither rovise the p~_an or withdraw the proposal. Commissioner Tolar offered a ~notion, soconded by Commissioner Herbst and t~I0TI0N CARRIED, t;o •r~eopen the pL1UZLC hear~'~ng and oontinue oonsideral;ion of Environmente]. Inipaat Report D(o. 133, '!arianoe No. 272a, and Tentstive M~p of Traot No. 8758 (Revision No. 1) to the meeting of August 18, 1975, as requeatod by the petitioner. • ~ ~ ~INUl'1~4 ~(7TrY PLANNII~ OUd4dT3STON ~ August A,],975 75-37h ~N1fItipNEA~NTAL TMYAOT ~- S.I.R. ULIV~LOP~RS~ .CNO.~ 72U1 C3az~den C~rove Aou7.evard, Qerden 05 ] E'.IDPOR'P N0 Cix•uve ~ Ca. 92641 (Devo].opdr); V'.['N CONSOLIDAT}CA~ INO. ~ 23U1 Oempua . . Di•ivo ~ Trvit~e ~ Ca. 926fi4 (~ngineer ). Yroperty doooribad ao 23. 2 `ATNH; MA~ OF' TRAQT TIDMJ aore~ looet,ad southeeat of Walnut Oanyon Reservuir and northweat . NOg. 8:i13 ([~V.NO. l), oP. the inl;orcaeotioii of ''orreno Avenue nnd Fiidden Oanyon R~ad. OOJ (f~IDSIDI~NTIJ~L~AC~ftIODUTUtiAL) 43 8515 (E~V. iJO. 1), AND 1 0 ' , Proporty ourrontly zoned RS-A- with e resalution of intent to PC (PI.~ANN~D COt~AUNI'i'Y> ZU~VL',. ZOMC ) . J. N 85:16 (Ei~ ~ J~ot pr•operty is pz•opu:ied i;o be dAVeloped lnto three m~altiple- Sub , iamily ro3ldent'al oubdivie~ons aonsiot;tng of. 114 lots and 1()9 unitsi 'Pentative T~~aot No. E3513 (R~v. N~~. 1) requerst: 33 RN[-2AU0 lots Tentative Treot No. 8515 (Fiev. No. 1) requosi;; Q1 Md-24U0 lots Tentative Traot No. 8516 (Rev. Tlu. 1> reque~t: 39 RM-24U0 lote Althougti i,lie Stsf.f i~eport to the Planning Co~isnion deted Augu3t 4, 19')5, wa ~ not read a~t the meeting~ aaid Staff Rc~port is refarred to and made a part of the cninu•tos. ldr. Rnbert Solomun, repra:~~nl;ing the developer~ ap~~oerod befc.re i;lie Ple~nning Comnission and stated the proposed tonte~'t~.ve mapQ werA *o rein~tate traots whioh w~ro pr•9viously approved but wero nov, expirod aoooi~ding to the new 3ubdivi.s~on~ Map Aot. Cou~isslonar Tolar noted tha't, 1n viewing the traot au~ps, he did not notioe ro~xoh oommon usable ground, pAr se, ~9.noe ho did not oonyider hills and slopey a:~ usable area; whereupon, Mr. Solomon ~tated th~y v~ero providir-g mini-perks foi• approxime~tely overy 35 houses, in addition to the rcx~iri re~rdai;ian aroa; and tha~t he oould not point out whioh oY the slope:~ were usable, but ~~ome of them wero. Mr. John Milli.ok, represonting Anaheim Hi].'ls ~ Ino. ~ appeared before the P:Lax-ning f~ommission and oxplstned that there wore a i;ot~sl of four traots involved in this tot~l development, ono uf whioh was alroady under oonstruot:ton~ and all four of ~ttie traots v~ere graded durin~ the first phase of tliat fir~t t,raat; i~hat tho gi•ading had been angineered to provide more ndtur+~]. oontours arid not so muoh .flat aras; ~nd that the developor had bean "c~ught" by the new ^~~U- di~risions '4ap Aot. Chai.rm~n Farsno inquired if tbe densi.ty oould bo reduoad; wheroupon, ~dr. Milliok :~~atod that the density approved in Clenerel Plan Amendment No. ].`l3 was aotua].ly higher tha.n tho pro,jeots in Anaheim Hills we.re averaging, in ~very oas9; and that the oommunity had been msster-planned to oPfer ell of the di.fferent typo lif.estyle~ ~nd the proposal was sim:ller to the lifestyle of the Bz•oadm~~r uommunity. Cheirman Ferano then noted thRt he had voted agai:st the original proposal; that one of the advantages of this type development was supposed to b9 the cocnmon open s~eoe that was usabl.e by evervone living in i;he pro;jeot; e~nd he questioned the extent to ahioh the open spROe in the pro,ject oould bo usod by al~. '-he rosidents. Thereupon, Mr. Milliok explained that there wero two types of open spaoe -- aative snd passive; that beo~use of thA ~topography, they ended up with oonsideraUly mare passive the~n ~otive open spaoe; and that the equ~strian trsi.ls wove through the development and interaonneoted wi~th the master ridir.e5 9nd hiking trails. In resPonse to questioning Uy Commissionar H9rbst ~ Mr. Milliok stated there would be no fenoing of the oommon open spsae; and tliat a portion of tYie rear yards would be fenced with wi•ought iron against the roar an3 aolid si.deyard fenaes. Commissioner Herbst questioued the front setbaoks, whereupon~ Mr. Solomon stated the 6 ~0 10-foot and 25-f~~ot setbaoks would be provided in aoaordanae with the Zoning Code requirements. Co~issioner Herbst r.oted the~t he still had some resorvat3.ons about the type development being proposed. Commissioner J'ohnson noted that he wouid support +ne proposal beoause of the apparent oxisting interest in the develo~ment by the developer. Com4,issioner King noted that he would favor the proposa7, on 'the basia of the reduotioii in dens' y over the previou~ly approved traot maps. Qomm~.ssicner clerbst offer•ed a mo~ion~ se~onded by Commissionor King and M(nION CARRIED, that the Planning Commission doe:: hereby reaffirm its aotion of November 12~ 1973, oonoei•ning Environmental Impact Report No. 105, said raport being in full oomplianoe with the City and 3tate Guidelin~s and the State of Cslifornia Environmental quality Aot, Commission~r Herbst offered a motion, sooonded by Commissioner Kir,g~ and 6dOTI0N CAI~RIEDti il:at Tentative D6ap of Traot No. 9513 (Revision No. lj be and hareby is approved, sub3eot to tht following ounditians: (1) That the approval ~~ Tentative ~lap of Tr.aoi; No. 8513 (Revision No. 1} is gran~ed sub,jeot to •the eompletion of. Fieolaseifioation ivo. 77.-72-44. ~ ~ s ~ Mxrrirr~s, or.r~r ~Lnrrrrtrrc~ co~~~sszorr~ n~~au~t a, i~~~~ ~-''~ P~IEi fJO. 1U5, TA~NTATN~ M~1i'8 OP ~r~nc'P IJOS. 8513i E3515 ANP 851b (E~1. NO~~. 1) (Oontinved ) (2) That ~hould thia :~ubdivi~ion be deveed~ln ten~tatlvohfor•mnforua~ prove~].n~ d~uh ~~ibdivi:~ion thereof nF~c~l'1 bo ~ubmitt (3 )'.l'h~it~ a11 l~~t~ wSttiin L'his tr•aot shall be :~er••: c~d Uy ~indorground ,.i+,i:Lltien. (4 ) Th~t a final i;raot map of c~~tb,~eot pruperty sha11 be :-ixbmil;ted t,o and appr~7ved by the Oity Oounoil and thon be r•ooorded i.n 1;he Oi'fico of +.ho Orat~~e C~ ~Y Re oordez~. (5 ) Thai; tho oo~~enar~f.~, oundii;ions and r~~~r~otion3 ~hal'1 be ~ubn~iti;ed to nnd approv~,d by t;he Clty At~;orney'3 Oifioo pri.o. i~o Ci1~Y Ouunail approval of tho finaJ. traat map ~n9, further, that the a~prov~d venani;s, oondii;ions and re~triotions shall ba recorded oono~_irrently wJ.i;h the final traot map. (6) Thnt prior to filing the f:lr~al traot map~ the anpliocsnl~ stiall submit i;o the City Ati;orney for approval or denial a oomple':o syrlupsls of the proposed funol.j.oning of tho c~por~ititing oorporation inc].uding~ but not lim:Ltod to, the ar•ti~lc~s of tnoorporation, bylaw:3, proposed methods o~ ~~uoEe~,°~hor informrztion in:~ure maintenanoo of oommon property snd building3 ait3~oitizens, and t;he as the City Attorney may do~ire to proteot tho City, purohaser:~ oi' the pro,jeat. (7 ) That ~~treet names shal"1. be spproved by the Ci~ty of An~hoim prior to approvsl of a zinal tract map. (Ei) That drainaga of aaid pruperty ~hall be disposod of in ~ mariner :~etisfaatory to the C11;y ~ngineer. If ~ in the propare.i;ion of. fi.he sito, suffici.ent grading is required to necr~s~itate a g~•ading permit, no worl, on gradin~ wi11 be per- mi.~;i;ed bet«~~en Ootober• 15th and llpril 15th unless all requlrPo~i~;ivoie~ssuranoe dre,ineQe iaoilitios h~vo beon installed and ere operc~tivo. shall be pruvidod the C3.ty tha+, suoh di'ainage fao~l~ffe9i~~laraina6epfaoilities prior to Ootobor 15~h. Neaessury right-of-way f shall be dodioatad~Lo the Cit.y~ or the City Counail sh~l.l nave initiatod ooridemnation prooaedings therefor (the oosts of whioh shell bv borne by i;he~ developer) prior to the oommencement of grading oper~'tions. The roquired 3raina~e faailii;ie~ shall be of a size and type suffioie;zt to oarry runoff ws+,ers originating from Y,igher properties through 3aid property to ultimai;d disposal e,s approved bV the City Engineer. Said drsinage faai.].itids sh~].1 b; " e first :~~tem uf oonstruotion and shall be oompleted e~nd bo functional throughout the tr~aot and From +.he dovmstream bound4ry of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior ~Lo tho issuanoe uf any ~inal b~_iilding iri°poations or oaaupanoy permits. Dr~inage district roimbuonHtheiragequest~s may be made availabls to the developera of said property up (9) That grading, exoavati.on snd all other oonstruc~ion aativitios shall be oonduoted in suah a manner so as to minimize thP possib:Llity of any silt originating from ttiis pro,jeat being oerried ini;o the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing throuQh this projent. (lU )That e~1.1 private 3treet~ shall be develot,ed in e~ooordanoe with the City of Anahe~m's atandards for privete strests. (1:L) That the aligruuent end terminal poini; of storm drains shown on this tentative traot mep sh~11 not be oonsidered final. These drains sha11 bP >ubjeot to preaise de~ign oonsidergtions and epproval of the Ci.ty Engineer. (17_ ) If permc~nent street name signs have not been +.nste,lled , temporar;~ sti•eet name signs shall be instal~n~l prior to any cn~supanoy. (13 ) That the owrlsr (s ) ot' sub jeot property shall pe~y to the City of Anaheim the appropria•te park and reoreation in-11eu fees as dotermined `.-o be appropriate Uy the City Counuil~ said Pees to be peid at the time the buildir.g peimit is i~s~:ed. (14 ~ 5e~rar.ohAoenue sha119baideelicated to tl e~CitytofnA~aheilnley o~enings, +o ~ ~ • M1TNI'IliS ~ Ol.'I'Y 1'1.~1NNINC~ 00lJA,~IS3ZON ~ F~ug~.~t~t Q~ 1975 7~-:i'7C~ ~Tfl N0. ].U~ , T~MPATNP~ bU1P:~ OF T[~AC'.C AfOS. 8513 851a AND f~51.G (fiI~V. N03. 1) (Continued ) (15 ) Th~+ firo liydrante~ :~hall bv inotRllod and oY~ai•ged e~ rbyuired a~nd dei:er•minad i;o b~ neoe~s~r~y by the Uhief. of tl-e ~'ii•e Department prioi• tc~ ooRUne-ioem~nt of ~truc ~~rn:~ fi•amiriP. (lti )'1'hat prior to aF~~roval of. tho fin~sl ~tre-o1; map, fina]. ~+peaifio plan:s atlall Uo 3ubmitted and approveci in a~ooord~snoe w'ith provi~iona of the F'Cl , P].annod Oommunity, Zone. (7.7 ) Th~t speoial broohui~es stial'1 be pr•epai•ed by 1~he davoloper for tlie purE~os~ uf' instruol;:' ng pui,oha~or~ of i;hone homt~3 and any lend~oape mainl;etianco oo~i~pany working on nub,feot proporty ~n tlio pY~opor mesintenonoe e~nd wetoring of lsnd- :~uaped 31opo~, and that these broohures shal~ be nubmitted to ar~d appi•oved Uy tha ~ngineering Divislon and Dovelopment Servioe~3 Department prior tc rooorda- tion of the fine,l 1;raot map• (18 ) 7'hr~t nll drainage from ~ub,jeot pr~peri;y ahall be diverted in ~uoh a mannor~ as to rioi~ drain ~.nto tho R'nlriut Canyon Re3ervoir (Nohl. Ranoh Lctikc~ J and that all methoda of dra~inc~~o e,nd grading sha11 be raviewed and e~pproved Uy tha City Water Division prior to approval by the City EnRineor. Comrnissionor Horbst offer•ed a motion, seconded by Commi3sloner King~ and MO`l'ION CARRIED~ tliat Tenl;Qtive Map of 'PrQOi; No. 8515 (ftev~.~ion No. 1) be snd hereby is approvod, sub,joot i;o the following oonditions: (1) That the approval of Ter.tetive ~n~p of Tract No. 8515 (Revisioxi No. 1) is grantvd sub,joc~ to the aomplotion of Re~lassifioation No. 71-72-44. (2) That should this ^~~bdivi~ion be developed as more thanr~nfo~uadivision~ oaoh 3uUdivision thereof she,il Ue suUmitted in tentative PProv~.l. (3) That a1:1 lot:~ within this tr~ci; sha11 be aez•vad by underground utilities. (~) That a final traat map af' subjeot property shal.l be ~ubmft~~1e C~anne Couc~;ved by the City Coun~il and then bo reao.rded in the Offioe ~ Y Re order. (5 ) That tho oovenar,ts ~ conditions and rostriations shell Ue SL1UQ1~'tt,9Cl 'tiG and spproved by i;he City Attorney's Office prior to City Counoi~. e,pproval. of ~the final c•rsot map and, furthor, that the approved oovenants, oondition~ ar.d restriatlonn shal7. be reoorded aonourrontl.y with the rinal traot map. (~! '"l~at prior to filing tho :ina,l traot map~ the applioant sha11 submit i;o the City Attarney fur t~pproval or denial a oomplete synopsis of ~thA proposod iunotioning of the operating uorpor+~tion ino7.uding, bu~ not li~itod to, the artiolos of inoorporation, byl~ •s, proposed method3 of mana~emant, bondirg to insure main~tenanae of commc.i property aiid vuildings ~rid suah other• information as the City At+ uey may desire to proteot the Cit,y, its oitizens, and tha purohaser~ uf the orojeot. (7) That street ne,mes shall bo approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approva~. of a final trt~ct map. (8) That di•ainaae oF said proper•ty shall be disposed of in a mar-ner satisfaatory to the City Engineer. If, in 1;he preparation of the 31te suffioient grading is raquired to neoessi~ate a grading permit, no wc:•k on graditig will be permi.tted batwoen Ootober 15th and April 15th unless all requirad off-site drainage faoilities have been in3talled and are operative. Positive assurance sha11 be pro~,ided the City that suoh dreinage faoilltie~ ~+rlll be ~~mpleted prior to Ootober 15th. Pleceasary right-of-way for off-aite draiz~age faoilities shall bo dedioated to the City, or the City Counoil sha7.1 be initi~ted aondemnation prooeedings therefor (the oo3ts of which sha11 be borne Uy the developer) prior to the oommencemgnt of gra~i.ng operations. The required drainege faoilities ~hall be of a slze and ty~e suffioient to oarry runoff waters originating Srom highor properties throuph said property to altimate di~posal as epproved by the City Engineer. Said. drainage faoilities ahall be the first item of oonstruotion and shall be oomploted and be f.otional throughout the traat and from tha downstrer~m roundary of the property to the ultimRte point of disposal prior to the issucsnoe of any final building inspeotions or oacupanay permits. Drei,lage distriat reimbur~sement ~greements may be mecie avsile~ble to tt~a developers of said pr~opei~'~y upon their requsst. ~ ~ M~,~S ~ al*py }~LpNhiINt3 UOb4~AISSI0r1 ~ Auguat ~1 , 1~375 ~ ~ 75-377 I~IR N0. lUS, 'J.9CN'TATN~ NtAI_'u ~I' T[t/~CT NOS. 8513, 8515 AND_}~51G ([i~V. i103. 1) (Continued) (y) That grading, exo~vation and e-11 othor oonsi;ruotion aotivitiea oha11 bo oot~duoted in suoh a me~nner so as to minimize th~, no;inibility~ of any ~ilt originel;ing from thiu pro,~eot boing oarri.ed into the~ Santa Ana Rivur by storm weter originating .from or flowing throug}i thts pro,~eot. (lU ) Tk~a t e~ll private ~treet:3 aha'1'J. be developAd in aaoordanoe with tho City of Anaheim' ~ s1~~ndardr~ for privat.e 3treot3. (11) That the alignmr~nt and terminal point of ~i•,orm drain~ ehown on this teiitativo traot c--ap 3ha11 nc~t be aonsidered final. Thaao dralnn aha11. be :~ub,)eot to nreciae de3lgn con~iderations and approval of the City En~ineer. (].2~ Ii: Percnanent atreot name sign:~ liavo noi; boen installed, ternporary :~treel, name ~i~ns ahall be in~tRlled prior to ~ny ooaupanoy. (13) Thai; prior to anproval of th~ :~'lnal traot mQp, final specifio plaria shall bo submitted and approv~d ir~r~aaardanoe with provisions of' the PC, Fle,nned Community~ 7~ne. (14) That the owner(3) of sub~or,t properi;y ~hc~il pay to the City of Anaheiin the approprie~te park and reorea~t;lon :ln-lieu ~ees as detormined to bo sp~ermil;ate by the City Counoll, said feey to be paid ai;~the 't~.me the building p is i ~sued. (15? Tha't f.iro hydran~t:~ sYisll bo inatalle~i and ohr~rged as re~uired and dotermiried ta be neoessary by the C;iiof o~ tne T~'ire nen~rt~e~t pr~or to oommc~noea~ent o.f struotural framing. ;16) Thst drainage from sub,jeot property sh~11 be diverted in suoli a manner as to noi; drain in~to the Walnut Canyon Ae3orvoir (Nohl Ranoh Lake) and th~t atil rnethods of drainage and qrading sha11 be reviewed arv+ approved by the City Water Division prior to approval by the City Engineb (17) TY,at speaie~l broohures shall be prepar~ed by the developer for the purpose of. ins•truoting purohasers of these homes and e,ny land3oape maintansnoe uompany wurking oii sub~eot property on the proper m~sintenenoe and watering of 1e~nd- ~oaped slopes~ end that these broohures shall Ue submitted to and approved by the L~ngineering Division and Development Servioes Department prior to reaordation of the final traat me~p. Commissioner Herbst offored a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Ki.ng, and MOTION CARRIED, i;hat Tentative Map of Tra~t Nu. 8516 (Revision No. 1) be and hereby is approvod, stib~eo~L to the following conditions; (1) That the approvel of Tentative Map of Tract D1o. 8516 (Revision No. 1> is granted sub,jeat to the completion of Reclassifi~~,tioii No. 71-72-44. (2) That should this subdivision be developed es more than one subdivisior, e~oh gubdivision thereof she,ll bo submittod in tentstive florm for ~pproval. (3) 't'hat all ].ots within this traat shall be served by underground utilitie~. (4) Tliat a final traot map of subjeot property shall be sabmitted to and approved by tho City Counail and then be racorded in the Offioe af the Orange County Reoorder. (5) That the covenants, oondition~ and restriotions shell be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Offioe nriur to City Council approval of the final traot map, and further that ~the approved cor~venants, oonditions ~nd restr~iotions shell be reoorded oonou:rently with the final traut map. (6) That prior ta filing the fliir~l traot map, the applioant shall subm~i; to the City At;tornoy for apg~oval or deaial a oomplete synopsis of the proposed functioning of the op9rating aorporation :lnoludir~g, but not limited to, the artioles of inoorporation, bylaw~, proposed methods of manage~ent, bonding to insure maintenanoe of oommon r~~~ ~~rty and buildings and 3uoh o~ther information a~ the CitY Att~~•:.~. may desiro i;o proteot the City~ its oi+izens, snd the purohassrs of the projeo+. ~ ~ • MINUTCuS ~ CTTY PLANNINC# CONQIII5~3IOPI ~ Aug~t~~L 4, 1975 75-378 ~IR N0. J.c."~, ',L'~NTATN~ MAPS OF TMO'r NOS. 8>~.3~ E1515_ANU 85:LG (EZFCV. NOS. 1) (Oontir~ued) ~_ (7) '1'hezt ~treet neuno~ :~he].1 be approvnd by the City of AnRheim pri.or to approval of e~ fins1. traot ~nap. (8) That drainage uf ~e-id pr'oporty ~he~ll be dispoe~dd of in a mannor ::ati.ofactory i;o i;tio Oit,y E~illg~tlOAT•. Tf ~ in 1;he preparution of ~;he 3ite, ;lufilaienl; ~radi~ig tc+ reyulred to iieoes;~ittst;e a grading pez-mit~ r~o work on gt~ading wi11 bA permi.ttod botwaen OotoUer 15t~ and Apr~il 15th unlon:~ e~11 requlred off-~ite dre-lnoga faoilitiea have been itn tallod. and are operative. Positivn ~,~;.~~.iranoe 3ha1:1 be provided the City tizai; OllOYI C~I~ainage faoilii;io:i will bu oompleted pric ' Qctober l~th. Nooe;~~ary ri.ght-of-we~y ~or• off-~ite dr~inage faoilitiea shall Ue dedioated to the City, or tY~e Oi.ty Oounoi:L shall YAave i.nitia~t;ed oondemnQtion pY•ooeoding~ thorc~r~ (the ao~ts of whioh shall be borne by 1,he devoloper) prior to the oommeiioement of grttdinK aperatiuns. Tlio roquir~d dr~ainage ~aoilities shal:t be of ~.~ize and type siffioient to oarry runo.f.f waters origi.nating from tii~her proporties throixgh said properi:y to ul~timcil;e dispose~l a3 upproved by tho Clty ~;ngineor. Said drainage faoilities shc~ll be the Tlrst it;om o:f o~n~truation and gha11 be ao~npleted c~nd be funotioi~~l ~Lhroughout the traot and from t,he downatream boundary of. the properi;y to the ultimt~te point ~i dispo:~Rl prior to the is9uanoe of any final building inspeotions or oonu~anoy permits. Drt~ina~e di.str~iot roimUur~ement ~greamonta mny be ~:ade aveilab.Le tu the developery of said property upon their request. (9) Thc~t grading, exotivation and a11 othe.r oonstruci;lon aativities she.ll be ooiid~ioted in suoh a mann~r so as to minimiza the possibility of any esilt originating from i;his pro,jeat boing oarried ini;o the Sarita Ana River ~ y storm water o• i.ginating from or flowi.ng thi ough t!~is pr~~ect. (10> 7.'hat prior to epproval of tht~ fiziel traot map, final speoiFio plans shall be ~ubmi~;ted and approved in aoaordanoe with provisions of the PC~ Planned Community, Zone. (11) That all private streets sh~.ll be developod in aouordance with the Ci.ty of Analieim's si;andards for privai;e strsets. (12j Tnat i~he allgnment and torminal point of storm drains 3YlOWt1 on this tontative tract map shal~ not be ounsidered final. Tl~ase drains sha17. be sub~ect to precise design aonsiderations and approvnl oi' i;he Ci~;y Engineer. (13) T~ p~rnanent stroet namo signs have not be~n inGtalled, temporary streot name si~ns ~hall be installed prior to any occupanoy. (14) That fire hydrQnts shall be installed ancl aharged as reqt.~ired and dotermined to be naoessQry by the Chief of the Fire Depertment prior to aommenoement of struotural fram:ing. ;'.~7) That the ownei•(s) of suUjeot property shall pay to the Oity of Ane~heim the appropri~,i;e park aiid rocreation in-liau feos as determlzied to be appropriate by the City Counoil~ said fe~~ to be paid at the ~;ime the building permit is issuod. (16) That all dre~inage from sub~eot property shall be diverted in suoh a manner as to not drain into 'the Walnut Csnyon Reservoir (Nohl Ranoh L~zke) and tYia1. all ~othc~'c uf drain~gE and grad.ing shall be raviewed ~nd approved by the City Watar Division prior~ to appraval by the City Engineer. (17) That speoial broul-ure~ shall be prepared by the devel.opor• for the p~trpose of instruoting purohasers of these homes and any le»dsoape maintenanoe aompany working on subjdot property on the proper maintenanoe and watering of landsoaped slopes, ~snd that those broahures she.ll be submitted to and epproved by the Engineering Division and Development Servioes Department prior to reoordation of the finc~l traot mt~p. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINVi'1LS ~ C7'1'Y I'LAM~IING OONQ~IT4;SION ~ Augu~~t 4~ 1975 75-379 lt~('pR'r~ ANA - I`i'1~h1 PIO. 1 C~i,C~MtvgCNpA`r7;ONS CUND .IONAL U~1C Pf~RM7.'i' N0. ].54y - Amoridmont i,o resolutlun uf a>>~irove-1 """ (nuno pro 1;ucio) - PropertY oonai:~ting of approxima'~oly U.4 a~re, looated at tho noi~i;hoe~.lt oorner of Ae-11 IZoad and Kno~t;r, Streot. 'I'he Stnff Rapori; to ' li~ i':L~stulln~ Co~rrcniaaiun del;ed August 4~ 197`.~, wa:ti pre~onted arid me-de c~ p[~rt of th.. minul,u.,. It w~:; r~oted i;hat :1' ~'1 ~ i~ 1~75 ~ the P:LRnnin;; Cotnmi~~ion gran~ted Condltional. Uae Fermit 140. 1549 ir, Ro::o1~~, oi~ PIo. PC75-149 to permiL a dr•ivc~-up re~tcsur~ant wii;h waivor of t;he minitrntm t~umbP~~ uf pe~rlcing :~paoe:~ on the suU,~~ot property; that due to a olerioe,l ou;l.~sion, (;nnd:ttion PJu. 1 in •the ro3olution of e~pprovQl wa~ inoompl~+~te ar,cl preaent.ly road "That ttto owner(:3? ~~f avb,jeot property ~hall deed to the City of Anatieim a striP of 1~nd 53 ieet in width fi•om ~tha oenter].lne of th~ 3treet along Dall. Road~ inoluding a 25-foot properi;y li.no radiu3"; and that said oondl'Lion ahould hsve lnoluded ~iedloation a].ong Knott Str•eet nl.~o, :si.noe dedioation had not yei~ been rc~ado along that :~truet and the p:L~n~ :;ubmitted in oonneol~i~r with Conditional U3e Pormit No. 15A9 indieated saicl dedioai;ion. Commi~s~oner~ i-Terbst offered Rosoluti~~ ~~. PC75-173 and mov~d ior i•t~ passage csnd adoption~ amending Resolui;ion No. PC75-149 nui.: pro tunc in ooi~neotioii wi~th Condi~tion~l U~e Pe~•mit No. 1549~ to amend Condition No. 1 i;o read as fcllows; (see Re~olutlon Book) "1. That tho owner (~ > of sub,~eot property shall deed to ttic~ City o'P. Arie~hoi.m ~~~trip of land 53 feet in width from the oentorline of the ~trAe~Ls alonp~I3s11 Road and Knott Street~ inoluding a 25-foot pro~er+y line radiu~." On roll oa11, the f.oregoing resoltrtian was passed by the following vote: AYES ; COIvIIvIISSIONERS : DARI~IE5 ~ I-lER}3ST ~ JOHNSON, KZNG ~ M()RI~Y, TOLAR ~ PARAtJO NUES; COIv4~I2SSI0NER5: NONG ABSENT: CONQvIT.5SI0NERS; NONE ITEM N0. 2 RIICONMIGtIDATIOPd FOR APFOSNTNIEI9'I' TO TF3E PARKS AND RECI~ATION COMMISSIODI Chairman Farano noted that upon the retirement of former Plannirig Commission9r Mel Gauer~ a vaoanay wss created on ttie Parks and Recreation Commis~iun sinos Mr. Gauor was serving on ~aid Comm3s~i~n as the Plannin~ Commission's representative; and that it was tho City Counoii's desire that the P7.anning Coa~iJJion r~eaommend one of i+s present membera to fi11 said vaoancy. Ch~i.rman Farano no~r: ~n~ted Commi.s.~i onei• Harold Tolar as the Planning Commission ropresenta- tive to the Parks r_~nd Recreation Commission and mov~d for unanimous approval to r~ecommend to the Gity Counei.l that Commissioner Tolar be so appointed. Said mo~;ion w~s saconded by Commissioner Mor7 ey and htOTIOIV CARRIED BY LiNANIMOUS VOTE. ITEM N0. 3 [~D, ,. i~DIT PROTECT - Pr~esentc~tion of writtc~n mater~ial. Redevelopment Director Knuwlton Fernald presented booklets and other printed material to the Planning Commission for informat:lon and study, in~ludin.g the following: "Anaheim Downtown - P18nnin~ Invent~ory, Analysis t~nd Interim Conolusions for Redevelopment Projeot Alpha - Summary Interim Repor'o" "Anaheim Downtown - Eoonomia BQSe Analysis and Market Foreaasts for Redevelopment Projeot Alpha - Tealinlcal Volumo 1" "Anahelm Downtown - Traf~io Rnd Transportation Analysis for Redevelopment Project ~lpha - Teohnioal Volume 2" "Anaheim Downtown - Com~nunity Paroeption ~ Sooial Charaoteristios of Aedevelopment Pr~,~ect A1pha tPrelimiitary Draft Only)" "Design Workbook - Four Altet~nati.ve Urban Desigcl Conoept~ for Anaheim's Down~;own Pro,jeot A1phe~ - Workbouk 1- July 1'~75" P~soket of Maps of c•evised Pro.jeot Beta boundar~.es, r•eflecting tra~fio oorridors and exal~xding a~ auiny i•eni.dentlal homes as possible. Lottor from Eugene JaaoU~ and e- mau~orandu~ from Kn~~+lton r~ernald. ' J ~ ~ • Mfi1UT~5 ~ CI'~Y PLADINTNCi COt~~9xON ~ August 4, 1975 I'I`~td N0. 3 (Oontinued ) ~ ~ 75-3f3U Mr. F'ernald explRi.ned that the ~Uov9 information wau prasentod for et~idy Uy the I'lanning Commisslon prior ~u a work see~ion being held, at whioh Mr. Jaoobe would be pre~eni, to disou~s the proposAl~ and pr~ooeduree to be followed; and that the aUove information would elso be prec~9nt,od to the Qity Oounoil for study. Tn re~ponse tn questioning by the P1.anning Commisei~n, Mr. Fernald e,dvised th~t ie prooe- dure to amend Pro,jeat Alpha, ra~hor ~-I~t~ti bo or~eato Pro,jeot Bet~~ oould be a fastar prooedtxre; tiowover~ ~that yue~ti.on e-nd it~ ramifioe~~Lions oould be olsri.fiad at tY~o work ses3lon. Tho Planning Ootr¢ni~~ion generally oonourred thRt a work sossion ahould Ue oohoduled on Augus~ 13, 1975~ to disouse in depth the 4ppropr~J.ate pr~oedures e~nd step~ to be taken in modifying and/or expanding the axisting pro,jeot e,rea. ADJOURNIu~NT -'rher~ beirig no ~urther rustness to di.sous4 ~ Uommisoioner Herbs•t of.fered ' ~ motion, ~eoonded by Co~nmisgioner Tolar and M(~'ION C/1RRI~D~ to ad,~ourn the meating to a work 5e~sion to be held Au~,u~t 13, 7.975, e~t 7:30 p.m., in the Counoll Chamber. The meeting ad,~ou;nod at 6;30 p.m. Res eoti'ully :+ubmitted, ~ ~ >,~ ~.~ Patrioia B. Soanlan, Saoretery AY,~heim CitS~ Planni.ng Commi~slon