The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1976/08/30~ ~ C 1 ty Nal 1 AnAhalm Callfornl~~ i,ugust 3~~ 1`~7~~ RC~UL~R MF.F.TIIlf, OF THF AtdNIF.I M CITY PI.AIIPIINf, C~MMI~SION RFr,UTAR - A requlnr mr~ptinn of thc Annitclm Clty Plt~nriln~ Commissian was called to NF'E1"INR order by Cht~irm~n Jahnson at 1:~0 p.m„ on llu~ust 3~, lq7E~~ in thc Council Chnmbcr~ n qunrum bcing prescnt. pRfSF~1T - CHAIRMAN: Jchnson Cnt~M1551(1NfRS: Elarnes, Far~no~ Nerhst, King, Tolar A(-SFtIT - COMMI SS I~~~F~S ; Mor 1 ey ALS(1 PftFSFNT - Fr~nk Lawry Paul Sin~~r Jay Ti tus Annika Santalahtf Jocl Flck. Dan D' Urso Patricia Scanlan Ueputy Clty Attorney 1'raffic Enginec r Ufflce Enqineer Assi~tant Pl~nninq Direcr.or-l.oninq Asslstant Planner Sr, Staff Asslst~nt-kcdevelopment Plannlnc~ Commis~fon Secret~iry PLl'DGE OF - Commissloner F'arano led in the Pledqe of Allegiance to the Flag of thc~ A'_I.FG111NCF. Uni teci States of Am~ric~. APPRt1VAL OF - Corn~ni5sianer Kin~~ offerecl a motlon~ seconded by Commfssloner F~~rano TNE MfFlUTES and MnTION CARRIFII (Commissianer JoF~nson ~bstafning since he wac• n~t present at t.h~ mcrtinq in question; and Commis.ioner Morley being absent) ~ that the miniates ~f the regular Plannln~ Cor~mission meetine+ held Auqust 2~ 1't76 be and hereby are ipproved, as submitted. EtIVIR(1NMF~~TAL I MPAC1' - C~NTIt~UCD READVFR7ISED PUt~L!C HEA'IIJG. EST11T[ UF Af10LPH J. SCHUTZE, RFP~RT '10. 17~ c!o A1 an Tal t~ ~15 South Fla.:~r ~i ~eet, Sui te a~~, Los An~eles ~ Ca. ~~~1; ~Ov~ner); THE WARMI~lGTON C~11P1-!;Y, c/o Walter Coursen~ 17f380 REf,Ll1SSIFICAT~~%t! Sky P~rk Circle, Suite 2~5~ ~rvlnet (.a. 97.7n7 ~~~3ent). Property Idn, Jf,-77-2 ciescribed as an Irregularly-shaped ~~arcel of land conslstiny of a~prnximat°ly 17 ~cres locar.ed soucheast of the southeast corn~r VAFt1A~lC[: N~. 1.`? lh of Bal l Ro~d ar~d Sunkist Street, having approximate frantages of 1 7~~ feet on the sour.h s i de of Dal i Roa~i and 12~0 fezt on the east side of Sunkist StrPet, and having a maxlmum depth of approximately ~1~ feet, Property presently classif(ed RS-A-43.(1~Q (RESIDEMTIAL/ AGRIr,ULTURAL) ZOI~E. RfOU[STFD CLASS IFI CI1TI~rl: khl-4Q7n (RES IDF~lT1AL~ MULTIPLE-FnMILY) Z~NE. RFQUfSTF~ VARI nNf,F; W111VER f1F (A) MI!IIMI~M BUILDING SITE /1RE11 PFI 04lcLLIFlf UNIT~ (Q) MA;(INUM EIUILDI~JG NEIGfIT~ ~C) M/1XIMUM WALi. HEICHT, AN~ (D) M1611MUt1 NUMREf? OF f~iCL~SE~ PARKItIr, SF~C.~S, TO C~NSTRUCT 212 C~ ~D~MI~~IUM DWE Ll. I hl GS . It was n~ted th~t the subJect petition for reclassif~, ~tion ~!as ccntinued from the Pl~nnln+~ Comrnissi~n meeCin!7 of J~ily 7~ 1~76~ at the rer~uest of thc petftioncr and in order for a variance to be aclvertised; and from the Pidnning Comrniss~un ~n~:et(n~s of July 1~ and August 16~ 1976, fc,r City Councfl c~n~ irleration of General Plan Amen~ir+ent Nu, 1~-~, ~:t the rr_quest ~f the petitioner, It was further r.oted that the petitioner w~s req~:esting a furthcr continuance ta t`~ "'a~~^;^;. ~ommission i~~eeting of September 27, 1976, tor possi~;~e rPVised plans. C.mnnissioner Farano affereci a m^*ion, sec~ndad by Commissior.er Nerbst and MOTI~~! C/!RRIFD (Commiss`oner Morley being absent~i. tha[ the Anahelm Clty Piannin~ ~ommissi~n does hereby further conti n ue the p~jbl f c heiri i~^ and cons ideratton of Envi ronmental ~mpact Re?ort Ne; 17~, Reclassificat(on No, 7'•-77°' (readvertise~l)~ andVariance IJo, 2~?14. to the Pla~nf.ig Cr~mmi~slnn meetlnq of Septen:ber 2%~ 1~7~. as ~eqijested by the pr,titloner. 76- 391 ~ .,•.. ~ MI~IUTf.S, CITY ~'LA~Irlltlr, CQM~115SIMl, Au~u~t 3Q~ 1~17(~ 76- 3~2 fllVlf'~~IM~NTAI, IMP~CT - f,~Nl'I~I~iLI? PURLIC i~Gn~~r~r, JAMFS S. GP.f~~~, R~YM~'!'~ ;. SlMPS(1N, REF~RT NQ, 17~1 J011~1 5, FLU~R~ AN~ ItOBfRT p. S('URCEO!I~ c/o Cecil C. Wrl~ht, 6~1 I'1~» Square, Qr•a;~~~e~ f,o. ~?.f,6(~ (Owners); DF.L PPAD~ C~HPANY, C~tIDITI~tIAL USF 1?"~f I Wesl Strect, Garden t~rove~ Ca. ~2(.h~ ai~~l Cf.C 11. C. WftlGii7, PF1;~11T N0, 1G';' ~~~ fl~za Squnrc~ Ort-n9c, Ca. 92.(+(~~ (Ac~ents); r~,questlnn permisslnn ~ to es tab 1 1 st~ a 7.'1'1-SI'Af,C M(1F1 1 LFII~IMF fl1RK W) Tti W~I V~A OF M I-~ 111UM STRIiCI'1Ih11L S[7E~AC1'. on ~ropcrty descrll~r~l ~s an irr~gularly-sh,~pc~l Nnrr,el nf l~in~i consistin7 nf a~~roxi~~.7tely 'i2.'' :.~cres loc~atc~i ~ortl~enster ly of the Inter~ectl~n of Cerr(r.~s Avenue anri Sun!cist Street, i~avln~~ A fmntn~~ of a~proxim~tely 7~33 ' t on the cast sldr. of Sunkfst Str~eC, and h~vin~i a~•aximum Je!~ith of approximately 1335 ~-r.t, Proporty present ly cl ass i f i e~l RS-M~~3,~~~1 (RF.S I i~( M71l~I_/AGRI CIILTURl~L) 701JE. It wns noteri tha*. th~ SubJect ft.:ms wei'e continued frnm the Pl~nnlnn f.ommission mr.etinc~s of July 7~n~l 1~~ an~~ lluc~u~t 1~, 1~7~~, ~t th~. recluesl of the petltloner. No ann Ineileflted thelr ~resence in op{~casitio~ to the siibJect (tc:r,s. Althouqh thc StAff Report t~ thc Plinninc~ Commi:~sion dAted rlu~ust 3~~ 1~7`~ was n~~ ~ad at the pu61(c hearin~, sai-I Staff ReporC fs referre~i to and ma~ic .i pnrt of the mi~, s. Nr. Henry Ilastinns of S~c.urity Lan~! D~velopment Company, 7?71 Katella Av~nue~, Stnnton~ represPntln~ ~ei Pra~1~ (,omr3ny~ the aqent for the petitloner~ appeared bc:fore the Fl~nning Commission ~ir~ci state~l they wcre proposin~ a first-~u~l(ty development an~i thelr company haci developerl seven proJects in tlie S„~~thern California are~~ inclu~itng in the cities of Garden Grove, San f,lemenCc, nn~l on Eucl id ln the City of Anaheim; that ttie Dcl Prad~ Company h~d earne~l a good reputaticn for thc ty~e of development proposed and w~s recoc~n~ze~l by lhe Western hlobileh~mr. Assoc.i~+tion fo,~ good man~c~er.~ent and development; that re~7ardin~ the analysfs of the prc~posed nroJect, a 6-foot high w~:ll w~~s being recommended, however, an Edis~n eosen~ent existed on the south sicl~. of the pro~Prty anci was heavlly plantecl provi <1in~ a vlsu~l huffer an~l, tlierefore, they were rr.questin~ to have the proposed chiinlink fence for secur~ty purposes along that pr`operty line; that on the east side ~ P the pr.~perty w~~s the Oranne Freeway and a chalnlink fence presently existed which was estahllshed by CalTrans; that the freeway was approxim~tely 1%i Feet h(~her than thc ~ra~1e ~~f the sub ject prop~rty and, therefore, a block wal l woulcl not servr, as a visual buffer from the freew~y and would be a waste o" moncy, in his opinion; t:-~at CalTrans would be w~rk(nn wi th the l•l~rr+i ngton dev~loprient to the n~rth ~Ni th the plant In q of tre~s ~ etc. , al~n~ the frePway and ,hey w~uld l lke to be able to do the same Co provi <le the visual and s~un~i buffering nee~le~l; r~gar~iin~ sound, with the freeway bein~ higher than the subJect propertY the sound woulc~ travel ui~wa~~d an~l would not affect the subJect pr~perty~ hr~wsver, they woulcl hc gla<I to w~rk ~vith *_he C(ty stiff rA~ardinn the souncl level as a c~ndition of ap~roval for ti~e pro)ect; re~~arding the lar.dsca;. :I seth;~c4~, they would be happy to provic'e a 2~-f~t lan~lscaped sethack alon~ Sunkist Stre°t~ however, their thought had been to construct a herm ratt~er th~n provide ttie 1.~-foot ~etback but would accept the Planninq Comr~iss;on request in the matter; req~,rding l~ncJscapinn~ they ~eneral ly reserved the tandscap~nn .tetails, includina numbei of trees, etc, ~ for the landseape ciesic;r,er, ha•rever, they w~uld mee[ the Code requirements in that respect; regarding recreational space~ 12~ sq~i~re feet of recreational space was proposed per mubileh~me pad, in addltion to landscap(r.q r~ithin the f.dis~n easerr~~nt, t~ rrx.~.t thi: requirenx~nts (as ~.~as rlone in the Euc~ic~ Street m~ ~ilehome proJect); th~~t they would work with the Staff r-ec~ardinn conritlons of aF ~rovat; an~i that 4lasser Road was no longer necessary an~ wnuld 'ue el(minated since it was no longer necessary to provicie access for a thi rcl parcel and~ therefore, Candi tion No. 11 as set forth~ in the Staff Report ~ras no lonnPr appl icable. THE PURI.Ir NEAP,IN~ WAS CLOSF?. In response to yuestinninn hy ..ommissioner Herbst~ Mr, H~stinc~s stated the•~ had r~o sound reaclinqs from the freeway ac1(~cent to the s~ib}ect proFerty. Commissloner Herbst then not~~d that the sound read i ncis we re very i n~:ortant because r+x~b 1 1 ehome pa rks we re now considered perm~~nent resi~fences; that the ~ound requ(ren~ents nf b5 clh~ in the bedrooms and 65 dbA (n the rear yards of the mobilehiomrs would be reRUirecl; that, in his opinion~ a 4 or 5- {'~ot be rm w i th a 6- foot h i nh rtason ry wa 1 1 waul d he be t tP r than rrr~v ~ nn back 20 Fee*. f rom he property 1 i ne ancl havl nr~ a h- f~ot h i ~h wal 1, Mr. Nas; i n~s r„n ~ur red ' n the apinions o1' Commissioncr Herbst and further statcd that they woulci be c~lad to have sound tests made, as su:,neste.d. Commissioner Nerbst noted that the Pl~nnlnq Com~nlssion would want to see hc~w the s~und ~ roh 1 ems wou I d he h~nd 1 ed s i nc~ i t was ~oss i b 1 e tha t some of the ~ • ~ ~ MI~lUIf-.S, CITY PLANNING C~MMI~SION~ nu~iust 3n, Iy7G ~~'-~`~3 F.~~VIRONMENTAI. IMPACT RFPf1P,1' N0. 179 AN~ CONDITIONA~ USE PERMIT N4, 163: (Contlnued) unlts woulcf br, lost In provi~linq f~r Che sound-attenu~itlon me.~sures; thnt the oxlstinci h~meowners 1~ the :~r~n wero not •:atlsfled with lhc saund-attrnuetlon meesures taken Ior the c~nstructlc,n ~f thelr resldences and lhe Planniny Commission dld not want c~ crente mnra of the 4~-me rroblems; flnd thnt he waul~l recommenJ the borm on the Sunkist Stre~t and freewr~y 5lcies nf thc praprrty c~nd dens~a landscriplnq ~long the retlroad sido, Commissfonrr l;erbst Inqulrecl ~b<~ut the r~ilroaci trafflc Anei Mr. Nastinc;s st~teci there w~!, a CrAin about once a day d~irln~ the hours ~f 4:0!1 ~.m, to ~:0~~ p.m, Comml,sloner lierhst thon requcsted th3t plAns be submittr.ci Indic.~+tinn the cletalled lancfscaplnq, etc., nnd Mr, fi~~stings state~l they wc:i'e not f~r enouqh olnnq In en~lneerlnq to know wl,~it they werc provldln~ in that respect. CoMmissi<,ner Nerhst notecl that thc Planniri~~ Commissinn wanted t~ b,nrn~ where *he trePS ~nrl roflds woul~l be on th~ ~~lans; and that ~~ circul~t(on elemenk mlqht be ~~^qulred In the subJe;t areA to know h~~w tl,~~ tr~ffic would b~ hanclled for rhe prc+.l~ct, In response to further qu<~s~.ic,nin~r by C~rnniss(oner Herbst, Hr. Hasr_In~s stnte~! that The 1Jarmtn4ton Compnny haci purchased the third r.ircel sfnce sairi ~~rcel w~ulcl h,~~e been landl~cke<i; thnt the ~~ccess over th~~ rallro~~d wt~~ .nly For agricultur~) p~irpnses; that they talkr.d co st~iff about the circulitlon r.lement, as well ~~ to Thc Warmin~;ton Company, an~l rleter~inr.~1 th~t: ~ puhllc roacl to the south of the Warminnton pro{~erty wfl~ nut needc~l to separate It `rom the suhJ~ct ~r~)ect sin~:e this was a seif-cont~lne~l comm+inlty, In responsn kc~ q~~estioninn hy Commissi~ner '~erbst, Traffic fii~;neer Paal Sin~r..r revlewed Che number of entrances that ~+uuld be advis~ble for the proposed proJec.t ~~~d the prcJect to `che north, notinq that the intersectlons of Ball Road and Sunkfa! Stre~~t and Omeg~ Street anJ Sunkist Street should be able t~ h~ndle the traffic from the suh]ect development an~i thc conclor~lnlurn or apartment proJect on the pr~perty to the north; however, the Impact on the intNrse.ctio,~ of Cerrltos Avenue an~l Sunkist Street would depend on the dens(ty of the two pro)r,cts. in response to Commissi~ner Tolar, Mr, Hastin~~s stated that the sub.~ect pr ,sr.t would be fo~' adul ts nnly. Mr. Sin~~~r computed the averac~P daily traff(c to be approxi~.ately 115f% for the subJect proJect. Commissioner Tolar noled that he was unhappy about thc circulatior+ ~lement. and, al though he was not opposed to the mobi lehome u~e of the property per se, he was concerne~i about the dumpin~ of so much trafffc onto Cerrltos and Sunkist. In respunse to questioning by Commissioner Tolar, Office Engineer Jay 7itus advised th~it sir~ce the subJect proJecr_ clid not fri~nl on Crrritos~ the City wuuld ~nly be abl~ ~ galn dedfcation on Sunkisl in cannectl~~n o~ith this pr~Ject. from 32 to 45 feet for one-li~lf wfdth, Mr. Sinner ~~otec~ that it would appear Ilkely tha` the tiraffic from the subject pro}ect weuld go soi~th on Sunkist to Katella and tF~en westerly to Scate College~ anri that It was not likel~- that th~ traffic would ~o east~ Commissloner Tolar then inquireci if the subJe~t pr~Ject qualified as low to nrdlum density as approved under General Plan Amendment fJo. 140, Assistant Plannin~ Director-?~nin~i llnnika Santalahti a~ivised that the maximun~ units per~nittec! for a low r,o medium density would b~~ 17 per acre, and the subJ~: r. pro.Ject was aporoximarely F.,S unlts per acre, or the low end nf the land ~~se dasio~~ation. Commissionr.r lolar notc~i that~ if approve~i~ hewot~ld like the Planninn Comn(ssi~n to be able t~ rEView the lanrascaping plan; that he was not vFry optimistfc about tt~e ~ound traveling upw~rd and not into this ~~roJect; and that he was not sure that the developer wou) d be ~b 1 e io ml t I ~ate thE s~und from the trucks to -E5 dbA i ns i de the mob ( 1 ehc~ne un 1 ts and 6S db~ outs i de in the rear ya, cls. Comm(ssioner Ilerbst ~~1ded tf~at he thougr~t the location of the siibject property for the subJect t,^° developrr~r,* was important enau~h to reyuire information pertalntnc~ to sound from a orofessional standpoint; and tnat~ although h~ was not opposed to the mobilehame park~ he wanted to see the ?nformatlon pertaininy to sound (n wrftin~ from an expert. Commissioner 8arnes noted that she was interested in seein~ a combined traffic analy~is for this proJect and the pro)ect that was propnsed for the property to the north~ ano that said analysls coul~ be made by the Clty staff and not at the developer's expense, As~istant Pla~ner Joel fick n~ted that The Warminc,ton Company plan was not scheduled for public hearing untll September 2/~ 197'~. Commissioner Tolar noted th~~t he ~!id not feel that the sub.~ect projPct should be hel~i off beca~ise of tlie circulation elen~ent for the Warr~inai~~n proJect since any difficultiPS w(th s~id proJect shou~d be dealt with that ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTF.5~ CITY PIANNING COMMIS510N~ Augu~t 30, 197~ ~~"3~4 E~JVIRQNMENTAL (MPIICT REFORT NQ. 179 AND CQNDITIONAL USE PERM17 N0, 1632 (CanCtnued) developer toward lowerin~ their der3lty. Commissl~ner Barnes noted that although the sub~oct proJect wes a low-densltY oi~e~ It wauld genarate a~proxlmateely 1400 automobi'c trlps par day. Cornmisslon~r Nerbst than notad thal there dld not appoar to be adequate cirCUlrtlon an~l It might be necessary tu change thc design of the proJect to get a dlfferant lnlest if ne~essnry, 1'horeupon~ Mr. flestingss reryuest~~1 a Pour-week contlnuance to the Planntn~ Ccxn~~isslon meetlna of Se~tember 27~ 1~37~. Conmiss(~ncr Talar offere~l a mc~tfon~ seconded by Comm(ssi~ner FarAno and ~~OTIAN CARRIED (Commtss~oncr Morlc,y bcing absent) ~ that the~ Anaheim City Plt~nning Commisslon does hereby reopen the publtc heartng and contlnue l:onslda~at(on of Environmental Impact Reaort No. 17~ end Conclttional Use Permit N•~, If~3:' t~ the Plr!nnin~~ Cammisslon m~ettng of September 27~ 1976~ for mc~re speciftc lnf~rmatl~n pertalning to sound attenuatlon alony thr. freeway and Sunklst Street, f~r a clrculation stiidy involving the deletlon of Wasser Road~ f~r a traffic analysis of the proposa) by Ctty staff~ and for morc detalls pertAtning to lh~e landscapinq a~d bcrm. RECLASSIFICATIOPJ ~ CONTINUED PURLIC NEARING. JAN[ W. INCN, 30~3 West Bay Avenue~ Newp~rt N0. 76-77-7 Aeach ~ Ca. 92660 (Owncr) ; DALE L, I ~Ir,(?AM~ N. 0, Box 5922 ~ E 1 Monte ~ Ca. " 91734 (Agent). Property describe~ ~s a rectangulorly~shaped parcel of VARIA~ICE NQ. 2~31 lancl c~nsisting of approximately 4.7 acres havl~g a frontage ~f apprnxi- mately 37.~3 feet on the ~urth sirle of Orangewood Avpnue~ havtny a maxlmum depth ~f approx(mately G~~ feet~ ~nd being loc~ted approxl- rtiate~y 310 feet east of the centtr-~InE nf Harbor pouievar•d, Property pr~:sently classified RS-A-43~~0!1 (RFSIDFtJTiAL/AGRICULTURAI.) ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIf'ICATIc)N: R11-1200 (RESIDENTIAL~ MU~TIPLF-FAMILY) 7_C~N[, REQIJESTED UARIAhICE: WAIV~R OF (A) MINIMUhI F~OOK AREA APJD (4) Ml~~IMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUI~DINGS~ TO CCNSTZUCT A 139-UNIT APAR7M[NT COMPLEX, It was noted that c.he subJecc petition5 were contii~ued from the Planntng Commisslon meetings of August 2, at the request of the petiti~ner and August 16, 1976, for revls~d plans. It was Furt~ noted that the petltioner was request(ng that the subJect petitfons be further conttnue~~ rour:een weeks to the Planning Commisston meettng of December 6~ 19%c, on the basis th:.t the propo5ed resldential development would not be in accordance with the Generai Plan since General Plan Ame dment No. 140 ~Area II) was approved in part, by the City Council on August 2A, 197F~ said action not ap~~roving the re~leslgnation of the subJect ;.rc+perty and adJacent easterly property for law-rnedlum residential land uses. Comr~(ssloner Herbst offered a mc~tion~ seconde~l by Comm;_~i~ner Farano and MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner ~lorley b~:ing absent)~ that the ~tnaheiir Cicy Planning Cumrr.ission daes hereby furthe- continue the public hearing and consideration of Petitions ~or Reclassificatlon No. 76-77-7 and Uariance P!o, 2~31 to the Planning Commfssion meeti-.g of December 6, 197G~ as reguested h~~ the pct ~ t ~~mer. ~ ~ MIPIUTL.,~ CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION, au~usc 30, 1976 76- ~95 F.NVIRQNM[~ITAL IMPACT - CnNTINUfD PURLIC HEARINt;. DAVID RAY (TRUSTEE) At~D DOLLIf P. RAINS REPORT N~. 1t~3 (TRUST(1R), 11~0 Esst Cypr•ess Strant~ Covlna~ Ca. ~17~~-; JOH~I HOOTY ~ 7.f,1.6 Pul Iman. N7.6o~ Santn Ana, Ca~ 927~5 (Agent) . Property RECLASSIFICATI~N dpscribed as F'ortl~ns A ancf 8 conslsting of twa irrcqularly-shspod N~. 7~+'77'~ par~:l~ns of lr~ncl ~ompris(ny app~oximately 9.~ dCrf:4 local'ed a4 thc northwest corner of Lincnln Avenue And Bel Alr Strcet, hAVing VAft1/1NCF. N~. 2n32 approxlmflte Fr~nt++ge!~ of ~3) feet on the nartn s(de of Lincoln AvenuN ancl 2`~~ feet ~n thc w~•~st side of 8e1 Alr Street. Property prasanlly CnNnITION~L USE c1~5slfl~rl RS-A-'Z,~~~~ (RESIDEI;TIAL/AGRiCULTl1RAL) 7.ONE. PERMIT NQ. 1G~+~ REQUFST[D CL~SS ~1'IO~J; RM-12~Q (R;:51 DENTIAL, MULT~PLk-FAMILY) l.ONE (PORTIurJ A). RF.2UESTED VARIANCF: b1AIVER OF (A) PERNITTEf) ENf,ROACHMF.pITS ;N1'fl Rf_`tIIRC•~ Y,QRDS~ (H) Ml1XIMUM DIiILDI~If NEiGNT, AND (C) MINIMUM Dla~^ iCE DETIJF.EIJ DUII.pINGS, T~ C~'JST-tt!f,T AN 83-UIJIT ANART1~11'N7 COMPL~~( (P~^TION A). RE2UE5 Fh ~U-JDITI~tlAL USE: Tf) F'F.RMIT A PUnLIC RECRFATIONAI_ FACII_ITY WITI1 WAIVER OF MINIMUM BUILDIN~ SITE WlOTH (PORTIOPI B1. It was notc e:hat the ,ubJect items were c~ntin~ed fr~m the Planning Commisslon meeting oF August 16~ 1976, for additi~,;~al environmerital (mpact lnfor•matio~ . Approxtmately l~i persons in~ilcated their presence 1~, opposltlon to the subJeck items~ and forthwlth w:~tved the full re~dinn ~f the staff Reporc to the Planning Commission dated Auclust 30~ 1976, on the ~,•~is that. they had reviewed coplrs of same. r1llhougii the Staff Rep~rt was n~t read at the publlc he;~r(ngp sald report is referred to and made a p~rt of the minutes. Mr. John Booty, ~-iqent Por the petit(oner~ appe~~red before the Planning Commisslon anJ stated the s~,l ~ property had been a prc,binm site for some time; that~ in 1956, a vartance was approved allovrinc~ the property to be used as a dump site~ creatfng the existinn n~thane gas p mb'iems~ that a portl~n of the subJect property was proposed to be d~veloped with the ~~',-unit apartment proJect or approxlmately 24 units per acre; that aho~ one-h~lf of the back p~rtl~n of the property wauld be developed with rennls cour' ;`acilities; that they we~~c a~~~~re ~r the tr~ffic problerrs on Bel Air Street which was o af the bi~yest problems af the site; and that the recreational facilities and the ap~rtments should be an improvement to ..he area. Dr. Joa DuttPrworti~~ 2`~5~ -~onroe Street~ rspresentinc~ the owners of the single-famlly homes ~n Tyler~ Coolidge~ Polk~ Bel Air, Monroe, etc., appeared beforc the Planning Commtsslon and presented a petitlon signed by approximately 121 resiclrnts and property owner~s in the area in apposit(on to the proposal. He reviewed the reasons for t!~: opposttion~ t~eing the adclecl traffic impact on Bel Air which presently was a bypass for Be-ch Boulevard and stated that, althnugh off-street parking might be ;~rovided within the propased pr~_Ject~ the neighbors felt thaC there would be an overflow of parkiny on the streets~ tha the proposed tennis courts would he backed up to th~e adJacent homes nn Bel Alr and five of the ad~~cent single-family homeowners were Che origlnal owners of those hor, s; and the neighhors furchcr felt that the proposed ~+roJect would impac~ the quaiity of llte of the area, Mr. Paul Wiison, 7.925 West Lincoln Avenue~ Space ?_0, appeared before the Plannin~ C~mmission, representing the Llncoln-Beach Mablle Manor residents and oresented a petition signed by ~pproximately 97 of said residents in or,.osition to che su~~r~t propr,sal. He stated that the mobilehome park abutted the subJect pre~erty's west bounJ~ry for the full lenqth; an<1 that since ~is presentation was rr~stly concerned with the methane gases~ it was probably appropriate to hear the ennineer's comments pertaining to that problem prior to his opposing statements being made. It was noted that th~ engineeer was on his way to the meetincl hut ~+ad not yet arrived and, ther~upon~ Mr. Wilsc,n further stated that draina~e would be a problem of the site especially with the meLhane ~as and sunken places wtiic~, would probably form the same as at the L~ncnln-Beach Mobile Manor; and that at ti~e last planning Cnmmission meetiny on this matter~ the pstitioner inlicated thcy would not install the so-called Flastic barrier. ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOPI, August 30~ 197~ 7~-39~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RF.PORT N0, 183~ REGLASSIFIf.ATION tJO, 7G-77-9~ VARIAPICt W0. 2R31. AND CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1643 (Continued ------ In rosponse~ Commissioncr Nerb~t noted that : lotest plan fnr the ~~roposed development did sh~w a b~~rrier alon9 the property line. Mr. Wllson then indlcated that the harrier ~~r Che property linc would cause a e~~eater problCm and he would~ theref~rc, urge the Planninry Commisslon not ta nllrn+ another slt..ati~n tc~ develop sucli as nt the L tnco ln- Denc h M an o r. Mr. Rooty clari fle~1 tt~at they ha~i not dl5cussc : nnt puttlnn the barrier next to the mablleh~me park; that the resicl~~ntlal propert'~~s to the east were'l,~~Ycons(~teringhtleWCOSt one of the fc~ctars that ~ttrAC,.~~d them to thl ~ partlu~lar site; . of the land~ the only vlahle use. of the prop~rty woulci be apartm,•nts since two-th~rds of I t was al ready co~ ~i tted to Lhe ref~~;e s I te ,~l thuu.ryh i t was ur~der~rnund; thit r~,eonomic~ly would either be d~~eloperl for commer~_iai or multiple-famlly ~se; that, from an vlewpoint~ thc pr~ ~~erty could nnt be ~leveloped f~r single-fsml ly ~.~e; that some: c~f the exlsting ccmrncrci I development in the area was goocl and Some of it wa~s had~ slnce there was a massage par~or in the arca; that, althouclh apartn~ents ad<i.d a certaln amount of translents to an ~rea~ the proposed proJect v~~uld b~ an attrrcti~e benefit to Lli~ net~hborhood; an~1 that the only ~holce f~r devPl~pment of the aroperty was between c.ommerclal and multiplr,-f~mily uses. Cornmissioner Ilerbst noted tli.~t the Planninry ~orm,lsslon ~hould glve sornc thouc~ht to the stze of 'the entlre parcel in rclr~tioriship to thc n~u~~ber :.f units proposed at this ttr:e and that the proposal woulci l~ndlc~ck tlie bac~ approximately one-tialf of the {?roperty which was oiily proposeci for partl~l development with the tenr~is cc,~~rt facilittes; ~=•n~1 that if the land (n the rear was ever developed for other uses~ the ac s drivc to sald property would probably not be satisfactory, In response, Mr, Bo~ty staled they were prop~sing to spllt th~• praperty so that the access drive (easement) to Be' Air could he used t>y botfi the apartrnents ancf the tenris facilities. Commisaloner lierbst then noted that the rear portion of thn property was baslcally a flag lot and thit some sort af circulation element f~~r the entire property ~~hould be prepared~ rc:arran~ing the traffic 5o that it would not d~+r,~> ~nto Uel Air; Chat it appeared there wouid eventually be three uses on the property, i.e.~ apartments, tennis c~u~ts, and a use unknc~wn at this time for the portion of the prop~~rty which was actually over the dump site per se; and that the history of the property tnd.cated circulatian was a strong factor in its development, In responsc to quest'oninc~ by Chairman '~hnson, P1r. Bocty explalned the prr ~osed so"tutlon o~• b,~rier For the methane gas situ~ti~ on subJect praperty, to the best of his ability, and stated that vents would be proviJeci for the escape ~t the gas; that the borin~s that had been made througt;out the d~~mp s i te i ncii cated tf~e depth of the refuse and other information from ~hich the proposal was then prep~red; that th~ borings indicated the refuse w2:, only about S or 6 feet deep ar. ~nd the perimeter or' the stte ~nd about 29 feet deep in the center; that the barrier would be the ~iepth of the retuse at fihe edqes of the site and there seen~ed to be soma concern on +:he parc o' the Planntng Comni~sion that there mlqnt be some lateral movement of the gas; ~d that if the suoJ~~:t proposal were approved~ tlie barrler would alleviate about one-half of the present problems with the methane gas. Oiftce Enqtneer Jay ~it~~s noted that tliere was a questi~n as to whether the barriPr shauld go belaw the level of *he deepest portion of tl~e refuse~ thereby removinn any possi~~ilicy of horizontal movement '' the gas: that it appeared that the n~aterial below the refuse, according to the borinys~ was still a loose matertal and perrr~ able to gas; an~ that there was a questlnn af whether there should be a double barrier system to protec[ the adJacent mobilehome site since the pr•c~ose~~ barrier would appe~r to trap the gas on the adjacert property. Cornmissioner Barnes re`erreJ tn the addendum EIR informatlon w!~ich had been subm(tted by the developer and i'equested a show of hands to d~termine how ma~y of the people in oppostticn had a~ opportunity to r•eview said information, lwo peapie r~,ised thetr hands. CommiSSio~ier Barnes then n~ted tl,.,~t, in her o~~nion~ thc first four pac,es of said adde~dum should be read aloud sn that the peonle would know what the ~roposed F~arrler• wou~d do. Dr. E~utterworth stated that althoucif, he appreciated ~r~hat Commissioner Barnes was trying to do~ th~~ methane gas was a technical item and his main concerns related t~~ traffic. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNI~l~ COMMISSION~ Au~~ust 30~ -976 7~•• 397 ENVtRONMENTf1L IMPACT REPORT NO. 1A3~ REClA5SIFICATION N0. 76-77°9~ UARIANGE NO. 2832 ANn CONOITIONAL U~[ PERMIT N0. If+43 (C.ontinusd~, _ -- • Commissloner Y.Ing Inqulre what tho eppanent would propose f~r developn~cn*. of the property~ an~1 Dr. Butterworth stated they kn~.w~ th,~t s~me day tha praperty would be davelopnd bu~ they dt~i n~t we~t a lot oP trsffic bro~ight (nto the nrea; end ':hnt he I~ad heard some peopla say that a nabilr.homc park would be bett;er than an apartmcnt pruJect. Commtssloner Tolar noted thit, assumin~~ that the methan~ ~~ problems could be corrected~ the Planning Commisslon would ~{ke ~~~m in~llcatlon frau~ ,.~~~ area residents as to what the property should be developed with; tha' he belteved that previously, in connectfon with anothnr development p roposal on the subjN~-! property, it was the generat ~onsensus that whatevcr wa~ developed 3F10UI(~ t,e aur~namc~us within 'tself; that~ in liis opinlon~ th~re sho~ld be no dumpinq of traffic o~ Bel Alr Street; that, regerdin~ the tennis factlitl :s, the pi~~perty ahutted sfn~le-f~mll~,• restdrnces on one slde ~ncl the n~abtlehoR,e park on Cl~e ~ther and~ In te~ms of proparty v~i~ies and also In terms of clensity recogntzing th~t if the methane nas sltuatlon could be corrected~ the density could be far greater than ~~~nnis f~r.ility or nther typs Uf rec~:aCianal facility and far more detrlmcntal tc ti~~ drea; that one sugc~estlon had been eo remave the approximatply 30 feet of refuse material and provtde subtnrranean parkinq spaces and he would questton the type of dens~ty thaC w~uld tf~en b~ propo~ed; that the tennis facil(ty. with stringent hours o~ operatton ancf soun~l-atCenu~~tlon measures, etc., might be a good use of khe r,roperty considerlnq the possfbillt(es of other uses; and thal presently~ the rnethane gas was existin~ within the property ancl could cause loss of llfe if it surfaced. He urged the oppo~ltian to consider all of the possible uses of tf~e property if the methane gas situation was corrected. Commissloner Barnes noted that if the refuse was rerr+ved, the situatlon would he different. I~ re~;~onse ~o questlnning by C~mmissioner King~ Mr. Booty advised that the expense to remove r.he ref~ise t'rom the site ~:<~uld be appi-oximately $~-.00 or $5.00 per cubic yard. In res~onse to questi~ning by Comrnissioner Farano~ Mr. dooty stated it would nat be unreasonable to remove the entra~ce and exit on Del Air Street~ if they couid get some relief fron~ Che park(ng requirements, and they would ~eview the plans in that: respect; and that one o'~•~ious salution to the problem would be to reverse tl~e plans. C~mmission•r Tolar noted that, in additio~ to the parking space ren~~irements~ there were also concerns about the intertor circulation and den~ity, that reversinc~ the plan w~,uld relleve some probfems but create oth~ers for the adJacent rrx~bilehome stte; th~~t if the proposed den5ity was required to r;~ke the proJect er.onomically feasible~ then perhaps r`~~ refuse shoulcl be removed to increase the usable portion of the property and rec.luce ti7e number of dwelling units on the front portion. Mr. Boocy in~iicated a willinc~ness to revlew the propos~l for possibl~ revisions. Dr. Butterworth tc~ok excepti~n tn the sue~gested modifications t~ ~'~e plan~ and stated that by removing the driveway on Del Air Street~ only one-half of the tr:ffic problem would be solved since the traffic would still ~is-: safd street to return hon~„ bypassing th~ heavily trafftcked streets in the area; and that lhe tennis courts w4uld sti 1 present a noise prob lem. Commissianer Barnes noted tf~at the traffic situation would probably c:cur no matter what was developed on the suF~iect property. Mr. Wllson stated that the adJacent. resldent> obJected tr, the nolse lmpac,., as wei) as the lighting ancl hours of operatinn of the tennis court. Chairman Johnson questioned tihe, feasibiltty of havinc~ ter~nts courts on a potentially landlacked parcet of land~ and Commissic+ner darnes indicaced that shr. would like to hear some al;~rnative uses for the property from t~le opFonents, knowing that there would be something develope~ c~,~entually over the entire site, Traffic EnRineer Paul Singer advisei tf~at aparrmer~t-type d~vellings generatecl approximately 8.5 ADT or about ~07, more than mobileh~me par.~; and, ln Cortpyarison withi Tultiple-~famlly type development~ cortmercial use of tlie si~:; would increase the ~rafflc at lea~t 15a. ~ • MINUTGS, CITY FLANNIMG C011MISS10~1~ August 3~, 197b 7~-395 ENV I RO~IMCtJTAL I MPAf.T REPOP.T N0. 183, Rf.CLASSI f I CAT 10~1 NO %G-77'9 ~ VI1R1 ANCE N0. z83z n~~n COHDITIONAL USE PERMIT N(1. 1643__ (Contlnued ,! ~.~_.._._____ ---____ In rospo~i~e to questfon(n<t by Cammissloncr Fr~rano~ Mr, Booty fndiGated thoy could develop thc apartments anc' tennis c~urts le~avlnn chr. ~ir~~ oF the refuse slte vacant t~ resolva some ~~f the problems, In responae to questioning by Commissloner Kinci~ Coimil~Slnnrr 7olar noted that hu dld not fcel the pnaple wanted to be left wlth thc rroblems they presr.nCly ha<i wlth the methane gr+s ; thAt he was surynes t i nq th~~t ll~~_ tc~nn la court 1 I c~ht 1 ng woul d nr~t bF~ of fen. l vc 1 f dlroc.ted Into the courts and away from tha pr~rerty lfnes~ and said use would probAbly bcs much quleter ancl have less traffic th~n ~~~ltiple- fam f ly un its; t ha t t h e p e o ple should think nbout the ~ossible uses that might event~~ally ,~hut tl~elr properties if the back portion of tF~e subJect pruperty was left vacant; i-n~~ that It was a terrible thing for Che people to h~ve t~ 11vF with lhe methane y~s problems thaC presently exlsted In the aroA and hr w~uld not like to se~ the situat(on perpetuated. ChalrmAn Johnson noted that~ in fils opini~n, the develo~n;'t~~nsnbutewouldcnot be causing protectln~ Che adJacent property owners fr~;>> exi:.~ing any problems pertalning to the mPthane 9.~s. Mr. Peter Yon~, representing G. A, Nlco~l C~ssociates~ Inc., Ear ~ Sclence Consultants~ appeared bef~re the Planning Commisslon to review Lhe adden to the subJect CIR. Mr, Yong noted the three recommended correcCive measures for th methane gas betng 1) pr~vlsion for an increased thickness soil p~ck of selecte~' ~ow-permeability satls~ as indicated (n the prellminary slte evaluatlon; 2) sculpt~~ :d final topog~aphy with minlmum 2ry drainage gradients to rest+•ict water infiltration; ~ 5 3) installatton of a perlmeter gas barrler and wells to reduce pressure build-up anc~ e:strict lateral gas mtgration. Chai rrnan Johnsan auestione~i wh~ther the proao~ed~ba ~c~~ble~barrlermwouldnp~rotect~theh~ methane gas to both sides oF ti~e property~ a~~' :cent properties. 11r. Yong stHted that the propo~ed 12-inch depth of the barrirr was base~l on their feeliny that the native so(1 would slow down the mtgration of the gas towar~ts the c~ravel; that he understood there was a b~rrler System on the ad]acent mobilef~ome park site also; and that the purpose of the barrter system was to pfck up as mach gas as possible but not to stup the mic~ration of the ga~ entir~•ly to th~ adJolning properties. ~~r. Titus then advised th:~t tne point he had been trying to make earlier was that the proposal was not a positive barrfer although it did minimize the problem; and that there was a questlon as to how safe sho~ld the condltlons be made and how extensive the measures should be to protect the people. In response tu questioning by Commissioner Barnes, 11-, Yong stated that the barrler system at xhe San Joaquin Golf Caurse was operating :~ulte well; that most of the condominium ~antts beinq constructed at a similar refuse site were not compl~ted yet~ h~,wever~ much gas had been released into the barrier system; and thaC ther~e would be a 7..O~foot building setback from tlie barrier system in the proposed proJect. In response to quest!~ninq by Commissioner Nerbst, Mr. Yong stated that the material below the surface was determineu by setsm(c (sound wave) tests in addition ta the bori~gs; and that selsmlc velocity was closely related to soil density. 7HE PUBI.IC I~E~IRING WAS ~I.OSED. Commissioner Rarnes made an observation that for the purposes uf what the develoc>er int~nd~-•~~ to do, the EiR information~ as presented, was a~lequate. Co~ i ss ioner :ierbs t noted that the P 1 ann i ng Comni ss ion l~ad i n mt nd the ful 1 protect ion of the adJacent homes and not just part protection; that I~E. realized that the adJacent mobilehome p~rk already liad problems with the methar~ gas~ however~ it would be better to have the double barrter so that gas would not be locked in to eventually cause loss of ~ i fe. In response~ Mr. Yonc~ stated that !f the refuse fill on the adJacent prop~rty was much deaper than that on the subJect property~ tfien a douhle barrier sysiem would br. vcry useful; th~t the purpose of the Sarrier system was to relieve the pressurs so th~~t gas woula not form at any particular potnt, ha~ever~ additional bc~ings would be requireci to determine the depth of the refuse t~ provide a doubie harrie-'. ~ ^~ ~ MINUTFS~ CITY PLIINNI~IG COMMISSION, Au~ust 30~ 197b 76- 399 E~~VIRQNMENTIIL IMF'ACT REPOR7 N(1. lfi3~ RECLASSIFIfATIQN N0. 7G-77"q~ VARIANCE N0, 2832 nrio CONDITI(1N/1L USE pF.RMI'f NO i643 (Continu~d) -- ^--- - In response to furth~r q~i~sti~nlnc~ by Chairman John~on~ Mr. Yong stetecl that the natlve soil wr,s mc~re dense thAn chr. rrf~i~e; an~1 that the barrler system wo~~ld bc !n the n~-tivr, soli and the <~~s wo~~l~1 ml~r~-te i~~ r.he refuse until lt re~ched tl,e barrler systr.m, Mr. Booty Inc'ic.ntc:d thit he wa~ilrl 11ke a r.~ntlnu~nce In order to revlew the plans for possible revlslons In order tcy elimin~ite the access c~n Rel Alr Street~ etc.~ and for '`~e ~ddltional Infortn~tlon pertatnin9 to a do~ible barrler. Chala'n~an Johnson commendeci the cleveloper for the work ci~~ne ~~ tryiny tc~ e11m{nate a permrnent dump In the Ctty of An~heim, noting tl~At the a~iditlon.~l bo-•ings sh~uld also Inelude dtay~nals t'irough the center of tfie property. C~mmissio~er Herbst note~i th~t~ if the de4elopcr w~~s t:hinb.in~ s~.; ic~usly ahout brlnc~(ng the barrier dawn to the vir~~in soll~ the addlklunal borfn~as ~nl~ht be inmateri~l. Mr, Singer a~ivised that if the acce~s to BFl 111r Street was eliml~~.,ced, all of tlie CrafFic would qo to Lincoln Avenue without tl~e benefit of a rr~dlan cut ~ncl all of tl~e tr~ffic would have Co make U-turns on Lincol-~ wt~lch woulci not be a good solution to the accr.ss pr~blems. Mr. Slnc~er tf~en rev(ewed the ~~umher and closeness of inedian cuts per mile, as establlshed by Clty Council policy. Cortmissloner Tolar then suc~geste~i that the deveioper rr~et with the Ciky Traffic En;7lneer reqardinq the ti'afflc an~i access problenn. Commissloncr Herbst sugg~sted ~hat the cJeveloper tr,~ to utilize thr entir-~ prop~~'ty by stretching out the tennis coiirt fac(litie~ tc~ward the rear~ if thar would be a compatible use, a~d provide a circ~~lition pattern around the entlre site. C~ -n~~issfoner Barnes offerPd a motion, secanded by Commissioner NerbsC and 140TION CARRIEI) (Commfssior~er Morley beinn absent)~ that tfte Anaheim City Planninq Commission does hereb~; reopen the public hearlnct nn~! continue consicieration of Envtrunmental Impact Report No. 1i~3~ Reclassificatlon No. 7~-77-9, Variance ~~~. 7.A32, an~l Condir.ional Use P~,rmit No. 1G43 to the Planning Commission meerin~ of Septemb~r 13, iQ76, for tlie reasons discussed. RECESS - At 3:5~ p.m.~ Chairman Johnson declarcd a recess. RECONVFrlE ^ At ~+:~~ p.m.~ Chairman Jt~hnson reconvene~i the meeting with ~- Conxnis~lunnC P1~rley being absent, R~CL; s51FICATtOr1 - CONTI~~U[D PUBLIC HE.nRING. FRArJCIS W. ELLIOTT, BAN!c OF AMERICA, 5~-2 NQ. 76-77-14 South 1•lest Street, Anaheim~ Ca, 9?.E05 !Owner); f:EYST(~tdE S1IVINGS 6 ~ LOAPJ, 11~011 Beach Boulevard~ Westminstcr, Ca. 92E~83 (P+gent). VAP,IANCE P10. 2"33 Property descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lan~i consist- in~ of approximately Q.o acre located at th~ northwest cor~er of Lincoln Avenue and La Pjaza~ havtng apnrcximate frontages of 145 feet on the north side of Ltncoln Avenue and 220 feet on the west side of La l. ~~. ~,•operty presently classified CL (COM~IFRCIAL~ LIMITED) ZOPIE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIO~~: RM-12~0 (RFSIDEN7IAL, MI~~TIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIAPJCE: WAIVER ftF (A) MINIMUM BUII.DING SITE WIDiH~ (B) Ml~IIP1UM SUILDING SETSACK~ (C) MIh11M~M SIDE. YARO SETBACK~ (D) MI~dIMUM DISTANCE BE74lEEt~ BUILDIPIGS~ APlD (E~ REQUIRED RECREl1TIOP~AL-L[ISUKE ARE,4~ T~ CONSTnUCT FOUR FOURPLEXES. It was note~! that the subJect petitions were continued from the Planning Commission meeCing af August 16, 197~~ for revised plans. No one indicated thetr presence in opp~siCion to subJect petitians, A1 though the Staff Report tn the P 1 ann i ng Commi ss ion ~,fILN~ AUC~4 ~ 30 ~ 1976, was r.ot read at the public hearin~~ ~ai~.l Staff Report is reierred to cnd macle a part of the ml'nutes. J ~ ~ MiNUTES~ CIT`~ PLl1NNING f,OMNISSION~ August 30~ 1~176 ~~ ~~~~ RECLASSIFICATIJIJ N0. 76-77-f!i .4ND VARIAN~E N0. 2833 (Continued) Mr. Wi ll l~m S, Phelps, representln~ th~ a~~~~nt far tl•~e petl tloner~ ~~~earc~J brfore the Plr~nninq f,ommission an~J st~itrrl they ha~i hecr able to evisc the pl<~n to eliminate fnur of the reyu~st~d w~lvers, h~wever~ the walvcr ofi the minlmum bull~lln~i sit~ y~l~lth was still ~eede', I~r, Phel~>s i'evlewecf tlie lot sl:c:~ tn the sw•ro~mctin~7 area, not(nc~ t.h+il th~• pr~portu !mnedi~tely rn the north ~Nas ~leveloped ti•r1Ch (i0-f~t wide lots. THE PUBLI C tIFl1R1IJG WAS f.LQSED. In respons~: ta questtonfnc~ by f,ommissioner Klnc~, Mr. Phelps stAte~l the proposed proJect was fourplexes and shoulcl be Lreated as Z"1-~~000~ with the trash being an in<itvidu~l item fni the mananer or the tenants tr, ~~~i ,J1e ancl that thcre was no possible way for r.he sd.~itation truclcs to enCer the site for collrction. Commissloner Herhst suqgest~cl that trash pick-up be via a hammerhead drive or, the propcrty. In resp~nse to questiunlnc~ by Coinmissioner Qarnes~ Mr, p;ielps state~J the trash re%.eptacles would be locatecl abaut 2~ to ~0 feet fron~ the turb. Commissj ,ner Klnc~ offered a rncition, 5econde~i ny Commissfoner Herbst and Mf1TI0N CARRIF.U (f,ommf~;loner Morley beinn absent)~ that tFe ~nahaim City Planninq Commission does hereby recomr.n~i to the City Council oF the ~(ty o;' Anaheim th~t the su6ject pro,jnct be cxempt from ~he requlrement to prepare an envlronrnental fmpact report~ pursuant ta the provislons of thc California Fnvironrentat Q~'ality Act. Gommissioner King orfered Resolution No. PC7F-158 and movecl for its passa!~e anc~ acloptlon, that the Anahe(m City Plannin~ Commission does ~~ereby recommend ta the City Council of the City ~f An~heim that Petition for Reclass(ficatian Na. 76-77-10 be approvsd, sub]ect to t~~.; Interdepartmental Committee recortatend~tions. (See °~solution Bouk) On roll call, the foregoing resnlution was passed by the followin~ voce: AYES: C~MMISSI~NF.RS: BAR~1fS~ FARAPlO~ HERElST~ KING, TOLAR, J~H~~SO~! NnES: COMMISSIOP![RS: NONE ABSENT: COiIMISSI~MERS: MORLEY Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC76-159 and moved for its passage and adop~ ~n, that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commisslon does hereby grant~ in part~ Petition Fnr Var(ance P~o, 7.R33. 9ranting tt~e requ~sted waiver of the minimum bullding site width un the basis that there are exceptional or extraordinary cir~umstances or conditions applicable to the property involvecl or to the int~nded use, as granted~ of the property t~:at dn not apply generally to the property or class of use i~ the same vici~ity and zone; Lhat the requeste~' variance~ as granteu~ is nr.cessary for the preservation ancl enJoyment cF a substantia) ~~roperty right possessed by the proparty in the ~cme vicinlty and zonF and denied to the property in questlon; and that the rcquested w~i~er, as granted~ will no*. be materially detrimental to the public welfare or inJurious to c' : propFrty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; that the r~quested waivers of the ;ninimum building setbar.k, mintmum sideyard setback~ minimum <ifstance between buildinc~s, and requlred recreat~~~ ~1-le~sure area are withdra~~n by the petitioner since revised plans were submitte~l ~in~-~tin9 saEd w;~ivers; and subJect to the Interdepar±mental Carrmittee :o~nmen~l~~tlons, (See Resolution °oak) On roll call, the forenoing resolu*.io;~ was passed by the fo;l~win~ vote: AYES: CO~SMISSIONE..- : BRRNES~ ~ 1RAN0, HERBST~ KING, T~LAft, JOHNSt)t~ N(1ES; COMMISSI~NERS: N~~ht ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: t10RLEY • ~ ~ MINUTES~ 'CITY PL/1NNING COMMi~,10N~ August 30, 197G j~,~401 Rf:f,Ll1SSIFiC~T1O1~ - PURLIC HE/1R~Ni;. KUYAL C. AND LOUISF M. MARTF~~l, 811 Sauth Western NQ, 7b-77'11 Avenue, Anaf~~~im~ Ca. '~7_~l(1A ((lwners); J~MrS L. BARISIf,, 4'tAJ Lakeview P.vnn~:e, Sutte 1Q1~ Yorba Linda~ Ca. 926f~G (Aqent). ~roperty descrlboJ V!-RIAI~GE N0. 2`~34 as n rectt~n~ulnrly-shap~cl parcel of lAnd co~islytin~ of two pertlons comprisln~ approximnCely 1.2 acres lacaCed at t~~~~ norrhwest cc~rner of Turanimnr Orive ~~ncl Western Avenua. h~vinc~ ~n;~roxlmate frontages of 115 feet on the north side of Ter<~nlm,ir Drive and A65 f~~ t on the west sicle of Westcrn Avenue, and furthar descrtbed as BIl Sauth WnsCern Av~.nue. Property pres~ently classifie~' RS-r, ~i3~0(10 (RF.SI QFI171AL/AGFcI CUI_711RI1L) 7q~JE. REQIIESTED CLIISSIFICATIOPd; RN-21i0f1 (RESIDEPITIAI., MI~i.TIPLF.-FAMII_Y) 7_ONE, REQUF.STED VARIAPIC.~; WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM IIUILUIFl~ S17E WIDTfI~ !'1) hiINIHUM SID[ YARD SETHACI:. AND (C) MAXIMUM WAIL HEIGHT, TO CON`'TRUCT FUUR DUPLrXES. It was noted that the subJect pe~itions were cant(nue~l from tl~e Pl-~nninct C~mmisslon meetir-g of August 16~ 1976~ for the petitloner to mc~at with area re~sldents and property awners; and that the petlt;oner ~vas reyuesting a furthe~' cantin~.~anc~: to the Planr,ing Commission meeting oP September 13~ 197~~ ~n orcier to prepare ~n ~~ternace propc,sal for development of the s~~bJect property. Cnmmissl~ner Kin4 offereci a motion~ seconded hy Cominiss~,~~~er Farano and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Morley be(ng aE~ent)~ that thP Anaheim Cify Planning Commisslon cloes hereby further contlnue the public:liearing and consfderation af PeCitions for ReclassificaCion tdo. 76-77-11 and Varlanc~, iJ~. 2~'~3A to the Planni~~ Commfssion meetin~ of September 13, 1976, as requested by the petltloner, RF.CLASSIFICATIOP~ - PURLIC I~EAR'h1G, FO~DMAY.ER, INC., 4P33 Frultl,,ncl Avenue~ Vermo~, Ca, N0. 76-7?-12 9~~~5~ (~ner); ,~OHN MC LACHLAN~ 4~33 Frultl~~~~I Avenue~ Vernon~ Ca. 9~05~ (Agent). Property described as a rect~~ng~larly-shaped parce! CANDITI~NAL USE o~' land consistir~ of approximately 0,3 acre located at the n~rth- PGRM~T NQ. lfi~E6 east corner o'~ 6a11 -•oa~' ancl Dale Avenue, ha:~ing approximate frontages ~~ of ~q feet on the nortf~ side of Ball Road and 137 feet on the east sidr. ~f Dalc Avenue~ and fu••ther described as 2?93 west tsall Roa~. Property presently classffied itS-A-~+3,000 (RESIDEIITIAL/AGRICUL7UkAL) ZOPJE. REQUESTE:D CL~~SIFIC~TtON; CL (~~11MERCIAL~ LI~11TE'~1 20NE. RF.QUESTED COND I T; ONAL USE : E XFA~J U A ~R I VE-7HR0 UGF! RF.STAURAPIT W P TH WA I VER 0'' ( A) M I N I~1UM ~~UMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND (B) MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WiDTH. P~o one 1 ndl cated thei r presen~e ' ~p{~os i tion to tlie subJect peti C ions. Alth~t,;'t the Staff Report to tli4 Nlanninq Commission dated Au~ust 3~, ~976~ was not read at the public hearingo said Staff Report is referred to and ma~fe a part of the minutes. Mr, John McLachlan~ the a~ent for• the peti;ioner, appeared befor~ the Planning Comnission and st~tc:d that he was em{~lvyed by Foodmaker, Inc.; that the proposal was to remodel an existing Jack~in-the-Box drive-through restaurant which was estabiisheci in 1963 ~~nel was presently ,urroanded by a veterinary 17aspital, resiclential property and stores; that their position was that if they we:re to continue `~ o~erate at this locattan they should remodel or rnodernize the facility to b;inn it up-to-dats~ makiny it compatiF>le with thc current CL Zorie requlrerr~nts ar~d adding some arch(tect~~ral ame~tties ~uch as the, mansard roof and air~condltioning; that pursuant t~ reviewina the plans~ ttie Planning Department had advised that two waivers ~f the Code should be advertisecl which he felt was inte~~~s~ing sinc~ they were not inc~easing the capacltv of the restaurant~ however, they would da their best to concur with the requirements or conditions of approval; that they had redesigned the parking layout and come up with the maxlmum possib?e 5pa~es~ and if more spaces were mandatory then they would have tn c~nSid~r closing the restaurant and not remodeling it; that on their previous pr~posa) at an~ther location they had clased driveways in c~ ,~liance witf~ the Cixy Traffic Engineer~s req~~est~ however, at the subJect loc~tian they ~..:re requestinq to have a k0-foot wi driveway and realign another driveway; that khe City 7raffic Engineer had indicated that the ~~Q-foot driveway was too wide~ hawever~ they were intsrested i~ ~ettin9 the traffic in and out as qutckly as ~ .~ ~ MINUTES,CITY PLANNING ~OPIMISSION~ Augusc j0~ 1976 76-~-02 Rf.GLASSIFICATIO~ ~ 6-~77-i2 ANU CONaITIONAI USF. PF.RMIT N0, lF,Q6 (Cantinued) pos~~lblo ciue t~ the heavy traffic cundltions on Bnil Roaci; and that they would instsil wooden ~1atc~ on thc trash enclosu~•e area. TfIE PUBLIC ~~FARING W,1S CI.QSC~. In response Co questlonlnq by C~mmissf~ner Nerbst~ Mr, Mcl.achlan Indicated that prc:sent.ly there were three tabtes loc~ted outsidF the I ~Idinc~ and wlth thr remodelin~ there would be a total r,f five ~r six, all wtthfn the buildlnq~ resiilting in an increase in parking spaces rsqulr~~~1 only b~ ~ few spaces; anri th~t the 15 proposed p;~rking sp~ces would more: than acco~~modatc thelr Facillty. Commiss:~ner Flerbst notPd that he hacl n~ qunrrel a~ith upqr~'~cilnq the u~:e of the rroperty, however~ he dld questlon whether Che h0-foot wlde dr(vev~ay was recFSSa ry to hanJlc the two lanes of on-site trafflc. In reply~ Mr, McLachlan stated the drivr_4~ay ~~id~h had been consldere~l in detall with Clielr arcF~itecural staff and th~ 40-Poot width was <letermtned on the basis ef the turninn radlus and exttfn~ condi~lons Cz~ be advanta9eous to the c~.istomers; and that a 35-foot width would c-~~te nx~re conc~estton on-stte. Traffir, Engineer Paul Sin~er aciv(sed ;har, in hi~ review of the proposal~ iC was noted that the slte was very small and very congested; tiiat tlie driveway on Bal' Road closesr to the fntersection sho~il~1 be removed and the other driveway retained providing nu exittng onto Rall Road, Commtssioner Y.inc~ noted that Et woulu ;ppP~r that ~~+0-foo[ drivew~~•~ would ba safer than 30 feet. Mr, Singer anreed wlth ~ne excepCion, beinq that the traffir. would exit onto Ball Ro~cl an~i ~~r. such an an~le t•hat. tn c~o west~ the cars wo~alcl practlcally have to make a ll-turn; and th t the ingr~s~ and ec~ress sfioulcl be on Dale Avenue, I n response to ques t I on i n~ by Cha I rman Jol~nsori ~ Mr. 11cl.acl~ 1 an i nd i cated that tlie dr i ve- througfi winrlav w~uld con:inue to be backed up cn the west side of th~ buildl, ~. Chalrman Johnson then noted that only one access for ingress and egress and being nn Uale Av~nue~ would no, bc workable with the bullding~ in his opinion. Mr. Singer then aclvised tl~at if the carner drivew~y was retaineci~ the traffic would ex(t at a 90-degree angle or southeast onto dali Road, p~r the present des+gr~; r.l~at there was very limite~i space between the building and the streek and in order to ma~ce r.urns to the west~ a car wo~ald have to make ~ 1`10-degree turn; and tF~at the traffic situation was acute for the property and he was suggesting Chat the loop be continued. Commissioner ;'~rbst noted that the closinc~ of the existin~ back-up lanc on tlie property would nct be good, Co,nm(ssioner Tolar noted thac he would agree that the proposed remodeli~~~ would enhance the appearsnce of the restaurant; however, he would E~robably vote ay~ainst the proJect on the basis that the restaurant was established approximately 13 years ago when Ball Road and Dale Avenue were not as he.~vily traveled; that to expancl the facility would make a prohlem area a bigqer problem anu if the facility was presently too srn~ll then perhaps it was timP to consider the closurc nf the rest~urant at this sit^, In response to q;~estioninq by the Planriinc7 Cortmission, Assistant Planner Joel Fick advised that the exist(ng zonin~ on the pro~erty was RS-A-43,000, Commtssioner Nerbst inquire~l if the upgraciing of khe site could be done without reclassifying the properry. in reply~ Asslstant Planniny Di~ector-Zoniny Annika Santalahti acf~~i se~± that i f tl~e peti tion:~r was only proposina to p~int and replace the existinq roof~ etc.~ it caulcl be done unJer the original condltlonal use permit on the prnperty, however~ th~e plan was to add itoor space, etc, In response to yuestioning by Commissioner Kin7~ Mr. McLachlan stated they were wllling to ;eave the two existtn!7 driveways on Ball Road as they presently existed; that the ~nly reason ttiey had moved the one driveway was to do it ric7ht the flrst tlmc; an~l that the turning radi~is of a car was less than 40 ar 50 feet. Chalrman Johnson inquired about the possibiltty of expanutng the bulldinq towsrd tne north~ anci Mr. McLachlan statPd it would be physically lmpossibte to move the existi~g kltchen; that the effort was t~~ try ta mal~e the f:~cility mc~re arcfiitecturall;~ desirable; and that the enclos(n~ of the walk~up window and the glass wall, arouncl the buildfng .:uuld ~ ~ ~ 111 ~lUTES, C I TY Pt.ANN I NG COMN ( SS I ON ~~1uyus c 30. 1976 RECInSSIFICATION N4. 7h-77^12 ANU CoNQITI(1NAL USE PERMIT r~0, 161~6 (Gonttnued) 76-Ao3 allaw For alr-condltlonin~ for tt~e customers. Mr. McLachlan further state~l that they were not pt~posln~~ t~ increase the salrs capacity at the subJect location but would b~ 'rnly modarnlzing th~ existin~~ f~~r_Ilfty by acldiny two publlc restroums~ rclocat~ng the w.. ii~ frcezer so that thr. pr.rsonnel wo~ilcl not have ~o c~~ outslde of the bullcflnn to get to it~ and addinc~ approxlmately 7 feet of additlonal space to the front of the r.,xls~fng bufidlnq anu ~n Insicle atsle to r,r.t to thc publlc restrooms, Cnmmiss~oner Tolar noCed that thc floor Spncc w.,uld be nuuble.l under the new roof and he quastioned ~he economic feaslbiiity of nx~dernlzing che exi~tin~ facilities whl~.h wer~ located on a llmite~l site. In response, M~, 11cLachlan st~ited th~t~ alternatively, s~nce they owned the property, ~hey coul~i reFlt the kitr_hen; that sometim~s tt~ey ^•,~laced the ex(stlnq facllity entirely~ hawtver~ (n the sub.jPCt ca~e that woulci -,p impc ..iblc. -t-~ce *h~re was no availah!e land on e(ther side of ~he ~~roperty t~ add to the slte; :hat the pr~posed mansard root coul~f be left ~pen or coi~structed with the nla~s ca-taln whtch xhey had donc in order ta provide alr-condikfoning facilities for the c~~staners; that thr_y were addln~ only two tables; and that man~qement had reviewed the subJer.t loca'.ion in rr_lationship to trade-olfs on annu~~l exparses for maintenancP to uetermin~ whether to rrfurblsh or add aest'~ettcs to the subJect ~ulldin~. in ~espanse to q~estionin~ by Commissioner Kinq~ Mr, Mr,Lachlan str~~d It ti~ould be lmposslble to have "exlt only" on Dale Avenue since rhey wo~~ld hav~ approK`mately r.~ic~: as many customers as they presently had ana wo~~ld have na t~lace to put them. Ne furthgr sta*.ed that tne drtve-through win~low was being moved 7 f~~et to the soutl~. Commissioner F«raio made an observatlon that if the drive-up winclaa was relQCaied to th~ other side of the buildi~~, tfiere wauld be na ~tacic~ng room for the cars and~ ther•efQre~ the suggested "ent~ance" rni Dal! Roac: and "eXit" on Dale Avanue was not possible, since they were tak(~~ maxim~im use of thc e~tiie propcrty. Camm~ssioner Kinc~ noted that he hac! v'sl'.ed the site dnd had been convlncFd priar to the public hearing tl~at the pr~posal would not woric~ h<ri~ever~ since he had heard the discussion~ 't,a .vas golne~ to vote fn favor ~.~ the project. Ir was noted that the Director of the Planning Depa~Cment h~d determined that the proposed acttvity fe!1 within the dsfinit.ion of Sectior~ :5.~1~ Class 7.~ of the City of Anahei Guidclines t~ the Requirements for an Envirurment~l Impact Rep~rt and was, tf~piefo~~~ categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Commtsstoner Herbst offered Resolution No, PC76-160 and maved for its pa~sage an adoptton~ that the Anahei~r City Planning Commis~to~~ does he~ehy recommend to th~ City Counctl of the City of Anaheim that Petit(on for Reclassification No, 7~~77-1? b: approved, suhJ~c*. to the Intcrat;~artRental Committee recommendatior~s. (See Resolutfon 8oo~c~ On roll call~ the tore~oinq resoliition was Aassed by tf7e f~llowiny vote: ~4YES: C~MMISSt~NERS: t3ARNES~ FARArlO, HFRBST~ Y.ING~ TOLt~R~ JOHtiSON NQES : COM~41 SS 1 OPIF RS : NONE AB;SENT; COMMISSIOP~FRS: MORLFY Commissioner Herbst offered Resalut(on No, PC'J6-161 an~.l r~bvecl for its p~ssaGe and adoption~ thaC the Anaheim City Planning Commission does h:reby grant Petition for Conditional Use Perniit Nu, tb~,6 tu expand a drive-through restaurant, grantinq the requested wal~er of minimum number of parking spaces on the basis that sirnil~r waivers have been granted previously in connect(on with drlve-thr~ugh restaurants h3vtng slt-d~wn facilities; granting the requested waiver of the maximum driveway wiclth on the basls that the prop~sal is to eliminatr. one of the existinq two drtveways on Ball R~i:~d and to replace it with a sin~7le ~40-f~~ot wide driveway which wlil be safer than the existtnq double access; that the proposeci expansion will improve the appearance and effectiveness of the site, thereby upgrading the existin~ use; subJect to the condit(on that the subJect property shall be developed substantially in accordance with pi~:~s ancf spectficattons on file with the City of Anah~im marked Exhlbtt t~os. 1, 2 a~d 3; and that trash Storage areas shall be provtded In accordance with approved plans on f71e with the offtce of the Director of P~blic Works and~ furthermnre, ~hat this c:,.~ditional use permit is granted subJect to the completion of Reclassification No. 76-77'12~ ~oW Pending. (See Resqlutton Baok) On roll call, the foregnirg resolutian was passed i~y thc follnwing vote; AYES: ~OMMISSIO~IERS: BARNES, FARANO, HEltB~T~ KING, JONNSOF~ NOES: COMMISSI~NERS: TCLAR ABSENT : COM111 SS I ONERS : MO RLF.Y ~ ~ MIIiUTF.S, CIYY PLANNING (.OFIMISSI(~~~ Aunus~ 30~ 1'i7~i ~6-4~4 NECt,f~SSIFICAT10~1 - PUBLIC NEARING. WILLtAN C. A~IU JOY l.. DI1'MAIt~ 2~1~1 West 8~i1) Raad. N0. 7ti-77-13 Anahclm~ Ca, 92t~~4 (Own~ra); J. H. h[DR1Ci'. 6 f.OMP1INY~ 9~~ Suuth San Gabrlel Doufevard~ Srn Gabrlel~ ~:s. ~177G (Agcnt); rcquestin~ ' rec.laSSiPlc~ti~n of pr~pnrty clescrib~d as n recten~ularly-shapeci porcnl of I~n~l cunsistin~ of apnroximataly 1.1 ncre hovinc~ a frontage af approxlrrM~e~v 2~f- fee- on thc r~nrth side ~f Dall Road~ havin~ a imxlmum clcpth of r+pproximatelY 22ts fe~st~ b~~(n~ locate~ approximntcly 1135 fent eost af tha centerline uf Deach 6oulevArcl' ancl further Jascrthed ~g 29Q1 Wcst Ball aoad, fran ~hcs RS-11-43~OQG (RESIDF-ITIAI../ AC,RtCULTURAI.) ZQt~E to Ch~ itM~~~'J00 (RESIbCNTIAL~ NUL71Pl.E°FAMILY) ZON[. Na one Indlc~eto~ thelr presence ln oppositl~n to subJect petltion. Although the StflfF Re~ort to the Planning Commisslon dgtocl August 30, 1~17G, was n~t reeci at thc ~ublic heartng~ said Staff Raport Is rafcrred tu and rt~-cfe a part cf the mtnut~s. Ms, Gypsy Berg.;trnm~ represenr,lnct the a~i~.~it fc,r the petltlor.er~ appeare~ besfore nc~ Planning Commtssio~ anii rr_~~lewed th~~ prop~xr,d, statinn that ;t wuuld be an enhancerie~t xo the area; that they would cocnply with the recomnendatinn t~ make s~r•eet Improvmrmesits alonq Ball Road; Chat they wcre in favor of the street trees; thAt thcy woulrl stlpulate tu providinq a h~armicrhead drlve~way for accegs tc~ the trash storage areas In compl lence with the requlrement; t~~at they woul<I provlde thc fire hydranCs and underground utillttcs as re~ulred~ as well as c~r.struct a ~i-foat hl~h rnasonry wall a~~Jacent ko the north, west and east prnperty l ines; th~t they wo~~ld also comply wf th the dr~~lnac~e r~qul rement an~~ work with r.he Clty in thnr. regnrd; ch~t they were aware oP the rPqul~~r_ment for payment of pe~k and recreatton in-1 ieu fees and wate~r assessnxynt fees; an~1 thaC they were tryinq to develc,p the property in <<:cordance wieh the dasires .7f the City. THE PUBLIC NEARI~I(; WAS CLOSED. Ca Knlssioner 1'olar questione~l tiie absence of landscaping In the 20-foot setn~ck areas, and Fts. Hergatrom stated they woulcf he working w~xh a registered lan~iscape archltect for a spec( fir_ lan<Iscape pl. n fo~ the enti re proJect. In respcnse to questtonin~ by Commissioner Farano, Ms. Ilergstrom stated that the in~llvldual patios and rear yard areas would have a wooden fence along the sioeyard property line an~i a mas~nry wall ~t the rear yard property linc. separating the units. Commissloner Herbst noted that, if anproved~ the Planninn Commissinn would probably requlre that precise lPndscaping plans be suf~mitted for appr~ al~ said landscaping ta pravide an efPective buffer str(p for the adJacent single-Pam?ly resiclences. In response to questionin^ by f,ommissioner Y.tng~ ~Eputy City Attorney Frank Lo~rry noYed that it was unclear to City st~~ff whether the propasal was an air spacc condcxninium proJe~t or a postage stamp la~ proJect stnce It was not Indicated whether the lots would be sold oPf a.~d/or if the c~wners would be purchasin9 a portlon of the real property with their unttso 1~ whlch case a Cract map wouid be required. Mr. Lnwry advised that, lf approved~ a con~iition requiring a tract map and the rec~rdatlon of CCbRs should be imposed, In response to questtonin~ by Commissi~ncr Faranc~ Ms. Bergstrom statecl they were propos~ng to have two-car garages wl':h e:,ch unit in a~iditi~n tn 5 extra parkin~ s~aces at the end of the pro)ect; and that eher~ were no base%ents and the walkways shown on the pl ans led to the doorv+ayy of ;he un 1 ts, Cha~rman Johnson questioned whether a buffrr strip per se was requirad adJacent to the single-famlly properties in thls lnst~nce ~~~d Mr, Low~ry advised Chat the Cc,de required a 20-foot landscaped area which he assumed would include trees, bushes and grass~ etc. Commissl~ner Barnes initia;.ed discuss m regarding acce~sihillty to the garages~ nocfng that the ~lans did hot seem to indicate there was ample room to park in f~ont of the garages. Assistant Planniny Director-F.onin9 Annika Santalahti advised that autaru+tlc garage door openers were oniy required adJacent to public streets for 6 to 10-foot garage setbacks, however, she recalled that in one tr~:,tanca automatlc door openers had been requlred tn a concfoinfnium proJect. Commissioner Toiar noted that if there was not enough room to park in thc driveways to open tfieir garr9e doo~s~ the residents would probably not put their cars away. . ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING C~MF11SS1(1N~ August 30~ 197~ 1fi•~-05 RLCLASSIFICI1TIOf~ N0. 7b-77-13 (Con':Inued) Cnmmissloner Farano qucstioned the distcence bctwce~~ the gucst pnrking spaces and Unlt No. & or the sldewalk, notinn that to maneuver a Z~>-`~^L long car ln -~ii~1 nut uf thc ffrst sp~ca would h~ a problem. Cort~missloner Herhst notecl that ~a chnngr. Ir~ thc parkinq spicts woul~l br requlrecl In the r~vlsecl r~lans. Commissioner Narbst ~ffcrcri ~ nx>Cion. seconded by Cnnmis•~loner Kln~ ar~~1 MOTI~N CARRIFU (Comm!~titone 1lorley beln~~ ahsent). tha[ the Ana~~P;m City Plannln~ Commisslon docs hereby recom~nend to the City Councll of ihe CIC•; af Anahcim that the subJect proJect be exempt from tt,~ requlrec~nt tn prepar~ an ~nvironmental ImpacC repnrt~ purs~~an[ to the provis~~ns of the Cali fornla Environment<~1 Quallt;~ Act. Cummissloner Nerbst ofFere:1 Rex~luti~n No, PC7~-16Z ~nd muved fr~r (ts p.'~ssagc and adoptlon, th.it the Anah~im Cfty Pl~nning Conxiission does he:rehy rec.ommend tc~ the City Councll of thr~ Clty of ~nahefm that PetiC~on for' Reclasslficntion No. J6-77-1~ be approved~ subJect t~ the stipi.ilat(ons of the p~titioner [o suhrolt landscaping plans in cannectlon wfth the cond:xninium clevelopment uF the pmperty, s~~~ plans to Indicate ths l~ndscapiny thr~uqhout th~ pro.~ect ~~nd; rrx~re nartlc~.ilarly~ to specify tl~e size~ species, spt+cinq and location of the plants rm~l t~-ees with(n the 20-foot wide landscaped buffer strlp ad_~ncent t~ the nortFi ~nd west praperty linss abutt(nn th~ single-far~ily resldences; that finai specific flcx~r plans and elevatlons for the propose~i conclominium developr~nt shall be submltted f~r Planninr; Commisslo~ review and Ap~rovHl pr(or to the intraductlon of an urdlnance re~onin~ the subJ~ct property; and that a G-foot high masonry wall shall be consr.r~~'`.cd alony the norrh~ west and e:,st prop~rty 1!nes; that a fin~l rract map of subJect pruperty shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded !n the office of the Orange Cuunty Recorder~ s~id map to be sub.Jec.t to the attendant City of Anahei~n requirements an~l conditlons~ inciucllnn the submission and recordatlon of CCEP,a; subJect to the further stipulatlons of the petitlon~r; and subJect to the Intardepartinental Committee rechnmenc~ation5. (See Resolution [loolc) On roll call, the forgoinq resolution was passed by tha followi~~~ vote: AYES: COMMiS,InNrRS: FARAt~O, HERF~ST, KIWG, TOLAR~ JOHNSON NQES : COMMI SS I O~I~.RS : BARNFS ABSENT: COt11115SI0~JERS: MORI.I:Y VARIANCE N~. ?.%~36 - PUBLIC HEARIi~G. 114PFRIAL PROPF.RTIES, 329 Via Lido Soud~ Newport Beach~ " Ca. 92b60 (Uwner); ROBC•RT D. HAUGMRD~ JR., 181 South Los itobles, Pasadena~ Ca. 911b1 (Agent); requesting 4JAIVER QF REQUIP,ED LANDSC.~P[:D BERM on property described as an irrec~ularly-shaped parcel nf land consist(na ~f approxl- mately il acres loc~~ted at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Via Cortez, having approximate f`rontages ~f 87c) feet on the nnrth side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and FI, feet on the west sicie of Via Cortez, and further describecl as 5741-~791 Santa F.na Canyon Road. Property presently classified CL(SC) (CQMMERCIAL~ LIh11Tf:i~-SCE~IiC CORRIOOR OVERLAY) ZOtIE. Mr, Sam •...ylord, 2~3' Soiatli Del fiornio Road, Anaheim~ indicated his presence in oppositian to the subJect petitlon and waived tl~e full reading of the Staff Report toofhsameanning Comm(sston dated Auc~ust 3(1~ 1~37~~, on ehe basis that he had revicwed a copy Althou~h the Staff Report was not read at the public heartng~ sald report ts referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Jan LeFebvre~ representing the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Commission and stated the suoJect property had been bEfore the Commission many times; that the proposed variance rrpresente~ a substantial upgrading along Santa Ana Canyan Road; that the public right-of-way was gene~ally hydromulched with seeding of annuals~ etc.~ and the planting of trees~ and since there was not enough Ctty personnel to matntaln the planted right-of- ways~ it would become fuily in ~~+eeds; that they were proposing to install instant sod fn front of the shopping center from the edge of the pavement to the property line, eliminating the berm and substituting a plant materta) as a screen; that Santa Ana Canyon was developing in a rustic fashion and rhe sod would look great; an~i that they would stipulatP to being responsible For the maintenance of the landscaping. Commission~r Faran~ noted th-at it appeared thaC a berm would be na*.c:r~~ly created by th~ proposal, anci Mr. LeFebvre indicated that the elevations were Ju:.t the natural cont0~~5 of ~ ~ MI NUTr.S, C I TY PI.IINN I NG cUMM I SS InN ~ Auc~us t 3~ ~ 197~ 7G~ <<ob VARI~NCF N0. 2a36 (Continucd) the property; ff~~t and 6ritnchesthl ~herrnr_xttlto thanstreetC~ancl that the''par~clnarlotiplan bein,y about 1 reprasented the actuAl gr~~_1in~~ of the site. Mr. Sam Gay I ord appc are d h~ fore the P 1 ann I ng Cc ~nl ss i on ! n oppos 1 t 1 on ar ci s tohowCVer t i f reductfon in the s~tbacks hnd al rea~y teen ~~r~m~c~i for the sub)ect property . ~ thc pFtlCloners wet-e oc;ree~-~ble to provlding A 20-fnot setb~ck wilhout the berm, that would bc flne; that semeone in the Clty had decidecJ that ~ barm was nee~lecl in the Sce~ir.. Corrldor and~ unless thc petfCloners ha~1 son,e r~al good reason~ It: should ~~vt bc waived; and that no r~ddtClonal pfer_edci~ts werc ner•ded in the 5r.enfc Corridor. Mrs. Pam flerry~ G12 La Paz Circle:~ Anaheim, representing the SanCa Ana Canyon Improvement Ass~ciation, appeared before the Ptannin~~ Commfssfon and stat~d the Assoclatlon favored Che proposed varianee bPCausc: it w.-~s an improv~:ment over tlie minimum raqul rements; Cl~at the Assoclat~on had revfewecl khe plans (n~licating the st~apping center w~s beluw the street grnde and i t woul d be more itt ract i v~ to 1 andsc~pe r.he natural s lopes; tha t the Assoctatlon favoreci the proposal 1 f the intent wns to plant l~argc trees to n+ake an irm~edl~ie improvement; and that wlth the n<.irmal berm, only the rooi't~,~s of lho shopping center could be seen, Deputy City Att:orney Frank Lowry clarified tl~at tfie minimum setbac~ requtrEnxnt was 70 feet pcr Code; however, a l~i-foot setback was grantecl by variance for the subJect p~operty sut~.Jrct to the concl(tion that a berm be constructed, Mrs, Berry then stated that tlie proposal was better than what ~.~as proposed In thz beginning; and that 6 feet less landscapinc~, to have a better-looking carner, would be worth it. Mrs, Berry then qucstinned whether the bePr and wine sales woul d be in the shopping center. In reply~ Assistant Flanner Joel Ficb: advisecl that the beer anci wine sales would bE in one of the units irsi~fe che ~hoppin9 center. Mr. L.eFebvre took except ion to Mr. LaNry's romnents concerning requ( reef setbaclcs ~ and stated that the ordinanc:e provided for either 1~~-foot setbacks with berms or 20-foot setbacks without berms; th?: ;ne petitioneand~tliattt einwouldalookeatvthe'fullaiandscaping there with a lar~e amaunt of .,~~~iscaping; Y program for a substantia) upgradtng oF the City's requirements. THC• PUdLIC fl[ARINr WAS CLOSED. Com•~issioner flarnes noted that she felt very strongly about the Scenic Corrldor Ordinance and there had been many var(ances granted in cunnection with the subJect property; that one big benefit of the proposal was that the petitioner would maintatn the landscaping and save the City a g~eat deal of money; ancl that she was fnteresCed (n findi ng out exactly what the landscaping would consist nf, Commissioner Farano suqgested that (f the proposal wa:~ approvecl~ it should be subject to the submtssiun of precise landscaping plans for rlannirg Cc~mmissfon revi ~w under Reports and Recortmendations. He noted that (t was correct that the sub.ject property had been before the Commissio~ many ttmes; that~ aithough the proposal might be an improvement, if impleme:nted correctly~ th~:re had been diffic~ilties with so mary other phases of the development that it would be reasonable to expect that el~e landscaping might not be as portrayed. Commisstoner Barnes then noted that it was sCrange that ti~e Santa Ana ~anyon ImprovemQnt Association was indicating the pr~posal was good~ ln their oplni~n, a~d such a stand was somewhat 1 rrl tat i ng to her when t!~e Assocfation had t~een fol ic~wi ng the r-equE rements to the ietter up to this time. Chal rmars .lohnson quest i oned the poss i b f 1 t ty of goi ng back to a 20- `o~t 1 andscape setback ~ notin_r, that he agreed that a 3-foat berm on top of tlie extsting slnpe wo~~ld nat serve effgctively. Mr. LeFebvre state~l that the parking l~~t was substantially const~ucted; that the design of the parking lot and buildings would not allaw enough room, without reducing the parking s~aees. to increase the setback and would cause them to need a oarking vartance or come back withdesi'1nfwas substantla l lya deve lope d.retalning wall; and~ furthermore. the buil~iing 9 ~ ~ ~ MItJUTf:S~ ~ITY PLANNIt~G (:OMMIFS10~1~ Auc~ust 30~ 197~~ VARIANC~ NU. 2t13G (Cont(nued) 7~-4~~7 Commissloner Talar noted thot It was a pleasuro t~ lu~uw that the Santa Ana Cr~~yon Improven~ent: Ass~cl~tion wns In favor~ rathr.r thnn u~holdlnq the strlc~c~~ ser~se of the ordtnance; that the Commission hnd been viewing thr Scenlc Corrldor Ordlnanc+: wlth sc~ lat(tucte Anr1, If th~ proposnl was lndeucl an Imf~ro~ament, then it was probahly time to tnke a look ~t sald orcllnance to clr.tcrmine wliether It shoulcl be amendr.d. Commissi~ner Oornes noterl Chat shc f~vored the Assoc~~klon's reason~~ble attliud~+ in Chls reS(~Cr,t. Commissioner King n~ted that he ~~cir~r~i with Commissioner T~'~lar that Ch.~ rr~no38~ r~~uld he an Improvement of the str~n~it~r'd rr.qu( rements. In re3ponse to questionln~ by the Pl~nning Cnmmtss(on, Mr. Le~ebvre stipulateci to submf ttin~7 landscapincl plans for Plar~ning Commisslon review and ~~pproval. sa1 d pl~~ns to specify the size, species~ spacine~ ancl locatlon ~f tf,e plants and trees; and furtlicr stipulated to submitt(nq a perpetu~~l rn.ilntenance a~reement to the Citv Attorney's Office for approval, sa(~1 a~ree«~ent to be filed and recorded with the Or~nge County Record~:r's Office for kl~e maintenanc:e of the lanJscarit~g ln the public ric;lit-of~way .~djacent ta the landscapecl setback on the subject property. Commissloner '"~rano in~llcated thrat if the proposal was approved, the landscaping should be dense and mature~ proviciin~~ an effective landscaped buffer al~ng Sant~ Ana Ganyon Road In the 5cenic Corr(dor, Commissloner Tolar offerecl ftesolutin t~o. PC71~-163 ~ind moved for its passaqe and adoption~ that the An4he f m C i ty P 1 ann i nq Commi ss i on cioes herehy gran t Pe t i t I on for Va r i ance No. z33G~ granting tlie requested waiver of the reyuired landscaped berm on the batls that tlie subJect pr~perty had a grade differential of a~proximately 5 feet below Santa Ana Can~~on Road fram the parkinr? area io tt~e top nf the landscaped slope and~ furthermr~re~ the petitioner stipul~te~J to perprtually maintaininc; the landscaping area within the public right~of-way and a~iJ~cent to the 1~~-foot wide landscaped setback on t:he subJect property; subJect ta the furthFSr stipulations of the ~etitioner and subJect tn the Interdepartmei~tal Committee recommen~iations. (SPe Resolution Hoak) On roll ctili, the fnrenoinn resolution was passed by the follawinq votP: AYES: C0~IMISSIONERS: BAR!JES~ F~RANO, HFRDSTM KING, TOLAR. JOHtJS01J HCES: CQMMISSIONERS: NO"IF ASSEPJT: COMMISSIOt~ERS: MORLEY VARIANCE td0. 2837 ' PUBLIC HCARING, bOYLE AND MARJORIE SMITH~ 2795 Mendoza Drlve~ Costa Mes~, Ca, 92u?~ (Owners); requesting WAIVER OF PERMtTT~D ACCESSORY USES At~D STRUCTURES ~ T(1 COMSTRUCT A'TWO-STORY ACCESSbRY STRUCTURE on property descrlbed as a rectangularly-sh~ped parcel of land consisttng c~f approximately 0.$ acre f~avlnc~ a frontac~e of approxirnataly 114 feet on the north side of Cerrltos Avenu~:~ having a maximum depth ~f apprnximatply 3~2 feet. being loc~ted approximately 691 ~eP! east of the centerline of Euclid Streett and further descrlbed as 1643 Wes t Cerritos Avenue. Proper:y presently c~a~;sifieci RS-72~Q (RESlDEPITIAL~ SIPlGLE-FAMILY) ::ONE. Approximately 13 perso~s indicated their presence in opposition to the subJer,t petit(on and furthwith waive~~ the full reaclinc~ of tfie StaPf Report toofhsa~ann(ng Commission date:d August 30, 1~7~, on the basis that they had reviewed a copy Althouqh the Staff Report to the; Planning Commission was not read at the publlc heariny, said Staff Report is referred to and m~de a part ~f the minutes. Mr. Doy~e E. Sm~th, the petitioner, appeared t;efare the Planning Com.rission and stated they were proposing a two-hedroom dwelling a~~~f the details were indicated on the 5ubmitted plans. ~ ~ 76-4Uti i11 t1UTr5 ~ C 1 TY PIANN 1 NG CUi1Ml SS I OPl ,/lugus l' 30 , 1~ 7b 11AR1 ANCE NO! 243~ (Contlnued) Mr. EunenP Dunham, 1(~h7 West Buena Vlst~~, 31~1~~'ared before the ~'~anninn Commission in o~positl~~~~ fln~l state~~ his propcrty wAS imm~~-11 -tely to thcs nurth and ndJacent to thc sub.)ect prop~rty; th~t he h~d purchascd hls I~raperty after loolcing ovar the rest of Che cl ty nnd dtcl~led th»t the Fiomes In th~~ subJcct 3rec+ wcre single-faml ly an.l single-story anc! wauld r~emaln thnt wr~y; Ch~t thc petltionor kr~ew thnt the sub}Nr,t property wAS RS-j200 ~ip~ h~ pur~.hnsed it; that the prc~posed Cwo-story str~~cture would havc a gran~istancl vi~w lnto tl~re~ rooms of hls~ home since the st;ucturr. would be withln 12 feet ~f tfie northwest corner of t,he property; th~t he had canv.~ssed the 1G0(1 bl~ck of ~1uena Vlsta and na one was In favor of the prnp~s.~l; an~1 that the pe~~ple had purchased the homes in thc suhject erea subJect area bocause they wer~ roomy~ c~r.. 11r. Uunliam prc~sonted a petitiun sic~ned by approximately G(~ homeowners ,.." residents in the subJ~ct are~ wh~ werc opp~sed for the fol lowin9 reASOns: ~~~. 5ubJect property is zonecl RS-720~ (re~i~ientlal ~ sln~le-family). z. Surroundin~ land uses are sln~le resl~lences to t.he north, east. west and across Cerrltos to the s~uth. ~ Is ~lesic~nated for' 1ow 3, According to thc M ahcim yeneral plan. thl., property denslty resi~lential land use. ~i. The c~~e does not permit accessory I(vinq ~~uarters, even ~~ithaut kitchen facllities, in a detached bulldlny whe~i the are~a oF the lot ls less than one acre - thls lot is ~1.~'~ a~~'~• welfare~ or safety lii fhe ~~ This varfance would n~t~ if granted, add to the health~ nelghborhood but would in fact introduce another hazard to traffic on Cerritos by adcl(ng one more driveway for cars to enter th~: strest ^-- two an one lot. G, Thls variance would, if grante~, destroy the ent(re gener~zbc~the flrsthofaseveral invitinq future re~ur.sts for variances. In fact this may for this parcel since ~ubJect structt~re is to be locoted on the N41 corner of the property leavin~ possible space for others. Thls certalnly is the openinc~ wedge~" Tt~e Plannin~ Commission Secre~~ry read a letter date.cl Aug~ast 'L4~ 1976~ from Mr. and Mrs. R. F'. Klllingsw~rth~ 1C~7.!i West Cerritos, Anaheim~ :n oppositfon and said letter is referred to and made a part of tf~e minutes. Mr. Robert Weiss, 16~L' Buena Vista Avenue, Anaheim~ appeared before the Pianning Commis~lon (n oppositian and stated he lived two doors from the subJect property; that he did not know why the proposed structure shauld have to be so close to the property line since there was plenty of room; that the peCi:ioner should be required to I~ave a buffer zone and only alle~wed to hava one-story constructlU~+faontt100 faetawh~ichswasnpresentlyt'in petitioner would do with tlie rest of the property wesds . Assistant Planning Director-Zoninci 1lnnika Santalahti adv(sed that the proposal had been discussed at Staff level ~nJ it was determined that since this ~~+as not a garage or accessory use, the setback from tl~e pr~perty 1 ine could be the same ~s the main structure. Mr. Don Daggott, 16?.!~ ~e rr i tos /lvenue, Anahe i m, appear~d before the P 1 ann i ng Commi ss ( on i n opposlt(.~n and stated he lived east of and across Che street from the subJect property; and that I~e was ~concernecl PboutWOUi~P~ecome~a~st~rac~eryard~or armanufacturing useentee vwner and whethc.r tl7e prop_ ty Mrs. Marie Valusek~ ib(~9 West Cerritos ~~venue, Analieim, appeared before the Plannlrsg Commisslon i~ iPionstwereamadettoeChel~suf~Ject~propertyaSii~wouldbhavePtoVbeeserved ly,the and ff any add t Clty ~Jater Department. In response j~ WaSStuL~~~~whenCthersub~eotna~ea was~subdiviJed andhwasuonly~tosserve that the water we P single-famlly homes. In response to f~~rther questioning by the Planning Commissian, Mr, Smith stated he would be mov~nc~ onto the property in about two years and 2he driveways could be reduced to one; hc~wever~ he already had the plans and would nat want to make the chan~es; that he owned a truck and four cars ancl needed the pro~osed storage and work shop area for his own use; that his mother ancl father would be livin~~ i~ the propose~l new structure within sir, months and, in case soo thtl~e S roposed~dwell i~gtunfl~t;handi thattaWl i ttle,btwonb~:droom apartment could not rent P ~ • MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August ~0, 1g76 ~~'"409 VARIANCE N0. 2$3~ (Continued) would not add too much traffic to the area. M~. Smith further stated thet he could have "Jan~sd" the plens but he dfd not want to be Jarm~ed in hlmselt since hn had ~eve~ girls and tt~ree-fourths of an ncre end r~s~ted plenty of room tor himself; ~nd th~e he could connect to t~~e Clty watnr supply Ifi that was the only problam. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. In r•csponse tu qucstiontng by Conwrissfoncr Fa~~an~~ Mr. Smith stated regarding thcs 6U0- squAre foot work~hop thal it providnd garage ~pace for his canstruction tru~ek ~nd cars; and that presently his gara~e was full at blcycles. Commissloner 7olar inqulred tf the petittone:r was .~.+are aP tha problems cht~t could be created by a dual use of the subJect land; that the petikloner wrs ask(ny ko br rllawed a use that any landownGr would like to enJoy~ especla?ly wlth so much land available; that other homeowncrs in the immedt~ke area hed similar sized int~ and. w(thin a yoar~ ther~c would be many requeats simltar to the subJect proposal; that It appearnd thut the proposal was for accessory uses of the p~operty; that ths proposal would violate the natghbors' rlghts; that e hardshlp hod not been demanstreted; and that the property waa purches+ed knawing that It was zoned for a single-family home. Mr. Smtth statnd that he was not building on anyone else's propnrty and h~: pald his own taxes. Commisslaner HmrbsC ~oted the size ~f the subJact p~operty whlch wAS approximately four ttmes the size of a ~ormal RS-7200 lot and questioned whethtr it was possible to subdivide tt~ creating a flsg lot. Oeputy City Attorney F~ank Low ry advlsed that the lot was nat ~atde enough to legally split it. Mr. Lowry further advised that the subJecx p~operty was essentially RS-22~A00. It was not~ed that the Dlrectur of the Planning Departrrnnt hbd det~rmined that the praposed acttvity fell withiit the definitlon of Sectian 3.01~ Class 3, of the C1ty oF Anahelm Guld~nltnes to the Requirements fo~ an EnvtronmenCal Impacc Report and was. therefore~ cateqorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Commisstoner Tolar off~red Resolution No. PC76-164 and moved for lts passage and adoptlon. that the Anahelm Clty Plenning Commissio~ does hereby deny Petitlon 1'0~ Variance No. 2837 on the basis thaC the propvsal would establish two residences on one RS-72~0 lat and~ therefore~ constitute a multipZ~~family use In a single-family z~nc; and that the petltioner did not demonstrate that a hardship would be created if said waiver were not grante,d. (See Resolutlo~ Book) On roll cell~ the foregoing resolution Nas pa~sed by the follawing vote: AYE5; COMMISSIONERSt BARNES~ FARANO, HERBST. KING, TOLAR~ JOHN50N NOES: COMMIS510NERSt NONE ABSEN7: COMMlSSIONERS: MORLEY VARIANCE N0. 28~9 ' P~eLIC HEARING, SIXPENCE iNNS OF AN~ERICA~ (NC.~ 1720 East Garry Av~enu~- Sulte 223. Sa~ta Ana~ C~,. 92705 (Owner); TONY h1aTTHEWS E ASSOCIA7E5~ 1720 Eaat Sarry Avenue, Sui te 223, S~nta Ana, Ca~ 917fl5 ~Agent) ; requesting WAIVER OF REQUIRED STREET FRON7AGE, TO ESTI~Bl.15N A L07 lJtTH0U7 FRONTAGE ON A PUB~.IC STREET on propdrty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land coo~sisting of approximately 1.6 acres located adJacent Co tha north std~ af the Riverside Fr~e~way and snutherly of tho southeast corner of Vta eurton Street and State College eoulevar:i, Property presently classif~ed ML (INDUSTRIAI~ ~.IMITED) ZONE. Plo cme indlceted thetr presence in o~position to the subJect petitien. Although the Stett Repart to the Flannl~~g Cornmisston dated August 30, 1976~ was not rnad at the publtc hearing~ said Staff 3eport is referred to and inade a part of the minutes. Mr. Lawrence Mcperrtwtt, rapresenting the petltioner~ appeared befare the Planning Commtsslon and stated he had revicwed the Staff'S recommendations pcrtaining to the proposal and h~d no obJections; and that the Sixpence I~ns wouid be leasing out the subJect property. • ~ • MINUTE~'>, CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIO~d, Au~ust 30, 197fi VAPtIAN(:E N0, 2a3q (Contlnu~d) THF. PUlILIC HEARING WAS CI,OSED. 76-~~10 0(icus~~ton pursueci concerning an nasement whlch would provide access to tho subJect property~ during which the petltioner sti}~ulated to pr~ovide a minimum 20-1'oot wide vehlcular access tu ~he subJect property from a dedtceted slre~et and that sald easament would be submttted tn thc City Nttorney~~i Office for approva) ond then flled a~~d rucorded i n the of f i ce of el~e Orange CounCy Record~~r. Commissioner King offered a motlon, seconded by C~mmissluner Nerbst and MOT1~.1N CARRIED (Commissioner Mor~ey boing absent), that thc linahcim Cit.y Planning Commisslon does I~er~by recommend to the Clty Cauncil oP tlie City af Anahelm that the subJect proJect be exempt from the requlrement to prepare an environmenta) imp~ct report~ pursuani to the provl!ttons of the Californla Environmental Quality Ac:t. Commissioner King offera:l Resolutlon No. PC76-166 and rtaved far its passage and edopclon~ tha~t the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does her~by grent Petition for Varianca Nc~. 2A~9 on the basls that the pet~tloner demonstrated that a~ hardshlp would be created iF sald walver were not granted; and subJ~ct to the stlpulatlonR of the peCikPoner;Ana subJ~ct to the Interdepartmental t,ommlttee r~commendatlons. (Sae Resolutlon Book) On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votz: AYES: COMMlSSIONERS: BARN[S~ FARANO~ IiERBST~ KING~ TOLAR~ JOHNSON NdES; COMMISSION~RSt NON~ ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: MORLEY CONDITIONAL USE -°UpLIC HEARING. FIRST AMERICAN TRUST CONPAt~Y AMD THO~~AS P. WAIKERe ~r~CDCV PFHMiT N0. 1638 2ti>; East Coast Highway~ Corona del Mar, Ca~ g26~5 (Owners ; ~~~~,.~. SC02~AR0~ 21~0-B Ea~t Via Burton Street~ Anaheim~ C~. 92A06 (Agent); requesting AUTO PA~NTING AN~ BUDY REPAI~ on property describcsd as a rectangularly-shaped parce~i of l~nd consisting of approxfnately 1.1 acre having a frontage of approxlmately 167 feet on the sou~h ~ide of Via Burton Street~ having a maximum depth of approximately 293 feet.~ being locrted approximataly 45~ feet east of the centerltne of State College Boulevard, and further described as 2100-6 East Vta Burton Street. Property presently classified ML (lNaUSTRiAL~ LIMiTEO) ZONE. No one indfcated their presence in opposition to subject pettt(on. Althaugh the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 3~. 1976, was not read at the publ'ic hearing~ said Staff Rep.~rt is rnferred to and made ~ part of the mtnut~s. Mr. Thomas P. Llalker~ ane of the agc:nts for the petitioner~ appeared b~:fore the Plan~ing Commission and stated they had filed no bui'iding plans and speciftcatt~ns sin~e they were not proposing to construct a building, and the existing buildtng on the site rras about 13 or 14 years old; that they had patd for street improvementY, street llghttng, etc.~ and there were presently 9 lights closer than 20b feet apart adJacent to the subJect property; that the tenant af the l0~OQ0-square foot buil~iing did not need all of the space and they had taken It back for anott~er ten~nt; that, in March or Aprilp 1976~ Ashaill-Burke and Company had presented the prnposed use ~+nd a le:ase was stgned; that a f(re clsarance had been issued by the Fire Department on May 25, 1976, to Install automotive spray bouths ax a cost of $8~000 or $9~000 tnside the bullding, which were installed subsequent to recelving verbal approval and later a lette~ of approval; ihat th~n they recelved a notice of violation frrxn the Zoning Diviston on Hay 26~ 1976; and that the business license for the subJect use had been tram ferred from the tenant's prevlous address to the sub,ject property and a fee was patd for same. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLO5ED. Deputy City Attorney ~rank Lowry explalned tnat a c•onc:itional use permit was required for the proposed u~a !n the ML Zone; and that, if the lights were (n~ the petltioners would not l~avn to comply with the rcqufr~ement again. Assistant Pla~ner Joel Flck advised that the referenco to Qlans and specificatlons in Che recamme~ded co~sd!tions of approvel were those drawings which were submltted with the application uy che petitloner. s ~ ~ MINUTkS~ CITY PI.ANNING C0~!MISSION~ Augusx 3d~ ~97~ CONDITIONAL_ US_E PERI4IT N0. 16~(S (Contlnuecl) 76-411 It wes noted that the Dlract~r of the Alan~(ng DepArtment had dete~nitne.~ that the propored actlvfty fell withlr~ the derin(tlon of Sectlon 3.01~ Clrxs 1, c~f the Clty of Analielm Guidelines to the Requlremsnts for en Environmental Impact ReporC and was, therePare~ cacego~~cally exempt from the requlrcmnnt to fllc an Glit. Commissl~nar Kin~ afferesd Resolutlon Nu. PC76-167 and nwaved for its passage end adoptlon~ that the AnehAfm City Plnnning Commtssion does heraGy gra~nt Fetltlon for Condlilona) Us~ Pe~mlt No, ~63A sub]ect to lhe concilci~ii that no ou~~d~or repalr work or paintlrg sha11 bn conducted and there shall br. no outdoor st~rage of ve~hicles on thc subJect pro~,~erty; and subJeCt to the inCerdopartmenta) Commtttee recommendatlons. (Sne Resolutlon Book) On roll call~ the forcgning resoluclon r~as pas~~ed by the foliawing vota: AYES: CnMMISSI0NER5: BARNES~ FARANO, t1ERB5T~ KING~ 70~.AR~ JOIiNSON WOES: COMMiSSI0NkR5: NONE ABSEN'T; COMMISSIONERS: MORLEY CONDITIONAL U5E - PUBLIC NEARING. JOH~I H. AND VALERIF S. SCUDDER~ 14~ No~•th Bay Front~ f'ERMI'C ~~0. 16~~7 Balboa Island~ Ca. g16G1 (Lessees); I.EASE-ALL ANANEIM~ 167i1 Nale " '""""~"- Avenue ~ P. 0. Box 1711 i~ ~ 1 rvl rie ~ Ca. 92713 (Agent) ; request 1 ng AUTO SALES AN1~ FEPAIR ~n properky de~scribed as an irregularly-shapecl par'cel af land consisttng of app~oximately 10.9 acres having ~ frontage oF approximataly 465 feet un the east s(de of Ariahetrn Boulevard, having a maximum ctepth of approxtmately 1060 feet~ being located appraxlmately 575 feet south of the centerltne ~k Cerritos Avenuc~ and further described as 1552~D~ 1,56-B, 155~8 ~ n~ and 15~91i-D South Anahe~m Baulevard. Property pres~ntly classlFled MI. (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMI1'ED) ZONE. No one indicated their presence in oppositlon to the subJec: petitlon. Although tht Staff Report to the Planning Commisslon dA~~ed A~~gust 3~~ ~975, was not r~ad at Che public hearing, said Staff Report is referred tc a~c! -nadr. a~art of the minutes. Ms. Koryn Barkenhagen, representin.q the agent for the petitioner, appearcd before the Planning Commission and stated the facilittes at che subJect property we~~ about 80$ occupied; that atthough all of the tenants had received Lhei~ a~~erating permits from the Cit~, lh:~y were now advlsed that the aroFerty was nat zoned praper2y for some of th~ uses; that thcre was no outdoor starage aliowed on the property. th~t there was adequate parking, and there had been no problems with the operations of the tenants; and that they h:d applied for the subJect conditional use parmit Co make the uses on the property lagal. THE PUBLIC HFARING WAS CLOSED. Assistant Planning Dlrector-Z~ning Annika Santrlahti advised that Variance No, 2753 Was prevlausly granted o~i the sub~ect property to permit spec(fic uses and, subsequently, indlviduals had applied for and werc issued business licenses fc~r uses relattng to automotive and Staff felt that a conditional use pe~mit was necPSSary to bring said tndustrlal use~ (nto conformancc~ with the zone requirements, Constderable disc~assion pursued concerniny the uses gr~nted for the office buildings and the uses that were pcrmitted by rtgh: in the industrial portion of the factlittes at this lo~~tion. and it was~ determined ~n,*~t the uses granted under the previou~ varlance concerned only L•he front two buildings ~,~hich were approved for specl`Ic commercisl office uses and the use~ ~n question were fur the industrial buildings on the property. Miss Santalahti advised that the proposed uses relnted to autort+otive appeared tc be heavter than generally permltted in the ML Zone which would no! permtt. hea~~y commerclal, general comme~cial, or heavy industrial uses whare such uses would Impact other industrla) tenants with ~oise~ dust~ etc, Deputy City Attorney Frar.k Lowry advlsed that the proposed list of uses cortalnecl a mixture lncluding the wholesale autn d~aler who would bring in heavy commercial, and furnlt~~re uphol~tte ry and auto upholstery, and said usea would bc permttted by ca~ditional use permlt; and that the Zaning Enforcement Officer was vr.ry famillar with the Zvnlny Code I~ this respect~ since the foregoing uses were heavy commerclal ard heavY manufacturing. ~ m^ ~ MIMUTFS~ CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION~ Augu~t 3d~ ~~7b CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT NQ. 1647 (Continued) 76-412 tn response to questioning by tlie Planning Conanisslon, Mr. Bob l.eaverton~ a~lso reprasonting the agent for the petltSoner~ appeared 6efare the Commisslpn d11d stipul~ted that ther~ would be no outdoor automc~blle repair work and no outdoar storAg~ of ~rehiclcs on the subJect property. Mr. Leoverton explained that the t~rnsml~ston rnpalr usa waa nox nulsy slnca the tranemt~sions were brought fnto the ehop to b-s repaired and chen removed; and that :he aute dealer w~uld not have vehlcles parked on the outslde c~f :Fir. bullding since they were unable to obCaln tnsurance for +~ny vehir.les parkod outnlde. Commissioner F~rano nocrd that if the appllcents were Issuec~ e license wfth a notation tha~t the Ilcen~e serv~ed as a revenue measure only ancl dld n~~t tmply approval of zoning, sald procedure v~ould prevent some confusion for the businessmen In the community. Chairman Johnson noted that if thP license was ~alled a llcense rather than a~armiC~ tl~at would al~o help. It, was noted that th~ Director ~~f the Planning Oepartment had determined ehat the ~~ropa~ed activlty fell within the definitfon of Sectlon 3.~1- Class 1~ of the City of Anahe~ir~ Guldellnes to the aequlreme~ta for an Envi~onmental Impact Report ancl w~s~ kherefore~ categorlcally ~xempt from thc requirement to flle an EIR, Commissioner Farano offared Resolutiun No. PC76-168 and moved for (ts passage and adoptlon~ that the Anaheim City Plan~iing Commission does hereby 9rant P~etttt~n for Condltional Use Permlt No, 1647. subJect to the stipulati~m of the petttloner and subJec~ to the lnterdepartmental Commlttee r~scommendatlon. (~ee Resulution saok) On roll call~ the Poregoing resolutioh was passed by the followiny .~,~te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES~ FARANO~ HERBST~ KIPiG~ 70LAR, JOHP~SON NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMh11SSlONERS: MURLEY ENVIRONMEN7AL IMPACT -~'UBLIC HEARING. TEXACO-ANAHEIM Hfl.LS. INC.~ 3$0 ~<<~elm Nills 3~t' pnaheim ~~ REPORT N0. 1$5 Road~ l~naheim~ C~. 92807 (Owner); ANANEIM HIL.L~ ~rape ent) 9?~07 (A C i , ~~~~.r?hed as ~, 2838 IANCE N0 VAP . g 8. m, Hills Road~ Anafie irregulariy-shapad par~cel of land consls~ti~g ~ ~~-~~ ~~~~~r.ely 26 . , acres having a frontage of approximately 7.11~ ;• `h= north TENTATIVE MAP OF stde of Canyon Rim R~ad~ having a maximum :'.e~~-~~ r~~rf~.imately of the - TRACT N0, 9466 1060 feet, and being located approximatr_ly ' ' ~.•~E~ ~.. ~fled _: -..= cente~li~e of Serrano Avenue, Property pr RS-A-43~000(SC) (RESIDENTlAL/AGRICULTUR~I =. ~~ .: . , ftIDOR OVERIAY) ZONG. REQUEST~D VAR I ANCE : 41AI VER OF REQU I REMENT THAT ALL LOTS REAR-Or~ A r ~•~~ , r~ S GHWAYS. TENTATIVE TRAC7 REQUEST: ENGINEER: LIND ~ HILLERUD, INC.~ 25'S ~~~~• ~~•' ±~• ~~~~ Drive~ osed for 4 San Marino~ Ca. 91108. Sub~ect proper N subdlvision into 64 RS-HS-l0~OQ0(SC) loc~, ENVIRONMENTAL tMPACT - DEVE~OPER: ANAHEIM HILL5~ iNC., 380 Anahe~~~~~+~ -N; _5 n is Road~ Anahaim~ 15 Huntin~ ~n REPORT N0. 184 .. ~ Ca. 923oE. ENGINEER: LIND b HILLERU San Marino~ Ca, 9110$, Subject ~~~pF -y~ canslsr ~g of an Drive TENTATIVE h~AP OF ~ irregularly-shapad parcel uf land cons'stin ~f =~ f ~ approxi.ately 24 n the south t YFtACT N0, 94b5 ee o r acres having a frontage of approximate~y side of Canyor~ Rim Road, hav;ng a maxi~.~~r~ dr~th of approx(maCe1Y 1900 f~eC~ and being ~ocateci approximately :070 feet ~cst of the 6~ 1 centerline of Serr~no Avenue, is pr'aao~ed ~ar subdtvision Into as-HS-io,oeo(sc) ~ocs. Mr~. Pam Berry indicated her presence~ r-aresenting the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Asso~iatian and as a concerned citizen, an~i watved the f«11 reading of the Sta~f Report to the Planning Commission dated August 3~-. '97F~~ on th~ ~s~~~- that she had revtewed a copy of same. Although the Stt~i't Report to the Pianninci Commissfon was not rzad at the ~ublic hearing~ s~id report ls rcferred to and made a part of the minutes. ---~ ~ .~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY P~ANNING f,OMMISSION~ August ;~0~ 19ib 76-413 G•~IVIRON!1EI~~TAI IMPACT REPaRT N0, 185, VARtpr,C~ N0, z838~ TENTATIVk MAP OF TRACT N0. 946b; ENVIRONMCNTAL IMPACT RfPORT N0. l84~ TENTP.TIVf. MAP OF TRACT N0. 9465 tContlnuesd) Mr. Phillip Bettencaurt~ representing th~s agcnt for the pctttfoner~ appeared bafore the Plar~ning Cormnission and revicwcd the pr~~~osal ~ atating chat they concurred with, the ~ecammendatlons ~contAtned witfiln the St.afF Report wtth Cf~e excepti<m of tho 6-foot high m~sonry wall requirement~ aiong Canyo~~ Rim Roed; that thet~ cuncern was that the maJorlty~ tf ~oe all~ c-P the pads upan finlsh of grading would bo about 6 feet above Canyon Rim Road an~i to raquire thc m.~sonry wall woul.f deny vlcws for somc of the propased lots; that a different fen~:ing material to allow an openwork~ decor~,tlve type fe~ce coulci ba approved pursuanC tn C(ty Counc(I pollcy; tf,at a solld masonry fence would not only deny the vlews but wnuld co~tribute marylnally tc the sound attenuation of the abutttng rf~idencr,s; t~at tn place the f~:nco along the prorerty line would ~also b~ awkward stnce the property line wauld be at the~ bottom ~f thcs sl~pas; that they would aiso like the fence to be compatlble with tt,e landscape plan for oth~r pro,iects in the Area; and that the City Councfl poltcy adoptesd tn 1973 was better tha~~ the flat land type subdlvislon standards. Mrs. Pam Beiry aWpeared befo~~e the Planning Commissl~n and raised questlona pertalning to thc propnsed scho~l site (tJ~~. 3)~ staCing that Anaheim Illlls~ Inc.~ had enterrd (ntr an ag~eement wtr.h the City of Anaheim~ the Schaol Distrlct~ and the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Assocl~al•ion fr~r a school site~ wit,h the provtslons that any kracts daveloped wtthin a 50Q-foot rt~dlus of the center of the proposed sch~al site would dedicate said 500 fect; that~ although the Assor.iation was not oppused tc the proposed tracts~ they w~re trytng to keep an eye c•n the school site in view of the fact that an ~mendment to the agreement we~s in proce.ss and the fact th~t the Association was un~b~e to obtain an answer from Anahelm Htlls~ lnc., as to whetiher or not the proposed tracts would tntrude into the 5~0-foot radlus for• said school site. In rebuttal~ M~. r~ettencouri explained th~t the provlsions af the agrsement were that whcn a tract map was recorded within S00 feet of the center of the pro;,osed scliool stte that r.he 18nd would be dedicated far school siCe purposes, Mrs, Berry th~en stated that th~ legal descr{ption on the notice of publtc hea~ing indicated tliat Tract No. 9~!~~6 was located appr4ximately 730 feet from Serrano A~enue~ in which case~ the subJect property might abut the center of the proposed school stte. Mr. Bettencour•t then stated that Anaheim N(lls, Inc.} had a legal ~bliyation ta a-nvey the school site under the provisions outlined and the petitloners were well aware of the comnitments in that respect. Mrs. Berry ~tated the area was very close to beln~ able to obtain the scheo) slte and that Anaheim Hills~ Inc.~ had peCit(oned for the aforementtoned amendme~r to the ag~e~ment; and that she was also Interested to know if thc: traffic study of the entire Hill a~d Canyon area~ as requested by Commissionea• B3rnes~ was ever made and what were the ftndings. Asslstant Plannin~~ Dlr~.tor-Zon?ng Annika Santalahtl advised that the circulatlon study wtYich was requested by the Planning Commission an June 7e 1976~ following actlon on Tract No. 9217e was to include those properties which were not Included in the Circulatlon Element of the Anahelm Htils General Ptan; and that, 1~+ hsr opinion, the questions bPing raised pertalned to the environmental impact or the proposed tracts. Mr. Bettencourt stlpulated that the trafP(c signal require~r~ent aK Ans`~Pim Illlls Road and Nohl Ranch Road was very renx~te to the subJecC tracts and said signal v~~uld oe caken care of in connection with the nex[ tract which would be propased in the SubJect aree~ within the next six months and they would have, no quarrel Hith their parClcipatlon tn t~ic insxallation of satd signal at that time; and that the subJect eracts were in conformance with the contour gradtng pollcy. THE PUBLIC HERRiNG WAS Cl.OSED, Commissioner Fera~o offere~ a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CA~iRIED (Commissioner Ma~rley hef~g absent)~ that Environmental Impact Raport No. ~8S (supplementing Mastrr Envtronmental Impact Report No. 80)~ haviny been considered this date by the Anahetm City Planning Commission and evtdence~ both written rind oral~ having been presented to supplen~ent said draft EIR No. 185~ the Planning Commission beileves that ~ald draft EIR Mo. 1t~S does conform to the CSty and State Guidelines and the St~ate of Californta Environr+e,ntal Qual(ty Act and, based upon such information~ does hereby recommencf to the Clty Cauncll that they ~ertify said EIR ts in compitance with sald Environmental Quality Act. ~ 1 'J MINU7ES. CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ August 30~ rg76 16-~+ 14 ENVIRONIMCN7AL IMPACT R~PORT N0. 185~ VARIANCE k0. 2838, TENTATIVE MAP OF 7RACT N0, 9466; E„ N1i I RONMEN'fAL I~lPACT REPOR'f N0. I SN~ TENTAT I YE~ MAP_OF TR11C_T N0. L465 Con t i nued) Commissiongr Farana offered Rescrlution No. PC76-165 and moved far its pnssagp and adoptlon~ that thc Anaheim City Planntng Commixston does hereby grant Petltton for Variancd N~. 2838 for walver of the requlrement that all lots rear-on artnrtal ~~ighways to permlt one front-on iot and six s~ide-on lots on the Gasls that a herdship exlsts due to the topography and slze and shape oF the subJect property and~ furthermore~ that simllar we(vers have baen prevtously~ granted, and subJect to the Interdepartmental Commlttee recommendatlons, (See Resolutlon Dook) On roll call~ the Por~~~7oing resolutlon was passed by the Pollavinq vote: AYES; COMMISSIOPIERS: dARNE~~ FARANO~ HERBST~ KING~ TOLAR, JOHNSON NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSION~RS: MORLEY Commissiuner Farano ofFersd a rr~tlon~ secanded by Commissloner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner Morley being abssnt)~ thak the Anal~elm City Planning Commisslon does hereby approve Tract No, 91~66 for 64 R~-NS-10~000(SC) lots on the basis that the proposed subdivtstcn~ together with its design and imp~ovement, Is c~nsistent with the Clty of Anahelm General Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Sectlon 66473.5; subJect tu the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 9466 Is granted sudJect to the appraval of Reclassificatlon No. 73-74-46 to the RS-HS-10~000(SC) Zone and Variance No. za3~. 2. That should this subdivlslon be developed as more than one subdlvlslan, each subdlvision thereof shall he submltted in tentative form for approval. 3. That~ in accordarcc wlth City Council policy~ and as sttpulated to by the petittnner, a six (6) foot high, decoratfve, openwork fence shall b~ constructed on the south property line separating lat Nas. 1 and 2~ 14 and I,~ 19•21. 31-33~ 52-56~ 63 and 64 from Canyon Rim Road except that for corner lot Nos. 2, 14, 15, 31~ 3Z~ and 63, said f~nce shull be stepped down to a hetght of thirty (30) inches in the required front yard setback, except that pedestrian openings shall be provided in said t~ence where cul-de-sacs abut the Rlanned highway right-o`-way line af the arterlal highway; plans for said fenc.e to be submttted to the Plannin9 Departmznt for approval priur to flnal approval of the filnal tracL map. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigatton facillties~ shall be installed in the uncementr.d portion of r'-.,, arcrrial hiyhway parkway the fult distance of :caid fence; plans For said landscaping to be submitted to and subJect to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Matntenance. Following installatton and acceptance~ tha Clty of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenanr.e of said iandscaping. 4. That all ~ots within this tract shall be ser•ved by underground utlllties. 5. That a final tract map of subJect pro~~erty shall be submitted to and approved by thn City Council and th~n be recorded in the Office oi` the Orange County Recorder. 6. That the cavenan*_s, conditions~ and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office pri~r to Clty Counc(1 approval of the final tract map and~ further. r.hat the approved covenants~ conditions~ and restrictlons shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map, ]. That prior to filing the final tract map~ the applicant shali submit tc+ the City Attorney `or approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed functioni~g of the operaClnq co.*poratfon including~ but not limited to~ the articles of incorporation~ bylaw~, proposed mathods oF inanagement~ bonding to insure malntenance of common property and buildings~ and such uther information as the Cfty Attorney may desire to protect the CityF Its cttizens~ and the purchasers of the proJect. $. That street names shall b~ approved by the City Planninq Department p~tor to approval of a final tract map. 9. That dralnage of satd property shall be disposed of in a mannsr xatisfacto~y to the Cltiy Engiiieer. If, in the preparation of the slte~ sufftcient gradrng is requir~d to necessttate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between Oc2ober 15th and April 15th unless all requi;ed off-stte drainage facilities have been installed and are operative, Posttive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage factlities will be completed prlor to October 15th, Necessary rlght-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, o~r the Clty Council shali have initiated conderrn~ation proceedings therefor (the costs of whtch shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading aperations. The requtred dralnage faci~ities sfiell be of a 51ze and type sufficient to carry runoff ~Hater~ originattng from higher properties through sald property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Englneer. Sald d~ainage facilities shai) be the ftrst item ~F constructlon and shall be campteted and be functlonal throughout thP tract and from the downstream boundary of the ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIbN~ August 30~ 1g76 76-415 Et~VIaONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N~. 185, VARIANCE N0. 283A, TENTATIVE MAP OF T~CT N0. 9466; CNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORY N0. 104. TENTATiVE ~4AP OF TaACT N0, 3~+65 (Contlnued) .____._.... - property to the ulttmate polnt of disposal prlor to the (ssuance of any ftnel bulldiny lnspectlons or occup~ncy permits, Drbinage distrlct relmbursement agreeme~Lg may be made avallable to tha developers of sald property upon thel~ request. 10. That grading~ excavatlon~ and all other construction activltles shall be conducted tn such a manrie~ so es to minlmize the: passib111tY oP any slit originating from this pr•oJoct b~eing carrled int~ the Senta Ana River by storm water ortgtnAttng from or flowing thrnugh th1A proJect. 11. If permanent strect name signs have not been installsd, temporary street name siyns sha11 be installed prior to any occupency. 12, That Che developer of subJect tract shall enter into a speclal factlitlPs agrecment wlth the Clty for water facilltles (n the F1tgh Ele~ation System~ es requlrcd by Rule 1SB of the Water Utiltty Rates~ Rules~ and Regulatlons prlor to approval of a final tract map. 13. That prlor to the approval oP the final tract map~ the petltloner sha11 submit flnal spectf(c floor plans and elevations to the City Councll foi• approval, 14. That prior Co appr~v~il oF the flnal tract map~ a speclmen trae plan ar other informati~n~ acceptable to the planning Department~ shrsll be submitted to and approved by th~ Planntng Department in accordance with the provlsions of the "SC" Scec~lc Corrldor Zone-Overlay. Any decision made by the Flannin~ Department may be appealed Yo thc Planning Con~nisslon. 15. In accordance with the requlrc~ments of Sectlon 18.02.047 pertaining to the inltlal sale of residential homes in the City of Anahelm Planning Area "B"~ the seiler shall provlde each buyer with written informAtlon concerntng the I~naheim Genera) Plan and thP existing zoning within 3~0 feet of khe houndaries of subJect tract. Commissloner Farano offered a motioiti, seconcled by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIEp (Commissloner Morley being absent)~ that Environn~ental Imp~ct Report No, 184 (supplementing Master Environmenta) impact Report No. 80)~ having been c:onsidered thts iate by the Anaheim City Planning Conmissioii and evidence, bath writtcn and oral~ having been presented to supplement said draft EIR No, 1~34, the Planntng Commtsslon belleves that said draft EIR No. 184 doas conform to the City and State Gutdelines and the State of Caltfornia Environmental Quality Act and, based upon such information~ does hereby recommend to the Cit~ Council that they certify said EIR is in compllance with said Environmental Quality Act. Commisstoner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and M0710M CARRIED (Commtssioner Murley being absent)~ Chat tihe Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does herehy approve 7ract No. 9465 for 60 RS-NS-l0~OQ0(SC) lots on the basis that the proposed subdivision~ together ~ith its design a,,,1 improvement~ is consistent with the City of Rnahe(m General Plan~ pursuant tn Government Code Section 66473.5, and sub]ect to the following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be devetoped as m.~re tha~ one suhdiviston~ each subdlvislon thereoF shall be submitted in tPntative form for approval. 2. That, in accordance with Clty Council policy, and as stipulated to by the petitioner~ a six (6) foot hlgh~ decoratlve~ openwork fence shall be consxructPd on the north property line separating lot Nos. 1 th rv~ugh 5~ and 51 through 5~+ from Canyon Rim Road and plans for sald fence shall be submitted for Planning Department approval prt~r to City Councll appt'ovat of the final tract map. Reasonable landscaping~ including Irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the a~terfal highway parkway tl~ full distanc~ of sald fence; plans far said landscaping to be submitted to and subJect to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Mainter.ance. Following installation and acceptance~ the City of Anahelm shail assume the ~-esFunsi6ility for maintenance of said landscaptng. 3. That ail lots witftiin this tract shall be served by underground utilittes. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shalt be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of Che Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants~ conditions~ and restrlcttons shali be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to Clty Council approval of the final tract map and~ further~ that the approved covenants, conditions~ and restrtctions shall be recarded concurrently with the final tract map. 5. That prtor to flltng the final tract map~ ~ne aHplicant shall submit to thc City Attorney for appraval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed functtoning of the operatina corporation including~ but not limlted to~ the articles of incorRoratton, t~ylanvs. proposed methods of managemeni, bonding to insure mal~tenance nf common pruperty .... ~ ~ • MINUTES~ CITY PLl1NNING CUMMISSION~ August 3Q~ 1~76 /6-416 ENVIRONMENT~1~. IMPACT REPORT N0. 1a5~ VARIANCE N0. 2838~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 94E,6; ENVIRONM~NTAI. IMPACT RE.PORT N0. 18~. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT P10. 9W6S SCantinued) and 5ulldings~ and siach ~thar lnformntion ss the City Attorney may desire to pr~tect tl~e City~ Its cttizens~ ond ti~e purchasers o} the proJect. 7. Thet street names shall bn approved by the City Planning Departrnent pr9or to approval oP a final tract map. 8. That drafnage of 3AI~ pt•operty shall be dispose~l of In a manner satisfact~ry to the City Engtneer. If. i~ the preparaklon of the site, sufficlent graciing Is required to nocessltate a grading permlt, no wnrk on gr~ding will be permitted betweon October iSth anci A~ril 15th unless all required off-~slte dralnage focilitles have boen tnstallnd and are opnratlvA. Positlve assurance ~I~rll be provlded the City that such dralnag~ fACilittas will be c~r,mteted prlor to OctobAr 15th. N~cessary rlght•of•way for off-stte drainage factltties sh~ll be dedtcatad to tliP City~ or the City Councll shall have Initia~ted condemnation proceadings therefor (the cosi.s of whlch shall be borne by the developer) prlor to tl-e commenccment of grrding operatlons. The requlre~d dratnaye facllitles shall b~ of a size and typc~ suffic~cnt tu ca~ry runo~f weters origtnatirig irom higliar propertics through sald property to ulttmate dlsposal as apprnved by the City Engineer. Sald drainage factlities shall be the first item ~{' ~onstruGtlon and shall bc completed and be functlonal throughuut the tract and fram the downstream boundary of tfie property to the ultlmate point oT disp~sal prior to tlie lssuance of any final bu(Iding inspectlons ur occupancy permits, Dralnage district reimbursemen*.. agreements may be made avallable to the deveicpers of sald pr~Qerty upon thelr request. 9. That grading~ excavatlon~ and all o:her construction activities shal) be -.~~~•,;.*.ed in such a manner so as to minimizc tlie possibility oF any silt origtnating from tni:< proJect beir-y carrled Into the Santa Ana River uy storm water orlglnatin~g Prom or flow!ng through thls pr~;ect. 10. IF permanenr. street nan~e signs have rsot been installed~ temporary st~eet name signs ~liall be installed prlor to any occupancy. 11. That nc~ water shall be allowed to drain from thi~ tract into the Walnut Canyon R+~scrvoir wtthout pr•tor approval of the City of Anaheim Utilitles Depart:nent. 12. 'fhak the developer oP sub,ject tract shall enter into a speci~l facilitles a~rcec~ent with ti~e f,ity for water faciliiles in the Nlgh Elevation System~ as required by Rule 15g of the Water Utility Rates, Rulcs~ and Regulattons prior to approva) of a fina! tract mzp~ as stipulated to by the petitioner. 13. That prior to the approval of the finai trac~ map~ the petitioner sF~ali ~~bmlt fina~ specific floor plans ai~d elevations .o the City Council for approval. 14. That p~tor to approva) of the fin~l tract map, a specim~n tree plan or other information~ acceptable to the Planning Department, shall be submittec~ to and appr~ved by the Planning Department in accordance wlth the p~ovisions of the "S~" Scenic Corrldor Zone-Overlay. Any d~cision made by the Plan~ing Department may be appealed to the Planning Coi~,mission. 15. In accordanre with the requirements of Sectfon 18,02.047 pertaini~~g to the tnitial sale af resident(al homes in the City of Anaheim Pl~nning Area ~'B1°~ the seller shall provtde each buyer with wrttten information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning witl~in 3~~ feet of the boundaries of subJect tract. The Planning Commission generally concurred that the suggestion of the City Traff(c Enyineer, for consideration of a requirement that the developer pay for one-half of the co~ts for lnstallatian of traffic signalization at the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills Road~ b~~ considered wlth the nLxt tract in the subJect area~ as stipulated to hy Mr. Bettencourt. ~.....~.~ ~ ~ ~ h!INUTF.S, Ci7Y PLANNING COMMISSIQ~I~ August• 3~~ 1976 76-417 ;tEf`ORTS A~~I) - I TE:M NQ. 1 • RF.COMt1EN~A'I' I QNS 1~~. ~.``~~R E I R NE~AT I VE U[CLARAT I ON ^ For cons t ruct t on of a ""-"'-"'!'~ new collector street, "Nancock Plnce." Tha Sk~eff Rnport t~ the Planning Commission dat•ed Nuc~ust 30~ 1`176~ was presente~! and made a part of l•hR n.inutns. Commitsion~cr Herbst note~l that~ in hts ~~ninion. tress ~fown the mldcif~s ~~ thr, proposc~i str~et werm unn~cesg~ry and would create a p++rkw~u maintenance prablr.m with t~~lien leaves~ etc. Deputy City AttornPy Frank Lawry advised that xh~ dev.r,toperi had ayreeJ to r~rla~e the treeg that waulcl be removcci from che stre~et right-of-way ~~rhen ttieir indlvidual propertles were devel~~pc~i. Sr. Staff Assistant-Redavelopment Dan D'Urso noted for :he Planning Commisslon that the cost of the~ nrupnsed str•eet Imprnvements would be approximately $80~0~0; CF~at if the trees remalned !~, tne streeC right-uf-wr.iy, the maintenance wou~d be the burden of the CtCy of Anahelm~ however~ mAintenarce of the re~~lacemen~ tree4 and or-site landscaping w<3uld be a part ~f tho cost of in<1lvlciual devclopcrs rathe~ than an a~ditlo~:~1 expense to the City; thnt apprnxlmately one-half of t.he lh7 trges were ~lead ar wer~ stumps; that the Ci~ty wou:.; pre~er the ~i~~-`oot wicl^ 4tre.et~ with the er~es to be replaced by the adJ~c~nt E>roperty owners. as +~~re~d to by s~id Fro,aerty owners; and that the proposed sCreet rtqht-of-way would ~emnve only ab~~ut one-eightl~ of an acre from the tax rolls. Asslstant Planning Olrect~r-Zoning .4nn1!<<, Santalahti ~dvised that there was a hlstory of d~edicat(on In connectlon witfi the proposed streot. Cornnissioner Nerbst offered a motion~ ::+~~~nded by Commissioner Kinq and M!OTION CARRIED (Co,~Nnissfuner Morley being absent), that the Ana!ielm Clty Plt+nning Commission do~s herehy find th~~t the proposed proJect wouid have no si~nificant environmental effect and therefor~ does recommencl to the ~ity Council ~f the CitY of Anaheim that the subJect proJect be ex~~mpt from thk~ requi rement to prr..p:~~•e an envt ronrnental impa~t report; pursuant to the provisfons of the California Environmeno-al Qual3ty ~ct; th~~t the plannl~~g Commission does further :ecomnend that the: pro~~esed new ~nterlor (ndustrial street be construc±ed wltl~out a me:dtan an~i that the exis~inc; specimen trees be removcd and replaced in accordance wlth the '~ree Pre~ervation Ordinance on the basis that the propo~ed industrial stre~et docs not traverse a residcntial area, is not classiftcd as an arterfal highway~ ~nd prouides g~od access and circulatton for appruximately 'S0 acres of industrtally-designate:d land. ITEM N0. 2 T'~l1CT NOS, 916~ aNL ~i170 - Reque~t for waiver of requlrement to f~rm a community association - Property cnnsisr.ing of approximately 13.$ acres located on the north side of la Palma Avenue approximately ~OQ feet west of the northerly extension of Weir Canyon Road. The Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 3~~ 1°76~ was presen~ed and made a part of the mini~tes. It was noted that~ pursuant tc Section 17.06.29~ of the Anaheim Munictpal Code~ the applicant~ Miit tladole of Madole and Assoc.tates~ Inz., was requesting waiver of the requiremeni to form a mandatory comm~niCy association which was to provlde for the maintenance of landscaped slopes~ as speclfled in Section 17•~6.13~ of salu Code. In response to ~uestionin~ by the Plann(na Commission, Deputy Clty Attorney Frank Lcwry advised that the subJect request would be scheduled for Clty Council publlc heartng following a Plrjnning Commission recommendation thereon. Commissioner Farano offered a inotion~ seconded by CommissiP~anningQCammissio~nr,doesRhereby (Commissioner Morley being abs~nt)~ that the Anahetm City racommend to the ~i*.y Council of the City of Anah~eim that the requirement to form a ccxnmunity ass~clatlon in connection with Tract ~los. 9169 and 917~ be waived~ s~bJect to the cor-dition that th~ developer make pravisions t~ assure that the purchasers af the subJec~~ lots are informed about the requtrement to malntaln the slopes. ~ ~ 76-418 Mi~iu•rrs, ciT~ PLIIWNI~IG cnr~ir,sir,N, Auctust 3Q, ~gN, I TF:N N~. '3 '~'15"(''fT'~}1711. USC PF.Ri11T N~. 1?(1Fi - Rdquest fo~ approvn) of rovisPd plens~ - Propnrty conslsting of r~pproximntaly Q.6 acre locatc~l betwaen Rall Ra~d ancl 9erry Avenur. eppr~ximately q~n fcet e~~st cf the centerllnc of Nmrbor Bo~ilev.~rd, Thr. Stnf~~ Report t~ th~ Pl~nnlnq Commissinn dated Au~u~t 'i~~ 197~~~ wAS presented and mAde a ~~~rt oF thc min~ite~, Cc~mmissl~~ner Kinn ~~~~~i~rc~l if th~ ~rop~rf.y c~wners wlthin 1~0 fcet ~f th~~ suh,~ecC property had bcen notl fte~l thnt t'tir trash plckup was prnpoged sl~nq Herry Av~nue, Assistant Planninq Dlrer,t~r-7c~ninr~ Annikfl 5antalahtl ~r.lvlsed in the neqative. Mr. Lee Webh, ~ne ~P ti~e devel~pers~ apf~eared before the Plqnnlnn Commisslon and state<i that, a'~thounh the bu(l~lln~s hi~1 bcrn relocat~d since the plan was approvzd by the Clty Counci l, a 5-f~ot hui l r11nq seth~clc wal ver wa~ ~nprave~l I:y the f,t ty Counci 1; r.h~t lASt Oct~ber they and thel r~3rchi tect ~ t1r, John Sa:lnl ~ mr.t wltti three C i ty ataff inembers, Incluriing Miss Snntnlahti and Mr. "o~ers (-~rohably referrin~ to Charles Roberts) t'rom the Planninc~ DepArtment, who assure~l thr.m that their plans ware In nccordence ~~ith the approva i of th~ condi tlon~~l use pr•rml t; that the CI ty staFf hnd ~~ccess t~ al 1 nf the records in~i minutes ~~f the public hearings in connectlon wilh the devolopment of the property; kh~~t thcy harl als~ g~ne throuqh ~~ plan cho~k on thc cl~velopment; and that. the two ndJacent prop~rtles ~~~re ~oneJ for comrrx~rclal development. In response to questi~ninn by Commissioner Kin9, Mr. Webb star.ed the proposed locatfan for the trash stora~e are~~ hacl been chenqed for the tli i rd t f ine: , and the Trrf f I c Eng i neer and disposal cor~p~iny had a~reed that the proposed location was the best plnce fc~r it. Commis~~•.ner Herbst t~ok exceptl~n. noting that the revlsed plans didnat conform to the however. ( f the concept appr~ved by the Planning Commission at the publlr. hearlnn; property o+Nners anc+ resldents 'n the area would go along with th~ pr~posal. (t woul~ be alriqht. but tc~ Fin~f out how tt,z pe~ple felt a new public hearing wauld be re~uired. Ne furthar note:! that the revi se~l p 1~ns d i d not I ndl cate ttie 1 an~lscap i ng wh I ch wa, shown on the orlnfne' plr~ns; th~t Cf~e ~levelopment was encroachin~ ~n the resldent'lal street; and tnat the swim~ninq poo~ had apParenkly heen rPlocated, with no l~ndscap(ni~ adjacent to the property line. Commis~ioner 9arnes noted th.~t the ori~inal plans indicated a 45-footsetback from the west property llne a~c1 said plans wEre appravPd by ttie City Council. Mr. Webh further expt~inen that they had reduced the number of units p'oposed from ~+2 to 33 plus a manager's unft; and that con5tructlon was practically underway, Cummission~r Farano note~ocati~n~ofhthers~uimrhnn pool,bb~tenotAwith~the~locttlonwof,the t seriously ob.Ject ta the trash storacle area. The praJect manaqer for tl~e subJect proJect appearecl before the Plannfng Corrmission and stated thaC the plans were now past the schematlcs staqes; that the pl~mbing permlts had been promiseci~ etc.; and on that basis they were speakin~ a hardship If changes were presently required since tlie delays would be financlally serious. Ne inqulred where the Planninct Comr~ission would like to have t~ie trash storac-e area loeateci; whereupon. Chairman Jnhnson advised th~~t it was not within the scope of the Comnissi~n's responslbil~ties to desinn proJects. Commission~r Farano notr.cl that the petitioners had the City recorJs And minutes avallable for thetr informatlc,n, also. for the planning of the pr:,posal. The Plannln~ Corr~nission in~iica[ed that the revised plans. as submtttad~ were not in substantia~ conforma~~ce with the approval af th~ usr~ and that s~ld plans would have to be further revised for possible consideration wit tw.~ weeks. The proJpct manager took exceptton~ stating th~t the time delays would be serlou~. Commissioner Barn-s noted that tha rules pertaining to trash pickup were not made arbicrarily; that ttie s~ibJCCt developers had heen in tiie bustness onci must have kn~wn about th~ type ef delays t~ expect, sPnce there ~esre u~ually many; and that a two-week ~ • MItIUTGS, CIIY PLAN~•IING COMMI!;SI~II. August 30. ~97h ~6"~19 17~M N0, 3 ~Contlnued) del~y wnuld b~ : m~~ch shartcr tlirb than it wauld take If the proposal ~.ore to be readve ~ 3ed for n new pub 1 1 c heari ng. Commissloner Farano noted that because of the misunderst~ndirc~s that hnd alrea~Jy te~.~.n place In conne,ctlon wlth tho suAJect development~ it was essantlal that the Planning Commisslon havn the plans mc~diflud pursuant to the fnrec~ol.~~~ discusslon prlor to formulating a r~ -~~rnm~n~l~c ~m t~ the Clty ~ouncil; and thxt, tn his opl~lon~ thnre w~s no need to readvertlse the proposal. Commisslnnar Rornns offero~l e rn~tlon~ seconded by Commissloner King and M4TIQN CARRIED (Comm?ssloner Murley being absent)~ thaL thc Anahefm Clty Planning CAmmisslon does hereby continue considerattan of revlsed plans in connectlon wlth Conditlonal Uso Permtt f~o. 13~~ to the Planning Commisslon mer..ting of S~piember 13~ 197(~, for further mudlficati~ns to sald plnns~ I TEM ~~0. -~ CON 1 n lAL USE PEP,MI'f ~JO. 1166 - Request far ex.tension of time - Property consistlnc~ of approxlmately O.~i acr~ located at ~-~~ Kotclla Way. The Staff Report to tho Planning Commission dated Au~qust 3~~ 197~- was presented and made a pa~t of the mi~utes. It was not~~d that the applicant~ Michael L. Valen~ Presiclent of The Town Tour Fun Dus Company~ was requesting an axtenslon of tlmc for Candltiar~al Use Permit No, 1166 tn permlt bus storaqe and repalr facilltles and lrictdental renta) of automnhtles at the subject location. Commissloner Farano offered a mc~tion~ seconded by C~innissloner King and MQTION CARRIEQ (Commlssloner Morley being abs~nt)• tMat the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commtsston does hnreby grant an extension of tlme for Condltional Use Permlt No. 1156~ sald ttme extensfoii to be+ retroactlve to January 21 . 1975. and to expi re January 91 ~ 1977• ADJOURNM~NT - Thdre being ho further business to discuss~ ~Commissloner 7olar offered a motion~ secanded by ".ommissloner King and MO"fION CARRIEO (Commissioner hSorley being absent)~ that the meetiny be adJourned, the me~ting ~dJourned at 7:30 P.m. Respectfully submitted~ ~ ~ Patrlcla B. Scanlan, Secretary Anahetm City Planning Commission PES :hm 0 R C 0 MICROf li MING SERVICE, IMC