The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1977/12/05City Hall Anahelm~ Callfor~la 0-• ,.e~,~be r 5~ 19 7% REGULAR MEETtNG OF THE ANAt1ElM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION REGUL4R - The regular meeting of the Anaheim CILy Ptanning Commission was called to MEETING order by Chafrman Tolar at 1:30 p.m.~ Decemwer 5, 191i, in the Gouncil Chamber~ a quorum being prese~t. PRES~NT - CHAIRMAN: Tolar COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, David~ Nerbst~ King Commissioncr linn Arrlved at 3:00 p.m. ABSENT ~ CONM1551UNER5: Johnson ALSO - Jack Whitc PRESENT Annika Santalahti J~y 71tus J. J. ~ashiro Edith Harris Deputy City Attorney Assista~~ Ot.~r.ctor for Zoning Office Engineer Assist~nt Planne• Planntng Gommissian Secretary PIEDGE OF - The Pledga of Alleglance to thr: Flag of tht United States of Amet'ica was ALLEGihNCE led by Commissi~ner Herbst. ITEM N0. 13 '~"N~T7~T~PE DECLARATION PUBIIG WEARING. OWNER; CALIFOPNIA LUTHERAN glBlE OND ION L USE ERMIT N0. 1775 SCNOOL~ 13~+5 South Burl+ngton Avenue, Los Angeles~ -""-"'-' - CA 9000G. AGENT: IRWIN b ASS6CIATES. 1NC., 3b31 Atlantic Avenue~ Long Beach, CA q0807. Petitioner requests permission to ESTABLI5H A PRIUATE EUiJCATIONAI IN571TUTION wITH WAIVER OF NINIMUM SIDE YARU SETBACK on ptoperiy described as a rectangu~arly-shaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximately 4.8 acres having a froncage of approximately 337 feet on th~ west side of Western Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approxlmatcly b18 feet. bcing loGated approximately 3~+0 feet south of the centerli~e of Orenga Avenue~ and further described as 631 South Western Avenue. Property presently ttassified RS-A-43,000 (RESIDEIJTIAI/ AGRICULTURAL) Zlk1E• The staff report to the Planning Commission dated D~ecember 5~ i977 notcd that subsequent to legal advertisement of subject condittonal use permit, tt was determined by staff that an addit(onal development waiver would be necessary and, therefore~ recomm~nded that a contlnuance be gra~~ed in order to adve~tise an addittonal site devel~pn-ent waiver. Commissioner King offer•ed a matinn~ secorded by Comm(ssioner Nerbst and MOTION CARRIED (C~~mnissianers Johnson and Linn being abspnt)~ that. this itero be conti~ued to the regular Planning Commission meeting of pecember 19, 19~1. En order for staff to advertlse addttional site devetopment waiver. 77-801 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI.A~~IN~: COMM;SSI~N~ Uecsmbcr 5~ 1977 77•802 ITEM N0. 1 E~ A'GORICAL EXEMpTION•tLASS 1 CONTINUEU PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; ROaERT W. ANQ CONUIT ONAL US ~ERM~T NO.~- KATNERINE M. t1UCHART~ 216b V(ctorla Avenue~ An~heim~ '-- CA 92~04. AGENT: SISTER LUCILLE BERNIER~ 1335 South Ashington Lane~ Anaheim, CA 92504. Petitioner ~equests permissi~n t~ ESTABIISfI PRI`IATE TUTORING S~RYICES on pro~erty describsd a~ a rectangularly-shapeci porc~l of land cunSisting of approximately 5~~00 square feet having a f~ontag~ of appro:.i~nately 54 feet on the west side of Ashington Lane~ havtng a maxi-num depth of approximakely 100 feet~ beinq lucated approximate~y ln~ feGt north of th9 center- line of ~..lais i. ~d~ and further dtscrtbed as 133y South Ashinqton Lane. Praperty pre~ently classified RS-;0~~0 (RESIpENTIAI~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. SubJect pet(tian was conttnur.~i irom the meetinq of November 21~ 1y77~ in order for the petitioncr to meet with surrounding properly owners. There were four persnns Indicating their presPnce 1n opposition to subJect ~ctition~ and altltiough th~ stAff report to the Plenniiiq Cormiisslon dated Qecen~,er 5. 1971 was not read a~ the public hcarin~,~~ i[ (s referred tu :nd made a part of the minutes. Sister Luciile tiernier~ ~33a soucn Ashington Lene~ Anaheim~ ae~en[~ stdted she was requesting a permit for private tutoring~ which is alla~+ed in the R5~5Q00 Zone. She stated she had met wi[h tie nc~ghbors to explaln the tutorinq services and has submitted slgnatures of several pe~sons who t~ad siyned the prevlous p~tit(on in oppositlar, rescind(ng their siynat~~re. She i~dfcated there wPre uther persons present in support of the request. Ann Schwartz~ 1321~ So~;-~ Ashington~ indicated she lived across the: strcet from subJect proptrty and slnce the tutoring has bcen go(ng on~ Lhere have been terrible trafflc prnblems; that thc: street is na~raw; that the traffic is heavy between f1:00 and f~:30 a.m. and again betwcen 1:00 a~d 1:30 ~.m.; tl~at thc resl~Pnts cannot get in and o~t of their strpet; that this is a very r~~sidential area with many schools and felt tutoring of chlldren btlonys In the schuols; and that provis(ons are made throuyh payme~t of [axes fo~ tha educationally-handicapped children. Do~ Graf~ 1340 Ashington Lane~ apoingizec for not attnnding the previous hea~ing because husiness would not allaw It and stated hc had submitted a letter in oppositi~n and suygestcd that a meeting be he1J in the evenin~:. He stated a neeting had been held, with the petitioner spendl~g about tw~ haurs with the neigt~bors. Chairman Tolar polnted out that all letters received are part of the record. Mr. G~af indicated his original lette~ vf oppositia+~ hed palr.ted out three areas of concern (traffic an~ safety~ precedent•setting situation and heuse market valufs) and th~t the pet(tioner had satisfied at least one of r.hose concerns, and that he was satisfie~J this is not a business venture~ but is a grant or scholarship. Ne stated they were st~~l cancerr.ed about traffic and safety and presented a drawing of the area and tndicated there were about lOb homes in the area and the traffic flow involving Bronkhurst Street and 3a1) Road. He stated that the traffic situation is deplorable and this area is a raceway; that complaints have been fileu wic~~ the Potice Departme~t; that he and his neig~~bor have had som!one back into the~r vehicle; that pecaple do use their dr:.~eways for turning around and felt that any add~t'.onal trafftc wes unnecessary. He stated they would like to have the traffic loop situation alteren Hhether Chis rtquest is granted or not. Mr. Graf stated he had been home during the ddy during a recuperation p~riod (August and early September) and had obse~ved cars being daubled-parlced, etc., at a sancwhat staggered MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM~SSION~ December ~~ 19~7 71-~ 3 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITiONAI U5E PERMIT N0. 1768 (continued) ___. _._ - sitwtton brin~i~y t.he chllJren fo~ the tutor(ng sa rvices; and that tne children'ti safety (s )eopardized with peoplo coming into th~ nelghborhood which is strange an d foreign ta them. He stated lhat both he and his wlfe were sensitive to the need for p~lvate tutoring. but were concerned ebout the number of children betng tutored. He referred to Item No. 4 of ihe Informatio~ supplied by Sister Bernl~r~ stattn~,~ thot the maximum c~roup st one time was 10 car 12 s•udents with th~ Intention of decreasing the number. He indtc~ted they were In favor of decroes i ng tl~e rumber of stuclents ~ I f thc pr.rml c i s approved, because of the trafftc. Mr. Graf questioned the fact that no enviro~mental impact report was roqulred and indlcated he ht+d discussed the procsdure followed by the Planntng staff concerning thi~s and was f nformpd that the pet) tloner f i I 1 s~~uc a form and staf f daas nat i nvestic~Ate 'tc: determinc If ~t~ase statFments are true. tle felt that Item No. I of ttu form, "WI11 t~:is p~o}ect cr~a~e a traffic I~azard and c~n~~estion?", which has been answered "No" by the petltioner~ was incorrect. He stated tie had bPen informed by tiie Planniny skaff that tutoring is nei[her allowed nor dlsallowed by the Cod~ (n the RS-50Q0 Zo~e; that this case has been put (nto a spectal classtf(cattor~ (n order for the Comnission to conslder it; that tuto~inc~ per ~e Is not allawed; that a conditional use permit, once yranted~ is forever en~1 is n~! cfiallenged; that the Planniny Commission cuuld entertain a r~c.ommendatian that the pe rmit be put on an ennual review and felc th~+t sh~uid be included if the pera~it is approved. Fle felt the Planning Comnission ~hould escablish a specific number of studants in orde r to give ccxnplalnts some validlty~ Concerninca h4me narket v~lues~ he felt the traf fIc and safety f~ctor w~uld have effect on them. Ne stateJ th~t basicaily they were in f avor of tutoring, but wonted t~ voice their concerns regarding the traffic and number of stude~ts. Eileen Gold~ 1340 Scarborouqh La~ie~ Anaheim~ asked if the condltlon requiring subJect property to bP. developed substantially in aGCOrdance with plans and spettficatlons on flle marked Exhibit i~o~. 1 and 2 meant Lhere would b~ an addition or alteratio~ to the bullulnq. J. J. Tashiro stated this is a seandard condition and the exhibits referred to are those dra~~in~s of the pr~perty submitted by the petitioner~ and that there are no changes proposed to the structure. Ms. Gold asked about the refe~~ence In the ataff reoort that the hours of operation Are frar~ 2:(1U to 3:3U p.m. It was pointcd out the ho~~rs of operation as shown in the staff repart was (n error; that the hours of operation arc from 9:00 a.m, to 1:30 p.m, and 2:00 to 3:3U p.m. She stated she felt a~~eside~tidl erea should be strictly for liv(ng ~nd sugq~sted she couid do income tax consulting work In her ga~age If [his type of thing is allowed. Yiryinla kaun indicated she lives ~irectly a..ross the street from sub)ect property and agreed wlth what Mr. Graf had stated; that she is not ayainst tf~e Slster in any way, H.ut is concerned for the neighborhood. Sister Ber~ier stated thp traffic situation was bad before she r~as there; that the n~lghbors had had difficulties before; that these children arrive after the chlldren In tf~e neighbarhood have ~one to school; that the hou~s of operation are f rom 8:30 to 8:45 a.m. untll 1:30 p.m. fot most children, and that three children come on T uesdays and Th~rsdays from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. and cheir par~nts have waited for them by the park; that the children are constantly supervised* that the ch-~dren do walk to the neerby park at MINUTES, Ah'HEIM GI?Y PLANNING COMMISSIOW. Docember 5~ 1~77 »~~04 EIR CATEGORICAI. EXEMPTION-CI.A55 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1 768 (c~ntlnued) lunchtime wlth supervisl~n; thbt a few people do drlve InC~ the driveways of the nei~ahbors; that at no tirne wi 11 there be mare than three cars in front of tf~a structure; th~t the parents Jo not turn off thPir angincs, this is rnerely a stop-and-go situatlon; that th~ parents of the chilci~en havc been infurrn~d ~f plnces ta turn arounci; that she dtd Craf had baen not think thc traffic was that heavy; that the n: cldcnt roferred to by Mr. caused by someone vis i ti ng h t m and nat one of the ir pFlPeniS; that slie had made 1 t known to t h e ne i ghborhood what she t n tends to do; tl~a'~ the bu I 1 dl n9 wi 1 1 not be changed i n ony way; 'h~t no signs w) ~1 be posted; and that the w~,hes nf t~~c ne ig hhors w 1 1 1 be r e c u g n l x e d a t all tlmes~ 1~ they erc madc knaw~. Ttlt PUBLIC HEARIt~G WAS CLO5ED. Chalrman Tolar askcd the total enrollment, andSister Eiernlcr replied thc total enrollment presently ic 15~ b~~L they are ne~ver el l there at oi~e time; th~t at prescnt thera are 11 children thcrc at one timc. arrivlny between 8;4~ and 9:~~ a.m, and that thesc 11 children a~e gone by 1:3U p.in., and un Tucsdays e~~J ThursdAys thrcc chf lctren comP IA[er and ere tl~ere unt i 1 3: 3U p. m. Chairman Tolar asked Sister Bernier to indicatc the t(mc period shc IS rcferriny to for decreasiny the number of chi ldren, and she replled thet it depends upon when the children arc ready to lcave; that some are ready now and others are fer from bsing ready; that doctors are (nvolvedr,schools~.f She indicated sl~cchas lcased~thedpropertyrfo~~two,years~ cannot attend regula beginning July 22, 1971• Commissioner Kinq asked Mr. Graf (f I~e would object to 6 to ~ students~ and he repliecl that he would tatedbheCt~efc.rrPd asmaximumlof56escuden+tsPand~ thewnumberawouid haveetoebeth of tlrnc. He s P decreased~ and referred to the traffic hazards again. Commissfoner Barnes asked Mr. Graf to clarify the time of day he had observed the vehicles double-parked~ and he :epl ied i t had bcen between y:00 a.m, to 11:3~ a.m. and a couple of times in che afternaon~ . Ne added that he hnd observed one car parked across the street on one occasion for approxirnately 3 or ~+ liours and was cnncerned because~ in addition to t raf f i c. they have had some i nc i den ts i rr the n~ i ghbo rhood of peop l e b reak t ng t n to the hArxs; and that thcy we~e apprehensive about stran~crs in the netghborhood. Lommissioner Barnes stated ~~ifctheisituatloneeha ges~L~he~permitmcouldebe revlewed by the co~ditions imposed and the~ ~ Planning Commisaion. Mr. Graf stated there have been a lot of rum~rs (n the neighborhood cnncerning what (s allowed by Code and hvw it can be interpreted. He felt if this requesZ is ~pproved~ it should be rev(ewed periodically by the Commission and ~the maximum number of students should b~ succeed~in somesothe~ way.SiHeefe~ltdthedconcerned neighborsishould haveabeen~ she wou informed earlier of her activi tles. Commiss foner 8arnes fel t i f the number of students is 1 imi ted and the permi t ts granted for a certain time limit, that it would be agreeable to eve~ybody involved. (There was a response from the audtence that this wouldnot be agreeable.) Coim~issloner Devanda5isterhBe nier stated at thespresentrtimef some ofnthesenchi~d«~ermit is not allowed~ a MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS101~~ Decamber 5, 1977 77-805 EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CON~ITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 176$ (cnntlnued) __.. - cannot attend regular schc~ols and that sonb ere under d doctor's care and have to have !`" i v~: tE tutol' 1 f1g. A lady from the auJlence esked why these chfidren could not be taught at one of tl~e many religlous sch~ols In the area, and Sister ~ernier replled thet the children are not betng tutored for religion; thai these students have perceptual dlfftcultles. Comn(ssloner Barnes asked tf it would be posslble to ~se a church moetlny raam or empty classroom, and Chairman Tolar scated he felt tutoring should be done at some place other l•han a residentlal home. Stster Ber~(er stated this woulci Involve more mr~ney. Sh~ tndicated she had inqulred if tutor(ng would bc ailowed before Ieasing the home and was Informed by somcone at tlie Anaheim City offices ttial lu~~~ri~iy wou{J Ge permltted. Jack Whltc. Deputy Clty Attornsy~ stated wlicther or not thcre were alternate places for this tutoring se~vice was not tl~e question before the Planning Commission~ but whcther o~ not the use meets the c~lteria of the Code for zoning purposes. Commissloner Herbst stated the Code does allow schools. boarding houses~ churches and things of this sort in resident.ial areas sub)ect to approval af a conditlonal usr permit~ but felt that allowiny schools in residentfal humes hes a tendency to creat~ a bu~lness r~nd breaks down the intent of che residenkial aree. He fsl! the resldenti~l concept should be matntei~ed and fel~ encouraging additfonal traffic into the residentlal nelghbonc~~od woula nut be goad pl,~nning. It was noteJ that th~ Oirectur of the Pla~nin~a Depa~tmenl has determincd thet the prop~sed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.n1~ Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidellnes to the Requir~ments for an Environmental Impact Rcoort and is~ therefore~ catenorically exempt from the requlrement co file an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution ko. PC77-264 and moved fo~ tts passage and a~t~'(~o~ that the Anaheiai City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition for Conditionul Use Permit No. 1768. on the basis that due t~ ihe number of students present at o~e time (12)~ the use has proven to not b@ cort~atible with the existing ~esidential neighborhood and has caused an increase in traffic which is a detriment to the neighborhood. On roll call, xhe fore9oing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: GOMMISSIONERS: BARNE5. DAVID~ HERi~ST~ KING~ TOIAR NQES: CQN~IISSIONERS: NONE ABSL~~T: COMMI55IONERS: JOHN50!1~ -.~~N Chairman Tolar explained the Planniny Commission does not determine the environmental impact report statu;; that the Clty ;ias an Environrnental lmp~ct Report Revlew Board which loaks at the p~o}ect anc, determines whether or not a reporc is necessary; that the Camrnlssion rsceives a recammendation from this cortmittee and if an environmental lmpact report is required~ then the Commission receives that full repo~t for thrir revtew prior tn certification. Commissioner Nerbst stated he was not against private tutnring, but the people who have purchased their homes in this neighborhoad deserve protection fram anything that may prove to be a detriment. Jatk White~ Ueputy City Attorney, presented Sister Bernier with the written ~ight ta appeal tl~e Planning Commissio~'s decision within 22 days. MINUTE~~ ~1NAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ Decembnr 5, tq77 ITEM N0. 2 EIR NEG IVE OECLAaATION ' E R 0. 1G147 having a fro~tage of approximately maxlmum depth of approxtmately 1!i6 thc c.~nterl i ne of Rome Avenue, i s RM-4QU0 condomintum subdivislon. 71-8~6 CON7INUED PUBIIC HEARING. DEVELOPER~ ALFRED D. AND .IOS~PHINE PAINO, 711 South Bcach ~oulevard~ Anahelm~ CA 92N04. ENGINEER; TCD J. CUSIIMAN (AIA) , 2669 Myrt 1 e Avenue , 5 igna 1 H(1 1~ CA 90A06, Sub,j ect property~ consletlny of Approximately 0.5 acre 1~~0 fe~t on the wost sid~ of Hayward Street~ havinq a feet~ anci being loc~ted approximately 132 feet north of proposcd for subdlvision i nto a one-lot. f ive-unlt. Sub,ject trae t was cuntinued fran the meeting of -~ovember 21 , 1977. In order for the petitioner to be present. Tlirre was no unr i nc1 i ~a t 1 r~y tlw 1 r uNNus i t i c~n ~ and a 1 thouyl~ tlie s ta f f repor t ta the Flenning Comrnias(on dated Decambc,r ~;~ 1~i77 was not read at the pub llc heAring~ it Is referred to and madc a part ~f the minutes. 7ad J. Cushmmn~ architect, expleined the request and ask.ed why the reclassiftcatlon app I 1 ed for was n~t on the agen~la„ J. J. Tashiro, Assistant Planner~ explained tt~at It was determined that tFie reclassification was not necessary since tl~c pruperty is currcntly zoned RM-1200 (Residentl~jl , Mu{tiple-Family) and the pro~o~cd Jevelopment st RM-40b0 ls allowed, THF PUbLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEU. ACTION: Corrmissioner King offered a motion, secanded by Corrrmissione~ Devid and MOTI~N CARRIED (Conxnlssioners Johnson and ~inn being absent), that the Anahelm City Planning Conmission has revlewed the subject pro~osal for a one-lot, fivc-~~it candom(nium subdtvlsion on a rectanyularly-shapF~d parcei of land consistlnq o'F epproximatr.ly 0,5 acr~ having a f rontage of approximate (y 140 feet on che west s i de of Hayvrard S trect, havi nq e maximum depth of epproxirnatcly 15G f'eet~ and being located approximately 132 feet north of the centerl i ne of Rome Avenue; and does hereby approve the Ne4~tive Oecleration from the requirement to prepare an enviranrnental irtmact re~rt on the basls that ttiere would b~ no s(gnifiGant individual or cumulative adverse env(ronrnental impact due to the appraval af this Ne_yative ~eclaration since the ~Anahetm General Plan d~~ignat~s the subject prope~ty for med i um dens i ty res t dent f a I 1 and uses commensurate wl th the proposa 1; that no sens i tI ve onvtronmenta) impaccs are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submltted by the petitioner indicates no signific~hr~t individuai or c~rnulacive adverse environmental impacts; and that the Neyative Ueclar•ation substantiating the foregoing findings ls on fil9 in the C(ty of Anaheim Planning Departmcnc. ACTION: Commissioner King offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dav1d and MOTION A R EO (i:ommissioners Johnson and Linn being absent), [hat the Anaheim City Plannlnq Commtssion does hereby find that the ~ropased subdivision, together with its deslgn and improvement, is consi stent wi th the C1 ty of AnAheim's General Plan~ pursuant to Gove~nment Code Secti ~• 56473.5; and does, ttierefore, approve Tentat i ve Map of Tract No. 10147 for a one-lot~ "ive-unit condohin(um subdivision, subJect to [he following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be dcve;lopeu as more than one subdivtsion, each subdivision thereof shall he submitted in tec~tative form for approvat. 2. That sub,ject property shai 1~e served by underground uti llties. MINUTES~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ pecember 5- 19 77 77-807 EIR NEGATIVE DEGLARATION AND TkNTATiVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1014 (continucd) That prior to the introduction of an orciinance~ ~ final tra ct mep of subJect 3. prop~rty sho11 be submftted to and approveJ by th e Clty Council and then be recorded n the of f I ca of the Ora~ge Coun ty Recorder . 4. Thet the covenants~ conditlons~ and res trictions shall be suhmitted to and appr~v~d by the Ci ty Attorney's Off i ce and tl~e C i ty ~ngl neer prior to C i ty Gounct 1 approval of the final tract map an~f~ further~ that the approved covenants, conclltions, and rastrtctions shall be recorded concurrently with Chr final tract map. 5. 'Tliat drainage of subJect property sha) l be disposed of in a manner satlsfactory to the City Engineer. to the Cit of Anaheim the 6. That thc owner(s) of subJect property shd11 paY Y approprtate park and recreatiar~ In-lle~ fees~ as determined to be appropriate by ths Clty Council. sald fees to be paid .it the tin~c Yhe buildi~9~~~ udingsstreetdlights and y. 'that Haywerd Strcet sl~a) l h~ ful l Imp~oved, sldewalks~ to thc no rth boundary of subJect property. 8. That trast~ storaqe a~'eas shall be pravidecJ in accord~nce with ap~r~ved plans on ftle with the office of thc ~lrectar of Public Works. 9, That fire hydrants shall be installed and ct~arged~ as required and determined to be necessery by the Chief of the Fire Oepar•tmen t~ prior to cumnencement of sCructur~l framing. 10. That access rights to NeywarJ St~eet shall be obtalned by tlie ownsr pr or to approval of a final tract map• ITE~O. 3 r CONTINUEU PUBLIC NEARIf~G, bWNER~ At~AHEIM HILLS. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPIIGT REPORT N0. 2Ua 9 INC. ~ 3~ Anaheim tli l ls Road~ Anaheim~ CA 92~7• TEN A71VE MAP OF TFtACT AGEtIT: JAMES H. BERRY~ 1t1092 Sky Pa~k South, Ir~~in~, CA 9271~+. SubJect prop~rty is an N0. 10032 (RCVISIOti N0. 1) irre~ularly~shaped parcel of land COroximatel~f approximately 12.5 acres located app Y 300 feet south af the intersection of Nohl Ran eh Road and tlillcrest Lane~ havi~g ~ maximun depth of ~pproximately 880 feet, and being located approxirt~ately 500 feet south- westerly of the ce nterline of Anaheim Hills Road. Property presently classified RS-A-43~OOQ(,SG) {RE SIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENiC CORRI~OR OVERLAY) ZONE. VARIANGE REQUEST: WA~IUµRN~MUMABURLDINGFPADTbREAT AND (C)SMINIMUM BUBLDINGTSITE~WIDTN. ~) TEN7AT{VE TRALT RE QUEST: 39'~ot, 35'unit~ aS-5000(SC) SUBUIVISION. SubJect petit(on was cantinued from the Octob er 10 and November 7~ 1971. meetings for revised plans. There was no one isslontdatedhQecembere5Ge197 7 wassnot~readnatathe~publicehearing~eitristo the Planning Comm ~eferred to and ma de a part of the minutes. Taylor Grant, 180 ~2 SkY P;rG~s~j~hQnsuaseset forthe~ indiceted they had ~eviewed the staff repnrt and agreed with al it was noted thc Hil~ and Canyon Municipal Advisory CornnEttee (H ACMAC) revicwed said tract at three meeting~. the last being o~ September 27. 1977~ and that with eleven members present~ nine voted in fonermoretlotpon,eachsstreet to wtden5thenculhde-sackl tsart~,p be el imi nated and at least MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Oec~ember 5~ 1977 77-~a EIR N0. 205`VARIANCE N0~2 69 AND TENTATIVE M11P OF TKACT N0. 100~2 (REVISION N0. 1) (continuad) members voting agAlnst the proJect. wlth onc st.at(ny he diJ not Approvc ~f lot sizcs/pad areaY as required by the ZAning Cod~ and one me+mber not liking the proJ~ct at nll. THE PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. Chairman Tolar lndlcated he felt the plans were 9reatlv improved and many of the conce~ns had been Answered a~d traffic problems eliminat~d. He stateci he was concerned about the parklnq problems on the cul-de-sac, "C" Streec. Ne indicated he waS also conc~rned about smal) pad sizes fo~ Lots 7~ ~~ 9~ 39. Z6 and 41, end t~ie fact there woulc; be no back yards and was wondering haw the houses would fit on tF-e lots. He esked Mr. Granc to discuss the parktng concerns and the placement of the houses on those lots. Mr. Grant stated 14 of thG pad slzes wer~ smallcr than the required 5nn~ squerp Pect; that thls development is son~wher~ h~tween th~ RM-4Q00 Zone and tt~e RS-SOpO Zone and~ in sanc cases~ therq were no back yards; that tt was the(r feelinc~ [he people who purchase these lots do nat want a back yard but want a vi~r and those people who du r~ot want lu purct~ase a detached condom(nlum with com~on recreationol facilities; th~t they were addressing themselvns to a very specific markec and the houses are ~,lanned very carefully; that the slde yard does provirie ~dequate space for a patio and that other lots In the development are over-sized. Ree~ardtny the parkinc~~ he ir-dicated the cul-~e-sacs had b~en redes+gned to provide adequate turn-around area for trash tollection, emeryr.ncy vehicl~es~ etc,, and even though there (s no pArking frontiny ~~ thc street~ the~e is sufficient parking provid~d. Chairma~ Tolar indicated he was still concerned about parking on ehe cul-de-sacs and dld not feel there would be sufficient parkl~ig f~r gur.st~~. Ne fclt the ffve park~ng stalls referred to earller wuuld be utilizad by the occupants of thc untcs~ pointing out that most penple do not put the{r cars R~ tt~e gara~~c and the overaqe household has three cars. Mr. Grant stated he could not argue on the s~eciftcs because this can be a problem. He F~olnted Aut this development ~.~es not have the bedroom ~ount; that chcse units arc no more than threc bedrocros and the proJPCt is desiyned away from large families. Ne stt,ted that the d~velopment meets the Code requircments in relationship to parking, Jack Reeves, enyineer~ addressed cul-de-sar_ "C" and ttie parking cancerns and stated that additional parkin~~ is provided whicti is not sfwwn~ and fcl[ the Commission wes not seetng the totai picture for the parkin~. Cammissi~ncr Herbst stace~ his conce~ns ab~ut ths ~fesign of the tract; that. it is a mixturt of RM-4000 and RS-5000~ requirtng a variance for the smaller lots which he felt was nard to Justify. He pointed out this development cbes not provlde the ~menities he felt sho~ld bc provided in an R11-4U00 ~evclopment nor the~ 1ot sizes ~equired in an RS-Soon developrnent; that an RM-40Q0 cfevelopmcnt sliould provlde some amenitles such as swimming pool~ tennis ~ourts, etc, t~ give the children a place to play besides a 10-foot back yard. He stated he realized the developer was aimtng fo~ tt~e mark.et with no children~ but that occupants chanye or children visit and [hen have no place to play; that looking at the terrain~ very few c~f these unlts coul~l have a swimming paol; and ti~at there are no parks ir the area. He felt if this is going to Fie an kM-k000 development, it should have some Qf the amenities that justify th~ smaller lots and felt the people buying these units with a vicw lot would later wish they had room for a pool and will ask why the CEty all~awed such small lots. Ne stated he had received complaints ~bout this in the past. John Bates, 1601 Dove St~eet, Newport Beach~ archltect~ stated the lot depth determines hvw much rear yard there is and reducing ~he number af loes dces not necessarily n~ean i MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMh115SI0N~ Decembar 5~ 1977 1~'809 EIR NU. 105. VARIANCE_ NO 2969 A~~D TE~~TATIVE `1AP OF TRACT N0. 10032 (REVISIQN N0. 1) (contlnued) the:re would be mo~e useble ruar yard. Ne (ndicat~d tho Impact of the perimester rood and condition of the sl~pes and cul-de-sscs caused thfs patio-ty{~e tiom~ d~velopment; and that the community will be walled with walls in front of che unlts~ with a 15-foot slde yard. These are all three bedraam homes ranginr~ from 1~~0 to 1900 square feet, malntaininc~ usable p~(vate ya~d comparable to a 7200•square fo~t lot. fle polnted out that !n order to pravida rocreaxtonal resources tn this nelghborhood~ homeowner assessments would 9o up S40 to $yQ a month; that Anahelm Hllis Golf Course is cl~se; and that tF~ere are parks close by~ equestrian trails, hiking tratls~ etc., and chcy belicved the amen(tles are there. Ile stated that in ccxnmunities with a swimminq pool, less than 10~ of the people use the pool and dici not think It fair to asses~ those who do not use the ponl; tl~at approximately 10 tA 11 lots could have a swimming poul and rnost could have a Jacuzxl; an~ that they were trying tn reach a specific market. Commissioncr Herbst clisayreed with Mr. Bate~ rry~.+rJing thc numbcr of ~hildren, polntin~ out hs liv~s (n a patta horr~ area with a maximum of three bedraoms and that there are quite a lot of yauny ctiildren there. He dld noc feel children should usF the horse Crails~ etc. for playiny. Ne stated~ ~9ain, if the petitioner wants an RS-SA00 development with RM-4000 dcsignation~ then he should s~pply the amenities. Mr. Grant stated thcy felt th~~re was a need for somethiny between the RS-54A~ a~d RM-400Q a~d felt this was a falr requsst because~ unlike the R~1-4000~ tliey Jo have wider lots and substantially morc: pr(vate usahle space. and tt~ey are ~iot overbullding the lats, whtch has been done on numerous RS-5000 devalopments. In chc past~ 1200 to 1100 square foot homes were bullt on 5000 syuare foot l~ts and now with land values you find 2~300 square foot houses on those same sizc• lots and it was their feeliny this was a fair request. Chairman Tolar stated this was th~ first tract the Co~nnlssion has reviewed which combined RS-5000 and RM-~+OOp with private strcets~ and Gammissioner Nerbst steted that it is basic~ily an RM^4000 developn~ent with larger lot sizes. Commissioncr Barnes statec: she felt this devclopment had some good and some bad polnts; that she laoked at It~ tacl~nically, as an RM-4000 dcvelopment with a ltttle more roorn, and it dlsturbed her that thcre are ~o rccreational areas. She agreed with the cuncept the develope~ envisioned of a develnpment with no childr~n~ but po(nted out you cannot llmit tlie number af child~en and therc will be smalf homes without recreational areas. Mr. Grant stated that orfginally they had applled under the RM-4~00 zoning, but staff had retommended the RS-5000 zoning; that this development (s samewhere b~tween the two zones; that if the buyer wants RM-4A~0 with the common recreational facility and a small lot, he can buy it somewhere else; or if he wants an RS-5000 lot with a big house~ th~re are other developments in the area; that this dpvelopment is for those peop!e who do not want the cAnxnon recreationa) fac(lity because they would not use it anyway~ and it is obvious when they buy the property that it is not there, but they will have a larger side yard and larger pad. M~. Grant asked Annika Santalahtl~ Assistant Dlrector for Zoning~ what the requirements are for individ~al recreati~nal/leisure space. Miss Santalahti replied that typically staff interprets on-site recreationel/letsure space as a minimum dimension c~f 10 feet ~n a yard in order to count it as available on-site. The RS-5000 Zone daes not actually have square footage per lot ancJ just addresses coverage on the lot. and staff luo6:s at the dimenslon of usable spaGe and comes up with a figure; that it assumes the lot size will achieve usable space as adequate. Carmissioner ilerbst asked Miss Santaiahti if the 3S$ 1ot coverage in the RS-5000 Zone referred to p~d c~veraqe or lc~t coverage, and sh~ replied thls means lot coverage. Commissioner Herbs~t pointed out the slopes and felt when calculated on pay~er it shaws ~ MINUTCS. ANAI~EIM GITY PI.ANNING COMMISSI~N~ Uecember 5, 1977 77-810 Elic N0. 205._VARIANCC N0. 2~69 ANO TENTATIYE MAP OF TRACT ~~0. 10032 (REVISION_ N0~1)(continued) adequate space ~ but when tf,e houses arc pf acecl on the lots ~ wi th tl~e s 1 opes ~ thcre i s not adequate snace. Mr. Grant stated he understood what Commissi~ner Herbst was sayinq, but aelleved the RM- ~+~000 Zonc requlres a 200 syuare fc~ot ar~ea and this developn~ nt has ten times xhat amount. Ilc stated that ~n Lots ts~ 7~ ~ and 9~ r~efcrrcd to earlier~ thay hnvc the ~bllity to use pad extenders Intecarated with tha ,'ences ta bo used on Nohl Ranch Road and could create a pAtio depth~ but trled tu minimiz~: th~: extent of that use so they did not create a neystive irt~act frcrn down b~lc~•,; that they ~rc trying t~~ cApture vicws fram ihe rear of the homes end Jld noc fre~l th~~t Is pt~rt of yard that will bc used. Cha 1 rman To 1 ar s ta teci he 1 i kes the r,han<acs thsy have ma~dc ( n the p I ans ; tha t i t 1 s different~ but felt th~ ~S`veloper hes becn allc.nvcd ~ I(ttlc b(t of creativity; that tt~ey have reduced tf~e numbcr uf units ar~d answ~~sd some ot the problems; they hAVC taken the pro.jact to the Ni 11 an~l Car7yon Mu~~ic+pal Advisory Gonunl ttcc and H/1LM/1C hns endorsed It; ~nd that he is swayed by thc f~~cC that thcrc are a lot of p~ople who like thc prlvacy a~d ao not want ta pay for the laisurc area and do not want a lar~ar. lot to take care of. Cammissioncr HerUst stateci he felt to alluw an RS-5000 tract on private streets would be "opening a c,in ~~f worms" and ha3 never been allowed befc~rc; [hAt there t+rc no [rade-offs; that thcre wf~l be narrow strer.ts with 5000 square f~ot lots, whith Iias enabled the developcr to yet m~re I~~ts. Ne stated h~ was concerr.ed that allowing an RS-5~00 developrrent with {+rivotc serec~ts would be sectiny an undesirat~le precedcnt. Chairman Tolar polnteci out thr dcvelc~per cc~ulrJ have prc,pased an RM-400~? dcvelopment and gotten nqr~ houses on tt,i5 sar~e piccc of propcrty. C~mmissianer fsarnes statf~J she ag~eed tf~cre is a need f~r someti~inn between the two zones but fclt the request shoul.i hav~ been for Rh-4000 with variances for eliminatian of the rec~eatio~al facitities b~cause of the amenitics that havr been provided. Mr. Grant statcd he thou~~rnt the apprc~vcd density for [hi; area under the master-planned community was for RM-12~~i; that after prelimina ry drawings they were told by staff that the proposal Is not an ~tM-4000 or RS-SOUO; that their original application had been for RM-~O(l0 with variances from the recreatio~ai facillcies~ etc.; thAt HACMAC had not agreed because the unlts are ~oc ~[tached; that the deveioper had proposed to devetop attaci~ed dupl~xes with cumuan r;~c~eat(onai facilities~ but feit this is a betttr d~velopment; and t'hat tlACMAC had agree :. He s ta teJ chey cc•u 1 d reques t RM-4000 ~ wi th a var i ance on the recreattona) facilitt~s, but the units would have to be attached. end [hat was finally inte rpreted to mean ~~s long as kwo units are attached, then the rest could be detached. Commissioner Herbst Asked why he would ask for a vari~nce frvm tne recreAtlonal facllity~ and M~. Grant replied because af the larqer lot sizes and the fact the units are detached. Corimissioner Herbst stated therc is nothing that says the lot has ta be 4000 sc~are feet; that this is the minlmum; ~nd that f~e would be opposed to a ~equest fo~ RM-4C`UO without the recreattonal amenities. Comrnissioner Barnes aslced M~. Grant what he would consider the hardship fcr approMel of this variance, and Jack Reeves repiied that the reason was the prope~ty has alream~y been mass ~7raded by Anahelm Hills~ Inc. and the site was generated ~vith defln~te 1lmitatlorrs.. Chairman Tolar stated he thought the proJect has a lot of inerit; that the~e are certian pcople who do nut want to pay for the amenities; that there are trade-offs and this would not be setting a precedent. i MINU7ES, ANANEiM GITY PIANNING COMMIS~~O~~~ Dece:mber i~ 1977 77'g11 E 1 R ~~0. 205~ VAaIAWCE N~O. ?~9G`~ AND TENTAT IVE MAP OF TRAC1' N0. IOQ32 (REVI S I JN N0. 1(cont I nued) Commissioncr Ha~nes agked Ja~:k 4lhite, Deputy City Att~rnr.y~ if thc rQasQ~ as atated by Mr. Reevts w~ulc! constitutes a ha~~fshi~~ and Mr. Whita stciteci~ frcxn a leye) st;~ndpa(nt. self- induced hardships are nAt re.cognized and a party thot creates a hardshiu And then sells th~ property to sumeane e1s~~ and than tf~e purchasar says the hardship r~as created by sc~mr,c+ne els~~ (s not ~ le,yal h~rdship elther; that a hardship has tu he somethiny that anpl ies t~ the 1 ~nd 1 tsel f in f ts cc>ndi tlon ~ther tl~an that cre~itecJ, Cc~mmtss ion~r Ki n,y asked 1 f tlie topo~ir~pf;y of the 1 and coul d be cons i dered a h~rdsh I p~ and Mr. Wh i xe rep 1 i e~f that t~~~. C i ty l~t tornc~/' s Of f i ce i s not i n a pos I t 1 on to mt~ke f( nd t ngs of fact; tnat h~s to be up to :hc F'l~nniny Corrnfssicm~ and if thcy f;nc1 th~t thc propcrtY ls d,fferent or unusual fror~ othcr prupcrtl~s in thc samc zone and this devlatlan is nccessory to a11c~w re~aso~al~le u~~ c?f the propcrty~ then that is the hardshlp ard it (s up to the i.~mmission tc~ deci~i~; that shape and topoyraphy arc c.n_r i~~nly se.~nC uf Ll~e ~Inir~ents that can t,e loukr.~1 I nto Phi li tp fietkencourt~ reprs.sentiny /lnaheirn 1~11Is~ Ir,G. ~ creator of the f~ardship, stated the hardship is clcarly one of thel r mak(ny; that the area from Ir~Prla) Hlyhway to An~helm Hi~ls Road had bee~ plannrd in ya~-~l faith and a mass e~radinn plan p~esented for the area cuntemplating three R-2~ or some sort of mult~ple produ~:t lancl use~ in th~t seCCor; :hat the terraln obviaualy dictates tt~e hards~-ip~ that th{~ property is terrac~d with three terraces stepping up rhe htll; and that the property is shal)cnv ~nd tl~is product could noc t~ave been acc~mmodated without a substantial artx~unt of regrading. Cha(rmon Tolar asked if ~hat answered Commissloner Barnes' qucstion in ralationsfiip to the apprUVal af the varlanc.~; that it al) cumes back to [he gradfny and that the reason tl~e property is terraced ts because of the grading done. Mr. Bet!enco~rt stated tliat the terracing is a function of the terrain; that this property s~epped up the hill to begin with; tha[ it would bc poss(b{e to accommod~te the number of uni;s requested o~ this same envelope of land without Arly variances on a flat p(ece of land~ but this area is no~ flat. Commissioner Barnes stated she thouqht thcre ~nust be a loyical way to approve this development and suygested inayt,e a new z~nc should be estnblished. Chairrnan Tolar stated i~e would not be in `avor of changing the zone. Commissioner I~ing pointed out that topagraphy is onc of the legal hardships for grantin,y a vartance. C~mmissioner Herbst stated if tl~e developer was using the RM-4000 nomenclature they would not have tliis prcblem with pad siz~; tliai this is an RM-40Q0 development wit~nut amenities. Mr. Bettencourt stated the home builder has proviaed more privAte. usable recreatlonal area than would be required under the RM-4400 that is not commonly owned; that there are people wh~ want this sort of home; that nne-third nf new household formations are people who live alone~ and those peopie should have an opportunlty to purchase a home. COMNISSIO~~ER LlNN ARRIVED AT 3:00 P.M. Mr. Mlhite stated that while seif-induccd hardsnip is not a legal basis for granting a vartance. it also is net a reason to deny a varinnca; that if a hardship otherwise exists and the Commission agrecs tha~ before the p~operty was graded~ in its pre-exist~ng natural topography~ the topog~aphy r,f the property was so unusual as to make this type of MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Ur_cember 5, 1~77 »-a~z f I,R N0. 2~,~VAR IANGE N0. 296~„~t D Tf NTAT I V,~, MAP OF TRACT N0. 10032 (R~,V I S I ON N0. _ 1) (cont t nued) development nec~asary as oppa~ed to dev~l~prtr~nt in strict ~cc~rciance with the Code~ then that wnuld constltute a lc~al hardsliip. Chairman Tolar stated he felt that the topography of the prr~perty bef~rr. it was graded would hava dictated the hardship. Commisslonor Nerbst 5tatcd thc developers could qradc and shape the hllls any way they want. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered a motlon, sr,conded by Commissioncr King and MOY10~1 C R EU (Commiss(c~ner Johns~n being absent and Commissioner Llnn abstalnlnq)~ thac Enviranmentai im~sact aeport No, 'L05 for Tentative T~act Nos. ~no3~ and 1~~Q32~ consist(ng of o total of approxirnat~ly 70 Jetached re:~idnntlal unfts on a{aproximately 23 ~crPS ~f land I~catAd s~u~hwesr of the iriterseccfon of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Ilills Road~ havtng been considered this d~te by the Anahelm Clty Planntnr~ Corrmisslon and evidence~ both written and oral. haviny been prescntE+d to supplement said f.IR No. 205, flnds that potc~tla~ ~roject-yenerated i^divtduol and cumulat(ve adver,e impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level by conforman~:e with City plans~ pollcles and ordi~anc~s; and Draft EIR No. 205 conforms io che Califo•nla Environmenta) Quality Act and State and Ctty EIR Guldelines; thierefore, based upon sucti Information~ thc An~7heim City Plannin,~ Cortmisslon does certify salci EIR No. 20~. ACTION: Gommissioner f3arnes offered Resolucion No. PC77-265 and moved fnr its passage and a~optTon th~t the Anaheim Clty Planniny Commisslc~n does hcreby grant Pctition for Varianee No. 29G9~ Ir~ part~ qrantiny waivers (a) ~nd (b) on the basis that a hardship exists due to the ur~ique I~i1lsiJe and tcrrac~:d terrain ~f subject sitc~ anci waiver (c) was cleleted by revised plans submitted by the petitioner and is nU lonyer necessary; an~J subject to Interdepartrr~;ntal Committee recomrt-endations. On roll call, the foregofng resolution was passed by the fallowinq vo~.r.: AYES: COMNI SS I ONERS : gARNES ~ DA~~ I U~ K I tJG, TOL11R NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST ABSEt~T: COMMI55IONERS: JONNSOtI ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: LINN (haviny not been present for entire hearing) Cortunissianer Barnes offered a motion~ secondeci by Commissioner Y.ing and MOTOON C1IRRIEQ (Commissioner Johnson beiny ~,bsent, Commissioner Linn ahsta(ning, and Conxntssloner Herbst voting no). that the Anaheim City Plann(ng Commission does hereby find thet the propased subdivlilan, together with its desiyn and improvement~ is consisten[ with the City of Anal~elm's General Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Section 66~73.5; and does. therefore, a~ppro~~e Tentatlve Map of Tract No. 10032 ~Rtvision No. 1) for a 39'1ot~ 36-unit, RS- 5000(:;C) (Residential~ Single-Family-Scenic Co~ridor Overlay) subdlvision~ subJect to t1~e folla~iing conditions: 1» That the arproval of Tentative Map of lract Mo. 10~32 (ftevision No. 1) is granted subjec:t to the approval of Variance No. 29~9• 2, That si~ould this subdivision be developed as rrx~re than one subdivision, each subdivlslon thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this t~act shall be served by underground utilitiPS. 4. That a final tracL map of subjNCt property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Otange Couniy Recorder. ;. That the covenants. conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and appraved by the City Attorney's Office and tl~e C(ty E~yineer prior to CiCy Council MIFIUTES~ ANAtIEIM CITY PI.~NNING COMMISSION~ Decembcr 5~ 1~77 77-g13 k I R f10. 205 ~ VAR IANCE N0. 296~~ AND TE~~TAT I VL MAP GF TRAC7 N0. 10032 (R~V I S I ON N0._ 1) (cnnt i nue~1) ap~rc~val ~f the final cr~~ct mAP and~ further~ that ti~~ approved covenants, Gondltians, and restrlctt~~ns shall b~ recorJed cuncurrently with the flnal trect map. 6. That street n~imc:s sl~al) be appro~•ecl by the C(ty Pl~inniny Derartment prior to approval of e fin.il tract map. 7. That the c~wner(s) of subjeck property shall pay to the City of Anahelm the approprlate p~rk and recreation in-licu fcr.s as detcrmined to bc Aparc~prlate by the City Council~ seld fees to be palci at tlie tfine the building ~~ermlt Is issued. Ef. That Jra(nage of sal~f pr~pcrcy shnll h~e disposed of in a manncr satlsfactory to the City Engineer. If, in tl~c prc~aration c~f the s{tc, suff~ctent grading is requlred to necessltate a gra~iing permit, no work an yradinc~ will bn permltted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site dralna~~e facil(tles havc becn installed and are ~perative. Posittve assur:~ncr. sh~~ll bc provlded the C(ty tf~at such drainaqe facilities wtll h~ r,.nmrlPted ~rlor to October l~th. Necessary right-of-way for aff-sitn dralnage facllities sl,all be dedic~ited L^ cl~e Clty~ or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation procced(ngs therefur (the costs ~f which shall l,e t-arne ~iy t~e devtloper) prior to the commencement of gracling ~,perations. The required drainage facllities shall be of ~ si~e and type sufficicnt to carry runoff wa[ers oriqinnting fror~ higher propcrties tl~rouyh said pruperty t~ ultimate ~J(sposAl as approved by the City Englneer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construct(on and shall be completed bnd ~~ functlonal th~ruu<~hout th~ tract and from the dawnstream bounJery of che property [o the ultfmate puint ~~f disposal prlor to the issuancc of any final bulldinc~ inspections or oc;cupancy permits. Dralna~~e district reimb~~rsement agreemtncs may be made avallable to the developers of said pr~pcrty up~~ their requcst. 9. That 9rediny, excavatf~n, and all oti~cr cons[ructfon activicies shall be conducted in such a manner so as to rninimize tl~c possibility of any silt or(ginating fran this proJect beiny carried into the Sanca Ana Rlver by storm waier orlc~inatinn from or f laving through ttii s pr~ject. 1Q. That all ~~rivate stre~ets shall be cle~eloped in accordance with the City of Anahelm's stanclards for private streets. 11. If permanent strcet narne signs have not been installed~ cemporary street name signs shall be installed prlor to any occupancy. 12. That fire hydrants shall be installed and char~ed~ as requ(red and determined to be necessary by the Chief of th~~ Fire [leparement~ prior to to~nrnenc~ement of structural framing. 1~. That all construc[ion in subject cract shall be in accnrdance wich the requl~ements of Fire Zone ~+~ as aparoved by the Cit.y of Anaheim Fire Departmcn:. 14. That adequate visibility for v~hicles exiting "A" and "C" Streets onto Riverboat Lane shal) be provicled, as requlred by the 'frafflc Englneer. 15. That in accordance with the requirements of Section if3.02.047 periain(ng to the initlal sale af residentlal homes in thc City of A~eheim Planning Area "B"~ the seller st~al! provide each 5uyer with writken information cancerning the Anahe{m General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundarir_s of subject tract. 1G. That any speclmen Lree removal shall be subject ta the regulations pertaining to tree preservation in the Scei~ic Corridor OverOay Zone. ~; M111UtE5~ ANAIIEIN GITY PLANNIf~G GOMMISSIOt1, December 5~ 1977 77-81~+ I TE:~1 N0. ~~ EIR NLGA ~VC OEGLI1Rl1TI0f1 PUHLIC N~l1aING. ~WNERS: J11MCS D. At~O LONEAL A. Ei~CL~~:~l CA ION M0. 71'7_~'3~ NOaTUr~~ JR. ~ ti3/ East Almond. Oranq~~ CA 9266f~, a ~c~"i~; ~j'I3'~- AGEIIT: NUG11 F. VANASEK~ ~cz~ ~a.c ~7tn str~~t~ ~"~ ~~anta Ant~~ CA ~2702, SubJect property Is an Irreyularly-shaped parccl of land consisting of oppr~~xlrtwt~3ly 1.'l acres located at tl~e southeast corner of Lakeview Avenuc and McKinnon U~(ve~ haviny a fr~ntaye of ~pproxlrnataly 3G1 feet on the south side of Mc.Y.inno~~ Ortve~ and having a mex(mum de~th of epproximat~ly 1~+~ fect. Property presently classifled R5~/1•4j~00G(SC1 (RESIUENTIAL/AGKI(.ULTURAL-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVLRLl1Y) ZONL. REQUESTEU CL~SSIFIGATIOtI: Rt1-24~)~ (IZESIUEtJT1AL~ MULTI~'Lf.-FANILY) ?.ONC REQUESTEU VARIANGE: WAIVCR QF NAXIMUM STaUGTUftAI HEIGHT TO CO~ISTRUG1 FOUR FOURPLEXES. Ther~ was one persc,n indiG~tiny her prc:sence in opposftinn ~r,ct ~nnth~t~r ~crson lndicatfnq interest In the projcct~ ,,~~d altf~ougl~ tt~c st.aff rr.port to tl~c Planninc~ Commission daced Decemher ~~ ~977 was nat ~_ad at the publfc h.^a~iny, ic is refcrred to and made e pArt o° the minutes. It was n~ted that thc 11i1) and Canyon Municlpal Adv(sory Conmittec (IIACMAC) liad revi~wed the abovc propos.~l at thrir ~neeting af tlovember '12~ 1~)71 and, with eleven members present, seven ~en~ers were in favor ~f tf~e multiple-fan~ily project provided that adequate parking was provfdeJ on-sitc ~n~ sc~ur~d att~nu~tion measures werc employed. Four members were opposecl to Che project since tlie I'lannin~~ Cormiisslon had approved RS-7Y~~ znning on khe prope~ty to thp wes~ ac;oss lr~kevir.w ~vhen multiple-fai~~i ly ~c~ning was reques[ed; that the proposed project was too dense and dicl not conform with tlie General Plan~ and one member indicated the hardsl~f~ required by Co~ie for e~proval of the requested v~riance did not extst. Floyd L. Farano, ?~',5 East Chapman llvenue~ .'~ilerton~ representin~ the applicant, stated a 7~Eleven proJect had been proposec: on this property at Lhe corner of Lakevisw and McKinnon and haJ bec~n denied and aPp~aled to the Clty Gouncil; that this project more than meets the standards for the zonc being rr.questcd; tha[ the praJect was revicwed by HACMAG and the members who vot~.d in opposition w.•:rc op{:osed to the den,ity. He stated there is a single-family residei~ce prapasc~~1 ad_jacnnt to the existing single-family home to tf~e east of the proJect~ and that chis was to provide a buffer zone to the exi;[iny single-family res ( dence; tha [ one of the cfiaroc t~~ r i s t i cs of tlie ex i s t~ nc~ res i Jence and ttie proposed residence in tt~is pro~ject is that it has a hic~h-peaked roof that ia within Code; that the property is desiyned in a manner that ttic exiscln~~ sin~~le-family residence to ihe east will ~ot receive any visual intrusicm to tl~e four~l~xes to Che wesC; anci that this actually pertains tu the ~iaivcr of tt~e re~~uircment tt~aL no two-story huilsfing sltiall bc con~tructeJ w~thi~i 1~0 fett of any single-fan:i ly residential. Fle indicatcd tt~at the property owner of the resicicnce to Lhe east is in tlie audience and~ hopefully~ will suppor[ the request. tie read 5ection 6E,~~73.~ of ti~e Government Code which states, "No local agency sliali approv~ a map u~less the leyislative body (tt~at is the Planning Commissic~n and City Council in thls case) shall fiinci that the pro~.osed subdivision~ togethcr with its provisiu~~r~ and desi~~n improvemeiit~ is consistent with the General Plan." Ne read another s~ction from the same code as folla~s: "A proposed subdi~~sion shall be consistent with the General Plan only if the prcp~sed 3ubdivision or land ~se is compatlble with the objectives. policies and general land uses and p~~grams specified in such plan." He aJded they plan to Show the Plannin~~ Cnmmission tha[ the proposal is compatible with the General Plan and that the petitioner feels the use is compatible because vf the yeneral nature of the property; that there is all single-famiiy residential MINUTLS, ANAHLIM CI1"Y PLAIJNI~IG CONMISSIOIJ~ Uecember 5, 1977 1J-~'la Elft IIkGATIVl ULGLl~KA~IIUN~ RE'~L~SSIFIGATIOt1 I10~ 11-I~'31 nuu vnr~ini~cc N0._ 2^ti? (continued) ~~ ~_ to the ea~st, a frceway off-ramp to the south~ and a~'athcr lArqc~ siynifican[ commercial center across the street. Ile stated the problem sec.ms to lie in the fact tliat the comn~erc(al zone inJicate<t on the General Plan of [he Clty of Anaheirn hisects this property wlth the cornnerc.lal indicat(on, Ile st~ted it (s probably not possible [o speciflcally de I I nea te whe rc th i s comrne rc I a I xun i nq i 5; that tl~use who have 1 o<~kc~ at i t wou I d ac~ ree th~t thc; conirnerclal ~esiynatlon takes about one••lir~lf or rr~re of this propcr•ty and thit tl~c p~tttloner will be tryin~~ to convf~ce the Cnmmisston that the fourplexes are corr~ atibie and cou I d be found to bc rn_a~ ,~nab 1 e and aclopted by tl~e P 1 ann i i~g Com~( ss f on as be i nq campatlble with thc gcneral u;es of the arca. Ile statcd tl~e stronyest point h~ could rnake is thc physical layout of the property; th,~t a comr~~ercial usc designacion in this particuiar c,ase: crosses over Ncl;innon in~te~d of foll!~win~~ Lhe line and their basie polnt i, thnk the use of McK~nnon ~~; a r.~cur.il bound;iry for corr~rci<~I use is reasonable under the Gencral Plan. Ile stoted t:he General Plan is gencr~~i and indicates the c~encra) uses thts property may bc adapteu to, and (t only t~ikes [hc consideratinn of ~I~e: Planninq Commission to deterrnine what would compati~ly fit into the area; that there Is ccxnmerci~~l use across the area and pofnte~J to the Gener~~l Plan canxnerc(al designat(on. He stated the entire carnor to the nc~rth. ~~a~;t and west of Lakeview is marked co~~~mercial and only the polnt where their proper[y is IocateS docs it cross McKlnnon~ and that~ by far~ the yreatest percentagc of this land has been ~sscd in a manner c<~nsistent with the Gencraf Plan~ therefore, this small desiyn.~te~ arc:~ is ~othing mc~rr. than an indication of Iand use for the entire area and nnt specifically for this piece c~f I.~nd. Ne stated thc City of Anaheim has hfstnrically looked upon multiple-family Jwellings as being a natur~l and acc;eptable buffer between freeway and traffic uses, and a buFfertn_y use between cammercial anJ s(ngle-family resiJcnti~l an~~, thcref~ore, it is thcir feelinq that this u~e wlll be corr~at(ble wi th the arer~. Mary Uinn~iorf~ Presiden•t of Santa Ana Canyon Improvcrt-~ent Ass~~cistion~ i;l La Paz. Anaheim~ stated she ~as concerned~ in luok~ng at thc staff report evaluaiion~ that a General Plan amendment is needed, Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Dircr_~:or for toniny~ stated tl~e General Plan desi~nation for this property is commerci3l and/or low density resid~ntial land use and ttiat the Planning Commission should deterrnir~e wheti~er the fourplexes and the strigle-family residence is~ in fact. eitFier commerc(al or low density resldential. Jack Whitc~ De~uty City Attorncy, stated if the Planning Commission determines tha; Lhe reclassification is noc com~:atible witli thc General Plan re~uir.ernents anci speciflcatlons for that property aL the present time. tlien i[ wouid reyuire a General Plan ar-endment pr6or to any subdivision or reclassification~ but it is a factuai question wtietF~er or not it is eompatible. Mary Uinndorf stetE~d sl~e felt this sl~oulcl be determined before proceeding wi :h thls hearing and feit the request was prernature. Chairma~ Tolar stated there ~s a little confuslon already; tFiat ti~~e petitioner's attorney had s tated that he wan ted to conv i nce ttie P 1 ann i ng Ccx-xn i ss fon tti i s i s a yood use for the land~ and that he underst~od there is an appeal before the City Councll in relationshlp to a decision the Planning Conmission made in relationship to thr_ commercial use~ and asked which body ttie petitioner was tryiny to convince; Chat if they canvince the Council the commerclal use ls the best use and convince the P{anning Canmission that residential is the best use~ which one wauld tliey use. Mr. Farano stated his presentatton cancerning the cornpatibility of the preposed use was directed toward the discussion Mrs. Dinnd~rf is refe~ring to riyht now; that hls point is that if the praposed use is foun~! to be cornpatible and~ therefore, consistFnt with the M! NUTES ~ ANAfIE I M C I TY PLAN~I I NG COMM I 5S I ON ~ Deceml-e r 5~ 1977 77-816 EIR NL•'GATIVE DECIARATION~ KkCLA551FICATION N0. 7~-18•31 ANp VAR_111NCE N0. 2982 (contlnued) General Plan, a Generel Pl~n amendment wou4d not be required le~ally prtor to the adoptlon of or consiclGratfun of ti~is prop~sal, buc if they find the land uss is not c:ompatible and is nat conststont witii ttie General Plon~ before tl~ey can chanqe the commerci~) designatlon on the Gene ra 1 P 1 an, tt~cy wou 1~i phys i ce 1 I y I~ave to go th roucll~ a Genera 1 P I an amendmen t and tfiot they are tryin~ to avotd that~ and if (t is fc,und this usc is c~mpatiblc and therefore carisistciit with the General Plan, a Gencral Plan amnn~l~ent coulcf bc undertt~ken nexC yvar wt~cn thc housekceplny ciiarr.s are donc. Chatrman 7c~lr~r stated he did not have a,atisfactc:ry answer in relatlon5hi~ to what the owner of the lancl wants~ whethcr he wants the use that is befar~ the Clty Councll or the usc that Is beforc thc Cominission riyht now, Mr, Far~nc> stated there w~is ,~ ~~~ntinu~nce ~f the comrnercial us~ re~ue5t hefore the City Counci I to sametime in Uecerr~t»r, and that tliey h~vr. not pursucd that or fi teci the appltcatlon or pald thc advertisiny fec~ dependent upon the action t~-+ken by the Planning Commisst<~r~; th.it (f this applica[ion is approved~ the ~ipplication bet~are the City Counci) wi 1 1 be wt ttidrawn. Mrs. Dinndorf scate~ she was c~nccrneJ .ibout the traffi~ circ.ulation anel referred to Lakev i c.~~ (nor[h) and com i ny i n c~~ twu I anes l~ecaus e of a two-1 an~ hr i dye and tlien more lancs vf traffic for ~anta llna Canyon koad~ ~~~ith all the turn pockcx5, Shc pointed out that thern arc chi Idren travcllny from the junior I~iyl~ sr_lioc~l to the RiverJ~ile area. She stated she had been informed tlicre is a crossiny guard in addition to thc siynals. 5he stated she Jid noi kncrv hc~w the tiumeowners felt ahout this proposal. Slie referred to City Council Policy ~42 concerninq souncJ attenuation and stated shc f~lt nu(se would be a factor because of the proximity [o the fre~wvay. She stated she understands that sound travels up anJ is amplified~ and wonder•ecl liow it wo~ld be taken care of ln the two-stary ciwelling. She indicated no objection to the sinyle-family dwelling b~t thought the density was toc~ hiyli with thc s(nqle-femily and four fourplexes. Rosanne Kirchmann~ 4J1~ East McKinnon~ Anaheim~ indicated she owned ttie properey next door to the empty field and that she had been nppo~ed to tlie 7-Elev~n rievelopment; her main concern was for tt~e cl~ildren in tlie area going to school; and tt~at the homeowners in the area would be opposed to any Gommerclal developn-ent on that corner. Slie stated stie viewed ttiis project as an alCernative to commercial developme~t and ttiat throuyh dlscussions with Mr. Farano. I~is ciient has said if thls is not approved there is a possibility he wi11 c'rop thc whole tltiiny and leave lt open for some otf~er dcvelopMent~ and that sf~e would 11kr. to get on with the business of liviny ancl stop coming down to these meetings. She stated she would prefer duplexes~ ~s opposed to fourple~ces~ but that the property owner fcels lie ,just cannot develop duplexes~ and that by putting a single- family clwelling inbetwecn as a buffer with a ro~~fline that is similar~ that she has seen the drawings and only speaking for t~er and her h~sband, would accept this proposal as opposed to commercial development, especially slnce a commercial development has been approved across thie street; that she does nat want to live ne~t door to a restaurant~ gas statton or store~ but would prefer a duplex~ but that Mr. Farano's client says he cannot Justify a duplex. Mr. Farano stated that bcscause of the c~nfi~urati~n and surrounding land uses~ he did not think thac~ irrespective of cost~ a fow density area is a good Iivinc~ environment. Ne pointed out that (t is not the technic,ue the City of Anaheim has followed in these types of situations; that there is a freeway nff-ramp right in back of this area and a com^~ercial sh~pping center at lakeview Boulevard; that a duplex is more tlosely attuned to single-family residential livIng and with the f~eeway off-ramp and surrounding uses, did MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIYY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Decemb~r y. 1977 77-817 EIK NEGATIVE UECLARATION, REGL~SS_1FICATION N0. 77-]8-31 ANU VARIANCE N0. 2~82 (cantlnued) not belleve it to bo a compatible land usr; that from e compatiblllty paint of vlew~ he tl~ought fourplexes were rnnre competible ttien single•fom(ly dwellings; nnd that t~e felt this w~s o~e of tl~e worst slnylc-fami ly rcaldontial areas In An~lielm, No statecl that maybo from tl~e rasidents' point ~f view concerniny tlie traffic tliat this wes truo but fr~m a land planning use~ dlr.1 nut believe It would ba cc~mpatible. Reyarding the traffic~ he statcd that he Jid n~t think thls developrrMnt would make the! trafflc worsc than It Is alre~dy; thot he was happy tv say thc City would ~ut a crossinq guard there; that this particular corner uf Lak~view is a ciangerous pl~ce; that the TroFfic Eng(neer sald tf~n.re st~ould be sidewalks in addltlon t~ curbs and gutt~rs an Lakeview, and Mr. Faronu askcd why~ because therc Is a freeway off-ramp And you would have a sidewall: goln~,~ Into An off-ramt~. He steted that Mrs. Dinnd~rf has seld that at 3~3~ p.m, the children arc walk(ny all ovPr che place; t~iat Lak~eview rises enci comes down to a stapligl~t at McKinnon prive at the bottom of the hiil and it is a vr,ry donqerous sltuatlon~ ancl if thc City can do anythiny to improvc that sl[uation~ he wo~1J suqgest they do it. but did nut tl~ink ttifs development wauld make tl~at much diffcrence tn the t~affic. Ile ~o(nted out tf~e Gencr~l Plan justificd V~lyher dens(ty and l~~nd uses than being propose~ by tl~c pc:titioner. Ha stated the petitionr_r would comply wlth Clty Councll Policy >42 re~~ar~finy soun~! attenuation. Chairman Tolnr eskcJ hc~w tliey intended to rnitigatc the sounJ. Mr. farano stated there were a number ~f ways~ with fences anc. wir,dows. etc. Mr. aill Uhl~ architact~ 11++0 South State College 8oulevard, Anaheim~ statccl that sound attenuation for these the units with tl~eir proximity [o th~~ freeway coul~.S be handled basically wtth .fouble-glazinra a~d insul~tinq cx[eri~r walls; that in tF~e absence of an actual reporc reyardin~~ thc level of noise in tl~e are~~ this woulci be the way to handle it. 11e s~atr.~ that t{ic exter'o~ noise in tlie yarJs of t~e units is tyR~Gally handled by walls on the property linc; t~iat tt~e Jeyrte wouid have to be determined as he was nat sure o( the exact leve I of tlie nc~i se i n tl~ i s area. Chairman TUlar pointed out that those standards would have to be met as set forth by City Counci) Policy ~~+~'. He stated the Commtssion is not supposed to get fnto er~gineertng but that the opposition has brouyht it ~ip and it is a question he is concerned with, haw the mitiyati~n rneasures are goiny to look. Mr. Fara~o SLateJ he understood that~ but f~e doubted very much tF~e conffguratlon of tt~e buildin,y will be chanyed very mucl~ by the sound attenua[ion techniques; that the~e will be insulation and do~ible windows~ ancl the only other thing woulcl ~e a block walt around the back anci hc assumes that is going to be done, but did nat thEnk that what wil) be done wili unfavorably affect the ccmfiguration and design of the buildinq; ihat they are stlpulatiny W comply with the t'ity Louncil policy regarding sound attenuatian; and that th~ plans will be reviewed at ~: time the building pcrmits are taken out~ and if there are any problems thcy w(I1 be taken carc of a' that time. THE PUItLIC HEARIWG WAS CLOS~D. Commissione~- Linn stated he was concerried about the second s[ory; that s~und does travei up~vard, anJ he realized the Eluilding Dlvision ap~roves the permits but did not thlnk they approved the desfgn. Mr. Farano stated they have large yarc' areas and the ground coveraye is less than ordinarlly would be required by Code; therefore. the buildings h~ve more distance between them and the Freeway and the off-ramps~ and he thou,qht with the techniques and technology, 11111UTC5, I1ttAliCIM CITY PlAN1~IIJG COMMISSION~ Dcscemt~or ;~ 1~77 ~~~~~~ C I R IIEGAT I Vk UECLllfillT 101~, REGLASS I F I CAT IOt~ N~ , J7-7~- 31 AND VAR 1~iNCC I~O, 2~2 ( Gont 1 nuc<1) build(ny m~terl~~ls anci wincJows, tl~~~[ [I~e suund will be ~dequotely han~.lcd. 11e stalr~l thuy would stlpulat~~ tu u c.u~~~litl~n that If~ in .ic,hlevin~~ the sound-attCnuation lcvels as requ) red by thc C i ty Counc i I Po I 1 c:y ~ thc re ~~rc chan!~e~ 1 n the des t yn c~f ti~c but I d I n~~s or placei~Qni of Lhe bui l~lnys un tlic luts, p~aiis w1 ~ 1 hc hrou~ht bacE. to thc Plannin~~ Cominlssion for thcir revicw; th~~t tlicy ~1~~ nc~t w~int ~inythin<~ th.it is funny lot~king clthcr, Mr. Farano stat~~l that NACM(lC hacl su~~~aestecl they creitc ~~x~re on-sitc p.irl.in~l; that they are In excess of the par~.in~~ rcqulr~~ment~ buL tliat thcy do have i lot of ~ac.1. y~~rd ~~re~~ anJ i f thc Gonx'rilssl~~n w~~nts nx~rc park in~~ ~r~~viJc:d f~r ~~uu5ts ~ lhcy wl l l bc hoppy to cotnp 1 y . C~muilssioner Hcr~st pointed ~~it thc currr.nt 2uniny c~~ this pr~~ncrty is RS-l1-~+3~~~~~ an~ that on [h~~ Gener.~ l F' {~~n thcrc i s A rr~1 d~~t t~~ des i yn~itr~ cr~nine rc i.~ l, whi i.l~ has bccn ..~~ ^n ~cros5 tht Strret, a-Zd Lh~~t G~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~•~'~ ~~c i~k~veJ [o Lhr. c:thcr ,iJe of th~ Strcr_t; Lh~t tlic one th i nc, that b~th~rs h i m i s thr 1' 1 ann i n~a Corr ~i ss i n~~ recomrx-.n~li~c1 ,i ~1es i~~n,~t I nn on the General Nlan uf RS-J:~1 ,~n~1 that ~Jcvc:l~~(~ers h~ve .~ ten.iency~ inste~~d of ~uttinq less pcoplc Ui~ ~ hard5hip parccl ti~c:v want to h~~vc r,~ur~: u~~~{~lc~ ;~nc! h~_ cannc~t jus[Ify puttin~~ in fourplexes rathcr tl~;~;~ sinqlc-far~i ly on a har~ship ~arccl. This is a hardshin parcel wlth .~ desi~~nati~n ~f KS-~-~-3-)~') (RcsiJcntial ~ Sinylc-Fami ly) ancl pumping in four four{~lexes waul~i c~w;an 1(• hor~~~s ritlier than five, Ile 5[ate~1 tt~at in Icx~kinc~ ~t the p~~rcel hc f~;lt i: coul~f !,c Jivi~~cJ with ~ ru,~~i an~! cul-de-sac ~~~ith `aur houses, tw~ houses ab~~ttiny the ar~a uf th~: frcrwray c~f'f-rar•~~, havinc~ vcr• sii.~blc baek ynrds~ larc~er than nurmal ~ but that ~5 a har~Jsl~ i I~ narCC I open spa~c i s ne.=dc~i [c- m~l•<' I t i i vnb lc. He fcl t Lh i 5 cou I c1 be a~e~~in{~ 1 i sheJ c~nJ ~1 i~! nc~[ ~nJers tAn~1 why you sl~c~u I J foree Che hardsh i p onto ti~osc 1~ fa~~~i I i~~s. ile st.~te~f tli~ same thiny happened acr~ss La~.evicw .~nJ MeK(ni~on; that a rcyues[ for multiplc-far~i ly hav~~ becn denic~~ and sinc~le-fa~lly unit hi~1 be~n devcloped and hc did n~t fecl Gliis ;~ruperty d~scrves any r~re consi~crocion than the onc e1G~055 thc ~trc4t. Mr. Farano stated that thc ;~rupcrty Is zoncc! P,5-A-4}~f)00 but that hc fclt this was a holJiny zunc; tliat thi s was a carry-ovccr frc~m County zon(n!~; that thr Ci ty Counci l went on record as sayin~~ ac Icast [he corner af this pre~perty is suitable f~r c~mmercial devclopment; that thc o~~~y thiny thcy wcrf~ opposed tc~ witf~ the 7-Eleven devr_lopment was tlie hours ~f opcratic~n a~~d t-~c off-si tc beer sales. He ;tAter that I~e was n~t surc that this propertV ~+3s not suit~blc f~r conr~crcial; tl~at a residential usc f~r at least one- thlyd of this property is m.~ryinal~ it is lower than La~eview and is almost in a hole; ~iiat thr_y havc donc che best they could; that sin~.31c-far i 1y 1 iving environment normal ly denotes the arnen i t i es of outdaur usaye ~ etc. ~ and hc thuught outdoc~r usc or any ki nd of entertainment woul~ be limite~l. i,onmissioner Herbst stated [hat he a~~reed with Mr. F~rano as f~~r as tokinc~ comr,ercial sites and sayiny they are suitablc or would be an alternate use to multiple-family zoning~ but c~uld not agrce in this particular case. ACTION: Gommissioncr Linn ~ffcreJ a motion~ seconded by Commissionerfierbst and NOTIOt~ tR D(Corrnnissioner Johnson beiny absent) ~ that the Anaheirr, Gi ty Planninh Commission has revlew~~ the subject proposal t~ rccl~ssify the zoning from RS-A-43,OQ~(SC) (ResicJantial/Agricultur~l-Scenic Corridor Overlay) to R11-2k00~SC) (Residzntlal~ Multipip- Family-Sc~nic Corridor Overlay) on approxfmately 1.2 acres loc~ted At the soitheast corner of Lakeview Avenue an~f McKinnon Drive. haviny a frontage of approximately 361 feet on the south side of McKinnon Drive; and ~1oes hereby approve ttie Neyative Declaration from the requl rcrnent ta prepare an eiivi r~nmental impact report on the basis tliat thcre would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental imQact due to thc approval of this Negat(ve Declaration since tt~e Anaheim General Plan desiynates the sub,ject property for yeneral conxnercial and hillslde low density residential land u~es commensu~ate with ~ MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS SION~ Q~cember 5~ ~911 S.. 77-8i9 EIR N~GATIVE QECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION NA. 17r18_31 AND VARIANCE N0. 2982 (continued) the prnposel; thdt no sensitive envl~onm~sntnl Impacts are Involved in the proposel; that the Intti~l Study submitted by the pe titioner Indicates no ~tanlfica~t tndl~~idual or cumulative edverse anviranmental Imp aets; end that the Negative Declaratlon suastsntiatinq the foregaing findlnqs Is on flle In tt~e City of Anaheim Plenntng Department. ACTION: Commi~sfaner Linn offered Re salution No. PC77~266 end moved fer Its prs~age and ~~optTon~ that the An~hsim Ci ty Plann ing Commisslon dr,es hcreby deny Petf tion for Rocless(flcatlon No. 77-7a'31~ a~ th e basis tliat the rroposed development wauld not be consistent with the land use deslynat lon uf tho General Plan; ~nd that the Planning Cammisston furCher determined th~t de vclapment In accordance witt~ the hillside low denslty residnntlal desiynetion is th~ most a pproprietc land use for suhJect pr~perty. On roll cmll~ thc foreyol~iy resolutian wa~ pass~d by the follnwtng vote: 11YE:S: CCi~M15SI0NER5: EiARNES~ HERE35T~ KING~ LINII NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAK~ DAV10 ABSENT: COMMISSIOI~ERS: JOIINSOtI Commissloner Ltnn offered Resolution No. PC77-267 and moved for Its passage and adoptlon~ that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Commisslon aoes I»reby deny Pet~tlan for Veriancc No. 2982~ on the basis that reclassiflcatinn to multlple-famlly res(denttal zonl~g f(fed tn conjunctlot- ~-rlth sub}ect va~lance wss denied~ and subJect walver ts~ therefora~ unnecessa~y. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution wes passed by the ~llowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ f1ER85T~ KING~ LINN NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR, DAV10 ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE Chalrman Tolar scated he was voting agalnst the resolution because he felt the sppllcant made a v~ry vol(d point in that he h as reduced the proposed zoning from some co~m~erclal a~d R-1 development to four fourple xes and one residenttal daelling snd he felt that strictly resldential us~ for thts p roperty would not be a good llving envlronment and pe~ple Nould not want to live there . Commlsslor:er David steted he agreed with Chalrman Tolar's rernarks and agreed that thls property is unique and should b~ 1e ant~g tow~rds the developrnent as shown. Jack Whi te. Deputy CJ ty At torney. p resented the pct i t(oner wl th the wri tten rlght ta appeal the Planning Commisslon'S de clslon wlthln 22 days. The owner of the property. James H~ rton~ stated he hed owned this property since 1963, befure the freoway was developed; t hat lt. was in [he middle of an orbnge grove; that the State had taken 3•1/2 acres at a f a ir pr!ce and put the treeaay through; that he had been trying to sell the land for somethi ng and was paying $1~0 e year for taxes for one ac~e of land; a,~d that the water riyhts ha d bean taken erway a~d he cannot raise anything on it and he cannot put a~ything on it. He indicated a Commissioner had stated the best thing would be to davelop homes on the si t~ and asked (f they would wa~t to buy a home that close to the freaway and vrith the price of 1 and today~ in order Yo bresk eve~ on tt, asked what he was going to do with lt; that he did ~ot dream there was going to be a lreeway there. Cammlsslone~ Neryst steted he apprecfated Mr. Horton's can+~ents bui that th~e haaring had bee~ closed. ~ MIHUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ O~cember 5~ ~977 77-82A RECESS Chai rman Tolar cal lad for a t~~-minute racess st 3:SQ P•m~ RE ENf. The n~eting was reconvenad at 4tOQ p.m., with ell Commissioners "'~"-"~'-' p~esent ~xcept Commi ss ioner Jahnson be 1 ng absen t. ITEM N0. R G RICAL E XENPTION•CLASSES 1 b PUBLIC HEARINC. OWNERS: SURESH AND RITA ~aNO~~ N USE E M N. 1 9 GANDOTRA~ 6715 Swarthrtiore Drlve~ Anahelm~ Cl1 928~7. ACENT: GEORGE PATTON~ 336 East Carson Street. Carson, CA 90746. Petitloner requesis parmtssion to RETAIN SOLAR COi.IECT OR PANELS rn property descrihad as a recte•~gulerly-s haped parcel nf land consisting of app~oxtmotely 80q3 squrre feet having ~ frontage of approximately S1 feet on th~ nortf~ side of Swarthmore Drive, having a maximum depth of appr~xlmately 121 feet. ~ny lc.cated o~proximataly 31n f~~t northeast of the centerline nf Grin~~e11 Street~ and t•urther d~dcrih~d AS (~715 5warthmore drive. Property p~esently classlffed ti5-5000(SC) (RESIDENTIAI, SINGLE-FAMILY-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZOt1E. There was no on e Indiceting their prescnce in oppusitlon to ~ubject req uest~ and although the staff report tu the Planniny Lomml~sio n dated December 5~ 1977 was ~ot read ac the public hcaring, it Is referrcd to and made a part of the min~tcs. It was n~ted that the H111 and Canyon Municipal lldvisory Cammittee reviewed the above proposal at thet r rneeting of November 22 and, with twelve r~semtarrs prr,sent, voted unanlmously to recommend denial of Condltional Use Permit No. 17T9 due to the unattractivenes s of the solar collector pa nels mounted an the tap of che roof. George Patton~ Solar Eneryy Systems~ Inc.. agent for the pet~tio~er, st~ted hs had reviewed the staff report and was avatlable to answer any questions, TNE PU6LIC HEA RING WAS CLOSED. Chalrman Tolar stated th~~t it is interesti~;i to note for everyonc tn ttic sotr.• ~an~l business that this Is ce~•tainly a spectal ty-~e of heating and tha[ all cltles are looktng forward to see i ~o ^Y+re ~' i t, and the federal and state bodie3 ~econ~r~ended tnat th~~ ci tic.s and countles yo to soa'.e type of en:rgy~savin~ systen+. He stated he thought it wa,s very important as a devcloper of sular r~cacing and instaliatinn of solar heating that Mr. Patton r~~~+t recognlze tlat building permits are requfred for electrical~ plumbing~ etc.. and thet he wo uld hope in the futur~~ at ieast in the City of Anahaim~ he would get those permtts prior to installation. Mr. Pattnn stated that the:y have inatal led over 6D0 uni ts and thaf they have gotten permi ts c.n m 1 1 of them. The reasan Cfiey dl d not have a perml t on tf- i s i nsta) 1 stl on was due to a communicatio~s gap between the peti tioner and the a~ent. He stated tt~at when they told the petltloner he Hould need pe rmtts, he had asked hvw ~uch they would cost and they had answe red tl~is would depend upon the municipality. and that thc property owner had staYed he would get the perm(ts himself. Mr. Patton stated this has been done in the past where people ha ve ~otten the permits themselves and then called their company and stated they hed received thc permits; that they were at fault in thts case because they dld not ask to seo the permit; that the petitioner f~ad gotten permission From h(s haneowners gssociatton and the people who live on eaGh 31de of him; that h~e hadrovalato go aheadvwith and assumed h e had construed that to mean th~t he had the proper app the installation. ~ MINUT~S~ ANAl1E1M GITY PLANNINf, COMNISSION~ December ~~ 1~~77 77-821 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CIASSES 1 b 3 ANp CQNQITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 17~9 (continued) _ ~ Mr. Patton ste ted h i s con~any wou I d ba e~varc ot th ( s prot~ lem and maike certa i n to get permits In the future; thst thore are other ramiftcatlons other than belnc~ In vlolatl~n of the C(ty Code. Cartniiss(oner Kiny stated that thc compla(nt seems to be the view fror+ thc strQet; that the nalghbors a re l~oklny at the installation Ar~d asked if there Is a passiblllty that thP unlt could be moved where it coulcf not be seen. Mr. Patton stetacl this house is on top of a hf I l, Ne then explained th~~t solar heatinq wc~rked by the rays of the sun end tn this area the best place f~r• solar panels is on the southerly location of the structure. I~e po(nted out that the staff roport indicates the solar penels arc on the westcrly roof slope of the me(n structure~ but thet h~ takes thls to mQan th ~ soutlwresterly ronf slopc; th~t in this pn~tlcular h~use that was the best location fo r thc unit to work propcrty, lie stat~J If et all possible, thr.y Ilked to put the unlts t n the beck yard so that if there is an unsightly appearnncP the r~o~i~ who p~t them In ~re the ones who sce it; that tfils e two-story housc and it is up hi~h~ and unless you look e t qutte en angle you cannot see the unlt. Chairman To lar stated thet HpCMAC~ which is a group of homenwners eppotntcd by the City Council, h a ve voted sg~~tnst this particu{ar solar installeti~n~ not so much agalnst solar systems pe r se' bccause tliey are sa new~ and thc Planning Commission has haJ work sesstons and has tried to lo~k at dtfferenc solar systems, but arc confronted in the canyon areas wtth paople being able to look down onto thes~ propcrtles; that there is nn ordinence for the Scenfc Corrldor which pro~ibits roc~f-mounted et~ufp-r~nt cnd It has been determined that solar equlp ment is roof-mounted equiprnent. Ne statcd It has been allowed only on the b~+s(s thaC it docs not makc Its n~arE, in terms of roof-mounted equipment un all the rooftops. He pointed out that anyone cominy into th's particular tract has a line-of-sight to that rooftop. H e stated that had the installatio~ been put on the nortli side of [he bullding or the back of tl~e house ~ he d i d not th~ ( nk therc wou 1 d have been a prob 1 em wi th th 1 s system, H e pointed out the only thing the Planning Commfsston can do is try to answer aesthetical ly what it does to an area and •h~t~ i~ looktng at the instatlation~ he does not like th e location; that if it cauld be moved to the north side of the property~ then he might b e lnterested in votiny for approval; that he was not opposed to solar systems but to the ior,ation of th~is particular installation. Mr. Pacton steted that es far as putting the instellatian on the north side of the house~ it is impos slble because the sun ~oes not hit the north side enough hours of the day Lo do any good; that if they had been told thay could put the InstallAtion only on the north side~ they would have walked away fram it as this ia the poorest location for a solar system~ an d the next worst (s the east~ the next being the west~ and the best locat(on being the s outh~ and thc south is twlce as good a location as the east anc: one end one- half tlmcs as good as the west~ and five or six ttmcs as effective as the nurth. He stated t hey were stuck with this location because the sun is not fl~xible and because of the hig h-pitched roof of thts housa; that if thts were a flat roaf with a~iig:~t slope~ thesy could have placed the panels anywhere on 2he roof or put them o~ an A-freme~ but tn thts cese there was no rray to do that. Chat~man Ta :~•~ pointed out that the solar pancl Installatlons which the Planning Conwnlsslon F~;.•~e al lvwed have been an integrated part of the roofl ine and did not infringe on the aes thetics of other peopie living there. He stated that moving the tnstallation to the ea~' si de of the building would only create the problem coming from the other dt rect r . MiNUTES~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Qecember 5, 1917 77~822 EI~ CATEGURICAL EX~MPYION-CLASSES 1 6 3 AND CONOITIONAL___USE ~ERMIT N0. t]]~ (contl~-ued) Ccxnmissloner 9a~nes ststad that tl~o Commisslon hes studied soler p~nels and thet there Are ways to place the Installstlon on dlfferent parts af the roof; that you can~ for example~ build onto the roof an (ntegreted~ orchitectura) part of the roof and then Inslck that structure~ you cen atm the penels any direction you want; th~t lt can be done~ It is Just more expens(vc; and that the aryument that it cannot be done is not valid, there are other ways to do It oth~r tt~an an A-fr~mc and other than laying t~~em dlrectly on the roof. Mr. Patton stated this would cost a trr.n~ndous amount of money; that in thl4 partlculAr roof he wou1J have to go 1~~ and route it out sorne wey and would cost thousands of dollars~ whlch would neyate the prlnr.iple to get cheop energy to heat the poal and water in the house~ etc. Commissioner ~arnes polnted out there Is qulte a lar~~e back yard and therc is nothing to prQVanc solar panels from being installed in the hack yard, 2 feet f~om the ground in the por~l ~ren~ and It would not be Infring(ng on othcr property owncrs, Mr. Patton s[ated they ha~~c done sorne of this but that it is cxppnsive~ anJ usually when a homeawner 5ees the addeJ expen~e !ie Just walks away from the cieal. f~e stated ther~ are certaln limitatto~s to tl~ese tnstellations that we should Itve ~~ith; that the people in the area hav~ voced to allow them to keep thG (nstallatton; that two ur three other people havr. statad they would likc to have something Iike this if ~h(s (s approved; and that he dId get the ~pproval of h(s neighbors and his homeowners assaclatton, Ken [3rody~ w(th Solar Energy Systems~ stated it ix possiblc to put the panels on the north side but when you do that~ y~u either have to bu(ld racks to reversc the slope or to cause the panels to face south~ and that in this partlcular situation they wouid not fit into the architectural des(~n of tfie house and it is p~ohibittv•ly expenstve. He stated that if you built some sort of structure on the roof co more or less enclose the directio~a) reversing racks and coverad them w(th cement or Spanish tiles~ it would still not have t~een architecturelly consistent with that particular structure bnd would hnve been prohibitively expens(vc, lie stated therc is a facing higher up on the west side as opposed t~ the south sicle~ but that would hdve reduced the ~rfficiency of the ~ystem about 30~ or 40~ and would have made the system ~neconomical. I~e stated It is po~sible to put lt on the ~round but tl~at is also expensive and would be confining from an area potnt of view; that he would lose part of his deck area and landscepin~ area as (t relates to the pool and would pr~bably have disco~raged him or stopped htm from putting in the system. He stat•;d that with an existiny structure it is difficult to incorporate a solar system [hat blends (n nicely; that on new construction ynu can much more easily integrate it~ but in the case of existiny Structures. oftentimes~ y~u do not get that luxury but that anything can be done yiven the ability to s~end che dollars. He stated that mast homes with pools are existiny structures and pose rr~re difficult problems fram an (ntegratlon point of v1ew; th~• qesthetically there arp ;.~~promises that have to be made; 'hat thcy have attempted ta •• ,chetically blend th~s in as best as possible~ consistent with some sort of reasonable performance of the system. Commissloner David asked what steps wer• ~allo-ved to aestheti~ally blend tt in, Mr. Brody stated they had attempted to place the panels on the rc~of in a bala~ced f~shion and that they h~ve sprayed end colored the surfaces not tnvolved In collectlon of energy to blend tn with the tiles of the roof; that they u~~ed redwood which is not precisely blending In. but something that wauld retain the color and still blend in~ not red~ but would look like it tselonged there. He stated there ts noc much tl~at can be ~one about the blackness of the pancls; that they have attempted to dlstribute the panels in some pleasing pattern. Commissioner Davld stated i~ '- ve ry unfortunate that they ~annot do something with the color, that was the matn ob_. ,n to the sola~ panels. ~ MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ D~cember 5~ 1977 77-823 EIR CATEGORiCAL ~XEMPTIQM-CLASSES 1 b 3 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 177g (eontinued) Cf~elrm~n Tnlar stated that the applicant had stated that I' the Install~tion had becn put in the beck yard so that It is not abuslve to the neighbars~ he probably would not have wantad It either anJ that ho would heve been the only one I11-affected by putting it there ar he would be the only one seeiny It~ and that the petit(oner woc asking the Com~lssic,n to supoort che IocAtlon as it axists where averyone else can see it. ,~ Mr. Brody statod it (s unfortunate chat tiiere hes been ~ breakdown fn cnmmunlcatlnns; that If thay had been awerc of the requlrement to gct Planning Commission approval !~el`orehand and were aware of what the petltloner had meant by approval~ t~c f~lt they would have gone through the process and would have reached some reasonable concluslon. lie sta[ed there is e lia~dsh 1 p now ( n tha t tfie sys tem i s e 1 ready t n, Chalrman Tola~ polnted out that the homeowner and che agent haci createci the hardship ar-i the Gommission was not responsible for the I~ck nt communlcation. Mr. Brody stated he wax Just trying to point out what is i~volved at this potnc; th~~t he would Ilke ta adcl that the panely are black becausr, tu incorparatc: any othcr color wauld ba reducing the ~fficiency of the system. Chalrman Tolar pointed out the Planniny ~ornmisslon has done extens(ve studies in the IA3L six months and is famillar witti why the panel, are black; ihat they have h~~d work sessfans and studied all types of instailations but that they are really concerned as to wherr ih~ pannls are located In relatlonship to the surrounding n~ighborhood. Cammissloner Linn stated he dfd noc see anything differrnt from th(s inscallatlon t'h~n the proJect previ~usly befure the Commission wherc tf~e panels Hsre cieniecl by the Lortxntysi~n and City Council~ subsequently tl~e panels were relocated, Chalrman Tolar pointed ~ut that the previous installation w~s roof-mounced eo,uipnknt simfla~ Co subJect request~ plac.ed on the r~of so that everyane could se~ it. fles~cally~ it had the same effect as this one; [hat the Plar+ning Commission had d~r~te~1 the conditlonal use permtt bCCause the installati~n was not aesthettcally pleasinq to che netghborhood; that the petitioner appealed the Planni~g Commisslon decision to the City C~unc(1 and the Ctty Cauncil also denied it~ and the unit has subsec;uencly been relocated. Mr. Brody polnted out tl~at he did noc think chere was enough land to place six panels as requtred to do thc job in this instance~ in addition to the pool and othe- equipmcnt he has in the back yerd, and thouqht the existinglocation of the unit is the prime, viable alternativ~. Commissioner Herbst explained that the Planning Commission fias had several public hearlnqs regarding svlar panels and that we do have the Scenlc Gorridor ordinar~ce that does not allow roof-mounted equipment; that lt has been determined ihat atl roof-mountcd equipment, such as solar panels, would be allowed under a conditional use permit~ which means the Planning Cammisslon looks at all roof-mounted equipment a~d that they havc allowed same~ but that the question here is would the Commission approve this if It came before them in the planning stayes in this fashion. He stated he felt if this ts approved~ the Commission will be deluged with peopie wha have installed thc panels ~nd carne tn later far approval; that thesP systems must be Integrated with the ro~f in some location wher~e thev cannot be seen. lie polnted out the problem in the canyon area that most of the houses sre elevated over one another and that the people are spending thousands of dollars for view lots a-~d they sx~oect that to be maintained~ and that is why there is a Scenic Corridor ordtn~nce. MiNUTES~ ~NAIIEIM CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION~ Decembe~ 5~ 1~77 77-g24 EIR CATEGORICAL E"EMPTION-CLASSES 1 6__3_AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~)9 (contlnued) lt was noted thAt the DtreGtor of the Plenning Department has determined that the praposed activity falls within the definitlon of Section 3.01. Clesses 1 and 3~ nf the City af Anaha~m Guldallnes to the Requlrements for an Environmentel Impact keport and is. therefore, cat~gorlcally exempt from the requlremesnt to ftlo an EIR. ACT :N: f.ommtssioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC77-2b8 end moved for its passege and ac~optTun th~t the Anahetrn Clty Planniny Commisslon d~es hcreby deny Petitton for Cond!tinnal Use Pe~mtt No. i)79 on the basis that the subJect praperty (s located In the 5cenic Corridor Zone-Overlay which speciflcally restrtcts roof-mounted equlpment; that the propasal is visually obJectionable In thst black pan~ls are mounted an a red ttle roof and seld panels are fully visible from edjacent propertics and streets; that the system was not deslgna~ so as ta be architecturaliy compatible wlth the resider~ce; th~t the use was tllegaily astablished (n violation of thc Scenlc Corr(dor regul8tions end without a buildinq permit; and that an undesirable precedent would be established if the proposal was permltted. On roll catl~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawiny vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ HER4ST~ ~ING~ LINI~~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISS1411~R5: NQNE A9SCNT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON Jack Whtte, peputy City Attorney~ prese~ted the pet(tioncr with the written ~tyht to eppea) the Planning Commission d~clslon wlthln 22 days. iTEM t~~. 6 ~~TTVE DECLARATIUII PUBLIC HEARINf. DEVELOPER: ORANGE CREST CORP.. fN VE M P 0 RAC 1~0. 10168 1415 East 17th Street~ Santa Ana, CA 92701. EQUE R ROV L OF REMOVAI. ENGINECR: BERRYMAN b STEPHENSON, INC.~ 1415 OF SPECIMEN TREES East 17th Strect. Senta Ana~ CA 92701. Subject property~ conslsting of approximately it acres haviny a frontage of approximately 200 feet on the south side of Rio Grande Dr(ve~ having a maximum depth of approximately 128Q feet, and being located approximate~y 185 feet northcast of the centerline of Canyon Woods Road~ is proposed for a 3~1ot. RS-HS-10.000(SG) and 11-lat, RS-NS-22~00~(SC) subdivisiqn. There was no one Indicating thc~ir p~'esenGe in opposition to subJect request, and although the staff report to the Plannin~ Commission dated December 5, 1977 was not read at the publ (c hearing, t t is referr~• d to ar~d made a part of the minutes. Gil Nllksen, Orange C~est Corporation~ developer, was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Nerbst asked staff if the Rlding and Hlking Trail Committee letter dated Deccm6e~ 5, 1917 reflected the trail as shvwn on the plans~ and J. J. Tashiro~ Assistant Pianner, replied that they did. Mr. Wilksen indlcated his tract is in a rural atmosphere and that the developer (ntends to keep It th~t way and has designed the tract to keep as many trees as possible, and that tha tract conforms to the intent of the Zoni~g Code. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSCD. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNI~IG COMMISSION~ Decembar 5~ 1977 77-825 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION_TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10166-REMOVAL OF SPECiMEN TREES (contlnued) Commissloner Barnes askad the location of the sycsmore trees reforrecl to~ end Mr. Wilksen pointed those trees out on the plans. Chairman Tolar Indicated he thought the {~lans looked good and ind(cated tt was nlce to see a developer try to keep land In e rural atmosphere and wltliln the tntent of the Zoning Code. Commtssioner Oernas Inqulred about the dralnage of the property and esked if the butiding pacJs would be built up and~ perhaps, change the course of the dratnage. Mr. Wilksen Indicatcd *.t~erc is an existiny storm drain in tf~is area end thet the pads will be ralsed tu the s1iC necessary to canf~rm to tl~e Oranye County Floc~d Contr'ol requirements; that dralnagc woul~f hc toward thc privatc strcet (nto a catchbasin. Commissioner fierbst asked if thcre wes any problem with complylnq with the letter frtxn :he Ricliny and Iliking T~al) Committee~ and Mr. Wilksen replied that there would br. na proble;m; that the utllity easements wer~ on the other s(de of the equestrtan trail an~ th~t any tra(ls would be free of fire hydrants or ut(lity poles. Ile pofntcci out the cra{ls on the map. Canunissioner Nerbst ref~rred to thc Ili ll an~l Canyon Municlpal Advisory Gormfccec's (tiACMAC) concarn regarding Lot 9 not conformir~~ to recently-approv.rd f~re safety hazards, and Mr. Wilksen replted that lias been rcvised; that they had originally r~fie:cted a flag lot of abc~ut 200 feet long but I~ave r~vised it. Commissiuner David referred to tli~ Watcr Quality Control Bo~rd rCq~I~Cmint to provide a siltatic~n and erosion contro) program for th~ proposed deve~onr~rnc~ anc! Mr. Wilksen replicd that will be done. ACTION; Commissioner Barnes offered a motion, seconded by Canmis~sio~er Linn and MQTl011 ~D (Gommissioner Johnson being abaent), that thc Anahelrn Gity P1anning Cammtssion has revir.wed subJect proposal for an 3-lot~ RS-NS-1Q,000(SC) (Residentlal~ Stnglc-Family Hillside-Scenic Corridor Overlay) and 11-lot~ RS-NS-22,000(SCi (Residential~ Single-~'amily Nillside-Scenic Corr(dAr Overlay) subdivision on land contiscing of approxlmately 11 ac~es having a frontaye of approximately 20~ feet on the south side of Rio ;rande Drive, having a maximum depth of approxlmetely 11~) feet~ and being located approximately 185 feet northeast of thc centerltne of Canyon Woods Road; and docs hereby approve the Negative Declarotion from the requirement ko prepare a~ environmentAl impact report on the basis that therQ would be n~ significant Individuai or cumulattve adverse envtranment~l !mpatt due to the approval of this Negatlve Declaration since the An~aheim General Plan destgnates the subJect property for hillside low density and hillside estate density land uses comnensurete with ~he propo3al; that no sensitive environmentai impacts are involved ln the proposal; that the Initial Study submltted by the petitioner indicates no sigriiflcant individuai or cumulative adyerse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Decleration substantiating the foregoing ftndings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planntng Department. ACTION: Commissloner Barnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commissinner King end MOT10N ~tR~D (Gommtssioner Johnson being absent)~ that the Anaheim Clty Plann(n, Commtssion does hereby find that the praposed subdivtsion~ together with its design and (mprovement~ is consistent with the City of Anaheim's General Pla~, pursuant to Gc~ernment Code Sectian 66473.5 and does~ therefo~c. approve Tentativ~ Map of T~act No. 1q168 for o 3-lot~ RS-HS- 10.000(SC) and 11-lot, RS-NS-22~060(SC) subdiviston~ subJect to the fol~owing conditlons: MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DecPmber 5~ 1977 77-826 ~Ia NEGATI.VE DCCLAMTION TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10168 6 REMOVAI. OF SPECIMEN TREES (cnnt.) 1. Thet should this subdlvlsion be daveloped as more than one subdivlsion. each subdlvislon thereof shall b~ submitted In tentative forrn for approvr~l. 2. That all lots wlthln this tract shall be served by underground utllltles. 3. That prlor to the tntroductlon of an ordinance~ o final tr~~ct mep of subJect property shell be submittod to and approved by the City Council and then be racorded in the of f i co of tlie Orange County Recorder. 4. That the covenants~ conditlons, and restricttons shAll be submittaJ to and approved by the City Attorney's Office and C1ty Engineer prior to Clty Counctl approval of thP flnal tract mep and~ further~ that the approved covenants, conditto~s~ and restrtctlons shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 5. Thot strcet narr~es shall be approved by the Ctty Planning Oepartment prlor to approval of a fina) tract map. 6. Thac the c~wner(s) of subJect property sha11 ~,Ay t~ the City of Anahelm the approprtate park and recrcation in-lieu fees as determined to bc approprlatc by the Clty Council~ sald fees to be pald at the time ~he bullding permit (s issued. 7. Thot drainbge of said property shall be dispose~i of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If~ in the preparation of the slte~ sufficient grading ts requlred Co necessitate a yradinc~ permit~ nn work on yradin9 wlll be permitted between October tyth and Aprll 15th unless all requlred uff-site draina<~e facllities have been Installed and are oparative. Positlve assurance st,all be provided the City tl~at such dratnage facilitles will be compl~ted prior to October 15th. Necessary r(ght°of-way for off-stte dralnage facllfties st~all be dedlcated to thr_ Clty~ or the City Council shall have inltlated conderm ation procE;edings therefor (tl~e costs of which shall b~ borne by the dsveloper) prior to the commencem~nt of graciin~~ operations. Th~ requi~ed drainage facilitles shall be of a size Anc1 type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from h(yher pruperties thrauyh said property to ultimatc disposat as aE>proved by the City Englneer. 5aid drainage facilities shall be the first itecn of constructt•n and shall be completed and be functic~nal throuyhout the traci and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any ftnal building inspections or uccupancy permits. Drainac~e dfstrict relmbursement agreements may be made availsble to the devclopers of said property unon thcir request. $. That approprla:e water assessmen[ fees~ as determined by the D(rector of Publlc Utilitles~ shall be pald to thc City of Anahelm prior to the tssuance ef a building permit. 9, That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim stand~rds for private streets. 10. If permanent street name signs have not been inscalled~ temporary street ~ame signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy. 11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay appropriate drainage assessment fees to the City c+f Anahetm~ as determintd by the Clty Engineer~ prlor to approval of a final tract map. 12. That the park and recreation in-lleu fee and the drainage assessment fee on Lot 14 shall be waived until such ttme as lot 14 is either further subdivided or untit a bullding permit is obtained on the 1ot, whichever occur~ first. The app~oprlatP rr~es shall be paid in the amounts as determincd by the approprlate authort~ies at the ttn~e the fees are patd. 13. That Parr,el Map 5~+5 shall be filcd in final form~ approved and recorded with the County Recarder priar to approval of the final tract map. 14. That street grades shall be a maximum of ten (10) percent. iy. That all strucures sl~all be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Fire Zone ~~ or as otherwise approved by the City of Anahetm Fire Department. 16. That fuel breaks shall be provided around al) structures as required by the City of Anaheirn Ftre Department. 17. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file witt~ the office of th~ Directc~r of Public Works. MIt~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COh1MISS10N~ De~ember 5~ 1977 77'827 EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATI~N ~ T~NTATIVE. MAP OF TRACT N0. 10168 6 REMOVAL OF SPCCIMEN TREES (cont.) -- - ____~......~ _.~ 18. That in accordance with the requlrements of S~ction 18.02.0l~7 pertaining to the inltlal sale of resident(al hrxnes (n [he Ctty of Anah~im Planning Area "B"~ the seller shal) provide a~ch buyer wlth wrtttan informatlon concerning the Anahelm feneral Plan and the exlstin~ zoning wlthin 300 feet of Ehe boundariss of sub)ect tract. 19, That aquestrtan riding and hiking treils be dedicated to the City of Anahetm in c~nnectlon wikh the finn) tract map and thn trtad aroa bP improved t~ a usAble and safe conditlon, (n Hddttion to providing a landscaped besrm or a fence as A separatlon between the trea~l area and the roaciway ~ as necessnry. Commissioner Eiarnes offerc:d a motton~ seconded by Commissioner David ancJ MOTION C~RRIED (Commissioner Johnson betng absent). that the Anahelm City Plannfng Commisslon does hereby approve the submitted trec removal plar~ for Tract No. 1~168~ specifytng that a maxfmum of 30 speclmen trees~ as defined by the Scenic Corridar Overiay Zo~~e sLanJ.~r~ls per[~Ininy to tree preservatior~~ shall be removed and rerl.iced by 11-foot h(gh or grceter Crees from [he replacement list spec(fled in thc tree preservation ordin~nce and on a 1;1 rat(o. ITEM N0. J NE IVE DECLAMYlO!i PUBLIC HEARI-~G. OWNERS: naTHUR ~~. ANO RUTII M, CLA SIF C ION N0. 7-7~-2tt ETZ~ 162~5 Elizat,eth Lake Romd~ Palmdale, CA ~ j550 . AGE:NT : JOl1N W. ZYLSTRl1 ~ 2331 Wes t L I ncol n Avenue~ Nla~ Anaheim~ CA 92801. Petltioner requests reclassification of p~operty described a; a rectangutarly-shaped parcel of land consist(ny of appraximately 2.6 acres heving a frontage of approxtmately 412 feet an the east s(de of E~each Boulevard~ tiaving a maximum depth of appraxlmately 279 feet. and being lo~ated approximatcly 435 feet north of the c~nterline of Ball Road from the CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) tu the Rl1-12Q0 (RESIDE!1TIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. There were three persons indicating their presence in oppos(tlon t~ suhJect request, and although the staff report to tfie Plann(ng Cc~mmisston dated Decembtr 5, 1977 was not read at the public hearing~ it is ref~erred to and made a part of the minutes. John Zylstra~ agent For tt~e petitioner, indicated the petitfoner (s requesting reclassil'ication of subject site f~om cummercial to RM-1200; that the subJect site has single-family dwellings to tl~e north~ apartments to the east~ and a motel to the south~ which are all residential type usts; that the mastcr plan calls for residential and commercial use on subject site; that they hav~e designed a slte plan with no variances and have complied with the stanaards of RM-1Z0~ zoning; tiiat under the present zoning, a two- story butlding could abut tlie prope~ty lines but they aPe prop~sin;,~ a 12-foot, densely landscaped buffer str(p to the north with a dis~ance of 45 feet to Lhe nearest building; that the apartment sizes, open area parkiny, recreational areas and privatc patios all meet or e~;ceed Code requirements, and they feel this is a compa[ible use and woul~ stipulate to camply with staff recommendations if granted. Warr~:n 1Jimer~ 1400 North Harbor Boulevard~ Attorney rcpresenting Mrs. Srt:ith, owner of the apartrtrents adJacent to the east, expressed opposition on her behalf. He pointed out that Mrs. Smith owns a b0-foot easPme~t for ingrnss and egress across subJect prope~ty. He ind(cated he did not feel the project had been calculated correctly; that a staff inember af the Planr~ing Department hed stated he had calculated the a~ea (ncluding a 20-foot strip rather than a 60-faot str(p and felt if :he calculations were started tncurrectly for the buiidable area, that anything tf~at cornes davn from that would also be incorrect. Ne pointed out that there are i2 parking spaces or 12 planiers proposed tn that 60-foot easement srea end that hc had inquired if thcy were necessary to m~et Code and had been informed that they were. He refer~ed to the privaxe road; Lynrose, and stated that he had MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 5~ 1917 77~a2~ EIR I~EGATIVE pECLARATION AND RECLASSiFICATIO_N NO_. 77~78•2g (conttnued) offered, on behalf of M~s. Smlth~ to dedicate the rights for street purposes to the Cfcy Englnea~. I~e stetad the basic concerns were that tha calculations have been done Incorrectly and have not taken into account tl~e clear itQms of record with regard to the 60-foot easement whlch is now improved as a street. He presented sevcral pictures he had token from every angle to the Comnission fur their review. I~e tndicatcd the Smiths hnd Informed him not to let the petitioner butl~i on their easement; that this was a matter botween the Smiths and the landavner, but that the City sl~ould takc cognizance af the easement~ that it Is a matter ~f record. Chairman Tolar asked if thc:rc wes anyonc else desirtng to speak tn appusition to the request~ and a yrntleman in the audlence ind(cated he was In favor of the proJect. Commissloner tlerbst asked Mr, Wlmer lf the Smiths were in favor of thc zoning use for epartrnents if thc easements were taken care of~ and Mr. Wimer replied that they were opposed to the zoniny changr. ~nd fclt that a zonin,y changc along tha~ strlp would be spot toning slnce everything else alony there is r.ommerclal. Georgc C. Holstein~ 1~10 41cst Palmyra~ Orange~ representing the owners~ lndicated Mr. and Mrs. Etz had acquired thts property in 1~6L and have trie~ for ten years to devetop a cr~mmerclal type utilfzation for tl~e prupcrty. Ile indicated tl~ey had tricd to develop restaurents, fast food operations~ motels, small sho~~ping c~nters~ etc.~ several times but due to restrictions against a th(rd story whicf~ woulu+ he required for a mote) operat(on and other adverse conditions such as the locacion~ the d(vtder in the mlddle of Beach Boulevard~ tfic ingress and egress to the property~ and the fact that acach Boulevard ts a fast traveled street~ have been unable to develop It. He indlcated they have come to t~~e point where they have to decide what is the best use for the property and to try and solve the problem for the owner; that he is payiny over S4~000 a year ln taxes on property which cannot be daveloped commercially; that he has finally agreed with the buycr to sell him the propcrty for a residenttal use at a substantlal reduction in valuc so that he could develop a res(dentlal usc on the property and also solve the awner's problem of paying texes without any return on the propcrty. Mr Holstein ir,iicated this easement has been on the property for at least 2S Years and is only en ingress ~nd egress easement ~crnss the ~roperty and has no rights whatsnever regardtng the develo~ment of the property or what the use of the easentent is galny to be; that the o~ly riyht Mrs. Smith has is ingress and egress across the property from Beach Boulevard to the apartrne~ts in the rear. Mr. Halstein submitted a preliminary tltle report and easemcnt which Illustrated the application of this e~sem~nc~ and also submttted a title report of Mrs. 5miih's property which explai~s her easement r(ghts. He indicated that Mrs. Smith has been adverse to any development they have tr(ed to put on this property for several years and indicated he would like to polnt out a few th(ngs regardtng the easement. Chairman Tolar Indicated he did not want Mr. Nolstein to get into personality situatlons; that if he had something to p~es~nt that pe~tained to the devPlopment~ the Ccmmtssion wou 1 d 1 i ke td itea r 1 t. Mr. Holsteln stated that in ea~ly November he had given permission to allow a church group to se11 pumpkins at Hallaween and ~hristmas trees during Christmas and that he had go~e to Colorado and had recefvad a ph,one call telling him that access to their property had been blocked; and that when he returned, he called Mr. Smith and advised him he had no right to block the traffic flow on Lynrose arive and indicated there had been some verbal abuse. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 5~ 1977 77-829 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO RECLASSIFICATION I~O. 77~7~~28 !continueci) ...._...~ _~ Chalrman Tolar indicated he did not want to hear this typc of informecion and inst~uctQd Mr. Holstein to tolk about this particular prvJect. Mr. Ilolsteln contlnuecf that Mr. Smith had butlt fences along the caseme~t nn both sides of Lynrose Drive on M~. Etx' property without pQrmission and without notiflcAeion to the owner and~ as a result~ a registered letter had becn sent t~ Mr, Sm(th instruGting him to reaiovo Iz~ which Mr. flolste(n wished to submit to the Commission for thelr review and also ph~tographs of thc fencing. Chairman Tolar stated that he was trylny t~ a11aN latitude tn thls heartn~ but that this is a police matter and thet the Plannin~ Cammisslon tc ~nly interPgted in th~ prQ)~ct and has no .jurisdictlon re~~ardinq the casement or fences. Mr. Nolste(n stated he wantecJ to point out that the casement is for ingress and egress only. Cheirman Tolar asF:ed Mr. Zylstra if this Is a recorded, valid~ 60-foat easemenc and if it was there wl~en the owner bought the property. Mr. Zylstr~ replled that It is a lega) ingress and egress easem~nt and that ihere is presently a 34 to 3z~f~ot paved street which gtves access to said property. He stated xhat when the architect worked out the sicc improvement pians~ he felt It would be a much mare. desirable plan for appearance ro place these plPnting strips to sh(eld the driveway areas fran the street~ but (f that Is a prohlem~ thosc can be remnved. He stated thcy had not known until now tfierc wa~ an objectian to the plentcr strlps. Ile indicated the parking places could b~ relocated; that these landscapcd areas are well ovcr the amaunt ~f landscaped area required and they c~~uld be removed and still be wlthln Code. I~e indicated as far as dedicatiny to the C~ty their riglits of ingress and egress~ he dld not se~ how they couicl do this since they do not own the property. Chairman Tolar asked Jack White~ Deputy Clty Attorney~ how they could bulld on the easement~ and Jack 4lhite stated they are shc~wing scxne tmprovements on the EO-foot easement and sugqested that they either get a qultclaim of that portion of the easement or remove those Improvcments. Mr. Zylstra stated they wlll either ye[ approval of the landscaped arcas or wlll remove tt~em; that they just felt lt was is~ore desi~a5le to have the landscaped areas as shown. Commissioner Herbst indlcated he felt even though the Planning Commissi~n does not like continuancNS, that under t~~e circumstances and because of the modifications requlred to the pian~ he felt (t would be in urder for the petitioner to talk with the adJacent property owners and bring back plans that are rrore realtstlc. Chairman Tolar suggested to Mr. Wlmer that it is the Plann(ng Commission's business to try to make better plans in the City of Anaheim and sugges~ed that they should loak favo~ably on trying to make this proJect compatible with theirs~ and stated lie hoped they would meet with open minds to see if something could be done to make it a good use for both parcels. Mr. WEmer polnted out that the proposed plan shows 20 or 30 parking spaces hacking out tnto Lynrose D~ive and he thought khat was the most unsafe condition he had ever seen on a plan~ and that was what had caused the obJection to the pro,ject. Chairman Tolar indicated he understood what Mr. Wlmer was saying and that lt was a very vatid point; that these plans have to be redrawn and that he did not want tn see park(ng places backing out into that street and felt a two-week continuance would be in order. MII~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 5~ 1977 %7~8~0 EIR NEGATIVC DECLA WITION ANQ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77'78-28 (contlnued) . Commissioner Nerbst asked the pntltioner how much tin~ he would need to redraw the plens~ and Mr. Zylstra replled thst ha would Ilke two weeks. Annika Sartalahti~ Assistant Dir~ctor for 2oning~ polnted out that the drewinys wc~uld hava to be back to the P1Anniny Dapartment wtthln one wnek. Mr. 2ylstra polnted out that b~fore they had drawn this plan they had met w(th Mr. Smlth and that he did not want to have a~ything tn do with eve~ looktng at the plans but he had satd to do whatev~r they wanted and naw he Is telling them somethin9 else. Chalrman Tolar suggested that if Mr. Smith ~:id not want to meet with the owners~ thcy shautd consider drawing Cl~alr plans eround th~e easem~nt. Cc~mmisstoner Nerbst potnt~d out that the nwncrs should yet coc~ether to work out thc best proJect for both percels; that if ;i~ls proJect ts approved~ there is e GO-foot easement and the Planning Commission knows that the~~ do nat need that much for a roaciway; that the two partles should work out a better plan; and that he did not wsnt to se~e a bare street yoing down through thelr praJect witho~~t any IAndscaping anci wlth garaqes backi~g out onto tt. ACTION: Commissloner Nerbst offered a motlon, scconded by Ga.nmissloner David and MaTION CARRIED (Commission~r Johnson being absent). that consideratlon ot the aforementloned (tem be conttnued to the regular Planning Commission meeting ~f Dacember 19~ 1977~ in ord~r for the petlt(oner to submit revised plans. Mr. Wimer polnted out that it would be Impossible for Mrs. Smith to be present at the December 19th ~~~eetiny. Chairman Tolar indic~ted tliat staff shuuld investigate th~ offcr of dedication which has been made by Mr. 5mith with Mr. Ma;ldox. ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEG/ITIVE DECLARATION PUBLIC HEARI~~G. Ot IER: KOI2UM1 INTERNATIONHL, aECLASS F Ct~ IQN NQ. 7-~8-,2,~ IFlC., 140i Dove Street~ Suite 650. Newport 6each~ Q~' . Z CA g2660. AGENT: INTER-VERDE CORP., 1401 Oove ~A IV~ E MAP 0 TRACT N0. 1017u Street, Suite 650, ~lewport Beach~ CA 92660. E:NGI~~EER: W. R. HAYNES b CO.~ 3829 81rch Street~ Newport aeach~ CA q2660. Property described as a rectangularly-sl~aped parcel of land consisting of approximaCely ane acre having a fro~tage of approxirnately liq feet on the north side of Savanna Street~ having a maximum depth of approximatelv 383 feet~ being located approximately 546 feet wast of the center- line of Knott Street~ and furthc~ described as 3539 West Savanna Street. N~operty presently classified RS-A-43.A00 (RESIDENTIA~/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. REQUESTED GLASSIFICATION: RM-4000 (RESIUENT111L, MUITIPI.E-FAMILY) ZONE REQUESTED VARIANCE: MIAIVER OF MAXIMUM 57RUCTURAL f~EIGHT 'fEt~TATIVE TRACT REQUEST: 1-lot. y-unit candominiun subdivision 7here wes no one indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request~ and one per~on indicated her p~esence in suppo~t of the request. Althauyh the staff resport to the MINUTES. ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Decembar 5~ 1977 77-831 EIR NEGATIVC OECIARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77~7~-29~ VARIANCE N0. 2q80 A~~D TENTATIV~ MAP OF TRACT N0. tU 1 J8 Scan t I nued) ... ~~ ..._.~..~.~ P 1 enn I•- Commi ss ion ds ted Dacenber 5~ 1977 was not read at the pub 1 1 c h~Ar i ng. 1 t t s referrr. to and n~ade a part of tl~e minutcs. Alion Landsmen, Inter-Vordr Corporation~ representing tt~e ogent for the petttinner~ lndicatad tha request is for reclassificatlon to RM-400A wlth a varlance of structural helght. He indicated he was not su~e the structure) helght vsrlance was necessary In that the proposel Is to have a loft above the kitchen eren which maY be e secon~i story but they did not consider It a second story, Ne pointrd out a typa~rapl~tcal error In the staff report on pogc 8-b~ last llnc~ 1nJic~+cing a G-foot hlack wall alc~ng all Interl~r (should reACi extcrtor) lot iincs. Comm(~s(oner King asked H~. Lendsman to repiy to the Flrr Depar[ment's requost that adequate turn-around area be provideo for Fire De?artment vehicirs an the subJect property~ and Nr. Landsman rcplied that tt~e Flre pepartmcnc had approved his rcv(sed plsns. Ms. Joan Tndd~ ;620 Savanr~a StrFet~ Anaheim, (ndlcated she would Ilke to go on record as being in fav~r of tt~(s project; th~t in tiie past ~he had left witl~ the feeling that the Planning Commission slt she was not In fav~r of proyress~ but that she considered thls a very reas,~nable proJect; that ths petitioner had met with the resi~ients ond shcri~ed them plans~ and el) the residents seemed to be in favor of the proposal; she InJicated they do need the dralnagc problem solved as there is still ~ aro~~lem. CF:airrtu~n Tolar asked if the dttch which had been ~onstructed had helped any~ and she replied thar. it had hclped some but there is still water sitting on t{ie ground where the apartments are. TIiE PUBL 1 C NEAR I NG r1AS C LOSED. ACTI~N: Commissioner King offered a motlon. seconded by Commisstoner David and MOTION ~~ (Commissioner Johnson bein9 abscnt). that thc Anaheim ~Ity Planning Commisslun has ~eviewed the subJect proposal to reclass(fy the property from RS-A-43~000 (Residential/Ag~lcultural) to R14-4000 (aesidential ~ Multipie-Family) to establish a or,e- lot~ nine-unit condominium subd(vtsion with waiver of ma~clmum structural helght on land cvnsisting of approximately one acre I~aving a frontage of approximately 119 feet on the north stde of S~vanna Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 383 feet~ bcfng locatad epprox(nustely 54b feet west of the centerline of Knott 5treet; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmenta) impact report on the basis that there would tse no significant i~dividual or cumulative adverse envtronmental impact due to the approval of this Negatlve Declaration since the Anahelm Generel Plan des(ynates the subJect property for law-medium residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensiCive ~nvironmental impacts are i~volved in the proposal; that tha Initta) Study submittad by the petittoner indicates no signiflcant individual or cumulative adverse snvironmental (mpacts; and that the Neyative Declaration substantiatin.~ thc f~regoing fl~dings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. ACTION: Commissioner King offcred Resolution No. PC71•269 and moved for its passage and adopt~~on, that the Anahelm City Planning Cortmission does hereby grant Petitfon for Reclasslfication No. 77-78-29~ subject to petitioner's stipulatton that adequate turn- aroun~~ area be provided for ~ire Dep~rtment vehicles on sub,ject property. and suoJect to Interdepart-nental Commi ttee recommendations. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by th~ following votc: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ HERBST. KING~ LItiN~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMIS~IONERS: JOHNSON ~ MI NUTGS ~ IWANE I M C I TY PLANN I f~C GOMMI SS I ON ~ Dncembor ~. 1~ J J 77-832 EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION~ RCCLASSIFICAT ION N0. 77'76~29. VARIIINCE N0~ 2~a0 AND TENTATIVC MAP OF TaACT N0. 101 8 conti~ued Commissionar Kir-y offcred Resolutlon No. PC71-270 nnd moveci for lts pessage and r~doptlon~ that the Anuhe i m C 1 ty P 1 enn i ny Commi gs i on does hereby gran t Pet i t I on for Var i ance No. 2yiS0~ on tl~e basfs that tlic pet(tioner demc,nstratecl thet e 1~erdsii(p exists In that althou~h nesarby propertics are current~y xnnod RS-A-43.00~ (Residentlal/Agricu~tural), tl~e General Plo~~ deslgnetiun is for Ic>w-medium dcnsfty residential land use~ slmi lr~r to the propo~al ~ and sub jr.ct to Incerdepartment~l Cornnittee recorm~endat(ons, On rol I call ~ the foreyoin~a resolution wt+s p.~ssed by the fc~l lowincl vote; AYFS : COMMI S5) ONERS: t3ARNES ~ UnVI U, HEkIfST ~ r;I lIG ~ L I IIN ~ TOLJ+R NOE S: GUMt11 SS I ONEft5 : NONE ADSC~JT: COMMISSIOIICRS: JOHNSfIN Cormissi~mer Kiny uffereJ a r~tlon~ seconded by Commist(onr.r L(nn anJ NOTION CARRILU (~omrnissioncr Jolinsun bcliic~ abscnt), tht~t tlie Anaheirn Clty Plnnning Cornrn( ss lon does herel~y f i nd th~~t thc prc~pnsed subcJi vi s i cm ~ toc~et her w l t h i t s dosign and Improven~ent~ is c~naistent witlirthe Ci~y of Anaheim Ge~vL~iTenta1tive pursuant to Govcrnn~ent Code Section GU473.,, ~nd dacs hcrcby a~p Mep of Trect No. 1Q1I~ f~r a<~nc-lot, ninc-uni t condorninium suL•division~ subject to the fol luwln~.; cond'i tic~ns: 1, That thc ap{~roval of Tentative M~p af Tract t~o. 1~17F- is yranted subJect i~ the ~pproval of Recl:~ssifl~ation No, 71-I~S-29~ 2. That shoulJ this s~bdivisfon be developed as mc~re then ~ne subdiviston~ each sub~livision thereof s~~all be submitc~d in tentativcs form for appr~v~l. 3, 7hat al) lots within this [ract shal i he served by under~~rotmd ut~ ~ 1ties. 4. Ttiat a tinal tr~ct mo~~ uf sub ject properir shal 1 be subrnltted to and ~pproved bY the Ci _y Councl 1 and then be rec;or~lc~ i n the c~ffice of the Oranye ~our,tY Rec~rder. 5, Tt~ac the cove~ants~ conditiuns, and ~escrictions shall be sub~~~tte to and e(~proved by the Gily Attorney's Office and Gi ty Engineer prior to City Coun ~ 1 ~pproval af tl-e f i na 1 tract ma{~ and~ fur ther, tha t tf~e ap ~roved cc~venonts , condi t ions ~ and re:stricti~ns shall b~: rec~rded concurrently witl~ C~~e final tract map. G, That drainaye oR subjccc pr~perty shall be disposeo af in a manner satisfactory td [hc C i ty Eng i nce r. 7. That the owner(s) of sub}ect praperty shal l pay to the Clty of Anaheim the approprletc park ~. ~i recreation in-1 ieu fees as detcr~ined to be approprtate by the City Councll~ sald fees to bc paid at tlie time [he bulld'sng perrnit {s is~~~°~i, Mi~lUTCS~ l1NANCl~1 CITY pLANI11Nr COMNISSION~ fkceml~»r , 1~77 71'433 ITCM N0. EIR NEGATIVE UECLIIRATIOt~ P~~LIG NE~RINf,, OWNER: WESTERN PLAYCARE, ING.~ . ~ S n 4~~ Np. .7~.. 2 2y1; E:ast South St~c~t . Anahelm~ LA ~?B~G, /1GF_N'T: C~RL ULLVEDERE . ~~~~ T~legraph Itoad~ Lo3 An yr 1 es, cn 9~~u~ • P~t i t i one r requosts reclessification of propcrty described as a rect~~ngulnrly-shaped parcel of land con~istlnq of approxl~n~~tely ~.7 acre I~aving a ~`rnr~to9~ of approxlmete~Y~~~jfeetetand beln,y~lolcetedc ~f Orangewood Avenue~ haviny a n~ximum depth r-f approxlmetely ~~ ~ approxlinate ly 24; fe~t west of thc centcrl inc of Spinnakcr S t re~t~ frorn the~ RS-A•43,000 (RC5) UENT 1 Al/AGRI CULTURAL) to tlic RM' 12 00 (RES I UL~ITIAL , MULT 1 F'LE-FANI LY) XOIIE . The ro waa ~~a onr I nc~ ( ca t i ng tl~e i r p res~ ~ice i n oppos I t( ~n to s ub.j ec t reques t. And a 1 though the staff report to the Planniny Commission datcJ Uecember `_~. 1977 wds not reed at the public hearing~ it is rcfcr'rcd to and maJe a part uf the minutcs. Tom Ururmion~l~ designer ~f tlie project. ststed tfiey ore propvsiny ~~> unlts for thi5 p~o~ect and were ~l lowe~ 16; that thcy havc ~fevclu~ed al~out 4~z of the ~~rea as o~posecl t~ 55~ al~~+Ee~ui red•tani thatPtl~eystinvc,aske,l~forcnolvirlance51andShavsAprovidedhlanisc8pin~rfor feet r q ~ 17'b nf the s i tc . Ti1E PUDLI C HEARING Wl1S CLOSEU. Commisstoner Linn asked Mr, ~rurtmond ahout thc 1'~-(oot widn landscaped buffcr ++rea as opposed *o the 20-foot rr,qui red, and Mr, Ururrmund rr~p 1 ied that there wes ar~ enormous amoun' <~f other lanJscapiny; tl~at thc only t,uil~fing that is wit~~ln 10 feet of the w~ll at tlie re.. *h~ carpuris; and t.l~at th~ re ( s ~~arking throu9hout t-~c rest of the area and they have cens(vely landscapcd tt~e 10-foot t~uffr.r zane. I~c stated there was a yuestic:n from thc Fi rc DepArtrnent end tlia[ had bcen rectifl ~d. ACTI011: Commissio~er Y,iny offered a rnution~ seconded ny Commiss1oncr David and NOTION CARRIEU (Commissioncr Jo{~n5on bein~J absent}~ th~it the Anaheim City P{annin~ Comnission has reviewed the sub ject prc,posa 1 to rec 1 ass ( fy tlie zonl ny f rom RS-A~43 ~~~~~ (Resiclential/Agr(cultural) to RM-1200 (Resldential, Multiple-~QX~~~e~" ~3pafeet on the~ consisting of approximately 0.') acrc haviny a frontage of app Y south si de of Orangewooci Avenue, hav i ~~ a maximum deptti of approxirt~[ely 24~ fee[, and being loeated apnroxim~tely 2b~ feet w~sst of tl~e centerline of Spin;~aker Strr.et; ard does hereby approve the Negatlve Decl~rati on fram ttie rcquiremenc tn prenare an envlronrt-antal Impact ~epnrt on the ba5is that there would be na signi ficant Individual or cumulative adverse environrnental Ir~pacC clue to ti~e approval of tf~is Negative Declaration since the Anaheim Ceneral Plan deslgnates the subject property for low•R-edium density residential land uses commensurate wlth the propvsal; that no sensit~ve environmental impACCs are Involved in th~ propasel; ttiat tt~c Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no sigi~ifiea~t individual ~r cumulative adverse env(ronmental Impe~ts; and that tfie Negative Ueclarat ion substantiating thc~ foregoing finci,ngs !s on f i le in the City of Anaheim Planning Qepartn~ent. ACTION: Commissioner Kin,y offered Resolu:ion f~o~ PC77-271 and moved for its passage and adoption that tt~e Analieim City Plann ing Commission does he reby grant Petl tion for Recl~ssi ficatlon ko. 11-7~'3Z. sub~ect to petitioner's sti pulation to densely landscape a 10-foot wi de buf fer area abutt i ng tf~e s l ny le-faml ly res i de nces (RS- J2Q~) t~ the south and to provi de edequate turn-arou~d area for Ff re nepartmc ~t vehl~les on subJect property. and subject to interdc:partr~ental Committee rccomrnendations. 1 ` 7y-834 MINUTLS, ANAfiLIN CITY PL~NNING COMMISSI01~, Decomber 5~ 1a77 E I R NkGAT! VE UECLARAT I ON AtID RLCLASS I F 1 CAT ION N0. 7-78- 2( conti nuad) On rol I cr 1 1~ the for~yQ~ ~9 ~eso) ut i on was possed by the fo 1 1 rn+i n~ ~ote : AYESs COMMISSIONlKS; UARNGS~ UAVI~• HkRDST~ KING~ I.INN~ TOLAR NOES~ COMNI55IOIdER:~: N~NC AE35ENTt COMMIS510~1ERS: JOIINS011 Chal rmen To 1 ar s tated he wan t~:d the reeord to show that tl~e Commi ss i on has a 1 1 owed xh i s land~caped buffe~ st~~tp ~f °nandscaf edtbuffcrttzone~;ptliat~ttiisaparticulArY~r ~~rtyeand the po 1 I cY to requ ( re ~~ ~4~ foot I p way It Is efesi~,~ned ~ind abuta other A i~p~~~hedfict11tha'tatheacfrivawayf isclocateJ behin~nthe structure, ~~nd Gou~~nis5i~~ncr Ilcrbst l andscapcd ense-nent .~nd no cars wl i 1 be parkiny .id.jacent to the fenr.e, 1TCM NU. 1(1 pUIiLIC NCARING. OWNER5: f.UUlk: J. ANU ZOk AIIN E 1 R!~ I VE UL CLARl1T 1Otl REC ASSIF CA IOtI I~O. 71•7~` CORRl1LC5~ ~57 Los Coyotcs f~rivc~ Anaheim~ CA ~)2~O1. AGE:NT; D01~ E3a0W11~ 22r1h E.ast La Palma Avenu~, nnaheim, CA ~,~200G• Petitioncr rsqucsts recla5sl f 1 catiu~ of prc~perty described os an i rre~~ular~oxi~n~atel p~6Cfeetf onatheCeas~st- in,y of approxfmately 0. ~ acre V~avin~~ a frontaye °~roximatel 21S feet. I~eincl located siJe of Cast St~eet, haviny rnaximum depth of app Y approximately 1Sy feet f°nm'~tl~~ RMe1~+!~~t~R~Sr~~~~~TIAL~,~MU~.TiPIC-~FAMILY)rtoethelRMJ1200 314 5outh ~~StMUL71f'LE-FANILY) ZUIlE• ( K~SIOEt:T { ~1L~ Thcre was na one In.iic.~tinc~ the(r o~xnisslonida[~~oDecemberU~suk1971twas~~ottreadnatatleough thc staff report to t1~E Planniny C publlc hearing. ~t Is refcrred to and m~~Je a part of tl~e minutcs. Oon Brown~ architect anci agent for the petitioner~ stated the proJe:.t is for 13 units; that the drAwings h~d been {~repa~ed'aadl~~~ formtheeproject~. a~e,stated`htSfelttsquareund they were a I 1 ttle short on fo~t~y~ footayes become a matter of playin~~ yames ~r~~~'that~ccsistsubtractingrthetareahof the differently than the Planniny Departn,ent; d~iveway ti~ ~xcess of 12~) feet~ which rrwkes the ~Iffere~ce in *hls pr~ject. ~~{~; p~E~~.! ~ i;EAAl1~G 41A5 C!.USEU. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoni~~~~ explai~ed that Nr, tiravn is referring to the Plan~ing Oepartment's procedure for c~~lculacing the d~nsity on th~ netarent~rea by subtracting n thev~rossWlot areaxan~idach(evedea densltytfoanRMt2400heandppindicat~d staff calcul ~teJ o 9 for RH-2400. t~as ca 1 culated that he I s a bl t ove r the dens 1 ty Commiss ioner Herbst windowscfacingaeastninrthe apartnent unitsgand~that thererwi 11 be no indlcated there are parking in the 10-foot landscaped strlp. ACT~,I~ON,,,: Com~missioner -lerbst offe~ed a mc~tio~~hatctheePlanning Cortunissi nahas aeviewedOthe GARRI E U ( Commi ss i o~e r Johnson be i ng absen t) ~ subJect proposal to reclassify the zoning from RM-Z400 (Residentia~~roximatelyFOmf3,ec~e~ RM•1200 (Res idential . Mul tip~e-Fami ly) on property cons i st(ng of app having a frontaye ~f app~oximatelY 9~ feet on the east side of East Street~ havtng a MINUTES~ ANANEIN CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ December y~ 1377 17-835 EIR NLGATIVE DECLARAlION AND RLCLASSIFICATION N0. 17-7~•33 (conttnued) maxin~um Joptl~ ~f approximately 21) feut~ baing I~catcd epproximately 135 fe~t south of the centerl (ne of i3~oeciway; end does hereby approva ilie ~le~ative Declaretion from thQ requirenwnt to pr~pare an environmenta) impact report on the hesis that tl~ere wouid be no slynlffcAnt Ind(vidua) or cumulative adverse ~nvironmental (n~ect due ta the approval of thts Negative Uecleratlon s(nce th~ Anaheim Genera) Plen designetes the subJect property for medlum density resldentlal land uses commensurntc wlth tl~e proposel; that no sensltive envlronrt-entol (mpacts ~r~ involved in the proposal; that thls proJect wc~uld upc~rade the ar~a; that thc Inltlal Study submit[ed by tf~e petitio~~er (ndicates no s(gntf(cant indtv(dual or cuinulat(ve advcrse environ mental impacts; ond thAt thc Negative Decieration substontlating tho foregoin,y F(ndinc~s Is on filc in tl~e Ctty of Aneheim Plenning Dapertment, ACTION; Commissloner Kiny offered Resoiuti~n No. PC77-777 snd moved for its passaye and a opt on that the Anahcim C(ty Planning Gomm(sslon does herehy qrant Petlti~n f~r Reclassiflcation Na, ~7-73-33, sub,jecc to pet(tfoner's stipula~tlon that a 10-tnot wtde~ denscly lendscaped bufFer are~ shall be provided alony thc e.~st propcrty line adJacent to the RS-J200 (Resldentl~l~ Sinyle-Family) zoninq~ ~nJ that sni~ {0-foot buffer width~ aith~ugh less than tlie 20-foot, typically requlred~ is suit~ible in view of the fact tl~ot surrounding RM-12Q~ propertles er~ currently dcveloped wlthout such lanJytaped buffQring adjocent to sinyle-family res(dentlal areas~ and subject to Interdcpart-nental Cortimlttee rec~mmenJations. Gn rol l ca11 ~ ct~c foreyotny res~lution was passed by tf-~ fol lawing vatc: AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: BARI~CS~ nnvin, HERDST~ KI~IG~ lI1~N~ TOIAR N0~5 : COMM 1 S51 QNk RS s NOI~E ABSE~JT: COMMISSIOtlEP,S: JOHIISON Chairr~an 1'oler indicated h~ wuuld like the same nocatfun to be madc ~n the record that approval of this l0~foot w(de landscaped buffer strip does n~t mean thc Planning Cortmission has changed their policy reya rdiny the ?0-foe~t IandscaRed buffer strip. Ile (~dicateJ that in th(s case tlie~e wauld be no vehicular circulAtton but Ch~t he felt the Commission should be careful since it seems evcry~ne is asking for waiver of the 20-foot strlp~ and ttiat staff shc~uld ~nake sure ctiat each petitioner is given e copy of thaC policy. Anr~ika Santal~hti po(nted o~~c that when [he nefyhbcrs have already developed ape~tments and there (s nat a 2~-foot strip required on tF~ei~• devclopment~ the questiun becomes wl~ethcr or not the 2Q-foo[ strip is appropriate at adjecent pr~pcrties. M I NUTES ~ AtIAl1E I M C I TY PLANP! 1 NG COMM I SS I ON ~ pecembcr ~~ 1977 77~~36 ITCH N0. 11 ICAL EX~MPTION-CLASS 3 PUHLIC 11EARlNG. bWNCR: MARGARET M. DOIiRO5Y.l~ ~ 1~CE t10~i 4092 Neadowbrook Strect~ Orenge~ CA 92GGy. AG~1~T: ~ETTY C. TIU4IELL, 704 East North Street~ Anahelm, CA 92801• Petitioner requests WAIVER OF (A) MI~~IMUM FLOOR AREA~ ~U) MIt~INUN NUMaER OF PARKING SPAGES~ At1U (C) aEQUIREMENT TI~AT VF.II I CULAR ACGES5 ~G FRQM ALLE:Y ONLY ~ T0 PE RNI T A SECONU S I NGLE-FAN I LY RES I DENCE ON A LOT on property descrihecl as a rectanyularly-sl~aped parcel of land consisting vf dpproximetely 55~0 squ.~re fer.t havinu a frontaye of a~proximately b8 feet on the east sidc of Paullne Street~ hnving a mox(rnum depth ~f approxtmetely 115 feet~ being located appror.lmatcly 3~; fect south of the ~~nterline of Nortl~ Strect, and further descrlbed as )3G Peulinc Sireet. Propcrty presently classified RM-2b00 (MULTIPL~-FAhtILY RESIUEIITIAL) ZONE. Ttiere was no onc in~icatln~,~ thcir presencc in apposition to subJect request, and alth~ugh the staff rcport t~ thc Planning C~~mmission Jatc~ December 5~ 1`~7I wAS not reed e( the publlc hearlny, ic is rcfcrrcd to onJ rnr~de n p~~rt of thc mir~utes. Margaret Uobroski~ thc c~wner~ Indic~ted she wlshed t~ mavc a two-hedroom house onto thc lot ~t 736 Pauline Str~et and tl~at thc fivuse is sm~ller tl~a~ required by Code. Sha indicated thls (s a nice house and is compatible wlch others in [he ne!yhborhood wh(ch are tl~t samc slze~ of tl~e s3me wooJ and in tl~e saine cr~ndition. Shc indiceted ihe house would be moved about onr_-half mile from Komncya L'rive. Edward Perez incficatr.d he ilves in the: existing house c~n th(s lot and thAt he is fam(liar witli the house wl~icl~ Mr. Dobroski wishes to nx~ve on;o the loc~ and that it Is a very nice housc ~nd wil) bc can~atlble witl~ the surr~uncling areas and will improve the property. Ne indicoted there is ample roorn t~ bui Id a ti~ree-car car{~orc and tt~at CherP is an existiny slJewalk, TIIE PUBLiC tIk.ARINC WAS ~CLOSE:~. Comm( ss i oner ~le rbs t re fe ~red to tl~e d r 1 veway and tl~c 15 fec t on the oppos i tc s( de of the house and suggested relocatlny ttie liousc on the lot to alio-a m~re room adJecent to the driveway. Ms. Dobroski pointed out tl~at the driveway is existing and [hat they cannot reloc.a:t the house because of four trees which shc docs not wish to ~emovc. Comm3ssioner Nerbst pointed out that if tl~e Planning Commissi~n ap~roves this requesc, thon the matter musc go to tl~e Ctty Council for a moving permit. and Jack Nhite~ Deputy City Attorney. pointed out that the Planninc~ Commission can approve everything except thc house itself, and th~t t!~e City Council approves whether or not it is cvmpatible and can be moved onta the lot. The pet i t loner asked t~ow long th i s woul d ta~c as tlie I~ouse has to be rtx~ved by the f i rst of the yeor. Cortanissianer Herbst Inclicated he felt this particular house in tl~is area would be compaCible. It was noted the Directur of the P!anning Department I~a~ determined that the proposed activity f~lls w:thin the definitfon of Section 3.01~ Class 3~ of the City of Anahetm Guidelines ta the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore~ categorlcally exempt from the requirement tn fiie an EIR. MINUTCS~ ANANEIM CITY P UINNING COMMISSION~ Decembmr 5~ 197J 77~837 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-GL/lSS 3 AND VARIIW CE N0, 2981 (continued) _.r..~ --....~ ACTIQ~~t Commissioner Nerbst offerud aosolutlon No. PC77•2~3 end moved for its passAge end ei3optlon that t~~e Anat~elm Ctty Ple~ning Commtssion does hereby grant Pet(tlon for Vartance No. 2~81. granttnq waiver (a) on the basls tliot th~ existin huuses In th~ surrounding nciyhborhood are of a similor siza, ~nd yranttng watvers (b~ and (c) on tho basls that tl~c drlveway end yerage are existing and slmtlar parking and vehicular access are provtded to the existing dwell(ngs In the area~ anJ subJect to Intcrdepartment~~l Committee r~comrr~ndat t ~ns . On roll cell, tl~c fore~aolne~ resoluti~n wes ~assed by tlir follc~wing vr~tc: AYF:S: COMMISSIONERS: BARIJES~ DAVID, IIERtlST~ ICING~ LINN~ TOLAR NOFS: COMM15510NE:RS: NONE ABSEI~T: CUMM 1 SS 10~lERS : J011t~S01~ 17L'M N0. 12 ICAL EXl:MPTION-GLASSES 1 3 b 11 READVCRTISED PUfiLIC NEARIN~. OWNEA.: pl ON L USL RM N0. 1 J 1 E3F:Tf1 AUAMS ~ LTU. ~ 1 y-~5 Wi 1 st~i re Bou) evard ~ V ANC N. 29 Los Anyeles, CA ~10~17. AGENT: FAINTINGS OF TNE WORLD~ 5G25 West Century Boulevard~ Los Angeles~ CA 900~+3. Proper~y described as a rectangulerly-shaped parcel of land co~si,ting of approxirt-a[ely 0.9 t~cre locsted at tlie northeast c~rner at Katella llvenue and Zeyn Street~ having approximate frontage~ of 2~Q feet on the nurth sicla of Katella Ave~uc end 190 fcet on tt~e cast s(dc of Zeyn Street~ and further descrlbed as 1,~1 4fest KateilA Avenue. Property presently classifled ML (INDUSTRIAI.~ IIMITED) ZONE. REQUESTEU COI~UITION~L USE: TO PERMIT A RETAII ART SALES FACILITY IN TIdE ML ZONE WITN 4fA1VER QF (A) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK AND (B) REQUIRED SCREENING OF PARKING AREA. REQUC5TED VARIANGC: WAIVER OF (A) PRONIBITEU SIGNS, (I3) NNXINUN SIGN COVERAGE~ AND (C) MINIMUM NUMflER OF PARKIIIG SPACES. There was no ore (ndicatiny their presence in oppositton to subJect request~ and although the staff repo~t to the Planning Commission dated December 5~ 1977 was not read at th~e publlc hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Edward p(lkes~ attarney~ 1130 West Olympic Boulevard~ Los Anyeles, representing Palntings of the World~ stated that ttiis use is essentially a commercial use that can be operated out of a warehouse; that t~~is is a warehouse property now located in a camnerclal area. He stated the building is suitable to the cliPnt's use in an area nf increasfng commercial utilization; that the building will not conform immediaCely to industrial standards and cannot be brouyht into complete conformity with commercial standards. Ne indicaCed the petitto~er's desire to s~t up an amortization period on the patnting of the sign. Reforriny to the request for waive~ of lanJscaping~ he pointed out the petitloner is willing ta la~dscape the fr~nt portion o~ Katella Avenue and the waiver for minlmum number of parking spaces is not as indicated; that the petitioner has redrawn the parking plen and there Is more {~arking than originally submitted. TNE PUaLIC NEARING 1JAS CLOSEU. Chalrman Tolar asked if thiS property was rezoned to C-R~ wt~at would the pa~king requirements bc~ and J. J. Tashiro, Assistant Planner~ replied they would be the same. MINUTCS~ ANANEIM GITY PLANNING CONMISSIQN~ Oecember 5~ 1g77 7y-83~ EIR CATEGORICAL EXCMPTIAN-GLASSES 1~ 3 6 11~ CONDITIONA~ USE PERMIT N0. f7G1 ANO VARIANCE N0. 2 G cont(nued Chairmen 7olar lnciicat~d lie felt the property sh~uld be rozoned to C-R and then thr. walvers would not be necessary. Mr. Dilke, stated that tl~e petitioner woulJ be perfectly li~ppy If the =oning w~s changed but tlie pr~pcrty c~wner does n~t went it changed. Mr. Mo~gan Adarns~ owner c~f the property~ stnted that he haJ owne~ th(s rroperty for a number of years; thnc it was dosiyn~:d as a dock-typc warehouse and do~s not lend Itself to cortrnercfol uses bccause it is seven or eight steps ebovc gradc~ and that other Gonxnerclel uses of that typc woulci r~ot be suitable fc~r this nro~crty Ile polnted out that the patltlunur is happy to hm~r_ his customers clirnh those few steas but that lf the petitloner moved out~ I~e w~uld have tn gu back co usin<~ the bu(1Jin9 as a warehouse end di~1 not went th~: praperty rezoncd. Cl~a 1 rman To 1 a r i ne1 i ca teJ tie wou i d 1 i ke to see some type of I and use co~ formance and tfia t the rest af the properey in the areA (s zoned C-R, and he could not v(e~i this site as evcr bei~g Industrlal usc. Mr. Adams polnted out that when the buildin~ was built tfiere was noch(ng there but o~ange groves and that th~re f~~vc bee~ five or six industriel propcrcles bu(It aince then~ and along Zcyn thcre arc uttier warchouses. Mr. Dilkes referred to tt~e staff reporc to thc Planning Commission and the Interdep~rtmental Cornmi[tee recoirmwnJations and felt these were conditions normally tmposed for reclassiftcations or rezuninys of propcrty. Ile was c~ncerned about the conveyance of the 15-foot radius property Ifne retur~~ at Zeyn Street and Katella Avenue and polnted out that sidewatk5 are installc~i along Zeyn; that (t ts only a nub af e street and tl~ere (s no pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Nerbst pointed out the~t thie applicant can apply to the City Engineerino De~artment for w~ive~ of tf~e sidewalk rPquirement if the sidewalks are not n~eded~ and Jay Titus, Office Enyineer~ poinced out that wa~ a decis(on the Ctty EnginPer would have to makc. Mr. Diikc:s referreJ to tt~e requirement c~ncerniny the lighting facllitiPS on Katella and Zeyn and indicated they were already there~ ancf Chairman Tolar pofnted out that if the 1(ghting facilities are in and paid for~ then chey will not I~ave to pay for them again, but it is a standard condition. Gommissioner Herbst asked M~. Dtlkes about tt~e wa(ver for minimum lands~aped setback~ and Mr. Dtlkes replied that tfie petitioner wiil be t~appy to )anJstape in the tront of the buildtng along Katclla. but the la~idscapiny on 2eyn is a different problem; that there is no water to that area and there are no boxes provided for planting; and that it would be~ very expensive to remove the blacktap and put in pipes. He indicated hls cllent 'i~~d contacted a local landscapp designer and found it would cost about $9.7~0 to prov-d~~ landscaptng on Zeyn. Ile also pointed out that this (s a requirement in the (ndustria) zone but it would not be a requircment in the C-R Zone and that he felt thcy were Juggling the cond6tlonal use permit and ~eariance procedures to accomplish the same purposes uf the re=oninq; that he felt that w~~s legally permissible. A~nika Santalehti~ Assistant Oirector For Zoning, pointed out the conditional use permit is needed simply because it is indu,trlal zoning; that if the zoning was finalized to C-R~ there would be a nenconfo~ming landscaped setback~ but that ttie sc~eening may not ~e required; that this was approached from the beyinning standpoint as if the us~ had not been established tllegally. ~. MINUTES~ 11NAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Decemtxsr 5~ 1977 77-839 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1~ 3 6 11 ~ COt~t11TI0Nl1l USE PERHIT IJO. 1761 AI~~ VARtANCC N0. 2 76 contlnued Mr . D 1 1~;es s tated rega r~l 1 ny s t yns ~ tfie ~e t i t I oner had moved I n and h~d put the s I gns I n, not beln~~ ew~ro chore was a Sign Ordinr~~ica; thax the ~etitloncr is willlnq to coaperete wlth the Clty and bring tlie butlJlny into cunformo~ce but would like to have a rerlod of time sufficlent to am~~rtl~e the; exlsting value of the portable sign. He indicated the patitloner hed staL~:d the si~~i~ would have served its purpose at thc end of two years. tie inJlcated the siyn would have a stg~ificant impact becausr. of the tremendous setback and it Is only vlsible tf you ar~: tr~veliny on Katella from the west, tlo incllcated the petltlaner is willtng to rerr~v~ th~e slgn but woulJ Ilke to tiave e two-ycar perloci for amnrtizatiun. Gomm(asluner Nerbst referred to t~~e max{mum siyn coverage waiver, indicatine~ 100~ exlsting and 20~ permttted. Mr. Dilkes stated he would dtspute thc 100$ fiyurc; that th~t assumes therc is no background color of the builaing at all; that at v~rious ~Imes in tol4;ing wich varlous members of the Planniny staff~ there were different theorics .~s to what sign covcrage exists on the front of the bui Idirig; that he wi I1 adml t i t is s~'xnething not less than 6~~ and thet depends upon whether or n<~t you decide tl~e basic color af the bulldln~ Is bra«n or white. He stated the bulldiny lias boen sandblast~d and peint~d at a~onsiderable cost and to repalnt the front would involve a substai~ti~~l expenditure. Ne lndicated, obviously~ Katcila is ~n the prucess of a substanti~l upgraJing as a cormx~rcial lo~atlon, and that the petitloner is moru than preparea to upgrade t~~~ bullding but would Iike a perlod of tlme to amortize the cost of tl~e paintiny of the building. Ne statGd a latter had been written to tlie Planning staff requestiny a five-ycar per(od in which to bring themselves i~yto conformity and the sfgn into con~`ormance. Ile stated they would sign any compllance agreement or standard form. C~mniss~oner Ilerbst asked about the mi~iimum p.~rkin9 speces~ and Mr. Dilkes replled that the petltiuner had drawn a new parkiny pian and was ablc t~ provide a~ excess n~xnber of parklny spaces. but that it makes it ve ry tlyht internally and the nature of the business does not briny in l~ts af peuple' that tl~ere is a study tricklc on a regular basis. He indicated Chat ttiey coulci provide 55 t~ GO spaces with ease and indicated the peti[ioner felt thls was sufficient parkiny. Comm(ss(oner King ayreed an~i stated he felt this business would not generate 75 customers at one tirt~e, Commissio~er Nerbst indicateJ lie f~lt the reason this buslness is a sutcess is the f'act that Katella is a main entryway to Disneyland. He stated he felt the slgn wAS put up in vlolatlon of the Sign Ordinance and did not feel the Commission should allaw any anc~rtizatiQn perfUd. Ne indicated he felt any siyn painter sh~uld be aware of the ordinance. He state~ he did not hi~ve any oppnsit(on to tha use but that the building must conform to the ordinances as closely as possible. Mr. Dilkes stated the petitioner is prepared to become completely conforming to the Anaheim Codes but is asking for sufficient time. to arnortize. It was n~ted the Uir~ctor ~f the Planning Department has determined that the proposed aetivity falis wieliin the definition of Section 3•~1~ Classes 1~ 3 and 11~ of the City of l+..eheim Guideline~ to the Requirements for an Environmental impact Report and is~ th~•refore, categorically exempt from the requlrement to file an EIR. Mr. Dilkes asked about tha staff's concern regarding the drivewey an Katella a~d thetr reccxnmendetian that it be closed. ^. ~, MINUYES~ ANANEIM CITY PI,ANNING COHMIS510H~ Uecembe~ 5~ 1977 77~840 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIO~~-CLASSES 1~ 3 b 11~ CONDITIONAL USC PCRMIT N0. 1761 AND VARIANCE NO . Z 6 con t i nuo~i J. J. Tast~iro~ Assistent Planner~ potntr~ out that thr.re (s a dr(vewaY an Zeyn and thet thcy ~lso sl~ow ~arkiny at tfiat locatlon, and they would ltke co havr thr~t drlveway closed. Mr. Dilkes stated it was fAr the convenlence of Mr. Traub's customer3 x~ enter from Zeyn and Indicated t1~ey wished to nreserve all eccess polnts. Tho Commisslon gonerally d(scussed the advisabillty af kaQping thts drive,wey oper~~ and Mr. Ullkea stated tt~at the petitioner would remove thoso parkiny stalls in any open access point. ACTI01~: Commissloner Nerb~t Uffcred Resolution No. PC77~27~i end moveci for its passage and A-aoptTon that the Analieim City Plannfiiq Commission doFSS herchy grAnt Pet(tl~n for Condition~l Usc Permtt No, 1761, in part~ grant)ng M~aiver (a) Allowtng nu landscap(ng along Zeyn Street wlierc ~ feet (s required~ on thc basls th~at otficr ncarby prapertles simllarly have no landsc~~ping alony Zeyn Strcet~ anJ subJect to petltloner's stlpulat(~n that IanJsceping wil) be proviJed in the 10-foot area long the entlre souih praperty 1lne ad~ecnnc to Katella Avenue in accardance witFi t~~e Zon(ng CoJe; anJ grantiiy waiver (b) on the basis that other nearby properties simil~rly h~~vn no parkiny area screcning~ and suhJect to Interdepartmental Committee reconn~endations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pass~d by the followinc~ vate: AYCS: COMMISSIONERS; BARNLS~ DAVfD~ IIERti57, Y,ING~ LINt;~ TOLI',R NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOI~E ABSE:NT: COMNISSI0NER5: JOIINSOt~ Commissioner Nerbst affcred Resolutlon No. PC77~275 and moved for its qassage and adoption that the Anrheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition fc~r Variance No. 29')G~ (n part~ danying wa(vers (a) and (bl on thc basis that the signs were illegally constructed and are in flagrant and extreme viaiat(on of the Slyn Ordinance~ and grantin~ waiver (c)~ in part, to ~ltow o~ly 50 parki~y spocrs on the basis tfsat the use does not generate xhe need for tt~e required number af parking spaccs~ subject eo pecitlaner's st(pulat(on to provide the aforemention~d 50 parkinc~ spaces~ and subJect to Interderpartmental Committee recommendations. On roli call~ the foregainy resolution was passed by the folic~wing vate: AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: DAVID~ NERI35T, KING~ tlNtl~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIOIIERS: BARNES ABSENT: CONMISSIONERS; JOIIt~iSON Chairman Tolar indlcated he felt the petitfoner should have a period of time to pay far the peinting of the bullding. Commtssioner Barnes indicated she agreed wlth Chairman Tolar that there should be a period of time for amortization of the paintiny of the building. Cormiissfoner Herbst indlcated that he felt other people would want the same privileges if this slgn was allvwed, and he felt it wbs probably the biggest violatian of the Sign Ordinance he has s~en an~ Is strictly incort~atible. He stated, again~ he felt the sign palnters tn this city know about the Sign Ordinance. Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ presented the petitioner with the written rlght to appeal the Planning Commission's d~cision for denial of che variances witihin 22 d<~ys. Mr. Dilkes asked~ if they decided not to appeal the decisio~~ hvw long it wili be beFn~e enforcemant proceedings begin, and Mr. V~lfiite replied it would be a reaso~able amount of time. ~ MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLf1NNING COMMISSION~ December 5, 1977 77'841 ITEM N0. 14 ~~~ICI1L EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 PUdIIC IIEARING. QWNERS: D. CARLE 1iA!.E, MOWARD H. CONU T ONAL USE PCRMI N0. 17 0 hIUNGERFORO AND ROUERT R. ALLCN~ 170~ West Ocean Front~ Newport Deach~ CA 926G0. AGENT; WILLIS J. HAII~ 4324 East la Palma Avenue, Anaheim~ CA 92807. Petitloner requests pcrmission t~ ESTAOLISII A VAN CONVERSION FACILITY WIT11 41AIVCR OF MINIMUM NUMI3ER OF PARKIMG SPACES on property descrihed as a rectangularly-sl~aped porce) of lanJ consist(ng of approximately O.G acre having a fro~tage of approximately 212 feet on the north slcie of Miraloma Avenue, i~eving a maxlmum depth of approxima,ely 122 feet~ bning located approximately 5'l5 feet east of the centerlin~ of Tustin Avenue~ and further dasc~tbeci es 36G3 East Ml~aloma Avr.nue. Prop~rty presently classifled ML (INDUST~IAL~ I.INITED) ZOt~E. There wes no pne ind(cating thefr presence in oppositlon to subJect request~ and although the staff report to tl~e Pl~nn(n~ Cornmistl~n d~ted DecPmber !~, 1971 was not read at the publ(c hnaring~ It ls referred to and made a part of the minutes. Carl Cornell, Anaheim Recreationai Industries~ 3GG3 Easc Mir•alorna Avenue~ Anaheim~ stated they ore requesting a condi;lon~l use permit for a van conversion facility and installatlon of a 45Q-square foot patnt bcr~th wtth a walver of minimum number of required parking spaces. He pointed out the staff report indicates 15 spaces existing and there are actually 19 spaces~ and I~e felt tliat is aciequate to meet their needs. THE PUaLIC NEARING WAS CI~SED. Chairman Tolar asked Mr. Cor~ell if all work would be done insidc the buildiny and asked hlm to stlpulete to that fact~ whlch he did. Mr. Cornell 1nJlcated that scxnetimes ti~es might be changed outside but that all body work and palnt(ng is done inside the building. Commissioner Y.in~ referred to tt~e vacant property next. ~oor to subJect property and asked if they wauld be utillztng that property for parkiny. Mr. Cornell (ndicated that they alraady use that property; that they storN vans thcre. Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Dlrector for zoniny~ poin[ed aut that to satisfy the parking requirements~ they woul~i have to have an agr~ement satisfactory to the City Attorney for off-site parkinc~. Jack Whlte. Deputy City llttorncy~ pointed out that they would have to bring the area into conformity w(th the Code requlrements for parkir~g and s~bmit a letter agreeme~t to the G(ty Attorney's Office for approval. Chalrma~ Tolar pointed out that if the property is controlled by the petitione~~ al! he has to do is comply wlth whatever is required for off-site parking and supply the legal department wlth a letter agreement, and tt~cn there would not be a need for the varlance~ and the Planning Gommisston was only talking about approval of the condition~l use permit. Cortmissioner King pointed out that Lhe property next door needs to be upyraded, that lt looks terrible, it is full of weeds, and needs some landscapiny. Mr. Cornell pointed out that the bullcling is going to be landscapEd. Commissianer King pointed out that also the chainlink fence should be slatted~ and the petitioner stipulated Lo provide the slatting as their responsibility. MINU?ES, ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNINC COMMISSIOtJ~ December 5~ 1971 77-842 ~IR GATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 AND COIaUITId~~AL USE PERMIT N0. l78Q (cantl^~ed) .~ .~.~_.~ - .._ .....~. Ch~lrman Tolar asksd the p~operty owner~ Mr. tlele~ who was In the audience~ to stipulete to doing s~mc landscaping~ and Mr. Whltc stated that tt~at prop~rty is not a part of this applicatton and any stlpul,~tions would not be lega~ly bindinc~. Miss Sentalahtl stated that tf the praparty is used for industr(al purposes For a parking lot to sorve another are~~ it would be expected thet arca being utilized would bs devoloped (n nccordance with ML standards which calls for a 10-foc~t lendsceped area and some kihd of tresatment of the eartt~; that tf the Zoniny Enforc~ment Offtcer goes by and seas vehicles parked there~ they will be requlred to put in the landsc~piny, It wes noted that the Uirector af the Plonning Department 1-as determined tt~at the prop~sed activity falls within the definiCion of Sacti~n 3.01~ Cla~ss 1~ of th~ Ctty of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirornents fnr an E~~vir~nn~i~tal impacl Renort encJ ls, [herefore~ cato9oric.t~lly exempt from tl~e requirement to file an Ela. ACTION: Comm(ssioner ~larnes offered Resolution Na, rc71-276 and moved for its aassage and a~Lfon that the Anahe(m City Plannin~~ Commission does hereby grant Pe*(tion for Condit~onal Usc Pcrmit No. 17f~, In part~ subject to review by the Planning Commisslon at thc end of a one-year neriad to determine whctl~er clie usc has bcen detrimr.ntel Co the area. and the prop~sed waiver is hereby den(ed on tl~c basis that the petitioner stipulated to providiny off-slte parkiny on adjacent property~ in accordance wich Code requlrements, inJicating the parE.ing aqrc~me~~t approveJ by thic Ci[y Attorney~ improviny sa(d off-slte parkiny area I~ conform~nce with all Code requirements and to enclosiny all outdoor storage areas with wood-slatted chafnlinl: fenciny, subject [o Interdepartmental Commlttee recortwnenda t i on s. ~)n roll call, the foregoing resolution was passec by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIO!IERS: l3ARt~ES, G/1VID~ NERBST~ KII~G~ LIII~~~ TOLAR NOLS : COf1h11 S$ I Ot1ER$ : NONE ABSLNT: COMMISSIONERS: JOIINSON ITCM N0. 15 ~~A~O~ICAL EXEMP710N-GLASS 1 PUBL~C IIEARING. 0411~ER: GROVE STREET AS:.'OCIATES. COI~U1710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 17 1 1~01 Dove Street. a275, Newport Qeach, CA 92660. Petitioner requests permission to ESTABLISiI AI~ AUTO PAIt~TING FACILITY on property descrtbed as an irrsgularly-sheped parcel of land consisting of approximetely 0.6 acre having a frontege of approximately 332 feet nn the east and south sides of Grove Street. having a maximum depth of approximately 240 feet~ beiny lozated approximately 1025 feet north of the centerltne of La Palma Avenue~ and further described as 11~8 Grove Street. Property presently classified ML ((NDUSTRIAL~ IIMITED) 2014E. There were two perscns indTCating their presence in opposition to subJect request~ and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated Oecember 5~ 1977 was not read at the public hearing~ it ls refcrred to and made a part of the minutes. Wiitiam Hancock. Nancock Des'gns~ indicated they proposed to put a manufacturer's spray booth to do wholesale van and autnmobile painting at 1198 Grove Street. CorRmissic~ner Herbst asked if all work would be done instde the bullding and if the faclllty will conform to the Air Quality Control Board emission standards, etc., and Mr. Hancock replied that all painting will be done inside the building. MII~UTEy~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 5~ 1977 17-843 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND LONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 17~1 (continu~d) Jack lee~ ~eprosentlny Doric Foods Corporatlon~ 17.30 North Tustln Avenue~ Anahelm~ indicated thay were concerned ebout the grantlny of this conditiunel use permit And whether or not it conveyed permission to palnt the side of thc building advertising their business. Jeck White~ Deputy City Attorney, pointed out that slc~nln~~ must cumply with the Sign Ordinanca; that this conditional usc perrtiit is not grancing any siyns other tiian what ts permitted without a conditlonal ~se pcrmit; that a person has a certatn rlqht for slgns anywey and it doas not depend upon a condlttonal use permit; and that hc was sure they were yolny to h~ advertlsing but would have to comply with tf~e Sign Qrciinance. Mr. Lee tncficeted he was concerned because of a conditlonal use permlt whlch was grented abuut unc year ayo on the soutlwresc corner of Mtralom~ and Tustin Avenues where signs tiave been painted acJverclsing spark piuys, etc. J. J. Tasi~i ro~ Assistant Planner~ stated that as far as t!~e wall signs arc concerne~l~ they are only permlttPd 2~~ ~f thc arca of the we~il, Clialrman Toler askecl what kind of business Mr. Lce referred to~ and it was repl(ed that It was a fleet service and repaxr fac:llity wliere they pcrforme~i rtxchan(cal repatr servlces for rruck fltets. Chatrman Tolar as~ed ~taff to see tfiat the Zoninq ~nforcement Off(cer is made aware of this complaint. Mr. Lee indicated he was also concerned about a lot of overnight ancf wee4end st~rag~ of vahicles, makiny the area more attract(ve for vandalism. Mr. Hancock (ndica[ed ti~at some vans and cars will be stured outside occas(onally In .a fenced-in area~ but~ I~opefully~ they woulJ be inside most of the time. Chalrmen Tolar indicated it appeared to h(m that as larga rs this facility (s~ he thought M~. lee had a valid point. and it would be ln the b~st interest of the petitione~'g Ilabilfty to have any storage on the inside. Cammissioner Herbst tndicated he felt Chis usa was campat'ble witi'~ the area but should have the same conditions attached as plaeed on th~ previuus coiiditional use permit. THE PUnIIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted that the Director of the Planning Department has determined that the proposed actlvlty falls within the definition of Secti~n 3.01, Class 1. of the City of Anahelm Guldelines to the Requ(rernents for an Environmental Impac[ Report and is~ therefore, cateyorically exempt f~cxn tlie req~~irement to file an EIR. ACTI01~: Commtssioner David offere:d Resolution 'rla. PC77-277 and moved for its passage and ad~ a otp 1 n that the Anaheim City Planninq Comrnlssion does hereby grant Petition fQr Condittonal Use Permit No. 17Fi1~ subject to revlew by the Pianning Commission et the end of a one-year period to determine whether the use has been detrimental to Lhe surrounding inciustrtal uses~ subJe~t to petitloner's stipulation that ail mechanical work and paintin~ will be done (ns(de ths buildin~~, and subjett to Interdepartmental f,ommittee ~'ecommendations. On roll call. the foregoing resolutio~ was passed tsy the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, OAVID~ HERBST, KING~ LINN~ TOLAR NUES : COMMI I SS I ONE P,5 : NOME ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON Y MI~JUTES~ IINANCIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ Dec~mbe~ 5~ 1971 %7-gW4 iTEM N0. 16 E K CATEG RICAL EXEMi'TION-CLASS 1 P~JUL,IC NEAaING. QWNEitS: ALBERT DE MASCIO AND ~ DALE FAMILY TRUST~ 113Q Arboleta Oriv~~ La Habre~ """-- CA ~O(~31. AGENT; GILBERT A. TIIOMAS. 1~~42 Irvlne poulevard, Suite 119, Tustin. CA 92G80• Petitloner requasts ptsrmission to ESTABLISII A PU~I.IC Dl1NCE IIALL wITH WAIYER OF HINIMUM NUMDER 6F PARKING SPACE5 on property doscribed as a rectanyularly-sheped parcel of lend conslsting of epproximetely Q.7 acre havlny a t'rontage of approximately 100 fcet on the west side of St~to College Boulevard, havtng a maximum deptli of approximately 330 i~et~ bel~q located approxtmait~ly 715 feet nortf~ of th~ ccnterltno of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 125 North State Colleg~ noulev~rd. Property presently classifled CL (C0~IMERCIAL. LIMITED) ZONE. Thcrc wos onc pcrson indicatin~ hls presPnc~ in opp~siton to sub,~ect request~ and alth~uyh the steff report to the Planning Comnlssion doce~t Uccembcr 5, 1977 was not read at ths publlc hcaring~ it is referr~d to and maJe a part of che minutes. Commissioner Y.ing noted tt~at he had a conflict of in~erext as defined by Anahelm Cicy Planniny Commission Resolutlon No. PG76-157- adoptiny a Conflict of ~ntcrest Code for the Plenning C~mrnissicm~ n,id f,overnment Gode Sect(on 362;~, et seq., in that a member of his fami ly i s assocl ated wi th Kate I 1 a Ret~1 ty wlil ch 1 s located next cioor to sub,ject property ~ and that pursu.~nt to provtsluns af the ahove codes~ he ~~as decle~i~~g to the Chalrman that he was withdrawing from the heariny in c~nnection with Item 1G ~f the Planning Commiss(on agenda and will not tak~ part in either the dlscussion or thP voting thereon~ and that he had not discussed this rnatt~r with any member of the Planninr~ Commissian. THEREUPON~ COHMISS IONER K! F~G LEF'T TNE COUIIG I L GNAM(iE~. J. J. Tashiro, Assisiant Planner, reported tnat Carrie Coykendcll had been present at the meet(ng but cou1J ~~ot stay and i~ad Icft this messa~~~: "I am oppused to a dance ha11 without adequatc parking. Thcy would I~ave to park on thc siJe strects. This would bring no(se late at niqht or early in the tr~rniny and bring rx~rc litter. I wish you cuuld give thls some consideratian befo~e granting tt~e conditional use permit for a public dance hall with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Tl~ank you for 1 i stening to rne. /s!Garrte Coykend~ll 1~332 Easc La Palma Avenue Anaheim~ California" Gilbert Thomas~ att~rney~ indlcated the petitioner has reac~ the staff report and would 1(ka to poi~t out they havc submitted a reviseG scatiny plan which was submttted too late to appear in [he reporL, which indfcates they wi11 heve 191 seats and will require approxtmately 50 to 60 parking spaces rather than 80 as reported. He in,dicated approxlmately 2~0 SL3L5,~ divided by 5 equals 4U~ and they have II employees, a~d the rest will be devoted to the dance hall area; and kl~at tl~ls had not been made ~iear to the Planning staff. Ne indicated theY Would accept the recommendations of Yhe staff to take care of the trash areas and develop the property in acc~rdance with exhibits submitted. Ger~ld Grlffin, 213 Curtls Way~ :ndicated he lives epproxima[eiy 15~ feet from the praposed site, due east of the vecant '~t~ and chat over a periad of years he has noticed the property has become commercial and that to put a public dance hall on this site opened f~om 10:00 a.m~ until 2:00 a.m., with a photo studio open from 10:00 a.m. to 2:Q0 a.m, across the strc+et, they wi 1 1 get 1 i ttl e~ i f ar~y ~ rest. He poi nted out they have a fast- NltlUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION~ Qecemb~.r 5. 1571 71-845 EI_ R CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 A~lu CONDITIO~IAL USE PERMIT N0._ 1182 lcontinued) b uh food tako-out rest~u~ant which Is o~en 24 hnurs a day; that thoro would parking end thes customars at thu dance`hall would p~L~chQ~p'~Sent,tlmot It is dlfficult *.o yct In ~nd out of h s driveway whole sraa has deterioroted during the past ten yaars. Mr. Thamas st~ted that they wlsl~ed to cooperate with the neiyhbors ara go(ny to operate the fac(Ilty heve instructed hlm t~ say that whotever staf f rACOmmends ~ but they feel they have c:nou~h p~~rki ng; from 7:3~ P•m. to 12:OQ p.m• TtIC FUfiLlf, NEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Tolar askud about the square fcwtaye of tf~e Jance hall space~ ancl thelr stetement ~hat they .~11d n~t need as many parking spaces as indico[ed. ,~~ .f, Tash(ro~ Assistant Planner~ stated that as far As parking raqulrements are coneerned~ the staff boses tiidt on the nu~~er of fixed seats in the n-ai~ assenibly area. Mr. Thomas 1 ndl catrd thcy were going to I~ave 191 seats ~ sornc f i xcd and sorn~ not f i xed. Chairman Tolar as{,ed hc~w many spates he woulci need fOhavet toehave 80dspaces;~tltatrifsthege that Just on th:: basis of t~e floor ar~a~ they ~~~d would have to adJ both were fl~eWhi~t~UU~l~3a~Greasc~t~~chnu~ber.anot decreasesitthey togethe Chairman Tolnr then stated that as fa~ an h~a~k.ing waivers; that`~he bel~levednthereEwpuld't is granted~ it is not going to be with y p be parking problems ~+i th this kind cf usc whtre three or four people W~ andnthateatrmosinof at one tlme; that they will b~ 9~t~~"5 a have~pa~king problemsg,n~~es; the bars where they do t~ave dancln theY Mr. Thomas pointed out that this has been a dancing place and a conditional use perm~t has been approved. Chairman Tolar pa.~~ted out the petit`o~feitrafficnandbpeoplepwlllnparkeoffethedpropertyat to grant the walver would be ereatln~ Mr. Thomas pointed out the pet~ttan~ot next dooro'whlch thevt~coulonuse9fo~verflow requirements and •h~re (s an c p y parking. in this area~ parking is a big pfoblem and tf this type of Chairman Tolar stated tie felt~ le an d it should not be use ls to be successful, it demands a tremendous amount af peop creating a problem for the neighbors. Commtssloner Herbst pointod outr~haChatedancthhalhsnaretnot~riousbfo r~tn~andsoutershand lacation, State College Boulevr , are gathe~ing places for the younger generatlon~ and sometirn~s create traffic ~rob ~ems; that there is a guest home. a motel. and a•"1eNec indicatedthei real izedrdancingh{sf alla„icds use Is strictly incompatible with the are in rostaurants. but this is going to be a dance hall. no t e eno g s t reets ; end that 11e ststed tho and that the pcoplo who they wi l l conform to that thcy wlll be apen Chalrman Tolar indicated if they can dan. ~ tt~is {ocation now. wfiat was the diffarence~ and 1lnnika Santalahtl ~ Assistant ni rector ro~ Zoning, poir~ted out that wi th a bona fide MINUTCS~ ANANEIM C ITY PI.ANN ING COMMISS ION~ Decomber 5- ~9~7 ~~"8~i6 EIR CA7EGORICAL EXEMPTIQN-ClASS 1 AND CONDITlONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1 781 (contlnuod) ~ating place they con liave a dinner-dance ~~ermlt~ but a public dance hall application must have the approval of thu Planning C~mmission. Mr. Thomas statcd that Is what they arc doinc~ rlyht now~ and that tho difFerance In this roques t 1 s thot tliey do not serve faod and are g~ i ny ta have a d i scatl~eyue. I~e 1 ndl csted thts is one of the uses that ts permlttod by the Anaheim Mun(clpel Code in this zone. Comm9ssioner Linn tndicated he saw several problems in lonw.ing at a dance hall wlthout food. Ile indicated h~ cnul d not support this rcqucst wi th a waiver on thc parking and ~elt the petl tioner would have to solve ti~e parki ny prohlcm. Ile felt a dance hal l Is not the rlght usc for thi s propcrty. Cammissloner Norbst Folnted out that peoplc att.ending .3 dance hall spc~d a lot of tirne in thc parking lot. Mr. Thwnas statea it was the petitioncr's fntention to policc the area wlth pr(vate guards to be sure t~ ketp the act i vi r.les i nsi de the bui 1 di ng; that he real I~ed some di sc~theques havC had bad roputations but that tliis opcration would not bc any source of embarrassment to the Clty of Anaheim, that thc~e would not bc an•~ c~ime or increase in nolsc. Lhalrman Tolar polnied out thdt once a condltional use permit is granted~ it does n~t matter what the peti tioner n~ay sincerely say at thc Plannin~~ Cormission meeting, Mr. Thomas s tated they were wi 1 1 i ng to conform to any r~qui rements and r+ou) d 1 1 ke ta have tf~c: hcaring cantl~ueci in ordcr to submit propcr parking plans. Commissioner Linn was concerned ab~ut the tiours of operation since it is adjacent t4 a residentlal area to the east and any nolse would keep the paople acr~ss the stre~t awake. Ne stated he fel t that even I f the operacion closes at midniaht, chere sti t I would be nolse with tf~e traff ic, etc, and that~ obviuu~ly. a successful business would generate a lat of traffic and felt the opcratlon would have t~ close down at a reasonable hour. M~. Smlth pointed out that the only residential a~ca is across State College and a llttle Yo the no~th; that all tfie ottier uses (n the area are commercial. Cortxnissto~er Llnn pointed out there is a motel Hhich has families living in it. Commissloner David asked i f there were ~~o v,:r!s^c°s rr.yuested for the minimum number of parking spaces~ woul d thi s request have gone tlirough automatical ly, and Jack wi~i tr, ~ep~:y City Attorney~ poir.ted o~t they stitl would have nceded a canditlonal use permit f~r a dance hall. It was noted that ti~e Director of the Planning Oepartment has determinec' that the proposed activlty falis within t~~e deftnition of Sactlon 3,~1. Class 1~ of the Ci:y oF Anahelm G~I~iellnes to the R~quirements for an Environmental Impact Report and Is, therefore, categoricelly exempt from the requirement to fi le an EIR. ACTION: Cornnisaton.~r David offered Res~lutlon Ho. PC77-27~ and mc~v~:d for its passage and adoptfon that the A~ahc!!n City Plenning Commissian doe~ hercby deny Petttion for Condi t ions 1 Use Pe rrni t No . 1782 on the bas i s tha t the proposed dl scotheque- type usE wou 1 d create mere traffic and eause parking problems to the su~rounding area and that the hours of operstion would be an intrusion on the surrou~diny residential area in terms of noise and lights. On rol l cai 1~ the faregoi ng resol ution was passed by the fol lowi ng vote: MINUTES~ ANAIiEtM CITY ?LANNING COMMISSION~ Deccmbe~ 5~ 1977 77'847 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CO~IDITIONAL USE PERMIT tJO. IL2 (continucd) AYES: COMMISSION€RS: DAVID, HEIIUST~ LIN~~ NOES: COMMISSIONCRS: BARNES~ TQLAR AfiSENT: CQMMIS510NERS: JOHNSON ABStA1N: COMMISSIONERS: KIt~G Cammissloner Talar Indicated his no voto roprasenced hls feeltng that there is a restaurant at thls location now enJ they do heve danctng end~ in his opinton, they a r e going to hav~ some type of business at tlils l~cation and dtd not see this is that incompattble with what 1~ allowed nc~w~ and that It was I~is feeling that the people can come In rlyht now and J~, not have to orJcr f~ud. Commiss(oner Barr,rs Indic~tcd sl~e cuuld not see hc~w '~is c~uld hurt the are~. Jack White~ Dt;Nuty Clty Acturney~ Nresented the petitfoner with thc wrltten rlyht to appAa) th~s Planniny Conxnission's decision within 22 days. {TEH N0. 17 REPnRTS AND RECOMM[~J~ATIOt15 ~TEN A. VARIANCE N0. 24G6 - Request for an cxtension of time for a professional office cornplex in the ML_Zone. The staff report to the Planniny Commission ciated December ~~~ 1977 was presented~ no ting that subJect pr~perty is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistinc~ of approximately 2.7 atres tiaving a"•oncage ~f approximately 1~0 fcet on tt~e south side of Katella Avenue and bei~y located approxirnately 435 feet east of the centerline of State Callege Bouleverd~ and that the applicant is requesttng a retroactive extension of time for Varla~ce No. 24G6~ Fermittiny the establishment of a professional offic~ ~.omplex in an industrial zons~ approved by the Planniny Commis~~ion c~n January 1$, 1973~ subject to seve~al conditlons beln~ satisfied prior to issuance of a buildlny permit or wtthln a pe~lod of one year, whichever occurred first; payment of tree planting fees~ installation of sidewalks and drivesways alo~g I:atella Aven~e~ installatio~ of fire hydrants. undcrgroundiny of utilities~ and payment of a water assessment fec; and none of th~ precediny conditions have bee~ satisficd. It was noted one previous extenslon of ti me had been granted, said extr.r.sfcn expired on January d~ 1975~ and the applicant states h~ Is now ready to build an office complex ~nd that no cl~anges in the property or its imrt~~late surroundinys have occurred since t!ie time of approval. Dick Dradshaw of the Kiely Corporation was present and stated that ttic proposal is for a new office complex; that tf-ey ar~ ready to p~oceed end will probably start conZtruc tlon around March 1~ 1~7d; and indicated he had writtRn a letter to the Planning staff requesting an extersion of time and was tald it could be ~ranted unti) December 19 7 8~ and then haci noted nn thc staff report it was recommended to Ja~ua,y 18. 1978. and when he had discussed lt with the person who wrote the report, it was pointed ~ut it could be e xte~ded for another •~ear increment. Annika SAntalaht~. Assistent Direct~r for Zoning, ind~cated that when someone comes early~ Gypically. the extensio~ is granted for one year ~head of timt and that the staff ~~port should have rsad January 18~ 1979. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOT~(1N CARRI~D (Commissioner Johnson being abcent and Commissioner Davtd voti~~g no)~ that the MI NUTES ~ A~IAIIE 1 M C I TY PLANN I NG COMMI SS I ON ~ Decembe r 5~ 1971 17-848 I TEM A (co~~tl nued) ~_ Plannlny Commission does hercby grant the retroactlve axtonslon fo timc f~r Varlance No. 246G~ to expl re 'anuary 1H, 1A79• ITEM ~. L~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1593 ~ Requcst for en extensl~n oF tlma for a mote 1-res ta urant-co f fee shop camp lex. - il~e staf f report to the P l ann i nq Comni s s(on doted December 5~ 19 77 was pres~nteJ ~ not ing that the sub.ject property Is an Irregularly-sl~aped parcel of land cnnslsting of Appr~xlmt~tely 2.8 acres Ic~cated south of the Riverside Freeway, an<i having a frontage of approximetely W55 feet on the east si cie of Tustin Avenue; that the appllcAnt (G. J, Lindqu(st of Don Greek 6 Assoeiates) requests a retroactlve extension of time for Condi tional Use Permf t No. 1~93; tl~at Condl tional Use Parmf t No. 1593~ to permt t a motel- resxaurant-caffee shop complex wlth wa i ver of maximum al lowed bui lding helctht~ was approved by the Planning Commisslon un February li;~ 1~76~ ~ub,jcct to several c~nditions being satlsfied prlor to the issuance of a bullding pcrm(t or within ~ period of onr, year~ wlitc.hever occurred first: payment of trce planttng fees, bcx~dinc~ for engineering roqul remants alony Tusti~ Avenue, deed i ny to the CI ty of the ri ght-of-way along Tustin Avenue~ and flling a parcel map If the subjc:;!. property were to be divideJ~ and nonc of the preceding condtttons have been sat i sfled; that n~ previous extenslons uf time have been requested; that the appl i cant stat~s that the c~ndltl~ns havF not been met because of the d i f f I cul t I es encnun te red i n f I na 1 i z i ny the purchase of the proper ty ; and tf~a t the appllcant requests a two-yeAr extensio~ of time from the present date. ACTION: Comm(ssioner King offercd a motlon~ CA R EU (Commissioner J~hnson beiny absent) ~ does hereby grant a retro~ct i ve extens ~ on of exptrc February 18~ iq79. seconded by Cnmmissioner Linn and MOTION that the Anaheim G 1 ty Planning Commisslon time for Conditt~nal Use Permlt No. 1593~ to ADJOURNMENT Commissloner Ki ng offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Nerbst and MOTION CARRIE~, that the Planning Cortmisslon meetiny be adJourned. There be i ng no f urther b us 1 ~ess ~ thc P 1 ann i ng Commi ss i on mee t i ng was ad)ourned at 6:40 p.m• Respectf ul ly subml tted, ~~ '' ~I~~iLLf.s~ Edith L. Narrl~, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELN :hm