Loading...
Minutes-PC 1978/07/31a ,~ City Nall Anahelm, Californla ,July 31- 1378 iiEGULAR MEETING OF THE ANIIHCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION R(:GUTAR - The r~guler meeting of tht Anahelm City Planninc~ Commtssion was callnd to MEETING ordar by Chatrman Herbst at 1:~5 p.m.~ July 31~ 197$~ in the Counci) Chember~ a quorum being present. PaE5ENT - CIIAIRMAN; Nerbst COMMISSIONERS: Barnes. Uavid, Johnson~ king~ 'folar Al35ENT - COMNI5SIONERS: Linn AL50 PRESENT - Jack White Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titus Paul Singer Annika Santalahti Jay lashiro Edith Narris Deputy Clty Attorney Oeputy City Atta~ney Off(ce Enqineer Trafftc Engtneor Assistant Directar for Zoning Associate Planner Planning Commtssian Secretary PLEDGE OF - The Pledye of Allegiance to the Flag wes led by Commissloner King. ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF - Comnissi~ner Devid offered a mation, secondecl by Cortmisstoner Ktng and TNE MINUTL~ MOTION GAF~RIED (Cammissloner L(nn being abscnt). that the minutes of the meeting of July 3. ~97~~ be approved as submitted. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPRESENTA'~iVE Chatrman Nerbst polnted out Ccmmissioner Tolar wishcs to resign from the Parks and Recreatiory Cortmission and Comnissioner Barnes has volunteered to be the Planning Gommission represe~tative on that commission. Camiisslone~ Toler indicated he would submit a letter of re :~nation and recommend to the City Council that Commissloner Bar~es be appointed. ITEM N:. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ALBAN kND BERNADINE EIR FJEGAT111E DECLARATION NOLTZ~ 1451 East Irvine Boulevard~ Tustin, CA S ON 0. -79-8 92680. AGENT: TH~ RO4FRT P. WARMI~lGTQN COMPANY, lEi5g2 Hale Avenue~ Iryine~ CA 92714. Petittoner requests ~~eclassificatba~ of property described as an (rregul~rly-snaped parcel of land co~sisting of approximately 2.S acres located south and west of the southwest corner of Lincoin Avenue and Rio Vista Street, having app~oximate frontages of 344 fect en the sauth side of LincAln Avenue a~d 73 feet on the west sidc of Rto Vista StrEet~ approxtm~tely 195 feet west at the centerline of Rio Vista St~eet a~d approximetely 180 feet south of the centerline af Lincol~ Avenue f rom the RS-A•43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZON~ to th~ CL (CONMERCIAL, LIMITEO) ZONE. It was noted the petttioner has requested a continuance on this matter. 76-599 ~i3~i~a ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMNISSION~ JULY 31~ 1978 7~w600 EIR NEGATIVE DECLl1RATION AND RECLASSiFICATION N0. 78'79'$ (contln,~ed) ACTI~N: Commissloner Tolar offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Davld end MOTION C~RRIED (Cammissloner Linn heing absent), that consideratlan of Recl~sslficetton No. 7~- 79-8 be continued to thc reqularly scheduled rt-eeting of the Plonninq Commission on Auguat 14~ 1g78~ as requested by the petltloner. ITEM N0. 14 CONT;NUED PU~LIC 11EARING. OWNERS: RAYNONO G. EIR NEGATiVE pECLARATION AND ESTF.LLE K. SPEHAR ANI) MAaC1A ANN HALLIGAN~ U~N~NT 913 Paton-e Plece~ Fui lrrtor-~ CA ~2G3;. AGENT; ~ . USE. M' 0. 1~i6~~ CARL KARf.NFR ENTERPRISES~ INC. ~ 12~Q North Harbor Boulevard~ Anaheim~ CA 92~01. Pettttoner requests parmisslon to ExP11N0 A DRlVE-TNROUf.,H RESTAURANT WITM WAIVf:R OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property descrlbed as an irregularly-sf~aped parcel of land consistln~ of apnroxtmately ~.9 acre located at the northr.ast corner af Le Pelme Avenuc and Imperi.•1 Nighway~ having a~proximate frontages of 250 faet on thc north side of La Pelma Avenu~ and 1!~~ Feet on the east side of Imperia) F1lqhway~ and further described as 57~1 East La Palma Avenuc. F`roperty presently classif(ed CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED-5(.EN{C CORRt~OR OVERLAY) ZOPlE. SubJect pPtition was con[inued from the meetiny of July 1J~ lg%R at th~ •equest of the petitioner. Chairman Herbst pointed out the petitloner has requested a three-month continua~ce in order for their company's architects and enc~ineers to ~eview the situation, ACTI01~: Commissioner Tolar offered a mation~ seconded by Comm(ssioner David and MOTiON CARR ED (Gommissioner Linn beiny absent), that conslderatton af Conditlonal Use Permit Na. 1864 be continued to the ~eyularly scheduled n~eting of the Plannin~ Commiss(on on October 23~ 1978~ at the request of the petitioner. PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE5 Commissioner Johnson pointed out he has pr~perty which was affected by the recent General Plan amendment and a notice of the pubii= hearing had been postmarked by the C(ty on July 7 and he had received it on July 1~~ and thc meeting was held on July 17. He indicated h~ had received complaints from at least four other affected property owners wha had not received notification~ and asked staff to check into the situaiion. Commissioner Barnes polnted out shP haci h~d difficulty with mall which was sent on July 8 and was n~t rec~ived until July 21, and felt thr problem was with the postal service durtng that pcriod of time. Jay Tashiro~ Associate Plann~r, explained n~tices are taken to th~ p~st off~ce the same dey they are metered by C(ty staff, Commissioner Johnson Indicated he felt something should be done to see that property owners are yetting notices of the meetings in sufficient time to attPnd the meet~ng when their property is affe~sed. 7/31/78 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31, 1978 78-601 ITEM N0. 1 CdNTINUE~ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MOTEL 6 OF EI EGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 CALIFORNIA AND MARANGO M07ELS~ IrIG,~ 51 Htcchcack p. Way~ Santa Barbsra~ CA 93105. AGENT: FEDERAL SIGN COMPANY~ 114~ Na~th Maln Street~ Los Angeles~ CA 90012. Petltloner requests WAIVER OF MAXINUM HCIGNT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN TO CONSTRUCT A FREE-STANDINC SiGN on propcrty .~escribed as n rectangulerly-shaped parcel of land canslsting of appraxlmately 1.1 acres having ~ frontage of app~oximately 160 feet on the west slde of Beach Boulevard, hevlnq a maxtmum depth of approximately 29t> feet, being lacateci epproximately 20~ feet north of the center- line of 8a11 Road. and furt~er ~escribed as 9?1 South Beach Boulevard. Property presently classifi~d CL (COMMERCI~I. LIMITEI~) ZONE. SubJect petitlon was continued from the ~~ettng of July 17~ 197G at the request of the petitioner. There was n~~ cm e indicatinq thelr presence in opposttion to subJect request, an~ elthough th~ staff report ta the Planni~y Commission datcd July 31~ 197f1 was not rcad at tt~~~. publtc hc,~ing~ It is referred t~ ond made a pa~t of the minutes. .lack Grey~ representiny Federal Slyn Company, ec~ent, prPSented photoqraphs to Illustrate the siyns In the surrouncflnq area ~nd (ndicated he had measured the slgn on the property n~xt door and (t is 40 feet hig~i. He stated he thought this was the information which had be~n r~quested at the prr.vious hcaring. Commissloner Jehnson potnted out the mbtter had been continued at thc last meeting bccAUSe the Commissian dld not have any informat(on rec~arding the hel~ht ~~f other s(gns in the area. TfIE PUBIiu HEARIIJG WAS CLOSEU. Cortmissioner Tolar asked staff hc~w 40 -f~~C si~ns in thc aree h~~d been allowed, and Jay Tashiro~ Associatr. Planner~ replled he hel(eved Ch~se sl~ns wer~ allav2d by a grandfather clause; that staff had reviewed the a~ea and no vartances hev~ be~~~ granted; and that this property is very close to the city limits and thG signs coul~ passibly have been tnstalled when the property was still ir~ the County. Commisslaner Tolar stated the only discomfort he has with thi9 rcquest is that the Planning Commission has received a lot af ~equests for sigi~s in excess of 25 feet and that the ordinance calls for thAt height and he ss concerned ~bout where tt will all e~d; that this petftioner dces have. competition, but felt if the Plannfng Comnis~ion co~tinues to grant these requests (he polnted out therc are three on today's agenda), t'~~re wilt be a lot mo~e. lie did not feel a siyn of Chls size wauld necessarily yive anybody a competitive edge and did not understand why the petitioner would want the siqn the same height as the on~ next door. Chairmen ~lerbst referred to the photographs p~esented a~d p~inted out the exlsting sign is v~ry visible and felt a higher sfgn would be hidden by other signs i~ the area. Commisstoner Barnes telt the sign would be more visible where ft is presently located and t~~at maybe the petitioncr should stay with the o{d sign. Mr. Gray stated the new sign is a i~rger sign (almost twice as la~ge as the present sign) and the squ,vre footage is allowed ~y code. He atated the organization is changtng their national image. 7i3~i~a ;' . MI Nl1TE5 ~ ANAHE IM C I TY PLANNI NG COMMI SS ION~ JUIY 31 , 1~78 J~;-602 EIR CATEGORICAL En,.~~ TION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0.~~28 (cont(nued) Commissi~ner Be~nes pointed out tha Planntng Commisston h~s h^d this problem bafare; thet ofl companies and other com~onles try to dlcta~Ca the size sin~s for Anahelm and that th~ City of Aneh~im could not possibly coter to all thetr wishes~ nn~i felt the Pla~ning Commisslon should stlck to thei~ pre3ent requir~ments~ polnting out a proliferetton of s(gns In thAt aroa already. Commissloner Tolar referred to other ereas~ such ~s Irvfnc~ and Carmel~ which ere beautl+'~~ a~cas wlth a lot ot tourists, ancl stnted only monument stc~ns Are allowed In these ~reds and he could not tdentify with the fnct th~t si~ns will make a much better business. Ghairman Herbst atateJ he could not see any harJsl~i~, in tliis c.asr ancf that the existing sign is vcry visiblc. Mr. Gray po(nte~! out thu only re:ason the variance is necess~ry i, beenuse the property is .1ose to a resldential Area, and Chairman ~ierbst ~eplied the re~son for the ordinance is to protect the resfdent3al ore~~. It was noted that the Plannfnc~ Dl~ector or his authorized repr•esentative hrs detCrmined that the proposed proJect falls wtthln the defin(tlan of Catec~orical Excmptlons~ Class li~ as defined in Qaragraph 2 af the City of Anaheirn E~vironmcntal Impact Report Guidelines and ls, therefore~ categ~rically exempt from the requirement to pre~are an EtR, Commlssioner King offered a resolution to basis that the p roperty would be dr_prived chls sam~ area~ particularly the property property on the northeast corner of Eleach would not have e detrimental effect on th building would block the view. gra~t Petitian for Variance No. 302a on the of prlvile~es enJoyed by other praperties in next d~or to thc north with the 4(1•foot sign and Boulevard ond ESall Road~ and that said sign e residenttal homes slnce the existiny motel Comm(ssioner Johnson stated he would support this resolution far approval on the basis he felt denial would be dtscrtmtnating aga(nst this particular owner; that he was not In favor of high slgns, but did not feel it would be fair to deny t~~e si~n for this one request. He also stated he dtd nat feel the heiyht of the sign really mattered since there Is a tremendous amount of signs in the area already. Chairman Herbst stated the City has a Sign OrdinancP and srxne of the si~ans mtght have been constructed prlor to the ordinance~ and it should not be allowed because other requests would be followinu tf this approval is granted~ and referred to the many sfgns on Narbor Boulevard and stated he did not fecl the signs do any good and the extsting sign is visible and readable, even thouc~h other siyns in the area are hiyhe~. On roll cali~ the farego(n_y resolution FAILED TO CARRY by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAVID~ KING, JOHNSON NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BAftNES, HER4ST~ TOLAR ABSEIvT: ~OMMISSIONERS; LINN Commissioner Tolar offered a resolutian for denial of Petition for Variance No. 3028. On roll call~ the foregoing resolutiun F~ILEO TO CARP,r by the following vote: AYES: COMMI SS I O~~ERS : BARNES ~ HERDST~ TOI.AR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON~ KING, (-AVID ARSENT: COMMISS~ONERS: LINN 7/31/78 ~^ MI~IUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JULY 31, 1978 78~~3 EIR CATCGOftICAL EXEMPTION•CL.ASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3028 (cantinued) ACTION: Commissioner Johnson nffered a motton~ seconded by Commissloner David anJ MOTION ~~U (Commissi~ner Linn bein,y abaent)~ thec consider~tlan of Vari~nce No. 302$ be cantlnued to the regularly scheduleel meeting af the Planninq Commis~l~n nn August lb~ 197Ei~ because of a tle vote. Mr. Gray potnted out the Clty owns one of the la~gest stgns (n the wliole State and referred to the sign at the stadium. (TEN t1p. 2 CONTINUEQ PUDLIC NEARINC. OWNER: D b D DEVELOPMENT ~~~C7jT~~RIf.AI EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 CONP~NY, 110(18 Nonr,alk Raulevard~ Santa F~ Springs, V IANCE MC, 3ozg cn 90670. Petitloner requests WAIVER OF MAXIMUM NEIf,HT 0~ A FREE-STAN~JING SIGM TO CONSTRUCT A FREE- STl1ND1~lG SIGN on pro~ertY described as an lrrcgularly- shaped parcel of lan~ cons{sting of approximately 1.0 ~~cre h~vinc~ a frontage of approxlmetely 146 feet on thc south side of Oran~~eNOOd Avenue~ havlnc~ a maximum depth of opprox(mately 415 feet~ being located approxlrnately 2~5 feet west of the centerl(ne of Flarbor Boulevard. end further described as 62U West Oranc.~ewoocl Avenue. Property pres~ntiy classifled Cl (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITL(~) ZOIaE. SubJect petition was continued from the n-eettne~ of July 17~ 197~5 (n order for the petitloner to be present. There was no one Indicatiny their presence in apnosition to subJect request, and al~hough the stpff ~eport to the Plannin~3 Conmissian dated July 31, 1~7~ was not read at thc public hearing, lt ls referred to and made a p~:rt of the minutes. Paul Dorman~ 12109 Oel Vista Drive~ La Mirada, stated they ~re ~resently constructing a motel on Orangewood Avenue~ approximately 200 fcet wcst of liarbor (3oulevard, snd the hcight restriction of 25 feet for a sign would severely handicap their business because the sign would be located directly r,e~ainst the carport of the facility and would not be visible to the wnsterly sldP or to the traffic on tia~bor Baulevard, and they wauld expect to draw from the traffic on Harbor as the life blood 'or their business. Ne stated the sign would not be a rotatiny sign. THE PUQLIC NEARIIJG 41AS CLOSEU. Cortmissioner Tolar stated this request proves his previous statcment~ and he did not see a hardship in this lnstance. He asked Mr. Dorman if he was aware of the 2;-foot height restrictlon when the property had been desic~ned~ a~d Mr. D~,rn~an replled he was not, that he thought the limitatinn was 3~ feet along Harbor Boulevard. Cornmissloner Tolar indicated he felC the hardship had been built into this property by the property owner~ and he could not Justify approval and felt there would be a lot more requests for variances if this request is granted. Commissioner Barnes stated she had viewed the property and the motel is v{stble from many locations; that ynu could see the motel di~ectly through the shopptng center parktng lot, goinq north on Harbor, and that you could def(nitCly see it for 40~ to 600 feet on Orangewood. She felt this moCel has rn~re exposure than other businesses located directly on llarbAr Boulevard because of the way :he building is situated on the property. 7/31/78 ~ ~j C MINUTES~ At~AHE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIY 31~ tg78 78-604 EIR CATCGORICAL EXEMPTIQN-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0, 3029 ~~ontlnued) __.._..~..... _ . Mr. ~orman atated tha sign would be I~csted agalnst the carpc~rt anJ wo~~id be dlmost non- visible from the west on Oranyewood and polnted out the carport on the plan and indicated the aetbeck would be idcntlca) to the front of th~ cerpvrt. Chairme~ Nerbst asked staff if thc plan showed thG location of the existinc~ sic~n or the praposed sic~n~ with Jey Tashlro~ Associate Ptanner~ replying the plan shows the locatio,n of the proposad siqn. It was noted tfiat the Plbrininc~ Dire~tor or his authortzed repres~ntative has determined that the proposed proJect f~lls withtn the defl~itio~ of Gategorlce) Exemptlons~ Cless 11~ as deflned in paragraph ~ of the City of M aheim Environmental Impac~ Report Guidcllnes and is. therefore~ cete~lorically exempt from the ~equirpment ta preparr an EIR. Comnlssidner King offered a rnsolutian that Petition for V~riance No, 3~7.9 be granted on the basis that the property w~uid be cteprived of privileges er~Jaye.d by othcr properties (Thriftimert~ Bank of America~ etc.) and would have no adv~rse Imp~ct on the residential area~ Qn roll call~ the foregolny resolution FAlIEU TO CARkY by the follaying vote: AYES: COMMISSIOtdERS: KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID, HERBST~ JOt~NSON~ TOLAR Ak3SENT: COMMISSIONERS: LIt~N ACTION: Commiss(oner Johnson offerec! Resoluttan No. PC7~-17~~ and moved for its passage a~nc~ca option~ that the Anahelm City Planning Cammisslon does hereby deny Pettttan for Variance No. 3a23 on the basis that subJect property has adequate visibility and visibllity is not hampered by any other tall signs nr structures tn the area. On roll call, the foregoing ~'eSOlution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BAP,NES, DAVIU~ HERE35T~ JOHNSON, TOLAR NOES: COMMlSSIONERS: KING ABSENT : COMM11 SS I ONERS : L I NN Jack White, Deputy City Attorney, prescnted the petitioner with the w ritten right to appea) the Planning Conmission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 3 , CONTiNUED PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: CLYDE E. 57;RE5~ ~;~TVE OECLARATION 2i004 Ambushers 5treet, Diamond Bar~ CA 917b5. VARIANCE N0. 3~30 PetitiAner requests WAIVER OF MItJI11UM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT A RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILOING on property described as an i~regularly- shaped parcel of land consisting nf epproximately 0.5 acre located at thG southeast corner of Wilshlr~ Avenue and Loara StreeC, having a frontage af approximately 362 feet on the south side of Wilshire Avenue~ heving a mextmum depth of approxim~+tely I15 feet~ and further described as 3~1 North Wilshire Avenue. Prnperty presently classifled CG (COMHERCIAL~ GENERAI) ZONE. Subject petltlon was continued from the meeting of July 17~ tg78 at the request of the petitioner. 7/31/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUIY 31~ 1978 78-605 EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3030 (continued~ There was no one 1 n~11 c~t lnc~ thhi r pre,sence in oppos I t ion to sub.lect request ~ and a) though tha staff report to the Planning Commission deted July 31. 1978 w++s net read at the public heeriny~ It ts refnrred to and made a pert of the minutes. Clyde Sttres~ owner~ wes pres~nt to answer eny que~tions enci potnted ~ut he had changed the locatlon of the bullding to provtde more porkinp stalls, TIIC PUBI.IC NEARING WAS C~OSEO. Chatrman I~erbst polnted out the parking is stil) 4U$ below Cl~e re.quirement~ plus the Traffic E~gineQr is not setisfied with tiie eddleiun~~1 ~rlvewoy ~n Wllsl~tr~. Mr. Sttros stated hP had worked wlth the Traffic Enc~(neer reqardlnq thr. park(ng end the drivcw~ys, and the Traffic En,ytneer had indicateci to him this is tl~e b~st plon he could have come ur wtth; that It w~s u~, t~ ihe Planninn Cortxntssion wh~thcr or not they would accGpt it. Paul Singer~ Traffic Engineer~ indicatecf the parkinc~ sttu.,tion hoJ been dlscussed in great detatl ancf that two driveways wouid be better for the property, but then less parkinc~ would be avatlAble. He SiALP.d tl~e three driveways proposed wauld cause trAffic to clrculate onto the street. Chalrman Herbst stated hc recoynized the petitioncr is gotnn to have a pArticuler use on this property that may not harm the area~ but the Planning Commission must laok to the parking situation tn the future for this cammercla) hulldinc~. Ne pointed out there is very Iimlted parking and he felt the property is being overbutlt. He ci(d not th~tnk a variance for 40b under the code requirement. for parking is within reason. Mr. Sttres st~ted h(s business is grawin~7 and he will need thls much space and he does not want to have to move. Ne read a list of people wh~ are tnterested tn le~~sing the other portion of his facility (floor coverin~s~ Jacuz~ls~ furntture s~les, warehause~ smalt assembly, electranics~ etc.). Chatrman Herbst replied these users would create a continual flow of re[ail custorners and stated if tlie request was somewhere closer to the required parkin!~~ then he Gould consider it, but this bu(ldinq wauld be there forever. Commiss(oner Kin~ p~inted out n~ parking is ellawed on the south slde of u1lshlre and potential customers have no place t~ park. Comnlssloner Tolar indicated he had missed the fact at the prev(ous heartng that the petitioncr is proposEng to use the second stery of th~ strucLure for Iiving quarters. Jay iashira~ Associ~~te Planner, ~xplained proprietor's l~viny quarters are allawed as long as they meet all the requirements for tt~e RM-120Q Zone~ and they have met these requirements except for parkiny. Comm(ssioner Johnson stateJ the Cammission should nat try to stop p~ogress and felt lt was the feeling at the last meetiny that too much building is proposed and the plan should be modified. He stated through the years It has been proven that tl~e estin~ates for parking are accurate for this type buiidtng and that variances are usually granted for 5~ to 10~~ but 40~ is a total modification of the ordinance. Mr. Stlres lndicated he had asked et the p~evious meeting what the Cortmission ~ould consider for a park(ng variance, and he did not receive an answe~. 7/31/78 r~ ~ MI~~UTES~ ANAHC111 CITY PLANNING COMMISS ION, JULY 3) ~ 1~7a 78-~~OG EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION AND VAKIANCE N0. 3030 (continued) ~ ~r~ Clialrman Ilerbst statcd th~: Comnisslon would l ike to see the bui ldln~ hut lt tn cc,cie~ h~it they recognize this ts a hardship parcel and warrants some constderatlon. Ile f~lt the owner woul~ be hurting his own buslness wtth tl~is lack of parkiny~ especially since no perking ls allawed on the street and customers would not be able t~ flnd a place to park. Commtssloner ~arnes was concerned ebout the peopla across the street ancl the traffic et that location. ShP st~~ted she would like to see tl~e peritionen c~ve the development he would 1(kc on thls property, but not at tlie cxpense of the other people in the erae and future residents of Anaheim. She did not fecl the revised plan was ~s qood as the origina) plan~ and osked why the bullding had been moved. Mr. Stires Indlcatea he had informed the archit~ct hr, neecl~.J uwrc ~,erkli~g ai~d this wa~ the plan he had come up with~ and it J~-~st hnp~ened tc~ be a larger building. He stated there were three existin~~ drlveways~ o~e ~nly 19 fect from the off-ramp. Chairman Herbst suggested reducinc~ the size af the buildinc~ sufflciently to requtre anly 10$ or 15`G dcviatlon frcxn the parktng requirement. Ile stated thc request, as pres~nted~ wou1J destray the code t~ncl it would be very difficult to find a hardshir~ and felt the petltioner was b uilding (n his own hardship, Commissioner Tolar indicated he was sttl) cancerned about the dual use of tl~e property~ being used for Mr. Stires' business use, livinc~ quarters~ and a part to be leased out. Mr. Stires potnted out the ltviny ~uarters are allow~d by code~ anJ Commissioner Tolar pointed out these llvlny quarters Are r~uch larger than a lot of the single-family horr~s in M aheim. He stated he felt the petittoner is trylnc~ to justify his expcn~itu~e and t~ytng to accomplish too much on this single parcel. He agrecd this is a~iEfficult proptrty to develop~ but felt a hardship would be hard to justify. I~e stat~cl he would go along wlth some varlance~ but fe:t a residential use and a business~ plus an additional commercial use~ would be askiny [oo much. lie statec! the problem is not the use proposed~ but the fact that the property could be sold and a variance qoes with the property. He also felt the residential usc on tlie second stary will ovcrcrawd the parking even rrbrc. Cortmissioner Johnson asked haw the parki~~~~ was calculated fo~ the residential us~~ with Jay Tashiro replying the residential use only requires two parking sraces. He also pointed out in thls zone the co~le requires two-thirds of the prop~rty to be utilized for pP~king~ and they are proposing 444 utilization. Chatrman Fierbst stated he felt the architect could redesign thp parking for more stalls and pointed aut several suggestions to thc petitioner. !le asked Mr. Stires if he would like a continuance in ordcr to study the {~lan and possibly modify it, and Mr. Stires indicated he woulcl like to request a continuance tn order to study his plan. ACTION: Commisstoner T'olar offered a motion, seconded by Comnissioner David and MOTION CARRIED (Comnissioner Linn being ebsenc)~ that the Anaheim City Pla~ning Commtssion does hereby continue c~nsideration of Variance No, 303~ to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Comnission on August 14~ 1978, at the request of the petttioner. 7/31/78 ~. v MINU?ES~ AI~IINEIM CITY PLANNIl~G COMMISSION~ JULY 31~ 1g78 7a'~~7 ITEM N0. A CONTINGEU PUDLIC HEARING. OWNCRS: DAN SNOZi. EIR t~ I~EGA'IVE DECLARATION ET AL, a~7~ Commorwvnrlth Avenue~ 6uene Perk, CA OD~ E~-U M NTS gn~?~. AGENTz PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TE'LE~RAPH OND T ONAL USC ERMIT N0. ~l~sG; COMPANY~ P. 0. Box 57.4~ San Dtego~ CA 92112. Petttloner requests permissian to ESTABLISII QUT- QOOR STORAGE OF LARGF. EQUIPMENT WITH W111VEaS OF (A) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIr,NT ANU (H) PERMITTED ENCaQACHMENT INT~ REO,uIREO SETaACK on praperty describe.d as an irreyulariy-shap~d parcel of lanci consiscing of approximately 16.6 acras locaCed at tt~s northwwst corner of Coronado and Van Quren Streets, hr+viny approximate frontages af H4~ fect on the north side of Coronado Street ~r,~' gf~; feet on t'~~e wr.st side of Van t3uren Strect. Property presently classifled RS-A-fi3'~~~ (RESIDENTIAL/ AGRICULTUML) ZOPIE with a resolution of intent to thc ML (INUUS'fRtAL~ LIMITEU) ZONE. Sub~ect petftion was continuaci from l. . meFtin~~ uf July ti~ 19i~~ e[ tha reyuest of the petttloner. There was no one indicattny thelr presrnce ln oppositlon to subJect request, and althnu~h the staFf report ko the Planning Conmissian ~leted July 31~ 19J~ wAS no; read at the public hearing~ it is referred Co and made a part of thc minutes. Cornriissioner Klny declared tc~ the Chairman that he had a conflict of interes~ as defined by Anahelrn Ctty Planninc~ Comm(scion Resolutton No. PC76-157~ adoptfnc~ a Confltct of tnterest Code far the Planniny Commisslun~ and ~overnment Code Section 3625, et srq.~ in that he owns stock in the Pacific Teleph~ne Company and~ pursuant to th~ provlstons of the a~bove codes~ he was hereby ~ieclariny tn the Ghairman thaC tie was wlthdrawninq from the hearing in connection with Item No. 4 on the July 31~ 197N Planning Caemission agenda and w(1) not takc part in either the discusslon or the v~ting thereon~ and he hes not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. TFIEREUPQN, COMMISSIONER KING LEFT THE COUNCIL CNAMBER AT 2:23 P.M. Bill Ylatts, representiny the Pacific Telenhone ~ Telegraph Company~ 52~ "B" Street, San Diego~ stated the plans have been redesigned to eliminate parking of tower lrucks In the fro~t of the building, and also additional landscaping is provided in the front to sc~een the vlew. THE PUBLlC NF.ARING WAS Clc)SEU. Commissioner Barnes asked Mr. Watts to clarify tt~e coanpany p~rking~ employee ~arking, etc.~ and he pointed out these areas on the revised plans. Commissloner .lohnson indicatecl he did not feel the outdoor storage of vehicles Is quite the normal outdoor storage constdered by the Planning Comnission; that this ts part o{` the parking lot and the work facilities and the vans wduld be aut during the day and park on t~e property aC night only. Chairman Herbst pointed out the 6-foot hiqh chainlink fence is necessary for security purposes~ ancJ Mr. Watts added that the fence would be ~edwood-slatted. ACTI ON ; Commi ss 1 oner To 1 ar of fered a root i ~n ~ secor..led by Coirmi ss i one r Barnes and MOT I ON CA R ED (Commissione~ Linn betng absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal ta permit outdoor storage of large squipment with waiver af maximum fence height and p~rmitied encroachment into th~ required ~etback on an i~reqularlyshaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1G.6 acres located at the northwest corner of 7/31/78 .~ ~ t' ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P:ANNING COMMISSION~ JUIY 31~ 197(3 ~g,.~,~~ EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND CONDITI~ O~NAL USC PERMIT N0. 1865 (concinued) CoronAClo Strcct ond Ven Du~en Stroe:t, havtny approximatc frontanes of 340 feet on tlie north side of Goronbdo Street and 965 feet on the west stde of Van Bur~n Street; and does hereby approve the Neyativ~ Declaration from the requ-~eme~x to prepare an envtranmenta) impact report on the basis that there wouid b~ no slgntficant indlvidue) or cumuletive adverse enviranmenta) (mpact due to the approval nf thls Negative Declaratlon since the Anahelm Genera) Plan designetes the subJect propc~ty for general Industrl~l land uaes corm~ensurate wlth th~ proposAl; that no sensttlvr. environ~x ntal irr~pacts are Involved tn the pr~posel; that the Initlal Study submltted by the petitt~ner (~~dicates no siynlf(c~nt lndtvidual or cumulatlve advers~ environmentnl In~,acts; and ttiat thc Negattvc Oeclaration substantiatlnh the foreqofnq ftncl(ngs is on file tn th~ City o¢ llnaheim Planntng Department. Commissioner Tolar offereJ a motlon, seconJcJ by Conmissioner Johnson and MC-TiUN CARRIEQ (C~mcn~ssioners King and Linn b~ing absent), that the Anahe(m Clty Planning Comnlssion does heroby yranl lfie requested waivers on tlie basis th~~t thc ~~-foot ht~h fencp Is needed to prov(de the necessary security~ end subJect to tF~e petitioner's stipuletfan Co provtde dense IandscAptnc~ along the c~st ~nd south propcrty Ilnes~ And on the basis that the park(n,q of vans and trucks ts no[ typical outdaor st~rage and they will be out of the area during the day anc) only parked on the premises at ntqht. Gortmtsstoner Tolar offcred Resolutton No. PC7Ei-17~ and moved for tts passage and adoption~ that the Anahelm City Planntnq Com~nission does hereby ~rant Petitton for Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1~i55~ subJect t~ lnterdeparcmenta) Comnittee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoiny resolutfon was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: C4MMISSIONERS: 8l1RNES, DAVIU~ HERBST~ JONNSOP~, TOI.AR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOPIE ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: KING~ LIt~N COMMISSIONER KI-Ir RETURNED TO THE COUNCiL CNAMBER. ITEM N0. 5 READVERTiSED PUHLIC HEARING. OWNEP,S: NAROLD ~~~~VE D~CLARATION HENRY~ ;fiOQ Wilshire Boulevard~ Sutte 1114, R ON . -79-4 los Angeles~ CA 90~10 anci STANDARD BRANDS YARIANCE N0. 3~2i PAINT~ 4300 West 190th St~est~ Zor~ance~ CA 9050~~. AGENT~ RONDELL NOMES~ INC.~ 977~~ West Katella Avenue, Su(te E, Anaheim~ CA ~2804. Property descrlbed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistfng of approximately 5.6 acres navtng a frontage of approximately 50 feet on th~ nor*.h side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maxlmum denth of approxin~ately 720 feet. and being located approxi- mately 1026 feet east of the cente~line of arookhurst Street. Rroperty presently classified PD-C (PARY.ING DISTRICT-COMMERGlAL)~ CL (COMMERCIAL' L!lIITED)~ AND RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. RECLASSiFICATiON REQUEST: RM-1200 (RESIDEt~TIAL. MUl.TIPI.E-FAMILY) ZONE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF MINIMUM BUILO{NG SITE WiDTN TO CONSTRUCT A 143-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. SubJect petition was conti~ued from the meeting of July 17~ 1978 at the reyusst of the petitianer. 7/31/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.AN~~INf, COMMISaION~ JULY 31~ 197~ ~g'~~q E I R NEGAT_ I VE DECIARAT 1AN, RLCLASS I F~I~CAT ION N0. 78-7 9--+ AND VAtiIANCE N0~ 302~ (c~nt l nued) Thero were 21 pers~ns indlcotcd thelr pres~ncc (n oNE~usitlon ta subJect re~uest~ an~~ ~lthougl~ the staff r~part to th~: P1 ~nn(ny Commisslon dated .luly 31 ~ lq7:s was ~et reed at the puLlic hearin!~, it Is refr.rred to and n-Ade a p~rt of thn min~~tes. Jay Tashfrr~~ AsSOClote Planner~ tndicated three letters have been received In oppostton and une petltlon contalnin,y approxirootely 3~ ;i~.~nntures was .~l~,a reccived In nppasition. Leonard Smith, >0~1 North tirookhurst Street~ P.nahelm~ dcveloper of the pror~rty~ was ~resent tu answ~r any qucstiuns an~1 intro~luced Phillp Case.~ ret?resentin~~ thc aycnt, who s tatecl ct~e 1 r cornpany i s n 1 ~ca 1 comnany Hn~l h.is done bus 1 ness t n thr. C t ty of AnAhe f m for lh-1/2 ycars an~1 hav~ r1~v~l~p~d 5~~; units tn the City arhich thcy nv+n a~d oPerate and mafntaln. Ile pointc:d ~ut th exhibits J(splayed and (ndlcatFd there Qs e~~rrP~r,~`~eofen~ op~n~on regardin~~ thc dc~nsity .~s polnked out in tl-e st~~ff re~~ort ~t 2., unlts p ~ th~lr ~.alculations shaw 2!', units p~~r acrc~ with the ~lifference ,.elnc, staff subtracts the drlvewavs; that anly one vari•~~cc is proposed; [h~t thc frontn~~e on Lincaln Avenuc ~vill be commerc.lal shops developed after the ,~~~artm~nts are Jeveloped; that there wll) be a prlvate drlveway and th!•re wtll bc no ma~ntr.nance cost to the City; tl~at the units wlll be one 5tory, 15U feet away from the propcrty lines~ with two-story units (n the center of the proJ~ct; that a G-foat hi~.ih block wali wi I1 be constructeci; that all unlts wl ll hAVe a patlo behlnd the~~~ (3 feet to l:i feet); that all recr~ ~ic~n will be contained qutt~ a distance fran tlie rPSidences; that cod~ -equires the minimum site widtti of 10 feet and the a0-foot widn frontage on l.incoln Avcnuc wi ~ br.. utilired for access. Ivan Hatfie~d~ 1't7 Nort~~ Alad~llr.~ Anaheim, statecl he haci lived at thi~ address for 25 years and he, alony wi t'~ athers who had moveci ir.:o thet n c~xnes when they w~pre f( rst bui 1 t~ sppreclate wfiat thc Planning Cormissi~n h~s d~re to contrihute to the growth and dsvelopment ~f tin.~hE~im; that ap~roximatcly 17 yea~s a~o this tract had voted to becomc- a part of the Citr~ after promfses were made b;~ t-~e Cicy Council rc~~reser~tatives for sewer services, street ~i~~ht!~. a tr.~ffic siqnal at Brookhurst and Ltncoln~ a fire st~tion, and protecti~n of their low-density~ R-1 Zonc. 11e stated all [hese promtses have been fulfi~led~ and more with the addition of tl~e Brookhurst Recr~.ation Center~ but they were conc~erned about the pro~erty 5e(na consldered for rcclassification. He p~inted out the locatfon of ihis prc~perty with Lindsay un the ~~est~ Sunset on the north, and Aladdin on the east. Ne stated they h~ve enjoyed this vacant area for r+any years as orange jroves and strawberry farms; that lie had bepn asked to spea- for the community of resic_ent homea+ners against the propased tiigh••density apartments. -ie read th: statement on the petitlun and pointed aut the~• have 34 siynat~res fr~m ~eople on Aladdin and Bernice~ 29 from peaple on Lindsay, and 2? frcxn tne peaplc wh~ live on Sunset, and submitted the pet~tion for Planning Gomnission consider;~tion. Mr. Hatfielcl staCed they disagree wtth the Initial Study of Envirnnmenta) Impacts and Peferred to Items 2, 7 and 20. He stat~d Item 7 asked if ttie proJect could create traffic hazards or con estion anci lt has been answered "no~" but that the homeowners say "yes" it would. Ile: stated the~City Traffic Departmen[ had to paint a"keep clea~'' r.ane on the Lin~' ~y Street outlet because of the hiyh-density traffic and that rear-end collisions are `oo comirKm now. Iter~ 2 and 20 are very similar. ~nd he stated the haneowr,ers Feel the answers should be "yes" to both these questions; :hat th~ envir~~mental disaJvantages from th~ traffic for the 143 apartnents proposed on 5.f~ acres will preduc~ a hlcih-density level of noise, dust and fumes for everyo~e. He pointed out ~n ~~uuntirc, th~ single-family homes in the immediate area, there art 62 hrxnes to the west~ 35 to the north, and 51 to the east~ totaling 148 ha~es~ and that tfi e propos~d den5ity of the apartments would be five times the cu~rent density. Ne stated they ~ealizP ihe vacant land wil~ be developed and 7/31/78 ~~. MINUTE`., ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMi'.SION~ JULY 31~ 1~l1~ 78-610 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIGN RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-4 AND VARIANC~ N0. 3424 (continued) ~ -- -- _ __ thelr committ~ae has never been opposed to commerclol development on Llncolr-~ but they ere esking that I~w-denslty devrlopment ne malntalned on the other portion. He suggested en entrenc~ ta the center of the vr+cant land be develaped wlth a cul-de-sac street far RS-J2U0 hanes, similor to the hnmes on all throe sides; or their second preference is a block wall with 20 feet ~f landscaped buffer to bu(ld RS-5000~ stngle- famtly homes or RM-400c1 condominiums; And since they are Jumping flve zones to RM-1200, If granted~ th~y felt ttils woul~i necessit~-te a 10-foot hiyh~ sound attenuatior wall with heavy land~-cap(nq simllar to those used adJacent to freeways to prov(de protectlon to the rosidentlal areaa. He stated th at nver 40~ of the homes surraundln~ the vacant property are occupi~d by nwners and they fael uwners takA bettcsr c~re of thei r praperty than renters. fIQ stated one of the ncwer nc~i ,hbors is vcry upse: becausc shc Is pAyinq 550~ a month t~ be out o~~ en apartmenc ar.d nc~~ four apartn~ents are beinn proposed 9 to 13 fec[ from the wall of her back yard~ and hr u1Qrd the Planning Commission to honar the promises made to mainta(n the law-density, R~1 zonin.~ for this arca. Karan Orton ~ 20U North l. indsay ~ l+naheim~ statecl t~~e ficx~eavners aciJacent to the property, which is S unset to thc n~rth and Lindsay to tF-e west~ arc (n complete agreement wlth the cortments made by Mr. HatfielJ; that thcir main concern is tli~~ traffic problems and a pc~tential increase in crimc; lhat they are a ftve-street tract with anly one access which (s Lincoln Ave~~ue~ and that any more trafftc would make it im~ossible to get ln and out of their hom~s and the C(ty lias had tu paint ~"keep clear" zone in front of the Standard Brands st~rc. She stated theey have had ,,roblems with crime whtch led to a nei~hborhood meeting with the Anaheim Police Department !ast year that the eroo~:hurst Garden Apartments north oF them has had nunxrous police ~:rohlems~ and they do not want these problems at th~ir ~*~n bac'c door. She stated ~3 10-foot wal l wi th a 10-f <.~t buffer should be requt red i f • he proJect is allowed an d~tate~ the f~aneowners on Lindsay would like to know what ts plann~d for the rest of the vac.ant pro~erty. Mr. Gase s t~tecl the prcposed dcns ( ty of 25 ~~n i ts per acre cloes not seem 1 i ke h igh dens i ty to him in the bustness an~~ poin~ed out no variances are being requested, Ne cliscussLd the 20-foot b~.ff er and polnted out the open ~arkina a~eas and the circulation .~attern and stated fhey have an easement with the commerctal property and felt over half of the traff i c wou 1 d be ynt nn out th rough the ccxnmerc ia 1 properry ; that rtas t of th i s property i s zoned comne rcially wich a couple of small parcels still zoned residPntiat/agricultural~ ana this proposa? would be down-zoning the property beca~se if the property were develnped ccxr~nercially~ Lhere would be at least tY+ice as ~~~any vehicles. lie stated they have warked on the traffie problem w;th the Trafftc Enyineer ard did not thinL: the traffic woutd affect Lin w!n Avenue stgnificantly. Regarding the preference of ~he homeo~.,~r; for single-tainily residEnces in this area because the maintenance woulc: be better, h.~ referred to their company's five apartment proJ~ects o n Lincoln Avenue and suqgestea that the homeowners inspec:t these praJects~ indicating they do malntain tf~eir proJects ve ry well. Regarding the crime problPms referred to by the opposition~ he stated their company is also conce rned about cr' roblems because they would not be able ta keep tenants if there are p rc~blems and they h,uld have to hire a private security Quard and patrol their oarn prope~ty to solve th~ problem. 7/31/78 MINUTES, AN/1HEIM CITY PLANNING COMHISSION~ JULY 31~ 19y8 78•61 1 EIR 11EGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECL115SIFICATION N0. 7a-79•W AND VARIANCE N0. 3024 (conttn ued) THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED, Ct~alrman Herbst r.xplained che Plannlnq Commisslon policy re~~~rciing the 2~J-foc~t lendscaped buffer adJacent to single-family h~rncs whlch has been in existence a c~ood nurrber af years~ and the fnc! th~ pe:tftioner h~-d been Informed of thnt palicy accnrding to th~ staff report. tle expialne~l the r~ason for this policy Is to protect tt~e hameawners and tF~ls has nat been done in thls Instance. Ne scated thts pru.ject would be abuttinc~ approxima tely four homes w) th 11~ back yr+rds ancl qu) te a nurt~er aP p~r4~ ing pl aces abut the fence. next to thc back y•rds on one siJe; th~~l II~eSe people cwn thcir homes ~nd havc bcen there for years and tl~e Plann(nc, Gommission has set this pol (cy for commercial ~~rrtperty or epart~~nts to h~vP , 9n-frx,t hu~fPr tn rrntect the Intenrity of the resldent(~1 homcs~ and f~e dld not feel this proJect even comes close to meetinq that p~licy. Renarding tl~~ 25 units per acrc~ hc felt it is a I~t of units when it {s beinn proposed at ttic expen se of the homeowners surroun~iin~ it. Conmtssfoner Tolar a~ked AbOUC the owncrshi~, of th~ rr~perty end IndicAt~d he unde r Stood Rondel) Nomcs Is in thc proc~ss of buyinc~ the properCy an~i askr.d who is the present owner~ wlth Mr. Cose replying it is Noro1J Henry~ and Conm~issioner Tolar asked tf Mr. Henry was thc origlna) owner of the pr~~~erty where Stand~~rd Eirai-!s ls located~ with Mr. Caxe replyiny he was not sure~ but h~~ thought Mr. Nenry had owned thc property fnr .:bout etght or ten ye~~rs. Commissioner Tolar st~ted he agrer.d some ty pe of residentlal developmenc w~uld br- better than cortur~ercial for this property~ however~ the proparty has been sold off and deve luped and a harclsliip has been crra[~d by [he owner and makes tlie property unlque and not cumpatlble with [he surrouncllnr~ neiyf~borhoocl. Ne stated that wh(le it ts true n~ varlances have been requested, the Planninq Conmissi.~n pollcies to protect the resi dential properties have not been complie~ w(th eitf~~r. He palnted oui in iso{ated cases wh ere better than 2; units per acre were allowed~ they have never been surrounded on thre c sides by RS-7200 development. He stated he had met with some of thcse property owner~ and had explaineci a reslde n tial development would be better than corm~ercial ;.anternin9 the traffic trips per day a n d the adverse impact on the neighbonc~w d; Lhrt he realizes ideally thc homeowners want si ngle- family reside~tfal~ but he coulcl not see r,conomically how anyone could de~elop a reside:ntlal tract since che hous~s would bc In a range in excess of S1~O,OOU and h e did not think tt~e property would ever bc develaped resideniially. He fclt the density far exceeds what he felt could be a good prnject and even thouqh there are no varinnce s requested~ I~c felt the plan would have to COrilply with the 20-font landscaped buffer area~ a~d even though therp is adequate parking, he dicf not feel the traffic coutd get i n and out of the parking stalls obutting tf~c nortt~eriy rn~ of the property thc way they are designed. Ile indicated he would surport some kinci of restdential development and felt the property owner had created th~ hardship in ti~is ca;e by taking a very square or rectangula~ly-sl~aped property arid creatlny a difficu;t p~rcel. He stated that in order for him to supp~rt the pian for Rhh120~~ che petitioner wr~uld have to adhere to th~ Planntng Gonenlsslon's pol tcies to pro[ect th~e residentlal hanes o~ ~11 three sides _ Chairman Nerbst pointed out to the opposltion that the prcaperty i~ currently zoncd cam~ercial.,r and that the p~operty owner could build a commercial development with out the Planning Commissl~~'s a~proval~ and the proposed proJPCt is actually down-zonln~ o f the exlsting zoning. ~i3 ~~~a ~ ~~ MI NUTES, ANA hC I M C ITY PLANl;I NG COMMI SS ION, JUIY 31 ~ 1y78 7f~-612 EIR N~GATIVE DCCLARATION~ REGLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-4 AND VARIANCE N0. 3024 (continued) ..._.~._.~., --- ~_.._._._ Ne+ aslced the pat(tloner about the driveway proposed which Is tie~~ In with the commarcial devoiapment ancf stated h~ thought It would be botter If Che driveway we~e plared away from the res ldentl~~l hanes, 11e alao asked if the comnercta) development ts reolly needed end sugnesteal t~~at the ent(re properky be devcloped RM-12Q0 wlCh apartments rll the wAy out to Ltncoln, w~~ich woul~~ eltminate th~: nr,cesatty for the ciriveway, Mr. Case stated they had presented a plan wi th a drivew~y a~ the oth~r slde~ but the Traff(c Engi~eer hsd suyc~FS[e~l this plen beceuse lt wauld be A sofe~ access~ but they would be hap~y t~ move it back. Chalrman IIerL,l dskecl Peul ~nyer~ Traff'ic En~ineer~ why the proposed uriveway which Is (nterfering w1 th the so) i tude of the nel~h',ors iR bntter~ ~n~i Mr. Si~~er repi I~d the resso~ the maln entrance was swltched upon hls sug~iest(on wes becausF there_ is a small clriveway on Lhc si.:.: that il rendy has a r,~edian cut anJ would caust conuestiim urti Linc~in Avonue if it were nut madc conventent enou~h to prevent aiiy vehir_les from buildtng up~ trying ta ye t in and out of the large develapmrnt~ an~l p.~intc~d out theres was a drtveway existtng on the east si~ie, F1~ ~ointed out the wholc ~~lan was flipprd ovcr 1tiQ Jenrees. Ghat rnwn He rbs t asF:ed i i i t wou l ~ t,e pos s i b l e to combi ne thc dr l~eways to makc one 3CCC55 polnC~ refer~inq to the 20-f~ot e~~ress-oniy access on the we5t ~roperty line. hle wns al• c.~ncerned because the plan dumps all the tr,~ffic into thc r~~sidenti~l area. Two accesses were diswssed, with Mr. Case Indicatin<~ t~~ F~r~ D~partment had wanted the access at thls lncat(on~ an~J Mr. Si~ger expinined hE~ had ~c:corrmendcd switchin~~ the driveways becnuse of the medlan open(ng ~~litch (s existlny~ t~nd that all the maJor Access would be taken there~ no mattcr how wide the drivcway i~. Comniss taner Johnson surmiari zed that there seemed to be three principnl obJections to thc plan: 1) the 20-`oot buffer arca~ 2) che trafffc into the residential area, ancl 3) the density wt~teh may be allev(ateJ hy tt~e buffer zone. Chai rman Nerbst referre~i to the Gaunci 1 pol icy that CL zoninq has been compat(ble f~ r rezo~iny to RM-1200 ancJ has been done with buffer zones an<i consideration niven to the protection of the value of the homes surroundinc~ it. fle pointed out there are l~+ back yards abutti ny approximAtely four and one-hal` t~cxnes on one siJe of this proJect~ and felt if a buffer zone was Frovl~ied~ this prAblern would be e) irnlnatP~ and would pr~bably cut down the den s 1 ty . Commissioner Johnson potnted out this RM-12~0 zonin~; is a normal crade-aff with the proper buffer zones provfded from the comnerciai zone~ but~ if this property haci been zoned for single-famijy ~esiden~ial uses throuchout these years~ then the petitloner probably could not yet rezoning to develop ap~rtments. Comml~sione ~ Barnes pointed out she is cancerned about tF~e four areas whe~e it appears the apartnMnt units ara 3 to S fcet from the property line and sh~e lik~u the sugges~ton that the apartme~t units be extended to front on llncaln and that tltie c~ nmercial po~ . ~n b-e elim(nated. Mr. Case stated that if apartments were built to front on lincoln~ there would probably have to be a 20-foot barrler In order to meet the noise level requ~~ements~ and they felt a nice attracrivs commerclal development on the front of this property would be a much higher and betCer use. He stated the comnercial d~velopr-~ent w~uld be aM+ned end controlled by their company and would be well maintained because it ts the window to thetr pro}ect. 7/31/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31, 19.'8 7N•~13 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATIUN N0. 78-79-4 ANp VARIANCE N0. 3024 .ontinued) ~~ - __ Commissloner Talar stated thore fs A 3~~foot s~tback requiremrnt for apartments on Lincoln Avenue and Chere would not be a'l0-foot wall because that. area would have to h~ lendscapod and w~uld laak like a ~estdentlal d~vcloprt~ent. Ne polnted aut other proJacts have been davelupod on Llncaln Avenue -.hich are va ry nice and r~fcrred to thc number of aportments required to make a proJect economic~~lly feastble and gcAte~i n~ cou1J Ap~reciate that as a re:+ltor~ but fQlt part of the econ~wnic problem IS the awner of the property dem~ndln4 a hlgh price for the property, an~ he realize~t constru:tion costs are extremaly hlgh. but the awner coulcf ~ricc~ thr pr~percy more reatistlcally~ then it possibly could be develc,p~~~ at a luwer de~sity to provlde thc protectton to thc RS-720~ hames. Chairman Herbst indlcated he was cun4c-ncu about the tra~flc from tliis hiqh density apartment proJect yolrig out tfirou~h the cortxne~clal clcvcl~pmenr creatinq trt~ffic IiAZar<is. He steted he is opposed to tht~ particuier ~lan. Mr, Lase In~ficate~l the property owner (Nr. Nenry) had acquirecl this property In four separate transactions with tlie obJective of develaping it commerc(ally. -ie felt if th15 proJ~ct i, nat approved~ t1r. Henry will proceed wltt~ s~~me type of c~~mn~e :IA1 development and he did not think an RS-7200 lot proJect would bc P.CAr10111ICA~I~/ feasible. He felt this pro~osal would be feasible and indica[ed he ht~d been Informerl about the )(1-foot buffer, but they had come in with a tots~l planned ap~rtr~ent pro.ject to show the Cummissir~n it would be a very nice apartment proJect ~ and i f the Conrilssi~n di d not !(~.e t~~e proJsr.t, they woulci have t~ try and do something else. He statecl thcy dfd not Just ign~re the Planr ~g Comnlssion nollcies and pc~(nted out thc 1;0-foot hei~ht limitaCion makes designing a proJect very dtffi<<~lt and over one-half of their proJect is onc-story units. which Is very exp~nsive construction. Coirrnissioner Tolar polnte~ out to Mr. Case that tf~e Pianning Comnission w~-+s not suggesting sinyle-family residentla) and lic understood what the petitionrr is trying to do. He 1 nd i ca ted he d i d not wan t to see carxne rc i~ 1 on th i s prope~•ty and he d i d not t'i i nk the homeawners wanted to see comrnercial on tl~is prope~ty either; that he we,uld like to see this development wtth better c:irculation patterns and wlth so~ne of the setbacks n'ovided to protect tne residentlal integrity; that he recogntzes thPre is not Going to be an RS- 720a development and knew economieally the pro}ect has to pencil out~ but ~oc at the expense of the ho+neow~~rrs. H~ indicated he has seen some of tl~is com~any's proJects and they do take good r.are c~f their apa~tments. M~. Case stated he did not know how to imprnve the clrculation; that they hav~. circular- type drive situations an~ the flow s.itisfies the Fire Department~ Sanitatton Department and all other departments. Ne sugge~ted that parking structures cout~ be butlc againsc the property ilne~ which would buffer any noisc ~r tonditions that m(ght develop. He pointed out the present parkiny plan meets code requirements. Commisstoner Tolar referred to the parking area on the west property lin~~ pointing ou*_ sorne of the nccup~nts would have to walk 200 feet to rarking. Ne stated he recognixed this is a lit~le ley of the propP~ty, but felt the property ownPr has created that hardship. Leonard Smith polnced out M~. Nenry had assembled this property pieGemP.al and did not split up those long~ shotgun st~ips. Ne pointed aut the property as acquired by Mr. Fienry and the portions owned by someone else and indicated they had trted to buy property from the Williams'~ but believed there ts an estate problem and th~t the property could not be soid at the present time. Ne oointed out Mr. Henry vwns the Los Angeles Automobile Auction and thought t~e had originally had hones of ,:utting sc~mething similar here where the property was in tF~e County, but that he no longer wants the property for that purpose. 7/31/78 M~"~~~TFS~ AMAIIkIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY ;i~ 197(~ 78-G14 EIR NCGATIVk QECLAaATION. RECLASSiFICATION N0. 78•19~h AND VARIANCE N0, 3024 (c~~ntinucd) Commisslc.:ie~ Johns~n pointed out to lhe apn~sttlon therN arF ochcr thinqa far w~rse than RM-12A~ dcvolupment on this rro~erty~ such as a use~d cr+r auctfon~ etc. Gommissione~ Herbst stateci he felt tlic Commission has hear~i a gc~o~i cr~ss-sectian of I~oth sides anci asked Mr. Casf if he wanteJ a vote fram the Commission or would he like to rcques t o con t 1 nvance:. Mr. Case expr4ssed their desire to have a nice prc~,Ject and inclicated thpy wanted to cooperate but did not know if it was passible to rr~et ell setback requfrements. (.hal rman Nerbst explAineci thc Pluririi-~y Cunrniy!,iun's pol icy f~ir a 2('-fooL londscapcd bufFer end palnted cwt thPy have dev(ated from this requirement tn soe,c cascs~ but he dld not th ink (n th is case on most of thc prop~~rty there w~ul d bn a h.ardsh i p for qrant f nq a Jc:vlatlon. Mr. Case stated he had considerec; a plan wtth the driveway aro~lnd the pr.riphery of the property~ rnE:etiny tha City's requirernFnt of a 20-fcx~t landscaper{ ~~rea with parkinn off that area~ but fclt it would bc a less desirable slt.u~,tton than havin~ ~ne-stor•~r apartment units back up to the pr~perty linc. He st~ted he h~d tried t~ ~~ut thc parkiny as far aw~3y from the resldences as p~~ssible~ but he would iik~ tc> try and redeslnn the p1An and move the apartments a_yain~[ the property line and put tf,e drive trside thc proJect so that all the traffic is inside, which Is the biggest nolsc problem. Comm(ssioner 8arnes statc~J she would like to see o 2~)-foot landscapec~ huffer which is usually requir~d of all developments .~djacent t~ resiJential areas~ and she would like to see what is proposed with tl~e trafffc insiJe the pro.iect. She felt the RH-11.0~~ or restdential development is much bettcr than a cor~xncrcial development and pointPd out to those perso~s in oppositl~n this would be considered down-zoning from CL and tF y would have less traffic and less prvblems with a residential devclop~nent. Sh~ ~ointed out she wauld like the cleveloper to look at circulation~ potnting out there is o~ly one area to make a left tu~n next t~ the residences and she could see no way of eliminating one of the drivaw~ys. She suggestP~i encouraoin~ a left-turn-only from one arEa and riyht-turn-only from the other area, She indicated she dtd not want to see the plans c~me back in simply with th~e units moved 2.0 feet from the pr~pe~ty line with recreational areas ellminateci. Mr. Case surtrnarized what he read from the Com~~ission's opinions regerdi~g the traffic flow and pointed out he was crying to sulve ~ desiyn probtem and was not sure he could move eve rything in and stiil have all thc driveways together~ so he could not guarantee the trafflc would be inside~ but he would try to work with the 2Q-foot landscaped buffers. He pointed out the entry to the project wauld be an attractive entry; that this is an a11- adult proJect; that they have ~ri~d developments for children, but they do not work out; and asked for a two-wcek continuan~e in order to submit revised plans. Cammissioner Tolar indicated he persanally would like to see a four-week co~tinuance rather than two~ and Mr. Case indicated he would have an escrow problem by taking a four- week continuance. M nika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, pointed out that the Interdepartment~l Committee review for the next Planntng Cortmission ;neeting would be held on hbnday marniny at 9s0U a.m. and pians would have to be in by Friday the 4th in order to be revle,wved by staff prlor to that meetlny. 7/31/78 r ~ "~. • MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31~ 1978 78-fil~ EIR NEGATIVE DECI,ARATION, aECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-7~-4 ANQ VARIANCE N0. ;024 (continued) ACTIONs Commtsstaner Jchnson oFrarecl e motlon~ seconded by Co~m~its(o ~r David ~nd MOTIAN l.A~RR CU (Commissioner Llnn be~ing absent)~ thAt conslderation of Retia ~~ftcatt~n No. 7~~- 79-~i end Veriance K~. 302~~ be continu~d to the regulrrly schedul~d nMetin;~ of the Planning Commission on August ~i~, 197~, at the requ~st of the petitlaner to submtt ruvise<1 plens. Commtssl~nor Tular suggestod to Mr. Caso that f~e q~t thqetlicr wlth the pcrsons in oppositian and shaw them the~ plans prior to the meetln~, Commisston~,; E~arnes suyg~asted that those perscns interes~ed in the publtc hearing should call the Planning Dep~rtment to make sure thi5 ttem Is on the agcnda for tho n~xt meet(ng because someClmes plans are not submitted in tiirr~e And it would he best tc~ call encl nwka sure the m~tter is not c~oin~ to be continue~i, RkCE55 There wa, a ten•minute recess at 3:~4~ ~.m. _._.._._. RECONVENE The meettnc~ reconvened at 3:5~ p.m.~ al~ Gommissianers prr.sent axcept Commissioncr Lirn bcinq absent and Commissi~ner Davl~'~ being tardy. ITEM N0. G PUULIL rIEARING. OWNERS; CHARLES F. ANU ALYCE S. f. DECLARATION SIGALA~ 39120 Ramon~ Boulevard, San Jaclnto~ CA N ~ . -7~-7 y23t'8. AGEtJT: J. RIGY.MA~l~ 2~47 Rainbaw Drlwe~ VARI NCE N0. 3~3~ Santa Ann~ CA ~270;. Property descrlbed ~s a r~ctangularly-shaped pa~•cel of IAnd consisting of ~pproxim~~tcly 0.4 acre haviny a frontage of app mximately 8& feet on the south sicfe af Lincaln Avenue~ having a maxtmum de~kh of ap~~oximat~ly 217 feet~ beinq locatcd approximately 9~f5 fe~t east of the centerline of East Street~ a~d further described as 12E~ East Llncoln Avenur. Property presently classlfled CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ANU RhS-2-+00 (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONES. REC~UESTED CLA55 I F I CAT I ON : CL ( CpMMEMtC I AL . L i MI TE D) ZONE . ~EQUESTEU VARIANCE: WAlVER OF (A) MINIMUM SE'iBACK ABUTTING A RESID~t~TIAL 20NE AND (B) RE2~11ftED SITE SCREENII~G~ TO COt~STRUCT TWO COMMERCIAL Bl1ILDIr~GS. There was no one indicating their presence in op~osition to subJect request, and although the staff report to the Plann(nc~ Commisston dated July 31, ~97~ wAS not read at the public hearing, tt Is referre4 to and made a part of thie min~~te5. Joseph P~ic!vnan~ agent~ was present co answer eny questtons and pointed out the property to the cest is developed witF~ a schoo) and the property to the s~uth is develaped with a church and they are not bsing used f~r restdential purposes~ and he felt the waivers rec~uested wauld not be harmful to these properties. TN~ PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Chatrman Herbst lndica:ed he was concErned about the fact that the appiication fn cates specific uses being prapo~ed which do not require the nnrmal parking~ haveeer, ar e the property is rexoned, other comnercial uses would be ~ermitted and thPn the ~~rkf~~g would 7/31/78 MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31~ 1g78 78-61G Ela NL•GATIVf: ~ECLAR_ATION. n~CL~SSIFICATION N0. '~ 7~,-7 AND VARIANCE N0. 3034 (w n.inued) be substandard. 11e as~.ed ataff to ~xpl.~in the calcul~tlons used for the ~arking re~ulrement. He statcd in l~kin~~ at the Iong~~A-1~~r, narkln~ rec~uir~mc~nts for cortmCrciAl property, p~rkfny cnuld not bc tl~d to spscific uses. Jay Tashiro~ Associ~~te Planncr~ I~~1(catcd thac based on commerclal uses, ~ne sp~ce would be required for every 2~~J syuare: feec~ which would be 41 s~»c~s re~uired and they have pr~posed 21+. Mr. Rickman polnted out thc re~~r 5uildiny w~uld he desi~~n.~ted for a furntture store and nthrr ~-~f't,~r~n4 Wq~~~,l h~~ i15~ri h.,S~~_;11 ~y f~1' r~~f!~551~~A) 115~5, Jay Yash(ro explainPJ thc furnlture stc,rP requirements would be one sp~~c~ per 500 square fcet and the rest o` the arca would be one suace pcr 2~0 syu.~re feat, wfth a total of 30 spaces requt red anc! 24 pro~osed, COMHISSIO~J~R UAVID ENTLREU TIiC CoUNCIL CHNtl3EP AT 3:;; P.M, Ttie Commission discusse~! eh~ setback requi~r_r~c~nts. w(th Jay Tashiro ~~Intlnc~ out they are proposin~~ to put the buildin~ on thc property line nnd codc reryuires a min(mum open setbACk of not less than 10 feet ~~dj.~cent tu ~ r~s(dential zone, Mrs. Faacks~ 1272 East Ltricoln Avr.nue~ Anaheirn~ indlceted shr. owned the property to the wes[ of subJect ` a~erty and state~l che church had bou~ht the: property Prom her famlly and she wondersd if they Jecided to sell cne prr~perLy In the fut,ure, whethcr or not apartments would be allawed in th~~ hack wi th commerclal in ths front. She in~:(c.~ted she was not against tfiis pro~ect~ but was cc~ncerneci about the future usF, Chalrman Herbst nointed ouc the Coi~nlssiu~ had Just considered a proJect wherc the property was zoned comnercially anci the petitic~ner wanted to develop apartrne:nts, and there fs RM-12~~0 devel~pment surroundin~ this propcrty and it is usuai ly compatil,le~ but that ~~ach case is considered depending upon the circumstances and the desic~n ~f the proposed F roJect. A'TI~N: Gortmissioner :Cing offered a rrwtion~ seconded by Commissi~~ner David and MOTION ~Eh~D (Gortwniss(oner Linn being absent) ~ that t1~e A~al~eim Clty Planning ~ommisslon has re~•z~ed Che proposal tc~ construct two corm~crr.fal hui Idings wi th wa(~ier of minlmum sr.tback abuttlr,y ~ resldential zone and requ(Ted site screr..ning on a rectangularly-sfiaped parcel of land consis[tng of approxlmately 0.4 acre having a frontage ~f approxirr,~teiy 88 feet on the south side ~f Lincoln Avenue. liaving a maximum depth of ~~,;,roxirnately 217 feet, a~nd being lae~ted approxirnately '~~5 fpet east of ~,. centerl ine of East Street; and does hereby approNe th~ Negative DeclaraCion From the requirer,,,~nt to prepare a~n env(ronmental impact report on the basis that tnere would be n~ signlftcant individuat or cumulative adverse envtronmenkal irr~pact Jue to the approvel of this Negative Declaretion since the Maheim General Plan deslcnates the subject pr~perty f~r general commercial land uses cortrnensu~ate wi th the propc.sal ; that n~ se~s I t i ve envi ronmenta) ir~pacts are t nvolv~~ in the proposal; that th~ Init~al Study submitted by ttie petittoner indicetes na sic3nlftcant individual or cumulati~e r~dver5e env(~anmencal impacts; and that th~ Negative Decla~otien s~stantiating the f~regoing findinqs is on ffle in the City of Anaheim Planndng Uepartment. Comm(ssioner King offered Resolutfon No. PC78-177 and moved for its pas~ag~ and adoption, that the Pnahelm Clty Planning Cemrnisslon does hereby grant Petition for Rrclassificatio~ No. 7b-79-7, sub,ject te Interdepartmen~r~) Comnittee recomnendations. 7/31/78 j . ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM C1TY PLAI~~IING GUMMIS5ION~ JUI.Y 31 ~ 1`.37~ 7`~~v• I E! R NEGATIVC DECLARIITION, aECLA5S{FICATION N0. J8-79~7 ANd VARIANCE N0. 3Q34 (continued) On roll call~ the forogoiny resoluti~n was passed by the followlnq VALP: AYCS : GOM~11 SS I OI~~RS ; BARNf:S, D/1Y I U~ FIERE3ST ~ J011NSON ~ K I NG ~ 70LAP, NOE5; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COt1M I SS I ONERS : L I ~JIJ Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC7~3-17~. ancl rtx~ved for its passn~e and adoption, t4~at the Anahcim City Planniny Commissfan d~es hereby g~ant Petitlon for VarlAnce No. 3034, ln part~ on the basls tha~ thc propcrctes to the s~uth and east a~e zoned residcntlal but are devP1~~F~1 with a church and t~ school; that walver (b) is hereby danicci on the basis that revlsed plans were submitted delet(ng the need for said walver; and sub,)ect to Interdeportmental Cormi(ttee rec~mmendati~ns. On roll call~ the forec~~ing resolution was passed b~~ •he follc~winc~ vote; AYES: COMMI SS IONE:RS ; E3ARIJES ~ DAV I D. NEREiST, J~I~NSON ~ K I tIG, TOLAR NO~S: COMMISISONEItS; NOI~E Af3SENT : C0~1t11 SS I OI~ERS : L I N!! ( TC11 N0. ~% PUBL I C NE-~RI NG. OWN't~'.S : ANDREw' M. AI~U JOYCE EIR-'~ CA7EGQRiCAL EXEt~'1'IQ'I-CLA55E5 1 b; L. ZURICK, 519 trorth Dale Avenue~ Anahcim~ CA VA IANCE N0. 30;2 92A~1. Petitioner reques.~s WAIVEr~ OF (A) MINIMUM DISTANCE FOR ANIMAI. CONFI~~EMENT ArID (d) h1AXINUM NUMBEP, OF EQUIh~E, T(: ~'FNMIT THE KEEPING OF THRE:E HORSES on pr~perty d~scribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of l~nd consisting of app~oximatcly o.5 acre having a frontan<~ of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue~ havin~ a maximur~ depth of anCroximately 2?.~ feet, beinq locatad approximately ~+7,'~ feet south of the centerllnc of Crescent Avenue, and further descrtbed as 5~9 North ~ale Avenue. Pr~perty presently classifteci P,S-A-43,~00 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRlCULTURAL) Z~P~E. Tt~ere w~sone pe~son i~dicating his ptesence in oppc~si tion to subject request, and al though the staff report to the Planniny Commission dated July 31~ 197H was not read at the public hearing, it is referred i.~ and cnade a part of the mi~utes. Andrew Zurick, a+ner, indicated he has lived at thts p~operty far ta years and had originally bougi~t the property with the intentir~n of keepin,y horses. He statr.d the animals are on the rear af the property which is completely surrounded with shrubbery and the distance from existinq structures is quite adequa:e for keepi~o antm~ls; that the antmals he keeps are not shabby~type animals; that his horses a~e used fo~ parades and st~a~ws; and tha~C he is a member of the Long Beach hb unted Policc. He presented photographs af some of the parad~s as evidenc~ of the type and quality of the anirtkils. Commissio~er Johnson indic~ted the objections concerning ho~ses would be the same and the quality of the animals ts not the ir.p ortant issue. Edward 1~lhitney~ 8612 Kendor Ortve~ Buena Park~ stated his ~roperty does not directly border t~ie 5ub~eCt property, 5ut does meet the property at the corner on the southwest side and the horses are stahled in th,t arra a~d could walk over to the fence adJoining hls property. He stated the struct~: e itself is probably adequately locate~, but the ho~ses are nat confined to the building and he would not want thc~~~ confined. He stated he has a number of obJections and pointed out the City at some point in history decided one- 7/31/7a S~ MINUTE~, ANANEIM CITY pLANNING COMMi5510N~ JULY 31~ 1~78 '18-~1~ FIR CATEGQ~ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 6 5 AND '~ARIAMCE N0. _3032 (continued) half acre lots were not l~r~~ e~ou~~h for I~orses and felt If thls v~irlar~ce is grented~ other people wou1J brin!~ lar~~e an~;~~l~ into the areo. Ile stateci ~s m~~ch es he appreciated parade horses anJ parades, and aft~r seclny the presentaCion by the staff and the petl~lone~~ he dId not s4e any compelliny reason f~r horsAS to bc .~llow~ci ~t this locatton; that oth~r ~e~~+lc ln An~h~lm who have hors~s have to find a placc to board thcm; that he realized this w~uld be an (nc~nvenicnce, t~~t It is the type of hobby an~1 lnterest whe~c others 1 n thc ne I~~hbo~. ~~.x~d shou 1 d he g i ven cons i de rAt i nn. He indicated another prahier~ that has been cre~~:e~ is l~~at horses tencl to attr.~ct a~d brecd flle~. t{e c~~inteJ uut he has a swinmirc~ ;>xl a~,~rnximatf~ly ~0 feet frc~m thc lntersectlan of khese pr~~~rrt~a ,~nd fli~, a-•~ nut c~ndu~:ive to recrcati~nal purp~ses for wh(ch he usr_s hls pool. He state~l ~~ne of the t~~inc~s that brou~ht thls situati~n lu a head was that durinq th~ recent winter rains~ an~1 hc: a~r~~ed this r+as an exception.~l ye~r f~,r ra i n, the re was a ri ra ( naqr. p rob 1 em; th,~ t thc drA i riage 1 s f rom Da 1 e Aven uc to the wes t and any excess :ynter on propertir_s to the ea~ ,~ince therc ore no curbs ancl yutlers, passes across hts proNcrty~ ~ind In this ~e~ walc~ frc~m the c~rral I~Arl dr-ined down hl~ praperty llne 100 feet onto hfs driveway~ which (ncifcates to hlm tt~e peo~l~ who own the horses ~re not highly interested in the problems of thc nci~hborhuo~J or they would hAVe taken thase kinds of things into considerat~on. He ~cate~d in 1 ight of [he ordinance as It stan~is~ which restricts horses completely, if the variance were approved, he felt it wuuld be: the respons ib 1 1! ty of the C i ty to sce ttiat the f 1 i es ~ dra i nage ~n~.: c,ther san i tat lon prob l~ris the horses create would bc taken carc ot, Chairman Nerhst asked staff if tf~ere wculd be ar.y 9randfather ri~~hts enjoyed by this property ~s far as thr. County is concerned witl~ the agrtcultural use. Ann(ka Santalahti, Assistant C'trector ior Zoning, potnted out shc belie~ed the horses had not been on the property beforc tl~e proper[y was a~nexed. She p<~inted out statf c,c~uld find no record of any actio~ the County mi;ht have taken regarding thts use. S~~e pointed out If the property had been ~nnexed into the Ctty and tl~e property owner had horses at that time, they w:~uld be atile to retain them. Mr. Zurick explained they malntain a steady fly-control with both w*~ekly ~nd daily control. ConcPrning the water flc~w, he indicated that is a bad situa• ~; that a condltlonal us~ permi: was granted for three pieces of property. one irectly north of his property, and •'~at property was developed with curbs; that the water• ~~uns from the curb and the sump pump Into th^ street and thpn flows onto the proprrty nartt~ of his~ and then overflaws from that property to 1~is p~operty~ k.ut this is only in extr~~ly rainy weat:~er; that previou~ to the past winter ti,~•re has not bee~~ ~ proble~ ~~~ith water c'rainin9 fron~ his property. TIiE PUBLIC HEARING W GLOSED. Chairman He~bst asked haw ~ong thc oetitioner had had the horses, and Mr. Zurick rcplled 15 years; that he has had from one to tf~ree horses at a1) times during the 15-ye~r period; and that he had moved here specifically to keep ths horses. Annika Santalahti explained st~e did not believe the coda has changed, but that in some instances with a lot size c~f under one Acre~ st~ff had deGided it would be reasonable for t~~e property owner to keep horses depending up~~i the gurro~~ :13n.ys. Chalrman Nerbst askec~ if the property had been annexed tio thc City when t~e had purchased it, and Mr. Zurtc~: repl ied he bel ieved i t had. He indicated he had i nqui r•ed af the Ci ty 7/31/?~ ~ MINUTCS, lU~AIiE1M CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION~ JULY 31~ i9i~ 7!l-619 EIR_CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 b 5 ANO VARIANCE N0. 3032 (tontinucd) to determ(ne whcthcr or not (t would be permiss(blc to keep the 8nIr1A~S ~nd was tuld it would be allc~wed, Conmissloner Johnson felt lt was tmportant ta know when tl-F propr_rCy was onnexed b~~causc If the petitic,nE•r h.~d r~uvcd inta the property for the ~ur~sG ~f keepin~ horses nnd ~,s that riyht under a!~ra~dfather ciause~ Chen the ri9ht shnuld nat bc. taken aw~y frum hi~~, Annika Sarralahti explained the propr.rty was annr_xed ir t~~;fs, Commissicnrr ~arnes asked Mr. luric~: how he dis~~nse~l of ti~c hors~ waste en~i how oPten it is cflsposcci of snd a~hcthcr r.r n~~t th~rr. has been a~.11ist pr~hlem in th~ Stl~+r+lPrr~mp, Mr . Zur I ck 5 tated hc p 1 cks up the ho~se was te ~i.~ ( 1 ~ an~l d i sp~s~s nf 1 t th rouyh t r~is h collectinn enJ hc ~ives a Ic~t of it aw.iy bpc~-~~sA he USAS wcx~ci ~hAVinnS ~s a hnse And it mekes ~, goo~i mulch, He statecl thrcc year; ago thc ncighb.~r to thc north h~id lndicated thc~.; was somc dust on his prc~pcrty anc~ he fclt ;t was partly d~~~~ ~o tht~ parE:inc~ lot nnxt door, but he had insta11e~1 an additional sprinklc~r syster~ and ~~hen th~ c;rral arer- is bcin~ used~ it is sprinkled heavtly; th:~~ he ha; trted to consider all r~f the pr~bler~s (n t t~e pas t e Cornmissfoner Barnes asked ~ba..; fly control, anJ Zuric!: explairec~ he uses ~n-~ny fly strips anJ a qrar~ular-tyne residual~ plus sprays which are u5ed continuously~ ar,~f ~very twc~ weeks a hcavter spray Is used for the entire ar~a. Chairr~an Herbst asked if it would be pc~ss:ble to block off the a-~~n so rhe horses could not yo up to the fence~ and Mr. Zurtck rc~,li~d he does have an ~ ~tng an tha~t side and he could cl~se it off, and that woul~i take r.~~re of the problem; t' ~t is about a 1~-1/2 foot area behind tl~e exi~ting stalls. Commissioner To~a~ asked what tfiat spac~: ~voulci be used for tf ft were closecl off, and Mr. Zurick replied he would pl.:~~t sh.•ubbury chere. fle pointed out tl~e entire corral area is enclns~d with si~rubt~ery an~i the fence is cam~letely covered with a ho~eysuckle-type vine. Chairman Tolar iniicatec he would like t~~ see a review restric,tlon p1aced on this use and ;f any compiainty are received~ the conditional use permit wul~i be r.crmin~ted. He felt if tt~e h~r:es tti;;~~e L•eei~ allc~wed for 1~ years with anly one comp~aine, and other netghbe s h~ve stg~ed a~etition that th~y wer~ not oppased to t~he use, hr. wouid lfke to see iE approve.'~ subject to yearly review. Co;•missloner Jahnson ndic.ated he still felt a half-acrc~ lnt is a small piece of land for three~ horses. Cortmissioner Barnes i,~dica•.ed if the petiti~ner t~~kes care of the horses, there should nc~t be tbo ma~y problems; that you could have an ac• with three horses and have more ;>roblem, i f they were not properly taken care of. Si~e indicated sf~e would l iice to see a time l imit on thts us' and with the petitiuner's st!pulation to cl~se off that area behind the existing ~~~lis, she wouid be in favor of qranting the request. Chairman H~rbst polnted out last year was a bad year for drainage for everyone, and Mr. Uhitney stated he understood about the rainwater drainage~ but he did not wa~t :he ather stufP coming with the rainwater~ and Chairman Herbst asked if this happened any time other xhen lasfi year during the he~vy rains, and Mr. Whitney replied this was an unusual winter, 7/31/78 ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSIaN~ JULY 3. 1978 78-620 EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 8 5 ANO VARIANGE N0. 3032 (cnntlnucd) but he felt sort~e rostrlction could be added so that tl~e petitioner would ha~ve to teke cnre of the ho~sR wast~~ et~. Chalrtnan Nerbst polnted out if the use Is granted subJect to revlew en.l there are any furihor compla(nts~ the Commissian would have th~ preroy~t~vc of tcrminatir~~ the ~se. Jack White~ Oeputy Clty llttorney, inqt~ired whe~her or not che Commissior~ would want to see the use revt- thc~ end of on~ year or yearly, ancl Comnissl~ner Tolnr Indic~~ted hc woutd llke t revlcJwed yearly In casc tl~ts c~,rter decides t~ sell the property. Mr. Zurick polnt~~d out since this Is golny to be a problem~ he will bc looktng for e new area whsre he c~+n rr~aintain his horses. Cornmissloner Tolar txplair~ed a yearly revicM~ means th~t the use can contl~ue as long as thcre are n~ r~..5lems and the petiti~ner would not need to lcx~k fc~r a~ditional propFrt~y; that it wauld gfve chc ~lanning Commission an op~or~~.mity to revlew the situat(cm and terminate the usc ii hc decides to s~l) ttic property. It was noted that the Planninq Uirectoi or his auth~rized represent~tive has ~ietermined that the proposed prcJ~ct fails within tl~e definition of Cateqor(cr~l Exemptic~ns~ Classes 1 and 5~ as deflned in paragraph 2 of ths Ctty of Annheim Environrnental Impact Rep~rt Guidellnes and is~ thcrefc~re~ c~tegorically exempt from the rF:quirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes off~~E~c1 Resolu;ltin No. PC7ii-17~ and rnovecJ for its passage and a~opt ~n, that the M aheim City Planniny Ccrtmisslon a~es hereby grant Petitfon for Varlance No. 3032 on the basis that the property awnnr has haci this use of th~ property for 15 Y~'ars; subJect to sttpulations that acGess to the fence will be closed off and that a~ea wlil be planted with shrubbery ac the southw~st c~rner of the property; subject to yearly review; and subtect to InterdepartmentAl Committee recorrr~ndations. On roll call. the foregoing resol~tion was passed by tl~e follawine votc; AYES: GOMHI~SIONERS: BARNE:S~ DAVIp~ NER~ST, JQf~NSUN, KIFiG~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINrI 7/31/78 ~~ s MINUTES~ ANAl1E1M CITY ~ LANNIP~G COMMI~SI(1N~ JULY 31, 1~78 7P'~2) ITEN N0. PUDLIC NEARI-IG. OWN~RS: NAROI.~ A. ANf) (i. R ~~ORICAL EXF.MPTi01~-CLAS5 1 ROUERTA SWANS0~1~ 2117 East Llncoln Av~nue~ Maheim, ~'~j"~~'~'~'"'~'M _,~ CA ~2o~b. AGCNT: RQBERT K~ MU@PNY~ 1~7.9 East Rose Avenue~ Oran~e, CA q2~>h7. Petitlaner revu~sts permi ss lan to ESTl1(~LI S!I !1N OPT~~IETRY ~FF 1 CE 1 PI A RESIDEN'TIAL ST-tUCTURE: on prorerty descrlbed as a rPCtengu-arly~sf~aped p~-rcel af land cansistirg of approximntelY 33G0 square feet l~cr+ted et. thc no~thwest corner of Ltncoln Avenue and Otana Way, huviny appraximn c fronta~~es of ~~, fe~t an thc north sicie of Lincaln Avenue and 9y feet on th~ wes' side of Olana W~y~ and fi~rthar descrlbed ~s 2;17 Eat; Lintoln Avenue. Praperty rresently clF~ss=fled F~S-7~~~) (RCSIUkNT1l1L~ SIt1GLE-FAMILY) ZONf. with e resolutlon of intent to the CO (CONIIERCIAL, OFFICE) 7aNE. There was no cm~~ (ndicatir~g their presercr. in a~+p~sittnn ho s~bJect request, And alrhou~~h the staff re{~ort to th~ Planninn Com~~issior ~iated July 31 ~ 1~17£i was n~t reod at the pub) ic heartnh~ It is rf:fcrred to and madc n pnrt of t;~e ~nlnutes. Mrs. R~bcrt Murphy, aqent. wa, pres~nt to nnswer any quest(ons. TIIE PUE3LIC NCARING WAS CLOSCD. Comnissioner ~:ing polntecl out t-iere co~ ld be no con~inattan of a resi~lence and bus!ness .it this locntlc~n~ and MrS. Mur~hy re~,lie~~ she understoc~d. CUMMISSIONEft UAVIU LEFT TtlE C~U!ICIL CIIANI3ER TEMPORARII.Y, (t was nr~t~~l that the Planning Director or I~is ~iuthorized re;+resentative h~s determined th~~t the proposed pro.lect falls within tt~e definitinn ~f Categ~rical Exempti~ns. Class 1, as deflned in para.,~raph 2 of the Ctty of AnahPim Envtronmental Imt~act ReDort ~uidelines and Is, thcrefore~ categoricil ly exempt ~ rom the rc~yui rc,ment to prNpare an EIR. AC710N: CommissionF:r Y.ing uffered Resolur.ion I~o. PC78-1E,~ anci rnove~t for its pass.irye ~nd a~ ~on, thnt thc Anahcim City ?lanninq Commissi~n dcx:s hc~rcby grant Petltlon fo- ~ondition~l Use Permit No. 13~+1~ subJect to Intercle~artmental Car~ittee rec~mm~~iidatlons. On rol l c.~l l~ the forenoing resolution was passed t~y the fol lowinct voLe: AYES: CONMISSIONCRSt E3ARNC5~ HEP,b~T, JOtINSC~I~ KIIJG~ TOLl1R NOES: COMMlSSIQIdERS: NONE ABSENT: COhMISSIONERS: QAVID~ LIN;1 COf1Ft I SS I OI~ER DAV (~J RE ~ uRr~~D To THE COU~~C 1 L CHAMBER. 7/31/78 ~ MINUYES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ JUI.Y 31~ 1978 7A~622 ITEM N0. 10 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERt STAUIUM INOI'STRIAL PARK~ EI~ CA E 0(CAL EXEMPTION•CLAS~ 1 1201 South Beach Baulnvard~ La Habra~ CA g0631. Z'~ . AGENTt WILLIAM G. PEACOCK~ 1201 South Beach Boulevard~ La Nabr~~ CA 9A6~1. Psttttoner requasts pe~misa~~an to ESTABLISH AN AUT(1 PARTS SAlES AND REPAIR FACiLITY on p~operty describad as sn I~regula~ly-shaped parcel o~ land conslstl~g of approxim+~tely 6.6 ecres havtng e frontoge of epproximetely 745 tGet on the south ~ide of Howell Avenue~ having • mextmun depth of spproxtmately 760 feet~ betng located approxt- mately 342 tee* east of the centerltne of State Callege Bauievnrd~ snd further described as 2120 Eaat Havell Avenue, "roperty presently classlft~:d ML (INDUSTRIl1l~ IINITED) tONE, Thera w+~s no one indic~ting their presence in oppositlon t~ subJect request~ and although the sta~ff report to the Planning Con~ntsslon date~' July 31~ 197a was not reed a~t tha pubtic heart~g~ It 1~ referred to and made a pa~rt oP the rtsinutes. Ke~ Hamilton~ 901 Chartreg StPeet, Anahetm, tcnant +~t the Sr.adtum Industrtrl Park~ Nas prese~t to enswer eny questlons. THE PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chainnsn Herbst asked I~ow long he had been In business at thts locatton~ t~nd Mr. Hamilton repli~d he had been in business three years~ and Chairmsn Herbxt asked if thts action was the res ulc of the Zoning Enforcement Officcr's citetton. Mr. Namilton polntad aut he has to confarm to City codes; that the b~i~iness hes become mo~e repalr than salc:s and hG has an agrer_mer~t w(th the City to repalr thei~ cars. Comnissioner Barnes asked how meny cars he repalrs and lf he has had any complalnYs t~om othe~ peuple in thG arca~ Mr. Hamtlton replted he has had no complaints. He ir~dlcaked he had Inquired o} immediat~ nelghbors to see if they had any tomplalnts~ and th~y were tn favor ~f the use sTnca they are his customers. Commissioner 8a~nes asked if today ha~ a;:~sn a typtcal day at thls business~ and he repllsd i t wes. It ~as notec+ ihat the Ple~ning Director or his authorized reprESentative has datermined that the proposed proJect falis wtthln thG definitt4n of Ca~tegortcal Exemptions, Cle~s 1, as dofined In par~graph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environm~nr++l Im~act Repc~rt Gu~deltnes and is~ thercfore~ categortcally exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTI~N: Commissloner Barnes offercd Resolution No. PC78-181 ~nd moved for lts passage and e t on, that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby grsnt Petitton for Conditlonal Use Permlt No. 1a68~ s.+bJect t~ Interdepartme~tal Conwnittee ~e u~mmend~tions. Commisstoner Tolar indicsted tt is ve ry interesting to him that this ts an industrial park wtih comee~Gtal uses and that this gentlea-sn has been dotng busir;ess for thre~ years ~nd has an agreement wtth the City~ whith Nould indicate they a~e in agresment wtth the use in the Industrial zone and tg condone:: by the Cfty snd is frequented by the City. He indicated he was confused about the City's philosophy concerning conmercial uses ln an i~dustriai park. 7/3i /78 .. y r. MINUt~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING GOMMiS510N~ JULY 3~~ ~q78 78'623 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDI_ TIONAL USE PEaM1T N0. 1868 (..ontlnuAd) Commissioner B~rnes Indicated she agreed with Commissloner Tol~r~ but shc had looMed at the area and everything o ut there was comr~erctal and she assumed the Planning Conmisslon at one time o~ another had approved thesc usas~ and that was the reeson she affered the resolution for epprovsl. Canmissioner Toler Indlcated he wss not opposed to this use~ !+ut he Mas g41ng to suggest that the Chalrman and Chalrmen Pro Tempora should get togethcr wi-h the Councti Llalson Committee and get some instructlon as to whcre we are going witl~ this type situetion. Ccxnmisaloncr Barnes tndicated shc agraed and sho remembered at the last meeting thern had bcc~ a furnlture ttore on Katella And she was thc only Comrnissfoncr who voted sgat~st tl~at uR~. ~o~nisstoner Tol~r indicated he had voted fer that use beca~~s~ ~f the co+~nerclal uses on the north side of Katclla and lt was adJacent to an erteria) hlghway~ but thts uae is in the mlddle of an Industrial park~ and t1~e Cvrm~isslon ls constnntly talking abnut whet has happened to thelr industrlal zone and he felt this is entirely different tl~an the property on Katella Avenue~ and he did not think Katella should have ever been zoned tndustrlally. Commissloner Ba~rnes asked staff how these other uses were permtttcd In thls a~ea~ •nd Jay Tashtro~ Assoclate Planner~ ~ointed out a petitloner will come (n for a business license stating he wlll have a wholesete operbtton and then it turns out to be a commerctal operation. Ha pointed out the legal ckpartment has ~~repared a deftnltion of '1~vholesale" t~~ be incorporated into the business license and tt H111 ba coming t~ the Planning Commisslon for an amendment to che code. Con~miss(oner Barnes pointed eut (n this instance ~he is in favor of thc use because it does service th~ people In the area and~ by the petltioner's awn admission~ no one ls against his use beceuse it does service those people. Jack I~Ihlte, Oeputy City Attorney, pointeo ~~~t h~ had not spflk~n on thts tssue in the past and Che Planni~g Commiss(o~ seems to be a little co~fused; that~ first of all~ the Zoning Code does not conta~in any provision whatsoever concerning commerc(al use in an industrial zone~ except that it states It requlres a conditl~nal use permit~ and when you look at the crlteria for a conditional us~ permit~ you can only relate that to the use betng a detriment to the surrounding uses a~d unless it can be found the cornnercia) use Is datrin~e:tal to the surrounding industrial uses in the same vicinity and zone~ you would be e legall~ hard-pressed to deny an appiicant a use. He stated th~ tontng Cade shou d be amended; thst right now the oniy thing Che Planning Commission can do is to approve a conditlona) use perm(t uniess they can show the use would be detrimental to the surrounding properxies and that each case depends u~on the facts of that case. He aointed out traffic patterns could have a detrime~tal impact on the industrial uses with large tr~icks wming i n and out, etc. On ~ol! cal~, the fortgoing resotutlon wss pessed by khe followtng vote: AYES: COMMISSION'RS: BARNES~ DAVID~ HERBST, JOHNSON~ KING. TOIAR NOES : COMM! SS I 0#IERS : NONE ABSENT: COMMISSlONERS: LINN 7/31/1g MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 31~ 1978 18'h24 WORK SESSION QN COMMERCIAI USES IN INDUSTRIAI Z(1NES Comm) ts i o~er Barnss s t~teJ thet for three years she lies been sayt ng we ~re ru~ ninq aur indu:trtel areas ~~d we need a master plan, and that the Council has df~ectecl the Pl~nning Commisslon to l~ok at the tndustrtal +~reas snd it haa not been done. She felt It was tlrnm the Plenning Cammiaslon laoks e~t the Industrlel erees of Anahelm. Commissloner Nerbst referrnd ta s furniture store wt~tch startcc+ flying belloons and havinc~ seles a~d is stl ll In existr.nu~ and haa not had an appl icatlon before ih~ Pli~nning Commisslon for approvsl of a condttional use permit. Jay Tashiro pointeC out that furniture store has been issued a cita tion and the petltloner has plcked up en appltcation~ but tt has not been ftled yet. Commisstoncr Tolar Indlc~ted he felt the ~r~t~lem was with the lrsso~ and not the les:~e; that the lessor is g(ven a Ilst of canmercial uses that are industrially related And he ta rdsponsible for leasing the property. Commlssto~ar Barnes polnted out the Plenning Commtsslon has been essigned the task by the Clty Councll and askGd if anyonc wouid be Interested lr~ look(nc~ ~t the total Industrle) area and coming up with a gaod mestcr plan; that we are currently seeing the results of not having ~ne. ACTION: Commissloner 9arnes offered a motlon, seconded by Commissto~er Davld dnd MOTION ~t ~0 (Cc~mmissioner Linn betng absent) , that st~~f1~ cstsbl isf~ a date for a wark sesslon and provtde maps and other data available for study ~egarding comnre~cial uses In tndustrtal areas. She sugges~.ed that Input from tfie Ghamber of Conwnerce Industr(a) Committee~ plus ma,jor Industrl~l representatives fran the communtty, be tncluded. ITEM N0. 11 PUBLlC HEAAING. OWNER: GLEN L. JONNSON~ 95~ North ~~~A1~TE DECLARATION Grovc Street~ Anaheim~ CR~ 92806. AGCNTt DAN L. p. 1870 a0NL11ND i ASSAC I ATES ~ I NC .. 1000 Wes t La Pdl ma Avrnue~ Anaheim, CA 92~01. P etltlone~ requests permission to E~lPAND A TRUCK TERMINAL on pr~perty descrtbed es a ~ec.tangularly-shaped perce) of land consisting of ap proxtmately 1.8 acres located at the cul-de-sac terminus of G~ove Street, havtng a fronta ge of approxlmately 11k feet on the north side of Grove Stre~t~ having a maximum depth of apprnx(mately 400 feet~ bcing located approximatoly 750 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue~ end further described as 1001 North Grove Street. Property presentiy clessitled ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. There wes no o~e lndicating their presence in opposltton to subJec t request~ and although the staff report te the Planning Cortmissfon dated July ;1~ 1978 was not read at the public heering, it fs referred to and ma~io a parc of the minutes. Commissione~ Johnso~ declarad to Chalrman Merbst thet he had a conflict of tnterest as defined by Anaheim Ctty Planning Conmission Resolutlon No. PC76-1$ 7. adopting e ConPltct of Interest Code f~r the P1anning Commission, and Government Co~e 5 ection 3625 et seq., ~n that he owns the property and~ pursuant to provislo~s of the above codes~ he is hereby declaring to tha Chatrmen that he is withdrawing from the hea~ing in connect~on wlth Conditlonal Use Permlt Nn. 1870 and would not take part in eithe~ the discusslon a~ the 7/31/78 .» ~, MINUTES, ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNIN4 COMMISSION~ JULY 31~ 1978 78-6~5 E t R NEGATIVE OECLARAT ION ANp CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1870 (co~t Inued) voting thereon, •nd that he had not JlscusseJ this matter wtth any member of the Planning Commisslon, TNEREUPO~~~ COMMISSIOIIER JOIINSQ~~ LEFT TNE COU~ICII CHAMBER. Ga~y ~astlen of Oan Rowlsnd t Asaociates~ Inc.~ agent~ presented the exh ibits dnscribing the proJe:c~ polntlny out the p~oposal to ~dd 625~ square teat to an exi sting ~~000-square foot s tordge s t ructura. TNE PUBLIC HEARING W/1S CLOSED. ACTION: Commisslone~ Ktng offered a motlon~ secanded by Commissto~er Davld and MOTION ~D (Commtsslane~~ Linn and Johnson being absent) ~ thet the Ansheim C) ty Planning Canmisston hss rnvlerved the proposa) to expand e truck terminal on a reetengule~ly•shaped p~rcel of land consistlny of approximatPly 1.9 acres located at the cul-de-sac terminus of Grove Strset~ having e fr mtsge of Approximately 114 feet on the nnrth s ide of ~Grove Street~ having a meximum depth of aparoximately 400 feet~ and bciny lucat~d approxlmetely 7y0 taet aouth of the ce~teri lne of La Palma Avenue; and does hereby epprove the Negative Decla~atlon from the requl rement tn prepare an env( ronmental Impact report an the besi s that there woulcJ be no ~igniflc~nt tndivtduel or cumulatlve adverse envi ronmental impact due to tha approval of this Nagattve Declaratlon sinca the Anehelm Ge~er~) Pien designates the sub Ject propcrty for genere 1 I ndust ri A1 I and uses commensurate wi th the proposal ; thet ~o se~sltlve e~vlronmental impacts are Involved In the p, ~;~osal; that the Initia) Study submttted by the petittoner indlcates no signif(cant tndtvidual or cumutattve adv~rse environmente) impacts; And that the Negative Declaratlon substantiating the toregotng ftndtngs is on file 1~ the C1ty of Anahelm Planntng Department. ~anmisstoner King ~ffer~d Resolutlon No. PC74-182 and moved f~r tts pas~ngc and adoptton~ that the Mahelm Cfty Planning Commiss(on does hereby grent Petitlon for Conditional Use Pennit No. 1870~ subJect to Interdepartrnental Committca recommendations . ~~~ rol l ca) l~ the forcgoing re~olutton was psssed by the fol lowing vot~ : AYES: COMMi5SI0NER5: BARNES~ DAVIU~ HEaBST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIANERS: JOHNSON~ LIN1~ COMMISSIONER JOHNSON RETURNED TO TNE COUNCIL CNAMBER. 7/31/78 ?~ r MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ JULY 31~ ig78 ITEM NOv 12 ~T~RE~A'~TPE DE~LARAT I ON OD U REM NT C N L S M .~ 78-626 PUULIC NEARII~G. OWNERSt LOUIS L. AND ALICE I. NEUMAN~ 1111 Wost Lincoln Avenue~ /-nahetm~ CA 92805. Pntl t laner requests p~~nnt ss lon to EXP11N0 AN AU1'OMOBILE REPAIR FACILITY WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMDER OF PAaKiNC SPACF.S oe~ p~nperty described es • rectsngul8rly-~h~pe d parcel of land consisting of appro xtmately 0.2 a~re having e frontega af approxim~tely 9 8 feet o~ the no~th stde of Lincaln Avenua~ heving a maxtmum depth of approx(mately 1~2 feet~ being locAted approxirnately 155 feet west af the centcr) (~e of West Street~ end further descrlbed as 1111 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classlfled CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENEiWL) ZONE. Thera was no one indicating the(r presence in oppostt(on to subJect ~eque st, and although the staff report to the Planning Commissfon ciated July 31~ 197~ wes not reAd ~t the publlc hearing~ ic is referred to and made a pnrt of thc minutes. Louls Neuman. the pe tltioner, was prpsent t~ answe ~~ny yucstfons. THE PUBIIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. ACTION: Commissioner King offercd a rratlon, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTI(1N ~D (Commisslone r Llnn being absent)~ that thF. Anaheim Clty Plann(nq CommlSSion has revte:wed the propoial to r.xpand an autamobile r~pair f~c(Ilty with a weiv¢r of minimum number of parking spaces on a rettangularly-s-~eped parcel of lan~1 consistlnc~ of app roximately 0.2 ac re hev(ng a frontage of approximately 93 feet on the narth slde of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of epp~aximateiy 1Q2 feet~ and being located app~oxtmately 15y feet west of the centerl ine of West Street; and does h~reby spprove the Negative Decleratlon frorn the requi rement to prepare an envt ronmental frt~act report on the basls that there would be no signlflcant Individual or cumulative adverse environrt~ntal impe~t due to the approval uf tfiis Negative Declaratlon since the Anahetm General Plan desig~ates the subJect property for general commercial land uses cor-wnensurete wlth the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved tn the proposal; that the Inittal Study submitted by the petitioner indicates ~o sfgnificant individual or cumulative advtrse e nvira~ mental impacts; and that the Negat(ve Declare tion substantiating the foregoing findin gs is on file In the City of Anahcim Planning Oepa~ tmont. Commissloner King offered e motlon. seconded by Commisstoner Davld and MQ710N CARRIED (Cormissloner Linn being absent). that the request for walver of code r~quirement b~ granted on the bas t s of the 1 i mi tsd s 1 ze of the property and the property woul d be depriaed of a prlvE lege enjoyed by properties (n the surroundtng area. Commtsslonnr King offered Resolutlon No. PC78-103 and moved for its passage and adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe~ hereby grant Petition for Conditlonal Use Pe~mlt No. 1871~ subject to Interdepartrt~ntal Committee recomnendations. On roll call~ the foregoing reso~uilon was pASSed by the following vote : AYES: COMMISSIONERS: B~1RNE5, DAVID~ HERBST~ JOHNSON~ !(Ii~G~ TO~AR NOES: COMMISSIOl~ERS: NONE ABSEti~: COMMISSIONERS: LINN 7/31/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI?Y PLANNING COIM~ISSION~ JULY 31~ 1978 78-627 ! TEM N0~. ~1 REpO~ R~ AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1720 - Raquest for an exte~alon of ttme. The stsff report to the Planntng Canmission dated July 31, 1978 was presented~ noting subJect property is a rectangularly-~hapad pa~ccl of land conslsting of approxtmately 1.5 ~c~es having a frontage ~f epp~oxin~ately 190 feet on the south slde of Lincoln Avenue~ having a meximum depth af epproxirnately 588 feet~ end being lac~ted approximately 790 feet ea~t of the centerl ine of Dale Aver~u~; that the eppl i ca~~t (Aubrey F. Holmss) requests a ono-year extension of time for Cond(tionel Use Permit Ho. 1720~ whlch was qranted by the Plenning Commfssion on August 1~ 1977 to establish a 36-untt rec~eatt~nal vehicla park in eon)unction with a motel~ subJect to tl~e conditions being complied wtth p~lor to the time the buitding permit is issued or withtn e perlad af one ye~r~ whicF~rvcr uccu~s ft~st~ or such gurther time es the Planning Commission mey g~ant. ACTION: Commissioner K(ng offere d a motlon~ seco~~l~d by Commissloncr Tolar and MOTit1N ~~~D (Commissioner Llnn betnq absent) ~ that the Ple~nniny Commisslon does hereby grant a one-yea~ esxtension af tlmc, to expire August 1~ 1979 for Condltional Use Parmlt No. 17?0. B. AgANDONMENT N0. _77-27A - Request to abancion three publlc uti 1lty easerme~ts T~ocete a ong t e east si de of Anehelm Bouleva~rd between Paciftco and Orangewood Avenue. The staff report to the Planning Comrniss(on dated July 31, 197A was presente~. noting subJect request ts to abendon thr~a public utility easements locsted along the edst side of Aneheim Bouleva~rd between Pacifico and O~angewood Avenue; that the request has ~een ~evlcwed by all departments of th c City and ~ffected outside ayencles. an~i approval is recomrnended SubJect to the condi t ion that the owner rerove the existing unused electricel facilitles at no cost to the City ; and that an environmenta) tmpact review of the subJect indtcates this request is categorically exempt from the requlrement of the ftling of an envi~onmental impact report. ACTION: Cortxr-issio~er Tolar atfercd a motion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION ~D (Commissioner Linn bein4 absent)~ that the Anaheim Cixy Planning Conmisslon does hereby recommend ta the C(ty Gou~cil that Aba~donment No. 77•27A be granted. C. ABlWDONMENT N0. 71'~lA - Request co abandon ce~tain sanltary seaer and pubtic ut ty easements y n g wlthin the p~operty located at the northwest w rr.er of Impertal Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. The staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 31~ 1978 was presented, ~oti~g the request is to abandon certain s ani[ary sewe~ and public utitity easements lying wtthin the property loceted at the northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road; that the request has bsen reviev+~d by all depz+rtments af the Clty and affacted outslde agencies, and approval is recorrr~~nded; that the subJect easement to be abandoned was p~evlously acquired by the City to provide services to the ~raa and the othe~ two easements were reserved to the C i ty at the ttme of abandonment of a port(on of the old Sant~ Ana Ca~yon Road; that the applicant has granted nd+ easements to provlde servtces to proposed development; and that a n environmentat r~eview oP xhe subject request indicates 7/31l7a MINU'!ES, ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSIpN~ JUIY 31, 1978 ~8-628 ITEM C (contlnued) thls to be cetogorically exempt from the requirement of filing en environmentel ~mpect raport. ACTION; Commissloner Dav(d offe~ed a motion~ se~~nded by Conmissloner Tolar and MOTION ~D (Commissloner Llnn belr.y absent), that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission doe~ hereby recommend to the City Council thet Abandonrr~cnt No. 77-17A be granted. D. ABAN~ONMENT N0. J8-IA - Requ~st to ~bendon a publ(c util(ty ~asemenc located s~ut}- o ~ange venuc~ west or Knott. The s~aff report to the Plenntny CQmmission dated July 31~ 197a was presented~ noting the request is to abandon a publtc utility easern~nt located south of Orange Avenue~ west of Knott; that the request has bQen reviewed by all departments of the City and ell af}ected outslda dgenctes. and approval Is recommended; that the subJect easament is a former Ediaon Campany right•of-way assigned to the Clty at the ttme of ecquisitl~n of Edtson Campeny factlittes in thts area; that the Util(tles Divlston indicates all facillCfes have beon removod from said ebsament and there is no present or future need of same and recommends approval of the request to ebandon; and that an envtronmcntal rev(ew oP the request I ndt cates thi ~ to be categor i ca 1 ly exempt f rcxn the requ I rerr~nt of the f( 1 t ng of an environmental tmpect ~eport. A~TIQN: Commlssioncr David offered a motion~ seconded by Comm(ssioner Tolar and MOTION ~~~D (Cammissloner Llnn being absent)~ that the Anaheim Clty Plenning Commlssion does hereby recommend to the Clty Council that Abendonment No. 78-tA be granted. E. ABANDONMEI~T N0. 78-4A - Request to abandon a portinn of Oak Street~ Helen~ Street a~nc -L nT coTn Ave- nue. The staff report to the Planning Commission dated Juiy 31~ 197a was presented~ noting the request is to abando~ a pa~tion of Oak Street~ Helena Street and Lincoln Avenue; that the raquast has been reviewed by all departrn~nts of the Ctty and effected outside agencies. and spproval is recommended subJect to reservation unto the City of Anahelm of a 15-foot sanitary sawe~ easernGnt to accom~nodate existing faciltttes; that the City has sn existing 10-tnch sanitary sewer lin~ located atong th~ centerline of Oak Street and an easemant 7,50 feet Nide o~ each side of the centerline of Osk Street is rqut~ed to accommodate said line; that the Anehefm Redevelopment Agency has entered into an agreement with the Securtty Pa~cific Company to develop the land within said streets and adJace~t thereto~ and the Aqency Is the fee owner of all of the adjoining parcels; and that an envlronmental revtaw of the request lndicates this to be categoricaliy exempt from the requireme~t of filing of an environme~tal impact r•po~t. AC710N: Commissioner David offere~l a motiQn~ :~conded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION CARR~ED (Commissianer Linn being absent), that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does hernby recomn+end to the City Council that Abandunment No. 78-4A be granted. 7/31/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING CQMMISSION, JULY 31~ 1978 ~8~629 F. ABANDONMENT N0~ 77-2~ ' Requ~at to sbendon exlsting public ucillty and wQter "r na easements an an aquestrlan end hiking easement all In T~act No. 9524 located sautheesterly af Sant~ Ana Canyo~ Raad~ east of Montanera Roed, north af Vta Arboles. The staff r~port to the Plenn(ng Commission dated July 3~~ 191~ wag prescnted~ noting tho the subJect rnquest wes continued from the maeting of July 17~ 1978; thet the public utility snd equestrl~n easements were dediceted to the City via reca~datlon of Trac:t No. 9~24; that the water linc easement 1s an old casement prevtously acquired by the f~lty to provide water service to this srea and the water iines heve been ~elocated wtthin the dediceted streets In Trect No. 952W; thst the utility eas~rnents dedicated vla Tract No. 9y24 ~+re no longnr ~eeded due to the design af thc electrical facilitie~ in Trac'.Q524 was 9524; and that the aquestr(an and hikinq eas~n~ent l~cated tn Lot 16 of TrACt No. erraneously dedicatGd~ therafore~ ebai~Jonment of same is recorMn~~~i~~i; e~d thet an envtronmentai revlcw of thls r~qu~st indicates this to be categortcally ex~mpt from thc requirern~nt of thc filing o~ an r_.nvironmental Impact report, ACTION: Commissloner David offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Tolsr end M01'ION ~7~'I"~D (Commind'toethe'CttbcCouncilethet AbandonmentaNotm7712~APbe^grante~d.~txslon does hereby rcconme Y RECE55 The meeting was recessed at 4:5~ p•m• far dinr+er. _.._..- RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 7:03 p•m•. w~zh AI1 Comm(s!~ioners present ""'~ except Commissioner Linn being absenc. Chairman Neristaexinao'aertfor thempC~i~fonerdto~revievattheeproJectewith thei~a~chitects October 23, 97 , and engineers. iTEM N0. 1 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: 7_AVEN ANU ANNA M. ICAL EXEMPTION-CLA55 1 K~LAJIAN, 411 Sauth Peseo Real~ Anahclm~ CA 92807. NC N0. zo33 A~~ENT: ALAMO CENTER~ 11747 Firestone~ Norwe~k~ CA --' 9065~• Patitioner requests wAIVER OF MINIMUM NUM~ER OF PARKING SPACES TO CONVERT A GARAGE INTO A GAME ROAM on p~operty described as an irregularly-sheped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.26 acre located at the cui-de-sac terminus of Paseo tteal~ having approxi- mate frontages of 134 fect on the s~~uth side of Paseo Real and 115 feet un theresentlyfde of Canyon Rim Road~ and furthe~ described as 411 South Paseo Reel. Property p classlfied RS•5000(SC) (RESIDENTIAL~ StNCLE-FAMILY•SCENIG CORRIDOR OiIERLAY) ZONE. There wes no ons IndihetPlanntnirCommisslonidatesd July 31,~1978,was notuYead atdthetpubllc the s taf f report to t 9 hearing, i~ t~ raferred tc~ and mad~ a part of the minutes. taven KulaJta~, awner, explatned he wishes to c~n~ert one space of an axisting three-ca~ garage into a game room. He also explatned when this property was approved for development~ the codead~des~andcthiseis the~endaof9arcul•de~sac4streethand theregwouid~beS street have two~ta g g adequate parking if this requcst is approved. 7/31/7a G MIFIUTES. ANANEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION. JULV 31~ ~97~ 7a-630 E4R GATEGORiCAL EXEMPTION•CI.I~SS_1_AND VARIANCE N0. 3~33 (~ntinued) ~'NE PUBLIC H~ARING !dAS C~OSEO. Ghairm~n Herbst explatned the c~de Is bastcelly written bncause gart-e rooms can very easily be usad as extre bedrooma and polntr.d out he felt thia lot Is large enough to handle any addltion~) room to be wnstructed; hc~wever~ sinca 90b of thc I~omes In the area have two- ce~ geragea ond there ts no perking problem~ he couid support this request. It was noted that the Ptanninc~ Olrector ar his euthorized representative hes dete~rnined that thr p~oposed proJect falls withtn the definlt(on of Categortcal Exemptlons~ Cless 1. es deftned In p~rayraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Envi~onrt-e~~tal Impdct Report Guldellnes anc! ts~ therefore, categoricelly exempt from the requlrement to prepare an EIH. ACTlQN: Commissioner Juhnson offered Resolutlon No. PC78-1$A and nqved for tts psssage an ac ption~ that the Anaheim City Plsnniny Commission cioes hereby grart Petltion for Yarlsnce No, 3033 on the b~sis that developmrnt of the properCy was approved prior to the ordlnance becoming effecttve and deni+~l would be depriving privllec~es currcntly enJoyed by other p~operties In the sam+s z~ne and vicl~ity. and nubJect to Interdepertme*:sl Committee recomnendatlons. On rol) call~ the forrgoing resolution wes passod by thc following vote: AYESt COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID~ t~ERBST, Kif~G~ JOHNSQN~ TOLAR NOES: CJMMISSIONERS: NdNE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IiNN The petit.loner was not p~esent for Item 16 at this time. ITEM N0. 17 PUDLIC HEARING. DEVEIOP~R~ ~-•~'n7*+~td-JOIiES, 56C~t '~'~"~E~ VE OECLARAT I ON Moun ta i n Y t ew Avenue ~ Yarha n~s, Ct+ 92686. T~N ATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10-+74 ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINECRiw~' ~t~°r~r, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, A~aheim~ CA ~::a1'~, Subjert property~ consisetng of approx~~itcly 4.3 acres having a fronta~ge of approx(ma~ely 241 feet on the aest side of Vi)~a+~aa~ Drive, havtng a n~axlmum depth of approximate~y 9A0 fect~ and be(ng located +~pc~roxin~x~ely 368 feet south of thc canterline of Noh~ Ranch Road, Is proposed far an lt-l~'T 1Q•UNIT, RS-HS-10~00Q(SC) (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGIF.•fAM{LY HILLSIDE-SCENIC COR~IDON 'TVERLA`') ZONE SUBptVI510N. There was no one indicar,ing their presence tn opposition to subject request, and although tho staff report to the Pianning Gommi~slan dated July 31, 1978 was not r~ad at the public hearing~ Ot is referred to and made a part of the minutea. It was not~d the Hiil and Canyon Municipal ~dvtsory C~amittee (HACMAC) reviewed the above prarosal o~ J~1y 18~ 1978~ and with five me~bers p~csent. vored unanimously to reca!~nend approva) af Tentative Map of T~act No. ~04T'4 bass~ upon said tentative tract being tn conforms~ce with the recamnended residentiai hillside site development standa~ds. Cal Queyrel~ represe~ting Anacal Englneering CompanY, engineer, was present to answc~ any questio~x. f4E PUHLIC NEARING 41AS CLOSEU. 7/;1/78 y~ T. ~ 9. ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GiTY PLANNING CONMI5SION~ JUIY ~1~ 197a ~6-G31 EIR NEGATIVE_DECLARATI0~1 AND TENTATIyE~MAP OF~TaACT N0. 10A7A (conttnued) Commissloner Nerbat lndicated conc:~srn ~egard(ng the ciretnage tvward the Olive Nill Resc~voi~ and asked abaut the wat~:r• drainege Into the rese rvnir and pointed ~ut that ~1) City code requlraments cancernln~~ dra(~age would hAVe to be satisflecJ. Mr. Queyrel SLAL0C1 there is a drainage swale at the botcom of the slope and it appe~rs the water does not run into the reservoir~ but dc~wn into the canyon. Chalrman Herbsl notea this t.ract does meet al) the standa~ds recently reconw--ended to the City Councl) for approval for this zone~ and Mr. Queyrel renlied tliat It exceeds thase gtenderds. Cnmmtss loncr Barnts eske.d i f there had bee~~ i i~put f rom V t 11 a Perl: or th~ C i ty of Oranqe concernin<~ the reservolr~ and Jay Tashlra~ Assoclate Planner. polnted out thsy were notified and the only comments received wcrG from the County of Orange, but nothing to do with dralnage. He rc,ad portions of thc lctter which had hePn rcceived from the County of Orange whlch is on flle in the City of Anaheim Planning Departmcnt. Chairman Hecb;iednthattadequatersighthdistanceYwould betreacired~and~atconditi~ntof and Jay Titus r p approv~l has been incluued. ACTION: Commissioner David offereJ a motion~ seconded by Comnissl~ner King and MOTION C~ED (Gommissioner Linn being ~bsent)~ that the Aneheim Clty Planning Comm(ssion has revie.weed the proposal to estahllsh an 11-lot~ 10•unit. RS•HS-1U,~00{SC) (Residential, Single-Family Nlilside•Scenfc Lorridor Overlay) 2one subdtvislon on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximt+tely 4.3 acres having a frontaye of approxSmately 241 feet on the west side of Villare.al Orive~ haviny a ma.ximum dcpth of approximately 900 feet. and b~~ing loc~~ted approximately 3G8 feet south of the centerline of Noh! Ranch Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from tf~e requ(rement to prepare an environmental impact report on the besis that there would be no significant indtvldual or cumul~ttve adverse e~vironmental impact due to the approvat of this Negative Declarat4on since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect property for generai open spac~ ccmMnensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environme~tal (n~pacts are Involv~d in the proposal; that the Initi~l Study submittad by the pet(t(oner l~dicates no significant ind(vidua) or curtsulative adverse a~vironmental impacts; and that the Negativc Declaration substentlating the forcgoing findings is on file in the Clty of Anahtim Planning Depe~tmcr~t. Commissioner David offered a motion~ seconded by Conmiss(oner Barnes and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Linn bel~g absent), that thc Anaheim Clty Planning Canmission does hereby flnd that the proposed subdivision. together with its design and Improvement~ is cu~sistent aith the City of Anahe(m General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Sectlon 66473.5 and does, therefo~e, approve 7entatlve Map of Tract Mo. 1~471~ for an 11-lot~ 10- unit, RS-HS-10,000(SC) ~R~sideniial, Single-Family Hillside-Scenic Cor~ldo~ Overiay) Zc~ne subdivision~ subJ~ect to the following conditions: 1. That should thts subdivislon be developed as more than one subdivtsir~n~ ~ach subdivisi~n thereoP shall be submitt~ed tn tentative form fqr appraval. 2. That all lots within this tract sha11 br. served by underground utilities. 3. That prior to the introduction af an ordinance~ a final tract map of subject, property shall be s ubm(tted to and approved by the Clty Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange Caunty Recorder. 4. Thet the covenants~ conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the Clty Attorney's Office and L1ty Engineer prior to City Council approval of 7/31/78 ~ 1 MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CItY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31~ 1978 7a-G32 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO~~ ANQ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NQ. 10474 (continued) ~..__.~..~~. thn fin~l tract map anci~ fu~ther~ that the approved covonar~ts~ condtctons~ and restrictto~s shall be recorded conc~;rrently with the fInA1 tract rr~p. 5. Thak street names shell be approved by the City Planning Uepartment prior to approval of a finA1 tract map. 6. That the owner(s) of subJecL rroperty shal) pay to the Ctty of Mahetm the approprlate park end recrcation in-lieu faes as determincd to be approprl~te by tha City Councit~ satd fees to be paid at the tirne tf~c butlding permtt ts issued. ). That dralnage of subJect prapert,y sh+oll be dtsposed of (n a me.iner satisfe~ctory to tl~e City Enytnee~. No work on g~adirg will be permitted between Octoher 15 and Aprtl 15 unless all ~equlred off-site drainsge~ factli;les have been tnstalled R~nd are operattve. No work on grading will be permitted b~t-.~een Apri1 15 and October 15 unless positlve aasurance has bec.n yiven the Clty tfi~t all rc;~:ired off-site dralnag~ facllittes will be Cumpleted and functlonin~ prior to October 15. The required dratnage factlities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry ~unnoff waters origindttng wlthin subJGCt property, and from properttea upstream from subJect property~ to a satisfectory potnt of disoosal as approved by the City kngineer. No runn~ff water fram sub!ect p~operty shall be permittcd to draln into the Oiive Hllls Reservoir site wtthout prto~ approval of thp Ctty Nnter Divtsion. 8. That adequate stglit distance be provlded at the intersection of the new street and Villareal Drive as approved by the Ctty Engineer. 9. That the alignment and terminal po(nt of storm drains shown on this tentative tract map shall not be cons(dereo final. These drai~s shall be subject to precise design consideratlons and approval of the City Engtncer. 10. If permanent street name slgns have not been (nstalled, temporary street name sfgns shall be (nstalled prior to any occupancy. 11. That the approval of Tentat(ve Map of Trac[ No. 10474 ls g~anted subJect to the ftnallTatton of Reclassificatfon No. 67-68-7. 12. That the. awner(s) of subJect property shall pay the traffic signal assessment fee (Council Poliry :~o. 214) amountinq t~ $36.Q0 per each new dwelling unit prior to Che issuance af a building permi[. 13. In accordarice with the requirements of Sectton 1~.02.047 pertaining to the initte) sale of rtsidentlal homes in the City of Anahetm Planntng Area "B"~ the seller shall provide each buyer with written info~matlon concerning the Anaheim Gene~al Plan and the ex(sting zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subJect tract. I1'EH NU. 16 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TIMOTHY JAY AND MAROLYN ~TI't~7~~~ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 L. NiLLER~ 160 South Valley View Plt~ce, Anahetm~ CA VARIANCE N0. 3~37 92~d7. Petitioner requests WAIVER OF MINIMUht STRUCTURAL SETBACK TO CON5TRl;CT A TENNIS COURT ANO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES on property described as a rectanguiarly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately one acre l~cated at '".he cul-de-sac terminus of Valley View Place, having a maximum depth of approximately 318 f~eet~ being located approximately 312 feet south of the centerline of Cerro Vista Drive~ and further descrlbed as 160 South Valley Vlew Place. Property presently classified RS-HS-43~000(SC) (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMIIY fIILLSIDE-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE. There was no one Indicetin.~ thei~ presence in opposition to subJect request~ and althnugh the staff repo~t to the Planninq Commission dated July 31, 1978 was not read at the publtc hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Ttmothy Jay Miller, owner~ t~6~cated his application is far waive~ of minimum side yard setback for three different structures~ a tennis court, g~eenhouse, and lath house with a shower and dressing rnom. He stated the lot is i49 feet wide a~d the tennis court is 120 7/31/78 i MINUTE~~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31~ 197~ 7g•633 EIR CATEGOPtICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS.~ AND VARIANCE N0. 3~37 ~continued) feet wide en the north side~ and they would need a 10-f~ot setback on that side~ He polnted out the structures nn the plan, referrtng to xhe greenhouse encl Che lath house structure tn the red~ corner within 5~nd 4 feet of the prope~ty line. He polnled out perimeter ldndscaping would be provided around the lot and es ~c~on as the structures are in, plants will be put in. He pointed out the diske~nce oP the closeat house fs about 250 feet. HG i~dicated ha ha~d spoken wlth hls neighbors and na one h~d indicated oppositlon to this roquest. TNE FUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Gommissioner Kiny referrrJ to the Hill and Canyon Muntcl~al Advisory Committee (HACMAC) concerns regardin~ dc~wnlighting for the tennls courts~ wlth Mr. Mtlle~ replying he would provide downltghting. Chalrman Herbst polnted out the Planning Cortmisslon has been allowing tennts courts -n the Perelta Hills area~ bu~ this request ts for grecnhauses and other structures; that the Commission has been deviating for tenni~ courts because of the fence req~irement, but these other st~uctures could present addittanal problems. Commisstoner aarnes ind(cated she itves in Peralta Htlls and is famtliar wltt~ all the p~aperties there and she felt a lot of people are overbulldtng their properties. She pointed out this plan shows a volleyball court~ tennis court~ swtmming pool, greenhouse~ etc., and she felt on one ac~e of land the~e should be e~ough room without variances. Sh~ stated ihe Planning Comntsslon has been allowing tennis courts because ther~e ts some question concerning the fences hlgher than normally allaved, but that you can see thrauc~h a fence~ and felt the Planning Commission had bent that rule as far as they could. She indlcated she could nat vote fo~ approvsl of a structure that close to the property line; that the present and future n~!ghbors must be protected. Commissioner Johnson sta:ed he agrced with Commissioner Barnes; that wlth tennis courta the Planning Commission has been able to bend the rules becau:e many of these lots art nat wide enough for ten~ls courts and peopl~ have bought them with the idea in mi~d they could have a tennis court, and several have been ellowed fn the area~. Ne felt part of the problem is the develAper who developed these l~ts too snu~l) for tennts courts. He stated he was not being critical of this proJect, this is a beautiful plan, but he could not support putting buildtrgs that close to the property line~ even ~hough the other houses are far e~ough away. Mr. Mfller pointed out this area is completely developed and there wil) ~at be any rnore housex built. Commissioner Johnson stated he realized all the houses have been built, but the other structures proposed on the prope~ty are his co~cern. Commissloner Tolar stated there ts a lot of acreage left to be developed in the Anaheim H111s area and he wds concerned a precedent would be set with approval of thls request~ and he would not support the accesso~y structures. He tndicated there is some question (n hts mind regardi~g ahether or not a fencn is a structure~ but these are definitely structures. Mr. Miller stated there a~e other structu~es of this type in the area and referred to the last house or+ the ~outh side of C~escent which has three or four lath house structures. Commlssioner 9ar~es pointed out those structures were developed some 1S years ~go before that a~aa became part of the Ctty. 7/31/78 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ JULY 31~ 1g78 iB~~3~+ EIR GATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 ANO VARIANCE N0. 30~7 (contt~ued) ~ --~ thalrman Herbst pointod out An~heim Hills property owners have ane of the most active homeowners assoclatlons (n Soiithern Californ(a and they are edam++nt ~bout meeting the setbacks~ and Mr. Miller pointed out HACMAC hed no ubJr.ctlons te hls plan. ChairmAn Nerbst polnted out th~ P1anning Commission has the benefit of e public hearing end he telt they had heard all sld~s of chts proposal. Commfssloner Tolar asked Mr. Mlllcr if he would like to request r~ contlnuance in arder to redraw the plan to relocate the struccures or eltminate them, and Mr. Miller tndicated these are three scparaxe structures and he would Ilke to hrve tt~e Commisston vote on the preposal. Malcolm Slauyhcer~ Deputy City Att~rney, polnted out the Flenning Commission cauld approve the walver setbec.k for a tennis court and deny the !lCCPSSf-I'y structures. It was not~~d that the Planning Directo; or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls wlthin the dcfinition of Categorical Exempttons, Class 3, as deflned in paragraph 2 of the Ctty ~f Anaheim Envlronmental Imprct Rcport Guidelines and is~ therefore, cacegorically exempt fron~ th~ requfrenxnt to prepnre an EIR. ACTION: Comrnissioner Sarnes offcred Resolueion ~io, PCJfl-1By and moved for its passage and ac-ToptTon~ that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commissian does hereby grant Petitlen for Variance No. 30j7, in part~ grantin~~ the wafver for minim~cro structural setback to construct a tennts court and denying the waiver for minlm~m-. structural setback for the accessory structures~ and subJect ta Interdepartriental Committee recommendations. On roll call~ the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID, NERBST. JOHNSON~ KING, TOLAR, NOES: COhIMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISStO~IERS: LINFI Malcolm Slaughter presented the pctitioner with the written right to appeal the Planning Canmission's decision to the City Council within 2? days. ITEM N(?. 13 READVERTiSED PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CARL L. ANU ~I~i~°fl"~E OECLARATlON MILORED E. RAU~ Classic Development Corp. ~ 12700 R • C ON 0. -Ja-46 Knott Avenue~ Suite R~ Garden Grove, CA 92641. VARIAkCE N0. 299 AGENT: SNALLER 6 ~OHR ASSOCIATES~ fNC., 366 San EN IV NAP TRACT N0. 1:254 Miguel Drive~ Newport aeach~ CA 92660. Property (REVISION N0. 1) described as an trregularly-shaped parcel of land QU OR F consisting of apprnximately 5.2 acres having r~ REMOVAL OF SPECIPIEP~ TREES frontage of approximately 83~- feet on the nor::Mrest side of Santa Ma Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 440 feet, a~d being located approximately 1b00 feet nartheast of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Property presently classtfied RS-A-43,000(SC) (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL~SCENIC GORRIDOR OVERLAY) and COUNTY A1 (GEliERAL AGRILULTURAL) DISTRICT. R~QUESTED CLASSIFICI>TION: RS-7200(SC) (RE5IDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) tONE. 7/31/78 MINUTES~ ~NANEIM C17Y PLANNING GQMMISSIUN~ JU~Y 31, 1~78 78•6~5 EIR NEGAT~VE DE~LARATION~ REC~ASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-46~ VAa1ANCE NQ. 2994~ ANb TEN7ATIVE MAP OF TRACT Nn. 10254 (REVISION N0. 1) (contlnued) _....s. --- RFQUESTEU VARIANGE: WAIVER OF (A) MININUM LOT WIDTN ANU FRQNTAGE AND (B) REQUIREMEN7 T11I1T SINGLE-FAMIIY STRUCTURES REAR-QN ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS~ TO ESTABLISN A 16-LUT~ RS-7200(SC) SUI3DIVISION. Thern w~rn eight persons present fn oppostt(on and aitt~ough the ;'.aff report to the Plannlny Conrilsslon dated July 31~1'~7f~ wes not reud At the publtc hcaring, it is referred to and mede a part of the minutes. Ronald Noycs. rcpresentin~~ Classic Development Corporat(an~ explafned this development was prevtausly approved and was returned for Plenning Ca;mission review by ttic City Counctl because the ad}ecent residents expressed concern over the current In~~ess and e9ress on Vta CopAla. He state<~ Maury Nich~ls of Classic Development was present to provlde any background Informsti~n and Mr, Mueller of Shaller b I.ohr AssociAtes wns a1sU present to comnent an traffic~ enyineering and potent(al hazards. Ile lndica[ed a plan was prasented for 2fl lots and was reduceci to 16 lots in answer to Commisslnn and ~~taff concerns regarding density~ roadways an~ pussible flood hazerds. Ne tndicatcct thcy wo~ld enswer any concerns of the residents. Mr. and Mrs. Greg Miller~ 7GF,~ Galle Duranyo~ Anaheim, were present, and Mr. Miller stated th~ proposal is to construcc these homc~s beliind his existing two properties and pre~enLed pictures of the area and pointe~i out the street ls uQ~ feet long and is quite dangerous with a 13.75 foot drop in grade~ an~~ the proposal is to add fivc drivcways to thts street. He d(d not fe~l it would be fcaslbl~ to put hanes in this locatian, esprctally with the vlew he now has and woul~i no lonyer have if homes were construcced there. Ne stated they havP spent a lot of money and havc ~ut in sun decks and were told thcre would nr~t be any hcxnes bui lt there; and th~--t tl~ere would be a park. Mrs. Ml I ler stated anot;~er concern is with 16 lots in ancl out of une street~ there would be a lot of addttional traffic ~nd 16 lots would be adding thrce ta four chlldren per house who would bP ridin~ skateboards and bikes Jown the hill~ wh(c:~ would be ve ry danyerous. Mr. Miller staCed tnere w(11 be an alley in back of his house and the traffic will be at hls bedroom window. and he was also concerned about his 6-foot high block wall in the back yard and the yard wc~uld be level with his patio. Ne thought it would be very hazardous slnce the area is quite steep and a lot of the property ls not usable. He referred to the previous hearing when the petitioner wanted to canvcrt a g~me room and felc there would be simllar problems if these lots wcre allowed to be developed substandard. He indicated he had take~ some measurements and his messurements did not agree wlth those in thc praposal. He alse indicated there hed been some accid~nts and he did not think a wail wouid keep the cars from qoing down the hill. Mac Oliver~ 7516 Calle Dura~go~ indicated h(s lot (s on A cul-de-sac street about 35 houses away from subJect property and he has three concerns: 1) Safety - a) Santa Ana C~nyan Road is a thoro~ighfare with several la~ge trucks ~ntPring and exiting the area~ prlmarily because they are bypassing the weigh station to avoid payment of weight fees. He lndicated the proposed lots are very close to thiat accessibility; b) Via Copala ls a very steep street and going Jown~ you cannat see a vehicle coming ~p the strect; chat there are weeds in the a~ea that obstruct visibility and the speeds are averaglny 65 miles per hour; and that thc Califo. ia Highway Patrol lias been asked to patrol the area to re~3uce the speeds and additional homes would devastate the area. 2j Floods ~ After ~eading the staff report~ he was not sure che f~;,od hazard situatton has been taken care of and referred to thP heavy rains whiGh created a lot of flood areas 7/31/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ JULY 31~ 1978 7$-F,36 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ REGLASSIFIC~TION N0. 77-78-~+6~ VARIANC~ N0. 2q54~ AN~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10254 (REVISION N0. i) (continued) .-._ adJecent to subJect property. In addttton~ water (rcxn the htlls fiows down through the reservotr and dunps onto Santa Ana Cenyon Road. ~) ClasslG Homes, As a Ja~ClopPr~ has not proven to the ~xisting home~ow~crs that tht~~ are concerned obout ~hem l~ecause the City had to ~pply r lot of pressure to hAVP. them tek~ care of some very obvlous deflcienc(es of thelr tract whlch ctel~yed acqutsitton of the homes. Larry Voyer~ 61,H2 Eucalyptus Dr(ve, l~naheim~ Vlce Presldent af V(sta Del Rlo I~ater Company, stated the President wes unabl~ to ateend and had asked him to present thei~ concerns about thts specif(c development because It affects thcir well site for a private rnutual water company. He po(nted out the well site on the plan and stated a 10-incl~ pipeline runs from the well s(te t~ Santa Ana Canyon Road. ~le stated they havr. concerns about the safety of the people who arc golnn to live in this development and what p~ecauttors had besn taken~ and he did not know the minimum distance from this pipeline to the new homes and felt there would be some lisbil{ty there. He esked what precautlons had been taken concernlnc~ the fence around the pump and Nhether or not it would be considered an attractive nutsance~ ar~d pointed aut it would be very close to Farcel 5's back yard. He polnted out they would Ilke to review these matters ai~d asked that the development be held off unti) they can consid~~ all these items. He stated they had not heard from Classic Homes about specific pians and they do not h~ve any answers to their concerns and there may be a considerable expense to them once the property is in Anaheim. He pointed out the Incorporation into the City h3s been ~pproved by LAFCO dnd res~onsthillttcs af each party should be dectded. Ne pointed out this is A big pipeline ahtch services approxlmately 30 hcxnes on the other side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and has a 35- horsepawer~ elec:.rical pump, M~. Noyes ~epl(ed to Mr, and Mrs. Niller's concerns regardfng Via Cop~l~ being more haza~rdous than it already is, indicatinq he fclt if the street is irr~roved to tts full development, the hezards would be improved or alleviated; that Santa Ana Cenyon Road would be tmproved adjacent to the tract and that Via Copala would be improved to CiCy standards; that a left-turn pocket will be constructed on Santa Ana Canyon Road~ whtch will sl~w north-bound trafflc turning left; thrt 3~`1 feet of visibtlity down Santa Ana Canyon Road must be provided in both directior~s, that the weed growth and reletive state of unlmproveme~t of the tntersectton~ which prabably contributes to many hazards~ will be alleviated; and that they did not believe ftve additional dr~veways oR that ~elatively short street would create an additi~~al ha2arJ. ~~e sicated Mr. Mueller would comment on the drlveway spacing anci traffic concerns. He referred to the lot sizes and density tn Che area and ind(cated the proposed lot sizes are considerably greater than the extsttng lots and that they average over 1~r~~0~) square feet and the two lots trtmediately adJac~nt to Mr. Mi~ler's lot ere respectively 17,3~J0 and 2'1~100 squere fcet. an~ tt~e Miller's lot (s les5 than 7000 square feet. Chairman H~erbst asked Mr. Noyes to clarify hls definition of a lot size~ pointing out there are slopes. and asked the lot sizes if the slopes were taken out. Mr. Noyes ~eplted the remainir,g portions are still substAntially greater than the axisting lot slzes. Ne polnted out the iots on the mr~p and the squa~e footages of the existtng lots, and alsc~ pointeci out the gross area for Lot 16 is ov~r 20,000 square feet and net ove~ 1$~00~ square feet and the gross area for Lot 15 is 17,~~0 square feet~ the net being over 11~QOn square feet. He scated the flat, level areas of the lots are cons6derably greater thin the grvss size of the adJacent lots in the adJacent subdivisian, and the side and rear yards are also considerably greater. He stated setback vari~~ces were approved 7/31/78 «. ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONNISSION~ JULY 31~ 197a ~8-6 37 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-1g-~Gr VARIANCE F10. 2~9W~ AN O TENTAYIVE MAP OF TMCT N0, 10254 (REV 1 S I ON N0. 1) (con t t n~~ed) in the adJACent trect And the setbacks on thc~ pr~poaa) ero conslderobly greeto ~ thu~ thc setb~~cks on the adJacont property. He stAted there Are only three vsrlences ~ eques to1 in this subdivlslon~ relatinc~ rnalnly to lot width. Concerntng Mr. Ollver's comments~ lie skated they were well tnken end that trafflc o~ Santa Ana Canyon Road (s a problem and tf~is development w~uld only provicfe 1G addl t t ana) single- family liom~s end wtll not contribute signif(cantiy to th~ trAff(r. hdzerds And thn trucks on San ta Ana Canyon Road wi 1 1 not be ef fecteci i n~ny way . Conce rn i ng the weeds men tloned ~ they wi 11 be removed with construction af this proJect and SAnte Ana Cenyon Roed wi 11 be improved and landscaped; that dralndge has bdcn e consistent problem and deve l~pment of tl~ls property will produce clr~ina~e to the stre~t In acc~rdance with acceptablo codes end will elininatc any ~+rnhlPm thAt cur~ently exists. Hc stated they hnve been in contact. wi th ~r. Voyer of the Vista Uel Rio Water Company for sev~ra) months and they heve considered the water corr~~ny in their plans; tha t the re Are no permenent facillries wtthin the baundaries of thc dr.velopr~nt; that r,he ~+etl site Is o~~tside tl~e develapment and Che maln water line to Eucalyptus Drive Is clos~ to, but outs ( de of ~ thc I r devc lopmen t~ and they have Assured the a~te r cornpany they r+ i I1 p rotect thelr facilitie5 end wii) replece any p~rtton of thc llnes ~dJecent tn thetr tract wlth new pipes. Ne state~i the Itabtlity will oxlst regardless of whether or not t his subdivision is developFd because there ere hom~s ii~ the area. Ne stated the r e ere some old irrigation lines un~ier thetr property; that che nature and locatton of th eee lines is unknown; that Chey hnve a_qreed to locote them and properly c~p them or remc~ve them . ond they are showin~ ~vidence of leakinq at the present [ir-w- and he fcit the posi tlon and integrlty of the water ~ompany ft~cilltles c~n only be improved by removing th e existing line and replacine~ th~ exlstln~ m~in with new pipPS. He s~ated he coulcl not see a ny tffect on the 30 homes on Eucalyptus Orive rnd this development w~uld probably eliminate a lot of problerns they ~~re having. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS C LOSED. Lommissfoner Tolar questioned the possibillty of closing Vla Copala because t~e felt lt is hazardous as it currently exists. He felt reducing the proJect to one lot ~ the west side might help, but did nat knaw how this property could be dnvelaped by leavinq Vla Copala apen and felt It wauld create a worse hazard~ and by closing lt, additlonal traffte would be create~ at tht other end. Ha Jid not knav how thts strect was approved in the first ~lace. He a~ked Classic Homes lf they had oaned thr~t property when th~ property wAs origlnelly dev~loped. ~~aury Nichols~ Classic Homes~ stated the lov+er portion of the proparty, whieh includes the five lots. was c~wned by the cumpany for about three years end was acyuired s ubseq uent to approval af the 454 lots in the adlacent tract; that the City req~~ired that street to be s tubbed I nto the area for access a~d they fe 1 t i t~+as to probab 1y provi de a cul-de-sac streec for that particular property; that the City Council had asked them to dedicdte the property for this street and it appeared there was some pressure from the r~sidents. Ne stated this access was not in their best interest and they would like a cul- de-sa c street for eccess further east at the other end. Commtssioner Barnes asked if there had been a ptan befere the Commission which did not shaw Vt~ Copala going through~ and Chairman Herbst indicatad h~ remembered such a plan an d it wes e:so suggested the ac~ess be align~d with liente Vista and the TrAffie E-,gineer did no: know whe~e thnt cannection would be, and this access was proposed as an emergency 7/31/78 MINUTfS~ IINAHEIM CITY Pt,ANNING COHMISSION~ JUIY 31~ 1978 7A-G38 E I R NEGAT 1 VE OECLARAT 1 VN~ RECLASS I F I CAT I ON N0. 77• 74•yG, VAa IANCE N0. 2994 ~ AND TENTAT I VE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1025W (aEVISION N0. 1) (conc (nued) eccess. Ne pointed out the Trafflc Engineer wauld like to hnve the streets ellgned fur treffic stgnelizat(on~ whlch ml~~~it help solve thc p~oblem, Cornmissloner Johnson sieted one facct af thP problam Is~ elthough the trraffic frc~m the lots belvw dump onta thls sh~~rt street. he was not sure thfs dev~lopmcnl w~uld h~ve a~y ePfect on thet streCt, anci tl~ere ere some compltcaclans; thot this property ownRr g~ve the street to the City ~+nd would have to have access out of that str•eet end the Commisslon could not conslder cutting off h(s ecc~ss. He eg~eed thet putting tn a lr.ft-turn lane miqht help some of the problPms bnd felt rnaybe a widened rell~f for ric~ht tur;~~ mic~ht also provlde mvre safety, but felt stopp(ng the devel~~er from bulld(ng the proje~t is not going to chan,ye thG s i tuation. Cht~irman Herbst Indicaterf he had walkeci the prope:rty bQli(nd the Mlllc~ propcrsy and did not feel two homes should be built tf~ere and the min(mum bullding sttr h~d been redched because of thc slopes, which are fn a dlamond direction wlth lonq driveways, and felt It wuuld be an tnJustlce tu th(s pr~pcrty and the Mt Iler property to bui Id twa hous~s ~n thls stte; ehat one house facfny Vla Copala wlth gara~PS to the rear would fit ve•y ntc~ly~ even though i t wou) d be an overs I zed 1 at. Commissloner Johnson polnted aut thc Mi Iler lot is only '1~ feet dcep and they have b~r( lt very close to th~ rea~ property line and are nc~w ask(ng the Cammission to protect them~ end tt rr.ally is n~t the Gommisslon's prot~lem; that pr~blem shauld have bcer~ eddrassed whe~ that proJect was ~ppravect. Gomnissto~er Barnes poTnted uut similar thinys are hap~cnin~ in che llnaheim Hills t+rea whe~e houses have been built at the bottcxn of the slopes and then a tract ts built htgher~ and property owners co~npiatn because they are over onking thetr sa,imming pools And bedroam w~ndows~ and tf the P1 anning Commtssi~n denied ~11 !hos~ cases~ 9iro of the requests in tl~e Anaheim Ht i ls area wou ld be ciented because most of them look intn somett~inq. She stdted she sympathizes with the problem~ but did not thin~: the Commission is in a positfon to dcny someone ti~e right to build on their p~operty Just because tt is going t~ look into another picce of property. She felt the Commission should loc~k, r~t the pad siza and~ undn~btedly. the pet i t inner h~is plenty of rovm on paper far two homes. Commtssioner Johnson felt this Is a bad piece of property~ If the fiyures are correct~ and be) teved Chal rman Nerbst's position i s that he could not see that much ground at this locetion~ and Chairma~ Nerbst confirmed that statcment. Mr. Noyes stated the area wi 11 bc f i 1 1 ed and the pad wlll extend to a reta(ning wal l adJace~t to the lit l le~- F~operty; th~t they wouid construct a retalning wal l and the ultimate pad grAde wi 1 I be about une foot lawer than the current grade. Ne stated they have made themselves available to the Mlilers ta design to their s~tisfactton a structural wal 1 des tyned to mi t i yate the impact on thei r rear yards and they would plot that house for maximum setback from their property, and would pravide them with a view hlock wall to prevent someune from 1 ooking down into thei r back yard~ and the Mi l lers have not shown an tnterest in discussing this in detai 1, but the offer remains open. Commissloner Tolar asked (f a plan was b~ought befure the Commissian shawing the street continued on through v~rith a cui-de-sae and proposed ingress and egress. Mr. Nichols replied a plan had been presented a~d it. was a possibility, but they dtd not have control of that land; it fs a~-rned by s~xneo~e else. 7/31/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIII CITY P LANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31~ 1978 7b'639 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-46~ VAaIANCE N0. 2Q94~ AND TENTATiVE MAP UF TRACT ~"J. 10254 (REVISION N0. 1) (co~tfnued) rw~~~+~~~~~i~~~~~w~~w.~ ~ .~~ Commissioner Harnes statecl tl,r. o~tginal pl~n hed IncludPd developrt-Ant of the Ad]acent property~ end Mr. Noyes repiled this wss carrect~ but they had decided thls prope~ty was not develop+~ble at thi~ ttme. Mr. Nichols ststed ~~egotiations with, the adJacent property awner hed termi~ated for seve~a 1 roa~ons ~ one be 1 ny thc+ de 1 ay i n t I me ~ the s~cond be i ng e requl rerr~n t to cons t ruct a siorr~ dratn th~augh her property~ and the thtrd bcing ~ portion of the property Is below the fluod plaln level and would requlre considerable fill to bring It abave the 1~0-year storm level. Commtssianer J~hnson aske~~ Mr. Noyes his react(on ta a ~nc-acre lot development for tha large piccc uf ~,ropr.r[y soutli of Via Copala~ and askcd (f lt Is vttel t~ have two ~i~c~a of lend for development~ and Mr. Nay~;s replied It would not seem reasonable to heve a one- acre lot In the ~niddle ~f a~n RS~7204 subdlvision, even thauc~h other lots ere consfderably lerger than rcqulred~ but t~ have one in excess af 3o~nn~ square feet dir! not seem reasonable to him. Cortmtssi~ner Johnson stated the~•e are other anglas ta consider than just size~ such as accessibillty~ avaliabilitr~ the tremendo~s slopes~ ond the shape~ and indicated chts is a dlfflcult piece of property. M~. Nlchols stated there would not be a prut,inm wlth tratfic on this street tf the City had not esked for this asement in conJunctlon w(t~~ approvai of khe ather tract. He stated they had i~;vcs~ a lat of money in the ather property~ and wauid be happy ta construct a cul-de-sac. street and eliminate the problem (f the Clty would give the easement back and shorten the street so ihat it does not have co tie tnto Sante Ana Cenyon Road. Commissloner Barnes suggested no access onto 5anta Ana Canyon Raad, and Mr. Nlchols (ndicated they would be t~appy to complcte the ~trRet If the Gtty would see fit to complete the other portfons of the street~ ancl Chairman Nerbst asked if the Fire Departrt-ent was involved in the requirement of this cul~de-sac because of the problem of ge'tting emerqency equipment to the homes at the end of the long cul-de-sac, and Conxnissioner Barnes stated there was a proposed emergency (ngress and egress at the end of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Johnson suggested further study of [hese streets. Ne stated he realized it would mean a delay fo ~ tt~e developer~ but if a mistake hes been made, he thought it would be better to stop and try to correct !t, even though it may be a drastic method, rather than approving something ta make the situati~n worse. M~. Titus replied he felt it miyht be worthwhlle to do more study on the streets; that tt~e main obstecle from the City's polnt of view Is locating the Inte~section of Monte Vist~+ with Sa~ta Ana Canyon Road and that is very difficult to determine until the property develops or unti) someane makes a prccise allgnment atudy~ and the City does not have the manpawer, etc.~ to make these kinds of studies. Ne did not know haw it woutd affect the developer, but a study would be warranted. Malcolm Slaughter, De puty City Attorney~ stated that if the Planning Comrt~ission and City Council were to decee-mine it is desirable tu extend that street down to ths Monte Vista intersection and locate an access point~ t~nd in further emplification of Mr. Nichols' corm~ents, it is possible the Clty Council would consider lendi~g its power to emtnent domaiR to continue that st~eet if the developer is willtng to baar the cost of lt~ bui 7/~1/78 `IINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ JUL,Y 31~ 1978 78-640 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECL~SSIFICATION N0. 77-7$-46, VARIANCE NQ, 2994~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10254 (REYISION N0. 1) (continued) - -_ - .~..~ that he could not xay thoy would or Nould not do It~ but it was e polnt which could be looked at. CAnmissloner Tular stet~d hc could n~t suppo ~t tho praJact es It ls presented. Chairmen Merbst stated the acceas to Santa Ma Canyon Road hss been discussed by the Pla~ning Commisslon in the past end he has d ~ive n thts street end realfies It Is da~gerous~ end he would Itke! to see the City align th~ stre~~t wtth the future rltgnment of Montc Vista. Gomrlsslone~ dernes stated we do not knaw when Monte Vista wtll be allgned and it is nat fa( ~.o I~uld up the developer based upon somethi ng that mAy or may not h~~p~en. She eskeJ if there wes ~,;~y way this could be ~pproved on thls pr~perty wlth Vta C~pala es a cul-de- sac streec. She stat~~.! thts strce:t is already ~ dangerous street end the prablem should be ellminated now~ buti: t~~~ developer wou~d be happy witl~ [h~ cul-d~-sac and she thouyht the homevwners would b• h}~ppier with the cul-da-sac. Commissior~er Johnson indtcated he Is n~t a traffic expert a~d would not want to recommend a cul-de-::;:c without an opintan fram tiie Traffic Engtneer. Comnissloner Tolar stated thls has been gotng on for a long t;me 8nci he d1d not think tt would affect tlie developer to have ~e concinuance In orcler to gtve the City time and the potlti~nar time to try t~nc1 ecqulrQ tha ad)acent property to gtve thP ~ro~~rty in<,ress and egress and the Clty may be able cQ help ~-~itti eminent domain proceed~^ ~~ . Mr. Ntchols stated he did not thin4, it w~~uld br, posslble to ne+• satisfactory pr(ca with Mrs. Gibson for a pc~rti^,n of thr ~~;•a{~erty. pl~is tt rould t~kc . ' map~ etc. tle stated he wauld be wi 1 1 ing tt~ ~vork wi tn che- ~i ty Erigtne •' ~ig Depa- tme.~t ~ f the Ci ty has the desire to use their right of omtnent dc,ma(n t~ work •~ut a compaticlc plan if they are glv~sn the ~uthority to c~cercls~ t~~~rt rl;.~ of emtnent domaln. Ne strted the reason the solutian,.to this is not e.videnc is beca~~e there ts not a ready authorlty end It has been a matter of a lot of study~ and this plan is :he ~esult of all those studtes and wAs considereJ to be most compatibl~ wi th thc least amo~~nt ~f problems. Pielcolm Slaughter poin*.ed out that lec~inical ly the pa+ar of eminent danatn can only be ~xercised by the City Council and apprnved by a 4/5 vote, and no one could be assured of havinc~ thdt authority sincc ortly th~ Clty Council could gr.ant that. Mr. Nichols stated the other alt~rnat(ve would be to provide f~,r the ultimate possibi l ity of a cul-de-sac with a temporary easement over the access to Santa Ana Canyon Road, and at such time as the adJacent property does devclop~ then requlre tha: acc~ss at that palnt~ and he fully bellevec! that property wlli develop~ and then vacate the t~ccrs~ at that tlme and bring (t back to a cul-de-sac. Commtssior,er Johnson stated he was glad the Planning Comnlssian does not havc the power to exercise the power of eminent domain on someone else's property who is not represented~ and fe',t eminent domain is one of the tough est and heavtest tools that a~y municipality cen ~ase on the citizens and was happy the tc~ol was not used very otten, and he did not belisve it should be discussed at this meeting except to say it is a possibility. Chairman Herbst stated tf the access enters the adJacent property and comes out on Monte Vista, it w4uld not necessariiy downgrade h er p roperty and would give her access, and he felt negotiatic~.s should take place. 7/31%IS ~ ~ 78-~41 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31~ 1918 E NT'AT I VE EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION~ R~SIONSNO~CA;I(~n0in~7~;8-46~ VARIANCE NQ. 2994~ AND T MA~ OF 7MCT N0. 1~254 (REV CaMnissioner Johnson (ndic~ted M~.wHicholskindic~tedrhe would^hape therenwc~uld h~r~foo~ur waeks~ to Auqust 28~ 197~~ snd direction given to the City steff also. Commiastona~ Johnson stated he wo~ind ~h~~^~ff~~°p~pblemsYontVle Copale~and~thatsv~lous that further study be made reyAr g altornates should be loaked et. Commissioner David secunded the motion. Chairman Herbst questinneJ wl~ethe~ or not a four-week contlnuence Nould be long enough~ and Jay Titus inJicated th~it,ations would'end~~upebetween~therdeveloper andkM~s~uG{bson. adequate~ but thet any ne~ot Glbson ~, Canmissloncr Tolar eskPd if the Gity staff could have some input wt~h Mrs. regarding ingress and e9rws~u~dnbecto hPeadvanteqelindthelfuture, and by yrenting ing~ess through hnr property ~ i t Jay Titus ~eplled that the Cit' hLuaf-Wis~u~t wouldhnottbe thefCttySStpositionbto when it comes down to ac~ul ring that r g dY ~ negotiate with her. Commissio~er Tolar (ndicat~ment Wand~Mr.~~TitustreplledttheCCityWCauldvdiscusssthatiwlthbe wliling to dedicate an ease , her. Commissio~er aa~rnes asked whether or not constructton of the sto~m drain was a large factor in dettrmining whether be ronstructedPandYwouldeoe,ePveryBexpensivecstructureted the storm d~aln would have to ACTIOW: Chalrman Herbst called for a vot~ ~n the motion to continus the conslderatl.ti,~ ~o ti"'fe meeti;~g of August 2s~ 197E~ and the MOTIOF! CARRIED (Ca+wnlsstone~ Llnn bciRg absent). RECESS There wes a five-minute recess at 8:35 P•m• RE 0 VENE The meeting ~~econvened at ~:40 p.m., with all Commissioner preser.~ :apt "-'^ Commissioner Linn being absent. ~ 7/31/78 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNiNG COMMISSION~ JULY ~1~ 1978 78-642 ITEM N0. 13 " CONTINUF.U PUl3LIC HEAP.ING. DEVELOPER1 ANAl1EIN flll~5~ ~VI~ONMEI~T`AL IHPAC REPORT N0. 21fi ING. ~ 3ti0 An~heim NI1 ls Road~ Anaheim~ CA 92~Q7. . -- ' ENGIN~ER: JENNINGS-HALOERMAN-NOC~~ a40 North Golden . Clrcle Driv~~ Sultc 111~ Santo Ana~ CA 92705. 10~0 104Q8 104Q AND 1~410 P~operty doscribed As an irreyularly-sh~ped parce~t Qu >, uf land r,onststing of approxtmotely 83.8 acres hoving REMOVAL OF SPCCINEN TREE~ a frontage: of approxtmetely 59~ feet ~n the aouth sfde of Ntlla+lck Drlve, heving a maxfmum depth of approximetely 15f;0 feet, and being located approxi- mately 865 feet south of tha centerllne of Nohl Ranch Road. P~operty presently cla~slfled RS-A-43,OQ0 (SC) (RES I DENT Il1L/AGR I GULTURAL-5CE~J I L CORR I IiOR OVERLAY) ZONE . REQUESTEU CLASSIFI(.ATION: RS-NS-1Q~00~(SG) (RESIDENTIAL~ SIN~LF. CORRIDOft OVCf1L<+Y) ZO~JE. TENTATIVE TR/~CT REQUESTS: TRACT N0. 1040J • 4fi RS-HS-1Q~000(SC) TP,ACT N0. 1~AQ~ - 41 RS-N~-i(1~~~~(SC) TRACT N0. 104(1~ - t~~ RS•HS-1~,000(SC) TRACT N0. 10410 - 37 RS-11S-10~000(SC) -FAI~ I LY N I LLS 1 DE-SCEt~ I C • LOTS + 3 COMMON IOTS. LUTS + ?. COMMON LQT5. LO?S + 1 COMMON LOT. L OTS . SubJect petitinn was continuen from the meeting of July 3~ 1978 at the request of the pet(tioner. There were approximatcly h5 per~ons (ndiceting thetr p~esence in opposition to subJect request~ and although the staff -~port to tlie Planning Commission dated July 31~ 191& was not read at the public hearlnr~~ it is refe~red to and made a part of the minutes. Philip Bettencourt~ representing Anahrim t{ills~ Inc.~ the ~eveloper. stated this proJect wes before the Comnission on July 3~ and based upon the t~an~cript of the meeting~ the public testimony offere~i~ staff input~ and further su99estions anJ encourdgement~ revisad plans a~e being p~csented. He referred to some issues relating ta the environmental impact repo~t anci stated~ unfortunately, th' staff report provlded only a changed dete of a~ earl(rr essessment and did not (nclud~ four sup~lements whlch had been provided by thefr EIR consultant. Ne stated al) the questions which have been asked are naw current. He indicated a queseion was asked regarding the open space maintenance ares obltgations anci the obllgation they have for the dedicetion of open space under the Nohl Ranch Agrlculturat Preserve Cancellation Agreemenc and reassi~red the Commisslon there was never (ntended to be any public maintenance obligatlon end felt their wrttten representation of that sltuation should be satlsfaetory. He steted the equestrian trails were not an issuc~ although that was a quGStion raised at the July 3rd heariny~ and polnted out the Equestrian Tralls Commtttee letter should answer that quesrt~r.. He stated their conce~n dealr with the existing riding and htking trail which is in the Southern Callfornia Edison Cc,mpany easement stiuth of the tract boundary. Ne sts.ted that cast/benefit analysis data was provided which~ as far as he knav~ had not been ~~.='~lected concerning the costs to be incurred by the City as far as services to the tracts are concerned. Ne presented an !Ilustr~+tion indicat(ny the reaso~s homes cost as much as they do. pointing out the summary shaws the Ctty-mandated development end improvem~:nt expenses for the proJ~ct~ some applicable to any proJect developed in the hil~ and cany-~~ area and some unique to this proJect. and tha s~mxnary does not tnclude their own gra.finy expanses~ financtng costs for the land, or any costs or expenses to the home builder. He stated their investtgation indlcates the total costs of tract improvements ~i~~i~a pN i a. MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ,:OMMISSION~ JULY 31~ 1~78 78-643 EIR N0. 218~ RECLASSIFICATiON N~. 78-79•5~ AND TENTATIVE MAP QF TRACT NOS. 104~7~ 1Q40~~ 10409 AND 10410 (conti~uod) w~l) be almost S~G~OqO per lot end the City do~s not incu~ any aF thase expenses ~:xcept to tha extent which they may provide fee~s for scrvices~ such as wecer assessmene fees~ etc. Ne state~: Anahelm Ilills~ Inc. has a special facilitics agreement which they entnrerd Into with the Clty snd pay an assessrr~nt besed on those fees ne~ded ta provlde services to th~ tracts. Ne stated thelr analysts would Indicate the expenses an the tract lmp~avements are not those of the public Agency~ but are ~x~enses of the devclop~r a~d home bullder~ and ultimately the home buycr. I~e stated questlons asked regArding xhe eff~ct~ of Pro~~sition 13 w~re Answered as best they could be answered at this time; that hec.ause ~f unique evaluntion f~rmulas establ(shed under Pr•oposit(on 13. futurc homeowners ~re likely to pay mare property taxes ultlmatety per dollar of market v~lue on their h~me5 b~:cause they ao nat have the sa~me bcnefits bascd on esrlier assessmencs and based u~-on probable improvements costs of the proJect and construction costs. Chairman Herbst explained Mr. Bettencourt's analysis r~e~ardtng cost to the C(ty was prov(ded at the request of the Plt+nning Gon~nlssion. Mr. Bette~court state:d preservatian of n~}or ca~yo~ dreas is answered os best lt could be on a localized level ancf stated the canyons pro~osed to be fillcd werc not substa~tial tn Cerms of the total canyon pcrspective uf I~~,~00 acr~s within the; Genynn Area General Plt~n; that there is noti~ing blologically or geographica~ly significant about the canyons to be ftlled, and pointed out if there had nox been fil~ of the nAtu~al water courses~ the extsting homes in the Westridge area to the south ~c~uld not have been constructed~ and this is )ust a continuation of that land form. ConcernPng gredtng, he referred to the chart shc~rin~ improvement abligation reconrnended by staff and stated the cost estimate just far the creAtion o!` tfie Imperiai Highway ertbankment was in excess af 5800~ODU, and that cmbankment 1s rat necessarw to provide necessa ry transportation access fmr tf~ese tract~~ but daes constituce a co,~trlb~~tion ~ver and ebove what otherwise w~uld be required, He presented the tract maps with their redesign and pointed out Santa Ana Canyon Road ta the north, existing imperial Hiyhway improved to Nohl Ranch Road and the partion obligated for improvement to their proje~t bounciaries~ th~ existing Westridge Tract, Pointc Quissett Nomes~ 181-1ot~ four-tract subdivision wi~ict~ they have u~der grading so~,th of Nohl Ranch itoad~ the exlsting City boundary, the 3~+ acres on Imperi~i H~ghway propased for annexatic~n~ and the ~idgeline. Hc pointed out the primary access to the proposed tracts (Big Sky Lane) ~-ith connectiny linkag~e on Los Coyotes~ and the existing accesses to Nahl Ranch Road at Rural Ridge and Wllla+tck. He polnted out if3 homes of the propo~;ed tracts would tak~ access to Willowick, wtth the bafance taklr~q access on Imperial tiivhway. He stated their traff(c analysis inoicates abaut $5$ of tt~e traffic from the proposed tracts would take access onto Imperial Nighway. Ne pointed out the existinr Westridge Tract and the proposed pro,ject, the commu~ity association slopes, the building pads. and the separation between existtng dwellinq units and the proposed dwellinc units. Nc stated the redesign provides an assu~ance of the arnount of vehicula, access invalved using the existing street system; that an actual on-site r~ialysis of the exlsting Westridgc street system was performed by Westan Pringle s Associates Nhich ind(cated the existing street system is operating at approximately 57~ of accepted design capacity and with the addition of khesc homes. it would increase to approximatefy 65~. He indicated the proposed proJect is in conformance with established and proposed City codes and laws and the existing Canyon Area Gener~l Plan; that the denslty is 1.72 unlts 7/31/78 fj ~ MINUT~S~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31, 1978 78-G4A EIR N0. 216~ RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 1~'79~5~ AND TENTATIVE HAP OF TRACT NOS.10~-07~ 10~+08, lOkOg AND 10410 continued) ~......~ . .~~......._,,., .. per acrc~ which is less than the WestriJge Tract to the north; that there are no lnts proposed less than 10,00~ squere feet (pointiny out an errc>r on th~ir prrt as Indicated ln the staff report that one lut would be less than 1~,00(1 square fset); that the project will conform to the proposed standards for the RS-HS-1~~n4~ Zone recently recomrn~nded for approval to the City Council; that the cut•and-fill operation ts balanced and is in conformance with tlie c~rading plan; tl~at they feel the EIR is adequate; And that the clrculatlon system is edequatc ~nd meets all current City cocies. He indicated he would be happy to ans~~er any questions. Manuel Don~ 5l~3~ W~11awiGk Drive~ Anal~~elm~ stateJ the opposiCion's mt~]~r concern was for [he saf~ty of the chlld~cn. Hc rcferrcd to the trAfEit enAlyaiS ~r~sented; that the traffit proble.is were not solvad by the redesiyn of the proJect nor by thc r~:sults of the trafflc study. Regardiny their samplinh technique~ he polnted out strc~~ sensors began eounting trafftc on Willowick Circle durin~ e weekday for a ewo or thr~e-day ~erlod after peak•hour traffic end termtnated before return trafPic~ which means they omitted khe morning and eventng peak traffi~; th~t tF~e study wss conducted when thcre was no schc~l ;n sesslon and many of the familles wrre on vacatlon Juring that perlod~ ancf he fa(lecl co ~^e hav a traffic analysis from a sampitng taken at this time could represent the true trafflc. picture. He felt there was also a questian concerning the capacity flgure quoted and thc average car count for P 2~i-hour period, t1e pointed a~t the study dl~ not ment(on peak distribution ar.ci ineficated he would Ilke to see something about the peak trafflc distributlon because they were concerned about the children going to sthool. Np stated he could not reconc(le thetr figures rpgarding an b$ incresse~ from ;7~ to Fi54y pointing out i$ homes proposed would constitute a 20~ increase tn the number of hom~s in their tract; that he could not understand how an increase nf 20~ in the numbcr of homes woutd only increase the traffic by B~ (far example~ If 100 cars per hour constltutes 5~`~ cepaclty, then an increase to 20~ cars per hour would increase crQacity hy 50$~ ~~ut ther~ would be a~ increase i~ the kraffic of 100$). He pointed out his home is et th~ end of the proposed street and even wlth lE3 home~, wlth an average of five or six trips per day, over a year's tir~e would be 39.000 brake stops~ and he was concerne.d about that situation. hle stated he could not entrust the safe~y of his children or his neighbors' children~ or the neighborhood in general. on the results of this traffic study. He stateci he had suggested earlier that these t~~cts be (solated wi2h [wn maJor accesses on Imperlal Ntghway and that when this suggestion was made, the answer w~s that lt wes not feasible because of the slope grading, but yet ~t is feasible to move 2.~ million cubic yards of earth. and he did not understand hav th(s would be feasible when you could not creat~ another road. He asked if it is logical and reasonable that an area shauld be developed when: 1) the development can~ot be provided with two accesses to ~ maJor road and must intrude on the safety of the existing neighborhaod; 2) tt cannot be dev~loped without a manumental cut-and-fill process (2.8 mtilion cubic yards of earth or 1~l~000 cublc yards of earth per home); 3) it cannot be developed without utilizing specia) grading techniques and cantilevered-type hausing; b) the development must is~~late 18 of its own hones in order to minimize ths traffic hazards (n an adJacent area; 5~) the development is an area where the soil conditions are currently questic,nabie; and 6) the developme~t will wipe out a rPmain(ng maJo~ hill and canyon area. Ne stated they have been accused of beiny emotional and wanting to live at the end qf the world end refe~red to an ad from Anaheim Hllis. Inc.~ taken from The Register~ Juty 23~ i9)8, as follows: "Wander with us through A~aheim Hills. Roam tnrough the hills and canyons~ dtscover spectacular views from the rtdges. For fun~ there's the Racquet Club, 7/31/78 .. R MINUTES, ANAIICIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31, 1978 78-b++5 EIR N0. 218~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79•5~ ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10407~ 1Ok08~ 10A09 AND 1Ok10 (co~tlnued) ,_,._.._ the Saddlo Club~ b challenging publlc golf course. miles of rtding and hiking tralls and scenlc parks. Meheim Nills is a tremenJous cl~oics of homes bullt elanc~ windinc~ avenues. And of course. its schools~ shoppiny and f~eewayn are close to t~ome. We're a world of aur vwn; a qulet countr~y place, but closa to town. Follow the Riverstde Freewey to the Imperlal I~Ighway exit~ Go rlght on Imperial, thon left to Anaheim 11111s Roed ~nd you'll find directlonal si~ns to eve ry development. Wander throuyh our hills. You'l1 egree with famllles wha've found this IanJ to be thQ val~e af a lifetime." He stated a parently thalr conc~ept of a lifetime (s 1) clthcr when you dle~ 2) sel) your house~ or 3~ withln a fiv~-year perluJ, Ite st~tcc! lf thls is an emc~tt~nal issue thet hc (s playiny un; ll~at thFy have con.jurcd up thts ima,e~ In hls minci. He stated there are enough ft~~:s to fndicate th(s area is nat to be develc,pe.~. Mary Ann Patzcn~ 5~~31 Willowick Circle. pointed out. her home is o~ the corner of Wi{lpwick and I~ohl P~nch Road. She stated the proposed tr~~~ts are: nat the only tracts which will be exiting onto Wi llowick Circle .3n~i ~ointed c~ut at<<er areas and felt there would be a lot more traffi~ on Willowick than in~licatcd. ~t~e stnted al) the chlldren who welk to school fran Westridge walk down Willawlck Circlr bpc~u.~e ~o parent sends their c.hildren dcywn Nohl Rench Road. She stated I~er family was an vac~[lo+~ when tlie trafflc was counted and she knew persunal ly of nine other fami I tes xi tf~ir~ a two-block are~ ~vhu were also on vacatl~n and wi~o have at least two cars. She sta~cd sf~e had heard thc counters were only tl~ere for a very short tinre and we:re not th~re d~rin~a peak hours, and she did not feel an increpse of a~b from that tract is accuratc r~~~d ic dnes n~t even be9in to consider the traffic coming down from Prairte, etc. She stated these are the last ~ouple of canyons in the area Rnd dici not see haw the City who has ptanned to preserve ttie hills ,and canyons could allc~w Z.~ mlllion cubic yards of earth to be moved~ especl~lly for tk~r people who live in the canyon and who were Cold the canyons would be preserved. She s:ateJ they had looked at the plans before buytng thcir home in 1974 and that was the reason they had purchasea where they d1~J; that there are peopie who picked the lot they bought bocause of the canyon. She did not feel dead-ending one street wnuld help th:~[ much and nointed if you lived at her c~rner~ it would be obvlous the capacity on the street has been reached for a long time, not considering that in a fav+ manths Pointc Qutssett will be dumping traffic on the street also. Sht stated she would like the Plan~ing Commisslon Co consider the number of cfiildren~ with at least two children in every home~ plus the cltlld~en in the new tracts wi11 be con~ing down thef~ street also. She stateci it is the quality of thcir lives and the quality of their a~ea that will be affected~ and asked the Planninc.~ Corm~ission to consider that they would like tt~e canyons preserved, al tliough they real i ze the t+rea wi 1 1 b~ dc~'cioped to a degree. they would Iike th~e degree limited and a IoC of thouqht ylven to the traffic pattern for their own safety. Mn Yvershaw~ 5~~16 Willowick Circle, Anaheir~~~ presented an aerial Fhotograph of the area In questlon, particularly Wilivwick Gl~cle. and potnted out there are 7d homes involved in the greater Willowick Circlr. area. She questioned Mr. Bettencourt's trafftc figures and stated 144 homes in the area is double thc amount of housing which th~~y now have on Wilta+ick Circle; that their streess were constructe.~ primarily for this tract as the sartest route to tl~e schoolg and shopRing facilitles in their area, and it wtii also be the safest, most c~nvenient way for those people from the propose~ t~acts. She stated the last time she had spoken she had rt-entioned the nany mista~es made in thls area and asked the Planning Commlssion to please take this into consi~eration, 7/31/18 MINUTES~ At~AN[IM CITY PIArJNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31, 1978 78-646 Ela N0. 218~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79~5~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 1OG07~ 10408~ 10409 AND 10410 (contlnued) Cllfton Gerrott~ 537~+ W~~1owiGk Drivc~ Anaheim, stated the Plan~iny Commissian has to consider the riyht of the property avnor to develop his tand and make e profft. but thnt an obligatfon should be placecl on the doveloper for ca-xnunlty consciousness end respons(bility. Ne statcd =oni~q laws a~e to prevont haphazard d~velopment and protoct the property owners~ and pointgd out the Planning Comnlssion ls the zontng board for the current homeowners and must consider the rlghts of the peoplo wlio presently live In the areas which will be affected. 11c stated Mr. Bettencourt hAd menr!~^A~i the fact that Imperial Highway is to be extendzd, end he was not sure wl~ether it would bc cxtended by Anahe(m Ilills~ Inc, or by the ultlmate bullder. Ne pointed out ti~ere was a meeting in May wl~en this proJect had been discussed and the qu~stion was asl:ed of the developer~ "What happens to the hi l ls end canyons?"~ and :he reply wes lli~;rC wi I1 be a~+0-foot cmbankr~ent along Imperlal Ilighway whicf~ will be fully I~ndscaped. Concerning the trafflc~ he stated there ts no beneflt to the current homeowners of having all this traffic gain~ tnto thelr tract~ that it is only a burJen, and suggested making an acccss to Imperir~l Ilighwry at a yr~duated angle and I~e felt it could be done. Ne indicated concern for thc open hills and canyons and promises made ten ye~rs ago for open spaces~ and the cortcept of thts plan shaws the open spaces emounting to back yards and aome front yards. Ne skated they are nok Interested in open spdce that Is somebody's yard area~ but rather open hilis like they have nvw and wliat was represented to tliem when they purchased their homes. He ref~rred to ttie soil conclitions as mentianed prevfously and the U.S. Geological Survey Report which he had quoted from whicl~ implied na home shauld be built h~re. fle Indfcated Mr. ~attencaurt I~ad stated tt~e s1iJe ~reas had been c~used by dr~lnage and indlcated this is exactly what they are referring to an~1 pointed out there was quite a lot uf water in the canyon during thc: last rains~ and felt if this natural waterway is filled~ tt would pregent the samc slide p~oblems. Ne stated his homc is next to o~e af the canyons proposed to be filled and this (s obviously sometliing personal to him; that the canyon wtll gradually be filleci to within 40 feet of the top and he felt tlie Planning Cornnission sl~ould be concerned with the homeawne~s' reasonable expectations when they bought their propertles since, obvtously~ they canr~ot rely on the salesmen. He stated it is 117 feet down from the back of hfs lot to the flaor of the canya~ and the proposal raises that to within 12 feet of his b,~ck yard, and whether you build single or two-story houses~ there will be three or four houses (n hts back yard, He stated it was unreasonable to expect anyone buying n home would be able to envision a canyon of that slze being fillea so that they could put more horties on (t. H~ stated it would be the sart+e as people buying home~ o~ a creek or river and having a developer come in after the homes v~ere sold and s~y they a~e goiny to divert thP river; that this ~s not a river~ but it is a canyon and it is a vi~.w+ and separates them from other development. He stated there are some people east of Anaheim who are trying to inco~porate because they do not want haphazard developmsnt~ so it is not ~ust these homeovrners~ but other people who are concerned. He indicated Mr. dcttencourt had referred to expenses to the Ctty and asked about the assessments to the current property owners~ referring to the recent attempt to assess the homeowners for s~v+age treatment which was soundly defeated~ dnd potnted out if these tracts are developed~ there are going to be assessments to the homecwners. Ne indicated he was deepiy concerned about an article which had appeared in the Los Angeles Times~ Orange Gounty section~ dated January 16~ 1978~ p~rtaining to many allegations pertaining to bribery i~ the removal af this land from an agricultural prese~ve. He indicated he did not know whether those allegations were true. but if the 7/31/7~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31, 1978 7a-G47 EIR N0. 218~ REGLAS5IFICATIO~~ N0. ~E~-79~5~ AND TCNTATIVF MAP ~F TRACT NOS. 10407~ 10408, . 10409 AND 10410 (continuad) . proceedings sre still pendin4 and if this lend waQ or Is tn an agricultur~t preserve, a~d if Anaheim Htlls~ Inc. was r porticlpant, he ask0d why they should now beneflt and suggesCod walting Co sec what happ~ns wit1~ that situation. Na skr~ted it Is n~t Just the 4lestridga part af A~aheim Hllls to be (nvolveci~ but the entire Anaheim Hllis concept because It will set a prccpdont for future development. Ron Pippin~ 54~G Willowick Cl~cle~ Anehelm~ statcd hls lot is at thc north end of one of the canyons praposed to bc filled ancl that five years ago when he pu~chased hls horr~ he was to1~1 the canyons waul~~ remAin Intact. He ref~rred to the EIR dated June. 1972~ which states; NaJor canyons will rrrnain untouched, as will a si~~nificant percentage of the greenbelt arcHS between the canyons and the Ed(son Comprny grcenbelt easement." He (ndicated this pretty much suppor~s his thlnking, Ne stated Chat fliltng the canyon would have a m~Jor effect on th~ propcrty owner, adjacent tu il. Fie presentcd photographs of the two canyons proposed to b~~ filled and indic~ited that the canyon in back of his hcxne has a wldth of about 150 feet, is about 250 feet to thc top~ and goe:s batk about 1200 to 1300 feet~ and tl~ey are proposlnc~ to f i Il cl~at cany~ ~ to within 15 fee[ from fiis lot 1 ine. He polnted out hls house ls on a ~flled lot at the mouth 4f the canyon. Ne stat~d the flll comes to within 60 feet of lhe back portion ~f h(s pr~pc~ty. wil•h slopes of about 20 feet from Che level pad to the front. lie stAted Anaheim Hlils~ inc. (s proposing to start thc flll about 15 feet from his lot line to a hclyht of about 10~- feet~ witf~ approximately ftv~ lots at th~ top of tl~e f(11. He indicated at a previous hesriny a dtscusston was held concerning t~e amount of flat land available for this development. -1e potnted out the five lots which are part of thr fiil would have frontages of 73~ 76~ SO1 and 91 feet, and the de~ths would ran~e from 2Q to 35 feet~ w(tt, tF.e balance of the lots on the slape into thelr back ya~ds. He indicated the only type t,ouses which could be built wo~~ld be cantilevered or stepped-Jown, founclatEon-type houses whlch would not only qive him the view of a filled canyon with a dirt wall~ but five homes bullt with stepped-dawn foundations close to 3~ feet high from _yround level to the roof and it would have a very negetlve effect on his llfe style and the Itfe style of h(s neiqhbors and the tranqutlity of the cenyan. He inclicated he had had a cheice cf lots at the time he purchased his home and picked this iocation because of the canyon. He indicated the current EIR prepared for Anaheim Hills~ Inc. dated May 17~ 197b indicatss~ "The development of chis pro)ect would have a maJor negative visual impact on areas immediately adJacent to the stte." He stated his home ancS other hon-es are immediately adJate,nt to this si2e and he is requesti~g that the Planning Camnission deny Anaheim Hills, Inc, the right to fill the canyon. Ja~ Hell~ representing HACMAC, p~inted out the~e was a condition proposed requiring tt~e payment of street tree fees a~d n:.:ed there are no parkways or street trees tn Anahe(m Hi l ls. Mr. Bettencourt replied that even though there are n~ street trees, Ananelm Hilis. Inc. wouid still have to pay the assessr~ent, and Jay Tftus. Office Engineer~ pointed out the developar would be required to put in one tree per lot. Chairman Herbst stated this ca~dition is included for all developments throughout the C(ty. Mr. Bettencourt stated he would not want ta have any property owner who suffered a lawful misrepresentation to have his rights compromised; that those rights shouid be settled in a courtroom and not at this public heartng. Ne stated th(s is one of the m(sfortunes for those people who are living on the perimeters of the development and he did not know what representations were made by the developer for land wf~ich they did not own~ and if any ~roperty awner was misled, he suggests they seek redress through the ceurts or through the people who made those misrepresentations. He indicated both versions of the Canyon Area General Plan designate this area for lc~w density restdential development and there are two 7/31/78 .. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUIY ~1~ 1~78 78•648 EIR N0. 218~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-5~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TftACT NOS. 10407, 10408~ 10409 AND 1Q410 (c~cntlnued) _ ,,,,,, . - recorded documents shaw(ng this deslgnatlon. Ne stated he did not think there was anything more to say concerninc~ tliis subJect. Mr. settancourt stated a comprelionsive~ geo•technical repnrt of the property reqardinh the grading, cut-and-ftll~ sefety ~f the flll~ condition of tl~e soil, etc,~ has been submitted and is a public record nnd can be held up to any scrutiny by people who are cepable of that scrutlny. He stated this firm is wel) respected and if ~ublic offic(als have any misgivtngs about the report or thc data provided~ they should rr~ke th~se facts known so that the p~ople who Nrepared tl-e rP~orts cen Answer the concerns. Concerning ths expectattons so far ds tlie vie,~ Is concerned ~nci the tranquility of the drea~ he polntad out the natural terraln af the existin~~ Westridge flomes. He sCated people who have purchased a home on tl~e fill state they do not want e continuatio~ of the fill, and he supposed those who purch~secl homes on tt~e cuts would say they wAnt no more cuts~ and pointed out this is a portlon of tf~e natural t~endin~ ridges that run through the enttre region and there has bcen no dram~ttc alteration In the iand form~ and the reaso~ the cuts are occurring is obvlous And che anly alternative tn the fil! is ta export the material off-site~ which is a gre~ter cost ~nd inconvenience. I~e scated controlled gracitng resuits ln a rtx~re pleasing envir~nment. Concerning the buffertny~ he pointed out the tae af the slope is wcll wicfiin the(r property line~ about 15 feet~ and pointed out the cortn~unity association rnaintains slopes and open space. Ile stated givGn the san~e set ~f circumst~nces on flat~ level lAnd~ other than the rear y3rd setbacks~ th~y wuld legelly be that close together. Ne statec these will be cantilevereci-type houses which have worked quite s~iccessfully (n other areas and do provlde reasonable separation. Weston Pringle~ 2651 East Chapman Avenuc~ Fullerton~ stated the traffic study dated July 17~ 1978 was revi~red and approved by the City Traffic Engtneer; that the count was taken during July from hbnday marninu until Wednesday evening (basically twu days) and that obviously it 1s Impossible to cou.~t traffic 3G; days and average it out, and there are no traffic counts evar made that have that kind of accu~acy. He stated school was not in sesslon and that has an effect~ hawever~ sinGe the~e was no school~ more recreational traffic would tend to make up the lack of schoc~l trips~ but those trips do not occur at the same time and that was why they did not deal with peak-haur traffic~ but peak-hour traffic Is addressed in Table II af the reporc. Ne stated even though some familtes were on vacation~ the number of trips was found to be 10.8 per day per family~ wl~ich is very closs to other traffic studiPs conducted throughout Southern California which they feel supports the validity ~f the count. He stated there is no exact number in traffic. that traffic is a vartabie. He explained capac(ty is based on experience and study of what has happcned in similar cases and it is noC a pure nurnerical capecity~ and that peak-hour traffic and other things make a difference. t~e stated the 120Q-volume ftgure is based on the Orange County E.M.A. study of Misslon VieJo where they had a number of problems wlth through traffic on residential streets and after studies it was felt this was a level resulting in reiatively safe streets. Concerning their references to the traffic rrom the developments on Pra(rie and Pointe Quissett~ he stated they are included on page 8. He stated the 85~ ftgu~e quoted by Mr. Bettencourt of the traffic which would utllize Imperlal Ntghway ~ras incorrect; that figure is 75~ utilization as shown on Figure ill of th~ report. which is based on accepted methods of calculatlon. He stated he checked the City's accident reports and only two acctdants were ~eported in Lhat area and evidently the streets have been operating fairly well. He stated the proposed traffic condttions in this area are no different than the 7/31/74 ' ~ ~ ~ . MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JULY 31~ 1978 .~ 78-649 EIR N0. 218~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7g-79-5. AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10407• 1040f~~ 10409. AND 10410 (contt~~~ed) --------------------------•-~- ~--- mefority of the subdivision tracts throughout Southern California and there ls no reoson to say th~re wlll be problema in the area. Larry Ruland~ 5407 W~stri~~yu Road~ stated he Itves on the opposite side of Nohl Ranch Road and is President ~f the home~wners association ~nd is representing thc b~ard of dlrector~~ indtcating there has Geen a lot of concern about thls proJect ~nd chAllenged the Commis~lo~ers to look At the canyon that is goin,y to be fllled, Ne stated~ speakin~ f~r h(mself dncl not representinc~ onyo~e. he felt there Is a logicai solution Lo this which would s~lve many of the problems, painting out Fiis s~ggestlon o~ the plan which included e1lminatiny the 1tt hrxnes proposed tn be isolated nnd not fllling tn the canyon~ providtng addittonal access with cul-dc~-sac streets~ etc. He stated the reason he hed suggcsted th(s alternative (s tt~at even th~u9h he lives on the ~~~posite side of Nohl Ranch Road~ his children wtll use th~t road tn go to school and he ts concerneJ about thelr safety. Neathwr Tuyong~ 5436 East Spyglass, statr.d she would likc to point out one amission made by Mr. Bettencourt when he pointed out tt~e exits onto Wtilc~wick and ImperiAl Hl~hway; that he dld not polnt out most af the people from the area would go tqw~+rds the I~ewport Freeway ancJ there is a big volume of trafflc there~ and this ts a street cor•ner w(th no view and is vet'y danyerous. Tt1E. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLASEU. Chairman Nerbst stated he haJ probably been involved in the developrr,ent of Anaheim Hills es a Cortmissioner as lon,y as It has been going on; that one of the things in the original EIR Is that main canypns will remain as they are. Ne stated ~t the time he had gone through the original EIR~ he could not even Imac~ine a canyon such as this would ever be fllled and he did not think any of the h~mearners who had brought p~operty could consider that; that none of the other Commissions would have thought scxnething ltke this would be filled. Ht stated the stat~ of the art is here and the devclopers car, move the htlls around anywhere they want~ and he hac~ been polnting tfiis out for quite sane tlme, but he could not allow a~yone to go into that canyon and fill tt. Ne steted they are ectually proposing to flll in a canyon that is suppossd ta be preserved as one of the omenities of Santa Ana Canyon and is probably about as deep ax any canyon in that area. He stated one of the things thet caused the Grading Ordinance was the facf that before the G~ading Ordinance was adopted~ Anaheim Nills~ inc. had flattened out a good portio~ of the hllls befare the City or the Planning Cammission realized what w~s happening. Ne pointed out~ again~ the origina) EIR says main canyons will be preserved~ and this is a matn canyon end every effort should be made to pres~rve it; that these people have bought thei~ homes and he considers this canyon to be beautiful~ even though others might not, and to have it filled full of dirt and ending up with a m.3nufactured slope, iS not what he feels was the Intention of M aheim Hills~ Inc. when they started development in this area. Mr. Bettancourt stated the canyon proposed to be filled and the area th~ persons tn oppositlon have asked the Comniss{an to view has SO feet of fill al~eady and the natural contours of the dratnage course which extended down across Nohl Ranch Road for thousands of years has been filled or these homes In 4lestridge weuld not have been built. Ne stated the proposal is for continuation of the residential street pattern In this area. He pointed out the separation between the residential areas. He stated there is no definitTon in the Grsdtng Ordinance of what constitutes a major or minor tar~yon. 1/31/78 MINU7ES, ANAHEIM CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUIY 31~ 19]H 76-6$0 EIR N0. 218~ R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 7~-7q-5~ AND 7ENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10407~ 10408~ 10409~ ANU 10410 (continucd) Chairman liarbst stetcd thls ts a Jcep hole and he wauld dqfEQ it is a maJor canyon and moving t.u mtlllon yards af e~rth Is a big move. Mr. aettencourt pointed out (t will he necessary to move 1 mlllfan yards of earth Just to improve Imperlal Nlghway to create the embankment. He stated~ in larne measure, Cheir dealgn of a tract is a function of the controls set by Imnerial Nlc~hwey and also by the exfsting elevations and dralnage patterns. He frlt tf this is to bc consldered a maJor canyo~~ more deflnltion is needcd. 11e pointed out that as a land owner under the agrlcultural preserve agreernent~ they have to preserv~ one ecr~ out of Pve ry four as open space~ anJ tl~cy felt that i~ a seve~e enc~ugh penaity. Chai~man Herbst stated he felt amenities ~rc being destroyed and he dld nnt Aqree with tt and felt Aneheim Nills, Inc. should preserve the amenlty of the cany~n, ancl polnted out the homeowners have the protection of the Planning Cormnisslon to prevent the hills from being moved around to dGVelop more homes. Mr. Bettenc.ourt stated in the simple creation of the lots and the general leveling of the ~Idges, the earth hes Lo go somewhere and the aicernot(ves are to move tt somewhere else on the slte~ which means a lower spot to be filled or the maJor-type. truck-tra(lr.r operatlon~ such as was dane when tF~e Balclwin p~opcrty was oeveloped. Ne stated they have trled to des(gn this project as a balenced operetion; that thls is not anly a functlon of presPrving the canyor~s, but it is the practicality of d~ainage~ street grades~ utlllty separat(on, etc.~ and preservin~ thesc canyons off-sitc is an amenity to serve the convenience a~id desires of existing residents. Commissione~ Tolar referr~d to thc~ original objectivES of the development of Anaheim liills and potnted out one of th~ ~b.jectives was to leave the canyons~ such as these two whlch are in excess of 100 feet deep~ in their natural state, ancl (f they cannot be developed as natura) pieces of propcrty and around the natural contours of the land~ then they should noX be developed at all. lie stated he recoqnizes 1 million yards of earth would have to be rrbved +.o (mprrve Imperial Highway~ but he diJ not think Imp~rial Highway should be extended lnta the City of Orange anyway. He steted It woulci appear they could develop thts area into some beautiful estates end contour tl~em to the land rather than trying to meet flat land standards in Che hill and canyon area. He stated he had stood in the canyon and could not envision, even wlth the tapo~ what ~t is gotng to laak Ilke after it has been filleJ~ and he would not want to be one of the property avners below because there are gotng to be some bty problems~ especially tf there is another winter like the one we ,just had. He stated he has never seen such a disaster as in Westridge And it Is a good exampie what went wrong before we really uncierstood the p~ohlems~ ~nd this development would cornpound thos~ problems. Mr. Bektencourt stated the City's own soils rcport does not support that view. Ne statad there is no engineering analysis that the soils investiqation ihey have done ~nd the geological study is any way faulty. Commiss ioner Tolar siatecl he can see~ ~ncf he had driven through Wes*_ri~lge last winter~ that same of the houses seem to be on wheels; thet they are movt~g and he is not taktng Lhe sidt of the opposition; that he recognizes the hills are going to be developed some day in some fashfon~ but they have to be dcvelopeci un~fer the original obJectives. Mr. Bettencourt st~ted they have followe~ the genera) contours of the land and there are four r-wJor divisions involved wittti two canyons end two rldges, with a gentle leveling to bring those together, but it is partly a function of street grade requ~~er~~rnts of the area 7/31/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNII~G COMMISSION~ JUi.Y 31r 1~1A ~~~~'~~ EIR N0. 21~, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7$~79'5, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10407~ 10408~ 10~0 AI~U 10410 continueci . and is the safest develapment ancf Is consist~nt with all Clty codes; that they heve folla+ed the City Counc(1 policy on gradlnq. th~ Gredinc~ Ordlnancc, ttic Subdivlslon Qrdinances, end the new Suhdlvlainn Ordinences. Canmissloner Ba rnes stateJ whun the Tesk Force studfed the Grndlnc~ Ordlnanc~~ they he!~ dlscussed one of the n~a,ior probiems would bP thc foct that thcrr, was no Ilmlt~tion on th ~ number of yards cf eerCh that coul~ be moved and~ nAturAlly~ the devPlopers did n~t want that flgure includad anJ It w as Icft out. but unfortunately th~t has turneci ~ut to be A m(staka ~~cause the develop~~rs havr not had much directlon anJ ~t is a feult of the 6radin~ Orainance. She StritPd~ however. ther~ ere other certain guic~elines in the GrnC r al Plan for the cenyon and that rx'~st people on the Tesk Force~ includinci clevel~pers~ etc.. would generally a~ree with th~ concept~ ~f ti-c General Plon and with thP q uality of the lif~ style of the area. She stated it sec~ms ta the P1Annlnq Commtyston thnt tlit people who live in the area come in anci ser.m to 1(ke wh~t they have yoeir.n and thelr property values f~ave gone up~ an~ Anahe(m Ilills~ Inc. has done a g~od Jab for them~ 5ut they do n dt want any more. However~ she felt this case was qutte different fran oths~ Instu~ces beeause there (s to be an ewful loc of soil moved and one of the lergest ca~yons ts proposed to bc fllled. She steted most af Anaheirn Hills, In~. proJects havc becn approved and there h ave boen certain concesslons mAde: by the developers ~nd the property awners. She stated ev ~ n Mr. Schor has admitted the Gradin~~ Ordinance has ~roven to be be;neficial. Shc stated she underst~nd~s what kinds of commitments An.~heim N{tls~ Inc, has m~de and hc~w dlfftcult It (s to develop th(s area, hut she was Jisturbed when she r~ad the 9rading would probauly uncover lots af rocks~ cre~+ting a barren appearan~~~ but she could see th~ ne:cessity at tit~s in clofng thesc~ thin~s. She felt everyonc (s in ae~reerr~nt that the flll ln the canyo~ is the most disturbing aspect of this p~o~ect. Sh~ felt maybe this is the araa where some of the ideAS discussed by the Task Force could be incorporate~ and agreed cantllevered-type hausing does work in cert~ln areas~ and she felt the canyo~s could b~ preserved by use of Innovative-type housing. She ~tated she w~uld llke to see thc ceny ons rert-ain the same. or baslcally th^ same~ anci some compromise between what is proposed an d what would probably be In the best lnterest vf all pec~le in the canyon could be reachP d. She ststed she knows Anaheirn Hi I ls~ Inc. t~as tried ve~-y hard~ but in the interest of good planning, she could not support this project in vtew of all the adverse env(ronme~tal ef fccts . ChAl~man Herbst scated tiiis involves more than just filling of a maJor canyan; that it involves other canyons downstream~ such as Weir Canyon~ etc.; that the state of the ar t(s here anJ if the hills are to be preservpd, th(s is a starttng place. Commissioner Johnson stated he has not been on the Commission as lo~g as the Chai~man, but he is a pioneer in the hills And has walked at the bottom of these canyons for many ye ars. He stated he fought the development of Westridge when ic was arig(nally developed and vaas almost a lo~e voic~ in the Comrnlssion at it~a': time~ but now he knows he was unreasonable at that ttme, the Task Force was developed, and there has been a gene~al retreating se r(es of rules for this dcveloper to follow. He stated it had gotten to the poinL whe~e Anahelm Hills~ Inc. said if they could not do this kind ofi grading they could not develop the hilis. He pointed o~at we were wrong in the beg(nniny and there were se~ere cuts righ t back of Peralta Hills which were almost criminal. hle felt Anaheim Nills, Inc. has taken too big a bite in fllling in thes~. canyons and felt the overall cc~ncept must be changed. He stated an ex:reme example of developing ~he httls would be lots that are divided fi rst and the lot Ilnes remnining the seme with all development on th~t lot, and when it is finished~ it would be pretty close to the natural contours of the hi11s~ but if we we n t that far~ it would ~~obably stop development because edery piece of ground is different a~d evCry house is different. Ne stated he could not support this proJect as present ~ d 7/31/73 A* ~1 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 31, 1978 7~'652 EIR N0. 218~ RECLASSIfICATION N0. 18•79~5~ ANO TENT p.TIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10407~ 10408~ ~0409 nNO ta4to (conti_ nued) _ .,. and would I( ke to see ~ n~e.jor chenge in the concep~• af the massivr~ f i l l. tle stated he d) d not expact to see s~gebrush on evcry p~opesrty a~d i nu!cated ha kn~~s thls developer h~s done a lot for the City by revising plans when necessery. He poi~~l~cf out these property r.wners are happy with their development ~nd a lot of resistnnce hfl~ bQen built tn. but being a represen~etive of the City~ he: would hav~ to support them at thts pnlnt. Philip Bettencourt stated they wr~te to all ~ecord ed prepe~rty owners a~ the trect bounda~lss and invlted them to look at the tract d~signs. Ne potnted out they have telked wlth the cornmunity associatlons~ tl~e board of directors. the Hill and Cenyon Municfpnl Advisory Cammittee (HA4-IA.C) ~ Planning Cnmmission a~~d Cfty Councl l and indicatcd chey r~~e looking for a place to st+~rt, ancf the person who m~st be consldered Is tht future home buye r. lie ( ndl cated they hdd presentod a pl an wh 1 eh I s i n conf~rma~ce wi tl- C i ty codes ; that they are trying to stay competttive wlth other hlllsld~~ devclopments an~ referred to other proJects in other ~reas that are movinq lt+rq~ amounts ot' di rt, such es 6.y ml 1) ior~ cubir, yards ln Misslan VIe)o, 3 mi l i lon ~ubtc yerds In Newport I~eech~ an~l A mt l l lon cubic yards in Turtle Rock. Chalrman Herbst suggested that Anaheim Hills~ Inc. go back t~ thelr original EIR and follaw its guldelines and save the ma,~or cenyons a s an ar.-enity~ and felt thfs ls where they heve gone wrong with this pro,Iect. He st~ited the canyons are amenities to the ~eople whA buy and enJoy their properties~ not Just co those people Ilvinc~ there~ but to th~s~ persans driving thro~gh the area or livinq in or.h e r areas af the canyon who are alsn concerned and do not expect to see the hi 1 Is maved around and giant cr~nyons f 1 l led up, whlch rulns ttieir view. Ne indicated the Plannlnn Cor~missiun is not saying thls ~~'a should not be developed; that they kr~aw it has to be developeci, but he want3 the ~~~~~.~.'es that aro there left ana built arouncl~ and that was his opinlon of what the oric~(nal ~, stated. Comnissioner Tolar dsked Nr. Bettencc~urt if he would like a cantinuance. Mr. Bettencourt replted thcy were trYiny [o s~lvacae a lot af work and he felt a continuance would be tn arder ~end lie was thankful they t~ad prepared e transr,ript so that he could see the concerns of tl~e Commission~ end asyed for a four-week continuance in order for them to look at their plan and see what could be done. Comnissioner Tolar indicate~i the persons in appositlon Frill not be notifiad of the hearing and suggested that it be ai~ evening meeting. Jan Hall stated the revised plans were not receiv~~~in time for HACMAC to have an oppo~tunity to get in~ut from the homeowne~s and so they decicJed not to make a decision~ and did not want that to happen ~yain. She statecithey wer: supposed [o be the farum for the paople and did not wanc Anaheim Hi l ls, Inc. to sl ip thc plans in off-agenda agaln. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered a motton~ scconded by Commissioner King and MOTIOM CAR~t3E0 (Commissloner Linn being absent), that conslderation of the af~rementioned item be continued to the regular meeting of the Planning Comnisstan on August 28, 1978~ at 7:00 p.m., as requested by the petitioner. 7/31/78 ~~ , MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLAN' NG COMMISSIOH~ JULY 31, 1970 7B-6S3 AOJQURNMENT There being ne further businsss~ Comm{ssioner King offere d• motion. second~d by Cnn~ission~r Herbst and MOTION CAitRIED (Commi ssloner Linn bai~g sbsenr.) ~ tl~at the meeting b~ •dJourned. The meeting w~~ ~dJourned at IOt25 p.m. Respe~ctfu) ly submt tted , ~~~1~ ~ ~ f~~ 2 ~L `~Or Cdi[h L, Narris~ Secre~ary AnAhelm City Pl~nning Commlssion ELH:hm 7/31/78