The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1979/01/29i ctcy riait Anahe!m~ Californle January 29~ 1979 RIGUL'1K MEE't'ING UF THE ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC, COMMISSION REGULAR - The regular meetfny of the Anahefm City Planninca Commissio~ was colled to M~ETING - urJ~r l,y Cha(rman tlQrbst ~t 1:~~ p.r~., January ~!-~ 1479~ in the Counci) GhAmhp~~ a quorum beiny present. PRCSCr~T - Chr~l rman: HerL,st Commissioncrs: ~ust~ore~ Johnson, Kiny~ Toiar Cortxnissioner Barnes arrived at 3:1~ p.m. Al~SkNT - Co~nnissioncrs: Uavid AL50 PRCSCtiT - Jack Whitc Deputy Cltv Attorney Jay Tttus Offlce Engineer Annik:i Sentaleh[i As~,istant Uirector for ?.oninc~ Jay Tashiro Assu~iate Plannpr Edith Harris Planning Con^+ission Secretary Pt~DGE OF - The Pledge of AI1e~iance to tl,e Fla~j was le« by Commissioner (iushore. A~LEGIAI~CE APPROVAI OF - Comr,iissioner Tolar nffered a m~tlo~~ seconded by Commissioner Johnson 7HE MIIJUTES anc! MOTIOt~ GA~'RIEU ~~~~~:~issio~ers Barnc~ anci David being absent). that the mi~utes of the meeti~_ of J~nuary 1;~ 1':~J~? be approved as submitted. I TCM t10. 1 R~~AYTVE UECLARP,T I QtJ ONDI O~~AL E LRMI1 N0. 1'!2(1 A DRIVE-THR~~~G~i RESTAUP~'~f~T on proper consisting of approxima~ely !1.~: acre east side of Euclid Stre~t~ hav6ng a located approximately y~; feet north presently cl,assifieJ CL (CQMMIERCIAI, CON'T+t~UCO PUaLiC IIEARING: PLOTI~,IN-aOSEN nEVELOP- MEhIT CO., 133S7.1deshingtan Baulevard~ ~os Rngeles~ CA 9' O1,6. AGE~IT; FP,NJCH I SE REALTY I t~TERSTATE CORN., 1~9F,~ Nilshlre Boulevard~ Los Angeles~ CA ~,~0~2~+. Petitloner requests permissio~ to ESTABLI511 ty describe.: ~s a rectangularly-shaped parcei of land having a fronta~ae of a~proxim.~tely 125 feet on the maximum depth of a~proxlm~tely 272 feet~ and betng of tiie centerline oP Crescent Avenue. Property LiMITED) :O~IC. Subject petitiain was conttnued from th~e meeti~gs of December 4 and 1II, 197$ and January 3 and l,~i~ 1979 t~t the requc:st of the Fetitioner. It was naked the p~ticioner requested a[wo-week continuance. ACTI01.: Commissioner Kiny offered a motion~ seGOnded by Comr^~ssioner Tolar and M4TfON CARRIEO (Gommissioners Barnes and David being absent), tFiat consideratio~ of oetltian for Condttional Use P~rmit No. 1~2~) be continued to th~ regularly-scheduled meeting of the Pu~a~ im City Pla~,ning Commission on February 12~ 1!~7~, at the request of the petitioner. 79-64 1/29/79 MINUTES~ ANANCIM GITY PLArINING COMMISSIQN~ JANUARY 2~~ 1979 I TEr~ NU. G ~~TVE ~ECLARATION ~~S • CA ON t~0. ~ 9~ 2 r7A~I - E . ty~6 ~ _____._.~ further dascribed as 420 Soutti Hea~ (RESIQE~IT1/1L/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. 79-65 PUf3LIC NEARING. ONNCR5: JONATIIA~J T. Y. YEtI~ ET AL~ 420 South Beach Boulevsrd~ Anaheim~ CA 92801~. Proparty desc~ibeJ es a rectenqularly-sheped parcel of land consisttng of epproximetely 13a feet on the east slcie of Beach Boulevard~ h~ving ~ maximum depth of appr~xlmacely 23N feet~ being located ~pproximately 52a feet north af the centerline of Orange Avcnue, and Boulevard. Praperty presently classlfied RS-A-43~4~0 REQUES7EQ CLASSIFICATION: CL ,I;OMMERGI!-L~ I,IMITED) ZONE. REQU~STED CONU1710NA1_ USF: (0 EXPAND AN EX1571NG MOTEL WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM STRUf,7URAL HE IGFIT. It was noted the petitic,~er had requested a two-week conttnuance. ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offered a mation~ ~ conded by Commtsslaner King and M0710N ~D (Commissioners Harnes end David being absent)~ that consideratton of the aforementtoned item be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of the An~helm City Plann(ng Cammisston on Februa ry 1~~ 1~79~ at the request of the petlLl~ner. ITEM N0. 7. CONTINUED PUaLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FREDERiCK R. ~'(~VE DECLARATIOt~ AND RUTIt E. SACHER~ P.O. Box ~18~ San Juan Cepistrano~ Np 0 L U E ERMIT N0. 1923 CA 32675. AGENT: CURTIS KINDRED~ 1120 South Brtstol~ Santa Ana, CA 92104. Petitioner requests permission to ESTAGLISN RETAIL SALES OF FURNITURE IN Tt1E ML ZONE on property described as an irregularly-shaped parce) ~f land con~istinq of approxtmetely 4.4 acres having a fronta~e of app roxlmately ;20 feet an the east slde of Krremer Place~ having a rnaximum deptt~ of approximat~ly 372 feet~ bei~g l~cated approximately 250 feet sauth of the centerline of L~ Palma Avenue~ and further described ~~s 1040 Kraemer Place. Property presently ciassified MG (INDUSTRtAL, LIMITED) ZONE. There was no one indicat(ny thelr presencG in opposttion to subJect request~ and althaugh the st~ff report to the Planning Commission dated Janua ry 29~ 1979 was not read at the public hearing~ it +s referred to and made a part of the minutcs. Curtis Ki~dred~ President of Curtis Furniture~ agent~ was present ta answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. Chat~man Herbst explained tht~ reque~st is thc result af an actlon taken by thc Zonin.-, Enforcement Officnr due to the nonconforming use in the industrtal area. Commissior~er Tolar asked how long this operation has been at this location~ nd Mr. Kindred replled approximately seven months. Commissioncr To~ar asked if restricttons ~eyarding the use of this property had been dtscusse~ prlor to tha lease being signed~ and Mr. Kindred replied he understood it could be uscd gor a we~ehouse with some r~tail sales and :hey plan to use thts gactlity p~iraari ly for warehausing for thei ~ other threz stores~ with son~s ~etai 1 seles. t/29/79 ~ MINUTES~ AMANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JANUARY 29~ 19,79 79-66 EIR NEGATIVE DECLANRTION AND CONqIT10NAl USE PERMI,T___,NO,L,1~,z„j„ (contlnu +) Commls:loner Tolar ~sked Mr. K~~~dred what he would cnnslder th~ prims ryr use at this time~ and M~. Kindred replied that the uses are approxlmately 5~-SO for warehausing and reta(1 salea. Co+nm{ssioner Tolar asked th~ length of th.e lease~ and Mr. Kindred replled flve years with s five ar,d five opt(on, Chsirmsn Herbst stoted h~ ha~ nQ obJectton to the warehouse partlo~ of t','s operatlon. but that this use had gone in illegally and they had been flying balloons In the beginning an~ the signing I~dtcates this {s a retatl operation ~Ight in thc midcile of our industrial area; and tha~ this ls the typc of problem the Chambe~ ~f Commerce~ the Redevelopment Commission and others hav~ been stronqlY oppos~d to. and .Just recently the Pianninq Cc~mmission had denled another fu~niCure store a permlt to operate in the industrial erea. Ne felt retail sales 1~ )ust the wron~ thing for the tndustrlal a~ea ar~c that It Is difftcult to protect th~ (ndustrtal integrlty when thts type of operatton is there illegally. Mr. Ktndred pointed out therc ~re other similar operattons for retail sales tn chis area and it seemed the Planning Commission is ptcki~g on Curtis Furniture. Chaf~man fierbst pointed out the Planning Commission will be handltng the other Illeqai operations in this same manner. Comnissioner Tolar asked Mr. Kind~ed if hIs other three stores are lc~cated in commercinl areas, and he replied that they were~ and Commissioner Tolar asked if he had be~n aware cl~is was an industrial area when he selected this s(te. Mr. Klnd~ed replied that he was soliciced by the owner of t~~~ property~ Frederick Sactirr, and the owner had knawn they ~lanned to apen a furniture store; that there was a retail establishment at this locatlon before and he had no reas~n to believc that this was nat a ratail area; and that the othsr stores surrounding the property are retai' and they have been there for some ttme. He stated he actually uses the property for warehousing for the other three stores~ with some retail sales~ ~Tr,d the othe~ estt~blishments in the area are strictly retail. Comm(~sioner Bushore potnted out thc Commission is not dlscussing thc other busi~esses in the a~ea. He r~ferred to Mr. Kindred's statement that he it using this facllity for rrarehousing for the other three stoc-es and indicated he h-~ vi~ited the site anc! had seen ~-ery ltttle warehou~.,ing and dtd not th!nk th~ee stores could be werehoused from this xocation. Ne asked how this use would benef~t the industrial area. Mr. Kindred replied he felt th~ entire complex should be braught Into consider~tion and that the entlre complex shnuld be rexoned. He felt this use wou~ h~nefit any rrea because they do hire people; and that th~y are convenient to the seway for shopping and are trying to keep the sales in Lhe City of Mahetm and felt the establishment would be good for the City of Anahe(m. Chairman Herbst explained that retail ope~ations have ueen allowed in the industriai areas by conditional use pe nnit when thty can servic~ the industrtal area~ such as banks. etc.~ but that he did not see how ~ furniture store would servFce the indus.r~al area. Robert Frost, also representtng Curtis Furniture, askcd how this use could upset the industrial area when th~re is no other industrial uses in ~!~P area. 1 /29/ 79 -6 MINUTLS~ ANAH~It•I CITY PLANNINr COMMISSION~ JANUARY 2~-~ 1979 79 ~ coi-tinued) EIR NEGAT~vE QECLARAT'ION AND C4NOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.___19,~,. ~ Comml~sioner Bushore polnted uut rct~!1 o~eratians bould lave to goiclear~around^th~srial area. He explat~cd people gettin4 off the frea+sY w intersectian. He asked the City Attorney If ~Se:n~al r~oulc~ be the best way to I~andle this request and thon allaw a certein nurrba~ of days f~r the pctitioner t~ cces~ a~d deslst. Jack White~ Deputy Cit~ Attorn~y~ stated if ~h~ P~~^^~^e~abletbyithegappllcantsto~theeC{ty ~f the c~ndltio~al use perr~it~ then that action 's ePP~ Cou~cil be~ore any other actlun could be taken. Chalrmon Herbsk state<1 the wareho~?~ uset1~r~nit.~he operati~n would be Allowable~ but the retail portlon needs the conditlon~ P Commissioner Johnson exploir,ed t° thiheefurtherrgrowth~ofhtl-atearcA~to~in iustrys~that'thp the industrlel are~a s~meh~w inhibit large companies and fact~~ries look~n~ f~~ a sitc will not come inCo an area ~f th~tathe blockage of access for their trucks~ etc.; that it was hut'thataslome9owne saare rentin~ CitY of Anahelm would opt for a clean industrial area~ spacas for retall sales; t+nd tt~at it falws °th~SCaPcanwas~pl~cds~oHetstatedAhe doesenatP problems, and explained tl,is is not the ay knav whose rosportsibility this is~ but felt if the owncr had misrepresented the property the~ industrial area to the leas~ would not have much validity. f~~ ~x~~etail operations,wl~ich are compa~lble with have tho arsa zon~d for ind,.stry and that some the Industrial area can be allowed~ but he did ,ot feel retail sales of f-irniture Is ~~ area. campatible a~d should be located in a comrnrrc ~ M~. Frost asked if there would be any ch~nce for rezoning this area~ anci Chairman Herbst repited that he ~iid nvt think there womu~'dis~o^e~off1thefr-ein entrancesCinto thcsindustriae middle of an industr(al area and Krae area. Frederick Sacher~ oviner a^d devel~per of subject property~ prese~ted photographs of the ~f F~untain Yallcy wlt~ch is property. He explained there is a similar c~roi@~t in the h~~dyubJected to this type known ax furniture ~ow"; that in the beginning that c(ty but has found later it fs a good thing for the city and .,re1e~~ke tovSh~Pffor~ pen~it~ that (n L~guna Niguel there is also a furnlture d!strict: that peope~inQ ~n this area and furniture in ±hts tY~e of area; that bas~cally this ~stronaly5thatPthis wculd be a goo~+ it has tak~n on thabecauseCOfrtheerevenues it,would brinc~ En. tV~ing for the City Commissioner Tolar asked Mr. Sacher if he was the ori~inal owner and developer ~f thts praperty and if he was aNare of the restrictions in the industrial area. Iled he was aware of the res'~ictions, but felt what ~+as ~oing on in the M~. Sacher rep • a q~d thing Por the City. a~ea should be considered~ and felt this q Carmissioner Tolnr stated he found Mr. SaWee~ost~~ve zo~ing andnzoringiis what theSPlanning he felt would be q~od for Lhe City that Camenission is a:l abaut, and here enen^~delected o~vinlr.tedtheti dustrial zonin9 rndvplan retail sales in *he in~ustrial are the area himself. Ht stated inemo;~edrfor conditional `useePermitsiandtthcsa+nersevery Industrial zones, tenants have pP retiated Mr. Sacher b~ing so candid~ but that w;sely have not sha~wn up. HQ stated he app they saw fit~ Chere would be tf every a+ner elected to develop th~ir ~~operty the way tota) chaos. He indicated he had a lot of discomfort with a property owner telling the Pta~ntng Commtssion that recail sales wili be bette~ in thls area than what the b 2(~ding 1 / 9 79 n MINUTES~ ANAtIEIM ~IY. PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY ~9, 1979 19~~8 EIR NEGATIVE ~ECLARATION AND_CONDI_TIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 1923 (~onClnu~d) waa built for; thet he probably would hove voted tn favor uf this rcquest befare he had heard the testimcmu by the awner because he has~ (n the p~st~ supported same tyre of buffer zo~3 aloR~ the freew~y in the indu~trlal area. He stated hn had supportod a reeent request for this type of use. but found some dlacomfort wlth thts request because the owner has Jusl elected tu devclop the Industriel center inta primerily a retsl) sales facility~ And this (s the reeson there a~e p~Qblen~s in the indus+crlal area and why the Chambec• ot Corn~nerce~ the Ctty~ end others are concerned about th~ vlolatlons~ because te~ants havP leased these bulldings under the guidance ~f thr. property awners and have bcen pul (n the positlon of Improving the property and estahlishino tlleg~~l opera:lons In vlaletinn of the zoning ordlnances. Chairmsn Nerbst reterred to thc requnst which was denied re:~, .ly and the fact they had pointed ciirectly ko Curtis Furniture~ and feit it is b~~tnninc~ t~ causr. a bre~~.dawn of the e~tire industrial rone. Commtsstoner Tolar Asked N~. Sacher why the Planninn Commission should support a cortrn~rclal/retail onc•rAtt~7n In the industrlal zane~ and Mr. Sacher replted he felt it would be a good thing for the City because of the revenues tf~at come into Che City. He stated he would like to discuss the traffic and parking. Chainnan Herbst stated the retall operatton deters other iRdustrlal grawth, Mr. Sacher stated thet sYatement Is true and he cauld not spesk against it. He stated he would llke to speak very much in favor of this request becAUSe of what has happenGd in other places~ such as Fountain Valley~ where they had a lot of fear reqarding the parking and treffic: in the b~ginning~ but later have found !t to be a good thing fo~ the cfty. Cornnisstoner Tolar asked Mr. Sacher why he had electec'. to qo ahead and automatically convert ma~y of f,is spaces to cornmerclallretail ~ses and lease them. knowing full well the uses which ere allawed in the industrial area without first coming to the Cortimtssion for permissicx~. Mr. Sache~ replied he realized tie had made a mista~e in that ~espect. Commissioner Tola~ asked haw many units Mr. Sacher owrred anu haw much space is already leased to retail users~ and he repltcd he owned four bulldings. Commissianer iolar asked if he considered thts ~peration Industrial or retail/commercial~ and Mr. Sacher stated much of it !s retail an that is the reason they are requesting a conditfonal use permit. CommissiAner Johnson stated the Planning Commission does nat like to be in a posltion of hurtin~ people financlally and it would be nice to say that grawth ts growth~ but wa~ted the petl~ioner to understand the Planntng Commissi~~ers are land planners and on legislntive dect~tons are not allawed to consider economtcs; that In Judgmenr.al decisiens they can consider economlts to t~ certain dec~ree, but `elt economics tio the Clty bre not a pert of the burden placed a~ the Commission by the City Council; and that as a land planner hP could not support this conditional use perrnit request. Mr. Ssche~ stated as far as the revenues are concerned, they a~e ve ry comfc rtable for him and Are not critical, and the economics pencil out for him either way the City rr~y decide to go regardtng the development ~f thts area. AGTION; Commtssioner Jahnson offered a motion, seconded by Commissic,ner King and MOTION CARR ED (Commissianers Barnes and David being absent)' that the Anaheim City Planning t/29/79 f ~ MINU?ES~ ANAIIEIM CITY I'LANNi~IG COMMI~SION~ JANUP,RY 29~ 1~79 79'~~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~2~_(cantinued) Commisslan has revicw~ed thb proposal to permit retall salcs of furniture in the ML (Industrlal~ llmited) Zonc on en i~regularly~shoped parcel of lnn~i constscing of approxtmntely 4.4 acres havtny a fronta~ae of anpr~ximatcly 52~ f~et o~~ !F~e aest sl,ie of Krnemer Place~ having a mnximum cJepth of spprox(mately 372 f~et~ bc,n4 located app~oxlmately 25~ feet south of the cs;~terllne ~f La Palma Avcnue; and does hcreby approve the Negatlve Declaration from the requlrem~nt to prep~re an Pnvl~onmentel Impect report on the basfs that there would be n~ signlficant indlviduai or cumul~tlve ~dverse environmental tmpact due Co tt~e appruval of this Negatlve Declaration slnce the Anahslm General Plan dest~nates the subject property for generai (ndustrlal land uses commeneurate with the p~oposal; that no se~sttive environmental (mpacts are Involved in the proposal; thet the Initit~l Stucfy submitted by the ~+etttton~r in~ficnt~s n~ signiftc~+nt indlvidual or cumulative advers~ ~~vt N nmental Impacts; ai~d that the Negative Ucclaratton substantlating the foregotng ftndings ts on file in the City of Anahelm Planning Deparcme~t. Commisslaner Johnson offe recf Resolutfon No. PC79-1~ a-id moved for its passage and adoptlon~ that tha Anahelm City Ptannin~ Commisslon ~1oes her~by deny Petitlon for Condlttonel Use Pcrmit No. 1923 or~ the basis that th~ tllegal use of retall sal~s of furniture is not compatible with the laraer surrounding i~dustrtai areA and that the Commtssion has to vote on thls matter as a matter ~f good land planninq an~1 not economlcs to the C i ty . Cliai~man Herbst lndicateci he would Iike the finding added thnt the req~est is the result of action taken by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Prior to voting, Commis~loner Tolar added he felt an obligatlo~ to express hls thouqhts that he w~s not qoinq to support the resolutl~n for deniAl for the same reasons he had suppo~ted a p~evious projcct tn thaC he fclt this type of use would p m vide a buffer zonc alo~g the freeway fe; the industrial arca and tt is a good use ,~or the aree. Nc stated. havever~ he dld not like the idee ~f the property awner trving to land plan his own pro)ect~ dlsregardinr, the City ordinances. He stated he personally wauid like to se~ every awne~ brought before the Commtssion when they Are violating the industrial are~ with retatl sales. On roll call~ the foreyoing resolution was passed by the folloNing vote: AYES: COMMISSIANERS: E3USHORE, HERBSS~ JOHNSON~ KING NOES : C011M1 SS I ONERS : TOLAR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID Jack White~ Jeputy City Attorney, presEnted the petitioner with the wr;tten rtght to appeal the P1a~ning Comnissivn's decislon wtthtn 22 days to the City ~ounctl. I TE~1 N0. 3 CO~~TI NUED PUBLI C FiEARI NG. O~1NER5 ; SAND DOLLAR E(JV~IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 223 DEVELOPMENT~ INC., 16371 Beach Boulevard~ A'24Q~ EC S CA ION N. ~^ Huntingtan Beach~ CA 916~-7. AGENT: JAMES ASKINS~ C . 0 ARC Uevelopmcnt, 540 No~th Golden Circle Drive, ENTAT V~E MAP OF Santa Ana~ CA 92705. Property d~scri~ed as an TRACT N0. 10476 ir~egularly-shaped pa~cel of land consistir~~ of app~oximatelv 17 acras havtng a frontage of approxi- mately 510 feet on tfit north stde of Chapman Avenue. having a maximum depth of approxin.~tely i327 feet~ and being l~cated approximately 805 feet east of the cente~line of Hsrbor Boulevard. Property prese~t~y classifled CG (COMMERCIAL, ~ENERAL) ZONE. 1 /29/79 d MINUYF.S~ ANAHF.IM CtTY f'LAN~~,N(; COMMI ~SIAN, JANUAitY 29~ 1919 79'70 EIR N0. 223. RECI.A~'~FICATIGN N0. 7E1-79-26~ VARIANCE N0. 3071 ANp TENTATIVE MAP QF TRACT NO . 104 ~6 ( con t I n u~_~_~ .... .. ---. _.......__ __ REQUESTEO CLASSIFICATION; KM-GQ00 (R~SIDENTIAL~ MUITIPLC-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANG s WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM BUILUING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT AND (D) REQUIREU OR1~:-~TA710N OF BUtLDINCS TO ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS~ TA ESTABLIS!I A TW(--LOT~ 2113-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBQIVISION. There was no one Indlcating thelr p~esenc~ In opposltin7 to ~ubJect reques~, and although the staff r•:port '~ the Plenning Commisslon dated January 29~ {97~1 was not read et the publlc haarin~~~ It Is referred to and made a parc of the m(nutea. Randy Blan;;hsrd, Presictent of aand Uollar Davelopment. inc.~ stated the revisecl plens reflect thc sugqestlons mode a~ the previc~us Commisslo~ herring, Phil 11~ve~ mrchitect~ 334U Sout~, Pleza prive~ Santa Ana, preserited updated informatlon and the revised plan and pofnted out revised parking spaces on the plans and indic~ted the parking has been increased from 2.5 spaces n~r unit tv uver 3.1 spaces ptr unit. Ne stete~i they had trled ta reerrange the parking to be more conventent and close- to the units. He ;~ointed out the baaic clrculatton system through the p~aJect and st~ted the nu;rb er ~f units has baen reduced to 218~ with more open spa~:e end parkinq avatlable. He explal~~ed the parking woul~~ be ;.F sp~ces per unit If the an-street parktng of the maJor street and Chapman Avenue +~e ~e inciuded; that the open space per uriit Is increased to approxlmately 2h~0 square feet; and thrt from their studies they feel the centrally- located rec~eation~~l fac~lities ere at the best l~ca*.ton for All the arees. TN[ PUBL ( C HEARI NG WAS c i.OSE p. Commlssioner Tolar asked for further clarification r~garding the number of parking spaces per unit, and Mr. Hove explained they have 3.11 spr~ces per unit on-site and 3.38 spaces p~er unlt including the ma}or street and Chapman Avenue. Commissloner Bushore asked if Street "A" w~uld be a public street~ and Mr. Hovc replied that it would. Carrimissioner Eiusliorc asked if ther~ would be a fe~ce along Chapman Avenuc. Chairn~an Harbst stated saund attenuatlan would have to be provided to meet Council pc~licy and the fencs along ~~iapman would be ~elatively high with no access. Ne did not think parking on Chapman would be satisfactory because left-turns out of the pro.Ject will be difficult and with parking along Chapman~ vislbility would be obstructed. Commissioner Bushore stated at the previous heartng the petttioner had asked for clear direction on khere the Commiss{an wanted this proJect to gc~ and clear directbon was glven of 3.3 to 3.5 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Hove replted h~ recalled the figures of somexhing over 3 spaces per unit with a density of around 16 units per acre. Commissloners Busliore and Johnson reme~ered discussing a range ~f 3.2 to 3.5 spaces at the prev(ous meeting. Cl~airman Nerbst stated the Commisston had discussed the RM-3~Q0 ordinance proposed quite spacifically, explaining the(~ intention to rewrite the ordinanc~ from RM-4000 to RM-30AA with the hope this proJect would be developed in that range and that this p roJect is for 16.8 units par acre with 2594 s4:iare feet per units, and the Counci~ is considering 1/29/79 MiNUTc~~ ANAHEIM C1TY Pl.AN~~INC COMft1SSION~ JANUJ!RY 29~ 197q 7q-71 EIR N0. 22j~ RECIASSIfICAT~ON !~0, 78-7~g-26~ VARtANC~ N0. 3071 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT No, i0476 (oont 1nu~d) ~_.. . ~. _ ~ upgrading the ordinance from F~ to 1~ uni ts per acre tn 15 or lf, Anc1 ~hat this proJect (s for 16. 8. Mr. Nove ax~loinsd 1] units h~d been teken from the nroJect and most ~f that space had been utllized for parkiny. Chnirman Nerbst stated the revised plan Is the same clrculotton plan wlth a reductlon in the number of u~its and, wtth no ndd(tlonal recre~ttnnol fer,ilities. He f~lt the~ chll~lren wlll br ~Iayin~~ in th~ A11py, Commisslanor .lohnson agreed wlth Cha(rman Nerb~t~ but stetc~t he ap{~reclnt~d th~ fACt the patitlone,r had fol lawod the ~cnur uf tl~e Pi~iii~inq Comntsslan's discusslon end c~mmcndcd them on the ch:.nges made in such a short time~ but felt maybe more ttme sh~uld have be~n taken. He did not tlilnk guests would want tc~ drive In the AI leys to f(nd the unlts. Mr. liove statecl In deeltnc~ wlth a 1So-foot dlstancc of parktng s~ace t~ each unlt~ It was necesssry t~ locate the spaces In the ~~er~ shown. Ne etated they fel t very stranc~ly about this plen and c~id n~t want t~ chan~e its Pormat. Commissioner 9ushor.: was concernaJ that the guest parktnq spaces would ba uti l ized by the occupants for baAts ~ carr~ers ~ trai 1 ers ~ etc. Mr. I~ove stated they intend to tAk~ care of that problrm through the r.~venants~ conditfons and restrictions (CC~Rs), and f,ommissi~ner 9ushore stoted che Ctty ca~not cantro) the CCbRs . Mr. Hove stated tl~ey would not wmt t~ c~ngest thc ma)ar s~reet and ma~ke It look Iike an alley by putting the guest perking in tlie c(rculotory system. Commisstoner Tolar statod t~e ts totally in favor of th(s proJecc and polnted out the Commission (s developtnq a new RM-;000 ordinance; that every proJect must stand on (ts own merlts; end that he agre~:s w(tfi tlie developer regarding the centrally-located recreatiana) area beeause di vidtng the recreetlonel facilities precludes some of the arr~nit{es provided for all of the unlts because some of the people living near the tennis courts wouid not utilize them and would have to welk to the other recr~ational facillties. In r~lationship to the parking~ he felt lt would be ntce to havc 3, ~+ end 5 spaces pcr unit; that looking at residentlai tracts where as many as 5 space.• are provided, including st~eet parking end 2 spaces in the garage~ many res(dents da not park the vehtcles in xhe garage and that wll) always be a problem~ and he felt thts proJect provides as much guest parking as e~y of the condominium proJects whlch have been app~oved. He pointed out this property could go to an RM-1200 proJect and not pr~;~ide as much guest parking and later a conv~rsto:~ could be roques te ~. He stated this p~oJect does not answer everything~ but i f a pr~Ject answered ail ehe probiems, the cost woUld ba $130~Ob0 to $140~000 and he assurned these units would sel l for prohably S65,OQq ta $85,000~ which ts considered low-to-moderate housing In t:his area. He stated he would suppc>rt this proJect because heav(cr density w(th more traffic could be proposed and he Felt this project is close to what th~ Conmisslor~ is looking for. Commissloner King inoic~teu he alsn would support the proJect. Chairnbn Herbst indfcated ',~ wished to discuss the open space mnd the access to the units af~ the alleys. and askc~ if thP units wauld have any indlvidual prlvrte space for barbacues~ etc. He asked where the children wt11 play with the areas fenced. 1/29/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM 41TY PI.ANNING COMNISS IQN, JANUO,RY 29~ 1~l79 E I R N0. 223~ RECIASS I F ICATI ON N0. 78•'~9•2G, VAR I ANCE NA. 3A71 AND TENTAT 1 VE MAp'pF,Yy~~T N0. 1047e continued -_.~._..___ . _ ~ ._ _ _.___...._ _-- --._-•-- ---- Mr. -love potnted out the prlvote erees (n front uf thp units which wl) i he fenced and Polnted out this has be~en done tn t~ faslilon ~ot to interrupt the grc~nbelt. and that they (ntend active recrestf~n t~ be in the recreatlonal ereas. Chstrman Harhst polnt~~d out per~ntz of throe~ four or f;ve-year-old c1-,Ildren wll) not wa~t thnm runn 1 ng ciown to th~ poo I srea w! thout a upP rv 1 s f on and they w i 1 I be p l ey f nq t n the I r awn areas . 1!e a~ ked 1 f tt~e p r 1 vate a r~os wl 1 1 tak~ aw~+y f rom the grnenl~~ I t area shown. M~. 11ove ststed the priva~r ; reas wt 11 tnk~ ~ llitl~ awey from the ~rccnbelt area~ but they wi ~ 1 c~ime n~ further ~way from th~ units th~n 3 or ~i feet, Fie explalned th~ f~,nc:~s will be wo~.1~ rrivacy fences. Commissin~er Toler stated h~ had just reviewed thts s(te ac~afn nnd had also reviewed ~ome o~ner condaminlum prn)ects and th~y do not have arty mo~e recr~at(onal areas than this H~nJect Nould have~ but thr.y do have more grec~nery; that I~e ac~rees wlth Che(rman Herbst to some oxtent; that the ch(Idren do n~t hAVe che fa,ctlities~ but f~lt s~me ~ow_tp_medtum cost housing must be developed in thts clty ~n~i if ~riv~te devr.lopers cannr~t Jo It~ the governrr~nt wi 1 I do It ~ and h~ fel t some ytiett~-type developmrn~ c c~uld r~sul t wl th qovernment-substdir.ed projects, He stated he see~ thts As a c'~ance for 'ree enterprtsa to do ,on~thing he woulci h~~t~ to sae the g4vernr-k,nt trti to do b~ceuse they wQUld Ieglslate a lot diffarent ordinances than we can provide. Ne fe)t thts s°me ~ow-t~-n~;dium cost houstng and that the sl igl~t tradc-offs~eretwarranted,~~f1e~~elopinq Indicatod hc wuulc! liope that (f this pro~ect ts approved, a condition wlll bc included requtrin~ that the CGbRs tnclude that no b~ots, trallers, campPrs ~r recr•eationai vel~icles wou1J uttlizc the c~uest parking spaces. Commtsstoner Johnson indlcated he agreed thc~e is the posstbliity of RM-120f? betnc~ developed o~ this site and re~alized the Commission can push a developer anly so far; that he eppreciated the ctianyes wh~ich h.ive b~en made and even though he thouUht 3.S spaces per unit and 30~U square feet p~:r untt were dlscussed~ this prolect Is ~ettin~ close. He asked if the garages wi 11 I~~ve doors~ and Mr, Nove repl ted they wi 11 hav~ doors wlth garage door opeiiers. Commissioner Johnsun stated the occupants wouid be st~ring b(cycles~ tools, etc., fn the garages and felt that is another area tho Commisslon should discuss; that gare~es are req~iired an~i then they are fllled with tools a~r1 vAluabl~s ~nd the cars are left outside, whereas if the garagcs were left op~n wi thout doors, the Cars would be he felt s~~metimes al l the rules do not work out in real 1lfe. 1ie indica~edehetWQ~he~m~ and support tlits praject. Cummissioner Tolar stated he felt this p~oJect is bet;er th~n some he has ;een and pointed out the Ci ty Counci 1 has approved two proJects which were ~-ented by the Commiss ton for condominium conversions whit!ti were larger projeets and which dld not have any enclosed garaqes whatsoever. He stated he viewed condominiun, or townhouse developments as h~me ownership end he felt they should be cnt itled to some ame~;ties such as garages, and he felt this proJect has come ~ long wAy (n providing those amenities. He stated the change from RM-4000 to RM-3000 whlch is being considered is an attempt to get some guidellnes on what might be more feastble to develop and something to encourage developers toward this type develo~mnnt. He sCeted the developer could be required to reduce the proJect further~ but, real isttcal ly~ that cost would be added to the units and would probably be $7~0~0 to 59,000; that density is not always bad even thouqh it is usuai ly looked at as a bad word~ and Justly so, because developers try to get as many units as possfble on the proJect. 1 /29I 73 ...~ _.... ~ MINUTES. ANIWEIM CITY FLANNI~JG COMMISS ION~ JANUAR1f 29, 1 i79 79~73 EIR N0. 223~ REI.L~SSIFICATION N0. 7Ei•79•26~ VARIANCE N0. 3071 ANp TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10476 ~contlnu,~d,L_ ---- -- Commissioner Johnscn stated ha was dlsdpp~i~ted thst the developer had come back In wlth units of 2594 square feet rather then 3~~4 squar~ f~eet~ but that he would stt 1 I suppc~rt the pro,je.ct. Ch~trma~ Herbst stetcd there are sti11 some questions in hts mtnd and explalned he llves in s proJect sim) lar to this end felt this developnw~nt ts bui Idtn~ tn many problems whlch do not have to bc thero. He stated ha does not ltke the people hevin~ to drive down a) leys ta get to guest parktng end thet chl ldren wi 11 be pleylne~ In these al leys. He explsine~d the CC~Rs for the pro.ject where he lives Include thet no boats~motorhomes~ etc.~ con be perked outside ~nd ell cars must be p~rked in thN garahes, and eny parking (n thc guest speces ls by permit only~ which hns elimtnatcd san~ of th~ pe.•kinn p~ohlrm~. H~ felt 50~; of the guest pe~kinq at this pro)ect cauld be uti lized 'uy prople who i lve th~re. He felt trsst~ cans w~!; ;~e left in the olleys all the tlme and it wlll not look good~ a~d that the chi ldren NI 11 be playing in the rl leys and basketbel l hoops wl l l bc put on the garage doors~ etc. Commissioner Busliore sugqested that the buildings and parking be reio~a~ed~ a~d Chairman tlerbst felt that would be a pos ibt llty. Commiss ioner Dushore slated he ag~eed wtth Commissioner Toler~ but agreed more with Chstrma~ Herbst and Gould nut suppart tl~is proJect at this time. Commlssioner Tolar askecf thn Clty Attorney liaw meny votes are n~eded for ~pproval of che reclassitication~ and Jack Nhtte. Deputy Clty Attorncy~ replied the ma,j~rity of the CcxnmissFon present could appr~ve the reclassification, Commissione~ 7olar asked the dcveloper if he had any sugqestions or qucstfons. Randy Blbnchard replted there are pros and cons tn any plan and referred to Chalrma~ Herbst's comnent rege~ding the allevs, and (ndicat~d they have felt the market has always emb race d the 1 dea of hrv t ng the i r awn ga rrqe, Cheirma~ Nerbst indtcated he was not s~ggestinr, giving up garages. Commissioner Johnson pointed out to Mr. Bis~chard on the plans the Commtsslor~'s discusston relative ta relocating the bui ~dings and parking. Canmiss ioner Tolar pointed out the walkways from the northwest corner between the parkinq are not going to be blacked off in any way. and indicated he did not ses any disadvantage wi th the park i ng be i ng o~ the no rth s i de of the a 1 I ey as opposed to thc south s i de of the atley. and a guest would have to welk the same distance. Chairman tlarbst statcd his obJecttoc~ is thst guests w(11 have to drive through alleys to get to the parking places. Commissloner Tolar asked if the parking Gould be transposed to the south end, and Mr. Hove rep 1 t ed they probab ly wou 1 d not have as many spaces ~ but i t cou 1 d be a t rade-of f. Commiss ioner Bushore suggested movf ng some of the parking forwerd~ with not so many in the back~ and moving the butldings beck. Mr. Hove rapl~ed that they would have to continue the loop street bGCause of the reGu 1 rements for tresh ~ f t re ~ etc, Mr. Blanchard indlcated his ~oncern that he wi I1 lose more un(ts. t/29/79 ~i MINUTES~ ANA~IEIM CITY PLANNING COMMi5SI0N~ JANUARY 29~ 1979 79-74 EIR N0. 223~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78•79•26~ VAaIANCE N0. 3071 AND TENTATIVC MAP OF TRACT N0. )0476 (contlnued) fommissloner T~lar~ peinted out if thls pro,j~ct wss aqelnst r~sldentlel~ the C~mmission would I(lce the p~oposal better tha~ tlir: suqg~sted revlsi~~n~ and pointed out eventua) ly thet area wlll become restdential~ and he felt thi~ proJect eccom~lishes the protection of thc ~eside ntial tntegrity. ACTI01~: Canmissloner Toler offered e motl~n, seconded by Commis~tone+r King and MOTION ~1~'~'0 (Commissic~ners E3ernes and Oavid beiny absent)~ that Envtmnmental Imp~ct Report No. 223 for the proposed developme nt of Tentattvc Tract No. 1Q~-7ti~ Revision No. 1~ havinq been considered this dAta by the A~ aheim Clty Planning Commission and evide~ce~ both written and nral~ hevlny been pres c nteJ to ~upplement draft EIR No. 223~ finds thet potentlal environmental impr~cts of th~ pr~)PCt m~y b~ reduc;~~i ta an insignificant level by conformencC wf th Ctty plans~ pol icies and ordinances; thet draft E1R No. 2?.3 (s tn compltance wlth the Callfornla Enviromm~ntal Quality Act and with Clty and State EIR Guidelines and~ therefore, based upo,~ such informatlon, the Anahelm Clty Planning Commission tertifies EIR N~. 223. Cortimtsst~ner Tolar offered Resoluti~n No. PC79-1~ and mc~ved for tts passagc and adoptlon~ that the Anaheirn Ctty Planning Commtss(on daes hereby grant Petition for ReclASStficatton No. 7$-79-26~ sub,iect Co Interdepartrr~ntal Cammittee recommendattons. On roll call~ the foreqoing r~solu tian wb, passed by the followinn vate: AYES: COHNISSIQNERS: BUSHORE~ HERBST~ JOtIN;ON~ KItIG~ TOLAR NOE5: COMMIS510NCR5; NONE ABSENT; COMNi5S10h~ERS: BARNES, DAVID Cammissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC19-20 and naved for (ts passage and adoptlon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Cammisston doss here(~y g~~nt Fetttion for Varlance Mo. 3071~ In part, grantin~ waiw:r {a) on the basis that th~^ ~ity is presently underqotng a study of the RM-4000 o~d(nar.ce and the ~roppsed QroJect wi 11 be substantia) ly in acco~dan~e with the revised ordinanee~ and denytnq waive~r (b} on the basts that revtsed plans deleted saEd wetver~ and subjec[ to Interdeportmer~tal Committee recommendations. On ~oll call~ the foreqoing resolution was passed by the follawiny vote: AYES: COM~IISSIOIJEf~S: JOHNSON~ K1NG~ TQLAR NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: dUSHORE~ HERBST ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 6ARNES~ DA'JID Cornnissloner Tolar lndtceted he would like to include a candition in the CCbRs that no parktng would be allowed (n the guest parking spaces~ and Randy 8lanchard (ndicated he evould like to discuss tt~t CCbRs as mentioned by Chalrman Ne~bst and would be willing to cornply wi th that condi tion. M~. ~lanchard also indicated t~e would be wi)ling to work Htth hts architect in redesiqning some of the p~rking es discussed by the Commission and would be happy to brtnq the plans back to the Commiss i on as a cc~urtesy . Cha i rman He rbs t i nd 1 cated he wou I d 1 i ke to ~a on reco rd that he i s nat opposed to the proJect~ but some problems are being built in and he felt it could be a better proJect. Commissioner Tnlar offer~d a nation, seconded by Commissioncr Johnson and MOTIOIJ CARRIEO (Cammissioner Herbst voting no and Gommission~rs Barnes and David being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commissinn does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together wlth Iti design and (mpraverr~nt, is congistent with the City of Mahetm Ge~e~al Plan~ t/2a/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 29~ 1979 7q-75 EIR N0. 223. RECLASSIFICA710N N0. 78-79~26~ VARIANCE N0. 307) ANQ TENTIITIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10476 (co~tinued) pursuant t~ Government Code Sectlon 6fi473.5 and does~ therefore~ Approve Tentattvo Map ~f Tract No, 10ri76~ Revislon No. 1~ for a Mo-lot, 213-unit. RM-40c1~ condomtnium subdivl~ton~ subJect to the pctlt(oner's stipulAtton that a conditlon w(11 bc addcd t~ the CCF.Rs for the proposed pro.ject that n~ boats ~ tra( Inrs ~ carr~ers. recreet ional vehicles ~ etc. ~ rrt 11 be parked in the quest pa~klnq spacNS and that any perkin~ in the guest pericl~c~ spaces by thc occupants will be by permit only; and sub)ect to the stlpuldtion by thn petlttoner that rovised plans ~c:l~ct+ting the bufldinhs r+nd parktng wlll be submitteJ to the Plannin_y Ccxnmissian for thei r review; and subJect to the fol lawing condi tlans: 1. That th~ approval af Tentative Map of Tract No. 101~7b is yrer~ted eul,Ject ta thc epprovel ~f Reciasstfication tlo. 7$-7~-26 and Verienc• Ne, 3c~71. 2. That shouid this subdfviston be develUped as more tha~ one subdtvtsion~ each subdivls(on thereaf shall be suhmitted in tent.ativ~ form for approval. 3. Th at all lots wlthin this tract shall be servcd ~y undPrground utilitios. 4. Th at prlor tv the fntraductton of an ord(nance~ a final tract mep of subJect property shall be submi*~~d to and approv~d by the Clty Cauncil and then be recorded in thc officc of the Orange County Recorder. 5. Th at the cc~venants, conditlons, and ~es~rictlons sfiall be submttted to end app roved by the Ctty Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map and, furthcr~ that the appr~ved covcnants~ u~nditions~ anci rPStrictlons shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. Th at street names shell be app mved by the Clty Planning Department prio~ to approvel of a ftnai tract mep. 7. Th at dratnage of subJect property shall be d(sposed of in a manner satisfactory to the C i ty Eng 1 nee r. 8. Th at the owner of subject property shall pay io th~ City of Anaheim the approprlate park and recreattan in-lieu fees as d~t~rmtned to be app ro~~tate by the City Councll~ said fees to be patd at the t(me the bulidtng permlt is issued. 9. Thr~t all prlvate streets shall be develaped in accordance wtth the Ctty of M~helm's atandards for ~r(vate streets. 10. If permanent strect namc siy~s have not been installed~ temporary stree: name signs shall be lnstalled pri~r to any ~ccupancy, 11. 1'hat the vehlcular access rights~ exr,cpt at street and/or alley opentngs~ to Chapman Avenue st~al 1 be dedi cated to the CZ ty of Anaheim, 12. Th at the covenants, conditinns~ and r~estrictions shall include a condition that there shall be no mc~torhomes~ boats~ trailers~ campers~ recreotional vehicles, etc.~ parked (n any of the designated guest pa~king spaces~ and any pa~king in the guest parking spaces by the occupants shall be by permit enly. 13. That a revised plan showing ~elocation of some of the huildings and parking shall be s~ mitted to the Planning Commissio~ for their review. Commissloner Bushore indicated he had suppo~ted the p~oJect because the petitioner had agreed to p~esent revtsed ~lans to the Commission. Mr. Blanchard thanked the Co-nrr.issian for thPir cooperation an d indicated they would work with staff regarding the revised plans. t/29/19 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C17Y PIANNING COMMISSION. JhNt1ARY 29. 1979 t TEM N0. 4 IMPACT REPORT N0. 224 REMOVAL OF SPECI N~fN TREES Noh) Rsnch Road. Property presently SCENIC COt'RIpOR OVkRLAY) ZONE. 79-7b PUIsIIC NEARING. DEYCLOPERS: TEXACO-ANAHEIM NiLLS~ INC.~ 38~ Anahetm Hllls Roa~i~ Anaheim, CA $2~07. ENGINEER: JENNINGS-HALDERfU\N-H000~ 540 Worth Golden Ctrcl~ Orive~ Sutte 111~ Santa Ana~ CA 927n5. P~opert~ descrtbed as an irregularly-sheoed pe~ce) of land consisting af ap~~roxtmatcly 14.0 acres having a frontage of appreximately q68 feet on the east side of Imperlal Hlghwey~ heving a maxir~um depth of epproximately 6~Q f~!et~ end balnq located approxlnwtely 1F,50 feet soutl~ of the tenterltne of classifled RS-A•43,000(SC) (RESIDEt~TIl~L/ACRICULTURAL- REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION; RS-HS-1q,000(SC) (RESIOENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY FtI~LSIUE- S CC~~ I C CORR t ~OR OVERLIIY ) 70NE . REQUESTED CONDITIC~lAL USE: TO PERMIT A 27-LOT~ ?5-UNIT PLIIN~~ED UNIT DEVELOPHENT WITH ~IAIVER qF (A) REQUIREMENT TI~AT ALL LOTS ABUT A PUaLIC STREET, ~B) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGN7 AND (C) MIN1MlIN SIUE YARD S~TBACK. There was n~ one (ndicating thetr presence in opposttton to subJect request~ And alth~uclh the staff report to the Planning Commtsston dated January 2q, lq7g was not read at the Nubllc hearing, it is rcferred to and macie a par[ of the minutes. Dan Salcedo~ representi~c~ Anaheim Hills~ Inc.~ referred tn the environmental impact report evaluation as cAntafned In the staff report And the comment th~t a total annual deftcit of approrimately S1.40~ for the entire tract might result, and stated he believed that figure wAS based on the avcraqe unit prtce of ~p~,roximatcly S110~OOt1; that at this particular ttme, this development is a mirror Image of the Stngin~ Wood Ilill praJect in A~aheim Hlils and all of those unics rre selling in excess of 5125~0~0; that this rroJect will be butlt in late 19S0 and when the proJ~ct (s sold~ thPy anticipatc the unit price will be wel) in excess of S125,OQf1 to $1~0~740~ and he Is positivF they will show a posltive wsh flaw to the City. He stated the Singinq Nood N'II development h~s bcen ve ry favorably accepted by the cort~nunity and the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Cort+mittee (HACMAC) had unantmously approved this concept; th~t they nave 14 acrt~s~ of which 3.5 ac~es will be devaloped, a~d the density is 2,0~ units per ac~e with over 4 spaees per unit propased for parking; that they have a grading permit on a~other pro}ect across the road and approxlmately 30~0~0 cubic yards of cut wiil be provided on this pro)ect and they have tried to have minimum grading and minimum density ar~d maximum use of open space. THE PU9LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ,Commtssioner Johnson stated he did not have much opposition to the prnJe~ct except the waiver of minimum side yard setback. i1e stated he had bee~ very instrumental in (ncreasing the side yard se[tacks and had fel[ for years the homes in the hills were too close together. Ne asked why the sm~ll side yards are being rroposed. Mr. Sal~cedo stated in most (nstances they are only S inches short of the minimum 5-foot requirement~ and in eve ry instance the side yard indents and that is Nhere the entry area is located. He explained they are using the Singing Wood Ni)1 concept and the Conmission had 14ked thet concept. He stated in every instance these are clusters of twc~ and pointed out there is significant space between most of the lots. Ne stated they have checked again with the fire and police dapartments and they have ~o p roblem with this concept. 1/29l79 , ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI,IWNING COMMISSION~ JA-9UARY 29~ 1979 EIR N0. 224~ RECLAS5IFICATION NQ. 78•79-25~ CO~IDITI~NAL ~P Of TRACT N0. 10617 (tontinued] Commissloner Johnson replled they would heve nu p~oblem, thet they •re not trying to uphold the ordln~nces. nelther would th~ Itbrerien, but Jay Tsshiro~ Assoclate Planner~ expleined these wrn a~tueily postage startp lots end the setbacks are based to the prnperty lines~ however~ tl~ey do hevG apen arers betwnen tt~e locs in addition to the setbacks. Chatrman Herbst painted out TherP (s a hic~ h)11 in hack of thts pro.~ect and ssked tf it would be malntatned by the homeowners associaclon~ and Mr. Seicedo replted thet {t would. He pointed out there ts a County agrlcultur~) preserv~- which w111 ultlmately be redesigned es County ope~ spece end wtl) delete the rtqirement far the second Nelver. Chairman Herbst Indicated th~ anly concern he has is chtldren playinq in the streecs. He stated he understood there ere qoing to be s(dewdlks Alo~g Imperial ta the school, polnting out it (s epproximately 1~f10 feet to any qsen space arca where the chtldren can play. Commtssioner Johnson stated this ts not really a planned untt development, but Chalnnan Herbst felt it really (s a little planned unit developmcnt on its own wlth no rccreatlona) fecilitles~ and thcre will not be enough room on most of the lots for evcn a JACUZxi. Commissloner Bushore asked (f th~re would be room for a Jecuzzi~ and Mr. Sslcedo replied he belteved there would be adequete room in most cases; that there Is approximetely 2897 square feet per untt af flat open space whlch should qlve sufficient room for the cnildren to play. Chairmen Herbst steted in reality much of the open sFace for th(s proJect is on a grade. COMNISSIONER 9ARNES ARRIVED AT 3:10 P.M. Mr. Salceda scated there (s a lat of open space which Is relatively flat; that there is 1.6 acres of ~elatively flat land which is usable apen space tu 3.5 acres whtch is deveioped. Chairman He rbst stat~d the open space for erch unit must be considered tn condominlum-type davelopments such as this. Commisstoner Tolar suggestcd tha[ lifeetyles of a lot af people have changed in relatiQnship to large lots~ and used Anaheim Shores as an examplc~ pointing out a lot of people do not w~nt large lots~ even fami)tes w(th chtldren; Lhai there is a pa~k~ e htgh schooi~ and tennts courts close to this facility and t~is is d 25-1ot subdiviston and recreationa) facilities cannot always be pravidecf; that the lots In Anaheim Shores are smal) wfeh large homes on them and people like thcm. Ne felt [his proJect does provide the open space, Chalrman Ne rbst stated this (s a postage startp lot and there are some yards where a swing c~nnot be tnsealled for the small children~ and he recognizes there a~e schools in the area~ but parents would not want small childr~n goi~g to the schools anc! they wtll be playi ng in the streets in thet r oevn a~reas. Commtssioner Tolar noted this is happening in all restdentlal areas of the City wh~re there are parks within walking d(stence and the chtldren are sttli playing tn the st~eets. Chatrman Herbst stated llfestyles do change~ but he felt the developcr is forgetting a few of the asnenities in this proJect~ especially for families with small children. Ne fGlt it wauld be different lf this were going to b~ an all-adult proJect. 79-77 USE PERMIT N0. 1935 AND TENYATIVE t/29/?9 MIHUTES~ ANANEIM C17Y PLN~NING COMMISSI0~1~ J~NUARY 29~ 1919 J9-78 EIR N0. 224~ RECLASSIFICp~TIOM N0. 78-79-25, GONOITIAN~L USE PERMIT N0. 1935 ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1061 r:ant i ~ued) _ Canxnissio~er Johnscx~ steted ha does not a~que wlth th~s~ f~c~s. but will suppart the p ro,j~ct beceuse he felt th{s really is not a planned unit development and there ts s lot of trom on thls prc~lect and he ~ecoyntzed thst p~rt of it Is hi~lsid~~ but the level b~tween the lots is not thet high; that certeinly It could stand some imp~rovement~ but falt it would be a good proJect for Anahelm. ACTION: Commissfoner ,,for~nson ~ffcred a m~tion. seco~dcd by Cnmmisstonar Ktng and MOTION tt 'p (Commisslaner ~avid belnq absent)~ thnt Environmental Irtr~+~ct Report No. 224 f~r the develapment of Tentativa Tract Na. lOlh7, having bor.~ consldared this date by the Anahelm Clty Plann(ng Commission and evidFncP~ b~th written and orel~ hevinU been presented to yupplemPnt dr++ft EIR No. Z?.4~ finds tht~t pot~ntial praJect-clenernted envlrc~nmental impact~ m.iy be reduced to an tnsiqnificAnt levrl hy cont'ormnnce with City plans~ pnl(ci~s and ~~rdlnances ~+nd drnft Ela No. 224 is ir~ cort~lience wtth ths Californtn Envlro~mental Qualtty Act and with City and State Ela f,uidelincs .~nd~ therefore~ based o^ such informatlo~~ tF~e Anahelrn C(ty Planning C~mmisslon certtfies EIR No. 22r+, Comm) ss io~ar Johnson of fered Resol ut l on ~~o. PG7g-21 e-nd ~novcd for i ts pe~ssa~e end adoptlon, that thes AnAhetm City Planning Commfsstan doe~ herzhy yront Pet(tlon for Rsclasslficet(~n No. 7~-79-25~ subJect to InterdepartmNnt~1 Committee reconxnendations. On ml) call~ the fnreqaing rrsolution was passe~i by t'ne followin~ vote: AYES : COMt11 SS I JIJE!tS . aARNES ~ BUSNQRE ~ IIERSST ~ J OHNSON , K I NG ~ TOLAR r~oes : COMMI SS I Of1ER5 : NO~IE ARSENT: CAMMISSIONCRS: DAVIU Cortimtssio~er Johnson offered a rnc~tton~ secondcd by Commissl~ner K(nq and MOTI~N CARRICD (Cmm~lssioner Devid beinq ~bsent) ~ ti~~t the Anaheirn City Planninc~ Gommissto~ cSc~es hereby grant walvers (a)~ (b) and (c) ~n the basis that denia) wo~ld be deprive the subject property c~f privileges being enJoyed by the propertics in the same vicinity and zane. Cammtsstoner Johnson offereJ Resolution t~o. PC7Q-22 and moved for its p~~saaq~e and adoption~ that the Anaheiin City Planniny Comnis!,ion does hcreby qrant Petition for Condttlonsl~s~ Pe rtnit Na. 1935, subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recomme~dations. On roll r.al~, t~~e foren~tng resolution was pas;ed by thr following vote: AYES : COMM) SS 1 ~NERS : BAtlNES ~ BUSHORE, NER1)51' ~ JOHPISON ~ KI NG, TOLAR NQES: COMMISSI(?NERS: NOtJE ABSENT: CQMMISSIOI~ERS: DAVID Chairman Nerbst stated he still felt th~ t~~act could prov(de somr. sort of playc~r~und for the iitkle children~ evtn if a little mare grading has ta be done. Mr. Salcedo stated in order to maintain tl~e tent~tive tract man~ they would be willing to cooperate; hvwever, (t has bee~ their findtng that the chlldren will not walk that extra block to go to the playground~ but are p~aying in the htlls and naturel environ+nent t~nd they have tr(ed to do as little grading as possible and maintatn as much of thc natural surroundings ~s posstbie. Fie used his ~~wn children a~s an examplt. indtcaiting they li:e two biocks aw+ay from the high school with an adJacent park and hia children play in the hi ils. Chairman He:rbst indtceted he was referring to the smali children three a~d four years old who cannot go into the hills to play, and felt with the ground thet is avallable~ a play area could be provided. t/29/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 2~. 1979 19-l9 EIR N0. 224, RECLASS~FICATION N0. 78-74•25~ CONpIT'IONAL IJSE PCaMIT N0. 1935 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1061~ (continued ~ Comm(sslcx~er Johnson ststed Chai rman Nerbst's polnt~s are w•~ 1 takcn~ but he would not include thRm In hls motlon f~r eppr~val because it appears Che~e ts e tc~!al ef 2~~ono square 1°eet of land per untk snd if the developer uleGts to provide a playgr~und, that will be satisfactory. Commissloner Barnas noted there ha~ been only ane chlld in the °~inc~inq 1~t11 Noods proJect out of 2~i units and dld not thin~, there would be e lot of children ln this proJect either. Commissioner Johnson offG~ed a motion~ seconded by Cammissioner Tolar an~ MOTION CARRIED (Commissianer Herbst v~~t(~q n~ anA Commtssioner Uavla betng ~bsent)~ that the An~heln- Clty Plannlnc~ Comm(sslon dur.s hereby ftnd that the p~oposed subdivision~ [agcxher with lts desiqn end improvement, is consistent wlth the Clty of MAhcim Generai Plan, oursuant to Governmcnt Cade Sectlon 66473.`'i and does~ therr.•:fore, appr~vp Tantative Map of Tract No. 10fi17 for a 27-lot~ 25-unit, RS-HS-10,00Q(SC) subdivisl~r~, sub~ect to the foll~wing conditions: 1. Thac the approval of Tentattve Map of Tract No. 14f.,17 is 9ranted subJect ta the approval ~f Reclessiftcation No. 76-73-25 anc; Conditional Use Permlt No, t935• 2. That should Cliis s~division be d~w:loped es more than one subdivisfon, isach subdivisi~n thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approv~l, 3. That all lots within thls tract sh=~11 be served by undergrounci utilitic:s. 4. That pri~r ta the introduct~on of an ordinanGe, a final tract map of subject p roperty sh~ll be submittP~f to and approved by t~e City Council and then be recorded In the office of tl~• ~ranae Co~nty Recorder, 5. That t-~~ covenants~ conditions~ and restrlcti~ns shell be submitt~sd to and approved by t~ ~ity ~tCorrey's Office prto~ to Clty Cauncil avproval ~t the final tract map and~ fur ~*~ r. thac the approved cavenants, condiL.lons~ and restrictions shall be recorded cc-r, ~~-Rtl~~ wich t,~e final tract map. 6. Th+,y <;r~~r ~names shall be approved by thc City PlanninQ De~artmtnt prior to approval o i~-~ ~:-act map. 7. T*~: '*a~~~~a~~e of ssid property shall be disp~sed of In ~7 manner s~tisfactory to the Cit~~ ^~-~~~Y.~ If, tn the preparation of the site~ sufficient gradfng is required to necessi ~~~;_ ..: :°..~aing permtt~ no work on grading wi 11 be rermitted between October i5th and Apri ~-r ~nless all requirad off•site drainage facilities have bcc:n i~s~alled and are op~-~•~ +~•e. Pasi tlve assuranc~ shal l be provi~~d the City that such drainage facilit~~ ~~ ~ be completed prior to October iSth. Necessarv rlyhc-of-way for off-site dratn~qr '~sc+ ities shall be dedicated to the City. ar the Ctty Council shall have iniitatYs ~.:c~n~t~,nnatton proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the deve loprri --~ a ~~r to the cammer cement of g rad i ng operat i ons . The ~equ i red d ra i nage faciiity~s zr,ail be of a size and type sufficient to carry runc,ff waters nrigtnating from hic~Fre~ Q~r~ies th rough said propcrty tQ uliimate disposal As approved by the City Eng~inrer. Said draln~ge facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be coaiplet~ea a~rd be functional throughout the tract and from the dawnstream boundary of the prope~ty ~~r the ultimate poiRt of disposal prior to the issuance of arty final bullding inspsctiass o~ ~-cupancy permits. Drain~ge distrlct retmbursement ~greements may be made availwbic to th develooers of said property up~n thelr re~uest. . b. That ,rading, excavation~ and All other constructlon activities shall be conducte~i in such a manner sQ as to mtnimize the possibility of any silt o~igineting from this project being carrted into the Santa Ana Riv~r by storm water origtneting from or flwing through this p~oJect. 9. That the owner of subJect property shall pay to the Ctty ~f Anaheim the a~propriat~ perk and r~creation in-lieu fees as dete rmined to be appropriate by the City Qouncil~ sald fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 10. That all p~ivate stre~ts shall be developed in acco~dance with the City of Anaheim's standards for prtvate streets. 1/29/79 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jn~~U~RY 29, 1~1A 79•80 EIR N0. 22~~~ RECLASSIFIGATION N0. 78-79-25~ CONpIT10P1AL USE PERNIT N0. 1935 ANb TE~ITATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10617 ~conttnued~_ _ 11. That the alignr-~ nt and terminal pofnt of storm dralns shown on this tentative tratt map sh.~ll not be consldered final. These dretns shall be sub.~e.ct to prRCtse desiqn consideratlor~s and ~pprov~l of t~~e City Enginemr. 12. If permanent street name signs have not been installed~ tempc~rary street nar-x signs shal) he (nstalled prior to any occupancy. 13. That fire hydrants shall be I~stalled and charc~ed es rPquireci ~~nJ determined to be necessa ry by the Chlef of the Fi~e Oc+partment prior to conmencement ~f structural frsming. 14. That ell requlremer~ts of Fire Zon~ 4~ othcrwisc identtfied as Fire Adrninistrattve Order No. 7G-O1, wil) bc met. Such requirern~nts tnclude, but are not limited to~ chimnr.y spark arrest~rs~ p~otect~d attic and un~ier floor openings, C1ASS C nr better roofing mater(al and one-haur flra-resistive c~~nstructton of horizontal surfaces if withln 2c10 feet of ad.jacent brushland. 15. That native slopes aJjacrnt to newly constructed homcs ahall be hydroseeded wlth a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes sh.~ll he sprtn~;lered and weeded as required to estabitsh 100 fect separation of flammable vegetation from any structure. 16. That cltf~er access for maintPnancc: of the sanitary sewers and storm dralns shat) be provlded as approved by the Ctty Engir~eer~ or thP fac~lities shAII rematn private and bc maintained by thc hamc:owncr's assoc(ation. 17. 7hat in ~ccordance wl th the requtrements of Sectton 1R,,.,7..047 pertainin~ to the Inlttal s~~le of resldenttal hon-~s ln thc Ctty of Anaheim Planning Ar~a "E1"~ the seller shall provlde eacl~ buyer with written tnformation concetninq Che Anahelm General Plan and the exlsting zo~ing within 3~0 feet of tlie boundarles of subJect tract. 18. Th~t any specimen tree remova) shall be subjrct to the regulattons pertaintng ta tr~ee preservation in tt~e ScPnic Corricior Overiay Zone. Conmisstoner Johns~n indicated the request for removal of trees <fisturbs him because these are aak trees and indicatc~d he would like to see them replaced with a little mc,re than the minlmum replacement. M~. Salcedn stated thefr landscape plans wnuld be submitted to the Ctty staff for their approval. Commissioner Rarnes indicated she was more concerned about the tr~es in this proJect than anything else and asked if chere was any possibiltty of saving any of them. Commissioner Johnson indicated he had taken the recommendation from HACtif1G into his consideratlon for approval of the motion. Mr. Salcedo sCeted two of the three tr~as sit on Lot No. 20 and thcy cauld not do anythinq about them, lie potnted aut~ howcver, they ar~ not stripping the area bare of trees and are leaving eight other trees (n this partlcular area. Chairmen Herbst suggested that would be a good place for a playgro~~nd for the children. Commissioner Bernes statecl it appears one of the trees would be in one of the front yards and the other In a rear r~~d~ and asked why thase trees would have to be rertaved and wondered tf it wes simply because of the g~ading. She refcrred to the City of Thousand Oaks which has incornorbted these kinds of t~ees into ~heir projects and they have been an impruvement. She askcd if any attempt had been made to save these trees. She stated she realized they are in thc way and w~nted the petitioner to know she was not opposed to the project~ but was disturbed by this attitude. Mr. Salcedo poinced out one of the trees Is ve ry close to the private street and one of the trees abuts the Edison easement and they ware involved in the grading issue. He t/29/19 MINUTES, ANANCIM C17Y PLANNING GOMMISSION, JANUARY 2~~ 197~ 7~^81 EIR Np. 224~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7A-79-25~ GON~ITIONAL USC PERMIT N0. 19~5 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT_NU. 10617 ~continund) pointeci out it is possihle th~ one lot which would have the tree mi4ht not t~e: es salable because of tlie lim(tetions thot one tree w~uld have on tl~e InnJsc~~ping. Ne stated ~xcept for the one tree whicl~ abuts the private strcet. the others era within lots and are not in open spece Areas. lie steted they really tried to savc the trees~ but c~uld not work it out. Comm(ssioner flerbst stnted there was a sCatornent in the environrtx~nta) imprct report which (ndicAted they 4ouln havc saved Clio trces by moving the lots closer to Imperlrl Ht~hway~ which would tl~en cr~ate barrters f~r sound. Commissioner Barnes st~~t~~1 ~he hetsd t~ make A big issuc about three trees~ but it did teke a long time f~or thcse trees to gruw and they arc: not eucelyptus trees wfiicf~ yrow fast~ And also otl~e~- areas in Californir have f~~unht very hnrd to savr. the trees. She referred to Mr, Salcecio's comment rcqarding the units whtch wnuld s~ll first~ and she felt the units witti the oak trees autside larqe gl~ssed area~ are thc ones tt~at sell fir5t. 5he felt if the developer had tried everythin~~ posslble to sAVe the trt~~s and could nnt save them~ the~ she wuulcJ be rn~re willing to ecr.ert thts~ but shp did not like the qeneral acceptance of nettin~~ rid nf oak trees. Horst Schor, An~~heim lillls~ Inc.~ stated they had u~ncerned themselves quite seriously wtth preservation of the trees and that has becn reflected in their otl~er cievelopments, and they had mAde r.very effort to sevr_ eve ry tree they could in this proJect; Chat they show three trees to be removed~ two of which are in an area of 3~ tv 4~ feet of fili~ and Chere was no way t~ avoici removal ~f tl~ose trees, Noweve~~ there is one tree which the~ show for reinoval wliic:h tt~ey wt 11 attem~t durin4 constructlon and qrading to preserve by buildin~ a retainin~~ ~~all, Ile explaine~:i that tree is ttie one furthest u~stre~m tn the conyon in a northeasterly direction. He stated tiie(r com~any wauld continue ta try And preserve as ma~~y trees as possible~ particularly oaks and sycamores~ in future developments. He 'n~iicate~! they d~~ spend many hours trying to save as many trees as possible and do believe that they inm rove the proJtici. He stated if you can s.~ve a 1~~- year-old oak~ it makes tf~e lanciscaplnq look iike it has been there always and is a tremendous improvement to t-ie ~roj~~ct. Commissioner Johnsnn stated he would continue with his motio~ for appraval wi;h thc~ petittoner's stipulation t~iat tliey could pcssit~ly sAVe one ~fi these trees and elsci since HACMAL had no particul~r cancern with tl~e rer-x~val of these particular trees. Jay Tashiro potnted out the mPtter of the removal of the trees had not heen Jiscussed at the hACMAC meeting~ but that ~~ne of tlie staff inemt,ers had contacted severa) ~f the members and they really did n~t have a problem with these trees. Commissioner Johnson offere~J a moti~n~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MCTIOM CARF!IED (Commtssioner David being absent}~ that tf~e Anaheirn City Planning Commission does hersby recommend approval of the request for removal of specimen trees in Lot t~os. 2Q and ?_t, and that specimen replacement trees will be planted in accordanr_e with the ordiriance and that eve ry effort will be made to p~eserve one of the trees during construction and grading. RF.CESS The meeting recessecl at 3:4~ o.m. RECQI2VENE The meeti~,y reconvened 3t 3:50 p.m. 1/29/79 MINUTES~ AkANEIM CItY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 29~ 1979 ~9"a2 ITEM N0. PU~LIC HEARING. OWNERSs MARCIA ANN MALLIGAN AND ~TR"~RICAL EXENPTION-GLASS 1 RAYMOND f,. AND ESTEIIC K. SPEf1AR~ 913 ?alcxna Plsce~ COFlUI ONAL_USE PERM N0. 13~~ Pullerton~ CA )2G3~. AGENT: PRQJECT COORDINATORS~ 1535 East 17th Street~ Suite P~ Santa Ana~ CA 9'1701. Petitioner requetts ON-SALE OF ALCOtiOLIC BEVERAGES IN A PROPOSED RLSTAURANT an prc~perty described es an ir~egularly•shaped parcei of land consisting of approximately 11.1 acres tocated north and east of the northeast corner of Le Palma Avenue d~d Impertal Hig:iway~ having ~pproxima~e fronteges of 63A feet on th~ north side of La Palma Avenua and 37~ feet on the ~ast side of Imperial Nighway~ bcing located approxfinetely 190 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and 35~ ~~et east of the cente~llne. of Imperial Nlghway~ and !`urthar described as 5711 East La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified GL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERIAY) 7.ONE. The~e was no one lndicating their the steff rnport ta the Planniny public hearing, (t is ref~rred ta The petltioncr was nat ~resent. THE PUDLI C HCARI r~G WAS CLOSED. pr~s~nce in oppasition to sublect request~ a~nd although Comnission dated January 29~ 1979 was not re~d at the and made a pert of the minutes. It was nated the Planning Director or iiis auth~rized ~epresentative has determined that the propased proJoct falls within the deflnitio~ ~f Categoricat Exempttons, Class 1~ as defined in p~ragraph 2 of thc Ctty of M ahetm Environmental Impact Repcrt Guidelines and Is~ therefore~ categorically exempt from the req~rirement to prepare an EIR. ACTIOt~: Commissioner T~lar offered Resolution No. PC7`~-23 and moved for its passege and a~optlon, that the Anaheim City Pian~iny Commission does hereby grant Petition for Cunditlo~~l Use Permit No, 193~+~ subJect to Interdepartrr~enta) Commtttee recommendations. On roll call~ the foreqoino resolucion was passed by tl~e following vote: AYES; CQNM15510N~R5: BARNES, BUSHORE. NERDST, J04iNSON, KIt~G~ TOIAR NOES : GOMNI SS I(1NERS : NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAVID ITEM N0. 7 PUk3LIC NEARiNG. QWNERS: MARK R. AND KATNLEEN A. ~~RICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 3 EGGEN~ 9Aa North West Street~ Anaheim. CA 92801. E . n73 Petitioner requests WAIYER OF (A) MiNIMUM LOT AREA - AND (B) NINIMUPI LOT WIDTN TO ESTABLISN A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISI~N on property de~cribed as a rectanaularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatPly 0.5 acre hnvi~g ~ frontage of approximately 70 feet on the east side of West Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 2~30 feet~ being located approximately 340 feet north of the centerline ~f North Street, a~d further described as 9~~+ North W~st Street. Property presently ciasslfied RS-10,000 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE~FAMILY) ZONE. There was no nne indicating their presence in opposition to su~aJect request. and although the staff rcpart tu the Planning Commission dated Jsnuary 29~ 1979 w~+s nat read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a patt of the minutes. t/29/79 ~ MINU1'ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 2~~ 1979 79~~; EIR CATECO~tICAL EXEMPTIUII-CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE N0. 3073 (cantinued) ...._ _,._ Ma~k Egyen~ petitloner~ explained this Is an extra larqe lot end tt Is hi~ deslre to creste a fla~ lat~ pulnting out tliere erc othcr flag tots In the neiohborhood. He ~tated the square footage exceeds the averege In tlie nelghbonc~~od; th~t 11 surr~unding property owners hAVe siqnad a potition cndorsinq the rr.qucest a~nd hc had talked with thrce more neiqhbora who had no ob]ections. TNE PUUI I C I~CARI NG WAS CLOSED. Canmissioner Kin~ asked if the fir~ <tepartment's requlrements for the driveway have bcen satisf(eJ. Mr. Eqaen replfecl that he woulc: provide thc ?.0•f~ut wtde drlvewey; l:Ilf1L h(s originnl concern tiad bee~7 to provide a larger lot~ but I,e would bc willinq to conf~rm ta the fire deparCment's rey~~l remerits. Commissioner Tolar asked who ',tves In the front tlousc~ and Mr, Eg~~en replied that he does~ but thrt he would occupy the back housr. Commissioner Tolar asked if the fronc iiouse would b~ sold~ and it wHS clarified that the~e are two separats lots and coulcf be sold. Cheirmen lierbst asked if the increase in tl~e stze of the drtvr.v~ay would create any ~~roblems wlth the setbacks~ and Jt~y Tashiro~ Ass~c(ate Planner~ replted the minimum lot ~rea would chanqe. Commisstoner Johnson stated it appears the sixe of both lots w~uld be rouqhly tO~QOG square feet. Commissioner Tolar indicated his conce rn that thls same thing wil) be happeninq ln the whole arna~ and the sizes of the surroundinU lots v~eore dtscussed by the Commisslan. Commtsstoner Bushore indicated his matn concern that the ather property owners have nothin~ against the proposal~ pointing out this is one nf the few remaining areas where a person could get a large loC. He ftlt more than this bsing Nhat the pe~ple want, tt is being forcecl on them and more and more of these are sltding by, and pretty soan there wili be n~ elbow room left in Anaheim. Ne statacf if thls wss qoing to be a tert~orary s~rangement with the house in the front being torn dc~wn later, he would be more agreeable~ but was concerned for the futu~e and more of this happen(ng in Anaheim. He stated, basicaily, he is opposed to this request but could be convinced otherwtse. Commissioner Tolar stated there is the potential for all the houses on thst street to be developed in slmost the same flag lot situatfon as thts one. Mr. Eggen stated the others would have to demolish their existi~g hou5es tu develop (n thts manner and he did not think th~+t would be economically feasibteo He stated they a~e doing it beceuse tlie present house sits ve ry close to the side yard and they do have enough room to get by. Ne stated the~e are two older hous~s next to him which have about 800 square feet which should be demoltshed. He stated there is more than Gnough room for two houses on this lot; that most of the lot is oniy good for gophers and weeds at the present time; and that they Htil be giving the back house a large lot and the front house will still have a large lot. Commtssioner Tolar stated if he c~rned these two properties whtch should be demolished~ he would proposc this ~8me type plan. 1/29/79 ~ , MINUTES~ ANAHF.IM CITY PLANHING CONMISSION~ JANUARY 2!1, 1919 79~84 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMi'T10?~-CLl155 3 AND VARIANCE N0, 3~7 (continued) Commissione~ Johnson polnted aut thase propertles are aoned RS-10~Q40 and tl~esc lots will be cl~te ta 10.~00 squa~e fer,t and he saw no probiom if the other p~opertles we~e developed with twa houses. Chalrman tle~bst stated if thesa l~ts were ~ln~ to bc substandbrd~ lic would be opposed to the request~ but they appear to be closa and e flag lot is sorethl~g the Commisslon h~s allvwad to be used in are~s w',e~rR ~and is n~t eccess(ble. Me felt origt~ally thesc lots were u~ea far agricultural purp~ses and that ls no lonqer fe~sihle. and felt this would be the hiqhest ~nd best use ~f the property at tl~ls tlme. It was noted the Planning Director or his autharized representatlve has determined that the proposed proJect falls w(thin the eieflnitlon of Categarical Exemptlons~ Class ~~ as deffnad In paragra~h 2 of the City of Anaheim Environme~tal Impact Report Guldelines end is~ therefore, categorically exerr~t from the requirement to prepare an EIR, AC714N: Gommissioner Tolar ~ffered Resolution No. PC79-24 and moved for lts p~ssage and a~opLTo~. that the Aneheim Clty Planning Cormission docs hereby ~r~nt Petitlon fer Varlancn No. 3~73 on the basis that denlal of the r~quest would be dcprivtng the property of prt~ileges enJoyed by hther properties in the sane vicinity and zcne and du~ to the size anc: shupe of the property; anci subJect to the pntitioner's stipulatlon to create the 20-foot driveway as ~equired by the fire department; and sub)ect t~ Interdepr~rtmentel Commtttee ~ecommenclations. On roll cell~ tne f~regoing resolution was p3ssed by thc following vote: AYES: COMMI5SI~NERS: BARNES~ DUSHORE, HERBST~ JONNS0~1~ KIHf~ TOLR~R NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NOt1E ABSENTt COMMISSIONERS; QAVtO ITEM N0. 8 PII~LIC HEARING. 01JNERS; ~. NAROLD AND MARION SMITN, E R NEG VE DECLARATION ~~792 Knatt Avenue~ Stonton~ CA 9~6~~. Petitianei WA1 ER 0 E RE~UIR.MEtITS requests permissian to ESTA6LISH A CONSTRUCTION C N ON M N0. 1y32 STORAGE YARD WITH WAIVER OF (A) MAXfMUM FENCE HEIGNT ANO ~B) PERMITTED ENCROACNMENT INTO RE~UIREO YARp on prope~ty descrtbed as a rectangu~arly-shaped parcel of land c~nsistiny of app roxinately 0.4 acre having a frontage of approxtmately 153 feet or~ the n~rth side of Sall Road~ having a maximum dcpth of approxtmetely 110 feet, being located appraximat~ly 832 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue~ and further 6escribed as 3311 West Ball Road. Property presently classltiad RS-A-43.OOA (R~SiDENT1AL/ AGPICUL7URal.) ZOtJE. There were three pe~sons indicating their presence in o~posit'an to sub.19~9 Waaunot~read although the staft report tq the Planning Commission dated .lanua ry 2y, at th~ public hearfng~ it ls referred to and r.~ade a part ~f the minutes. J. tlarold Smith, pPtitloner~ st~ted he wants to use this property tu store equipment trailers; that hc h~s a construction business and has owned the lot for approximately I$ years and needs a pla:e to store his equipm~nt off the streets; that he has been us(~g the property as a place for storage for hts semis and trailers; that they have put a fence around the prop~rty and there (s not much activity as far as equipment coming and going, probably once or twice a day; that he has atored street light poles on the property for 10 or 12 years and there have been no problems~ but thdt those will be removed; and that the properties on both sides are zoned RS-A-43~000 and the one on the weRt ts used ss a tree ~ /~e /ye ~ M I NUTES ~ ANAI~E I M C I TY f' LANN I NG COMM I SS I ON ~ JANUIIRY 29 ~ 197~1 19- 8S EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND G~NUITIONAL USE PCRMIT P~O. 123,',. (continued) ~,..._. _. farm and the one on the east ls a residencs~ but th~+t property was vacent tor e lon~ tlme. H~ ststed he did not think thls use would caus~ eny ~rohl~!mR ~s f~r ss ciust~ ~etG. M~~. Robert A. Brunner~ 33~2 West peerwa~d O~ive~ Anaheim~ Inclicnt~d h~r pr~perty (~ dlrectly behlnd sub.~ect property. Shn Indicated st~~ had threc lettars from nelghbo~s wh~ are slso opnosed to the pro)ect (Jeck 4lhlte. De~uty Cltv Attorn~y, exnlalned letters of op~osltfon cannot be edmltted as evldence unless the wrlter (s present to en~w^r qucss t I ons) . She s tet~d they hrvc 1 1 vecf at th Is addr~ss for 1.1 yeers end s I nce 1962 ~ the electrical company s~iprli~s have bNen le~ft on thts pro~ertY• She ~res~nted pictures of the property sh~ywtnct thP ll~ht ~oles mentl~ncd and other c~ul~rt~nc on the prop~rty. She explnined she cr~n se~ thesr 1(ght noles from her bedr~om window and they nr~ occaslanelly stACknd hl~her than the fence; tt~at once or twice a year Mr. Smith h~+s .~r~ckhammers golnc~~ bre~king up the concrete bases; that thero Is a trASh build-u~, an~1~ in addition, there ts ~ tremondous rmount uf weeJs whltn arc taller th~n hNr ~ence; that the weeds ere never cut and the property is nevcr dtskc:d~ and thls is ~ flre fia=nrd; that t-,~ fencc is not very attractive and is not a solid cheinlink fence Acruss the top~ but Is a ro11P~1•out chelnllnk fence which was oniy put up durln~ tt~e l+~st yenr when the AddttlonAl truck beds were brought in; th~~t dlesel trucks a~me r~nd qo; and th•ai she has hecn awaken~d at 1t30 a.m. with dtesel trucks runniny for apRr~ximatcly on~-half ~i~ur or more whtle they are loadEng lonq st~ips of inetal plpe or pleces of wcr~d or lui+~ber which ~r~ stu~ed on the praperty,whlcli is also a ftre h~zard. She stated she was Informed tlhe property owner was renting the property to someone else~ but maybe all the equtnmcnt an the property is Mr. Smlth's; t~~at he hns a lar~~e property in Stanton wh~re hls ~lcctrlcal company ts lotated and felt he cou1J pr~bably hnve storaqe ther~; thet on Saturdays and Sundays when young men are working on thcir engines at tt~c praperty~ they have tt~cir radios i:lasting qutte loud all day. She stated she had c~ntact~d the Z~ninq Departrt~ent In ,luly or Auqust and Mr. Walp had made an Investigation and cited Mr. Smith and until t~ovcmber he had been glvcn sevGral ~xtensions. Mrs, arunner stated shc knows Mr. Smtth and thinks he is a fine person and realtz~s he probably has not been able tc do what he has wentcd to do atth h(s proparty; that (t ls frn~ting on Ball Road and is a nx:ss lookinc~ at it from Ball Roed; that the rast of the naighborhood ts n(ce and other people have to kcep tt~tir property disked regulerly; that thfs property has been ve ry hazardous for chtldren snd they have hed fires and child~en have been In~Jured from thc I(ght standards. and she felt those should certainly be removed. She stated they are reasonable penplc and would consider somathlnq for this property, but do not like the chrinltnk fence because you .:an see through it. She stated her bedroom is ~n the back sEde of tl~e property wlth a large wind~w and she has experlenc~d walking into her bedroom and coming aye-to-eye wlth persons on the truck beds becauso, they are ebove the fence line, and they do not have any privacy. Barbara Gay indicated she awned the property Just north ~f subject property on 9s11 Road and that she agrees with rverything Mrs. Brunner has said; thst privacy is a big factor and the property is an eyesore. She tndicated she has plctures~ but they show the same thing as Mrs. Brun~er's. She felt there should be a 1~-foot high fence for a storage yard which would y(ve more prtvacy. She staced shG was not in acco rd~nce with this watver. Bland Nuffman, 1156 Linda Vlsta Street~ Orange, stated he was before the Canrnission about a year aga when he purchased property in thls neighborhood and that he had been requested t~ do things in excess of the code so tfnat the neighborhood could be up~raded; thAt this particular properiy is en eyesore and when he had purchesed his p roper7y~ he felt it wouid oniy be a rr~tter of time before this wo~ked itself out. He stated he understaod this requcst is to make this eyesore legttimate and he is certalnly agatnst that. Ne explained 1/29/79 I~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ ,IANUARY 2~~ 1979 79-86 TION AND C~N~!TIONAL USC PERMIT NO 1932 (contfnued) his p rope ~ty fronts on Weste~n •nd goes spp~oxlmacely 66n feet westerly~ immedlately behind the cl~urch. Hr~ Smith revlewed the lette~s of opposltion end th~ photog~~phs s~~bmttted. Ne txplalned the I(ght 'tandards (ndicated would be removad from ttie property a~r [hat they heA never baer stacked highe~ thAn 4 or y feet and explalnad that they are opproxtm~tely 18 to T.0 inches sq uare. Concerntng tha w~rk on Saturdeys, he stated thts ts nat golnq ~n anymore; that there had bee~ sc,rr~ ~c~,p~e ustng the a~ea to nsrk thelr cars~ but they do not heve a~y~ne worktnq ln thetr compa~y who woul~l work on SAturdoys and they do not e11ow anyone to go on the property~ an~1 if there h~s b~en music on Seturd~ys~ tt wi1) br, stopped. He explained some~mc: elsc haa useJ a trafler on the property to store hls truck and he dld ~o out nt ntnht~ but they Ar~ back to an ~hour day and the~e Nould bc no ona worktng at nlght~ on d thetr hours ~f operatlon would ~ormally be betw~en f3;00 a.m, and N:O~ p.m.~ with no night work. TNE PUbLIC NEAR~NG WA.; CI.OSEO. Commisslonnr Tolor steted he ts d(sturbed by the somcwhat complecent attitude of the prop~rty vwner bec,~use he has awned the prnperly tor 1B years dnd has not made any effort to t~+ke care of tl~e property; tfiat there have been tren~ndous clianges du~ing those 18 ye~rs and the use of the property has chan~ed. lie stated he could not support any type of storage on that property due to thc devQlopment surrounding (t. Ne referred to A stmllar situetlon furthcr dawn on Bdll Raad where another gentleman was oaerattnc~ his buslness aut of the p roperty end using (t for stor~~ge~ and statrd there wes probably some Justlftcatlon In what he was do(ny at che time thts business was started~ but at this potnt he has nc heArd enythtnc~ to convince him tt should continue; that the pettttoner does not !(ve o~ the propc ~ty and does not havc to look at it; ar~d thet he ts dlsturbed about s~x~xone n~t caring about the people iround his property. Ne stAted h~ did not think he could suppo~t a storagc ya~d of any type on thts prc~perty~ regardless of how well the pr~periy was kcpt because of the surround(n!~ restdential properties. Mr. Sm(th stat~d t~ allow thts us~ would rnake the property usable until it is developed intr a building late~ on; that it has been a trast~ lot in the past~ but hrlf of the trash was not from hlm but fra~i ottiers; that he f~a3 cleaned up the lot htmself personally f(ve times (n the last 18 years and h~uled the Lrash and r~bish eway. Commissioner Tolar felt cleaninq thc property five times in che last 18 yeArs proves his attitude is tomplacent toward the netghbors and that he did not care what the property looks like. F1e asked Mr, Smith to explain the pictures p~psented and asked how ofGen the property had gotten in that condilion during the l~~st 1L~ years. Mr. Smlth stated [he pictures we~e taken recently bec:ause this has Just come up. Ne explalnesd the first five or six years the property was kept well-disked unCil he could not keep up with the trash comtnq in; that he had put the light poles on the ~r~perty in 1970 or 1972 and that he had put a fence i~ the front, but it has been torn down most of the time and he wtll have to put up a highe~ fence; thrt he kept the dl*_cl~ open so that other people could use tt and he should have fer~ced it off, and explalned it is an easeme~t for the Flood ~ontrol District. Commissioner Tolar stated he probably fights harder than anyone on the Commtssion for anybody to be able to devPlop n~ use thei~ prnperty, but not at the expense and welfare of the neiqhbors and he could not support thls pa~ticular conditional use permit. 1/29/79 i MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMiSSION~ JANUARY 2Q~ 197~ 79-g7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Awo CONDITtOW1L USE PERMIT NO, 1932 (conttnued) Conxntssloncr Johnson eskcd for clori f icetlnn of tha numbe s shaan ~n the mnp~ nnci Jey Tashiro explalned those were numbers of pest reque~sts }or reclasstftc~+tlon whlch were elther doniod~ terminated ~r wtthdrawn. Commisaloner Jahnson clarified that the property Is currently ~oned RS-A-43,0~10 and th~ use ts ( I le,qel ~ and Mr. Tasht ro I~di cated this was correct. Conmissioner Johnson statod he agreed wi th Commisst~ner 7olar; however, everybody on both stdes of the fonce heve ce~tain rlqhts and nrivi leges end tha granc~father ri~hts In thls ctty are qulte strong and p~ple who have owned p~operty for 18 years usually have done someth(ng nesr what should be cione. He stated he does not see any ciefense for th~ property owner in thls situation~ hc»vevar, and could not su~port the request. Commisstoner Ha~nes os~.cd what klnd of rcquest ha~d been prevlously mdde on tf~is property~ and Mr. Smith explai~ed lie ha~f asl.ecf for comnercial zoning tn 1~G2. Chalrman i~erbst stated ~~ would appea~ Mr. Smlth has nat really been a gc~od nelgF~bo~ a~d has been downgraJ(ng the surroundtng properties, He felt (f thcre was any way the use could be allc~wed~ the condit(ons would be sa grQat~ such es paved yard, 8-foot 3,tgh fence, landscapinc~~ etc.~ thAt tt would not be compatlble with Mr. Smtth. -ie pointPd out the bie~ t~ucks parkeci on the pr~perty are blocking tha vi~v and ~Ir space of other people~ and he felt lt Is the wronq place for a storage yard, Ile stated AnahRim 15 growing to be thc eighth largest city arid the country atmospF-ere Is fast disappearinQ. Commissianer B~rnes asked where the t~ucks were stored p~eviousiy~ and Mr. Smtth indicated they have accumulated the~~ and they are out ~n Job sites. etc. ConKnlssioner Johnson stated he fel t the timc~ ls coming wh~n these stor~qe a~eas whiCh have been goinq on sroun~i the clty wlll g~aduelly disappear~ and he could see the time coming when all kinds of storaye for contractors' equ(p~ent~ tractars~ bulldozers, etc.~ wlll all be done Inslde butldings in arder t~ be ~ompatlhle with zhe netghbors. Commissloner Barnes asked the General Plan des~gnation of subJect propcrty~ end Jay Tashiro replied It is low densfty residentlal, She indlcrted the Commtssi~n may wish to take a look at the General Plan ~les ty~~stion in the future. Commissioner Tolar felt there probabiy could be somethin~ othe~ than low density on this property and 1 f the property vwner wanted s~mcth f ng other than lnw dens i ty, the C~ niss ton would be obligated to look at ehe proposal. ACTION: Cartmissioner Barnes affered A motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTIAN C~~tR~ED (Comnissioner pavid being absent), that the Anaheim City Pianning Carmission has revti,wed the proposal ta permlt a construction storage ya~d wtth waiver of maxtmum fence height and permitted encr~oachment into the requlred yard on a rectangularly-s~Tped parcel of land consisttng of approximAtely 0.4 acre having a frontage of approximately 153 feet on the north sicle of Bsll Road, having a maxlmum depth of approximately 110 feet, bcing loceted approxlmately $32 feet west of the centeri tne of Wastern Avanue; and does hereby dlsap~rovo the negatlve declaration from the requlrement ~to prapere an envtronrn~ntal impact ~eport on the basis that the~e would be signifi~:ant indi••tdual or cumulative adv~~se environmerital impacts due tu the ~pproval of this negative declaration. Commtsslaner E3arnes offered a mot ton, seconded by Commiss ioner King and MOTION CARRI ED (Commissioner Dav~d b~ing absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does he~eby deny the request for walver of the code requirements on the basis that the proposed use ts not compatible with the surrounding residenttal araa; that thtre are no unique or unusual 1/2g/79 ~, 1 M1NU'iCS, ANAllE1M C1TY PLANNIWG COMMISSION~ .iANUARY 29~ 197q 7y•ge EIR NEGATiVE DEC4ARATION AND CANDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 19~2 (co~tinued) circumst+~n.:~s which wouid juctify w~iw+r of th~ c~de requlr~ment~; encl that thl~ propc~ty doea not dtffer from other p ro~ertl~s In th~ er~~. Comml~atoner 9arnes offered Resc,lution No. PC79-25 and moved far tts pessage r~nd edoptlon~ that thc Aneholm City Plenning Conmtssion daes hereby deny Petitian for Conditl~ne) Usc Permi t No~ 1q;2 on tl~e basi s tt~at the i 1 legal use has had an adverse (n+~ect upcm the surrounding restde~tial nniqhborhood, On roll cell, the fo~egoing resolutlon was passed by the follawlnc~ voke: AYES; COMHISSIONERS; BARNES~ BUSHORC, f1ERDST~ JOHNSON~ KING, TOIAR NOCS; COMMISSIDNERS; NONE ABSE~ITs COMMISSIONERSr DAVID . Mr. Smlth had left the Cnunct) Chamber~ however, Jl~ck White~ Oeputy City Att~rney~ prasontad the written rlght to ~~peal thG Plannin~ Cc~nmissl~n's deciston wftt~ln 22 days ta the City Council, Jay Tashiro asked how long thr petitioner wauld heve ta move the equinn~nt from the aree~• and JaGk Whtte explalned he would havc 30 days aFter the 22-dav appeel period~ unl~ss the pe~ftlon (s appe~aled. ChAirntan Herbsc Indtcated tf the pe tttioner had remained~ he would have 1(ked to ask hIm how long he needed tn remove thP eq uipment, and Commissioner Barnes Indicated shc had wanted to encourage the property awner to present a di fferent t~ qraposal . ITEM N0. ~ PU8L1~ HEARING. OWNERS: VICTOR J. AND SYLV:f1 S. E EG RICAL EXEMPTIOtJ-CLASS 1 VIDAL~ 1117G arBnt Lane, La Habra~ CA 90631. AGENT; CONDIT ~NAI. USE PERMiT N0. 1937 GARY L. PUCKETT~ 1~}43 Sherwaad Vtllage f,lrclc~ Placentia~ CA 92G7G. Petttinn~• requests ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN A PROPOSEQ RESTAURANT on R roperty described as An irregularly-st~aped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres loceted o~ xhe west s ide of Mi l ier Strcet between Oranqethorpe Av~nue end Crowther E3o~levard~ havinq approximate frontages of S5 feet on the Nest side of Miller Strect, 1+3~ fect on the north side of Orangetho rpe Avenue, and 375 feec on the south stde ot Crawcher Boulevard~ and further described as 3331 East Oran~ethorpe Avenue. Property presentl,r classifie d Cl (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. There was no one tnJlcating the(r p resence in opposition to subJect request~ and alrhough the staff reporC to the Planning Commisslon dated January 2q, 197g was not read at tl~e public hearing~ it Is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Garry Puc kett~ agent~ w~s prese~t ta answe~ any cuestions. THE PU~I.I C NEARING WAS CLOSCD, It was noted the Planning Director or his author;zed repr~s~:~ntAttve has determined that the proposed pru,ject fal ls wi thin the definitton af Categorical Exemptions, Class 1~ as defined i~ paragraph 2 of the City af Maheim Environrw~~:ntal Impaci Repo~t Guidel ines and is, ihere fore~ cateqortcally exempt from the requireme nt to prepare an Ela. t/29/79 r y MINUTCS~ AtIMICIM tITY PLAt~N1~~C COMMISSIO~~, JANUARY 29~ 1979 73•8~ EIR CATkf,ORICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS i, AND,CONDITIANIII USE PERMIT NO.~ I~7 (continued) ACTIU~~: Commissloncr Kinq offcr~~ Rasolution No. PC)9-26 and moved }or its pa~sage end a opt o~, th~t thc Anr~helm City Plan~tng Commisslon does hereby qrant Petitlon for Condltlonel Use Permlt No. 1937~ subJect t~ Interdepartmnnt~l ~onxnlttee recommend~tions. On rol! call~ tt~e farr.gaing resolutiun wes passed by the followlnc~ vote: AYES; COMMISSI~NERS; BARNkS~ BUSHORE~ NERE~ST, JONNSON, KING~ TOIAR NOES: COMMISSI~NERS: NONE ABSEf~Tt CUMMISSIO~!ERS; DAVIO I TEM N0. 1!t PUtil I C HEAR 1 ~~G. OWNERS : ARTHUR H. AND BETTY A, ~O~ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Si11PKEY~ 1~+~8 West Bay~ Newport 8each, CA 9?.661. CONDI ON l USE ERMIT N0. 1~3~~ AGENTs C. KENr~E7fl HAMIl.TO-l~ 9~1 Cardif} Stre~t, Anahe im~ CA ~32A06. Pet i t toner requ~s ts permiss ion to ESTABLISN AN AUTOMOE31l.E REPAIR FACIIITY on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cansisting of Approximately 4.3 acre locatcd at the s~uth~ost corne~r of Sycam~re ~nd East Streets, havinc~ approximates f~onteges of 122 fect on the sout~i s(de of Sycar-wre Streec and 12~ feet on the east side of ~ast Street~ and further described as 424 North Eest Street. Property presently cla~sified CL (CUMMERCIAI.~ LINITED) ZOr~E. There were two persons indicacinq their presence in opposttior~ to subJoct request, and althougl~ khe staff report to the Planning Conmtsston deted January 29. 1979 was not read at the publtc hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Kenneth Flamtlton~ agent~ stated he would 1(ke to operate thls automobfle repair business on thls property and thought it would be compatible with the a~ea; that there ls a tarwash~ a large market~ and a little shopplnq center in the area snd he dicl not think hts operation would cause any more t~affic with ~pproximately 20 or 25 cers per day; that it is not a nolsy-type business; and that it Is a brake and front-end repair feci)tty and ts generslly a one-day operation. Ne stateJ his plans tndicate a 10-faot wide landscaped nr~:a rather tha~ 20 feet~ which gives more parklnq tn the area. Chairman Herbst clarlf~~•d that the two drlveways will be closed and the area will be lr~dscap ith a 10-foc~t buffer an d the canopy and tanks wtll be ~emoved. Comm-~,, -' tinson stated It is possible he could have a conflict of inte rest as defined by the Pn~ ., ;,fty Planning Commtssion Resolution ~lo. PC76-157, adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for thc P1Pnning Cammisston~ and Government Code Section 3625 ct seq.~ in that his product is used by the owner of the shop and~ pursuant to the pravisidns of the above codes, he hereby declares to the Chairman that he is withdrawinq trom the heartng tn con~ection with Conditional Use Pe~mlt No. 19~8 and would not tak~ part in either the dlscusston or the voting thereon~ and Chat he had not dtscussed this matter Ntth any member of the Planning Commfssion. THEREUP0~1~ CQMMIS51nNER JOHNSOtI LEFT THE COUNCIL C MliMB E R . Ma ty Carrasco~ 1222 East Sycartqre Street~ Anahetm~ stated she ls not agalnst this man~ but h.~s a two and one-half year old child and is concerned because of the tr~ffic, pointing out there ts plenty of traffic On the area at the present time and there have heen acctder:ts constantly; that she was almost htt by a car and was afraid this business would bring mr~re *raffic to the area. She stated they have been robbed twice and with more crime tn the ar~a, it would not be safe. t /29/79 ~ ~ Mi NUTES ~ ANAItC I M C 1 TY PLAN~11 NG COMMI SS I QN ~ JIINUARY 29 ~ 1979 79-9f1 ~IR`CATEGOkICAI ~XEMPTION-CIASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1g~8 (co~tinuud) Chai rmsn Herbst stato~~ thora Is a vacant bui iding existtr~~ et the present timc and this use mtght help det~r crlme; that we cannot say one business influenc~s crime eny morR th~~n another business~ but felt thls corner would be upgrrded with ~his ope~att~n. !:lemens Ilefnz~ 1235 East Sycamor~ Strcet~ Anahaim~ stated he hes ilve~i et this eddrQ~s f~r 223 yeers and heci bouylit the property es R•1 prope~ty; thst these r.orners had been reserved by the owner and the avner had sold him tl~c property o~ the str~nqth of the R-1 Zone; and that he could have sold It al) et that time. He statad 15-1/2 years eqo they were pr~nised e beautlful corner wl th landsc.eping~ plonts~ flowers. etc. ~ and al l they have ~s drled-ur weeds~ the Junk, h~rmncrin~ And be~tln~. He felt past perform~nce should be cons(dered in thls instance and polnted aut the property Is dn eyesorc. Ne st~ted 15-1/7. yaars ego the Plonninc~ Commisslon haJ turned down a service stntian r~quest and ti~ere w~s a petition of y0 ta 7; peu~la to the City Council a~d the City Councli had ~pnrove-d tt enywey. He ststed this operetlon wlll be tn the back yards of thraP residences~ one belonc~iny to hls nephew~ ~nd there arc~ a number of people who cannot att~riJ t~~d~y's meet i ng and he 1 s spea{, i ng on the t r beN~a i f. Ho exp 1 a i ned h t s house i s the th~ i rd hous~ from the market. lie tndtcited a use such as a professt~nal ~ffice would bP acceptable and Nelcomed in the neighborhoo~J; that ttiis property has been an eyesore f~r 15 years because people have n~t lived up to tlie stl~ulati~ns and now ti~P property is bonrded u~. Ne stt~ted there is a simtlnr st~op about one-half mite awey and it is absolutely terr(blc end he dicf not think the neighbors would accept this use, and asked why the Council had ruled ag.~tnst 50 prsople in favor of one person. Chairmen Herbst stated the Council had elected ko zone thts corner commercial (CL) and the~e ere many uses which could q~ into the property anci the Cammission cannot change that~ but they can require tt~is user to landscape the area and re~uirP that the prope~ty bc malntai~ed or the permit can be revoked; that there ,~re many uses which can go in wlthout havin~ to make anv inpravements~ and it was his oplnion Nith the drivcways closed off~ this would be e safer w rner and this rnight be a bettpr use for this propc~rty. Mr. Heinz did not think the nelghbors would agrer. and indicated~ a~eln~ that past performance should b~ considered. Ne fr.it anythinq would be better than the proposed use and that they ~~~d ex~ect ta s~e a lot of )unk vehicles, etc.~ at thTs locetion tf this request is approved, Mr. Hamiltan ~eb utted that this wtl) be a b rake and front-end facility an d it is a clean operatian and is n~t noisy. THC PUBLIC NEARING WAS CL~~S~'9. Chelrman Herbst ~ndicated ~i this requtst (s approved~ he would want to see a stipulati~n chat there would be only brake work and front-end repairs done at this locattnn; and ihat there would be no body re~ai r worL: or major mechanical repaf rs, wi th a)1 work conducted tnside and no overnight~ outdaor storaqe of vehicles. He also indicated he would like to see the hours of aperation limited. Mr. Hamilton stated they rar~ly hav~• a vehtcle overnight unless sanething unforeseen happens and thefr ho~ ~~ f operation would normally be from 7:30 a.m, to 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Bernes i;- ,,.,ted she wes concerned about noise and asked if the doors apened to the rear~ and Mr. Hamilton replicd that they cb not at the present ttme. but he would like to expand his ope~ation in order to work c~ four vehicles at one ~ime and he would like to be able to come in from both directior 1~29/79 _~ MINUTES~ ANIIHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUIIRY 29~ 1974 79'A~ EIR CATEGORICAL EXE MPTION-CLKSS 1 ANn CONDITiU_ ~rAL USE PERMIT N0, 1938 (conttnued) Chai~ rman Ncrbst asked if alr comp~essors And eir to~ls ere used e~d pointed ~ut the City has a nots~~ ord(nence which would heve to be tomplied with. Comntsslonor f3arnca stated the declbel readings are base+d on the average and she waa concerned about the noise level at any one time. She stated sh~ was not aqainst the use~ but wanted to be sure there would be rest~ictlons so thot the residonts wlll n~t be bothered by noise. She stated she did not like the idca oP doors oponing tow~rd the rasidencos. Mr. Hamilton ;ndicated hc woul<tl~e uslrsg air compressors ~nd air tools. He cxplained tne back of the bullrling is fi~ feet from the property 11ne. Commissloner Tolar stated he fett snme vc ry valid points hed been mads, but wanCed to point out thls property Is zoned far a servicr. statlon and another service stetion could be developeJ on this p~aperty and the trip count would be considerably hiqher than thfs use and the nolse would be highGr; that the service statlon could be opnn longer hours than the restrlctions which will be placed on this ~ise if tt is approved. He polnted out the petitioncr could I~ave elected ta leeve onz pump in and reopen as a serv(ce station and added this use and the resldents would not have gatten thP protection they wlll be gettinq wlth thr. restrictlons proposed. Chalrma~ Herbst pointed out the new nolse ordinance is more stringent tt~nn the old code and sug,yested that the petitloner make certaln he can n+eet the noise levels before ~edesigning his buliding with the openings to [he back. Ne stat~d he has no oblections to thts usc as lonc~ as the noise ordinance is met. Commisslaner aushore $tatec~ that by redcsignin4 the existing bullding to accommodate four cars~ the front ends of the four cars will be instde the qaraqe to worked r~n and the ~ear ends woulci be stlcking out (Mr. Hamllton repltPd he has not redesigrsed che buildlnc~, as yet~ but that is a possibility). Cortmisstoner Bushore stated he wouid go along with thls request because he falt tliis corner needs to be improved. He steted if this use creates a oroblern, he would like to hear from the residents; thet if this ge~tleman lives up to what he is supposed to do~ this use wil l be an improvement to the aree. Chati^man Nerbst asked Pf the buildtng is to b~ redesigned~ would tt be possible to ac~ommodate the vehicles all inslde and work with the doors closed. Mr. Hamilton replied all vehicles a~e not the same size and you could not get some vehicles inside because of the air-co~ditioners on top~ etc.~ but the front ends wo~ld be inside to be worked on. Commissioner Tolar rcminded the Commission sgain that the petitionG~ could open this oQeration as a service station and do exactly what he is p~anning to do. He pofnted out if the conditlons are violated, the Commission has a handle on it. Commissione~ Barnes referred to a previous request c~n Aneheim Boulevard where there were residents ecross the alleywW and strict limitations were placed on that use concerning work being conducted inslde with the doors closed~ hours of operatton~ etc., and felt these resldents are entltled to that same protection. Commissioner Tolar pointed out the Commisslon has approved several requests for the tune- up type operatton with ,just as much noise as thts use w~ll generate; that this facility will be landscaped and the Commission has a handle on it~ and i~ there are vtolafi~ns or t/29/79 ~. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ JAMUARY 29~ 1974 ~q_qZ IR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONOtTIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 1938 (co~ttnued) the usP (s haza~dous to the healtl~. safety and welfare of thP reafdents, thc permit can be ~evoked. Commissioner Iiush~re went~d to be sure tha petitlonnr understands what th~ Cammission's concerns are regr~rding the naise~ etc. Commlaslancr TolAr felt sure th~ petittoner wou{d want t~ make certain all probienM are res~lved before he lnvests money (n thts operati~n~ and tclt he has been put on nc~ticQ of th~ Cammission's conccrns, It was notc~d th~ Planninc~ Dl~ectar or hls auth~rized re~-res~ntetive tyds detsrmined that the p roposed pr~Ject falls w(th(n the deflnition of Cetec~oric~l Exem~tions~ C1asS 1~ es deftned (n p~~~r~rapf~ 2 af the ''tty of An~heim E.nvironmental Impact Report Guidelines and (s, therQfpre~ cat~gorically exemp~ f~om the requtrert-ent t~ prepArP an EIR. ACTION: Commissio~er 7ol~r affcred Resolution Mo, PC7~-T.7 and mnved for its passage and acToptTan~ that th~ Anahelm City Planning Commission daes herehy q~ant Petttion for Cnnditt~nal llse Pr.rmit No. 193~~ subJect to the pctttic,~er's sti~ulatlon that ~11 wc,rk will be con~lucted inside the faciltty; that thcre will be n~ autdoor storaqe of vehicles avernight; that the hours of operAtian shall be ~rmally from 7:30 a.m. to 5:3~ p.m.~ Monday throuc~h Saturdey; and sub.ject to Interdepartmencal Comn-ittee recomn~endeti~ns. On rolt call, [he f~reyoinc~ resolution was passed by the follow(n~ votc: AYLS; CQMr~IS510rIERS: DARNF.S, HUSIIORE~ HERBST, ;;INr,~ TOLAR NOES : COhIM15S IONER~ : NONE AEiSEtJT; CQMIdISS10'IEl~S: DAVIJ, J01lNSQtI Mr. Nein~ ask~d who tl~ey sl~ould complain eo if tl~ere are problems~ and it was po(nted out the toniny Enfortement Officer ~f :he City sho~~ld be nntified~ and Commissioner Tolar pninted out tlie Commisslon w{11 be watchinp this use. Chalrm$rt Herbst poin~~d out the petit{oner w(11 be remov,ny the Qas tanks. pumps and canopies and upgrading the property~ clostng the d~ivcwvays and providinq landscaping, and he felt this is prAbably the ligh~test use that could qo on tt~at corner. Mrs. Garras~o indicated the only thing she has to say is that she did not really think the people have much cholce and indtcated she was still concerned about the traffic. Jack Vhite, Deputy Clty Attarne:y~ p~inteQ out anyone wh~ disagrees with the Planntng Commtssion's decision cauld anne~~ that decision within 22 day~ ta the City Councll. GONMIS~ IONER J~lil~$.~~~ RETURNED T~ TNE COUNCIL CHAM(3ER. t/29/79 r. ~ MINUTCS~ ANANkIM G1~fY PLMINING COP1M155I0~~, JI-MVARY 29~ 1~7~ 79-93 I TCM fIQ. 1 1 ~R S Na RECOMMENUA710N5 A. ABANUOt~MEP~T N0. 78-1 ~~A - Reques t to at~andon ~n exi st t nq pub I( c ut t I i ty aasement ~ocetc ~n Vermon- t Avenue between West Street end tl~e Sente Ane Frc+eaiay~ north ~f Ball Road. Tlie staff report to tf~e Planning Commisst~n date.d Jenuary 2~~ 1~~7~ wes presPnted~ noting sub.jcct request is to abandon an extstinq puhlic util(ty e~sement locot~d In V~rrn~nt Avenue between West Street and the Santn Ana Freewey~ north of Ball Road; that tt is requesC of the City Enyinecr that the City Counc.il approve the re~tuast to abandon qround anQ air rights alor~ the southerly 13 f~~t And ol~and~n air rthhts anly abuve 2n feat f~om g~adc alon~~ ttie nortf~erly 5 fcet of the southerly 18 feet; subJect to the condition that the design ~f th~ future bulldtnq is to heve tho uottom of tne fo~t(nn belc~w gra~e of senttary sewNr line and Is ta be so designe~l Lo b~ free-standin~ with no support on the north; that the applicant wl~l pay tl~e cost of St~~;Oq to cover the cost ~f relocating the sanitary sewcr 1(ne to a pofnt anproximately 1~ feet south ~f the c~nterllne of Vermont Avenue and the rcloGation of all or part of the existtng casterly~ ~`~y-fo~t essement~ more or lesa~ of a water line to a IocAtlon satisfactc~ry to the Nater D(vision; and that the request has been revlewed by all d~partments of the Gity and affected outside agenctes, end approval is recommended as stipulated subJect to tf~e conditions above ment6onad, It was further r~oted the Ctty by Resolut(on No. 69R-~$1 abandoned the forrr~r roadway commonly known a~ Vcrrmnt Avenue and reserved a ~ublic ~~tility easement including, but not limited to, watcr tranr:m(ssion and distri6ution lines~ sanit,~+ry sewer and storm dra(ns within th~ entire area ta accommodate existing fac(lieies; that the C(ty presently has plans to instal 1 a 2~+-i nch sani tary sf:wer 1 ine 1; fc~et south of the centerl tne of former Vermont Avenue; that ttie ap;~l~cant has requested this line be installed 10 feet from s~id centerline and has agreecl to pay the ~~dditlonrl c~st estimated to be S6~On0 to accompltsh the chan4e (n location of ~aid line; that t~~e 4later Dtvislon has request~d that the easterly ti~ feet~ more or less~ of thc~ existinq water main and State water meter h~ relocated to a location satisfdceary to them and the cost of said relocation is esttmatec+ to be S4,500; and that an envirc~nmental re.view of the subJecc abandonment indfcAtes this request to be categorically exempt from the requirement of filin~ an EIR and the C100 fcs to cover the cast of pracessin~; f~as been pai~i. ACTION: Commissioner K(ny offered a mation~ secnnded by Cammtssioner Johnsan and MOT111N RR) U(Commissioner David being abscnt), that the 1lnaheim City Planning f.ommissi~n daes hereby recomrnend to the Ci ty Counci 1 that Ab~ndonment No. 7f;-il+A be aooroved as recommended by the City En~ineer. E. l9qNDQt4MENT N0. 7d-12A - Request to abandon existinq public alleys located between nco n Avenue and Hroadway and Anaheim aoulevard and Phtladelphia Street. The staff report to the Planning Commiss6on dated January 29, 1979 wa3 presented~ noting the request is to abandon existing public alleys located between Lincoln Avenue and Broadway and Anaheim Boulev~rd and Philadelphia Street; that this request has been reviewed by atl depa~tments of the City and affected outside agencies and aoproval ts recommended; that the city (s presently consCructing the new City l1a11 building and related parking structure and abandonment uf the ~ubJect alleys are necessary to clear the development site of the public alleys; that the City and/or the Redevelopment Agency own all of the land located on each side of the subJect alleys~ thnrefore~ abandonment of safd 1/29/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM tITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 2~~ 1979 ~~_~y RCPORTS AND RECOMMENOATIONS - ITEM B(conttnued) alleys would ceuse na hr~~dshlp to adJolnin~ proparties= thAt the sub)ect alleys were dedlcated for public use at the time of recordation of the: tract maps In tf~ls erea; and thet en environmenta) revinw uf the ebandonmont (ndicntes thts proposel to be cetegorically exempt frorn the ffl(ng of an EIR. ACTION; Commissi~n Ktng ~ffe~ed a motlan~ seconded by Corm~lssianer Bernes and M071AN ~i 1~'U (Comrnisstc+ner Davtd beln~ absent) ~ that thiz Anaheim City Plenntny Canmission does hereby recomnend to the Ct ty Councl 1 tht~t Abandonment IJo. 7$~12A t,e approved a~s reconxnended by the CI ty Enqineer. C. AaAr~uONMEriT Np. 7t3-1;A - Requ~st to abandon puhltc all~ys Incated b~twesn Lincoln ~~venuh un artres trcet and tielena Strect and Harbor ~oulavarcl. Tl~e staff report to t~~e Plonninq Commisston d~tnd JanuAry 2~1, 197~ was nresented~ notlnq the request is to aband~n ~uUlic alleys located t,etween Lincoln and Ch+~rtres and I~elena and Narhor tioulevArd; that tf~is request has been reviewed hy all departments of the City and offect~d outaiJe ~yencies and aprroval is rocarm~~ended; that the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency proposes a new development In tf~ls ~rea and have ac~ui~ed all of the parcels adJolning each s(de of th~ existtng alleys and~ [lierefore~ r~quest these alleys be abandoned as they are tnclucied in tt~e assemblagc of lancl beinq proposed for development; that the subJect alle~ys were dedicated for public use at the time of recordAtion of tr~ct maps ~n this area; ancl ttiat an envi r~nmental review ~f the proposPd ab~ndonrr~nt indtcates this pr~poscal to be cateqoric~ally exempt fram tl~e requirement of ftlinn an EIR. ACTIQW; Comrnissioner Tolar c~ffered a mot(on~ seconded bv CoMmissicm er Kinq and MOTION I~i~~D (Lommissioner David beinq ,~bs~n[), that the Anaheim City Planninn Commission does hereby recor~mend to the City Council that Abendonment tlo. J~'-1~A bp arproved as recommended by tlie Ctty Enqineer. D. VARIl1t~CC NQ. 24;~ - Request for an extensiun of time. The staff report to the Planniny Commissian dated January 2~?~ i~7~ was presented, notinn the sub)ect property is a rectangularly-shaped p~rcel af land consisting of GOSO squsre feet located at 40; East Broadway; tlisi the applicant requests a retroactive exte~sion of time for Varlance No. i~-5 ~ wf~ich was granCed by the Plannin~ CommiSSion on December 21 ~ 197Z, to permit a saw^sharnening oneration ln an existing restdential garage; that the stte is zoned RH~-110'1 and is currently tmproved wlth a single-famlly dwel)inq and one-car garage of approximatPly 512 square feet which is currently in use fo~ thr_ saw-sharpening operatlon; that the appltcant does not propose to expand nr alter his operation in any way; that a recent investigation by the 2oning Enforcement Off(cer indicates the subJect use had had no apparent deleterious effect on the areo; and that it has been the policy of the City that an extension of tlme be granted only for a period which does not exceed the length of time for which the variance was originally grented; and that there have been no previous extensions of ttme requested. ACTION: Commissic-ner King offered a motion~ secanded by Lommissioner Barnes and NOTION C~R E-~ (Commissloner David beiny absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi4n does hereby grant a retroactive extension of time for Variance No. 2459. to expire an December 21. 19b2. i/29/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ JANUARY 29~ 1~7~ 79'95 REPORTS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) E. VARIANCE N0. 2~~66 - Request for an extenslon of ctme. The staff report to the Planning Commission dated Janua~y 79, 1979 wss presented, natiny subJect property fs an irregulerly-shaped p~+rcel nf land consisting of approxim+~taly 2.7 acres h~vin,y a fronta~e of epproxtmately 1~0 feet nn the sauth slda of Ketella Avenue. spproximately ~i3~ feet cast of the cznterlinn of Stato Co?teqe ~oulevard; tMat thc applicant requasts a retroactive extenston of ttme for '~artance No. 2~~b6 whlch was approved by the Plann(nc~ Commisston an January 1~~ 19j3• to permtt the establlshment of a profass(onA1 office complex in an indu~trial zone; t'~at the approval of the vartance was granted sub)ect to several conditlons being satisfied prl~r to the (ssuance of e butlding permit or within a period of one year~ wh(chever occurred first~ said cond(tlons beino the pay^~e-+~ of troe plantinq fees, installation of ~sldewalk and driveways Alonq Katelld Avenue~ Installation of flre hydrAnts~ undcrgrounding ~f utillties~ and payment of a water essessment fee; that the strPet llyhting fecs have bee-,n paid and na other conditto~s have beer~ satisfied; that two previous extcnslons of ttrt-e have bcen granted, the latest extension havin~a ~xrired January 17~ 1979; and thAt the appl(cant requests an extension of ttme to make desiyn revisions. ACTIOt~: Commissioner King offcrc<i a matlon~ seconded by Commisslaner Barnes and MOTIQN t~D (Commissioner Davicl heing absent)~ tl~at tt~c Anahelm flty Planning Commtssion does hereby grant a retroactive extension of time f~r Variance No. 2~~GG~ to expire on January 1a, 1980. F. Al3ANDONMENT N0. 7h-1F3A - Rec~uest to abandon a nortion of an existing public ut ty easement ocated 3S0 feet, nore ~r less~ north of Crescent Avenue from 6U5 feet~ more or less~ to 27~ fect~ more or less~ east of Euclid Street. The staff report to the Planning Commission dated Janua ry 29~ 1979 wa, presented~ noting subJect request (s to abandon a porticx~ ofi an existing puhlic utility easemen~ located 350 feet~ more or less~ nortl~ ot Crescent Avenue from 6~5 fe~t~ mc~re or less~ to 27~ feet, more or less~ east of Euclid Street; that the request h~s beer. reviewed by atl dapa~tments of the City and app~oval is recommended; that the subJect easeme~~i was acquired by deed recorded September 1!-~ ly;}; in Book 7(~f~5~ paqe 803~ O.R.~ and the abandonment of this portion of said easement will have no adverse effect an the Utility Dtvision As the existing facilities havc been reloc~ted to tfie setisfaction nf the Utility Division and there are n~ present ar future plans to utilize this easement; that an environr~ental review of the proposed abanJonmEnt indicates this re~uest to t~e cateqoricaily exempt from the requirement of filing an EIR; and that the $1~~ fee to cUVer the cost a~ processinq has been paid. AGTlON; Commissioner Ktn~~ offered a moti~~n, secanded by Commi -.sioner Barn~s and MOTION ~TE~D (Commissioner David being absent)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commission does hereby recommenci to the City Council that Abandonme~t ~lo. 78-18A be approved as recortmended by the City En~ineer. 1/2g/79 MI NUTCS ~ ANAl1E I M C 1T~Y PLANN I NG CONMI SS IAN, JAlJUARY 2~ ~ 1 ~79 79-96 NEPORTS Ai~O R~C6MNCNDATIONS (c~ntlnue~d) G. RECLA5SiF1CATION N0, 77-~7K-1 ANU TENTATtV~. MAP OF TMC7 NOS. ~tt(, ~117, 9G~?. ANn ques i ~n exten9lon o~tTme. The staff rep~rt to the Pldnning Comm(sslon dated Januery 2~. 1'37`~ was presPnted, notinc~ sub.)ec; property (s en irre~~ulerly-sr,Apoa ~ar~G~ of lend consistinq ~f Apnroxlmately Q~.? acres on the soutf~ stde of Nohl Ranch Roed~ Appr~xin-f+tely 13~~ fPet west of qhe centerline of Royal Oak Road; that the applicant requests a one-year extcnslon of tirn~ for Tentdt(~~e Trect ~~os. Bllfi~ ~117~ ~h~2 and ~~64 anci a one-year retrorctive ~xtenslon of time for Reclassiftcflti~n No. 77-7~-1 to complete processing of ttie final tract maps; that Althouyh a tlmP llmit was not s~ectffrd ln Resolution No. PC77-~7~ adopted in connPCtion with subJect reclassificntion, C~Jr indlcates that the reznni~q a~nrc~ved and ,iuth~rity qranted by such petitlon ~hall became null and void unless th~~ r~Pttti~~ner shall~ within o~e ycAr of such app roval~ cornnly with the c~nditions imnoseJ. Nowcv~r~ an extension ~f tfnx~ mey bF c7r~nted by the agency uriginally approviny sair.i r~S~l,i~i~n. ACTIOW: Commissioner K(n~ offerc~i a rnotlan~ s~conde~ by Gorimisst~ner T~lar and MOTIQIJ ~ EU (Co~nmissic~ncr David hcing ahsent), th~t the Aneheim City Plannin~ Commission does hereby grant ~ onc-yr.ar t~xtensi~~n of time for Tentative Map of Tract I~os. ~~11G~ ~i117~ ~)GQ2 and )i~G-~~ to ~xpire on February 1~~ i~ti0; .~nd a~~nc•yPnr r~tro~ctiv~ extensi~n of t(me for Recl~~ssl f icat (~n Wo. 7~-7i3-1 ~ tc, exnt re on August I;, 19+~1. 11. RECI_ASSIFIC~TIOtI N0. 7L-79-2^ - Request for an area clevelo~.~~nent plan. Floyd L. Farano, ''~;~ East Chapman Avenue, Sulte 70;~ Fullerton~ referred to his letter dated Janua ry 25. 19T9 to thc Planning DPpartment re~uesting a chance to ap~ear before the Planni~g Commission to request an arca development p1An study for this area. Ne exnlained the original request had been for RS-5n~~ reside~tial on one portion and corm~erc~al on the other nortion of the property and that several things h~ve happened since the hearinc, whi~h he felt were si~nific:~nt enou~~i~ t~ warrant further cons(der~tion, tie stated it was thetr feelin~ ihat the~ anly way anytliinG c~uld be atcomplished on this pr~pertv is to have the City involved in an ar~a developme~~t study, Ile pointed out the extesiston of V(a Corte2 on the plans and rioted the Water GI;[rict is planning the Diemer intertie to cllagonally bisec~ the property~ which will probab)y limit the d~evelopment. He explalned the permanent easements fo~ the Dicmer i~itertie are going to be S~ feet wide; that Harry Rinker had reserved a one-foot sCri~ of land between Via Cortez and the Maag property which did not ytve Mrs. Maaa ingress and e.~ress off Via Cortez and that she has very se~ious clrculation p~oblems because she wiii not have access off Solomon or Via Cortez and there is some question ab~ut her access ro Santa Ana Canyon Road. He stated they havr. learned that the Diemer Intertie was supposed to be constructed within 15 or 20 feet from th~ east side of ~~ia Cortez; and that Narry Rinker had become ve ry upset about that bacause he already has circulation problems and che street will be torn up for a long period of time, which is really going to cause p~oblems. He explained he had seen some evidence that Mr. Rinker nc,w is wliling to waive the one-foot hald(ny strip to give Mrs. Maag ingre~s and egress to and from Via Cortez~ if he can get the Diemer Intertie moved onto her p roperty. He stated thetr traff{c englneers and City Engineers are studyfng the traffic patterns to r-~-ke furtlier recommendat(ons conc~~ning the widening of Via Cortez and als~ some other recortmendations as far as the traffic p~tterns on Santa Ana Canyon Road. He thought that one-foot strip reservation has had somethin~ to do wtth Mrs. Maag's reluctance to deal with anybody. He stated they have tried to work with the Hil) and Canyon Muntcipal Advtsory Committee (HACMAC) to get their input regardlnq circulation, but have been completely ignored and he cannot talk with Mrs. Maa,y, so they are at a standstlll. t/2g/79 MINUTES~ ANIINEIM CITY PIANNiNG COMF115~SION~ JANUARY 2~~~ ~qy? REPORTS ANU REGOMMtiIUATIONS • 73~~~ „~ I,TEM H(con t 1 nued) Mr. Farano exple(nad the Dlemer In~artie i~ en approxtmetely 1z to lr-Poot water line and is being installed bY the Metro~~olltan Weter Dtsirict; thAt It wfl) be underqround; that no structur~s cen be developad on top of tt, but tt ts possible i~ c~uld be utllized for a sLreet ar p~rklnc~; thet (t w(11 requl~c~ a l~t)-fout wide construction en~err~ent during thc const~uctf~n perlod and 50-foot wtde, permanent e~s~ments. Ile steted they are requestfn~ the Pl~nnlny Commistion ta set this entt~e ~rca far an Area Develaprnent Plan wlilch ~rould involve el) perties and w~~ich wiil docermine lencf uses~ Includtng Mrs. Maag's pro ert that Cheir prevtous request wes for the circulation element~ whfch really woulci not d~~ much good when it comes down ta actunl uses~ becaus~ he felt thr. future of Vla CorCez~ the pot~nti~i widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ and Mrs. Haeg's prope~ty all hsve to be taken tnto considcration. He stated Mrs. Maeg's prap~rty ts currently designoted for medium density ~esidentiel and it is poasfble ,t~e ~vould want commercial uses alonn Via Cortea, fte pulnlnJ out a triangle of Mrs. Maag's property whlch ts qofng to be effectively cut eff from thc~ rest of thc rropcrty, Commissfoner Tolar felt er~ ~r~,a dr,velopment plan would he warthless until the tngress and egress problcros are resolved involving the Maag and Rinkar propertles. Mr. Farano felt it would hel~- because there nre c~nslderati~ns currently being u~dertaken regarding the wldeninc~ ~f Vla Corter. and other treffic patterns and felt now is the time for th(s study. lie stated ~n area devclo~~ment study coulcf sl~ow spectfic uses and could specify circulati~n. Commissioner Tolar felt untfl MrS. Masg re~ches A nothing can be accort~ltshed. Ile felt Ftr. Rtnker is~willinyrtoSdo somethingdnay~because~he sees trouble from hi5 tenAnts involving the in~iress and egress. Mr. Farano stated 14r. Rinker -~ants to do something and they feel ~eljn ~~ishtn. foat strip to glve Mrs. Maaq access will loc~sen her feelings. ~ ~=his one- Commissioner Tola~ indicated he was r.ot awarr. H~. Rinker had reserved this one-Foot strtp, and Jay Tttus~ Officc Engineer~ explained this is quite common so the ad)acent pro ert owne~ can contrtbute to tlie cost af tf~e street. He scated from current tnfonriatton ity wauld seem Via Cortez needs to be wfdened to a 9A-foot rlght•of-way and w~~) be a seconda ry arterlal~ pointing out it ts currently 64 fe~t. Ne explained the intersection at 58nta Ana Canyon wlll be redest~~ned~ but he was not sure of the configuration a~t this ttme, ~ Commissione:~ l3arnes felt this is t'~e time staff should take a l~olc at this situation. Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Uirector for Zoning~ stated tlarry Rinker's engineers have worked wi th Ci ty Engineers and tfie cu~rent status is that the Ci ty Enyineers recortwnend that Vla Cortez' north of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ be master-planned as a secandary artertal htc~hway. She stated an Area Development Plan typ~cally is done for alternative means of clrculation; that the Gienx~r Intertie is not a City issue; that the Water aistrict can make promfses to Mrs. Maag~ but the City Is not a a circulati~n dr area development stuciy Pert of ft; ~nd that the City~ (n doing should be wtdened or extended northerly~to~M~~ Schantz~she issue of wl~ether the street does the stucfy before tlie Dt~n~er Intertie decision ts made,~wermay behgoingtin aheadea~ity time and taking the brunt of M~s. Maag's displeasure. She stated a General Plan Amendment should be considered at the sartw time if any ma)or changes ta the land use are prop~sed. Chairman lierbst asked the tim;ng of the Water Oistrict's negotiations with Mrs. Maag, and Mr. Ferano replie~J the resolutions for condemnation proceedings were adopted within the ~ M~NUTCS~ ANAHf.tM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ JAI~UARY 29~ 197~ ~Q-98 R~PpRTS AND 'COMt1CND_lOtj~_J,7,_E'.l~t N(cont i nu~sd) last two weeks And I~is clients h~d received an after~ but he dEd nat know whether Mrs. Msnq harf received an offer ar n~,t. Chefrman Herbst felt if steff could qat a set of ~.lans from the Water Dtstrict end d~termine whether or not the street wi 11 be wl dened ~nd wtiether access wt 1 1 be al lc~w~d to Mrs. Maeg's property, thc~n ~n areo devcl~pm~snt plan could b~ undertaken. Thc rest af the Lommfssion agreed with Chatrman Herhst. (~~DUSTRIAL WORK SfSSIOW Ghelrman t~crbsC referrecf to a letr.er from thP Chemher of Comnerce Industrial Ccxnmtttee regardtnh thetr recommen~lAt(~~ns ~nd suaaestion thet a Joint work sesston be hetd to dis~uss thei r pre) (minery ~ecc~mr~endatlon in anproxtmately 30 days. It was dete rmined that the best probahle ciate was March 5~ l~Jy~ 7:QA p.m., in the City CAUncil Chambers. GRADING FIELD TRIP Commtsstoner Bai-nes rr.ferred to a letter from the City Clerk regarding the Planning Cortmissi~n meettnq wikh I~ACMAC to try and come up with some alternatives on the qradinq o~dlnance. She was concerned about the time (t would involve to acquatnt th~ HACMAC members with previous work done by the orlyina) Task Force. She pointed out that :he originA) Tas~: Farce had been cancelled and this would be the same thing~ withauc the developers. Chairmen Herbst stated he would want Horst Schor with Anaheim Nills, ~nc. to flttend because he is an expert in grading of thc hilis. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Dtrector for Zoning, stated this field trip would be wtth the Commissioners ancl stafF anly; that HACMAC wlll ba aware of the field trip and that a niqht work session will be scheduled afte~ the f(eld trip and they w(11 be Includad. Chairma~ I~erbst pointed out that this session will be t~ discuss the new gradiny ~rdinance and past rroblems will n~t be discussed. He stated he felt the new grading ordinance has solved a lot af the problems and the~e were very few problems with the heavy rains last year, M nika Sa~tatahtt explained th~re will be paperwork prepared by staff and HACMAC wtll have that paperwork and they cen loo~, at the areas themselves~ then slides can be presented at ehe joint sesston. ADJOURNMENT Therg being no furthsr business~ Commissioner Tolar offered a motlon, s~cond~ed by Cmm~issloner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner David being absent) . th~t the meetir ~ be adJou~ned. The meeti~ig was ad~ourned at Ss50 p•m• Respectfully submitted, ~~~~. ,~ ~~.z~. Edtth L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Comnission ~ ~~o/~a