Loading...
Minutes-PC 1983/06/13RE(i LAR BBTING OF THL- AN7IH~IM CITY PLANNINa COMMISSION RB(iULJ~R MEETING The cegular meetinq ot the Aneheim City Planning Commi~sion wea called to order by Chairma ry at 10:00 a.m., June 13, 1983, in the Council Chembec, ~ quorum being present and the Commisalon reviewed pldna of the itema on today'a egende. RECES3: 11:30 e.m. RLCONVENE: 1:30 p.m. PR~8ENT Cheirman: Pcy Commisaioners: Bouas, B;~shore, King, La Claire, McBurney 11BSENT Commiseionera: Herbec AL50 PRESENT Jocl Fick Asaistant Director f or P1Anning Jeck White ~-eaistant City 1-ttorney PAUl Singer Traffic Engineer JAr.k Judd Civil Engineer Aasoci~te Dean SherPr Associate Plannec Edith Hacria Planning Cor~miseion Secretary APFR4VAL OF MINUTES: Commiesioner Bouas offered a motion, seronded by Commiesioner. I(ing and MoTION C1~RRIED (Comr~iissioner Herbat ebsent ) thet the minutes from the meeti.ng of June 1, 1983, he epproved ea aubmitted. ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGIITIVE DECLARATION AND itBCLASSIPICATION N0. 82-83-33 ~UBLIC HEARING. OWNER: L.C. SMULL, 17631 Fitch, Icvine, CA 92714. A^vENT: JOSEPN T. WALTHOUR, 17631 Fitch, Irvi.ne, CJ- 92714. PCOperty described ae rn ircegularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of npproximately 2.8 acrea and Eurthec deaccibed as 1300 East Katella Avenue. Mi, to C-R to permit a 4-story cortaneccial office building. There wa~ no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and althuugh the ataff report was not cead, it is ceferced to and made a pact c;f the mtnute~. Rict~ard Ogleaby, Business Pcoperties, 17631 Fitch, Irvine, agent, explained this requeet was made by at~ff due ta varioue cequests for conditiondl use permite in the l~naheim Stadium area and the need to make the zoning consistent and further expla±ned they ace proposing a 70,U00 square foot f ou r-atory office building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commisei.onec Ua Claire, Mr. Oglesby explained they have not deaigned any proposed eigning Eor the project, but understand there are uertain restcictione by the City. He etated they are not proposing a a~'.i!~~_a:~:. 0559H 83-325 6/13/83 MINUT6S. AN~HBIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION. JUNE 13, 1983 _ 8_3-326 Mr. Oqleeby referred to Condition No. 6 reletinq to their leir share of cectain ofE-siCe improvemenCe end aervicea purauen t to an eeseeament diatrict oc benefit area to be hereinatter eetablished Dy the City, pureudnt to Development Agreement No. 83-01 between the City ot Anaheim and the Anaheim 8tedium Aasocirtes and pointed out the condition cequires thet thia be done prior to the iseuance of building pe~mite and explained thelr concern Chat this asseesment diatcict isAUe might not be cesolved prior to their deaire to pull building permite. Jack White, Assiatent Clty Attorney, explained the purpoae of the condition ie to require the owner to irrevocably consent to the cceatlon of the diatrict end to p~y their fair ahare of the cost and if th e distzict has nct been created at such time the permit is requeeted, th c would not be a problem. Mr. Oglesby atated they would agree to that requicement= however, lie would like to reEer to two recent State of Ca~~fornia co urt deciaions pertaining to assessment diatricta, particularly one in San Dieg o. Jack White etated the City ia obligated u~der the Development Agreement witl~ Anaheim Stadium Asaociates to create an aase5~ment mechaniem to provide financing for certain off-site imnrovements .~.ch as traffic signale, e~c. and the City would be requiring exec~ytion and rec~rdat.ion of an agreement which would obligate the c~7er to participate to the extent legally permiasible. Mr. Oglesby rpplied they are willing to otipul~te to comply wic that requirement. ACTION: Cammisaioner La Claire offeced a motiun, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and Mc-TION CARRIED (Commisaioner Flerbat absent), thet the Anaheim City ~~lar,;i+;y Commiseion has reviewed the proposal to reclassiEy subject property fr~;~u the ML (Industrialr Gimited) Zone to khe c-R (Commercial, Recreation) ~c~r,e on an irreg~;larly-shaped parcel of land consiating of approximately 2.8 ac:ee. 1~aviny a frontage of appruximately 578 fee t on the aoutheast side nf KRt~llu A•~^nue and further described ab 2300 E. Katella t,venue; and does ::creby appro•~^ the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an enviconmental impact report on the basis that thEre would be no signific:ant individual aw cumul~tive adverae environmental impact due to the approval of this Negakive Daclaration since the Maheim General Plan designates the ~vbject pruperty for commercial reccentional land uQes commensucate with the pcoposal; Lhat no aensitive environmental impacts are involved in the pcopoeal= that the Initial Study aubmitted by the petitioner indicates na significant individual or cumulat've aaverse environmental impacts; and that the Negati~~~ Trclaration substantiating the foreg oing findings is on €ile in the City of Ai.aheim Plar.ni.ng Department. Commiaaioner La C1Aire offeced Resolution Nc. PC83-.110 and moved for its passs~e an~+ ac3opCiun that the AnAheim City Planning Commission d~es hereby grant kecl~¢aiiication No. 82-83-33 subject to Interdepartmental Committee rECOmmendat:ons. !~, :~>:t call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYG5: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BUFtNEY "' "'; • NONE J-BSENT: HERBST 6/13/83 MINOTLS, 11N11H~IM CITY PL11NNlNG COMMI$SION. JI1NB 13 ~ 1983 __ _ 83-J27 ITEM N0. 2._ EIR NB(iJ-TIVB QBCLARAT20N AND RLCL1188IFTCI~TION N0. 82-83-3~ PUBLIC HE1UtING. OWNRRB: WILL D. 1~ND LUCILLE C. PICK~REL, 2752 W. Ball Roc~d, 1-neheim, CA 92804. 1-GENT; ALVIN A. SUGI-RM7~N, 8071 &later 1-venue, 3uite 210, Huntington Beach, CA 92647. Property deacribed as r rectengulerly-ehaped percel of land conblsting of ~pproximeiely 0.8 ac~e end furthec described as 2752 Weet E3a11 Road. RS-1--43,000 to RM-1200 tn conatruct A 22-unit apdctment complex. There wds no one indiceting their presence in opposition to sub~ect request end although the ateff report was not cead, it ia ceferred to e~nd mude a part c: the minutes. Alvin Sugarman~ Agent, was preaent to answer any quEStions. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Jack White, Assiat.ant City Attorney, asked that Condition No. 6 be reworded as follows: 'That the owner of subject propecty, by recorded deed, shall irrevocably offer ta deed to the City of Ant+heim a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street elong Ball Roed and 30 feet in width fr.om the centecline of the street along Sharon Circle, for street widening purposes•. ACTION: Commiasioner King offered a mocion, secundPd by Commiasioner Houas and MOTION CARRIEA (Commi~sioner Herbst abaent), that the Anaheim City Ptanning Commission tias reviewed the propoeal to reclasaify subject propecty from the RS-A-43,000 (:•:sidential, Agricultural) Zone to the RM-120U (Residential, Multiple-F'amilyl ZonF to construct a 22-unit apartment complex on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consieting of approximately 0.8 acre located at the southeast corner o~ Ball Road and Sharon Circle and f~rther described as 2752 W. Ball Road; and doea hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to pcepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no signiticant individual or camuletive adverse environmental impact due t~ the approval of this Negative Derlazation since the Anaheim Genecal Flan designa tes the subject property for medium denuity rPSidential land uses commensurate with the proposalt that no aensitive environmental impacts are involved fn the proposals that the initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impactas a~nd that the Negative Dec~aration substant•iating the foregoing findinga ia on ffle in the City of Anaheim Planning Departmenk. Commissioner King offered Feanlution No. PC83-111 a~d movPd for its paseage and adoption that the 1-naheim C ity Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification '~o. 82-83-34 subject to 7nterdepartmental Committee recommendetions i~. luding the change to Condition No. 6. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was paesed by the following vote: ~-YEB: HOUAS~ BUSHORE~ ['RY, lCING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOSS: NONE ABSENT: BERBST 6/13/83 MINUTQ8, AN~H6IM CIT~ PJ.7INNING COMMISfiION. JUNE 13, 1983 83-328 ITBM N0. 3. EIR N0. 255 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFISD) ~NA T~NTATIV~ M~_P_OP TRJ-CT N0. 10985 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: K~UFMAN ANO BROAD, INC., 138 3. Imperial Highway, Aneheim, CA 92807. AGFNT: J1-M~S E. CROSBY BNGINE~RING, INC., 1820 E. Deere Avenue, 3uite 100, 3ante Ana, C~ 92705. Propecty described ea an icregularly-ahaped peccel of land conaisting of appcoximerely 31.0 actas generally locac~d south and east of the intRraection of Santa Ane Canyon Road an~ the proposed eoutherly extension of Weir CAnyon Road. To establish a 2-lot, 234-uiiit ftM-3000(SC) Zane subdlvision. ~There waa no ~ne indiceting their presence in oppasitlon to subject request and although the ataff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Robett Galloway, Kaufman and Broad, Inc. ref~rred to Intecdepactmental Committe~ recommendation No. 21, stating that no p~blic or pcivate street grade shall exceed 10! except by pric,r approval of the ChieE of the Fire Department and the Engineecing Division and explained they do propoae a street through the centec of the pro~ect with a grad~ of 11.80 which does provide good circulation. He explained the grade in accesa of lli has been discusaed with the City Traffic Engineer and he agreed it would r.ot be a problem and that he had discusaed it again a little while ago with the City Traffic ~ngineer and he still feels khe seme way. He stated the only staff inember to discuss the grade was a representative from the Sanitation Diviaion wh~ had indicated goinq down the grade cc~uld be a problem far their trash vehicles. He stated the grade ia not as steep as some in Anaheim and there is another way out of the area; and that it had been suggested they cul-de-sac the street at the south end which would eliminate part of the prob.lem, but it would reduce circulation on the balance of their property. He stated they would like for the Commisaion to allow the grade for thet amall poction of the street since the grade on Santa Ana Canyon Road cannot be changed and even relocating the street to th~ eaat, would not solve the problem. Mr. Galloway referred to Condit:~n No. 18 relating to the special fdcilities agreement requiced by Rule 15-D of the water Utility Rules, Ra~ea and Regulations and stated they have been before this Commission many timea and this will be the last tract map to be approved and this ia the first time that condition !as been included and he did not know how it would affect this property. Mr. Gdlloway referred to Condition No. 22 regarding drainage assessment fees end atated ae part of their General Plan of Developmant, they will be furnishing the drainage facilities and paying for them. Concerning the dedicdtion and improvement of the 10-foot wide equeatcian and hiking trail (Condition No. 26), Mc. Galloway skated he thougtit the standard width fot trails wae from 3 to 10 feet and pointed out the trail is being built atong Santa Ana Canyon Road and vazies fcom 7 to 10 feet in width and asked if it would be in conformance with thp City's requirements. 6/13/83 MINUrEB~ ANAHEIM C~TY PLJ-NNING COMMI.:SION_J~NL 13 1983 83-329 Reqecding the cequirement in Condition No. 27 to pcovide eech pucchAaer with a copy of the E3euec RAncii Genec~l Plnr of Development, Mt. GalloweY expl~i~ed he underetood th~y would only have to pcu:~ide the informetion pertaining to the zoning and land usee and they nevec inten~cd to publish the entire book for distribution for eech purche~se.~r. Mr. Ge11~waY referred to e condition included in other tract approvals perteining to greding, dedication end improvement of the peck site whfch was relocated ~nd auggest~d thet condition ahould be deleted. it was noted that the 11.8• gcade of tt~e stceet wea ebout 700 feet long. eaul Singer responded to Chdirmnn Fry that he had discu~sed the grade with the epplicant for the past two yeara and it hes always been hie contention thal• the grade proposes no treffic problems, providing the Fite D• artment end Sa-~itetion Diviei.on have no problemt however, the Fire Aepa~ ent has a coupl.e of reaervations and one ia not to atub-out the atreets until they are required for accees. Dean sherer stated the general question about the atreet grade was that the Fire Uepartment and Sanitation Depertmenta do not like ta travel streets where grades are m~re than 109i however, exceptione have been made for ahort distancea only and the condition was included becausc the question was not quite reaolved to thei.r satiefactic-n. Mr. Sherer refecred to Mr. Gallowa;~`s comments about Condition No. 18 and stated that ia a common condition on tracts in the canyon area, however Kaufman bnd Broad will be require~ to submit a Public Pacilities Plan which will cover the facilities needed for water and agreed the condition should be deleted. Concerning Condition No. 22, Jack Judd suggested it should be included since an assesament district will bt~ created and once the estimated coat for facilities haa been figuced and compar.ed with the Bauer Ranch, their fair share may or may not be required. Mr. Galloway et~ted this area does stand on fte own and they will be paying for whatever is re~uired. It was pointed out this acea will be included tn the a~saesament dietriat. Dean Sherer referred to thz condition pertaining to thp equeskrian and tiiking trail and stated it is a poli.cy of the City that the developer be required to dPdicate tcails if an alignment is shown on the tentative tract and on thfs tract it is an interim alignment and at some time in the future, the trail will be moved south and the stanc~ard is for a 10-foot wide tcails however, he did not think it would be a problem adjusting the condition to cead 7-to-10-feet wide. He stated staff ia more interested in the interim trail being out af the right-of-way of Santa ~-na Canyon Road snd actually on subject property even nn an interim basis and he thought the condition could be setiafied with the developer wocking with the Parks and Rec.eation Department. Commissioner La Claire sttstrd it is hec underetanding the developer is putting in all the drainage for thia area, but eventually the Bauer Ranch property owners will be included in the assessmeni district. Jack Judd stated it has not been determined whether or not there will aciuAlly be any fees required 6/13/83 ~ i MINUTES. 11NAH~IM CITY PLIINNING COMM288ION. JUNB 13. 1983 83°330 when the diatrict is formed. Commieaionec La claire etsted ahe ~tiought it would actuelly benefit the developer to leave Cvneition No. 22 in becauae ther~ may be a refund when the dietrict is Eorm~d. Jack Judd stated the condition mey be e moot condition, but it ahould cemein since their coate may exceed theic fa~ir ehere oE the diatrict. Mr. Galloway atated there ia no question they will be reimbursed for the major portion of the dr~inage fecilitiea when other prope-rtiea ere developed and that was the ba~siE of the Public Facilitiea Plen. Commisaioner La Claire referred to the gtade of the etreet with PAUl Singer atating there ia a 12t grar~e on Serrano at Canyon Rim just as it gete to Nohl Ranch Road, and Feirmont Boulevard ia also 12i, and the etreet taking the place of Via E1 Eatribo exceada 15~. He ateted he can aee there could be problema, not ao much with the emergency vehicles, but with the tcash vehiclea, however, they could be rerouted through another development. He gtaCed it is atill up to the Sai~itation Diviaion and the developer. He explained this will connect to the tract to the aouth and the recommendation to cul-de-s~c ttie stceet would not be prr~cticAl aince ik is needed foc secondary access to the tcects to the aouth and west since they only have one acces~ ko Santn Ana Canyon Road. Ne stated they have discuased alternative locations for that atreet, but not much would be gained because the grade of Santa .,na Canyon Road drops. It was noted Environmental Impe~t i<eport No. 256 was pceviously approved by the City Council June 8, 1982, for subject pcoperty. ACTION; c'nmmi~siuner La Clair~ offered z~ motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and M CcZON C]+ItRiED (Commissioner Herbst absent), thAt the Anaheim City Planning Commia~'on dces hereby find that the propoaed subdivieion, together with ita design ~id improvement, ia conaistent with the City of Anaheim Genecal Plan, pur,uant to Government Code Section 66473.Ss and does, therefore, approvE Tentative Map of Tcact No. 10985 for a 2-lot, 234 unit condominium subdivision subject to thP following conditione: 1. That aho~ld l•his subdivision be developed as more than ane subdiviei~n, each subdivfsio~ thereof shall be submitted in tentatlve L~:~- f~c appcoval. 2. That in the event subject property ia to be divided for the putpose of ea2er lease, or financing, a parcel map to record r_he approved division of subject property shall he submitted to ar~~ approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the Off~ce of the O~ange County Recorder. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilitiea. 4. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydranta shall be insta3.led and charged as requirpa and determined to be neceasary by the Chief of the Fire Depart~,.~=nt. u/13/63 MIN~T~B, ~NAHEIM CITY PI.IINNING COMMIS$IAN. JUNE 13. 1983 83-331 5. That all requirem~nta o! Pire Zon• 4, otherwise identified as Fire ~dminiatrative Ord~r No. ~6-01, ahall be met. Such requic~menta include, but are not limited tos chimney epark erreeturs• pcotected ettic And undec floor openinga, Claae C or better coofing materidl and one hour fire reaiative constcuction og harizontel aurfaces if loceted within 200 feet of edjacent bruehland. b. That £uel bceake ahall be provided as determined to be necessery by the Chief of the Fire Deparkment. 7. That native slopes adjecent to newly conatcucted homea shall be hydroseeded with e low fuel combustibl~ aeed mix. Such elopes ehall be sprinklered And w~eded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of. separation between flammable vegetation and any structur.e. 8. That trash storage areas ahell be provid~d in accordance ~r~ti approved ~lans on file with the Strect Maintenance and Sr~~iitetion Division. 9. That prior to isauance of a building pecmit, appropriate weter assesement fees shall bP peid to the City of ~naheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General Manager. 1Q. That prior to isauance of a building permit, appropriate park and recreation in-lieu feea shall be puid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as detetmined by the City Council. 11. That all private atreets ahall be developed in accocdance with the City of Anaheim's Stand~rd Aetail No. 122 foc prf~ate streets, including instellation of street name sic~na. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for approvat and included wit~i the buildiny plans prioc to the fseuance of build+~g permits. (Private streets are thoae which provide Frimary access and/or circulation within the project. 12. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by the City Plenning Department. 13. That temporary street name signs shall be inatallpd prior to any occupancy if permanent street name signs havP not oeen inatalled. 14. That gates shall not be installed across 3ny driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely ~_fect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streets. Installatf~n of any gatea within a distance of forty l40) feet fram said public street rights-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 6/13/83 -----__~..____-- - a - - ~-~ MINUTBA. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMI3$ION. JUN~ 13. 1983 83-3~2 15. Thet drainage of eubject praperty ehell be disp~sed of in e menner eatiafectory to the City Engineec. zf, in the preparetion of the eite, aulficient gcading i• required to neceaeitate a grading permit, no work on greding will be permitted between October 15th ~nd April 15th unleee all required off-r.ite drainage fecilities have ~een instal.led end ere opecetive. Poeitive assurance ehall be provided to the City thet auch dr3lneqe fecilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site dr~inage facilitiea shall be dedicated tc ~he City, or l•he City Council ahall heve inltiat~d condemnetion praceedings therefor (thw coate of which ahall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of greding operationa. The required drainage facilitiea shnll be of a eize and type sufficient to carry runoff watec~ originating fcom higher propertiea rhrough subject property to ultimate disposal es approved by the City En~ineec. Said dteinage fecilitl~s shall be the firat item of construclion and shall be complet~d and ne functional th;oughout the tract and from the ~~~netre~m boundary of the property to the ultimat~ point of spoeal prior to the issuance of any final building inapections or occupancy per~ita. Drainage district reimbursemcnt agreementa mav be made available to the developers of sai.d property upon theic requeat. 16. Thet grading, excavation, and all olher conscruction activities shdll be conducted in such a manner so as t~ minimize the poesfbility af any silt originating from this project being cacried into the Santa Anr River by storm watet o•.iginating from or flowing through this p~ojec~. 17. That ceasonable land~caping, i.ncluding irrigation facilities, ahell be installed in the uncemented poction of the parkwa5~ o~ any arterial atreet and any interior oc collector stceet where there ie an adjacent slope to be maintained by the Homeownere Aseociation. The HomeownQrs Asa~ciation ahal: assum~ the reaponsibility for maint~na ce of said p~rkway landsCaping. 18. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictiona, and a lettec addcessed to the developer's t'tle company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted co t~~e City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office and Bngineering Division. Said documents, as approved, will th~n be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange ~ounty Recorder. 19. That vehicular aacess righ, . except at approved access points, to Santa Ana Canyon Road and h adowridge shall be irrevocw~bly offered for dedication to the City of Anaheim pc'~r to apFroval of a final tcact map. 20. That no public or private street grades ~hall exceed 11.88. The 11.8t grade ae ahown on this mae is appcoved for this subdi~•ision only. 6/13,`83 MINOTB8. ANAHBIM CITY ?L1-NNINO COl~IMI88ION. JUNB 13._~9A3 83-333. 21. That ptior to final trect mep epproval, tha owner of euh;;ec~ propecty ahall paY nPPropriate QrAinage aesasament feea to the City of Anaheim in en amount ea determined by the City Engineer. seid fees may be waived by City Council in conjunction with approval of the emended Public Eecilitiee Pldn Eor the Bauer Rench. 22. That appccval oE the f~nal Map of Tract No. 10985 ia subject to the completion of Recleasificetion No. 77-78-64. 23. That the peCitioner ahell present evidence thet the proposed subdivision shall provide, to the extent feeaible, for futuce ~assive or natural heating ot cnoling opportunitiea in the subdivision prior to the issuence of building permita. 24. That prior to final tract mep approval, ell puplic facilitiea (including equesttian and hiking trdil location) propoaed ~i~her within oc adjacer• to the pcoposed subdivision shell be designated to confocm to ~he Publlc Facilitiea Plen for Develcpment of the Bauer Ranch ~~s adopted by City Council on March 17- 1981, ~nd any furthec amendmentR pertaining to eaid plan. 25. That prior to or in conjunction with final tract map rE ~~rdation, the owner's) of subject property uhall dedicate and impcove a 10-Eoot Mide equestrian and hiking trail as shown on the Equestrfan and Hiking ~i~rail8 Componenk of the ~naheim Genecal Fldn end also that a bond in an amount and form ~atisfactory to the City of ~naheim ~hall be poated with thP City to guacantee the installation of said impcovements in accordan~e with standard plsns and specification~ on file in the Office of the City Engineec. Seid intetim txai.l may vary from 7 to 10 fee'. in width where approved by the Parks and Rec[eation Departmentr.. 26. That the seller shall provide the purchaser of eart~ dwelling unit a copY ~f the Land Use and Zoning Elements of the Bauer Ranch General Plan ~f Development. Z7. That prio: to ffnal s~.ree'. s.nap~ctions, 'No parking for atreet swee~ing' signs eha:l be installed as required by the Street Maine~nance ar,d San:tation Divigjon and in accordance with apecifications c7 file with sdid division. 2A. That t`e aeller shall provide the purchaser of each residential dwel?'~g with written informacion concerning Anaheim Municipal Code Sec~~,n 14.32.500 pertaining to "Part:ing reatricted to facilitate stc ~l• sweeping`. Such w:itten informatio~ shall clearly indicate whe~ on-street parking ia prohibit~:d and the penalty for violation. 2g. That prioc to fina.l tcact map approval, final sQecific plana shall be submftted to tl~a Planning Department and approved in accordance with provisiong of Chapt~r 18.85 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the "pC• Planned Cnmmunity Zone. 6/13/83 MINOTES. AN~~IM CITY P WINNING CQMMI38ION, JUNB 13. 1983 83-33~ 30. Thet any apacimen tree removal ahall be aub~ect to the tree preservation regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the anaheim Municipel Code, the "3C' Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. 31. Thet prior to iesuence ~f bu~lding pecmite, the applicant ahall present evidence satiafectory to the Chief Building inapector that the cesidentidl units will be in conEorm~nce with Noise Ineulation Standarde apecified in the California ~dminietretive Code, Title 25. 32. That pcior to isauan~P ~f h~~ilding permits, the applicant shell pceaent evidence tory to the Chief BuildiRg inepectoc thet the propos~d pro~~ in conformance with Council Poli~.y Number 542 'Sound ~ttenuati~• in Resi.dentlal Projecte•. 33. That 811 street dedicetions and improvements within Tract No. 10985 eh~ll be made in accnrdance with proviaions of Section 17.08.390, Anaheim Municipal ~^~p. 34. That prior to approval ot a tinal map, the develaper of subject pcoperty shall cecord an egreement with th~ City obligating the developer and/oc futuce homeowner's association to install and matntain a water supply system to serve thoae areas within subject tract located above an elevation of 600 feet. Said agreement shall be aubmitted to the Water Engineering Division for transmittal to the City Attocney foc review and appca~al prior to cecocdation. Jack White, Asaistant ~ity Attorney, presented the writtpn tight to appeal the Planning Comm:^sion's deciaion within l0 days to the C1ty Council. IT~M N0. 4. EIR N0. 235_(PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED? AND TENT~TIVE M~P QF TRACT NOS. 10967 THROUGH 10978 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, GA 92806. ~GENT; LINB AND HILLERUD, INC., 2065 Huntington Drive, San Marino, CA 91108. Properky described as an icregularly-shaped parcel o: land consisking of approximately 346 acres located southwesrerly of Nohl Ranch Road between ~he intersection of Nohl Ranch Road with Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue. To re-establish .2 tracts consfating of 207 RM-2400{SC) units, 327 RM-3000(SC) units, 25 RS-HS-22,000(SC) units and one open space ts~t.~'" It was noted the petitionec has requested a two-week c~ntinuance. ACTION: Commissioner eouas offered a motion, seconded by ~ommiasfoner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent), that consideration of the aforementioned matter bE continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of June 27, 1983, at the request of the petitioner. 6/13/83 MINUTB$. ANA~~IM CITY PL_11NNIN~ COMMIBS~ON. JUNB 13. 1983 83-335 IT6M N0. 5_._ EIR_NEGATIVB DECL~RATION AND CONDITION~L USB PBRMIT NU. 2453 PUBLIC NEa1RING. OWNERS: MARCEL G. AND FnNA V. MAYRP, 4550 Flowing Welle, Ro~d, /175, Tuceon, Acizon~, 95705. *coperty ~eacribed ~a a reCtAngulerly-ehdped parcel of land consiating of epproximately 9,774 aquAre feet located at the aoutnweat corner of Romneya Drive and Cherry wey ~nd further describe~ as 1232 WeRt Romneya Drive. To retein e second-family (granny) unit. There was one person indicating her presence in oppoaition to subject cequpsc and elthougt~~ the etaff report was not read, it is rEferred to and made a pact of the minutes. Matcel Mayec, agent, wru preaent to answer any questiona. Sherry Pignone, 1181 Crown, Anahe~m, Chaicperson of the Patrick Henry Neighborhaod Council, stated she is not opposed to this request, but is not in PAVOr of it either. She stated this property has been A rentAl property for a number of years and there ia an ap~rtment unit built on the rear and in the pest~ there have been several people living there almos~ like community living and there was an automobile repair ehap on the propecty. She atated it wes advectised for sale as havinq cenlal units for income and the ownec was not told the apartment wae built w.ithout permita. She stated ahe wAS conaerned about ahat would happe~ in the Cutuce if this requesk ie approved, especielly if the owner decides to move. She stated she was told thece was a group ~f people which included three families wt~o want to purchase the property and use it as cornmunity-type 1lving. Mr. Mayec stated when he lived at this property, it wae used as a g[anny unit for his parents and later hia mather-in law and the problems were created by the person he sold the property tot however, he has since r.epossesaed the property, evicted the tenants and hiced a real estate office to scteen the new tenants; and that the new tenant ia renting the pcoperty with an option to buy and is interested in cleaning up the property. THE PUBLIC HE~RING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Mayer cesponded to Chairman Fcy that he originally sold the prope[ty four years aqo and r,he units were existing when he first bought it eighteen years ago. Responding to Commiseioner La Claire, Jack White explained the City's ordinanc~ relating to the number of people living in the same unit was declared unconatitutional by the State Supreme Court and the only control is that they have to be living as a single housekeeping unit and there are Housing and dui2ding Code provisions relating to the number of aquare footage that each p~ceon has Co have available in a dwelling unit. Mr. Mayer explgined to Commissioner eouas that the pnol house is no lonqer there. 6/13/83 ~'INUTBi3._ 1-N11HBlM CITY PL~NNING COMMI~3$IVt7. JUNE 13. 1983 ___ 8_3-336 Cha~icrosn Pry stat~d ttie only unit there now ie the grannY unit b~hind the gacage. Mr. Mayer explained to Commiseioner Bushore that the peceon h~ aold the houee to rented it out Co tenantia and when he owned the proparty, hie pe:anta lived there. Commissionec 8uehore atated the petitioner ie requestinq khe Planning Commiaeion to make something legal thet wAa illegal in the :Eirst place and sinc~ the peiitioner hae hed to reposaess the prope~ty, the rental ia needed to make the moctgage peymenta aince the buyec hr~d pu:chaeed it at a higher mort•gage baeed on the fact Chat the rental unit wae there. Commissioner I.~ C1Aire stated thia unit cloaec meets the cciteria for a granny unit than eny the Commisaion hae aeen; that ehe is in favor of keeping thp gcanny unit beceuse there is a needr nnd that it will be allowed, if il• ic approved, under the conditional use permit end if there is a pcoblem, the permit can be cevoked. Jack Whfte 3tated ~ne af the conditions wlll be thal tlie ownet record a covenant on the propecty restricting the use to one oc two ad~lt persons both over the age of 60 and anX violation would be enforceable by the City or by way of criminal complaint and revocation of the use permit. Responding to Chaicman Fry, Dean Sherer explained when the ~roperty was inspecred fouc years ago, there were outstanding Code violationst howevec, one of the conditions of approv3l is that the unit be brought to minimum building Code atandards. Jack White stated a correction ahould be made to the staff report wherein suthurity for appcoval o£ this uae per~nit would be undec Government Code 65852.1 cat.her than as shc~wn. ACTION: Commisaionec La Clairc uffered a moti~n, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRI~D (Commissioner Herbst abaen*_), chat the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion has reviewed the pcopoaal to reCain a second family (granny unit) on a cectangularly-shape9 parcel of land consiati.ng of approximately 9,744 square £eet located at the southweat cotr.ec of Romneya Drive and Checry Way and fu:ther desaribed as 1232 Romneya Drivet and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the zequirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be na significant ir~dividual or cu;nulatfve adverse environmental impact due to t}~e appr.oval o~ this Negative Declaration since the 1lnaheim General Plan designates the subject property fo~~ medium density residential land uaea commensurate with the proposalt that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Inftial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adversp enviconmental impactst and that the Negdtive Declaration subatantiating the foregoing findinga is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commissioner La Claice offered Resolution No. PC83-112 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion does hereb,y 5/13/83 MINUT6~. J-NJ-HEIM CITY PLJINNING COMMI88ION. JUNB 13. 1983_ 83-337 qrant Conditi.onal U~n Permit No. ZA53 subjcct to condition~ that the additionel unit will 5e for onQ or Cwo poraone ov~r 60 yeara ot a~e and subject to inkerdepdrtmental Committee recommendations. On ro11 cell, the focegoii.~ ceeolution wea paeeed by the ~ollaaing vate: AYBS: 80UAS~ FRY~ KING, LJ1 Cf+J1IR6~ MC BUltNBY NGLS: BUSHURE 118t3ENT: HERBST ChaicmAn Fry ~tated he Eelt the Commiaeion hed qone along with this request because the propecty ia locate~i on a corner lot 4nd it is a vecy deep lot and the unit muat be brought ~p to 4~de a~nd tiie whole Nroperty must be cleaned up. Commis~ioner BuahoGe explained even though he realizes thie type oE unil. ia needed for aenior citize~s~ he still teels there ie a princtple involved and the Commisaion ie being asked to corcect som@thing that was wrong et the beginning and this ia actually circumventing the State ordinance which allows the crpdtion of gcanny unita. Jack White, Asaistant City Attorney, preaented the written right to appeal the Planning Commia8lon's decision within 22 c,aye to the City Council. ITEM N0. 6. EIR :~EGATIVE DECLARI-TION 1~ND CONDITIONI~L US~ PERMIT NO. 2454 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROBER'T C. AND MARGARET A. HAWL~Y, 904 W. ~raadway, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as 0.4 acre loc~ted at the southeast corner of Broadway and Indiana Streets and furthec described as 904 West Btuadway. To permit a bed and breakfask inn in the ItM-2400 Zone. There were twelve pecsons indicating theic preaence in opposition to aubject request and although the staff ceport was not read, it ia ceferred to and made a part of the ~.iinutes. Margaret Hawley, 9U4 W. Broadw~ay, owner, explalned her family experienced thfa bed dnd bceak£aet concept while they lived in Europe and they had auch favorable ceaults staying in these type facilities that they did not even think of going to a hotelt that the advantage in getting to know the culture and cuatnms of the people in the foreign rountry, etc. She atated subject property has a.arge home and facea eraadway and her neighbor on one aide favors the re4.~st and two ~n the c.thec side on Indiana favor it and all three of these neighbors face directly on Bcoadways that ahe has four cooms availablr but has no intention of renting four cooms every nightt that it is not a hotel or motel, but is an alternative for d femilyt that they had a :arge family, but most of them have gone and she personally would like to have aome ~f that chdtter and activity back in the house. She atated in May she op~ned her home to the Anaheim HisturiCal Society and they had a lot of favoreble comments on how larqe and homey the houae is and sh~ thought this would give s~me people the oppoctunity to share their home. 6/13/83 MlN~TS$~ ANAH~IM CITY PLIINNINQ COMMI~BION, ~UN6 13, 198J 83-338 Mru. Hawlsy oteLeQ th~y t~tl Anah~im ia a qreet town and offe~a a lot oi attractiione to vieitors and ~lso the Olympius ~re coming and there io a dafinite need foc accommodationa for vi~itora from the United Sketea end from other countries. David ~lexendor, 314 S. Indiene, atated he purchaeed hie home about 10 weeke ago beceuse he w~a ~mpreseed with tho quietn~se o~ khe neighborhood and he Pelt witt~ a bed end bceekf~at inn in the neighburhood, it will no long~r be quiet end he alen doea not want the atrange element in the neighborhoo~ becauae they will not know who bolonga end who doeen't. He ateted they also do not want the trafEic in the ellel and note~ the 'Pratfic Engineec hAs augge~ted that all tr~ffic be cc~ited through the alley which would be right pASt hia bedroom window. Cerol Tabor, 315 S. Indiena, stated ahe would be very concerne~ about the parking since they need the space in front of their own home. She atat~d ahe has talked to people who ar.e Eemiliar with `he bed and breakfASt inns in Europe and they do edvertise witt~ signa out front and she did not want that type oE advectiging around her neighborhood. She stated Broadway is a very busy atreet and there cuuld be trefiic problems with people slowing to look foc thie *eaidence and this City provides one of the most selective areas Eor overnight stay with hotels end ~notela everywhere. Alvin Johnaon, 9C0 W. Braadway, indicated concecn Lhat if this is appcoved everyane in the area will want ta put up aigna advertieing their pcofession. He atated they have all worked hacd to maintain the residential h~ritage of the neighbochood and w~ndered how long it will be before this a~ea will atart to look like the 500, 600 or 700 block of South Harbor. He atated he did not think a~y commercial uses should be pPrmitted in this residentidl dcea and stated he would coneider thiA as a commercial use. Mr. Chance, 415 S. Indiane, atated he has lived at this addcesa for 35 yeare and wanted to point out that the alley was not 20 Eeet wide, but is actually about 17-1/2 feet wide and he did not think the cement block wall would last very long with a nacrow alley. He referred ta Paragra~h 11 which indicates khe pcopo~ed use conforms more closely to the Code definit.ion of a hotel where aecommodations are provided either daily or weekly to tourfsta or visitors. He stated they do not need this type of uae in a residenti~l ar.ea. Macgacet Ferguson, 411 S. Indiana, stdted they consider this one of the nicest areas in Anaheim and that they have a lot of young people living in the neiqhborh,od with severel young childcen and she was concerned about them playing in the area, perhaps running acrosa the alley with the traffic in and out. Mra. Hawley stated this will not be a day in/day out four-:oom rental and thought it would be a aporadic type thing. She referred to the recommendation of closing the driveway and aeked if that meant her driveway for her personal vehicle would be closed. Dea~ Sherer explained the main concern wes that the driveway would be hezardous for vehicles to turn off er4adway and accese should be off the alley only. He stated he thought this meant the driveway would be closed to everyone, includiny the ownec. 6/13/83 MINUTa$~ AN~HSIM CITY PLANNINC Cq~IMISBtON, JUNB 13. 1983 83-339 Jack White furthar •xplained cloeing th~ dciveway would meen ceplscing it wikh itandaCd curb and gutter. He atated thet la not ~ncluded ae one of the recomme~-ded conditione, eo th~ Cammiosian mey wiah to coneider whether or not they feel the drivewey ehould be cloaed. THE PUBLIC H6ARING yJAS CL03ED. Commieaioner King atated the Traffic Engineer expla:ned it wae a auggeation only. Commi.aeloner King steted he would like to eee the driveway remein open beceure three perking spaces are needed to be provided on the drivewey. Mra. :I~wley statp~ ehe would like the drivoway left apen. Concerning traffic in the area, ehe ~taked she did not see a big problem becauae the alley goes ecross ta Indiena and both of thoae homea ere owned 5y her and her husband. Respondin~ to Commiasionec euuae, Mrs. Hawley atated she did not know how she will advertise this businesa, however, tt~ere will be no aigns. She etated if ahe geta thia approval, she will re~pond to aome of the articleA ahe has read, but theC thia is a nice home end they would like to shere it. She stated there are six bedroome in the hauee and she currently has two childcen home, with one or poeaibly both expected to leave eaon. Commiasioner Buehore atated Code will permit a certain emount of aigning by rigtit, with Dean Sherer stating Code would ~llow two aquare feet of s~gning on the exterior wall. Mra. Hawley stated she would be willing to atipulate not to put up any uigna. She state~ t~er mein reaeon for wan*_ing to do this is becauae her hous^_ is empty and ahe would enjoy meeting other peop.le, especially fcom foceiqn countciea. Reaponding to Commieaioner Buahore as to how to scceen the gueats, Mrs. Hawley replied ahe would have ta.find out about that if thia is approved, slnce ahe hes never done it befoce. Cunsmisaioner Buahore referred to the requirement under Condition No. 1 requiring that the building be brought up to exiating standard building Codes with plumbing, Plectrical, wdtec~ etc. Dean Sherec atated this condition will requice the propecty be br~ught up to the minimum Gity Codes, including any permits necessary from the Health Department, if food ie going to be secved. He explained the petitioner will have to work with the Building Department far an inspection which would determine what needs to be done to bring the property up to Codes. Commiasioner Bushore stated that could require new electrical wiring, handicapped bathroom f~cilitiea, fire escepes Erom the second floor, fire extinguishers, pogsibly a hendicapped ramp on the porch, etc. He stated the owner will aleo have to collect ~n occupency tax. Jack White explained the tax report would have to be filed evecy 30 days and the tax would have to be paid on a 30-day basis. He explained the tax rate ia 8~ as of July lst. Commissioner Bushore statQd che last similar requeat which was appcoved was a little diffecent because the petitioner had resettcched the situation and knew how often reports had ta be filed, ho~ to ecceen the gueats, etc. and pointed out this could attcect undeeirable guests. He steted in order to protect the neighbarhood, if thie is approved, he would reaommend that it be limited to 6/13/83 MINUTB ANAH6IM CITY PL1-NNING COMMI88ION. JUNE 13, 1983 63-340 two yeare. Ile eteted he would think it might cost 35,000 to f10,000 to bring thir bui]dinq up to Code And added he thought this ie cealiy e commercial o~ecation. 1-CTION: Commiseioner Kinq offered a motior~, sscon ded by Commissioner McBurney end MOTION C1-1tRIED (Commiaeio~ec He~bat ebse~t), that the Anaheim City Plan~ing Commieeion hae reviewed the propo8.+1 to pecmit d bed end breakEest i.nn in the RM-2400 (Reeidential, Multiple-Ft-mil,y) Zone on e rectangulerly-ahaped percel of land coneiating of approximately 0.4 ecre located et the southeaet corner of Braedway and In diana Streets and further deacribed es 90~ W• 9roadwayt and doea hereby approve the Negative peclaretio~ from tha cequicement to prepece nn environmental impaet report on the besis thet• there would be no significant individua~. or cumulative adverse environmentAl impect due to tiie approvel of t.his Negative Declaration aince the Anaheim Genecel Plen desipnates tl~e eubject pr operty for low medium reaidential land ueee c~mmensucete with the p~oposalt thet no senaikive environmental impacts ere invnlved in the propoaal; !:hat the Initial Study submitted by the petitionec indicatea no gig nlfica nt indlvidual or cumulative advecae ~nvironmental impactat ~and that the Ne~gative Ue~:laretion eubstentiating the foreyoing findinys is on file ~n thc~ City nf 1lneheim P1Anning Deprctment. C~mmiasioner King offered Resolution No. PC83-i13 and moved for !te passage and adoption that the 1~naheim City Planning Cor~mission dec!~ hereby grt~nt Conditional Uae Permit No. 2454 for a period o!' two yeats, to expire June 13, 19~4, and aubject to the petiti~ner's stipulation that there ~hell be no extarior advectising signa on ttie property and eubject to lnterdepartmental Committee recamm4~ndations. On roll call, the foregoing ceaolution was pd98~ed by the following vote: AYES: BOU11Sr PRY, KING, L1l CLAIRE, MC BURMEY NO~S: BUSHORE ABSENT: H~RBST Commissioner La Claire stated to those present in oppoaitfon, that even though the Commission did not mention the signing, tcaffic, elley. parking, children, etc. they clid take them into consideration and t hought bbout them quite carefully which was one of. Che reasons f or tbe two-year time limit. She steted if in two yeacs it appears Chis is a detriment to the neiqhborhood, it will no longer be in op~ration and the Commiasio n would not have voted in favoc if they had ~:elt it would adversely afEect the neighborhood. Jaclc White, Aseiatant City Attorney, presented t he written right to appeal the Planniny Commission's decision within 22 days to the Cit,y Council. ITEMI NO. 7. EIR NEGJ-TIVE DE.:LARATION. WAIVBR OF CODE__REQUIREMENT I~ND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NG. 2455 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: HBNRY MANN, 3982 ~lann Road, Huntinqdon Valley, PA lgpQ6. AGSNTS: DEYiI5, D'HM11T0, BRISBOIS 8 BISGAARD~ ATT'ENTION: WILLZAM F. GREENHALGH, 261 S. Figueroe Street, Suite 300, Los ~ngeles, CA 90012. Property desccibed as an irregularly-shaped paccel of land coneieting of approximately 0.28 acre and fu 'tier descx ibed as 2~35 West Woodland Drive. b/13/83 ~ MZNUTBS. 71N1-HBIM CITY PLAPiNING COliMI$BION. JUNE 13. 1983 83-341 To ptrmit cetAil selee and o!licea in !h~ ML Zone with waiver o! minimum numbec of parking epeces. It was n~ted the petition~r had requeated e continuance to the meeting of July 11, 1983. 1-CTIONc Commieaionec King otfeced a motion, eeconded by Commiasionec Boude and MOTTON C1-RRIED ICommiseioner Herbat abaent), thet conaideretion o! the af or~~mentioned item be continued to the reqularly-scheduled meeting of July 11, 1963, at the requeat of the petitionec. RECESB: 2:55 p.m. RGCONVENED: 3:05 p.m. ITEM N0. 8 REPqRTB AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. VJ-RII-NCF N0. 3225 - Request from Clarinda Williamson, (Tiffany'e Fa~mily Reataurant) for termination of propecty locdted ~t 1060 West Katelle Avenue. 1-CTION; Commiasioner K~ng offered Resalutlon No. PC83-114 and moved for its pesaege and edoption thet the Anahetm City Planning Commission does hereby terminate Variance No. 3225. On rall call, the foregoing reaolution was passe~l by the following vote: 11YES: 80UA5~ BUSHORE, FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOLS: NON~ ABSENx; HBRBST B. RECLASSIFICATIGN NO. 82-83-29 AND VARIIINCE NO. 3325 - Request from P. M. Rhodes 6 Bruce Galdman for review and e-pproval of revised plt~ns for. propecty located at 949 North Citron Street. There were ~iqht persone indicating their preser~ce in opposition to aubject request and although the ataff report was not reAd, it ie refecred to and mad~ a part of the minutes. Bob Gilbert, 4552 Lincoln, agent, was preaent to answer any questions. William Jolissaint, 101 N. Citron, stated this reclasaification from single-fa~:ily to multiple-family residential does not meet with their a~proval end the variance For 20 f eet pravided on all aides except the north, does not meet the City of Anaheim's Codes. He stated ne would not like to think the City of Anaheim would permit 9 units being built in this partieular area with four single-family residentia~ homes on the south and four on the north. He stated his property is located on the nocth end pointed out thia ia not a vecant lot, but is developed with a aingle-femily residence, even though it is not b:::~g properly m~intAined at the present time. 6/13/83 MINUTBS. 11N~HSIM CITY PLIINNINQ CQIMI88ION, JUNB 131 1i983 83-342 Mc. ~oliss~int oteted he rpu~~ted a pexmit to build a garege on the 8outh eide of h1e pcopetty 35 yeare eqo which wea granted and now thia developer ie propoeing a 6-foot high well one foot from hia properky line end he would have proDlema getting in end out of hia vehicle. Ne ,~tated he realizea thia ie hie problemt but that it wesn't e problem 3F yeacs ago when the permit wes gcenCed to build the ga~rege. Mr. Joliasaint stated he ie not in favoc of thp variance ellowing these 9 units beceuse of tha treffic thet wil.l be genecated with 18 new cer owners and three vieitor packi~g space~ and pointed out it ia har~l to q~t in and out of that erea now beceuse of the congestion. tte et~ted t~e firmly believes this will deatroy the neighbonc~+od snd pointed out the ~recedent hAa elceedy been set on the corner of I.averne and Citron where aparCmenta were permitted. He steted thoae apertments ace en asaet ta the community, but that was vacent land and thia property ie not vacrnt and ie lerge enough for a single-fdmily residence and all the other praperties in the area are single-family and they do not want this in their neighborhood. He stated he hde lettera to p~esent from some of his neighbore who could not attend the meeting and elso some phot.ographa showing the traffic congestion as it cucrent.ly exista. ye added he did not bleme the properky owner from wanting to $ell the property, but did not think this de~•~lo~ment ahould be allowed at the expenae and beauty of Anaheim, particulacly thi~ area ~n North Citron. Dave Cooper, 923 N. Winter, st~ted he would like to object atrenuously to these unitst that thece are nine residents on Citcon between Laverne and La Palma, not counting the apartmenta and he wae aoncerned that if these apartmente are permitted, the other properly owners would want to do the same thing which would meen up to 60 additianal units in that area. He stated he was also concecr~ed about the buildings being built on the praperty line and thought thia would open "pandora's box". He asked the Commiesion to think about this very carefully and to lieten to the wishes of the people in the area. William Gorrell, 956 N. Winter, steted about 18 months ago, there was a series af ineetings regacding the development of the proposed apartments on Cftron and the Winter Skreet residenta played a very determining part in those discuseions; that the consensus of the residenta on Winter Street was that they do not object to the development of the property with apa~rtments or condominiums, praviding they are developed within the guidelines eateblished 18 months ago requiring they be single story with a buf~`er zone betwcen the reaidential properties and the proposed units and that the reeidents righks were not encroached upon with noise, air pollutior, or viaual intrusion. Hr etated the original pldns anked fnr seve~al waivers which encroached upon their righta and brought the Wintet Street cesidents out in mass to object, but the revised plans do .tiot leave a lot to object to, ae far as the Winter Street cesidents are concerned. Be added he felt most of the reaidents on Winter Street agree wfth him= however- theic primary concern ia that the 6-foot 6/13/83 MINUTB9. ANAHBIM CITY P~1INNING COPIMI88ION. JUNE 13, ~983 83-343 wel~ is not high •nough end they would like to $ee en 8-Eoot high wall. H~ atated they would el~o like aome eaeur~ncea that there will not be any aubeequent encroechments into the 20-toot ~andscaped buffer en~ noted ;he ociginal plans show bsrbecuee, pathways, etc. end they would like to Aee that kept ~ pure landecaped eted. 3usenne Leater, 9J1 Autumn Drive, stAted she reelizes that the General Plen ehowa changee for Citcon 3treet, but ahe would like to eee the development more in line with whar, is thRre and with some c~ntinuity inatead of developing apartmenta and having eingle-femily homes end condominiums because ehe felt that would lmpact the neighhorhood. She edded ehe would rather have condominiume than apartments, berause homeowners ere more responsible for their pcoperty then someone renting. She etated she is also concerned ebout the 20-foot landac~ped area, becauae ahe felk ~eople w~~ld eet up picnic tablcs, barbecues, etc. aince their space is very limfted and they wtl.l have no place Eor recreation except. in that lendaca~ed area. She stated the people on the north will be encased becAUSe of the shape of the property aince it curvea into the back oE their h~mes and the driveway will be clght et the property line. 5he et~ted again she realizea that somethiny will be developed i~ this area, but they would juat like to see aomething a little more compatible with the neighborhood to khe north, south and weat with a better flow down Citron and not have diffecent types of development throughout the area because then it doea nnt look like a neighborhood. .Jack Dick, 949 N. Citron, stated using the property toz ~ single-family residence would not be using it to ite maximum potential and 9 units makes tlie project more affordable and less units would meke the price range out of the range for this neighborhood; that Citron ia a buay street, but he felt this pcoject would enhance the praperty ~~p and down Cikron. He aCated ihe neighbor immediately to the south w~nts to develop his property and does not object to this pcoposal and the neighbosa further south are also talking about developing their proFerty. Mr. Gilbert apologized for having to submik reviae~ plans and stated they were not aware af the strong feelings about single-~tory units and were completely unpcepared fot the opposition. He explained they are only aEking for ene variance that has to do with the setbeck on the north side and it is completely in accordance with City standarda in r,he Rt~1-300U Zone end the variance is necessary because that property is still zoned single-family even though it is in the Generel plan for low medium residential. He stated the property owner on the south aide eigned the original petition asking that the property be reclaesified, but it is not beinq processed because he has no development plan et the present time and he has indicated he is nat concerned with the project ~s it is proposed nnw. He stet~d there was a 1R:c of oppasition at the City Council meeting because it was fndicated that the same plen was being pres~nted even though they had prepared a new plan and the opposition was basically to the two-atnry units. He stated tr~ey ate 6/13/83 willing to pcovide the 8-loot wall on the west side as requeated by tha property owneca. Conc~rning tretfic he ateted it mAy be hatd to b+ack aut a~to thet atc'ek nowr but they r~ill be bu~lding to pcivate street atendsrd• which will ellow sntfcing the stceet in a normal n~annec aa oppoeed to beckinq out which will alleviate many ~roblems. He atated theY ~re proposinq 9 aingle-story, Z-bedroom, 950-equare loot unit~, 1-1/3 batha unil•s and expect them to fall wfthin the City's afiordeble huusing qui8eline$ but Ghey are not requeeting eny s~ec~tic bonua boceuse ot thek and are going in at the zoned deneity and ace aaking foc no waivec on that isaue. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEA. Commisaioner King clarified tt-at t-~e cecreationel-lelsure epace le over Code requiremRnt with Mr. Gilbect teplying thet the 20-foot landsca~+ed buEfer is included in thet calculation and that nothing ie proposed for thut buffer area~ Commieaioner King stated~g~~ ~odkhetp[ojecteand~pointedwout that door to the eouth is not opp houae has no windowa on that slde, eo thece should not be a problem. Mr. Gilbert stated ~~e understands that property owner intenda to ~evelop and he t.tiought there could be another gara9e backed up to thi~ one which ~+ould provide a 20-foot buffer to the next pcoperty to the south a,nd he felt thls pl~n could work all the way down the street. C~mmisaioner King $twt~uadtbe$vez,yecompetiblpuwithnthe~neighborhood. end he thought they Mc. Gilberti responded to Commiac~ionec Bouas, that t.he garagea will have doora• Commissionec Bouas askµd if the propetty owne~s on the south had signed the petition oi.~~osing the project. Kr. Gilbgrk reaponded that that property awr~er had aignrd the petition to have Council property reclassifiP~a but thdt he t~a~ sNaken r,t the City meeting indicating h~a was nnt sure now the zero lot line would affect his property. Commissioner Bushore referred to the drainage problem, pointing out when the Braille Institute developed their propecty on North Dale, cucbs and guttecs were ins~alled, but the dcai~age problem was caused south af that development and he thnught this could be a aimilar situation, if thie i~ not properly taken care of. He added he thought there would be water sitting thece because there fs no place for it to drdin and on Dale Street a tempocacy asphelt curb ~nd driveway weee instAlled. Jack Judd atated he was not familiar with the situation ~n Citron Street further south and did not know if it has curbs and gutters. 6/13/ 83 MINUTBB. ANAHBIM CI~Y PLANNING C„~,qhIM1E~IQN. JUNB 13 f 1983 ,_ 83-, 3~5 Mr. Gilbort atateQ he hA+~ looked et the flow line which ia to the eouth and there are no curba and guttecs end it doee~ not eppe+~r ehece~ will be ~ problsm. Commiesionec 8uahore not~ed four propertiea would be Af~ected by the drain,~ge and it is • real problem now sncl he thought A ronditio~ ehould be added that the flow lines to the south ehould be teken eere ot. He stated l8 rnonthg ago chia pcopecty was ~oned for low medium residential bece+uae the arNa was deterinreking and the l~~te were too large foc einr.~le-femily reeidences end chenges ehould be done in a proper mannRC which ia the reason for praviding the guidelinee. He eteCe~~ he thought thie ie the type o~ pra~eck the Commiesion had in min~! nnd Celt it would increase the propPr.ty vel~as and enhance the erea And 9 condominium unite would f.e better then 12 apsrtments. He $teted they will be ir~dividually ~~wned aiid an asaociation would teke care ~f the common aceas. He ritAted he felt, however, thece will be children playing in that landscaped atea. Mr. Gilbert atated the t~asic difference is the 200 foot depth oi the property. ACTI^N: Cortunisaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiss~ioner Buehore and MOTION CARRIED (Cummiesioner Herbst ebsent), that the Anahei:n City Planning Commieaion does hereby ceconunend to the City Council that cevised plans be npproved in conjunction with Reclaseification No. 82-83-29 and Variance No. 3325 on the basis that the ptopecty i.s unique in aize, ahepe, topography, lacation and aurcoundinga and denial wauld depcive property of priv~ileges being enjoyed by the properties in the aame zone and vicinity. Commissi~ner La Claire auggested a condition be added to the reconm~endet~vn to the City Council that the drainage be satiefactory to the City Engineec with .1ack Judd pointing out that ita already a condition included in tne ceclesaification apptoval. Jack white pointed out thie m~tter will automatically be before the City Council and the public hearing aet for July 5, 1983, and that the Commiasion's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council before thst meetinq. C. VARIANCE N0. 3329 - Request ~or Nunc Pco Tunc Resolution amending Resolution PC83-72 for pcaperty located at 129 South Olive Street. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC83-115 an~ moved for its passege and adopt3,on that the 1-naheim City Pl.anning 6/13/83 MxNUT1l8. ANIIHBIM CITY PLANNINQ CUMMI88ION. .IUNB 131_ 1983 83-346 Commiaeion do~e hereby grent nunc pca eunc r~aAlution ame~dinq Re~olutian No. PC83-72 qranti.nq Veriance No. 3379. On roll edll, the foregoin~~ r~eoluC~an wsa peeeed by the Eollowing vote: ~-YES: BpUAS, FRY, I(ING. La- CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONB ABSENT: HERSST IUiSTAIN; BUSHORE D. Jack White explained the need to gr~ant a resoJ,ution cl4rifying Planning Commisaion meeting dates and times. ACTION; Commiealoner King offered ReBOlution No• PC83-115 relatinq to dntes and timea of regu.ler Plenning Commisaion meetings. On coll call, the foregoing resolution was paesed by rhe foll.owing vote: 11YES: BOUAS, BUSNORE, PRY, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST 0'*H~R D25CUSSION: Commiasioner McBurney indicated he is concerned about the proposed jail site ~.n the canyon erea and that he would like to protest it and felt the Commission ~hould go un record opposing it. Jeck White etated the normdl procelure would be for the Planning Cammission ko recommend to Ctty Council thdt they teke a~tand for or egainet the project rather than the Planning Commiesion making the atatement and communicating direct]y with outside age~cies. Commissioner McBurney stated this is the seme Board of Supervisora that wishes to eliminate the coadway syakem through the hill c~cea and pointed out if that roed had been oper.ative, they could have saved quite a few homes durir.g the recent fire. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, stated the City Council has a~lready gone on rPCOrd opposing the jail site faciltties and n letter wae draft eeve[el months ago and sent to the Boatd of Supervisors expreasing their opposition. He added that goes back to the time when the site was conaidered in the weir Canyon area and originally they were looking at a aite on the S~-VI property, and the City Council expressed opposition to thoee sites and the Aoard of Supervi~ors abandoned cnnsideration of those sites and directed County ataff to atudy the sites at Gypaum Canyon and Codl Canyon. He atated Council directed ataff to prepace a status report for the jail site and landfill site and a memorandum was aent tu the City Cauncil explaining the etat~s of the County's study. He stated the other aitea were eliminated from the County's study and the only two siteg being studied are at Gypsum and Cnal Canyons. ~e sCated he will include a copy of that letter in the Commissio~'s next packet. 6/13/83 MINqTSSzANAH~IM CITY PL~NNINO CaMIMIS9I0N, JU_NB 13. 1~9_83 83-347 Commieaion~c La Cleire etated mayb~ th~ Ciiy ehould enn~x the propecty e~ eoon es po~aibl• beceuse it appeaca Aneheim doeR not have much clout with the Bosrd of 9uperviaora. Joel ~ick oteted thece have b~Rn aevecel annoxation diacueaiona and two members of the eoard of Supervieoce ere on the Local ~qency ~ormation Commiaeion ~nd cequeste for annexetion in that sree must have prnperty ownec pceferenee and many have not expresae~ an inter~at in ennex~tion, buk the Dauglea Reneh owner~ ece intecested in annexationf howevvr, the owners o! the Wallace Ranch ere not inter~ated in ennexation. He ateted ataff hae met with the Icvine Company explocing the annexetion iaeue end their vi,ewpoint et thiA time is that annexatlon to the City of Aneheim aould be premature until they do moce deEinitive lend uae atudiea for their pcopetty. Commisaioner La Claire atated she thinke the ciCizens of the City of Anaheim should be made aware of the problem~ thp City ia heving with the Boerd of Supexvieora aince Aneheim seome to be tArgeted for county facilitiee and ehe Eelk there ie ceel danger to the area. Joel Fick eteted the Antire etaff agrees wirh that camment dnd when the site was under conaideration et Weir Canyon, ataff pointed out to the City Council that numeroua inquiries were received since people lived in cloee proximityr however, an the Gypeum and Cndl Canyon sitea, only two inquicea were rECeived and khe iseues were in the newapaper. He etated st~ff cecommended to City Council that they meke an effort to aee that peoplP wece notif:ed and he believed the Public information Office hed contacted the newspapers. ADJGURNMENT: There being no further business, CommissionEC McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commisaionec King and MOTION CI-RRIED (Commiesionpr Hecbat absent), thet the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjo~rned at 3:Sp p.m. Respectfully eubmitted, .i~ ~ , ../ ~ t-'Id~t.1.c~, Q.LC~ Edith L. Haccis, S~cretary, 1-naheim City Planning Commisaion ELH:lm 0559H 6/13/83 ~ ~ r .: a ~ '~,'t ` r ~~ ',. r :!~ ~ '~ ~ ~~~ - - M'~Y; Ff;,. i d~,~ ti4 . 7 , , ~. ~ . .~ . y `~ ~~ . . . ~ .. .... . ~~p'+T, n"w1+'"~r`„''"'rmr'rr r r .,-*F .~-~ ~.. ~ a h .~t+. 1