The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1973/05/300 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, IPIC. . . ~ , . ,. ~ ~ ~ Clty }lall A~ahei.fi, CnliParnie Hay 30, 1973 A REGULAR MEETING OE' THE ANAHEIMlCtTX PLANNING COMMT38ION RECULAR - A ro,qulnr meeting ~t tho Anenetm City Planniny Commi4sion we-s ME~9'ING called to order by Chai.rman Seyu-our u.t 2~00 p.m., a quozum beiny present. PRESENT - Cli1~ZRMAN: Seymour. - COMMIS870NEFS: Allred, Faranu, Gauex, Harbst, Kaywood. ASSL~NT - COMMISSIONLTRS: Rowle~nd. PRESENT - AsAi.stant Development wervicee Airector: Ftonald Thompeo.l Adetetant City Attorney~ John Dewson Deputy City Attorneys Will.iam Hopkina Offiae Enqineer: Jay Titue Zoning Supervisor: Charlss Roberts Aesi.etant Planner: Phillip Schwartza Cammiasion Secretary: Ann Kr.ebs PLEDGE OF ^ Comt~+iasiuner Kayvtoocl lc~d i.n the P1e3qe of Allegiance to the ALL~GIANCE F1$g. APFftOVAT~ OF - Commiaeioner Kaywaod o~fered a motion to approve tho minutee THE MINUTES of the meeting of April 30, :973, sec~nded by Ccmmfee o ~n,r~..~/ Allred r~nd MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following ~~'•~~ pg. 73-249, para. 7, line 3: tha r.amc is "L~icky" Daix,y. Fy. 73-250, insert the fnllow.ing after para. .l: "Ccmmiasion-r Allred offered a c.iotion, seconded by Commisaionor Kaywood and MOTION CARRYED, that the P1~•nninq Commi.ssion, i.n connection with an e.c~mption decla- ration stata~ requeat, finda and determines that. the proposal wculd have no significant er~vironmental impact and, thergf~r.e, recommen~ls to the City Co~incil that no EnvironmanCal Impact Statement ia necessary. pg. 73-254, para. 10, lincs 1: CummissionQr Herb~t secunde.i the mo~ion . rg, %3-263, paru. 4, line 4, delete: "thia position" and insert "disposition". ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. TIi~ MC CARTFiY COMPANY, atten- R~PORT NO. 93 tion of Eugene R. Ful]er, 2535 West La Palma Avenue• """ Anaheim, Ca. 92301, and HL~NYtY 3~. AND ETHEI~ i.. DEL GIORGIO, RECLASSIFICRTIOfT 21~91 Mohler Drive, Anaheim, Ca. 92806, Ownera. N0. 72~-7:~-35 ENGINEER: Jesinings Engineering Co., 4A19 Van Nuya Boule- vard, Sherman Oaka, Ca. 91403. ProperL•y describe~. as: VARIAt3C8 NO. 2492 An i.rregulsrly~shaperl p3rce.l of land conaisting of approximately 35 acres having a frontage oi approxin~ately TEIJTATIVE MAP ~F 687 feet rn tha south side of Santa Ana Canyon Roac3, TRACT NO. 477'1, hsving a maxin,um depth of appr~xiniately 1500 feet~ and REVISION N_ 0,__,~____1 _ being located approximate2y 3~70 feet east of thE center- lin~s o£ Anaheim Hills Road. Property presently claasi- fied R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZOtiE. R~'+QUESTED CL1~ISSIFICATION: R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALr ZONE. RL~jUESTED VARIAP]CE: WAIVER O~' (A) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK, ~B) MTNIMUM LUi WIDTH ON A CUL-DE-SAC, ~C) M.T_NII~UM LOT WIDTH, ANJ3 (D) REQUIREMENT '~HAT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTUR~S itEAR ON ARTERIF~L HIGHWRYS TO ESTABI,ISH R 135-LOT, R-1 SUBDIVISION. Subject petitiona and tract wexe continued fram the April 16 and May 14, 1973 meatings at the request of 'the develogera to all~w time for the submission of r.eviasd plans. 73-324 ~-e ~ ~ MINUTES, CI'fY ~'LANNING COMMISSIbN, May 30, 1.973 73-325 RNVIRONM~NTAL iNiPACT RF.PURT N0. 93, RFCLHS9IP'ZCA'CION l70. 72••7.3~39r VAitIANCF N~. 2492, AND R'EhTAT1VE M~P OF TRACT NO. 4'77~ RF~~ISION N0. 1(Ccntinund) ChAirmen se,y-~~aur n~otec9 thAt tha petitioner had ~gai;~ raquested ~ two-wook cor.• tinuanc~ to allow timg for oampletion oP revJ.sed pleno. Commias.ioner Allred ~~~tered a motiUn, ~econded by Comm~soioner Kaywaod and MOTION CA}2RIED (COmmieaianetc RowlAnd being ab~ent) , to ~:~nCinuo r.onaidezc~tiori ofi ~nvir~+r~mental Tmpect Rarort No. 93, ReclaAaiPicatioti~ 1!c. 7?.-73-39, Verianco Na. 2492, ai,a ~Pent:ati~-e Map ~f Tract No. 477'l, kovisian tan. ]., to tho ma~eting of ,7une 11, 1~73, a~e se~~ueoted by the petitionar/devol.oper. CONpITIi)NAL U9R ~ CONT?I~U~A PUBLIC HEARLNG. TNE MC CAR'PNY COMPANT, att~~~tion PERMIT NO. 1386 of rug~rne R. F'ul.ler, 2535 Woat La k'alma Avenue, Anahn~m, Ca. 92801, Owner~ requeating por~nic+oior~ to BSTAi~LXSH A ~{-LiNIT PLANNFD RA'SIGENTIAL D~VELOPMENT TO BE iISED AS I,. MODEL KOME COMPT,EX WT'`H SALES OFl!'I(;E on praperty dascribed as: An i.rreyul~r].y- ahaped parcel of land coneisting or rpprox~^~ntely one acre approxima`ely 650 feet souther.'ly of Santa Ana Cd~lyon Road, havi:ag a maximum depth of approximately~ 170 feet~ and boing ].ocated appraximato).y 1.40 feet weat of th~ con~erl'_ne of Mohler Drive. Property pre+~~ntly cld~eified R-A; AGT~TCUI~T[1RAL, ::ONE. Sub~ect oeL-ition wae continued fr~~m tho meetings oE April 16 ar.d. Diuy 14, 1q73, at khe request of the petiti~nQr. It was also n~ted by atafE that sub~ect petitiun wan covered under tho previauo lettez for a continu3nce of two weeks. Commissioner All,re~i offerAd a m~tioii, aeconclad by Commi~sionc~r Kaywaod und MOTION CARRIEp (Commis~ioner Rowland being absent) , t~~ cc~n~inue c:ursideration o~ Conditional Use Permit No. 1386 to the :,ieer~ng of June 11, 1973, as requerstea by the petitioner. CONDITInI3AL iJSE - PUBLIC HEARING. AMELIA P. Wti2TE;, 3015 WF3t Ball :.a~, F'ER61IT NU. 1400 Anareim, ~a. 92804, Oaner; GiRARD F. WAR~F, 4332 East La t~alma Avenue, Anaheim, Cr~. 9~806, Agent.p r.equescing ~Ar~ miasion to ESTAB~ISH A 12S-BED CONVF~LESCENT 1I~St~Y7'A„ GJA2VING (A) REQUI~2ED REAR YARD AND (B) REQUIREI) NUMALR OF PARKYN~ ~PnC:E4 an propErty describeA ae: An irregularly-shaped parr.el of lanci consisrinc~ af approximatiely .76 acre, having a frontage of approx?mata~y 166 ieet on t.he r~orth side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of app~oa.iu~ately 251. feet, and being located approximately 680 €eet weat of `.he cen:erllne ~£ Knot.t ?~ver.ue. Prope=ty presently classified R-A, AGRICUI.TURAL, Z^NE. Cha±rman Seymour noted that the agent for the peti`~.onex haa subm.ttted ti~equest for a two^tveek continuance in order to submit revisei plans. Commiasioner Kaywaod offared a motion, seconcled by Commisr~ion~:r ~areno and MOTION CARRIED (Commiesioner F:ow~.and being a~sent) , to ~,ontin~ze .;o-tsid~:ratior~ of Conditionr~l Use Permit No. 14G0 to the meeLinq of Jure 13, 1S73, to allo~r the petitioner tcime to submit r~~•ised plans. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CnNTINU~D PUBLIC HEARING. RAYNOND I„ t4T~RSZLF., .TR., REPOkT NO. 94 RONALD b'. MARSILE, AND Al:LEBti MARSILL', 20432 Santa Ana CanyAn Road, Anahelm, Ca. 92806y HA~tV::Y AND BOMELL PRASE, RECLASSIr•ICATION 205~ Aqat~ Avenue, Balboa, Ca. 92662, Owaersr MARK III N0. 72-73~45 HGMES, INC., attenti,on of Steve Sandbezg, 1651 East Edinger Street, Santa Ana, Ca. 92705, Agenti prop~rty VARIANC~ Nd. 2499 describod asr ~,n irregularly-shaped gar.:el af land consisting of approximately 19.0 acrea having ~ fron+tage TENTATIVE MAP dF of appzoximately So6 feet on the south sibe~ of Santx Ana TRACT NO. 5778, Canyor- Road, having a maximum depth of approxicnately 990 REVISION NQ. 1 feet, and being located appro~cimately 800 f~3et east of ~ the centerline of Anaheim Hi11s Road. Claeaification of property: County A1, AGRTCULTURAL, DISTRICT (presently R-A, AGRICULTUItAL, ZONE by urgency ordinance). ~ ~ ~ MIt~UTES, CxTX PI,ANNING COMMTS3IpN, Mny 30, 1973 ~~'~~2~ ENVxRGNM~NTAL IMPA~T REPQRT Np. 94, RECLAS3IFICATION N0. 72-73-45, VARlANCR N0. 2499,_AND TEN~ATIVL* S+AP OF TRA~T N0. F'778~ REVI9ION N0. 1(Continua~) RI~~UEBTED CLAS5IFICATION c Et-'l, ONE-F'AMIY.Y itESIGF.t!TTAL, ZONE. REy~UESTEb VAA:CANCE: W~IVG ~'RONT SETHACK '"0 ~STABL,ISH A 75-LOT It-1 3U8DIVISION. T~N~'ATIVE TRACT RFQULS'ft D~VGI~OPER~ MAkK IZI FtOMES, INC., 1651 Eant Edinger 5treet, 3Anta Ana, Ca. SL'105. ENGINEERr Sa]kin Enginqering Corp., 1045 Woet Colline, Ur~nge, Ca. 9?.667~ prc,poeinc~ subdivi.aion oF a 19. ~-~ic:re eito into 75 R-1 zotted lots. Sub~ect petihtona and tr~ct were continued from tha maetinc~ ot April 30, 1A7:~r t.o a11ow time tor the 3eveloper to reaolve the mar~y development problemo pre- aen~ecl at the hearing. Nr_, oti,e appe~rea ii~ opposir.ion. Although the Repczt to the Commiasion was r~ot read at tlie public heerinq~ it in r.aferrc~d to and made t~ part of hhc~ mir~ukos. Coanni~si.on~r KaXw~od notec~ thst the F,nvir~nmental tmpact R~Fort did not discues the ac~:A~s ~ro:n the wast ae suyq~ated at tha previoua publi~: hoaring by the EIR Re~•iew ~~mmi':tf,dl wk~ereupon 2oning SuperviR~~r CharlQa Itobor.ta noted that in th~ revired tract map, as wall as tha aupplemeny st~.mitted, ~h:1s accens wae proviQed, there.fo~.'o, fihFrR was no nded to further inda.cate this on the EZR. ,+1~, C'Qar~;e Kerns, representinq the enqine~r and the developer. of the propoaed ~+to jact, appeared bef.ore th~ Commisal.on and ooted that the enginea r and the 3evc~cpor had met with staff and had done a,~reat deal oE work to .-eoolve pzob- 1Qm~ p,r,f:l3f:i1t2C1 at the last ~~ublic hearing on sub ject pet.it.ionv, and it was hope3 theye problems Y-ad been r~flc~lved; and that tt,ey prupoaed to have a portion Qf the lots sat ~side £or psople to store their campers off~•street. t~:x. Carl DeGour, 20402 5anL•a Ana Canyon Roud, appeared before the Commiseion an~ noted that t~ls propQrty abutted subject prope~°ty, indi.cating an the msp ite location, and requested ~f the engineer for tha devel~~per to qo into greater d~tail a~ to h~o~ they proposed to accomplish drainsge from gubject property, Y~ow much fill was proposed ad~acent to his prooerty which faced Santa Ana ^-.nyon Rond, tu what elevati.on would these lots be de~aeloped, and where would the drain- age be placzd. Mr. Kerns r~plied that it ++ould bP their intent to drain subject lots in the tract toward the new streetg proposed and away From the adjoining property li~iet ~hat a st~rm drain would t'hen take the water. fram these streets to the Santa Ana Riverr that rough grading pl.ans had been worked ovt, and there would be no cut or fill on th.eae lots Aince t'1e streets woul~ be lowared somewhaL• from the prop- erty lines so th.at drainage would go to th~ streeat drains. Mr. DeGour nuted that hie question was partially answered, but if th~re was no change in elevation and no fill ~r yrading was proposea, then the natural drain- age couXSe from southwest to northeast would be in eff~ct as a matter of fact, and drainage from the aouthweat into these l.ats would still drair back onto his propertyj and thatt he was very concezned about tha drainage o£ adjoining lots adjacent to his property since it was h1s feeli.ng that it would drain onto his pro~erty unleas the developer propoaed a ret.ai~.iing wa11. Mr. Kerns replied that tho property would be c:ut to slope t~ the otr.eet, then the lots would drain to the front from the re~r where said rear lota were ttdja- cent to Mr. DeGour's property~ therefore, there wauld bo :~o need to provide a fi11 adjacent ta his propertyt and then in xeaponse to questioninq by Commis- slonex Allred, stated there, would be ~ppruximately 1$ yrade to the ~treet. Mr. DeGour observ~d ~hat there Would be ~io way these lote could drain in t~hc, oppoe~.te directionJ that tha SAVI can~sl was only 4~i feet from hie propbrtyo and thAt h~ would l~ke to Rdd that he had a land use occupAncy par~it for breeding and keeping daqa, and he knew what children could do, teesing the dc , atc., if no provieion wRS mxde for a walli and that Y:e aould Poreeee nothinq but ~ ~ ~ MxNUTES~ CITY PI~ANNING COMM7SSxON, MRy ~0, 1973 73-•32'1 ~*!7VlRONMCNTAI~ IM?ACT REPORT NO. 44, KFCLA3SIFYC.A'i'IGN N0. 72-73-45, VARIANCE N0. ~49~, AND T~:NTATIVEF_MAP OF TRACR~ N0. 5778, RFVISION N0~_1_ (C~ntinued probleme~ lrom ct~~ldreii in `'~is propoaed kract, thorofore, he wae r.~~-~•~asting some barrier tu ~revont ~hiA lrom t~spp~ning dince it waa u hazard tn ~.oth the r,hildron rind hie dog~. L'urthermore, !.t would havo to Lo more tha~r~ a F-f.oot vtooden feace which chlldran cauld allmb ~vmr, +and he woul,d auggost an 8-loot masonry wall~ alany tha prcporty line. Mr. 1Karne xeiterated cho fact th~t drainac~o cou13 he accompli~hed tn rh~ pro- p~ead straehe, and ainca thore alre~ddy wn~ a~ 9torm drain and they propo~~d ta complete drainago ~rom t.ha e'•..c~et~ to thn atnrm drain with a flow line ot 3U7- 308-310 and 312 feet~ and th~~n~ ~.n reaponeo to Chai.rman 3eymour'o queationinq, etatea that r~t tha preeent time thoy clid nuL• plnn to coiiatr_.ot an 9-Root wall. Mr. f:a.rl Ahrono, 2033~ Santa Ann CAnyon Road, appeared bafore the Commi.ssion and statod he had tho 9ame type o£ probl~m with children who might Q31:1d~e h4s irrigation ].ine:~ which ran weat to eeet, and thak he wats also in fAVOr of coneideration o£ a block wall, and thdt tha wceaterly etreet propoeed would he~~e rcc~~e to Anshcim Hilla Road rather than to the eccess wtiich subject properLy hed et th~ prosont time. Mr.s. Melvin Miller, 1E300 I~Ader.a Vit~td, Fuller.ton, ~-ppearac~ Uefore the Commieeion and nctnd shc~ and hor husband owned proporty to the south, acro:ce the S?~~'I cai~al, an~' l•heir }~ro}~erty was p~rt oE the dratnage di~strict, and thon inquired whet would happen to their drainagQ. Offico Encjin~4r Jay TiLus advi~cd th~ Pianninq Commission that the Miller prop- erty wa~ in the same genexal dratnage district, but that tY~ey did n~t drain into e~~bject txac:t, o.f. whicYi t~~o tiact snqineer ep~ke, bu~t would drain in*.o the atorm ..rnin from t9alnut Canyon cl~annol and lined up with the SAVI channel~ a~~d then in rasp~nye to Commissi.on queetionir,q, 9tdL:RG~{ that the preliminary size of the ecorn, drain would be 81 inchQS fram the MillAr property to the channel. lhrs . Miller noted that the eaa9ment had not be~n reaolved wh~ch tliey hnd over tho ~larsile propearty, and khey would like to know what eff~~k this would have on the Miller pr.operty because they would like to develop thpi.r property but did not know if they would be losing some lata, hokever, t.hey di.d n~t have time ta lay out t,hc:ir property, and that her hueband want;ed subject petition,9 to be contint;ed sa that he could consider this further. Chairmari 5eymeur noted tha+~ subjec* petitions had been befare the Commieaion a month ago ~n~ th~~st the; P1111e.ts had beeri qiven not; ce for L•he previaue puniic hearing, which shou],d have given Mr. Mi.ller suf:£icient tim~ to review the plans available in the Development Servicea Degartment or check with the nngin^er of the peritioner. Mre. Mi21er noted her hixEba.na worked in T,os Anyeles and did not have an opp4z- tunity to get tagether with tha deve~opera of subject pxoperty. Chairman Seymour inqui.rad how lonq coul.d a develaper be held up, since thls developer was grepared ta go ahead with his deveingment. Aeaiatan~ City Rttorney John Dawson advised the Commiesion that inaoFUr as the aaA~mer~t wae aonaerned, this was a civil mat:~er batwoen the deve].oper and the Millere, but in this development the Cit~ was requiring access from the MilZer pxoperty througtt subject traat far street access. Chairman Soymour notad that the acreas point had not been changed for the Millers eince they stf11 would heve access through the tract streets to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mrs. Mil.ler i.nquired whether this woul.d al~~~ permit farm equipment and ti•actora, etc.~ whersupon Chairmaa- Seymour noted it would be a public street which per- mitted public access. ~-r. Xerna, in rebuttal., etated that thc streets wculd be lowertd suf"iciently to provida dr.ainag9 from gubject property to tihe etreet, and drainag~ woild not oc~:ur an the edj~ining pro~ertiee, an(i th~t t.hey clid not pl~n to conetruct ~en 8-fo~t wall un the ~~erimete~: of the tract. ...~ ~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNINC ~' '!MI139IdN, May 30, :1473 7~-3~8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPRCT RL~POTtT N0. 94, R~CI.AAS'[FICa-2'YON NQ. 72-73-45, V1IRIANCB NJ._2499,~ ]~ND TENTATIVE MAP 0~' TRi-CT N0. 5778. RFVISYON NO. 1 Continuod,Lw TNB NEAAZNO WAS CL09EI~. ~Asizman 9eymour requast.d that Mr. Tiru• ~laboratd an L•he drainaq~~ problRmr thak would atfeat the garcels to the nor~h an6 wMSt~ wriaxeu~oii Mr. 7.`itua tiaC~d th~ru would be no drainage probl~m~ i! t.h~ trect wao qradeQ a~ the anqineer da~oribed, howevRr, khe Enginoaring ~taf~ had not review~d the qraCling p1anN sinc• Chi~ Mas on_y a~ tai. atiiv~ Craat mep. Chaixman Seymour thon noted that oince the enQin~Rr had atipulated to this type o! dzeinag~ plan, than the Commisolon aould sppro~ve+ the traot map, snakinq ~hat e oondition oP approval. c;ommissionar Horbet i~.,~uired whethar th` plane indicete~d any wallv being pro- pooedj whereupon tdr. ~toberta sCntaf Chat none were BF~~wn, and the c~xd.~.nar~ce ~rould nnt require wal'ls dince thie wouls! be a singlv-fr~mily 3ubdivi.sion. Cc+mmi~nionar c:suer roted Lhet if Mr. DnGOUr hac. dogs an~ wanted prc~tec*i.on ~rom i.ntrudexe, euch as childr~n, hc would hava to p.ovida his awn prote~ction, since ha di.d not• feel it wae up to th~ dovc~loperp to provide th~.s pr.otect:ion !or Mx. De t3our' e busineNa. Commieeianer Herbet *ioted that the Cwo properL•y ownere co+ild get tc~ga~her and mutua].ly aqrea ~o canatructing th~ wnll i.f they wented to. CG~^mipntanAr. Y.ay rood nated that one ot the homes waa pro~:oseA wit;h +~ 12-~oot aetback fur the asrsc~e ~.^.d tnquired whether tha lot could ba rddeai.gned Eor n groater aethackt whe.reupon Mr. Karn~ R•`-ateA ho had nnt l;een i.n cor~t:WCC w.~ ~h khe architRCt who designed Y.heae homes, no~+eva: , the 12-.foot setbacr ~auld be r~~- duced to 10 feet so as to comply witr. Code, and nutomatic qarsge dnars woulcl be provide~l. Commiaeioner ~Caywood noted thnt thie lot was cn a cul-de-eac, und t.his wc+uld bo a very ahort driveway, therefore, the sugyeatiion made would not so:Lvo the+ problem. Mr. Kerna noted that bcacause the SC Zone zequired a 50-foo~ buildi~ng ~atcia~k from Santa Ana CanyQn Road, it would Ue impossiY~le to set back 25 feet on that lot. Commissioner Allred observed that if a 25-font setback wer.e proposed, thie would ~rovide parking for thre9 ca•ts on the driveway apron~ whereupon Mz•. Kerne etated that any modol oP home tnat they were pro~osing would not provide this 25-foot ~etback because of the many restrictiona, 5ut h.e would stipulate t:o pro~~iding automatic door openera. Commisaionax Kaywood then inquired as to the number of bedrooms pa°op~s~:d for that lot, bc+cau~~e if fewer bedYnoms were propased, lt would mean !°ewer auto- mobilea~ where~~pon Mr. Kerna atipulated that a three-bodroam, sma].ler homc~ woald be placed ~n I~~t 19 in th~at tr.aat. Comm~.ssion9r ~'ar.ano ~ff=red a mo~ion, seconded by Commissioner Her.bak an9 MOTION CAARIEU (~.omm .ssior~or Rowlancl being absentl , that the Planr~inq Ccmmiasion, in r_onnection with the fJ.li;ag of Env~ronmental Imgact Repor.t No. y4, fir.~ds and de~erminea tt~at the EIR Review Committee determined that the report wes adoqu~te with the aupp~ement and revised tract map oubmitte-3 4ad was adaquate ae an in- formative doaument and follows the City's establi~t.ad quideliness a•.d tllat thera Nould b~u no significant adverae envlronmeatal imp~cts and, therefo::e, t8~e Planning Cc,mtristsion xecommends to the City Council thaC s+~id report be adopted as the C~uncil'~ Environmental Impact Statement. CotamismionRr Gauer offered Resolution Alo. pC7.-113 and moved for its ~a;asaqe and adopt~or: to recommend to ~ho City Council that Petiti.on for Recla~asification No. 72•-7 -4~ be approved, subjact to conditiona. (S~e kegolution Book) On rall call the foreqoing resolution was paseed by khe follotrin~ vote: ~ ~ \\~ MINUTEB, CIT'~ PLANNING COMMiS9I0N, Mey 30, 1973 73-32Q FNVIRONMENTIIL IM~ACT REPORT N0. 9~1, ItCCLASSIP'ICAT.'.ON NU. 72-73-45, VARI7~NGI~ N0, ~499, riND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRP.~:T N0. S7?6LREVI9ION NO _ 1 (Continua4~ AYRQ: COMMI83IONERSt Allred, Ferano, Cnuor, Herbnt~ Kaywoo~~ 3eym~ur. N0~8: COMMT$9ICiNERS t None. 11B8SNTi COMMISS:ONERS~ Roal~nd. Commios.lonor Herbet otPered Rgeolut:ion No. PC73-714 end moved P~r. it~ pi~esnge anQ ~dopt~on ta grant Petikion Eor Vari.ance No. 2499, perm~Ctinq wa~i~ver ot the retb~ako !ox lour 161:A in Tru~t Na, 57?H, with tha finding thet the p~etition~r atipaleted to COi1AtlUC~~l~q c~ gmall., three-bedroom houae on Lo~ 13 of Tract No. 5778, Rsvis.l.on No. l, ~+nd to px~vide a garuge eetback o! 10 ~eet wil:h az~ auto- mati c~axsg~ door apener q~n a~+id lot, end sub ject xo condi tione, amendir-q ConQition tio. 2, 10Thnt sub jeat praperty ehnll b~a develop~d eubetantislly in aooorGenae with alana nnd specific~ti.ona on Pile w1Ch the City o~ 1lnaheim markad Exhibit No. 1, R~v~aton tiu. li end Exhibit Noe. 2 through 1~, provided, huwever, that Lok 19 of ~Pract No, 5778, Rovl3lon No. 1, ahall have s 10-foot garage aekbeck . automatl.c g~+raye door openur, at~d n amall , th,ree-bedroom ham-~ on the lat, a~t b~i~ulated to hy the peritionez~/developer" , (See Resa2uh~on Book ) On ro~ll call tha foregoing resalution wa~ paased by the fo lt~wing vote: AY63 i CUMMTSSIONERS s Allred, FarAn~, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Saymour.. NOES: COMMISSIONER3: None. ABSENT~ C~MMISSION~,RS: Rowland. Commieeioner Gauer off~erad a motion, aeaonde8 by Commies.io ner Allred and MOTION CARRIEU (Commiasionar Rowland belnq abaent) , tA dp~- rove xantative Map ~t Tract No. 5778, xevisi~ n No. l, aub~ect to the f.ollowirzg cor~d~tions : (1) ~hat the approval o£ Tentative Map of 4'ract No. 5778, Revislor~ t!o. ]., ia granted subje~•': ~o the approval of Reclaseification Nb. 72-73-45 and Vari~nce No. 2499. (2) That ahould tnia t~ubi,ivision be~ developed a~ rnore than one ALlb- division, each aubdi~rision thereo£ shall be submittfld in tenta- tive form for appro~~;l. (3) That a prgdetermined Price for Lat "A" shsll be calculated an~9 an o~fer of dodicati~r~ o= Lot "A" sha11 be <<~ade by tho devoloper and anbmitted ta and approved by tne ~ity of Anahei m prior to approval of the final tracc map, said offer. of dedicatior~ to bo recorded concurrently with the final tract map. The cos L of Lot "A" sh.~ l lnclude land and a proportionate share of the underqzound •~t.i~ - ties and St.Tk3P.C improvements. (4) mhat in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foat high, decorative maeonr.y wall ahal). be constructed in the north portion of ~he 2ots adjacent to santa Ana Cany~on Road. 5ubject wal:l ahall Aa measured from the highest finished grade lev~l o£ said lota or Santa Ana Canyon Road, whichever ia highest. S aid wall tshall be conatructed in d manner that ~ates will be provided on each lot to pxovide access for maintenance of portions of t.3ie lo~cs lyinq narth o! the required wall if suid wall is not locAted on the property line. Pr.ior to ti~e issuance oE a buildinq 1~ermit for. any construc- tian withi.n ±:he tract, the petition<_~ ahall F~abmit a detailed draw- ing showinq a sectian through the ~ots edjacent to 5anta Ana Canyo,~ Road an~ the proposed wall to show the r-lationship of said wall to thu elevation of the lots and Santa Ana Canyon Road. 5aid wall ahall also be constructed along the resr lot 'li nes of Lot Nos . 12 and ].3. Reaaonable landscaping. including irri qacion facilitiea, shall be instatled northward from this wall includlnq any required Santa Ana Canycn Road parkwayt plana for said landacaping to be aubmitted to and aubject to the approval cf th e SuperintAndent af Park~vay Maintenance. Ful~owing inatalla~:ion and accept~:~ce, the property o~vner(s) ehall asaume responsibillty foL maintenance of adid landacap~ng to th~ northerly lot lines re gardless of the locatian of the block wall. The City nf Aaaheim ahall assume responr~ibility for m~i.ntenanco of landacnping northerly of the north tract bovndary. C~ ~ • MINUTF.S, CI^X PLANNING COMMISSZON, May 3~l, 1973 ~3-a3o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA~T RFPORT N0. 94, RECLA83IT'ICAT'IQN NO. 72-73-45, VARIANGE NU. 2499, AND TENT7~TIVE_MAF OF TRACT N~). 57'!0, REVISION NO. 1 (Continuod (5) That r~eaonable landscaping, inoluaing irrigation fecilltis~, ehnll be inetdil~ed in the medie~r~ dnd hh~ unpnved por~ion af ~he Aouth ei8e of tho Snnta Ana Canyon Road right-of-wey in accordanae w~th the requirements of the Parkwa~y Maint~ne~nce SuperlntendAnt. Fo11Uw- ing inetall~tion and acceplnnce, the City rt Aneheim ahnl.l a~esume the responeibility Po r maintenence o~ eaid landsc~ping. (6~ The Ctty Council reearve$ the right to ai~end ar delete the +~esump- t~on o! landecape mai.ntenanr,e reapone~bilitiee ln the svent Counail policy clinnqea. ('I) That• ell lotn wtthln this trar.t sha].~ be eer.vad by underground ut~litiee. (B) That a final trect map af subj~ct property ehnll be eubmittecl to end appraved by the City Council and then bo zocorded in the otfice of the Ornnqe County Recorder. (9) Thnt any ~roposod cover~anta, aonditions, a~d reetr~ctiond aha~l be aui~mitted to and e~ppr.ovF~~ by tho City Attorn9y's ~~f~ice pr3~r to City Council appzoval of the fina.l tract map, and, furthor, that the a~proved covenanta, cor-c~itiona, ~nd zestriction~ ehall be recorded concurrently with the final trdat mep. (10) That etredt namea shall be approvecl by the City of Anahaim prior to approval ~f a final tract map. (11) 'Phat t11e owner(s) of su~ject propa•rty sk~ull pty ho the City of Ansheim the appropriatA park an~-3 recroation in .ieu feea as detor- mined to bc~ appropria te by the City Council, ~ 1 feea to be paid at the tim~ the building pezmi.t is issued. (]2) '1'ha*_ drainaqP of said praperty ~hall be disposed of in a manne~• satisEactory to the City Engineer. I£, in the preparat~ion of the site, sufficient gra3ing is requ.ireci. to necessitute a gradi~g permit, no work on gz~ading will be permitted betwaen Oct.ober 15th and April 15th unless all xequired off.-site drainAge faciliti.a~ have been i.nstalled and are operatlvF. Positive a~..::rance aha11 be providod Che City tt~at such drainagE ~aci'lities will be com-- pleti~d prior ta October 15tti. Nocessa~:~~ z~.ght-uf-way for off-r~i :a tlraii~ age facil.ities shall be dedicated ~~o the City, or the City Council ~+ha11 have initiated condemnation praceedinga tharefor (the costs of whic'h shal'1 be borne by t:'he developer) prior ~.a commencement of grading operations. Ttia required drainagc~ faaili-- tiea shall be of a s~ze and type auffi<:ient to carry runoff wat~rr~ qriginatir4q f.rom higher properties thrt~ugh said property ta ulti-• mate diaposal as approved by the City 1~~ngineer, Said drainage facilities shall be the flrst item of ~~onstruction and shall b~~: completed and be functional throughout. the t.ra~t and fr~m the downstream boundary of the aropPrty tc, the ~ltim~ite point o:' dia posal prior to the issaance of e.ny firial building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage diatri~;t ~~?mbursement agrsements msy be made available to thP u~:~~ic,;ers~ of' said properLy upon their requez~t. ( 13) That grading, exca~~:.tion, and ell oth;~r c: nytruction actf vitisa flhall be conducted in such a manner so a~: ~ v minimize the posai- bility of any silt originatinc; from th:La project being carried in~o the Santa Ana River by storm wate:: origii~at.ing from ox ilow- ing thruuqh this pro ject. (14) That the vehicular accegs riqhta, exce~~t at street and/or alley open9.ngs, to Santa Ana Canyon Road sr~a:ll be dedicsted ko the City of Anaheim. (15) That a le~t-turn po aket for westbounci 5anta Ana Canyon Road traffic shall be provided at tho interaectio» of Santa Ane~ Canyon Raad and "A" Street. (16) That the davelaper sh+~ll ovtain a favorable fl4o~ hazArd letter ~cceptable to t•he c;ity of Anaheim from the Orar.qe County Flood Cont•rol Pistrict. (17) That drainaqe o£ subjact property st~al.l be acc~~^~~lished i.n a manner so that water wil.l not drain onto .~~ijacent propertiee and shal7. be in dcaordance with remedial methoda eet forth by t.he enpineer, as et~pulatecl to by the daveloper. ~~ ~ ~ MxNU'~ES, CI7'Y PI,A~ININC CJMMI3STON, M 30 "~73 73-33]. VARIl1NCE N0. 2SQ4 -~ (:ONTlNU~D P'UBLtC HEARING. GUOKGE C. 11NA JUI,IEaT~ P11GE, ~ 730 9arbo~ne Roed, Lo~ Ar~qalAS~ Ca. 9002A, OwnMr~~ K1£NNETH W. H~RNE, 2084 Snuth Anaheim aou].avard, Anehaim~ Cd. 92805, 7lgsnt~ requusting 'WAIVBtt OF' (A? REQUIREA M7130NRY WALL l1ROUND OUTDOOR USEg AN[1 (8) MiNYMUM FRONT 8ST811CK TO CONTiNUE A TIRE WHOY.ESALINO gU8IN88A on properCy deacribed ac~i ]1n irroqulerly~~hap~ed parcel at land canAi~ting og epproximately 1.~7 ecr~e, having e lrontage of approxim..tely 384 l~et on the eart ~id• ~~ Anahoim Boulevard, heving e mt~ximum depth of epproximet~ly ZZO lect~ and boinq Iocated approximatdly 420 teat north of ths centezline of Urenqewaod 1-vsnuo. Proparty preser-tly alaeeifiud M-1, LTGHT INDUBZ'RSA1„ 7.ONE. Subject petition wae continue~l !'rom R:ha meeting of Muy 14, 1973, in ordec !or tha petitioner 2o be praeent. No one appeare~! .in oppoeition. Although the Roport to the Com-ni$sian was not read ut the public ho+~r.inq, it ie refRrred to And mnde n pnrt of the minutea. Mr. Kenneth W. Horrie, 2084 South Anaheim Bnulnvard, nppe.:red b~lore the Commia- sior. and notad thnt the use of th e pxapexty was tempor;ary~ L•hat thdy haQ ~ 30- day rental agreementr tha~ in the event the 36 acrae Nae sold !ar another use, they woulr~ huve to movet snd then in ree~onae to Commid:;Lon quu~otionl.ng, note~ that if the property wer.e not sold in three ye3rs, they atill would be in ope rati or~ . Mr. Ho1 r.ai~ , r: presenting the Goorge Pa~~e interestg, appeared bef.ore khe Commis- aion and told them he managed the pz'operty for George Paget tha~ if a~ermanent uae were proposed for sub ject property, then he could aee the r~anon for requix- ing ;1 6-fo~t mar,onry wallj that the railruad tracka ran alongsid~s the wast aide ,f the proporty, and there would be no advantage to inetalling the wall= that they would like a further 18-muntr extension for the exieting uae, and after the expiration of that time if nothing hr~d occurred on the property and the use was propo~ed to a~nkinue, tlien perhaps the ~aa11 and aetbaek could b~+ met, but to be roquired to ~o it now when th~re waa no avsurance that the use woul3 can- tinue, was a considerable: amuunt oE time and monay involved. Furthermore, the petitioner owned c4n~ider.able pro~erty in Anaheim and iast year. paid $42,000 in ~:xes on his holdinys 1.n Anahoim, while the taxes were inorP than the lncc,me cierived from the propertlea, there£ore, they needed some help t.o take c~r~~ of these r.axes . ~a~mi ez Farano Snquired how lonq this uae had been a tempo.rary uset where-~ up. 'a:.~on replied that the use had bePn established for about 20 munths. Mr. N~z. ., -.~ response ta c;ommission queationing, atated there wa~ slightly over an acre of ].and and there were approximately 10,000 tires ~n thg property. Mr. Holton noted that of the approxiu-ato 45 acree owr~ed by the Paqes, the only thing the property was beiny uced foz was the tire operation and occas~onally the stormge of mobilehomes for a few days at a time on the proper'tyt and then in respona~ to Commi3ston questioning regarding the amount of taxes beinq paid Far subject property, stated ha did not kiiaw since it w as paid on a nunber af parcels totalinq abaut 45 acres. Mr. Eiolton further noted th~.~ a chainlink fence had bean ori the proper~y foz year~ . Chai:man Seymour noted that the property had been used for tire atorage and sa~ei fcr 20 months already, and the petitioaer was naw reqveatinq a~n additional 18 mo•iths iomporary use -'then would the agent for the p~titi.oner aqree that at ~he end of :, mu~ths the chainlink fenco would be slattedj whereupon Mr, Horne replied af rmatively. Commi~s~.onar Hex~bat noted that the slatting of the chainlink fencc would hide from view the e*arage in the same manner as a 6-~foot masonry wall. Mr. Horne noted ttie requQet was to pQrmit sla~tinq the chainlink fence and Wniving the required 6-foot mea~:~~~r,~ ~rall. ~ • MINUTE3, CI'PX kx,AliNING C~MMI85ION, May 30, 1973 73-~32 V1~RIANGE NO. ~50y (ConCinuedl Commiesi~ner Allre4 inquirad how ~uch alattl.ng on the ~ront proparCy line ao oparation~ whereup4~ Mr. Horne etntad of A p1-oblem it wouJ.d be to plaae Che aa ~o el~ield trom view the ntoreqe thAt they would do thie i.mmediataty. THL~ NEARING WA3 CL03ED. Di.ecusai.an wae held by the Cammission rngnrdir-g er~tdbliehing a tima limitation, whether or not tha redwaod ~l.attsd chain].ink fence ehould be zequired imme.ii- ate~y around the perimater of thm prope:ty, and whether the petik~.onex Hh~u1~1 bb raquired to hav~a etorag~- nn higher. then the fonce. Commieeioner Fnrano inquired whether or not the etara3o opar~tion apil:~ed over tha prdperty in questioa onto the adjoining propexty, beaAUae from hi.a obaerva- tion oP the prope~rty, it appea~red tiheze were many truck and ~utamobi]•e tireo atored on morr th~n 1.27 earear whereupon Mr. Horne etAted that nll of the tires were w,~thin the fance ancloeuxe. Commieo~oner Farana thcn atatod that if the agent foi th~ petitionur would havo any tires outside tho perimeter of the pxoperty adve,:tiaed for thia use, he wc~uld have to stay within the boundariea under cor~sideration. Commissioner. Ka,ywood inquired wl~er.hax or tiot the agent for the petitianer wauld atipulate to pruviding rc~dwood elats in the chainlink f~nce immecliately around the perimeter of the proparty rather than in six months= whereupon Mr. HornR atipulated to providin9 the rec3wood slaks in th~ exist~.ng chAinlink fence axound the perim~tcs of the prape.rty immadiately. Conn.issioner Farano inquired whethe.r the petitioner would also atipulete to havi.ng no tires projeating abnve the 6-foot, alatted fencet whereupon Mr. Horne so st: oulated. Commissioner. Herbst was of the opinion that at the time the ?lanning Commiaeion woulc3 x~eview sub~iect petition, if a two-yea.r time limitatiott were gras-te-d, e.nd the use was to bc renQwed, that prior to any renewal of the usa the pr.operty should be br~ught up to the M-1 Zone ~ite development standards as it pert~ined L•o wall setback and landacaping. Commissioner Farano noted that atter having vie~red tha prop~ert.y, it a-ppeared there would be no land~caoinq on the front property line si.rice the chdin3.ink fencc wa~ ther.er whereupon Mr. Roberta ~tated that the plot plan indicnted the fence would be on the prop~rty 1•lr~e, th~refore, thera ~vould be no room for land.scaping. Commissiunar Fara,_ ~~ Ef.ered a motion, seconded b~ Commiseioner Allred and MOTZ~JN CARRIED ((,ommissic..a-:~- Rowland being abaent) , that; 4he Planninq Commieeion, ~.n connection with an cx~mption decl.aratian statua request, firds and deter~nines that the propo~al would have no signific;ant en/ironmental impack and, Ghei•efore, recommends to the City Gouncil that no Environmental 7:mpact Statement ia necessary. Commissioner K~t;fwocc~ offor~~1 Resolution No. PC73-115 and muved for ita passage and adoptior. tr ~-rtznt Yeti:.ion far Variance No. 25U4 for a psriod of two years aince the get .~r stated thiK would be an interim use, subjecr. ~o rev~ew, aubject to tt ~~..tioner's sttpu~a~ion to providinq redwood slat$ in the axist- ~ng chainlink :.:-_:~~ arcund t;he p~rimeter of the progerty immsdiately, and L•urther stipulatioii that there would be no atoraqe of. tirryo project:nq a~bov~ the top of the slattad chainl.ink fc~nce, ^' a subject to conditiona, :.M,on~3ing Condition N~, 9, by adding, "provided, howeve° nat redwood slat~ing in tl~A axist~ny chainlink fence ahall be pzovided a~.~u,id the perimeter of the property, as atipulatbd tu by the petitianer", and the added co~-diti.c,na that tires anct other gtorage materials shall not project anoee the requirec~ `oot r93wood slatted chainlink fence, as atipulated to by :he petttionerj th._ in or.der to dotermine ~rhether any a3vezae effeats wilZ reault frum the granting of the wal.vors~ the p'.anning comml.saion grants n two-year tima limitat9.on, aftor which time con- aiaeration may be given to whetha+r ~he waivera ehoul~i be oxtendesd, and if the time ia extended, then tha petitioner shAll compZy ~ith the M-1 zone aite development standards as they pertnin to zequired fence Fetback ena lnndsc~ping alanq tY~e frnnt of the property. (See Resolutian Book) ~ ~ MINUTE;S, C'[TY PLANNTNG COMMi:~SION, May 30~ 1973 73-331 VARIANCE l1Q. 2504 (Continuec~) On Y~11 call the toreqoing r~saolutioti was paeead by the Puylowing Wots~ AYESs COMMISSIONER3~ Allred, 1*erano, (iauer, Herbat, Kayw~o~, Seymour. NOL~S: COMMISSIONEKSi Non~e. 11B3ENT~ C06tDtISSIqNERSt Rowland, CUNDITIONAG i)SF. - PUBLIC H.EARTNG. TNE MC CAt2THX COMPANY OF SQUTHERN C11LSt'ORIvIA, PERFfIT NU. 140~. 2535 Wbst La Falma~ Avenue, ~nahe.lm, Ca. 92601~ Owner~ ~ NATTONAL SERVICES COMPANY, c/o Vernon M. Monroe, 4630 Campup Drivo, N~saport 8each, Ce. 92660, Aqent~ re~qu~sting permiorian to ~STABLIS[~ RE'I'AII~ DISTRIAU'CING ANU ~ERYIC~ BUSINESSES PRIMARZLY 3ERVING C.GMMERC~ 1lND INDUSTRY WITN INCIDENTAL SAI~RS TO THE PUBI,IC, WAIVING (A) YERMITTED US~9 AND (B) REQU7REU NUMDER OF PARKTI~G 3PAC[~8 on pzoperty deacribed asa An irreqularly- shaped parcel ot' land conele~Ging of eppraxim~xtel.y 10.3 scres, havinq a frontage d! approximately 1620 Eeet oit tho eouth side of Oraagethorpe AvAr~uo,h~ving a frontage of appzoxin.etely 16i3 £eet un tha east nfde of state 4olleqe Boulevard. havinq a maximum dep~h of ap~~roximately 315 feet, and havtng a frontage of approx!mately 3S0 feAt on th~s went ~ic3e oE Placentia Avenue. Property preeently claesified M-1, LIGHT INDUST'RIAL, ~ONE. No ane appeared in ~ppoaitio:n. One lettex was zeceived in o,ppoai.tion. Although the Report to the Commieaiun was no~ read at the pub.tic heari.nq, it ia referred to and made a pert af the minutos. Mr. Vernon Monroe, agent fo1- the peti.ti.oner, a;~peared bePore thg Co~+mission, noting that he was the connultant for thi.s pzoparty and the r~aason foi the request for wa9.ver of. permitted uses was because o£ the natur~ of changes and uses on Orangethorpo Avenue w-hich was no lonqer industrial since indti.stry was qoing into t.he Southeast Industrial ~rea or into the Northeast in~uatria.l Area on La Palma Avenue whera they wore protected fzom reside. ial and commercial. uaest that Orangethorpe Aver~ue changeci so much in character that it was more a commerclal facility; and t:hon reviawed the number of• retail buainesees along said street. Mx Monroe then noted that the applicant. wanted quasi-man~i£ac~turing and commer- ciel operations, such as g:~ase com~anies, Singer sewing machine flistributor and repair, and ~~ven Xerox was .intnresCed bacause they did not w<<nt to b~ buried in the induykri~.l area, and tltia wauld fill their needs but atiJ.l wauld not p~aae tham in a sh~~ppinq center, ~~iving them good acce9s and stronc~ identification with commercial uaesJ that ~aince they were requesLing qua~i-r.ommorcial/induatrial u~ses for their showrooma, tlze parking they proposad was less tlian permitted i: parking was based on the zec;uiroment of 4 spaces ~er 1000 sqt~are YoAt, however~ thEy had omitted develop~ing the centex eection oE t}:e property so that in the event additional parking wa~s neceasary~ thia could be devel~ped as the nded preGented iteelfJ that abuut one-half would be industrial ar~d one-half would b~s ~ ~~~rc' ', allowilzg 113 F~arking apacet~ f.ar industry and the balance far com- merc:i~ i.th a potential af 5 acxes f.or additional parki:igj and Lhat ~hia wou:id imilar to one t'he~y had comF~leted at Ball Road and East Strest whirh back~d ., to R-3 property. The letter of oppusition wa~s th~n reud hy t.he Commisaion Secretary, in whi.ch. tho opposition atated the~y dici not feel blanJcet a~proval £or retail OpQx'dt~C1RB should be granted and ahuuld only be granted after ttie own~r had appl~.ad to ~kae Gity of Anaheim f.ox a epescific ~ccupant at a specific Iocation. Mr. Monroo, in r auttal ~:o said letter, sald that k~e had eubmitted a ligt of` 40 to 50 use~ that were ~sppzoveQ at Ball Road and East Str~et, and any us~as t.hat did iiot fall within thoae spACifi.c uaes would have to be approvNd by t:hc~ Development Serviaea Depar•tment~ that he hdd been Vice President of Drni~ Properti~s when the facility ~+t Bal]. Road and ~ast Street had been appraved, and thay had built six eimiJ.ar Encilitiea in the County~ that tney wera tzyi~ng to avaid the need for ha.vinq to proceee a conditional use perrnit which w~ulc3 takn up to thrae monthe ii' ~hey had d hI38~J1A8A maohine compeny intarefltc~d in mqvinq in immediately, L•hE~refore, they woul~ uee a aimilar vehicle ae ~h~nt a~ppzo~ed by the Plannin~a C.ommisaion at I3rs11 Road and Eaot Street. ~ ~ ~ MYNUTE9, CITY PI,ANNIN~ COMt423SIOM, May 30, 1973 '1:i-734 CONDxTIONAL I)SE .PERMtT_N0. 14~1 (Cor.tinuad) Commie~i.or~er i~arano ncted. that the Commieoion had discueeaA at qxont lsngth thw ~ae~r+ that n}iould br~ pormitteA on L•tts Aal.l RJAd an8 Baat Straet propartisR kn~awn as the Dur~n Fropertiea, and it waa his opiniun thet th~a ueea tha~t were Qovelopinc~ in l.hat Eecility workecf to the adve~ntaqo of the Qity, tharalore. h~e w~ndAred whother the peti.tioner would 'ae r~ill~.nc~ to ecaa~pt the eama procedure and cond~~.iona thar. were +sppliad to tha Aunn Pr~perk~ea at Ball Road nnd Eaek 9treet dinoe thi~ xnquest wae !or many mora ue~~ than epproved on ths Pnl.1 RoeQ rnd ~as~ 8troeC pr~per'ty. Mx. Manroe ~ta~ad thbt it wae t~c~t their intont to havn getieral refiail usos, and th~ir primary con^ern in gett~~~q app ^oval waa khe parkir~g, however, einc~a they hu~9 pzovidec~ addit!.ona~. area, ~his wauld re~ool.ve the parking problem, and al- Lhough it~ wad ~hought d pnrkinp prablem could resul~ m~ the Ball Road und Eae,t pXUject, eo far iaone, had dev~,loped. ^'4I: HEARING FiAS C?'~OS rD. Cammi~sionc~r Far~ana ofPF -cd a m~tinra, aocondad by Commis~ioner Allred and MOTxON CA~tRi~D (Camniiweinn~r Ru+~l.and beit:~ ebaontl , thaL the Flann~ng Commiaeion, ~.it conne~:tiun wi~h an exempt~.~n decluration ytatus roquest, PindR and determines thlt the propocaal wou13 hava no aignif:.ca~t anviranmc~ntal impact and, therePore, reaommende t:a the Gi.ty Counal.l tkiat: no Environmuntaa. :[mpact St~tament is ne cea e,e r.X . Diecunsaion wao held b, ':.t-a Comr~isr~ioa~ res~ative ku t•.he fact that if Rubject pe~:i.kiun waxp coneider~d far ~pk>ra~aJ. that it he sLb ject to the same findinqs and conditiona that had ba~n a~taclic~d to the approva7. of tho industrial comnlex ah. T~all Road and EASt .:treatl thaxt i.t seemed that thirigs were t.urned around, par':icularly where it p9rtainad to furni~tiire d~velopmento in which they atated Lhe pri~nary use would bc~ manu~ar,ture and r~korage, and then it turned out that aftgr ttiey had d.~velope;i, such ae tho ~lickes Furni.ture (:ompany, they have pr.imsr+.ly oalas ~~nc3 ~nl,y incidenral manufacturing and storaqe. Crmml.egioner Gaue1 .: of the ~~pinion that aigning on subject pr.operty should be dor,~ ir- th3 same manner aA that done vn tha Dunn Pzopertios on Bal:~ Road and ~r~At Street• whc~rein onl,y wooden signs har.qinq from the ind.ividual comFanies would be permitted and no wall. or wir~do~«r pain~ing signs would be permitt.e3. Mr. Monroe stip lt~tea thnt the si.gni.ng would be a 1~x4-fooL• sign euspended frc~m oz r~~:a~r~ea to the lace of *.he ~o~ch overhang f.ax. each unit within L•he pr.op+~se~d bui.lc~ings. C~~mmi.ssioner Herbat ~tated he had no objecti~n with t~e use, but he 3i~ feel tY~a~,: th:i.s wAS gaocl .inlug~r.i.a1 proparty - in fact, it was prime induetrial. pz•operh.p +~Ance uran9ethoipo '~venue from Nortronics or~ down was purely induatrial ia: An~anr;;i-n, an4 the o~11y b-ea~kdown in tha in~iuetry was visible in Placentia bn~~ a~t t.he extreme 9nd in Anahei.m at Lemon Street Hnd Orangethorper that the Sans;a ~'~ Railroad awzied approximately ~7 acrea across the stree7:, which would be d~sveZoped for i.ndust•-ia1 purFoaesj that he was not opposed to industrial <~evela~~ment wi.th 3.ncider.tal sales to the publlcJ and t.hat he wou7.d prefer pr.atecting the indu:,trial propertl.es already developed in the arQa oince one ofE the prime conc~xns waa v~hiculnr and foat traffic which qeneral retail ealea enco~sragAd. Mr:. Montoe ti~ated that it was not their intent to e~icour~ge foot traffic ~r hu~-v~• vahioui.ax traffic in thia propased 2~ m± llion dollar deve:lopment. Cpmmit~sion~~r Farano offerod Resolution No. PC73-116 and moved f~r ita paesaqe and adoption ta qra~nt Conditional Use Permit No. 1401, in par~, denyinq waiver o~ Sr•~.r,t~ori Z8.52.0?.fl, Permitted U~en, on the basis that zetail service ana bus'_ne8s ftrm~ pr±m~rily servinq commercr~ ar-d induatry, but serving the genoral public~ ehould be Iocated tr~ the Ganwzn]. Commcsrctal 2one and not in the Indue- krial 2one where prableme could axiso relating ~o incompatible usea a,nd ~erkinq ehortaqe~, and tl~e petitio~nar atipulAted thars would be no r.etail u~aee requested that ~ould primarily aerve ~~he publici that waiver of t'~e required ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 30, 197~ '13-335 CONDITiONAL UE~ PERMZ7' N0. 140'1 (Continued) number of parking ~snec6~ wea gx~nnted on the beeis that tho petitioner etipulated to reser.ving d portion o! the cer.ter of the propez•ty !or perking purpooee in the evant th~ propoaed parkinq proved to be inedoquatot thnt t~he potiti~ner stipu- l.ated thero Would be no signing other than approximat~sly a ~~x4-foot eiyn suo- penaed or attached to tl~e far.o o! the poroh ovexhang for ench u~it within the prapoeed building~ that the 'Planning Cammiaelon detarmined thnt tho induetrie.l complox in gunation appenred to lend itaalf favorabl.y to allowirtg the propo~ed typea of uee~, however, the Commiseion also determined tt~-at cxtreme aare shauld b9 exerciead in judginq whpthez apecific uses qualify aa retail diatributi.ng lirme ~nd/ar service busines~ firme, inclucling busino~e and prafeeaiona~ officee primerily aerving aommer.~e and induetry with only incidental ~ervice ~o the q~aneral public, therotore, any propaseti use should be reviewed by the Davolop- ment Servicee Department irx ord4r that e~ iudgment may b~ made ae to whether said uee quelitiee within the Commission'b intent i.n approvinq thi,a canditiondl uee pezmiti thet thie review will Aleo provide the oppor~uni.ty to determine whether sufficient pArkinq ie provided on tho taite to accommodate an addit.ional ~arkinq demand croate~l by such a use or usae~ that in order to pr~~vido guidelinea fur gtatf determination, the Plann~.ng Commiseion deoms tha followinq typee ~f uaes may ba parmi~ted eubjoct tiu a written requyst by the potitioner ancl review and a,ppxoval by the Development Services Ue~ar.tment3 interioz decoretor~ manuEac- turing drepee, shades, etc.r mattreae manufacturing and dietributiont carpet and floer aovering diatzibutionj whole~ale plumbi»g suppli.~ep architactural aerviceet constructian officea and wnrehouae~ jewelry manufacturing and whole- sa3.ingt qlass cutting and wholc~salingt fux'nituze manufacturing and salear au~omotive acceabor'_es warehaut~e and distribution~ photography atudio and supply distributorsi ealea offices and distribution centera~ training centereJ and stationary supply sa],es~ that approval of the aforementionpd typee oi. uaes in no way relieves the property owr~er from providing parking on the basie of the actual use rather than on the ba~is of industzial parking wliich was provided on t.he site when the comp'lex was develaped, and ueon allocation of all the available parking spaces, reqardless of k.he number of unite still aval.lable to be l~ase3, no add~tional iises may be approved unless aciequate parking is provided= and subject tu conditions, with the adiied condition that each use propvaed tu be eatabliwhed un subject property which ia intencle~i to qualify under Section 18.52.05C(2-a and 2-b) shall be submittec7 in written form to tbe Development ServiceA nepartmen*_ for review and appxoval .tn order thst a determination may be made as to whether the proposed use would bd appropriate for the site and whether sufficient parking is provided cn the property t,o accommodata an addi- ti~nal pazking demand created by suah a uae, and in order to provide guidelinea for staff determinations, the usex pr~viouely set £orth may be permitted subject to a~,~ritten requeat and review procedura outlines~ that if questiAn arises as i:o the j~xdqment made by the Deve].opment Servicea nepartm~nt concer/inq a particu- lar request, the material shall be submitted tc the Planning Commtssion at its next regular meeting fnr determincttionj and that the applicant ma~ agpeal any Development 5ervices Department oi Planni~lg Commission decision to the City Council. (See Reaoluti~n Boolc) On roll ca11 the foregoing resulution was p~ened by the following vote: AY~Sj COMMISSIONER5: Al1r~=d, Farano, Gauer, Her~st, Kaywood., Seymour. NOES: CON~MISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. VARIANCE N0. 2506 - I~UBLIC H~ARING. Ell SIL.VERI, 2742 West Ozangethorpa Avenue, Fullerton~ Ca. 92633, Ownerj JOHN B, FRANKLIN, 68~1 Scenic Bay Lane, Huntington Beach, Ca. 92F48, Agent; requeating WHIVER OF (A) PERMITTED OUTD0012 USES AND (B) REQL'IRED ~~-FOOT 50LtD MASONRY WALL ENCLOSING OUTAOOR USES ^s0 ESTABLISH OUTDOC~R STEEL F~aARICATIdN PLAtJT on proper~y d~acribed as: A rectanqu2arly-ehaped parcQl of land conaisting of approximately .9 acre, ha~~ing a frontage o£ aQproximately 1.32 feet on the nQrth aide ~f La Cresta Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximutely 298 feet, and being located approx.imately 795 f~:et east of the centerline of Blue Gum 5treet. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, 'LONE. Taro p~reons indicated their prasence in opposition ind two lettere were received ln oppo~ition. ~ ~ ~ MxNUTL*9~ CITY PLANNING COMMI35ION, Me-y 30, 1973 73-3~6 VARIANC~ N0. 2506 (Continued) Aoai~tant Plann~r Phillip Scfiwnrtze reviewad the 1oce~tion ot eubjeot property, u~es eetubliah~d tn close pro,cimity, previuue aon~ng actian on ths pr~por~y, end the propoeal to aetoblieh an outidoor oitd !or fabrication nnd etoraga of gteel reinforcing bare end the c~nstruct'!on of e 175Q»equare foot otlice bui].d- ing~ tha~t the pl~ns indicated an are~ approximately 100x15 fest propoood to be usad !~r outdoor ~abrication of steeJ. roinforoinq bara~ that open meterial atornqe was proposaA nenrby in r~n aree approximately 100x50 Peek~ that two driv~~Waye weree ehown, a~ie on each eide oP tho propoeed ottica buildingt that pdrkinq areae for 10 vahicles wer.e prc,poaed adjec9nt to L~ Czeeta Avonue along the eaeterly and westex:ly property lineat thAt n tuel island wae ehown to the reax of the otfica building~ ana that a magonry wall wi.t11 chainllnk y~ntee wne propo~ed along La~ Creeta Avenua, while a ahainlink fence a~lreddy exi~ted alonq the enat property line and chainlink fencinq wax propoaed nlonq the north and eouth property linc~s. Mr. Schwartze, in reviewing the evaluation, noted thet mu~al, wozki.ng and fabri- cation ~irms wero p~armitted in the M-1 Zone, however, the uae hnd tu be conducted within a building, while the peti.tionez pro~oseri to conduct the entiso oaere+tion outdoore~ Il@i1C@ tha neod for a variance~ that althougll plana had been submitted, they were aomAwhat skotahy as to how the property w~a propoaed tc~ bo ux~3 ulti- mately, a~id the petitionex had staLocl hia primary objective at thia time wa~ to gqt a determinatinn as to whethpr. the outdoor fabricatior~ uae woul~ be permit~ed~ that• c.he petitioner's immediate plan was ta use the property for undisclosed storage purposea for a Qeriod of aE~pr~ximately two years if aubject petitian were npproved, however, the only starage uae permitt~d outdoors in the M-1 Zone was ~.hat of equipment, materials, finished producta, or refuse basic to thp opara~ions c." the germitted uses, and since no definite ~nformation was available on the stornge ac~ivity, i.t woisld appaar that unless a variance wer.e ap~rovQd to permxt autdoor starage as the primary use, the stc,raye activities plannnd for the immediate future would not be permitted~ that ~utdoor uses generally were zequired to be aurroiinded by a 6-fQC~t masonry wall, whereas the ~etitioner pro- posed. wai.ver of this requiremeut, propo~ing hi3 activity, bath fabri.:a*ion and outdoor storage, wi.th an unslatted ehainlir-k fenc~~ that plans for the office building were not £irm at l•he present time, which accounted for the lack ~f detai7. on the submitted plans, and becauae of thzs, it was di.fficult to deter- mine whether the proposed 6-foot masonry wall was ta ba to tt-e rear of the required 5-fook setback along La Cresta Avenue or whether it was at the pr.op~rty linej and that since the petiti.oner had indicated that gates would be provided acrass the two d.riveway,~, unless these y~tes were located a sufficient distaace hehind the tront property lina~, tz•ash and de5.ivery trucks would project into the etreet while ~.he gates we~:e being opaned. Mr. John Frank.lin, agent for Y.he petitioner, appeare3 before the Commisaion and stated he proposed to operate a steRl fat~rication plRnt, and ~hat he had no addi.- tional commentn but was available to answer questions and would wait until the opposition was expressed befure commonting further. Mr. Jahn Fukuda, owner of the County property at 15132 La C•resta Avenue, appeared before the Comn~isbion in oppo~ition and stated he was ori Lhe oppossite side of the street from subject propertyt that he was opposed to the chainlink fence because tk-exe were sevQral in the area and people kept backinq inro them, push- ing them out of shape, and ~unk was generaliy stored on the Qroperty, giving a very undesirable appearancej that the roofing company and t~.le company in t~lie area were required t~ conetruct the 6-foot masonry wall, and the eaistiny fenc~ was nnly chickEn wire, therefore, he woulit requeat that the Commission deny the request for waivex of the 6-foot masonry wall since conatruction of th~ wall would impxove tha sppearance of the propertyt that there waa almost 1200 feet alang La Cresta Avenuo to Red Gum Street which did not have the street improved, and it was only oiled and never 3raded, however, the County, about 15 yeazs ago, had blacktopped the street but there was a difference between the roadway haiqht and his praperty; and that. the petitioner did not indicxte he would blacktop the .~treet, but if mora bl~cktoppinq was gropoaed, this would cauae more water ta dxain to the south of the stree~ anto hie propeity. The Comtnieaion inquired whe* .:r ;4r. *'ukuda had an agx~.cultural agreement with the County since ha was far~«ing the property~ whareupon Mr. Fukud,$ statod he did not, e~.1ce oven thaugh ha was farming the proQerty, there was an M-1 zoning on the prac~~rty. nnd h1~ property svas not large enough to qualify for an u ^~1 ~ MtNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS~AN, May 3U, 1973 '13-337 VARIANCE N0. 250fi (Continued) aqri~ultural preserve xince it wes hie undwratanding th~t th~re muet bs ~t leset 150 acren~ end thax during the 11 yearn he had baen larming the pxoperty, h• had boen payirtg a~ z~~ther high zate o! texa~e. Mr. Dick ~himada, 15131 Le CrAa~a Avenue, eppsarad bafore the Commi~oion i~ opponition and noL•ed hia Qro~Arty wAa waat o! eub~ACt. propurty, and the Commi~o- aion wee cware oP the 3dnta Ana wii~(la tha~ blew ~hr.ough vacant prape.rty~ end even thouqh aubject ~raperty would be using a chainlink fence, the dobrl.n wauld be blowing through, and sinco he lived n~xC door, he did not want nny add.ttlonni dobri.s to blow into his yard~ therafure, he would roquaet th~t the waivar or tho 6-foot mneonxy wall bo duniadi that he pzeeently hed n~~rsery st.ock c~n the prop- erty ~nd v~ould evet~tually fence lt in, however., a nuraery came witt~in the per- mitted ueee of the aqricultural zonet and that if a wa7.1 waro conatructed, it would be only for hie protection. Mrs. ~talph Beatty, 2862 Eaet Mix'nloma 7-venue, appeared bc~fore the Cammiesio~i and atated her pzoperty abutted aubject prAperty to t.he north, and hor living room window would ovAxlook thie particular opezation, therefore, ehe wc~uld 'I requt~et that waiver of the block wall shoutd not be gr.an~ed, and that alrhough the petitic~ner indicsted there wrss a chninli.nk tence to the oast, th~e uhain- l~nk fence bolonged to another person and wae nat immediAtely adjoining eu}~j4ct property. One lotter of opposition was read to tlie C~mmiasion by the Commisaiun Secr4tazy. Mr. Frankl3n, in rebuttal, stated that other developed propartipa in th4 area he-d the bJ.ock wa11 alonq tlio front of the proper.ty and ~hainl~.nk tence around the balance, however, if !.t would help, he wovld agree ta provfda slatting .in the cltainlink fence. Chaixmaii Seymour i.nquired about the fence to the eastj whereupon Mr. Franklin etated thar said £ence separatad tha two propertiss, and that tYie man in opposi- tian had a chainl3.nk fence on hia property, Mr. Fukuda advised the Commission that tha chainlink ience was on the nnahsim Fump property, and the ~oa Benner property was between the Anaheim Pump prorerty and subjecx propertyt whereupon Mr. Franklin ~tatod that could be true, hcw~~ver, he had sketched it differently. Chairman Seymour then inquired about what type of drainage was prooosed; where- up•an Mr. Franklin atated he did not intend to disturb any of the clrainage tk-ere. The Commission then inquired whether tho petitiot~er proposed tc asahalt the pr~perty; where4pon i!'r, Franklln replied negatively. Office Engineer Jay ;:.tus, in response to Commiss.ion quastioning regarding drainage and grading ~~f the street~, stated it way common to fi~id stree~ts put in by the County that we~e considerably highar than the adjacent propertieai that ~hia was an oiled road which had a 20-foot as~halt paving area, and because of this, the road was genez'ally hiqher than the property adjacent to tne r~ad, however, this cou13 be resolved when the street improvements wer~ deaigned for sub~ect property Mr. Franklin advised the Comm~.ssion that he diclllOt present detailed plans of the property which he felt woul~? be onl~~ dane aft~r the oroject was t~ be developed, and i£ it were approved for t.he use requested, THE HEI4RING WAS CLOSED, Cornmissionpr F!erbst inquired as to the t.Xpe af e~ui~.ment thE ~e~itioner proposecl to u~ae in the fabrication of tY~e steel, how much atA:l was propoaed to be ~~t~r.ed, what difl the petit.ionei plan to do during the w_.~ter rains, and would the p;~ce be cleaned up. Nfr. Franklin replied that they planned to use only a~hear and bender sir~cz they cut a.nd bent the atieel to specific sizes, ancl no atructural ixon was propaeod since they worked with rouz~d iran and did not finish the pfeces on tYs~ property but would deli~ve.r and finish the piecea ut the job sitet that it way planned to store between 150 a~.d 20A tons of materia].j that if they were unable to pl.ace the fabricated steel they would cut during the winter rai.ns, they ~rould then cloae down the, fabrication plant completely since they did not plan to pave the t~torage area; and that the :naterial would be stored in the center ot ~he lat, with an entrance from th~ aast sido, moving to tha rear und unloading in th~e center, then makinq a U-turn, exiting on the west side of the lot. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY l~LANNING COMMxSSTON~ Mdy 30, 1973 73~338 yl1~tY1~NCL N0. 2506 (Continudd) Commieoioner Gauor inquired how the pakitione: i.ntandell to hnndle any dust problemt whereupon Mr. Fzxnklin statpd tli~y wcu~d l.e~v~ an oiled roak bsea an tha proFerty . Cammi~~sic~ner Harbst then inaulred why Chis operatiur. could not bs partarmad indoore~ whe~roupan Mr. Franklin tta~~od rli~t thay nooded h~asna ~.nd Porkliftm, r-hich would menn a very taw7. buill~iinq, and the~ t~~ey preaen~ly were loaatoc! in Huntington Bedch whex¢ thair lecility F~as nat p~ved ~+nd theX ueed f.orklilts in the dirt ar9a. Commioeionor Harbst NdA af thq ayinian thdt ~lP Chis use were ellowed, it would be very de*.rimer~tal to Lhe edjaining prap~rtiac binaa no naved yard w~a pro- po~edi ~hat all ope~:~s~.ion~ wo+~ld be uut i.n tl~a oFen, w1t1~ e forklitt operation and larga steel truc~<e making A~].ivery, p~articulprly since no ecreening waa proposed, this wuuld b~- workinq ou`. ~.n the open witY~ material t'abri.cation~ the-t ha was tn ~he maher:.al .°.abr.it:ati.~n bs;~in~ce aloo and knew nome thinge had to ba done outdoore, howeve.r, thia gl.u~a did not even indicate restrnom faciliti~a, and portable f~icila.tie~a wau7.d noc be ~llowecl in Ar,ahaim, therefore, L•hie oper.a- tion would have to maet rj.ty of An~heim s~andnrde, and if thc petit~.ior~er di.d not know wha~ tha Cit:y'd standArds •~rere, then ~erhaps subjec~ patiti~n ~hou7.d be conti-~amd to ~llow t.ime for t~o ~g*iL•loner to learn of the City's require- ment:s and preeent raviROd ~~lana so ~.hat th~ Commissio~x could detarmine wrint wae plann~d. Nir. Fxankl:.n noted that trey dia not plan to build for at 3.east two yeare. Commissioner Her.bRt note8 thriC the petitianor would have to i~nprovo the streets, curbs ancl gutter~;, pr<~vida ].ot~dscaping, and since the petitioner wua requdeting waivex from the flit~9 deveLnrme:it gtandarda of the M-1 Zone, the petitioner had not pz~aented ;~ubstantia~t•ri~ e~idersca thr~t ~ hxrdship existed, therefore, he would not coneider g~anting wa3vers From tt-ie site develoQment 3t.andttrda of the M-1 ~ore unless adQqi~atc ~>~ ans w~r.e presented ta allow the Commission ar~ uppor- tunit.y to detern~ine aheth~:r or nut the use shnuld be permitted, partiaularl.y since the City af Anai~oito Tia~ no arahiter,tur.a2 cont-ol, unly requiring that it meet the Bui~dir.g Code . Chairman Sey~mour noted that the C'ummission was expresaing a concern that the petitioner wa~ .r~questi.ng aporova7. of a use without any development plans, and aince tre p~ti~ianer did no~ intend to aonatruct a~uilding for kwo years, r~ther steps c~houl3 be provided for the Cu~mission to make a determinatian of what w~s proposec? ~th~r than permittinq outdoor fab~•icntion and storage without. benefit of these standards r~~quired of[ other properties ir~ the M-1 Zone, and it was possible ~ve:z with th^ presentAt.ior~ of a plot plan and elevation plana that a completeYy outdoar activit;, would not be permitted. Commission~x A11red offered a moi:ian, seconded by Co~nmisgioner Elerbst ar~d MO'PZON CAI2RIED, to re~pen the hearing and continue consideratton af `Potiti.o~n far "ariancc No. 2506 to tha meeting or June 25, 1973, to allow time ~or the pe~i.tioner to meet raith thp Dovalopment Services Department for informaticn in order to draw the neceasa~xy plot plan, alevations, etc. M,:. Franklin atx~ed that thi3 could Zot be accomplished in that time ~nd re- quESted a continuance to ~uly ~, 1973J whereupon Commissioner Allred amended his mot'Lon to contir.ue Variancs No. 2506 to the meeting of July 9, 1973. Commissioner Farano noted th~t the Commission ha8 not gone inta a con~ern he had because of what appeared to bQ some vague idea of what the petitioner planned for the £irst two years, and he would like, thezefore, to have tha ~etitioner understand, as set forth :n the Report to the Commission, that if the potttionEr planned to use the pro»erty for storage purposea for the next two yeara, he WOL1~f~ be i•equired t~ fil~ an additional zone action to store this m~terial an the property since the er.xc~ting variance did not iiiL~udp thia atorag~, be~cause no mmtter what was propoeed t:o be store~, tt would have to be considered at an advertiaed public hexring. ~ ~ MTNUT~S, CTTY PLANNING COMIAIBSION~ M~-y 30, 1971 73-339 V11Fii11N~F. NO. 2SOy - PUHL:C HEARxNC. 8E1tNAR:~ yT~HtiNSKY, 10485 Narthval• Rosd, Los Ang~lae, Ca~. 90064~ Uwner~ M. HASfiANI, 1117 Fountain Way, Anat~oim, Ca. 928a6, Agsnt~ requeatinq WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES AND (B) REQUJ.RED fi-FOOT SOL:ID MA$ONRY WALL ENCLUSING OUTDOUA U8E8 TO PERMIT A,N OUTDOOR FAIN7` BOOTH on ~rdp.rty deacribed as: A roctangul~rly- ehaped percel of :land con~.iisting ot spproximately .3 acra, :zavinq e~ frontaqe ol' approxima~ely 120 feat on the weut r1Ae o! Fountnin way, havis~g a max~mum dapth o! approximntely 1.25 feat, and being lacdte~d approximate,ly 203 Peat north ot the centerline of La Paln-a Avenue. ProF~rty pxusantly claesiPiod M-l, LIGHT xNUU9TRIAL, ZONL~. No one Appearod i» o~poai.tion. Althouqh the Report to the Commiauion aaR ~ok zea4 at Che public hearing, it is reterred to ttnd made a part of the minuxns. Mr. Barnard Ni~huneky, owner, and Mz. Michaol BnAeani, ugent, indicetecl their pre~ence to anaw~sr question~, Mx. NichLnoky ~tnting that he was eware that Mr. Deesan9 had applie3 Eor the outdoox ~activity And had r9ceived nppraval from the City o! hnaheim enme time ego a~ter the ~nspector hnd etated thare mu~et bA an encloeura of. the paint baoth, and now it appeared ic was in vio).erion of the Code, Cherefore, a queeti.on wae raiaed why the City pdrmitted this i.r. the firat place, and, aubgequently, they stated thia wae at .ariance with thN Ci~y'N raquirementa~ that t11ey were requceting waivar of tt~e 6-foat masonry wr~ll to p'rmit enclosure af the outdoor paint booth with n r;latte~ chainlink fen~ce Por a por~ion o~ the property rather thaa tha ontire pr.opertyr that i.n the e~valuation of the r.equest, the Sanitation Divieion had raised a que~ti.an a~ to the loaation of the existinq traeh azea, and s~.r.GO thoy hed ar.ly rQquested waiver of tha wa1Z, he could not undorarand wh~• thi.e would be a p8rt of tho reportt that when t.he buildin3 had b~en conetruct~d a year An,d a hal~ aqo, the ~anitation Divic~ion hed fn~licated whore the trash atorage axea ~:-ould be ~.ocated, and that ~as where it was plaoed, and ainao it was part of the building, it would be ~letrimontal to t:~e property to ralocate iL• r~s auggeetad, +snd problema of trucke backtng ittto the area would be ncthing aince trvcka wexe delivering all of the time ~o the other buildings along Fountain Way. Chairman Seymour inquired how the petiti.oner had obtain~d a permit to estt~bl;.eh the outdoor paint baoth an~ why wae the ~anitt-tion pivision now requnsting e- change iri the trash ).ocati.on . Cammis~io~er Herk,st notad that the pdint booth had besn erected illegally to atart wicht that thera were outdoor paint boaths ~hat were legal, however, khd one that was erected by the petitioncx wee en iLlegesl one becausa it waa entizely open, and if this were an entirely enalaeed bootb, this would. be more, ~ c~cep~ ablei and then inquired whethes' ox not the petition9r had an Air Pol~ution ~'approval as to air po].lution reqarding thia paint bootht whereupoil Mr. Bassan.i rep].ied that they had recoivsd approval. Commi~ssioner Fierbat requested to ase the certification from the Air pol3ixtion Control Boa.rd appr.oving an open paiat booth aince khls was not their norme.l procedure. Commissioner Farano noted that there appeered to be a question of terminoloqy, but he would like to see the emog contzol certificata sinco he wanted to know whether the petttionor and the Commission weze ~.alking about ~he same thing. Mr. Bassani noted that his son had pr~aeented the p].ana to the Buil.dinq Depext- ment in Cfty Hall :or approval~ wh~reupon Commiasioner Fardno stated that if the ~1ar.y had been submitted, the,y muat be available for the Commission to review . Mr. Bassani noted they had also preaented the plana to the Air Pollu~ifln Control Board, who had approved the plans and had insgected it after it was built and had vieited the facility several timea since ite approval. Commissioaer Herbat noted he did not think there was evidence of hardehip ~rer~entedt whereupon Mr. NicY.unaky atate~~ thttt this faailiL•y wne not lac~~ed on an n.lley but on the aide of the buildir~g. Commisnianer Herbst noted tihat Code etated that na outeide work could be per- mitted unlesa granted by var,iance oz conditional ues pezmit, and to hi• kaov-- ledge, t~he Commiesion hnd not reviewed thl.e at a pzevioua public hoezinq. e ~ ~ MINU'I'E8~ CI.'I`Y PLANNING CqMMISS~ON, MAy 30, 19''j VARI11NC4~ N0. 2`~09 (Continuad) '13^340 Chai:rn~ ~ Soym~,~r noted that there appeered t~ be ~omn conflict~.n~ view~ointb har~, hovrevAr, t~o want.ed tu c~seuro the , roporty ownor that the Gommiesion woall~ can~.lder al.l l+~cot~, but the Cc,mmioeion mu~at etrnighter~ out tha oonfliati.ng vi.c,w~otnts, th~ar.eEor.e, sub;Jt~ct potitior- shauld he continued to the Jun• 11, 1973 tneeting, ~at which timo tlie i~etitioner Rhould eubmiY. hin APC certi~fcation ~or the peint I~uot11 en~t for thc~ uevelapmant Se.rvicea Depar~menC to sesqaxch th• plena ko detArmine whether. or not tho psint bcroth hc-d baen dpprovod. Commieei.oner Kdywood offeroci a motion, aeconded hy Commiaeionar Hork~st anc9 M~'~tUN CARRiED (Commi.sr~i4ner kuwlend beinq abeent), to cantinue aoneiderntion ot Fetltion for Variance No. 2509 t~ the meeting o£ June 11., 1973, in order t!or r,ho ~otitioner to oubr~it hi~ ~e.rtificate ot approval lrom the Air pol~lution Control HoRrd for the outdoor paint booth end fox si:aff to x~ese+srch tilee to d~tsrmine e+ther p.lana had boon submittad a-nd appzovad by the DAVe~.opment 3er~vices Daprrtm~r.t for aai.c~ autdoor gai.nt booth. VA1tI)1l1CE NO. 2510 - I'UBI,IC HL~ARING. RAYAL COACH OF ANAkIEIN, INC. , 490 LA r ~ L'ayette Road, Hampton~ NAw Hnmpehire 03842, Ownero AD ART, INC., 1715 64th StreeC, Emoryvill~+, Ce. 94608, Aqdntt request•ii,g WAIVER Qt* MAXiMtfM HEIGHT OF A FREE-ST~1NDiN~ SiGN on proporty dua- cribeci asi An irrc:yularly~ahaped paruel of land coneieking of apptoxtmately 3 acres, having appruximate frontages af 700 £eet on the eset ai~9e ~f Weet StroPt and 800 feot al~ng the en~Yth ~ido of the SAnta Ana Freeway, and bo.ing located a?proximately 30U •et eouth of the center.line nf ~~uth St.~eet. Property presently claseified M-1, L~7GHT IPIAU&TRIAL, 20NE. No oae eppe~+r9~ i~. •^;.^sition. Alt.haugh t1~.. Re~crt to th~ Commisaior. wa~~ not read ai: the publiu hear~ng, it ie relerrPd t~ ar.d made a part of t2ie minates. Mrc, A1 Petaxson, repres~nti.ng the $q'int for the petitiener, the sign companr, appeared beforo che C•misaion and not9u ~hat there was some juati£-ication in ~ncreaeinc~ the height o. the sign sinco rhe residential prop~rt;~ acro~s the Eroewey was adequntely buf~er~cl, and wai.ver c~f the height limitatlon hac3 been qrantod to th~ ~hexaton Anahsim MoteL on the adjnirting propertyt that he also f~lt that fi.he 25-faot high sign wi.th 350 square feei; would be more detrimental ta the reaid~3ntiel uses ~n the oppoeite side of tho freeway tY-an if it were a 300~-aquare foot sign at a 58-foot height becauso af the win8ow height and line- ~t~aiqht oE the homos with a 25-foo~c high aign rather than the 50-footi eign~ that slthough they were not the aame dxstance away from thp R-1 ae tt~e ac1joininq property, *_hey wanted to njo} the samc righta~ rsnd that the heiyht of the aiqn was necoesary in order to Alert people cf the off~ramp eo that they wonld bo able to chanqe lanes in sufficient time. Comr~le4iorter Gauer noted there appeared to be Kome Cype af an access ro~nsl in the ~rea where tho sign was proposedJ wher~~?pon Chairmaz~ Seyir,our noted tha~ this wus a City access road, however, he hac~ been un3or the imprssai~n that there waa eome plen ta exchange or sell this proporty to the petitioner. Mr. Peterson etated tt~at thd petitioner waa in the procESa cf accompliehing this detail. Commiesioner Kaywood expressed concern that at the original hearing the ag6nt for the petitioner indica~ted they would comply with Code signing, and ahu would not nave voted for the us~ at that time if the agent for the pezitiuner had aot ea st~pula-ted. Mr. Pdtorson noted that he, a9 a s~igri coneultant, had been ~rought in lat~ar an tt~e 9lgning of aubject prcperty, and ~erhaps the agent at that time wds nat fully awera of. the im~licatione when ma'-;ng that stipul~ti~n. Com~ai0eioner Herbet noted that there wae g conaiderable dif~ereiiae between a 58~toot aiqn and a 25-foot sign, anfl the visibi.lity from the o~f-samp of th• tzeeMSy would not bc obstiructed because this wea pezfectly £lat with no grede, and :her~ appeared ta be a 1100-foot frontage to this aff--amp, and that mn~~y of ths ~orvice atationg were now pl~cinq the~z slgns ao chat thoy could be e MINUTLS, CZTY PLANNING COMMIS870h, May 30, 197 3 V11RZ11NCE N0. 251Q fContinued) 73-34]. viewgd lrom a driver'e eeat an~ wera bringing their ofqna down~ £urth~xmore, the potitinner ha~ not eY~own n l~nxd~hip b~ecause khe 31~tanca lro~n th~ ot!-remp to thie propArty w~uld enable e driver Co aeo t.he lsoiliky and ba ebl~ tu change lenee to roach tha ~fP-r,amp in auftiai~nt time, end t,he trend tor s~gnn now was !or lowo.r ai.gne znthor than higk~e2' eigne. Mr. ~stera~on notod thAt tltia wafl probably txue !ox aarvice etetiona in town, and thie wxs brought about becauee of ths noed !or vioibility of. the sezviae etation oigns, howevar, tho s9rvice stationa ware hazd-p2'eesad for buoineae tu begin Nith, th~~rdfore, t.hoy wera b.:inging -~ot ~nly thE ~i.gnd but aleo the ~tructuree mo.re into conformdnce+ mrchitecturally, howevar, it had been proven thst on prop~rtiea havinq freewey expowure it was imporL•ent to havo a hiylier aign, t+nd poesibl.y 35t of the paoPle who woul d pAtz•oni~ee the tec.~llty would prafer tho higher eign~ thak the Comm~s$i.on wa~~ cc~rrect thnt tha lre~w~ay in thi~ araa wa~ flat, however, theru were a n~umber of troes thAt blocked visibility, e-n3 pzoapdr,t'.ve cuetomera would Find i.t ~.11fPi cult t:o roach tha olP~ramn in eutficient time, and genarally the motoriny p ublia did not caro to ba-cktrack to go ta a giv4~~ location. Furthermare, they di Q not feel this heiqht of a sign would be de~:riment~l to the area, and that t:-iey would like t~ hAVe the eame priv~l.ege enjoyod by thQ adjoin,~ng ~+roperty ~s to ~aigning. The Cammieaion noted that recreational vehicles were 3z~iven mur~ slowly an& would generally be dri.ving in the fa:cthee~ right lana~ whQreupon Mr. Feterson etated that thoy were trying to reacn the public that would be ~~otenti~l pur- chasers cf the vehicles, not necessari Ly t.hose lookin~ for a rep3lr facility. c;ommiE :ic.naz Fterbst noted that tlie adjoin:.ng eign was locat~d a conaiderabl~ 3iacunce £rom the R-] tl~an aubjact ~raperty, an~3 thQ Commiasion had granted nn 1B•-foot heiq~t waiver on the adjoining property, wtiile the 1~Ptitioner wae re- questi,~y a~-Eaot height wa.iveri and that i f the petitioner wan~ed to en joy tho sRme right as Y.he ad~oinin~,~ prcperty did, then the 18-foot }iei.c~ht waiver would b~ all the Commiasi.on ahould grant~ wk~ereupon Mr. Peterson e~ated that tha petitianez needed reaicf from tha 25-foo t height limitation and the 58-foot beight wae determined to be nacessary becaus e of the adjoining terrrin which would affect viewing the r~iyn if required at 25 feetr and tha: he ~lid not feel the 43-foot he~gl~r wo+~ld be adequate to eolve the problem o~ gettinq to the ~'f-ramp i.n eufPicient time, but it would so lva the Problem ~f trees and some relief was better than ~none. Commisaioner Faran~ obser.ved that he was not present at the ttearing for ~he proposed facility, however, if the petitione r felt a 3lfferent sign was now noeded, then perhaps the site shoald not have baen considered for tne type of operatio.i approved. Com~nissioner Allred offerod a motion to deciy Petition for Variance No. 2510 en the basis that ln the ori.ginal atipulati~~ made by the petitioner when the cond~tional use permit wae approved i.t stated that they wou13 confarm witih Code requirementa and that the petitioner had not demonstraked a hardahip wovld a~xist iF suhject pPtition were not qranted. Un roll call the fc••Qgoing motion lo~t by a ti~ vote, Commiasi~ners Allr~d, Gauer, and Kaywood vuting "aye" and Commisaioners Farano, fierbat, and Seymour voting "no". Commiseioner Farar.o noted khat tt~e Sheraton Anaheim down the atreet waR u~~ntod an 18-foot heiqht waiver, but he wouLcl not agree averybody off an off-ramp ahould be gre~nted Waivers~ that many timea trc~es do nat block the view, and if tha proposed aign were placed where the petitioner stated, maybe the pr:~~erty ahould be flaqqed to see where the siqn lncation would be viewed t~t a heiqht o! 25 feet, 43 feet, or. 58 feet ae requested. Commissioner Herbat noted that as one drove down the Santa Ana Freewa-y there had been a r~umber of aiqna approved at qreater i~nighta b~cauee the lreeway overpaeses were blockinq the ~~iew of ~iqns, and 1! the petitione ~ had a blockaqm of the elgn by treee~ maybe he ~hould bb granted relief froxi that because i* had been done in the paett that the motel had b een~ qrantad relief from tllo sign ~ MYNUTE$, CTTY PLANNING COMMI3910N~ Mt1y 30, 1973 7~-34Z VARIRNGE N0. 2510 l~nntinuetl) Ordlnenae, and maybe the Commie~i.an wae denying e+ r.ight ot' t.he u~e that was gi.ven th• adjoi,~ing proph,r~ty owner - maybo eom~ uonoi~leraticn ehotild ba givon to thie , qrantinq th~~ ~M•.~e hei~ht wa ivax~ And number n! ~oat, Qvan i! th• p~titioner previouely egreed to mee t.ing the requirementn o! thtl 81qn Ordinance, thi~ did not prea] ade allowing the pa~itioner t~ requaet rel.ie! lrom ::h~ eign r.eQuirements . Gha-irman Seymau• noted that he was vat+.ng "n<~" ar tha m~rlon ~ven though he wAe ap~oaEd to tlie dovelopmenL• origina].1y end w~, sL~,l oppAeed ~o it, k+ut he c~uld not eeo why thu pzoperty ~wner at-o+a3Q bo den~ed a ri.yht which the u~ ~ining property ownor t-nd ba~n ~ranteS, howe~er. he ~tid ~ael the siqn shou . be no gree~ter than 43 fe:~t in heioht, whi ~h would b~ ~omperable to the numbez of leet waiv~r granted tci t?~e adjoinin g propert v uwnor. Cammiesioner Gauer ofPere~9 a motion t~~ reopen tho I~oarinq and continue consid- Arat3on o! ~~exlanc~ No. 7510 tu th~ meetir~y oP Jun~ 11, 1973, eoconded Uy Commiasioner F+~rano and ~w~T.T.ON (:ARRZLD (C:ommiseionez Hurbst vot.ing "no" nnd Gommissioner Rowland bei.ng absent) in ordrr to al.low ti.me for the petit.ioner to flag tho pzopertiy ta detezm3.na w IieCher tha tr~Ae were hlc~cking view of tlie aign ~n~ e~t what level. C~mmiesior:er, tierba~ noted that to conti.nue subject p9tition would not ohenge liis mind - this wna not toc~ far of£ from what httd baen grantod in the pae~ on the freeway - as to hardahlp, the p tti3tioner had not presented Anx, and tlnat the o~lly reaeon he w~e voting fur the aign was bacause the nd~oin~.ng property owner was granted e simil.ar waiver_ Commissioner A1.1rHd noted that if fl~gginq were t~ be done reg~~rding the heiqht of the aign, this should be done b~ the petitioner, and tha Co~nmiseion could view the property eo determtne whe ther or na~ the trees were blocking tho view~ however, the flc+gging c~hould not b~ done by the Plenning Cuznnisaion or a representative. Commissioner Farano nutad that the circua~stances were not the same as thut on tk~e Sheraton Anahaim M~tel which had an o£f.•~ramp between their px~porty and the fzeeway propexty, wh~le the propos cd siyn would be right on the fraeway, and per.haps the representativea of' She raton Anahefm had proven a hardship whil~ the peti.tio~. '{ ~ not present any hardehip. RECESS - Chairman ~aymo vr declared a ten-minute receas at 4:01 p,m. P.ECONVENE - Chairman Seymo ur reconvened the rneeti.ng at 4:15 p.~rt. , -~ Cnmmissioner Rawland beiny aboent. VARIANCE NO. 2511 - PUBLIC H~ARIN G. DON~LD W. AND ROBERTA G. ROAERSON, 714 North Geneva S treet, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, Ownera~ requeating WAIVER OF PERMTTTED ~~ARAGE SETBACK TO RELOCAT~ A DRIVGWAY AND CQNSTRUCm A ROOM ADUITION ~n p roFerty clescribed aso A rectangularly-ehaped par.cel of land cnnsisting of approxia,atsly .15 acrQ, havinq a fronk~sge of approximately 62 feet on the east aide of Gene~~a S~treet, hav•inq a ~~axi-~um depth or Appr~:cimat~ty 100 feet, and be ~_nq located approximately 3^? :eet north of tho centerline of Gramercy Street _ Property presantly clasaifie~ R-1, GNE- FAMILY RESIDE^ITIAL, ZOHE. Na one appeared in oppasftion. A2thoug~ the Report tc cha Commissien was n~t road at t.t-e public t.earing, it is referred to and m~de a part of the minu~~s. Mr. Donald Rcbersotl, or~e of the p~titionere, indicated hia preaerce. to anewer questiane. Commiseioner Rerbst inquired whet2ter the petitioner would stipu~nte to providing an automAt,ic gar~nge door opener i f the garagu eetback wese grantelii whereupcn Mr. Robergon atipulate0 to provi ding an automatlc Saraga door oponer. ...~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CtITY PLANNING GUf~MI99IUN, MAy a0i 1973 7" 343 VARIANCE NU. 25_l.l (Continu~d) THE HEARIN~'s WAS CI~USEA. Commiesloner Farano offared a motion, •ecoaded by C~mmiarion~r r3~uox and MOTION CARRIED, tlxet ths P:lanning Comenieal.on, in aonneation with an ox~mption decleretion s~atue reqixeet,, linds •nc° d~terminez thut the propoeal would have no aigni~fir.ant •nvi.r.onment+~l impnat anQ~ thsr~tora~ reaommende co th• City Council thet no Environmen~tal T.mpact 8tst~ment fe ner,e~oery. Commles~~nor Herbat orr~rea Reaolution N~. PC73-117 end moved !or ite pa~esge and adoption to grant Petiti~n !or Varianae No. 2511, aubject to conditiano and L•he raquirement tt~at an euhomatic qaraqe dooz oF~~nmr bo provi~ad~ aa etipuisted t~ by the potit~oner. (S~o Reaolution ~ook) On coll cai 1 the Por~going reeolut ion wAS pnssed by the tollowing vote: AYFS: COMMI3SIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Florbet, Kt-ywood, Saymour. NOE.'~,~ COMMI33IONER~+s N~~~. ABSEN~': COMMISSIANF.RSs Rowlando VARI7~NCE N0. ~512 - YUHLIC H.EARING. GIACOMO (JOHN) M. ANp JOYCE Lr . LORE, 2440 Glenoaks Avenu~, Anaheim, Ca. ~2801, Ownerei requeating WAIVER OF PERMITT~D GARAGE SETBACK TU RELOCATE A DRI~)EWAY AND CONSTRU~T A GARAGr^. ANG LiViNG ARF.A ADDITIONS on prope:rty de~scribed ae: A rectanqularly-ehnped parcel oP land vonsieting of appr.oxlmataly .15 acroe et tre eoutho.~et corner of Glon~ake AvenuA and Roanne Stxeet, having a frontagu of approximatAly 64 FeeC on ~he eouth sidc: of Glenoeka Avenue, having a frontage ~f a~Froximately 101 feet an ~he east gide df Roanne SS:reek. P~:nperty presently clasei fied R-1, ONE-FAMILX k~SIDENTIAI~, ZONE . No one appeareo in opposition. Although the Regort to the Commi~sion was nat r~ad at the ~+ublic hearl.ng, ±t is r~ferred to and made a part of the ~rinutes. IMr. John Lore, one of the petiti.o ners, indic~tad hie presence to answer que~tions. ~J_~~~~y/ ~ ~Q+ILIWi '~~"~'/ Commisaioner Kaywood onaervell that she had visited the psoperty and~the lawn and ~arkway were completely dead and inqYiixed what was prapaoed to be donc about the ZandscapingT whereupon Mr. Lore etated th~t if eubject petition wPre approved these wo~~ld be improved. Commiasioner Herbst inquired whethex the petitioner would stipulate to pr.ovid~ng an electrica-1 garage door op~nez•; whereupon Mr. Lure so stipulated. Commissioner Kaywoad offered e mo ti.on, aeconded by Commissioner R llred and MOTION CARRIED, that ihe PZanning ~ommiseion, in cannectian with an exesnption derlaration atatua rdqueaL, finds anc~ determines that ~he propo~a~l would hava n% significant envi.ronment;al impaot and, therefare, recommenda tc the City Council that nn Environmental Tmpdr.t Statement ie necessary. Commissioner Eierbat of£ered Reso3ution No. PC73-118 and mowed for its paseage and adoption to grant ~etttion for Variance No. 2512, subject to conditiono and the requixem~ent that an automatic qaraye dc,or openar be prov~ded, as stipulsted by tho petitionar. ( See Reeolution Book) On roll call the foreqoing reaolution was pass~d by the fol?.o~cing vote: T:YES: CO~IMISSiONERS: Allred, Farano, Grsuer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymuur. NOE3: COMMISSIANERS: ~1ona. ABSEt~T: COMMISSIGNERS~ Rowldn3. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTGS, CITY PLANNING COMMIS9i0N, May 30, 1973 73-344 VRRIANCE N0. 2513 - PUBLIC HEA~AING. ROY At~D LOLA DUNTON, 919 Eaet 8roadway, ~~^ Anahe+im, Ca. 92H05, Uwnersi itU3SELL ANU SHIRLEY a~1UAMAN~ a178 Flower Streer~ Lynwood. C~. 902fi2, Ag9n~~ requ~~ting WAIVER C)~* (A) PERMITx'ED U8~8 AND (8) MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PAItKIN(3 SPACE3 TO EBTABLISH 91 GIFT ANn ANTTuUE SHQP IN A RE32DENTIAL STRUGTURE on prop~rty dmscribed ~ne~ A roatnnyularly-AhepQd parcel of land havinq a lrontags o! approximntely 80 feet on the north side oP Droadway, i,aving a m4xl,mom dapth of apprnximntelf 115 feet, end being located approximately e~ Eoet weat o! tho ceititorllnP oF Bue~h Streol. Property presently clagsifi~d R-2, MULTxPLE-FAMILY RES70L~N'PIAL, lONE. No o; e appcsAred in op~c~eition. .~lthough the RP~ort to thn Commiaelon wes not read at. the public hoari _~g, it i a reforrecl t~ and made a part nf. tho minutea. Mre+. Shirloy Hauamen, ayent for tho potitioner, dppeared before the Commiseion and indicatad that ~he puzchnso of tYia pr~porty wae concinqent upon grnnting of the waivers beinq requeated, and ~hat ahe we~ available to encwer quosti~no. TH~ HEARTNG WAS CI~OSED. Chairman Saymour inquirod whether the petitioner would have any problema com~ly- ing with the r~quirement•.a oP t.ha 5ign Ordi:~anco, ca which Mrs. BauamAn replied that they wc>uld conform with the Sign Ordinance. Discuasion wes then held by the Commi9sion reqarding the parking that waa pr~poEed. Commission~r Hdrbst inquired whethar or n~>: the petitioner proposed tliis ga an interim use a~ a g~.tt ahops whereupon Mrs. 3auaman sta'tod that it was intended to be a permanent use, convertinq the exiating living ~aum ii-to a emal]. shop. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the neighborq had been ac•ised about the proposeci uses wher.eup~n t2ie rommission Secretary notEd that the property had been posted and adjoining property awners had :~eEn Tai:ed copies of Che leqal notice, and no ].etterg ort oppogition were present in the file. Commissioner Farano ~ffered 3 motion, seconded by Commissioner Allzed and M,O:ION CARRI~U, that the Planning Commisaion, in connecti.on with an axempt~.on declarati.on stat.us .request, finda and determines t}~at the proposal. would ?:ave no signiiicar.t environmental impact and, •therefore, recommends to tt,e Ci.ty Ccuncil that ,~o Environmental Impact Statement i.s necessarp. Commi~sioner Farano offered Resolu•;.±.on No. PC73-119 and moved for its passage and adoption to gra~t Pe*_ition for Vaxiar.oe No. 2513, aubject to conditions. (See Resolution Hook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSZGNFRS: Allred, Farar.o, Gausr, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMZSSTON~RS: Rowland. VARIANCE NO. 2514 - P;IBLIC HEARING. UNION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 8555 Artesia Boulevard, Bellflower, Ca. 90706, Owner; P1GW BRITTANY, INC., 16911 Aellflower Boulevard, Bellflower., Ca. 90706, Agents requesting WAIVER OF (A) tdINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND (B) MINTMUM LOT AREA TO ~STA9LISH TWO R-1 LOTS on nroperty desc;ribed ass An ixregularl.y-shaped parcel of land coneisting of appzoximately 13,757 square feet, having °.xozitagea of apprc~ximutely 135 feet on the south oide a~' Thornton Avenue and 136 feet on the norCh side of Brady 7,venue, having a maximum depth of approximately 1.?.0 feot, and beinq located at the northwest cornex of Thnrn~on and Drady Ave~~ies. Property presently clac~sified k-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. No one appc :red i.n opp~aitlon. Although the Report to the Commiseion was not rea~ at the public hearing, it is refezr~d to and made a part oP the minutea. ~ ~ • MINUTL5~ CTTY PLANNING COMMI8J10N, MAy 30, ,l9'13 ~~^-~4~ VJ~RIIINCE N0. 251a (Continued) Mr. Rollin Soldb:lkin, reprecentinq the ag~nt for tho petitionex, indicat~d hia ~xedenr.e to enewer c~ves~ione, notinq they propaeecl t~ subdivide the prop~rty e~nd d4velop i.t wtth ningle-Pami.ly homea. THE HLARING WAS CL~SEb. Con~misel.oner Kaywood orfered n motion, eecar~Qe~ by CAmmiaeionor F'arano and MOTION CARR~ED, that the Pl~+niiing Commisalon, in connection with an exemption declaration aLetue zequeet., ~inds dnd d~terminoo thet tho propoat-1 wou].d have no eignificnnt environrnental imQact c-nd, thorefure, recommende t~ the Clty Council that no ~nvironmar-~nl Impaot Statement is nec9e~sary. Commies9.uner A:llred offered Re~ROlution IVo, PC73-120 ancl moved for. its p~eeaga and ~doption *_o yr.eiit P~tition f~.~r Variance No. 2514, subjo~:t to conditionct. (Soe Rosolution Book) On rol.l call tk~e foregoing reeolution was paASOCi hy the following vo~:e: AYES: COMMI3SIONERSs Allred, F'eranu, Gauer, Herbet, K~ywood, Seymour. NOiSo COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENT: ~OMMISSTONERS~ Rowiand. VARIANCE N0. 2515 - PUl3LIC NEARIyG. DELAUN PROi'ERTIES, 9171 Wilshire Houlevard, ~ ~ Beverly Hills, Ca. 90210~ Owndr~ 1~H'IG ABEDOR, Supqrior Purni.tuxe, 12091 !iarbor Boulevnrd, Garden Gr~ve, Cn. 92GA0. Agentt requ~ating WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ES'PAIILISf! RETAIL FURNITURE STqRE AND WAfLEHOUSE on pr~poity ciescribed as~ A rectanqularly-endped parcol of l+~nd havinq a frontage of approxirnately 190 feet on the woet aid~ oF State College 3ou].ovard, having a m~3ximum depth of approximately 270 fee,t, and being louated approximately 200 feet sou~L•h of the centexl3ne of Ball Road. Property preean*_ly claesi£ied M-]., LIG1iT INDUSiFtYAL, ZONE. No una appeared in opposition. A'lthaugk: the F.eport ta the Commis3aion was not read at the public hearing, it 3.e referred to ~•~d cnade a part :;f tha minutas. Mr. Dave Abedor, agenC for the petitionc+r, appeared before the CommiSSi~n and indicated his presence to answer q.:estions. The Commisai~n inquired whetiYiar or not this proposal would be similar to the, Wickes Furniture Store~ and what did the petitioner plans whereupon Mr. Abedor replied ~hat. it was not their intentior. tc operate in the manner whicli Wickea Furniture Compar.y did since thay had their own retail outlets; that thRy pro•• posed to dovote E30+b of the building to warehousing, and the retail utilization would }ae approximate2y 20~ af the building and would r.epresent sales of u'_o3e~ out merchandise and damaged merchandise, e~c. from the two other retail cutle~e. Commisaioner F'arano inquirQd how the petitioner determined that E30~ of the atructure wouid ba warehousi.ng - would this mean usir-g this warehousing ax~a to d~.str.'bute turnzture to ~he other recail storps, and llow did he plan to retail to customers; whereupon Mr. Abedor stated that the front porti.on ~f ~he warehouse would be for the di.~p~ay of odds and ends which wero distressed items froca the other retail locationss that it would not be set up as a regLlar furniture stor~ but wautd be an outlet storef that the prysical lr~y~ut uf the building wou3.c~ be tha warehouse type with the merchandiae stacked up; anci that it would not be intended ".o be used as a retail furniture oper.ation. Chairman Seymour. inquired wheCher or :~ot upon his vi~it to ''~~ pr~~posed store he would look at t}~e dietressed mer~handise and find he di~ not like what he ssw~ wc~uld the sales pe~ple at this facility sell him son~eFning 'crat he had seaii at the other retail operations~ whareupon M.r. Abedor stat:.d that i.f the er~~cY number of the piece of furniture was known, it would '~.~> sold, h~wevor, it. riould be difficLlY. Y.o srll anythir.y unless tlie code •ldPntity w~s availablP. Comcnissioner Farano inquired wh} tt,e peti~ioner was propo3i~ig to do any ratail wo~k - wouldn't this distu.rb t1:E; s!:orage facilitieAt whereupon Mr. :~bedor stated that theaQ would be occasional piwce. and oA~ piaces that were damaged - piecea thaL• had been lost ii: the warohauae fo= a long time and were no Ionger part of the trend or mo:]e uf furniture b~ing turchased and sold at that timet and tha-t th~ locatior of th~ propexty wae idea: fcr them becauae of its acceasibility to both tho ratail stores and to tranaF.~~rtation. -~ J ~ ~ MZNUTEy, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Mny 3U, 197~ 73-346 VARI1-NC~ N0. 2515. (C~ntinuud) Comml~eiorier Herbat inquired why ratail eales wera propor~od in ~ho M-1 Zonc ~-inca t:he lurniture buain,as was one of the woret se to retail sal.es, k,eosua• he cou].d see the many people caming on wc~ekdnde, ~uet like a ynrd eale b~ing held b~- other tacilitioet that althouqh they may not have want~A to do that r~riqin+-lly, they eventually miqht wind up doing duch ++ th~ng becauso it wa~ an att~CA~tion to ehe publia, e-nd the i.ndustrie-1 xonee w9re not eet up tor thia type o.E opordti~n because thex'e wera many other r. ail ~LC~ae in + own where~ this ueo r,o~ild be permitted. Commie»ianar Gauer inquired whoth~ar tha petitionar proposed to advertiae the ratail se~eAJ whereupon Mr. Abedar Atatec'~ thnt the only f.orm og advertiaing would l~o Chruugh their retai~ faciliti.~,s. Commiaaioner Kaywood inquir~d wh~thor the petitionar proposed to use any sigrie to in~orm tlie publ9.c that thef were welcome to visit thie r3tail outlet~ wt~ero- upon Mr. Abc~dor stat~a that the only eignirsg they pxopoeed was to d3ver.tise that this vrns the warehouse of S~iporior Furniture eo thAt ~-endors would know where they weze tu deliver the purchases. Commisei.oner Kaywoncl inquirad whether there w~u13 be any enti^e~~~ent °or tho public to come~ whereupon Mr. AUedor atatod that there was no interition to provid.e tliis entir.ement. Commiasioner Al1rQC1 inquired whethez or not a aho+~room wae propose3 in f.ront of the waretiouseT wheroupon Mr. Abedor stated thia would be a xegular warehouse building, h~wQVer, a small section of th~+ front would be pai-t.ittoned off for diapla.y of the distressed furni~ure. 'PHE HPSARING WAS CLOSED. Comm~saioner Farano offered a motion, socondod by Cammissionez Allred and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commfasion, in connection ~ith an expmption declaration etatus rpqueat, fi.nds and determines that the proposal would have no significant anvironmental impact ar-d, therefore, recomcnends to the City Council ~hat no Environmental 7mpart St.atement is necessary. Commi~siotier Allred offered Resolutian No. ~C73-121 and moved for :ts passage andt adogtion to grant Petition Eor Variance No. 2515, subject to th..~ stipulation by the petitioner th~t there woul.d be no more than 20~ of. the buildi,zg devoted to r~tail sales area and that the remaining 80$ of the bui.lding woul~i be devoted to a furnitux•e warehouse uaed a~s a base to de].iver from; that the petitioner stipulated ~.here N u?d be no advertising or signing advertisir_~ the retail usp on the pruper:.y; ...d subject ta conditions, with the added conditions that there shall be no mo~.r~ .llan 20$ of the building devoted to retail sales purposes as stipLlated Co by the petitionerJ that there shall be no signs advertia~.ng the retaiJ. uae on th: property nor any other~ advertising as stipulatec7 tia by the peticianerj and chat there sl:a'll be no outdoor storage nor outdoor sales. (Se~ ':osolution Book) On roll call the foreqoine* resalution was passed by the £ollowing vote: A~'ESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. nBSENT: COMMISSIONE RSt Rowland. CONDIxIONAL USE - PU~L1'C HEARING. HAROLD SMITH, 3411 West Bal; R~~ad, Anaheim, PERMiT N0. 1389 Ga. 9Z804, Owner~ DAVIA E. HARPER &~,SSOCIATES, 9940 Orr an3 Day Road, Santa Fe Springs, Ca. 90670, Ayents requesting permission to E3TABLISH A THREE-STORY, ]58-BED CONVP,LESC~NT HOSPITAL WAIVING (A) N:A}CIMUM HEIGHT IN PRnXIMITY TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE~, ~B) MAXI;KUM P1tOJECTION INTO FRONT SETBACK, AND (C) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PRRKING SPACES on property described as: A rectangularly-ehaped parcel of larid consistir.g ~f approximately 1.37 ~cres, having a frontage of approximatel~- 187 feet on the north side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of apprnximately 321 feet, and being located approximately 127 feet west of the ce:~tgrline of Embsssy Arive. Proper~y pre~ently clagsified R-A, ?1GRIGULTURAL, ZQNE. ~ ~ ~ MTNUTE9~ C7:7"Y BLANNZNG COMMT3S70N, May 30, ].973 73-347 CONpITIONAL U3E PERMI't' N0~1389 (C~rttinved) Four neraona indicat,od thRir preeonce i.r, oppoaition. Ae.ieknnt Plann~: Phill.ip Schwartze r~viewed the loca.i:ion ~! eubiect proparty, ueao eetabliohod in close proximity, and the propo~al to aon~truct a thrde- story, 168-bed (119-unit) reat home Eor eonior ciClasns, with a 65,000-gquaro foot f.ncility bei.r,g approaimataly 224x136 feet a~nd woulcl v~ry in heiqht from 21 to 31 feet~ kh+~t the ~aci.licy would h~ve a qrounl tlaor area o.*. 23,600 aqunre Feet, which would cover appr.oximately 40~ o! t,h~ ~xto~ th~t the Facility wou.id be eet back 27y fQot from DAIl Rond~ that the wnaterly side se~tback woul~ be 10 feet and tha ensterly ai.d~, aetback wou7.d be 40 fc,et for the firat and aecond atoxies a.-d 60 leet for th~3 e~iclased p~~rti~n of. kbe third story, while t~e rear eetback would be 69~ foet:~ that: acc9sA to the aite would be by way of a$inqJ.e one-way drive, beir~g in,yresa unl,y on thie aite, the driva to be ~OCdtaCl approximately 20 feet from ~he ansterly property lino and would initir~lly bE 13~ feet wide nnd woulcl extend toward the rnar of thd site and would ~rovide r~cceas ~0 25, 4S-degree parking spaces along tho oast.erly property line~ that thu drive woald thon turn westerly, widonin~3 ta 2S feet dnd would Y~rovide ecce,~s to two rowa of 90-deqree parking apaces, one row on each a~de, having a total of 27 spaces, and the drive would cantinue as an oxietiRq drive through tho adjacent convalescent fiospital site - on khat aite the drive extended to the westerly property line, turning aouth, na.rrowing to 16 f.oet and continuing ta the soath- erl,y property line of the first site whare it presently provided both ingreea and egrese to the convalescPrt hospital. £rom Ball Roadj tht~t a ti-£out high nt$soitry wall was propos~:d ~:ong the aast~arly aad northerly propertp linen, and in addition to th° front landscaped se~a~ck, landgc~lped atrips were p~~~poaed along the aides and rear of the buildinq. In a~ldi.tion, plane indicated a series oP tr~ angular plante=s alung the eas~erly propertf .line, typicall~~ ~ccupying thc unused Yortion of the angled parkings ~hat a landscaped area would be provided for oveY~y othe~ parking space +~lang the rear wall, and a landscaped screen would be pxovidecl alotig the second-story recreation deck whiah facEd eusterly - the inteztor court/recreatian area would be landscaped also~ thaC ~a total of 13,289 sq~.iare zeet would be pxovide3 fqr recreation, either on the deck.s as loungea ~X open ccur~st that refuse atorage areaa would be providRd wa.*.hin the facillty sdjacent to the kitchen, being locaked appz•oximately 80 fef.t from Ball Road and being adjacent to the ono-way drive~ that a 4x8-fook., 325••square fo~t, free- st.anding ider~tification sign was proposed 6 feet above graund, the sign being located other tk~an in the center 20$ of the lot frontage:~ and that exterior lighting details were not available at this time. Mr. Sahwartze, ;n reviewing t.he evaluation, noted that the petitionr~r hacl re- vised the dimensiona of the r~utual ingress-egress on the 3ubmitted plans and had provided staff with an agreement which appeared to be in compliancc~ with the City Attorney's 0£ficeJ that ttie revised plans submitted after the Sanitation Denartment staff 11ad review~d the original plans were now adequate ancl provided for adequate trash storage areat that there was a technical need to waive the maximum per.mitted heiqht from a residential zone, the waiver actually applying to the R-A Zone to ~ne weat which was presently devel~ped with a substantial 91ze convalescex~t hospital; that waiver of the allowable mAximum projection into a front setback was also a technical waiver as ~nly tho canopy would project 5 fe~t into the front setback, whereas 2~i feet znaximum was permitted, and the canopy ~roj~~:tion would occur over 30 feet above qroundi that the parkinq wai~~er was based a,i 65 spaces at one space per 1000 square feet ~f floor area being re~uii~d .,nd 51 spaaes were proposad, however, it miqht be not~~d that of the FS,OOQ L~quare feet of grass floor area, an ~rea of more than SC~OC t~quare f~et was devoted to outd<~or recreation deck area located on a poztion of the secoad- story roofj and that the proposed use af the facility as a rea~ hom~ ~or ~9nior citizens would .i~dica*a ~hat generally the guesta would probat,l~ ~~ot be ogerating a motor vehi~:le. Mr. David Harper., agent for the petit•ioner and architact of the prop~.ed dovel- opment, not.ed 'r.bat the owners/developers had acquiesced to t~he staff's rPCOm- mendationst zhat they had received approval froui the State Socia'~ Ser:vices Depart- mAnt as to prelimi.nary plane as a Cl.ass "A" aenior citizer.s board and carer t'~~t he would like to em~hasize that this was not a hospital since there were no in- fi~.n~l'people livina there - thia would be a facility wherp peoole over 6S, genernlly, aould 'live having their own apartments but no coaki;:g sinae ~here would be dininq and recreat;on facilities within the complexJ that these psreons would be completely mobilot tl:et some might have mitor medical problems but ~ ~ 0 MINUTES, CITY PLANN7NG COMMISS:iON, May 30, 1973 73-348 CONDITZONAL USE P. .cMIT NO. 1389 (Continuoc~) wou].d noL• be in the ceteqory ot disnbled pereonat that th• 3t•ate hed said that the averagA nye o! senior citizene in board ar~d care [nc111ti~• wet 90 ya~re a! age, and many oP the faci].itiea wure nut of ths quelity whloh the S~ate ai~d lu^al qovernme+nte would ltke ~.o eoe~ thnt tho propooed laoility would bo two and chree e~oriee !.n heiglit dnd had boen devc+.lope~3 on th• bati0 0! qivinq a cammuni~y atm~aphore to k.he resi.dente, with 18~ of. the Aroun~ lloor being in landacapin~7, not counting the racredtio~l, ~atioa ur pevbd nred~~ thet there woulol be a decoretive well ae~arating tl~e R-1 properCiss enG edid wal'1 would be further embel].iehe~ wit.t~ treae a~id at-r.ubberiuet that the interior courta wezd self-contai.neds that the sccond-floor 3~ak wae n recreation d~ck for sunning and eitting, heving a ahiifflebourd area, and ahort trees and ehrt~bbery would alau be ple-ced tt~are so thaL• greenery would be availeble on the secon3 floor living aiaat that in dQ~igning this tncility they had tried ta do a sorvi.co ko the aroa~ ar,d that. thl~ would bQ a Pine banrd and a+~re faoility, but tvo many times paople felt that wl-en a home foc the aqed wuo beinq built it would not be desii'nble~ thdt this facility would br~ aparated by a your.g couple who would have buses to take thase reaidenta on toura and outeide activiti.es so that there would ba no n~ed far pxivate automobiles, and the parking would probahly bo used only by the chi]dren ot the reeidwnts wlio wou]d be visiting them~ and thet i:. all likelihooQ the pArking area would be almoet completely empty baead on othoz facilitisa wherein only one-tonth c~f the park- ing area we-s used. Mr. Har~er then revlewed hhc~ conatruction af the fac~.lity, noting that it was ].00~ s~rinklerod and had f:lre access and protec~inn fos the eldarty poople~ that the buildinq would be orient.ed so that even if it war~ used by "swinqinq ainglea", the noise would be generated toward the inter.ior oP the area, and the only area t•hat miqht create loud r,oiQp:: would be in the poolroom, whiv-h would be La..~~~.•; '~sll R~ad~ a^d that it was hop~d t:his would beavery at~ractive addition to tho community. Mr. Arthur Ferry, 919 Wer~tvale Dr.ive, appeared before the Commission i~l oppoai- tion, stating that he was not opposed to elderly peopls living in tlie area, but he had lived in his home for 17 years and he did not like tt-e ldea of going aut of his house ~r~:l liaving to view a three-story buildiny immedietely adjacent to his property, however, he was not opposed to the use as such. Mra. Toan Berlin, 909 Westvale Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated she was a.lsa in oppositioa to the three-story struc+:ure, as r~ell as the parking, and inquired what w~uld happen to the noise from the vieitora parking at the rear property since this would be immediately adjacent tc~ her rear yard and would be an i.nvasion of her privacy; thar s:1e felt it would be decrer.sing the value of h~x home since they would bP unable to sel.l their homeo although ~.he had no intention of movinq sinco ahe had two childreni thnt her rear yard Nou1d be part of subject property's rear yardj and that t~er bedro~m and her rear yard would be subjected to tlie noises and odors ~zom the autnmobilea entering an.~ parking in this area. Mr. Harper, ~n rebuttal, stated he would not blame people living to the north and east in the single-fsmily homes beinq concerned with the three-atory etruc- ture since he lived in areas where apartments would be shadowing tre rear property lines, but the 3lstance from the rear property line to the building proposed was 70 feet, and this would not mean a large void sinc~ they planned to plant trees and shrubbery and a hedge row tn addition to the decora~ive wallt that the building was designed in auch a munner that the ~:nird-story portion w~~uld have no windo~as or balcany where the people wou18 be able to look out c,..to the rear yards of the sinqle-familv hAmAO= that they would be 40 feet from the eas~ property line, and in that ir-stance they would also have a 6-foot masonry Nall, as well aa the landsca.ping, and an additional 20 feet beyond that would be the start of the third-story section which had a few units and wtiicli opened into a couztyard~ that with the plan~ings propoAed on t.ha second skory, this would craate a form of a bufferr that one must see this type of facility in order to realize the minimal effect a three-~tory building wauld have= that ther_e would be no children in this facilityj that mention of the automobiles and noise - the only thing that would be po~sible in the line af automobil.ea would be a few Gray Ladies, a service organizatian, who woulcl be encouraged to visit these people - these people were ;-oung in heart but old in years and ~ ~ ~ MINUTUS, CITY PLANNLNG COMMISSI~N, 61ay 3U, 1973 CUt~DITIONAL U3E PERM~T N0. 1389 (C~ntir.ued) ?3- a49 would ha~va !ew vie~.tozet thnt khe State Soci.al 9orvicee D~pertmont wsnted them to cflnvert mnre o! the perki.ny nree int~ guoet aourto and provida les~ psrk•ing beoauee psrkinq would not bo ueed Qven on weekende einoe theaa people would not be eit~ir~g eround wai.ting Por rheir ch ildran to viel.ti tiiem. CommlAeione~~ Ferano inquiroci why Gtaree etories were propospdt wltiereupon Mr. Harpe+r ateted that the uianne,r ii~ which ~he facilitiea wora dePig~ed wa. ao thet the uni.ts would be aaceael~ble withnut a lonq curridor, snd if one w-ere in e hotel one coulQ live in n two-etor,y hotel and go to a reataur~nt juet s blook Away, Khile theae pooplo would hdve thoir restauran~ laci.litisa and their racreation facili.tiee within the bu~~ding. Commiaeioner F~-rano noted that hl.e lecility would bo n vory long builcling and w~uld be oxtremaly lnrge, thereiore, h~, did not know how t~o relate what was said as to the noceseity !or havi.ng a three-story building ~!~''.c:• ~han the ability tA have mors tonantai wrher9upon Mr. Harpor raplied t:~at t~~ey could ge~ by with ~a smaller Cacility, however, in arder to provide th~ type of eorvices they pro- posed, it :~~as necessary to have a minimum of 125 to 150 units. Commiasiener F~rana in~uired whether the agent meant that 1E three c~tories were not allowod, then the faaility would iiot be profitablo~ whe^eupon Mr. Harper atated tha~ the buildinq, aa ~'.~eigned, was £unctional and provided the servic~s that wera required~ ~hat the right units wera rieceaeery to opgrate undex a State license, whlch required a usable facility~ and ttien in rASponee to ques- tionir.g b5~ Commiesioner Gauer, etated t:hat the adjaininq c.onvalbscent hor~pital t~ the west wae havinq some trouble with traoh pick-up because they had a two- way drive, however, eubjQCt property now had a dedicated joint easen~ent where accass for traoh pick-up ~rucka and fire equipment would be availr.bla through subject property to the adjoininq property ~o the west to aerve bc~th f.acilities. Commissioner Gr~uer observed thAt ~thore was perpendic:ular parking and inquired z~rhether any reatrir_tiane wer~ p~op~sed so that there would not be nny two-way traffic= whereupan Mr. Harper repliod this cuuld be accomplished with d.irec~ tionaY signs, but he cauld not guarantee that there wauld be only one-way traffic. Commissioner Gauer ~uggeat.9d that perhapa ~he apecial epikes similar to thoae which Disneylar~d had on their ~xit roads could be grovided - thia would insure no two-way traffic without people havinq their. tires wreckedi whereupon Mr. Harper stated that lf thia were one c£ the City's requlromenta, he would abide by it, but he di~l not feel the entrance ahould be tno restrictive, and that he had an ~ccess aqreement: to tt~e west sic~ned and ready to be recorded. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cammissioner Allred requested that the architect determine how many ~~nits would be lost if the third story on the east ~ide were not pezmitted. Commissioner Faiana inquired uf staff whe~her a variance should have been re- quired since tha General Plan pro~ected thts area for low-denaitiy reaidential use; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charlea Roberts acivisod the Commiseian that the Conditional Use Parmit Section apecif.ied that facilitiea o~ this nature may be permitted in the low-density zone. Mr. Harper, in reaponee to Commissioner Allrod's question, stated that 20 units wauld be lost if the easterly wing of the third stary were removea, and 60 uiiits would be lost i~ the entire third story proposed would be removed. COA~R1~9sfanez A? lred tt-ett inquired w}~ether operation of this facili.ty could be profi.table with on~y 100 units, since if this were done, then the facility would be more acceptable to tho sinql~-family neiqhbors, even though R-1 would permit two-etory conatruction~ whereupon Mr. Harper statQd he wou~d have to atudy the economica before he could give a posi*_ive ariswer, buY. they could develop a~wo-story, "ewinqiny sinqles" apartment complex on tha proper~y. Chairman Seymour noted thak the ~petitioners would ha~e to demonatrate that they could pro•vide adequate buffaring between the single-family proper'ty and the pxopoged apartment aomplex for both the east and north~ whereupon Mr. Hurpez~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTE3, CxTX I'LANNING COMMISSSQN, Mety '30, 1973 CONDITIONAL USF. ~ERMIT N0. 1389 (Conti.nuea) 73-350 stated that th~y could eliminato one wi.nq, or 20 unite, ot Che third utory alang the eaet, hcwever, they wero building thie facillty in oonlazms.nce wikh tho deeirea of 1cr.e Stete W~llere Uepertmentr t1iAt they did not ktava t~ build the prcapoeed tyge o! facility, but they Wanted to mainc~in t}~in aa ~ high-qusl~ty fscilityt and that it 20 units wexa eliminntsb, it would ~till be eaonomlcally teae ible . Mr. Roberta, in reAponee to a aoncern expreseed by C~:nmia~ionora Fdrsno rnd Saymour, ateted thet the hoiqht wa.ivar pertdinad to the R-1~ ~roporty to the west where a 10-Poot eeCback w+~e prop4sed, since t•he ee~back waa celculated on the basis of cammarcial uae which requirod a 2:1 setbaok Pzom the R-1 boundaries to the north and eaet, and eaid setbacka wer• acaeptable. Chair-nan aeymour observed that tt~t+ Code permitted haspitals and convolescent homos to build higt~ex than apnrtaients and inquired why this was so. Commissioner C.au~-r noted that these typee of usea did not c~use the problems that an upartms~nt devnl~pmQnt could causa. Commiesioner Herbet etated ho woul.d like to see a line-of-aight Etudy a~ade from the roar oi the aingle-fam~.ly hon,es to aee wt~ether thera would be eny viaual intrusian, but he felt there woul~ L-e 1HSS wall exposure to the ~sing'le- family home~ if thrae-story were located farthar away than two-stor.y, ainglc- family home~ which cnuld be 5 to 10 feet from tl-e rear praperty linet that this probably wauld have lesa ~f.fect with the Fropos~c~ setback and the land- scaping proposed adjacent to the wall, as well ~s on the aeaond floo!:i anc~ that the City did a line~cf-sight studX all of the tima wit•h t}te tn11 buil.di,nc;s in cloee proximity to Disneyl.And. Commisaioner Farano n~ted it waR his opir-ion that thia t~hould k~e conaidered similar to Et-3, and the Commfssian in the par~t had requizeQ a 20-f~ot, fully landscaped setback adjscent to single-i~mily homea to act as a pr~tect~.ve bu£fer. Commissioner Herbst noted that in the pat~t he had been very atronqly in fav~r of requiring this 1a:~dscaped strip because of the traffic generated b}• apart- ment houee~; tt~at this could bn considered an apartment Yio~see, but it was atill different1 th~/ ~t h had been a frequant viaitor to convalescent homea in the ~ast aeveral ~~a~i~ because boi:h his mother. and hirs muther-in-law were guests th~re, and the proposed developmen~: would be a different coz~cep~ for living for elderly people, and therc~ would be mor~ than adequate parking as propased, while ~he traffic pattern would be completely different than an apartment complex because thare would be far less vehicles owned by theae elderly peo~le. Mr. Harper noted that a good point wae made that tha zuning ordinance provide3 variable aetbacks; that he lived i~ a tract home, and he was hemmed'in by more buildings, and if the height of a buildinq was almoac 20 feet, one felt rather clased ln, wrile the City required a 2:1 setback ratio, therefore, there woulA be no intrusion on the rear y~.rds of the single-family hameb fxom the proposed development, Commissioner Farano noted that these sma].l apartments ao 1~~_d_,}~~, readily convexted into regulation-type apar~ments~ whereupon Commissioner Ai~at stated that it would be very expensive to convest this facility into ~ regulation apartment h,ouse; and that he and 11is wife would face the same problem in later years - although th~y owned ~heir own hom8 nnw. they would 'likP to move into a similar facility. Chairman Seymour stated he cou2d not see any consistency sioce the use proposec~ would be the same as multiple-family apar~ments, and did the City ~lan to have old people's homes adjacent to R-l. Commisai.oner lcavwood inquired as to the line-of-sight from the aocond atory o~ the proposed facility - would the roaidents be able to view the rear yards of the single-family homest whereupon Mr. I~arper etated that there would be plant- ings which would be ve:y denae and would provide for privacy of the single- family homes, as well ne for the residentB of this facili y. ~ ^~ ~ MINUT~3, CT,TY PLANN7NG COMMISStON, l~ay 30~ 1973 73-351 CONDITIONAL U3E P~RMIT N0. 1389 (Continued) Mr. Ruberte, in reAponee tu qaeetioning by th~ Commieeian, stat~sJ chut tho one- ~~ory hoighL limit.ation we~ epullusble where multipla-family daveiopment wae pr~posed with±n 15U iest o! K-3 - the:~ uc-e-etor.y wculd b6 requi.rad end a 6-!'.~~t masonry wal~ also would he xNqvi.z~d, end aAauming moat ~! the eye loval wo•.td he 5~ t'eek, !ew cou10 io~lt uver the wal]. ae proposed cn th~ ~econd RtOry i.nto Che pingle~Eamily hom~:,, there~.~in, staf~ Pel~ thi.a helqht limitati^~Y ~aould epply to the pi•opo~ea uee. COIIII^~P9~01'~~•s Allre~! c,fferec4 a mot.tor. L•o continuo Petifiion far Contlitionnl Uso P~rin1*_ tJa. 1389, aeaondeg by Commi~aionar caran~, to June l.l, ]~973, to allow ti:,~e for L•h~ s~ib-niaaion oY reviaed plane roflNeting olovations of the thirci flaar an the ceasr. winq bning eliminated. A~L•er f.urthor di:~cue~ion was held by thc: Commiesion regardinq the motion, Commiesioner Allrod withdrew hi.e cnotion for a continuance and Commisei~ner Ferano nis aecund. Mr. Harper nuted ~hat if Lhe Commi.saion felt that tho eliminati~n of. tho eaet wing nf tha third floor woUld xeeolvo the problem, thia w~ula thAn place any three-story building about 86 feot from~the R-1 on tho east, and thAt the petitlonere would like to have their n~ighUors happy, und atated thdy did not want any ii~truaion onto their neighbors. Furth~rmore, the 3anitati.on and Fire Departmants had approvecl the driveway and turning radius. Commisaioner Kagwooc~ offered a motion, seconded by Commiesioner I'arano end MOTION CARRIED, thnt tho P?ar.niriq Commiaslon, in connectian with an exemptian fIP.C1Br8t~Utl status rQquest, finds and determ3nea that the proposal would have no siqnificant envixonmental impnct, and, therefore~ recommerids to the City Council t.hat no Environmenta~ Impact Statament is necossar~~. Cammieaioner Allxed o~fered Resolutic+n No. PC73~1'L2 and moved for its paaeaqe and adoption L-o grant Petition for Conditional tlse Permit No. 1383, subjoct to conditions, with the fi.nding t~.at the waiver nf the hoight limitation wuuld b~s ad~acent ta the convalescent hospital on Che west and would not a~fect the resid~sntial uses to the north and esstt that waiveX of the maximum projection in the front setback was qranted on the basi.s that the projection wo~ild only be ttie canopy located on the thi.rd floorr that waiver of thc requirpd parkineT was granted on the bas~s that the petttioner atated most af the elderly porsons would not have automobiles and would be transported by the operators of the propo~ed facility in buses to various places uf intereat and entertainmentt that the petitioner stipurated to removal of the third story alang the easterly wing of the r~ropoGed development~ or a maximum of 20 units being delet~d, making the ncarest three-story units mora than d6 feet fr~m the si:~gle-family homes to the east= and amending Condition No. 13 to require that revised plans shall be s~.ibmitted, reflecting dele~`ion of the third stor.y alony the east wing of the proposed development as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the for~egoinq reaolution was oassed by the follnwing vote: AY~S: COMrilISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, ~Caywood. NO~S: COMMISSIONERS: Faranu, Seymour.. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. CONDiTIONAL U8F - PtJALIC HEARING. DQRA ODOM GON2ALEZ, 10702 Ritter StreQ~, PERMIT N0. 1395 Cypress, Ca. 90ti30, Ownerj requesting permiasi.on to ESTABLISH A BOARAING HOUSE ~'OR FROM SIX TO TEN WOML t Wt10 ARE UNABLE TO CARE TOTAT,LY' FOR TH~IR OWN NEEDS on prop~ rty described as: A r•ectan3ularly-shaped par.:el of land consistinq of approximately .1G acre, having a frontage of approxi~nately 50 fee*. on thc~ aast sida of Olive Street, httvinq a maximum depth of approximately 140 feet, and being located approximately 400 feet south o~ ths :.en~Erline of Broadway. Pr~perty presently c.lassified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY R~SIDENTIAL, ZONE. Four persons indicatad their preaence in opposition. ~ ~ ~ MINUTE.° ~ CITY F'LANNING ~:OM~IIS5ION, May 30, 1973 CONU~T2ANAL USE PF.'RMIT N0. 1395 (Cor~tinu4d) ~s-352 11~eietant plenner Phillip 5chwartze reviewsd th~ locatlon of eubject ~ropsrty, u~e~a establiehed in cloae p~'ox.imity, pre~ ouo zoning dotion on rhe property, e~nd the propo~nl to utilize two single-la~nily raei.doncee eseentially ee is !or a hoard and care facility Po, eix t.o ten wome~ who would be referred to tt~e ~acility typic~lly by the Or;~ngc~ County [1e~axtment: 04 3uciai Welleret th~t tho existl~g tro~t dwell+ :y '.'*e a eingle-r~tory, throe-badroom unit hraving 1544 equeio leet, inalud~.nq th~ ~inqle-car garagei that the exieting rear dweilin~ wam a ainc;le-story, two-bedroom anit having 935 aquar~ feet, a~~d ~o the rear of the latt•er unit tchere wae a 15x20-foot concrete parking pad which was lflcated adjzcent to the 20-f~ot a-lley~ ~hat i:he renr and Front units were ~eparated by A5 fee'tt thr~t accer~s `o tha property wae }~r.ovid~d hy a Ringle dz~ive frum ~].i~re ytree~ anc9 also by the :~tr~ndard alley to tl~e roar~ that a G-foot high .vooQen t~nce par~ially enclosed th6 ~idE~~ and rear of tha ai.te, the landsct-ping con- ~i.eting primaril~ of lawn a.ad ahrubbery~ and that thE~ exterios• of both buildingu wae of 1l.qht-colur stucco with mirii.mal erch~tactural 9mbellial~menta, an~i n~ ro!'uee atornge provisions were shown on tha aubmitted pltai~s. Mr. ~r.hwurtze, in reviewin~a th~ avaluation, noted that th~a petitianer wauld not ree;ide in either dwelling but wonld provide at leaet one housekeeper under her eu~~arvJ.aion~ that each home and fnmily unit would function independontly from the~ other~ that the gueAta would be rePerred to the ~+etitioneY Uy tha Or~nqe County Aepartment of Sociai Welfare or ott~er privHte sou.rce~ and were ecreer-ed by tho petitioner prior to acceptance~ that all g~est~ were women nnd some had experier.cod smational probl.eme which hnd catiic~ed som~ disat,lement but was nct suP.fiGie~nt to requize ingtitutional care oz pbychia~Lic hospitaliza~ion~ that tha petttioner si:ated that the California State and orange Caunty Departments o~ Social Weifure had inspected and approved the site for the uae propaseAi and tst the lnterdepartmental Commi.tt:e9 meeting l;he P'ire Aepartmsnt renresan~n- tive indicated that if more than si~ guasto were proposed tc+ be houaed an thiR propert•y, automa'tic sprinklvrs wouls~ be requirEd for each dwelitng. Mrs. Dox•a Gonzalez, tne peritioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that she proposed care for cmot~onally-disturbed and gerir~hric patients at this facility, an3 the emoti.onally-dia~_urbe6 would have a psychiatrist visit them weekly for therapy and rehabilitation~ th~t t.he Rehabilitatioii Department was trying ta place these people with jobe, and ~ome patients worked at the con- valeacent hospitals and as housekeepers~ that their emotional problems were vary slight and had improved considerably aince she had workad witi. them and several were present to express thelr opinion of the type of operat3on and cAre that she gave them, as well as activitica. Chairman Seymour noted that he woul.d limit that type of evidence to just one person; whereupon Mrs. Gonzalez stdted t.h3t ahe would like to have thls peraon pre~ent it as a ~~~buttal after the opposition was ex~re~~::ed. Mr. Frank Doretei., 32% South Olive Str,~t~t, appeared before the Commission and noted that he wa.s n~7t necessarily in opposition to the proposed use but w~.s in opposition co the manner in wtiich the ~~me1 were being supervisedj that this use had been in operation for alnost a y~~ar and during that time there would he teenager~: living in the garage, hanging araund the propezty in a generally c~isorderly situation, therefore, he felt that there should be bettes supervision af these women since they were not capabl.e of making sa•uiid ju~lg- menC~ on their ownr and then in respanse i:o Chairman Se,ymour's questxoninq, stated that thesP women had been allowed to r.oan~ axound the downtown area by themselves and. had become losL• and the polics had to t~ring them hone, there- £ore, he felt there was no proper superviaion., and he was not iri opposi.tiot~ to the women x'2sid~ng there becauae they had to live somewhere. Mr. Robert Stac~ner, 328 5outh Olive Street, appeared be.fure the Commis~i~n and noted that he was concerned with t'r.e L~annez of supervision of the women rPSid- ~.nq there~ that the ap~lica~lt had stated there would be six ~o ten wom~n, but from his ob~-ervation, livinq next doa.-, he hxd seen men and teenage=~a living in the gaxage~ that they brouqht their friends there at night; that he had talked with the petitioner abou~ thie, and she had then moved tt~e teenaqezs out of the qarage and promiaed ther~ would be no more ~eenagers there, but From what the neigYibors had seen qoing on in _hese premises and becattse ~f ~ ~ ~ MINUTF.9, CITY PT,AI~NING C'oMMI3S~dN, Mey 3Q, 1973 ~3-3.ai3 CONDITIONAL USF PGRMI:T N0. 1:~95 (Conl•inued) tt~u smotional. problpma t.hAee wnm~~~ had r~nd with teenac~nre being th~re amokinq a~td hmving "hot timc~e" in the ye~r~ ar~d in tho qaraga, mor4 supervi~ion •hould be yiveni and that althaugh the uee wna thnra al.raaAy and these poroon~ n~ad~d a pl~ce ta ~ivo, ho Pelt thet thc petl.tionor ehauld be pereonelly rosidi~q thsra, qlving them the cloee super.vio~on they naodeA and no more tt~an etx to aiqht pazeone permitted with aupurvielon heinq provide+d 24 hours a dey, and this !n- oluded v+~ekonde, however, the houe~~ .eepex in r,hargo had left many t:me~ on woak•• ondo, leavi~iy teenaqer~ in charg~, and Choeo teenaqere had invitied their lri~ndr ~nnA tho activitiHS, of ~ouree, dierurbad the entire nelghborliood. Mrs. ~lorr~nca Huc7son~ ~~7 South Oliva Str~aet, Rppee-red before tho Co~,mireion er~a etatdd thnt ahe end l~ei nuebenl had A~(~Ilfd a petiti~n whon thP potitiox-er oriy:na.l~y camo around t~ thr nAighbore aaking Choir approvel ~or Cho use, howev~er, r~fter thoy ~lAC~ ~ianed this petition, thry p++id mare a~ttantion to tha operatl.on and fdund a].ot oP cominga and guinge on at niqtit - tho women went downtow~t, and ony o: her Prianda had advieed her lrom peraonal knowledge theae gir.ls had gone dnwntc~wn and had aaked mon Yor mon~y, th~reEure, eupervision was very poor~ that they hAd Nven asked man who hnd pazked i.n fxont of the tlud~on home to take th~sm ~ar ridoe, therefor4, she felt the superviaion wes vety pour.ly hnnd].ed and eho F~~lt. very sorry for the womer- becauae they naeded au~ervision but they did not have it. Mre. C~eznltz, i.n rr~,;~!-tal, stated that she felt tho poople in opposlt.ion who wei•o neighbore Ner.e rioC be,ing ~bj~ctive ae to what was happo~in9~ t1.cL• there wQr~ simi.lar far,ilitie:; bout une bloak a::~3v where theX had boya; that pnrt of thd raha~ilitation program was to Encouraqo sccializin!~ since these people were antitled to the :,ame activ_~ie~ as the reat of t-ie nei!~hbors; 'that• wheri there were visitors, these women could onl~+ liave th~,m whan the houaekeeper was prasent~ that the h~usekeepar ha3 her son and dauqhtor. thcre for awhile on a tamporary basis, and the sor, and daughter's friends came to vis'..t themi thrst the neighb~rs became upsPt because theae youngeL•era had a water light and wrestled - ar~d the neighbors folt thia wae very inappropriutc~ condur.t~ that thera wezC only tw; times wheei the housekeeper'9 son invited hi~ friends to visit him, but this wab •~o longer happening oince aY-e had requ•sL•ed that they not 1've or visit at this :acility becsuse af the neighbors' oLj,.ctionet that neiglzbore also camplained about chil3cen cominq to this facility, however, it wan di.ificult fo keep young cnildr~n from visiting, and tliey had trie~i to keep the chi:dren away and for them to stay away - t~his was s.~mething she cauld not control bocguse the children'a parents did not discinline them - they kept f:hem off the private pr~~ercy but could noL• r~move the~r from the public side- walk. In addi.t:ion, there was a party in ~.he neighborhood aeveral woeks aqo, at which time beer cans were thrown throughout the area, even o:i aubject proper.ty, bi~t the nei~~hbors felt these bear cans came from the l.adies of ~his facility, h kllis w:.s not so becauee they w~r~: c.ontrolled and werE not allowed to drink. Also, when they r'ir3c startod thie home, the ladies living there w~ere not familiar with ~he neighborhood, an~3 wher. they were loat they went to ~the Police Departm~nt wh4 gave them identifi.:ation bracelets so that pe~ple ~:ould bring tl~em back hame if the,y be~ame logt~ that she did fee3 these wom~n were c~uable of. gaing to town to sho~~, and ahe did not feel they should be .;o::£ir-ed iv nei.r living quartera but theX yhould be allowed to purch~se their iieeds ~ince 4hey were only slightly emotionally disturbed; and that they tried to encourage them to do things for themselves sincE thie was part of rhe program of solf-improvement. ~hairman Seymour requested clarification of the concern expressed by the neighbora regarding these women qoin~ to etores asking f•ur money and rideaj whereupon Mrs . Gonzalez stated tl-ia happened once, anc~ she t.ried to tr.ain the ladiee better but there ware men in the zieighborhood who tried to encourage ~hoae ladies to ride with themt that these women were on a completely reha.bili- tative program, and if anyone had seen theae ladiea when they first axrived and the change aince they had been on the rehabilitative program, theY wauld realize the vaet improvertent= that the housekeaper had two daya of: a week, and the replacement was n~t nrobably as effectivc in handlinq the~e ladtes as the permnnent houaekeepez csho w...3 more iemiliar with the~r needs and the~.r problems aince sshe hgd workpcl in a home for mentally-retarded and emotionally-diaturbed ,.... ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITX PT.ANNING COMMI3RION, Mdy 30, 1973 73-~54 CON~xTIONAL UsE PERMtT N0. 1395 (Co»tinuad) p~r~on~1 th~ti mayb~ tlae neighbora miqht nae appro~~• ot hor a~~pesranae or kh~y o+~nnot ~udga her on whet her a~tiviti~e nro alter workinq houre, and it wa~ not h~r cona~rn Nhdt at~e did during her ot! inouxs, only what haz perlaxmsnco Na~ ahil~ workin~~ and thAt ag~s oe thes~ woman are rram 40••'~5. Then in answ~r. t~ Cnn-mi~esi.on q,ue:Lioning, Mra. Gontala~ ~tat~d tihat tha~• huus~ekaspere wero not proPcsalon3l einae th~.~ wa~ not a requirement that th• hous~kespers wero women who hed worked in convaleacent h~spitaler h.hnt ehe ~orsunally spent three drya a woek at thi~ tacility lrom 8~30 a.m. to 2c00 p.m.~ thst she took them to the rehebilitatio» ~.nst~ructor~ that nho al~o tri~d to lin~3 then. jobe, tiook them on ficld tripe, and sh0 wa~ svailable whenbver a siCue~Cion aroe• which the houeakeep•s aould ~not handle boeau~a ehe wae on 24whour cnll an.l wao only a 20-minute drive Prum thie Pacilityt a~nd that these ladi.ee WbfO pldoed by the De~artment oF Merital Hyqi.ene And private physiciane. Mra. Gonzalaz al.au noted that ohe hed raad ~he etnYE roport regercYing the raquirament• of ttio Fire Departman*.i that when dhe firat opened thie ~ncility, ahe had gone to tha Fire Department and thoy had informed her that each home having these oneration~ would be judqed separatel.y. and the front homo wao large ec~ouqh tor six peraonr~, while ~no re~r home was large, eno~agh for four pe+rsone~ then in responAe to Commiegian questioning, atated that the St~te did not expect hez ~o roeide on the premi.s~sa that ahe had infor.meC1 tho Police Department that ther~ wo~~ld be a houaekeeper on the prami~es and had Alr~o called the Fire Department ao Co what waP planned. Furthermore, nt the present time ahe could only handle si c per~one until suct~ time as the property was p,rop~rly ffiprinklared ae roquired by ~he Fir~s Department, at which time she would requeat permiqaion to ti.~ve ton pes•sons. Mra. Gonznlez Purthor noted that the neighbora expr9esod :.~onca=n rogd:diny the moral cunduct aF rosidenta at this facility, and in rebu+:Cal she would like to have one of the la:ieg snenk. Chairm~.~ ^.eymour advieAd the pQtitionc~r that thie would not be germane to khie proposal. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Diacuasion waa held by the Commiasion as ta wh~~her thie would qua'lify as a home if only stx persona were allowedj whereupon Der~uty City Attor.ney Hopkir~s advised th~ Cammissi~n °~hat tY-is operation could not :~ualify as a home since it. ~aa n k~~sine~a. Commiesio~~er Farano noted that thcsre were two separate buildinqs, and iE only six persona ware permitted unt.tl the facility wRS spri.nklered, then ten would be permittod ~n accordanae with the recommendationa of the Fire Department; whereu4on 2oning Supervi.sor Charles Robertet noted that ~nly cix persons cuuld reside there, and if more tha:i six were contemplated, then the facill.ty would have to be aprinklered. Commisaioner Farano then stat•ed that there hed been considerable talk by the reeidanta and the pet~tioner, and so that everynne tiould understand and not be misled that the Commission wRa not taking coqnizanae of t.he .facts o£ the situation, he would like to addr~•ss h~mf.el~ to the Deputy City Attorney and ~he Planninq Coa~mieaion thst the Com+~iseioi. ahould ^oneider the land use being requoetedi and that while there were considerab].e questions ae to the type uf supervis~or. L-hat wae being given theae ladies and their activitiea, thi~ wculd be a problem for thoae who had licenaecl the o~eratiuna, the State De~.artment of Soc~!al Welf~re, and if tHere were any impxoper activi'~ies, the neighbars should be d~eply aoncarned and t~-e ~~e~itioner should recti~y these problems and cnncerne uf the neiqhbora, but the nefghbora ehould 3ir~ct their concerns to the Departmont of Social Welf~re. Zenqthy.discuseion was held by the Comm!.Baion regarding the proposed ube nnd the proQer au~ervision that waa beinq given~ that moxe time should he epent by the petitionar at this facility~ that thy locale and genexal neiqhborhoad and it~ surroun~ings lent themselvea ta tlze prop~sod use= that a time limite- tion should be establi.ehed to 3otermine whether ths petitioner was trjing to ~ MINUTE~, CTTY PI~A:INING COMMI: SiON, Mny 30, 1973 73-355 CONDIT20NAL USE t'ERMZ'f NO. 1.395 (ConLinued) rectity the problume pras~nted by *he nsiqhboz.t w'hether the potitianer sh~uld eubmit a letter to the Plnrini~; ',~nmiseion ror revi.aw o! th~e upe at th~ tim~ eha proposed to e~,rink].er tn~.e :a~cility in or.cler to hsva more laQiee thaa orig~- nal~,y requ'eted, a~t aZ11ch cime the et+~lt oould ch~ack to ~ee whether thare h+~A been eny l~irther ~roblems ne expreese8 by the nolghbor.e. Commie~lur-er F3rano not~+d th~t he di~i not know the gualifyinq ariteria ot the Stt+te Dapartm~ nt o! Mentel Hyqienfl, but the City wautd al.~ov- usee tl~at a~uld not cror.t.e diyturbencas to the neiqhbo.rs, and if thu cri~.bri.e io not the~ same a~e the City oP Annhoim, then it would be a mietake to all~w Chio uae t~ ba conducte~, and then ir~quixed ~f Mra. f;onxalez who wa~e tha ~teta Dapartmertt oP :~o~.al W~+lfare rr~pr.eaentntive in Orenge C~urtky. MrB. Gnnzaloz atated that Mr. Minahor, 1623 Weat. 17th Straet, Sant~r Ana, w~ta the repreeentativQ oi the C~unty 3ocial Welfara Department tt:at he h~d a~lviaed her, when ahe war~ted to replace Mr.e. ~11=e-~da, the M~~i~w~ houeokaepez, that he would not appr~vR auc1: +~ction Lecauae Mrs. EliYa,Ela undexstood the p.robl.eme of thnee ladies. Commiersionex Herbet off~rod r~ metlon, seconGed by Commiasioner Ka.ywood and MOTION C'ARRIED (Commis~~.oner Rowland beinq aba~nt) , that tho Ylanning Commiri- »~.on, in conndction with an «~x~m~ption decldrati~n atdtua request, finds and d~t~~rmines k~hat t}ie proposa'1 y~o~tld have no si~niflcant envi~ronmenta~l impect and, thexefore, recammonda to the City Council that no Environmontel Impact Statement is necessary. Commi.etsianer T'a.rano oEfered Resolution No. PC73-12? and moved fox i.te passage and ad~~,~tion to grant Conditional Use Pe:'mit No. 1395 with the findings that since the proposed uoa was already in existenc~ and sevaral resi.dents of the area had expressed opposition to the mann9r i» which khe facility is beinq o~eratod, parti~ulax'ly related to the Lack of 3~~t~ervision of the guests, the Planning Commiss i~n determined ~hat a time lim:lt L•ion o£ two years ~hould be placed on the u~e in or.der to determine if the u ~ woul~i h~ detrimenY.al to the area, arid *.hat a review by the Planning Commi.ssion shoul~ be made priar to any fur.ther cunsideration ef extonding tT~e timH limiti ~:hat until sur,h time as tho two residf~nces axe in compliunce wi.th the Fire Co3~ as to being sprinklered, onl~• six guesta, in addition to ~he liousekeeper, shoul.d be permitted to re:;in,: on the gremisest and subject to conditions, wi~b the ac~de~ conditions that there shall be only six women plua a housekeeper residinq on the pr.emises tintil and unleas the s?~ructurea are ma~'e to comply with the sprinkler requirements of the Fire Cocie, a. 3 that if such ~prinklRr~ are ina'~alled, the petitioner shall submit a wri *.en reqses;, L•a the Planning Commission a~kina for a review of thc conditiot~~l use permit to determine whether more than six gv.~sts should be allowedj that a time lim:.iation of two years shall be granted iox the use to rietermi.ne whnther. any detrimental effe.;ts to the neighbarhood will result from the use; and that the use sha11 be reviewed upor.. written r~quest at ~he end of two years, or at such time as the o~rner brings the st.ructurea int~ compliance with the sprinkler requirements of the rire Code. (See Resolution Hook) On roll call the f~regoing resalution wac passe~i by the folloking vote: ?1XES~ COMMISSZONERS: Allr~d, Farano, Gauer, HE:rbst, Kaywood. NO~Sc CuMMISSIONERSi Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. .,.~ • ~ ~ MINUTF.S, CIxY FLAt~NxNl~ COMMTSSION, Mey 30, 1973 '13"3S6 T~NTAT7.VF. MAF UF - LBVELOPER: UF~PER "K" RANCH C~'RP. , P. O. Box R, P~ aoantia~, TR1~CT Nf1. 8082~ CalitorniA 92670. ENGIN~ER: M.i.ll.et., Ki.ng & AASOCiatea, REVISiUN NO. 1 Inc., '1335 Wast V+~loncin Drive, Fullertun, Calitorr~ia r ! 92633. Fzoperty r,oneiating of mpprc~ximataly 11.7 ecres ia locatad on the nozth eido af Senta Ana Canyan RoaQ approxi- mAtely 16U0 £aet eeet o: ImperieJ. Highway end weet oP the Fropoeod Fe~irmant Boulevard extAnaion ie propoeod tor uub- di~ieion inCo 45 R5-5000 znno<1 lots. Zonx-i~~ Supervieor Charlo^ Roberts notad tha~ einc~ khe Report ta khe Commiseion had Leen prepe.red, etet'f hdd diacuashd thc+ ne+od gor an Environment++1 impact Rc~por•: with the City Attorney, whu had ruled thet since thc proncerty hec] bomn inclu~led in EIR No. 75, ddoptc+d by tha City Caunci.l ae tl:eir s dtoment on Januery 2, 1973r and tho ioning had beon appxuvRd under Rec~le~saificetic+n No. 70-71.~49 September 14, 19T1, tha Planning Commissio~- c:ould cuneider thq tract mAp, and that the Commission could racommend that the Cit,y Council reaffirm i`.e proviou~ aation on ETR No. 75 ds it pertai~ne to subjoct propert}. Chai.r.man Seymour inquired whether it. wae necesaary for the Planning Commiasian to take any aetion on tha E:IR ae requized by the State Planninq Act eince the EIR wnb never coneidered by the Planni.ng Commi~sion buC waA consiciered by t•he City Cc-uncil. Mr. Roberts then note3 that th~ Commisaion, aould, within tli~ r.ct~.on on the tract, make a findinq that, "Baaed upon the fact that. subject property wab considered under Environn-antal impact Report No. 75, it woul-9 appear t)lat the City Counc~.l'e ar.tion on ths EIR would apply to subject pro~act". Mr.. Jeff Millet, zepresenting the engineara, appeared befr~re the Commisaian and revlewad the Ir-terdepartmental Committee rocommend~tiona portaininq to Condi- tion Nos _ 8 ar.d 12, nowinq that they would ba ilnost directly adjacent to the river, and, ther.~f.ore, this coz~diti~n ~~ould n~ . apply na it pertained to drain- agar and that since thay ha;i to fill this prope~t.y to a 3epth of at lea: t 6 feet witn the property adjacent t~ the freewa,y bein9 filled to 6 feet above the fr~eway riq:~t-oP-way, he could sQe no rea~on for r.~~uiring the berm. Office Engineer Jay '1'itus, in response ta Commission queationi.ny regar.ding the drainLge condition, statad tha.t thfs wae a standard condition attached '.:o ~sll tracts, however, it. did primc~rily af£ect• the off-site drainage, and in this ir.stance there was none )cecauae the propesty happened *_o be dowr.stream a~id wo+il~i provide drainaqe directly into thQ cha-inel aloi-gsi.de the freew~y, and that vrhen the tract was reviewed by the City Engineer, he wocld determine that the condition was noL• applicaL~le. Mz. Robe2ts, in response tc Commission questioiling reqarding the aound-atte..ua- tion deviceg~ atated that the develop~r would have co meet the dBA reading established aa pazt of the conc~ition and would alao have to submit plana, certified by a recoqnized acoas~tical expert, s~ipulating that the proposed attenuation measurea wi11 achieve the required d8A ~evels, and that i£ the grade di fferential-block wall combir.atian will a~hieve the required resulta, then it would appear that the int lt of the noise level ccndition will ha~e been satis~ied. Commissionex' Farano was of th~ opinion that l•hese r.~ndj.tions should remain ~s ataff suggediec~, and if there wus any devi.ation, they should be approveC hy the City Engineer since he did not wsnt to take out the requirement af a berm be- cause the engineer stat.:d that on].y a portion ~f the propert:y would be ~bove grade . Mr. Millet adviaed the Commisoian that wherevar the G feet above grade was not ~roposed, they planned a b-foot berm~ that they had given consideration to a 12~toot high wall, but it was doTermined that the cost would be cont~fderably more than pravidinq a berra~ and that they had diacusaed the Fosbibility of an 8-foot berm witlt a 4-foot wnll ±n lieu of a 6-foot berm and a 6-faot wall. C~~nmiss ioner 1~llred was of the opinion that the proposed tract WAft not ,~deq.uate when onc~s coraidered tY~e environment because there were ton many structuz ae and they were located taa cloae togethert whereupon Chair~nan Sdymuur noted t~.at th~ City Council had ~.lready appzoved the zoninq bnd the Planninq Con~miss.lon had approved the two adjoining tracta, thorefora, there was na apparent r~ason for not considaring aubject tract fa~orably. • ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANN?NG COMMISSIUN, Me-y 30, 1973 73-357 'fFNTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 8082, RF:VYSION t~0. 1 (Continued) t:ommi~rion~r Seymour ~fforr,d a moti~ ~~, eer,onded by Commisaioc-ez Faranu and MOTION CAP.RIEU (Comm.ieaianer All?-~d votinq "no" and Commi~sionar Rowlend boi.nq absent) , ta epprove Tentntive M~p o! Tra~ct No. 811H2, Revision No. 1, eubJ~ct to tlio followiny fi.naing nnd ~.:onditlone ~ FINDTNG: "That baeed upon r~,o Pact th~t subjoct proporty wae conatdared under knvir~nmentc' [mp4.:t Roport No. 75 adoptdd by Lhe City Council as their ntatement on .,anur~ry 2, 1973, it wou1~Y rpp~~z that tho Cit•y Council's~ ac~ion on eaid EIR would apply Co aub3oct pr~ject. Therofore, the Planninq Commiaston recommends that Che Cit.y Council reaffirm ita prm- vious acti~:: on ESR No. 75 ea it pertainn to subject proparty." CONDIT70NSs (1) That rlie npprova.l oP Tentative Map oP Tract No. 8082, Revl.eion No. 1, ie grentod subject to tho approval of Recl++seif~~:ntion No. 70~71-49. (2) That ehould this aubdivision be developed as more than ona aub- divinion, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tPnta- tive Lorm Eor appr~val. (3) That al.l lots with in this tract ahall be served by under.qround utilitida. (4) That a final tract map of sub~ect: property shall be submitted to und approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the officQ af tha Oranye County Rec:order. (5) That any proposed covenanta, conditions, and reatrictions sh~ll be submittc~d to and approved by the City Attorney's Office ~,zi.or to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, furCher; that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictione shull b~ recorded concurrently with the final tract map. (6) That atreet names s7ia11 be approved by thE City of AnaheLm prior. to np.proval of a final tract ~aap. (7) That the owner. (~) of sub ject property sltall pay to the City of Anaheim she appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as dstermined to be appropriate by the City Cuuncil, said foes to be paid ~t the time the building permit ie issued. (.8) That drainage of said property ehall be dl~posed of in a manner saL-~sfactory to the c:ity Enc~fnear. I:E, in the prepara~ion of the site, suificient grading is r.e~uired to necessitate a qrading permit, rio wurk on grad~ng will be permitted between October l5th and April ].5th unless all required off-si~e drainage f.acilities have been installed and are operati.v~. Positive a~surance shall be provided the City th~t ~uch drainage facilities will be. com- pleted prior to October 15th. tvecessary right•-of-way for off~site drainage facilitiea shall be dedicatpd to the CiL•y, or the City Council shall have l.nitiaten condemnation procsed9.ngs thereE~~r (the costs nf which shall be borne by t1 3eveloper) prior ko commenaement of grading operation~. The required drainage £acili- ties sliall be oP a size ar.d type aufficient to carry rur~off waters oriqlr-~ing from hlgher properties through said property to ulti- mate diapo~al ae approved by the City Engineer. Said drainaqe facilitiea shall be the firat item of construct.ior. and shall be completed and be functional throughnut the tract and from the downatream boundar~r of tt~e pr•.,?erty to tha ultimate point of dis- posal prior to th e iasuance •: any final buildinq inspections or occupancy permita. Drainaye dis~rict ~eintbursement agreemeata may be ,~~ade availabl~ to the devalopera o~: aaid property upon their rQquest. ....~, ~ MINUTES, CITY DLANNING COMMISSTON, Mtsy 30, 1973 73-35H TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NU. A082, REVIBION N0. ~(r~ntinued) t9) 'That gradinq, excavntion, xnd all other conetruction activitla^ ahall bo con~ucCad in suah d mawne.r b~~ a~e to minimize Che p~~ei- bility oF en~ silt oziginntinq from thi~ projeat l~air-g varriod into Che Snnta Anc+ River. by etorm wa~tar ~~riginat.ing from or llow- ing throuc~h thie projoct. (10) That prior to City~ Coun~il appraval o! th~ ~?inal tract map, the oNnexfa) oP aubject proparty aha11 submit to the City a tevorable llood ha-zArd letter fr.om the Orbnge County Flood Contr~l Diatrict. (11) That prior to approval uf tho final kract map, plot plane, tloor plar~e, anS alava~iona for th~ propoaed houeos ehull be eubmittmd to and appr~vod by tho Planning Commisaion and City Council. (12) Thnt prior to City Cauncil approval of the final traat map, L•h~; awner(h) of sub~oct: property ahA11 eubmi.*. ~~lane Yoc City Council r~view an9 a~~~r.oval showi.ng the stepa which shnl]. ba tak.en by the developer to redur.e the noieo revel genereted by freeway traftic to 65 dFlA's in the rear yarde of ~ha lota aa~acent to the River- sida ~'reev~ay and to 45 dBA't~ inaide the hotn~oe (with winflows and dooza clos~d) on theRe lots. 7che sound-atteciuation devic~~s ehall iiiclud~ an a mini.mum, a 6-foot high earL•hen Derm tuppe~d b,y a 6-foot high decorative masonry wali along the r~ar of tho lote abuttly~g the freewaX plua whate~•ar a~ddiCional measures are necea- sery t~ achleve the levels etated above+. Thra~e plana ahall he certifi~d by a reca~Tn.ized acoustice'. expart stipulating tha~.; the pxopase~i sound-attenuation maasurea will achi.eve the levels atA;.~a~ Abovr.. The b°foc+t high decorativo wall to be located oa top o:: the bbzm ahall be provided with gates fur each lot i~; ard~.r tl-at tho bcrm landscaping may be maintai.ned. Any ~evi.?tion fr~m th=: abave rc~~~+i::-~~:,~~~i:s shall be approved by the Cii;, L•'n~inear, provi~~ed, however, ~l~ac ?* ~ •~evelok= r prop~sas to conar.ruc~: a decora+.i ve tnasonry wr~l:l higtier than 6 f.~:~et, : aid pr.oposal snu.~ i be submitL•ed to r.r,e F~1~r.•~ing Commis~ion and City Conncil for ai~,r,.,-~va1. (13) That the petitioner shall include information ~l.n brochur~s sub- m~.tted to purchasers of homes that aro proposed adjacent to rhe fre~eway right-of-way regar3inq thA anticipated freeway noi»e: level5 and sound-attenua*iori measures that were taken to minimize rheAe nnise levele. (i4) That the tract developer shall place the ultimat~ embankm~nt for Fairmor.t Boulevard concurrently with the dr.volopment of the tract, and shall install reasonable landscapinq, including irrigatlon Pacilities, in ac~ordance with the requirements of the Superin- tendent of Parkway Maintenunce and all applicable pruvisions of the Anaheim Munici.pal Code. Collowing installatian and accept- ance, thr~ ~ity of. Anaheim shall aESUme the re~ponsibility far maintenar:ce of said landscaping. (9'he City of Anaheim ~ha11 be responsib~.e for ~.nstall.ing street improvements in tha~. pozt:lon of Fairmont Boulevard to be constructed on the above mer.tioned embar~kment at ~uch time as said improvements are necessary.) (15) TY~e C,ity Cour.:i1 reserves the .ri~Tht to delete or amend the assump~ion of len~scape mainter~ance in the event Coanail policy changes. (16) That in accorda~nce witih City Counc:il poZicy, a 6-foot niasonry Nall shall be conetructed at th~3 toe o~ eY:e slope on both sides ot Fairmont Boulevai:d. (17) That the final tract map shall indicate thctt thA lots abutting Fairmont Boulevard Shall be either ~.2U fas+t deep or shall ha~~Q a building setback line astsblished at 40 feet from the riqht- of~way line of Fairmont Boulevard. ~ ^~ ~ MINUTL3, CYTY PLANNING COMMI9SION, Mey 30~ 1973 73-359 RFPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONB CONDITiONAL USF PERMiT N0. 1311 - Request !or an extenriun of timo tor revi.ew - Cerwaali and •ervice etation proposad at tlie bouthweeC cornar o! Linc~ln Avenue+ and State Colleg• Boiilevard. Zoning Supervisor Cherlea Roherta no;:ad for tha Commiosion that Condition No. l,l o! Re~olutlon No. PC72-124 grnnting the re-aetabllshmenC oF a carwaeh and autamobil• earvice ntntion und.r ConQitional Use Psrmit No. 1311 nt *.he eouth- west cnxn~r o! Lina~~ln Avenue anc~ Stete Collugm eoulevard epecified khati the tioure of operation be fram 9s00 a.m. tu 8:00 p.m., and that said houre of oparation would be r.eviewed at the ond of or~e year, namely, June 12, 7.973, huwever, t.he carw~+eh and automobile Aervice etation were still. under con- ~truction dnd wau].d. not be in operation by June 12, 1973, thnralore, staff recommended that the review be continued one year, to Junc~ 12, 197A. Commir.eione_ Farano o£fered a motion, eecond~d by Commieeianer Her.bet and MOTION CARRIED (Commisr~ioner Rowlnnd being abH~ant) to oxtend th~ review af tha hours of operation afl est;ab].iahed under Condltion No. 21 oP ltesoliition No, pC72-124 qxanting Coriditional Use Permi.t No. 1311 ta June 12, 197~1. ITEM NO. 2 REC ASSIFICATTON NO. 72-73-41 AND VARIANCE N0. 2493 - Review c~f zevised plans reflec~ing R-2 development without r~aivera - Prnperty located on thP west side of Citron S~reet, appraxin~ntely 160 feet north of r,? Verne St eet. Zontng S,.~pervisor Chnrlss Roberts presented reviaetl plans of Reclassification No. 72-73»41 and Variance No. 2493 to the Planninq C~mr~isaion, notin~r that the petitioner, cub~equent to Planning Commission action, had submittad a le*_ter to the Citg- Coui~c .1 and Planning Co~*misai~n in which tho petitioner hr~d re- duced his ox3gir,al requeaL- ta R-2 from R-•3, an~ with the new set of plana eub- ~ittod, was propoQing seven units to replacc the original plana for ten unita, ., i.d plana reflecting compliance with a11 the site development atandarda of the R-2 Zone~ that tha City Cauncil a~ their Nay 22, 19'13 public hearing, had refarred the plans back to the Planninq Commisaion requeatinq that the Commis- aion a3vise the Council whPCher the Commir~sion's recommendation of disapproval would be the same in view of thP revised r~queat ancl revised plana. Lengthy discussion was held by the Commiasicn regardinq the submiasion of ~he reviaed plans and the fa~t that disapproval was recommended on the basis that thi~ would establieh "apot zoning" and wo~ild also establisl- a precedent for similar multiple-family resi.dential zoning to continuA northerly for all these deep parcels alonq the west side of Citron Street to La Palma Avenue. Mrs, Howard Oleon, 912 North Citron Stireet, appeared l,efore the Commiasion repreaentir~g six persons present in the Council Ch:•mb~_ and stated *hat the residents had viewed the reviePd plans~ that when this :item had been before the City Council, they had a petition aigned by ;25 adjolning property owners in opposition to the ten units, an~i since the revis{~~n, she had obtained 115 persona s~igning this uppositton on tt~e basfs that r.hey did not want further apartment encroachment into thia areaj that she had met with the Orange County Agsessor regardi.nq how the adjoining properties woulci be affected if subject request were approvEd, and he had advised that ~.f the Assessor's agr~raiser ~iait~d the area and saw more apartments, he would recommen3 a change in the nssesement for the balance ~f the area for multi.ple-family zc ~ng, un.d since all the other reaidents there were desirous af retaini.ng their properties for single-Eamily use, they felt i~ was unfair to be asaeased for multiple-family zoning just bec+~uae one or two per~ona wanted saiil zoninq. Mx•s. Joaeph 5teVenson, 822 Jade Way, appeared before the Commiseion, stating that they were the awn~srs of the ggrden-type apartments to the south of subject proparty, and they proposed to ex~end this type o~' davelopment on subject prop- erty t that the property was a very deep lot and nothinc could be done with thA praperty, and. because of ita aize, people were not interested in purchasing it ..•. ~ ~ ~ M'C*!UT~5 ~ CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ May 30 ~ 1973 73-360 ITffiM N0. a (ContinueQ) !or ~ingla-lamily usei that in their preeent apertmen~~ complex they had four ~ACiante who Wero women over 65, therN were two rst~red cou~+lAe, there wero nn otti~dren or pets allowed, and no paxkinq was on thn street ~xc~apt during the day sinc:e they parked their automobilee in their gdraqeo and lacked them at night~ that the exis~ing garagAe tucnd onto a 27-Poot drivsway, and the pro- poaed garaheo would also face onCo this dr~.voas~~i that there wau~d bo no ~pnrt- mont~ affecting the property to tho north or waat eince the a~nrtmenta waula b~ upaning into an innez court~ that from ~revioua oxpcrienc , ~~~ont of the unite would have one automobile, nnd this would not aP~ect the ax'~ting tr~r[ic, mcat uf which came +'rom two churchee which had no dvailable~ park ~~.~, a:i well ds the Lucky Mr~rk~; :ated at Citron anc~ La Palma Avenues~ and tt~u tr,oy had no w±sh to demoralize tlie ax•en but thc prapcr.ty could be adoquar~ly use~ for a~artmen~s. Chaizman 5eymour notad that khe ravised plana were u vary ni.ce, iow-deneir.y apartment complex, but the considerstion l~efore tho Commiseion was tha~ the Gity Council z•equestad that the Planni.ag Cnmmie~ion dotermine from ttae reviRed plana whethar they would txavc~ qiven a difL•eront r~cammendation if the r.evisAd p.lane hnd bean preaentec~ earlier, or whe*_her they at.i.ll would maks tho ~ame recAmmendation oP denial as bePore. Mr. Robezto noted that Mrs. Stepheneon had indicated that no ono wou~d be ,+i11- ing to ~urchase this ,roperty for single-family developmont, and eince tho property wn~ nlmoat 20,000 square feet, while tho R-0 7.one germitted 10,000 aquare foo~ loGs, if the Planning Corc~miaeian was still of thQ opinian that apartmanta wer~ not appropriate for thia site because of thoir effect on th~+ adjoini.n• properties, then perhapa a varidr.ce could be approved tY~at would split thia pa~rcel into two R-0 lots that would have lot wi~tha and lot areas leso tYian required by the R-O site development standards. Commiat~ioner I'arano atated he was cuncerned with the thoughti that a lnt co:~ati- tuting 20,000 to 3U,000 square feet wc+uld justi.fy the owner's requostiny R-3 zoning as being appropriat~j that he hsd lived on an R-1 lot Yiaving 30,000 square feet and could have gotton some apar~ments on the parcel bQCauae of the size, but thie would not have been in keeping with the surroundi.ng propertieD since the aurx~unding propertiea dictated what should be on thP property, be it R-C+, R-1, nr R-3, and he would hate to see the time when anyflne havirig 20,000-square foot lots would all be permitted to have P.-3. F;~wever, if a lot split by way of a variance w~~u1d solve the problem of development of the prop- erty, maybe that s~huuld be cunsi3ered, Commissioner Gauer offered a motion, 3econded by Commissioner Kaywood ancl MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Rowland beinq abaent), to recommend to the City Council that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian's actian on Reclasaification Pio. 72-73-41 and V+~xiance No. 2493 reinains unchanged evQn after a request for a less intense zaning and the submiasion of revised plans sit~~e th~ C~mmiasion recummended dieapproval on the basis that this wau13 establish "spot zoning" and would also eatablish a precedent f~r aimilar multiple-~=amily residential zoning requeata ~ontinuing northerly for all those deep p~rcels along the west side of Citron SCreet extending to I,a Pa.J.ma Avenue, which ~rou! c1 hxve a dele~ terious effect an the single-family homes established to the westr and that as an alternate, the Commieaion feels that aona conaideration might be given to a variance for a lot split from the lot width if the 10,00Q-square foot, R-0 si.L~ wore retained. z•cEM No. ~ RF.CI~ASSTFICATION N0. 72-73-a6 ~::~ C:uNDIT~ONAL USE pF!?uZ': .;^v, i'sy8 (Ulson and Davidson) - ProperCy locxted at the sou*hwest corner of State College Boulevard and Savoy Avenue - Reque3t for apprAVal of revised plans. Aasistant Planner Phillip Schwartze reviewed the location of the property, previou~ action by the Planning !'ommi~ssion in dQnyinq the request for rezoning the property on Ma~y 14, 1973, and t}ie patitioner's Aub~equent eubmittal of revigod p].ans t~ eatab].ish a commezciml office complex, wherein e2ven of t'~e waivers requasted fram the C-!~ aite develo~ ~^ent s:.andards had n~w been roclucod ta fourj thnt wai~er of the r~quirement that all parking be loceted to the rear, thdt a 3-foot planting atrip be maintained adjacent to the right-of-way ~ ~ ~ MINU'TES, CITY PLANNING COMMI3SION, M~y 30, 1973 73-3til ITEM NO. 3 (Continued) li.ne of e locc-1 streot, permieeion for a 6-foot block w~ll in tha required eetback aree, e+nd waiver of minimum requlred number of parking 4paoes were no lonqer noeded~ thnt the equare ~AOC9Qp of L~~o propoeed ~lPic~+ haa now beon reduced trom 3821. equnro Feot to 2630 squer.e leoC~ thar the exieting 6-foot wa].1 at thd northerly end oP tho properky ~aas pr~pn~ed to bo zrmove~l, provid- ing an open landacaped sgtback edjacent to Savoy Avenue, and all 12 parking apacee wnuld be at thd rear oY the propertyt ~hat en 60-wqunro Eodt, free- atandir~q revoiviny siqn a maximum of 16 teet in height was proposed at the northeast und o! the prop~,rty A~3jacent to St9te College 8ouloverd~ tha,t the aiza of ehe traeh storaqe aree had beetl inareased ~o maet City x~an~lsrds and hnd been rolocuted to the nau*hwest end of the proper~yt that e-dditional landscaping, including trees and ahrUba, hnd aleo been dddadt and thet the Commission would wiah ta ooneider whether the revie~e3 plane had madified the original proposal t~ the oxtant that. approval of the projeat may be recommende,~. Mr. Joe Davidaon, one of Che petiti.onoxs, noted that he had boen a realtor in Anaheim f~r 15 yearaf that ho ~ropose~d i:o oporata h~.s zeal eAtate off~.ce in this building in cc~njunction wit~1 the co-ownex, who wao an insuranae broker, and reviewe~9 the various usea establ.iehed in cl~ae proximity, the ag~ of tha homas in +tho eren, and the Pact that 95~ of the ownere of tha homee did not liv4 on Che propezty~ ar.d that he hoped the revised plans would meet with the Planninq Commiasion's approval. Curthermora, he had checkad with the Traffic En~ineer regarding tt~e traffic prob~em preaented, and he had ddvised him there was no siqni :.cant outatt~nding aituat.ion that they were aware of aince the propErt.y ownere in the residential st.reeta had to entar on Savoy Avent~e f.or acceas to the.ir. prapertiea, and in their ~articular bvaines~ the.a would novPr be more thaa eix to eiqht car~ at ariy given tim~s, therefore, hc felt they woul.d not be creating a major traff:lc problem. Lengthy discusaion was held by the Commissfon regarding the fact that the Commisaion had heard all thp evidence nacessa±-y at the previous public hearing c~n subyect petitionst that it woulr~ be rather iz•regular to consider revised plans on a petition which hnd been so controversial without coneideration being given to tho opposition and their fsalings as it pertained to the revised plans, since it would leave the Commission open to criticism if formal uction were tak~,n an theae revisecl plans. Mr. Roberta nuted that these plans had not been ref.erred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council, but had been submit~ed to staff For. revieo~, and staff felt that presenting them to the Commias:ton miqht save both the r~taff and Council time in re'er.ring the plans bacic t~ the Commissioi~ tor consideration, and that the petitioner was not at fault in presenting th~se plans to the Commiasion. Comrnissioner Farano obaerved that ther.e ~ppeared to be one seL• of site plaris presented to the Commiasion and ano*h~r sek of plans were submxtted to thH City C~uncil at thei.r publia hearing; that the Council never saw the plans upon which the Planriit~g Commiss:on had = nitially consiAPrc~ and ~nade their r.ecommendatiotis nor, in turn, h,~d the Co ~-^.:± saion seen khe revised plan~ tY-at had been submitted to thP City '~uncil, there£are, it ~+as his opinion thRt the City Counc.ii sh~ul~ turn tt. revxaed plane back to the Planning Commissian and ask that the Commission have another public liearing, becaase it was g.ossl.y un~a~r to the Planning Commis~ion if they did not have a chanc~ to hear all the evidenc~ on plans that were subsec~uently considered by tha City Council, and that the Commisaion sh~uld make a request to the City Co~incil to require that the revised plans be submitted to the C~mmias'-n to be reviewed agal.n at an advertised public hearing so tha~ the Com~ni.ss~on could have all the input from the affected property ownars 1,~ mak~.ng thoir recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Seymo ir aclvi.sed Mz. Daefdson that the Commiasi.un was not clesirous o£ v3ew~.ng the ravieed plans unless the plans were considdred at another public heari~ig befare the Planning Commissiont whareupon Mr. Davidaon statod that he would like a de~ermination from the Commiss~on as to whether another exemption status would be coneidered or wou2d it be neceasary to file an ~nvironmental Impact Report. ~ ^~ ~ MiNUTES, Cz~Y ri t:n .OMMISSxON, r~ay 30, 1973 73-362 ITEM N0. 3 (Continued? Commieeioner Kaywood noted that the Commisaion had made thair rooommendation that the ~EIR he requir0d on the basie o~ the origirial plans, therefora, the petitioner could aqein requ~~t ex~+mptior, atatu~ when the~ plenn were recon.idered at the public hearing befars the Plenning Commiesi.on. Mr. Roberts noted tha~ theae petitione could be caneidered by the Planning Commies:lon e-t ~ha June Z5, 1973 publlc heesrinq, if the petitioner liled a re- hearinq request by '~huredey, and tha~t he would eugqest that tl~~ petitioner rlea submiC a l~tt•ex ta tha City Clark to 3ater echeduling o! a public hearing bofore tho City Co~incil until thie mattar had baen r~coneide.red by the Fl~nning Gommission. REQUEST TO TEiE GITY COUNCIL Rl:GARnING a^UBMISSTUN OF REVIS~4 PLANS AFTF R k~LANNING_COMMISSION HAS TAKEN ACTInN _ Commiasioner Fa ~,o.~ aff re,d., ~~o~~~~e oncYed by CcmmisalunAr Kaywood end MOTION CAF.RIED~~that~n o'i~er kc more e~~ectively and complctAly diacha.rge its reaQonsibility and rQlieve tha City Council of unnecessary review dnd labor, tlie Planni.ng Gommiasi~n requeate thet when revise3 plana have been submitted subaequent to Planning C~mmist~ion publ.ic hea.ring, but: prior to thg City Gounci'1 public hearing, that th~ City Council defer considerRtion i~ntil these ravi.sed plan~ hav~ been cuneideie~t by the Planning Commisaion at +~ new public hearing at the expenae of the pet.itioner, in order that all pertinent revi.ew and data as well as public input may be considered by the Planning Cammi.eeion b~:for9 Action is taken by the City Council on these revised plans. xm~M No. a RECLASSIFICATION N~). 72-73-40 ANU CONDITIONAI~ U5E PERMIT NO. 1387 -~roperty located on the west ei.de oE Manchester i4venue, apprcximately 30 feet on the south aide of Katella Way . arsd approximately 168 fegt nn L•he east side of Mountain View AvenuQ - Approval ~F revised platis. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts preaented r.evised plan:, f.or Reclas3ificatian No. 72-73-40 and Conditional Use Permft No. 1387 to the Planning Commiasion, noting that t.hese plans had been aubmittecl to the City Council at theif hiay 22, 1973 pu~lic hearing, and becauso the;; ;acl not bee~ submitted in time £or staff }o e~~aluate them reqarding trash atorage and other prab2ems, the Council had referred the plans back to th4 Planning Cummission to determine whethar there were sufficien'. changes for ~ha Planninq Commission to amend their recommenda- t~on to the City Gouncil, and than reviewed the GhangeR as set £osth in the Rep~rt to the Commission. Commissianer Kaywood inquired whether the required ~arking would be affected by the increase i.n the size of the office building= whEreupon Mr. Roberts stated that the 3evelopment originally exceeded the parking requirements, and thQ revision did not affect the parki.ng since it ~+till exceeded r~c~uired parking. Commissioner k'arano offered e motion, aeconded t~y Commisaioner Se~;mour. and MOTION L'ARRIED (Commiasion~r Rowland beiag abQent), to find and determine that thE zevised pl~ns an aubmitted were an improvea.en~ over thoae originally sub- mitted, and~ therefore, would nut affect the Planning Commisainr~'s p-evious recommendation of app:ov$1 of Iteclassif.ication No. 72-~3-40 and Cor.3i:ional Use Permit No. 1387. ~ ~ tAII~UTLS, CI'rX PLANNTNG COMMISSION, Mny 30, 1973 7a~363 ITEM N0. 5 PARKZNG ANALY3IS FOR TRAC'C N0. 7444. 2oning ~upervie~r Cha-rles Aobarte noted tha~~ whan the PJ.anning Commisoion approved TrAOt No. 7444, e conflition of approval wae that prior to liling o! e- linel txnct map that the traat be rovieed to re~Ylact the potenrtal Por 31 e8ditional parking spacas within open areae thr.oughout the trA..L• in tho evant of luCure neede~ and that a bond ba poeted to guarantee the i.mpxovement ot enid parking apacea in tha event o! +~ detez:.+inAtior. of parlcing shortaqeo ~ chat. anoth~r candttion ai' approval ot tha aama Cract z•equired e epecial par.k- ing st.udy to be conduc't~sd tu ascertain the norma~l paXkinq ~lemands ar experi- enced by the deve~loper in theoe forma ok devalopmont, said s~udy to be eub- mitted to th~ Pler-ninq Commiesion for coneideration prior to th~ fil~ng a! a tinal tract mApi that th~ devaloper had ouhmitted a final tract map nnd the parking study which i.ndicnteA 31 ~c~tential parkinq ap~aee for uee by residents and queats, therePo.re, it would appear that the parking information eubmitted by the cleveloper indicate~+ th~+t the 31 apacoe were r~eededr hawever., xhe 21 apacea to which the study rePe.rzod which wcre ~n drivewa~ys of lesa than 25 feet wero not up to City etandards and woul.d, therefore, not ba coneiQered. Commiseioner Herbt~t was of the opinion that ~:~ese typea of. unita ahould be cansidered in the same vein ae aingl~-fami.ly homes in whi.ch e two-cer qara~qe was required with an addirional parking space in *.he front or three parking apacea to provide for quest parkinq~ und this ahould be tho mS.nimum parkin~ that ahould be required of planned re~sidenti.al developments. Commi~s•loner Far ~o offerpd ~~oti..o.~n~~r,~~ded by Commissioner Allred and MOTIQN CARRIEC,/~o~ accep~~~ie nar~inq s~udy of Tract Nc+. 7444 and to expreas ~.he Commission's apprecia~ion i:o the develop9r because he was provi~iing addi- tional pazking since said study i:~dicated it was needec7. ITEM N0. b REQUEST FOR CI,AR7FICATION OF USE IN THE M-1 ZONE - Auto uphols~tory buainess. Zoning Supeivisor Charlea Roberts preaented a requsst from an applicant pro- por~ing to establ:lsh an automobile upholstery businens at 1028 East Sc~uth Stroet 7ocatecl approxiniately 156 feet west of the csnterline of. East Street on praperty zoned M-lJ that the applicant indiaated that a majc,rity of hia particular buai- ness was done on a wholt~sale baeis to auto dea2ers az~d insurance companiea, however, appro~imataly a0$ w~uld ba rotaiZ to the o~neral p~ablict that tho automobile upholstering busineae was a use typically permitted in the C-2 and C-3 2ones due ~o the cammerainl retail natsure of sach uses and h~d not been pezmitted in tha M-1 Zone, however, eince the petition~r had ir~dicated that the majority of his busineas aae wholssal.e to auto dealcrs and insurance campaniea, he wished to have his businese classified as a wholesa].e b~isi.neos which would. be permitted in the Pf-1 Zone. Mr. Roberts not•ed that etaff and the applicant requested a clari.fication from the Commission a~ to whethgr suah a uae shou.id be pe.rmitted in the M-1 Zor;e as a matter of right, oX whether ~ue to ~he commercial tiature og such a buair~e~s it would have to be approvad in the M-1 Zone under a variance appllcation. Disaussion was held by the Commission as ta whetller the uae ahould be ~ermittad by right, whether it should be an interim u~;e only becauae upholatezy ahope atarted out as that use and later branched into other auto-rolated uses, such aa seat covers, brake reJ.ine, mufflers, etc., which werA primarlly commercial usea, and if this continuation of commercial usea int.o trie M°1 ~rea were Uer- mitted, it would break c~own the inte~ri.f:y of the industrial arear and that ~he uees should be cons~dered xt public hearinq under a conditional usA permit foz each type of request. Chairman Seymour noted that staff wanted the Commiasion to make an interprata- tion as to whether the use should be permittod by right ~r ~•i.a a varianco or conditional use permit at public hearing. Commiasioner Farano stated that marqinal uses in the M~1 Z-ne ahould be con- sidered on an individual basia to d~termine whether undgsi:able circumetances might arise as to the use prop~o~ed ta be conducted, and r.hat etr.ff was entifcled to know if there were alternativee ar whether tt~e use ahould be fncluded by right. ~ M.LNUTES, CITY YLANNiNG COMM.LSSiON, May 30, 1973 ITLM N0. 6 (Cantinuad) 73-36A Cammissi.onar Sey r olfPro~ ,s, ~m~~r,b.~ eecondod by Commi.rei.oner Herbst and MOTION C7ARRIED,/~ aw upho~~ter1Y ehop~, •v~n v-hrn oonduoted Ae a whol~~ale businaes, ehould be conaidered ae a requaet. by v-ay of a variance or d oand:.- kionc~~ use permit at a pub].ic hearing and ahould not be canbidered s usa lay right in the M-1 7,one. ITEM NO. 7 Y2EQUE5T F'OR CLARxFIC,~TI~N OF USE - Vinyl topq and side mou+ding on automobiles for duto dealera. Zoning Supervieor Charlae Itobort$ note4 Chis requeet was also for an interprs•• tation as to whether inatallatian ot vinyl tope ar-!! prot9cti.ve ~ide mouldings could be permit~ed in con~unction with the manufacture of rediator eoree~ ainca thiq use was not speciPicdlly li.ated ae a permitted u~so in the+ M-1 Zonc+ but appeared to be aimilAr to auto unhol.stery, wiiich was permitted in ~he c-2 and C-3 Zones, even though tho r~pplicant indicated t;~e busineae would be wh~le- sele only, and that ha did not intend to roteil hie service. Commissioner Sey ur off.ere~d~ _ryo~~~~~~econded by Commieaioner GauAr and MOTION CARRIED,/~a t e'~ne aY~ra on oP vinyl topa and protectfve eide moul~l inge in the M-1 Zor,a ehould be con~idered as a requast by way of a var~nncR or A canditional usa permit at a public heasring a~d shou'ld not be aonsidgred a~ n uae permitt,ed by rigbt i.n the N~~1 2one. ITEM NU. B AMEND RESOLUTIOt~ N0. PC73-76, nunc pro tunc, gra.nting Cox~ditional Use Per.mit No. 1387. Th~e Commiesiun Secretary noted that Finding No. 3 of Resolution No. PC73-76 had been typed erroneously and rsqueated that the Planniny Commiseion amend said r0soluticn nunc pro tunc as fo].lowss "Findi'ng No. 3. That the petitioner stipulated that on'ly vehiclea originally owned by the ppti.tioner wo~~td ba wholesaled/ sold on tne premises and that if nA wisnea to chanqe the nati:re o:: -'~+e bueineas, he wil.l file a new potition for thst activity." Commissioner Kaywood offsred Reaolution No. PC73-124 and moved for it~ passaqe ancl adoption to amend Ra..olution No. PC73-76, Finding N~. 3, granti.ng Co~idi- tional Use Permit Na. 1387, nunc pro tanc, readi.nq as follows: "3. That the petitionar stipulated t.hat only vehicles ori.g~nally owned by the petitiones would be whole~al.ad/aold on the premises and t11a~ if he wishes to chanae the natur.e of the businese, he wSll file a new petttion for thxt activity." On roll call the foreqoing resolution was pasaed by the follo~ing vote: AYES: CUMMISSION~RS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Harbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOE~: COMMiSSION~ RS: None. ABS~.NT: COMMISSIONERS: RowYand. 1~DJOURNMENT - There being no further business to Gj3CU83~ Commisaioner ~ierbst of~ered a motfon to adjourn the meeting. Com:nis-- sioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CA~2RI~;D. The meoting adjourned at 7:14 p.m. Respectfully gubmitted, ~/T-~~~~"~ 2 ~~.~~ ANl3 iCREf35~ Secretary Ai~ah~im C3~y Planning Commiseion AKs h~n