The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1973/06/110 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. : . , . ~ , ,.. „,..~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ciey Hell Hnah~im, Ca11lnrnia ~ur 11, 1973 A R$GULAR MEETING OF TtiE ANAH~IM CITY T'T.ANNING COMMIBS70N ~LGUL7IR - A regulax meet~ng nf t.ho Anaho~.m City P1ann'.nq Co^~miaei.on wae MEETIN(i called to ~rdei•l,y Chairmen Seymou~ ek 2~00 p.m., a quorum hoing present. PR~3ErrT - CIi~IRMAP:: Saymour. - COMMISSZUtJERSs Allrod, Gauer, Fieruat, Kaywood, Roal.and iont~re~, at 2:.15 p.m.) ABSENT - COMMISSIONER~'• F'arano. PRESENT - Ansietant naveloQment Services Uir~.:tor: R~nald Tho~ipeon Deputy City Attorney: I`rank Lowry Office ~ngi.n.eer: Jay Titue Zoninq Superviaoro Charlos Rok~arte Aseietnnt Plant~er Fhillip Sc~hwaz~ze Commission S~cr~tary: :4nn Krebu PLEDGE OI" - Commieaioner Allrcd led in r_h , Plsdq~. of Alleqiance :.3 the AT~LEGIANCF. r^lag. APPROVAL OF - A~proval ~f the mint~tes of thR maeting of May 14, ].973, wme THE MINUTES def~~rred i•u Ju,e ?5, 1973. FI~vIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUF:D F~ IC HEARING. TIiE MC CARTHY CUMPANY, atten~ REPORT 1V0. 93 ~ion of E~.g~no R. Fuller, 2535 ~ast La Palma Avenue, - Anal~eim, Ca. 92801, and kiENRY I'. ANb RTHEL C. DEL GI~RGIO, RE~LASSIFICAT ION 2119~ Muhle.r Drive, Ar.aheim, Ca. 92806, Owners rNGINEERa ' NO. 72-7:t-3g levard, Jer.ninga c~ngineer~inq Company, 4419 Va~n Nuys Bo~~ ~ Sh~.rman Jaka, Ca. 91~03. Prap~:ty deacribecl a~3 ~ tin V7#RIANCE N0. ~492 irregularly-shaped pwr.cel ~f land coneistir,y c~ zpproxi- "-"~-~ mately 35 ,~cres; liavinq a Prontage of ap~roximr-tely 687 ITATTVE MAP T~ OF feet on the south 31de oP SaT,ta Ana Cany .. ~tor~d, having .. TitT"T NO 477 7, a maximum dapth of approximatela~ 1500 f^et, And being REVISION ~t0. 1 locate~l appi~oxir,~atA1y 30?f- feQt e~+~t of the ce~*arline af Anaheim ti~lls Road. Propezty preaently c~assi£ied R-A, Ar,AICULTURAL, ~c~NE . RE~U~~STF.D CLASSLI'ICATiOtr: R-1, ONE-~AMII~Y RESILENTIRL~ 7.ONE. RFQUESTED VARIANC~: tvAIVER OF (Aj INIMUM F~ONT SETBACK, ( I MINIMUM LOT W'LDTK ON A CUL-DE- `~ '~C, (C) MIN7MU~1 LOT WIllTH, AND ~U) REQUIREMENT THA'P ;~iNGLE-FAMILY RE:ID'NT;IAL STR-JCTf)RE ~ ~tE?~R ON ART~RIF~'L HYGHWAYS TO ~~TABLI~H A 135-LOT, R-1 SUHCZVISION. Sub~ect petitions an8 tzact were continued from the mee~ings ~f Apr+_1 lE and Mey 14 and 30, 1973, to allow time for tli~ submfseion of revi~e~ plz~nz. Aasistian~t Planner Phillip Schwaztz2 adv~.sed the Con~m~ gsion ~hat the petitionez had eubmittec~ a requast for a four~wee~ contia~uance in arder to roviss •-~1 ~ns• Commiseioner K woo~l a.ff~r a m~ti,~n,.,,, ~e.e~~c~on ed Comm'raeio-~~r Herbst anC MOTION CARRIED,^~o ai~t nue~'~~er_ation o Ei~ ron~~ zt.~: Tmpact Rep~::t No. 93, Recla~s~ification No. 72-73-3~~, Variance No. 24y7, and Tr~ntui;ivo Map of Tract No. 4~77, Ravision No. 3, to tho meetinq ~f July 9, 1973, ae sequestsd by ~.he petitionar/developer. 73-365 ~ ~ MINUTEB~ CT,TY PLANNING COMMi89I0N, June ~:., 19i. 73-366 CONDIT~ONAL USE - CONTINU~ll PU~LIC HEAFiiNG. THE MC CARTHY COMPIINY, atton- PEItMiT N0. 1386 Cinn af Euqans R. F~•llar, 2535 W~et La Ps1ma Av~nue, Anahaim, Ca. 92801. Or:ne.ri requ«~tinq ~armi~~ion to ESTT.DLI3H A A-UNl''~ PLA.NNED kL3IAENTIAL DllVELOPl~tBNT TO BE ~JAFD A9 I~ MOAFL HOME COMP~EX '~IITH yA~,ES OFFICL on property daecribod ~re: An ! rr~gulsxly-shapad p~rcal oP larid cons~.at:.nq o! npproximetsly one scrs Approx.4- metely 650 t~et ~outhsrly of Suntn Ana CAnyon Itoad, havii:g ~ 11~AX:lmum d~ptti af ap~ro•imat~ely 170 fe~t, and b~ing loaetod d~proximately 140 lesf ~ant of the canterlin~ o! Muhlor. Drivo. Prop~erty pre~sntly claesifiad R-A, aGRICULT~JR~L, 20NR. aubjflat petition wes : ntinuad trom tna meecinqe or Ajrliil x~ +.~~u -~ay i~ ~~~~- 30, 1973, :o allow time tor the aubmiasi~n o~ plana. Aasietant Planner Ph.t111,~~ SohWarts• adviaQA the Commi~mion that ~tho petitioner had submit.tc~d a regu~et !ar e four~week continuanco in ordsr to revi~• plane. Commiseioner Ke ood ~f.tere a moti~c, n.~.~ ,ata on `d by Commisaioner HerbAt nnd MC~TION CARRIED,~ o oon .i~n~le a~*de~rAElan~o~Conditional IUse Permi.t No. 138~ to the meeti ng ~! July 9, 1973, as requeated Ny ~he petitioner/de~~e,laper. VARIANCE N0. 2519 ~ PUnT,IC KEARING. I3FRN:IRD AND VIRGINIA ~. ON3TENK, ~9350 Ward Streat, Na. 34, Hunt.ington Doacri, Ca. 92646, nwnere^ W?LLIAM J. MORRISEY, lid4 Montuxa~ Roed, St-n Marcos, Ca. 92069, Agenti request{.ng WAIVER 0~ MINIMUM RLQT~IRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO ESTABLISH A MiNI-WAREHOUSE FACILITY on property dedcribad acs An ~.rraguJ.arly- at-np~ed parcel ~f. land consiatinq of approximat~ly 3.1 acze~ locaced at the no.thwe3t cornar o~ Blue Gum Way and White Star Avdnue, having e~roztage of. approxirt.ately 418 feAr on the west side of Blue ~um Wey and having a grontxqe of app^~xi.mately 147 feet on the north side of 'White 5tar Avenu~. Proparty prtsenily claseifled M-1. LIGHT INDI,STRIAL, 'LONE. Chairma*. :~eymour notad that ~here was a request made by tho aqent for the petitlon~r for a~ two-weei: continuanca for the aubmission of revieacl plana and inquirec'. whether thore was any<~ns pr~sent in oppoaition. No one appAared in oopoeition. Commisaioner Kay~~offer~~aa moti_An,_ s~~nd,~,~ by Commi~eioner Herbs~: ar.d MOTION CARRIED, / o cont~i3ue -cona3.d~at~on ~f Variance~ No. 2519 to L•~ e meetinq of June 25, 1973, as requested by the ~s+titior.or. T~NI'ATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: CQVI~~:;TUN BROTHERS, 2451 East Orangethozpe TRACT N0. 8340 Aven~ze, Fullerton, Ca. 92634. ENGINEFRs T~ancier Engineer- ~ ing, 4120 Pirch Street, Suite L09, Nerrport Beach, Ca. ~~'?660~ propo~inq tu aubdivide a 13.6-ncre parcet 1~c.ltad .,n the ~iorth aide af Katella Avenu~s, 487 feet west of ~lutwo^d Street, int•o one R-A statutory condominium lo~ Ch,-~ , rman Seymour noted tha~ the developer had submitted a reqaeat to w.'.thdra~: th~• traat map due to legal coinpliaationa of a~cquisi.t-ic,,,. C~~nniisaioner Allred offerQd a m~tion, ser,or,d~d by Co~•~missioner Gauer and k10TION CARR1c.D (Commiaei.oners Farano and Rowl3nd baing aASent) , to .^,rant with- drewal aP Tentative Map of Tract N~. 8340, as requestec~ by the developor. CONDITIONAL US~ - CONTINUED PUIILIC H: e1'.ING. AMELZA P. WHITE, 3~~15 West Hall PE1tMIT t~0. 1400 Roa3, Anahein, Ca. °2b04, Own~r.J GGRARD F. WA~tnE, 4332 East La Plama Avenut, A~~aheim, Ca. 92806, Agent; reques~iny pe~miosion co ES:^ABLISH ~ 12S-BED CONVALESCENT tlOSPITAL WAIVING (A) REQUII2EC REAR IARL ANL~ (1.) R~~UIRFD NUMB~R GF PARKING a ACES on ~roporty ~~asrribed as: An irrequlrXly-ahrped g~rcel of land coneieting of a~.proxia~ata:y .76 a.cre, havinq a f•ront~ge uf approximatgly 166 feot on rhe north eide of aalt Roa , havinq a max~.n~um depth of ap~roxia.ately 2fil feet, and being located apptoximztAly 680 fe~t weat of tho centerling of Knutt Avenue. Pzoperty prosan~~y claea~`ied R-A, AGkICUT.TURAL, 30NE. SU~j9^.t p~ti.ti.oe xaa continue~ from `.:he ~neet+.ng o~ May 30, 19'l3, for the sub- miee~on o= xevise~ plnns. ~ • MIiVUTE5, f;7TX PLl1NNit1G CbMMiS'3xOP~ ,7une 11, 1973 73-3:7 CqNDITIONAL USE pERMYR' N0~ 1400 (COnt•inuac!) No ~~ne app~armd in op~odiCion. Al~houqh tl~e Report ta the Commieei~n wa^ not road at thn publ~c h~nrinq, it 1A reforred to And medb ~ part cf the minuteo. Mr. Gerard Warde, agent tor the peti:tioner, ~ppearsd b~ ore the Cammieaion end compi lment~d ~khe ataf! on wh+~h h~e con~id~re~7 100~ ao~peration in nsaieting him in d~velo~ing thin pro ject, end tP~en noted he wa~ availabl~e to snA.+ar questione eince the Report *.a tha CommieRion mor~ than ade5uately c~verod whek thmy propoeed. '~h.e Commisui~~ inquirA~t ~hether th~-re would be any problem in tho luture on ingrese o: egresa ae '~ertninod Ca thd easamentt whezeupon Mr. Warde etated thet: the enaement, ae ..~ afted, ahoii~,d be ccaptable ~o tlie City Att~rr~~y. rieputy City Attorney Fr.ank Lnwry advledd th~ Camn-i.eaion there was nothlnq w ony with the uee ~f an r ase~anL for irigresa ~:na egr~es aince the City l~nd used it for other bus~lnesses so long e+s it wae properly set up, and thie had been dis•~ ouseed wi.th tt~e appJ.icant previoualy, whu had indicn od they aould be able to coneummate an eaeement agreAment, th~.xefora, thia oasement would ha~ve to ce submitted to the Ci~y Attarney'e Off~ct, for approval and recorded w9.th the Orenge County Racorder, otherwiea ~he pr~~ect could nat be dev:~aped. Tha Commi.~aion inqui.rc+d whethur the peti~ioner/agent hnd a letter fram Lhe property ow*-er to the wast reqardinq the easament= wheraupon Mr. Warde etated they had bean given verbal approval, but due to the time element, they were unable to ubtain the writte~i dccument for submieei~,n to the Plnnninq Commis~inn, nnd ~'~at t.his asuem~nt wauld be necesoary ~o provide acceea for both trash trucks and fire equipment to the rear of the property. Co~nmiasioner :Caywo^d inquired wbethor the exi~ting landecaping would remain or would it ba removedt whez~upon Mr. Warde stated they proposad to zemove the exist:tng landscaping and plant low landscaping in the mi.ddlh of th9 drive. Co:~nmissioner Kaywood asked whc~ther consi.deration cou'ld be given to relacatinq some of the la~dscaping elaewt-ere on the property= whereupon Mr. Warc~e stated that some could be ralocated along the front and side. 7,on~.ng Saper~~ieor Charlas Roherta, in i.espon:3e to Commisaion queationing, statecl there wQre ~7 regular parking spacas and 4 tan~i~m parking apacea, and if. thu tandem spacea were approve3, this would mean thi.e develapment would meet requirAd parking. Commisstone r Allred nated his concern rRyarding the ingress-egre:~s e~-sement and stated that if tt~e property to the west and Aubject property wer~ under one awnerahip, thc~n there aould be no problPm, and he did not ok,;}e ct to the us~, but t•here was a passibility Ckiat the adjointnq property own~r c~>uld build a wall across his pzoperty lir~e wherc 3n eagement existed, creatinq a ciXCUlation problem for subject property. !Nr. Lowry noted this would be a recorded. easement which went with tihe land, and if he were tt~e adjoir~ing propertl ownor, he would think a long time before buildinq a£ence acroas an eaoement. because, by law, when an ease~:ent acroat~ another property was qranted ana r~carde~l there was litt].e recourse thraugh the couxts to permit blocking this easemen_. Chairman Seymour i: •~tad tt~aL the i,iqrasa-ugree~s eas~ment would hav~ ta be res~lved to the aetisfactic~n of t.;ie City Attorney before further consideratior~ cauld be given tu development, ':hsrefora, if this were a condition of aFproval, this should take c~ra of the rom~mi~eion's concerne. Commissioner Rowland entered the Counci~ ChRmbex at 2:15 p.m. THE HEARING WAS CLOSE~D. Co^~miesion r Kaywood was af thp opinioa th~t the propueed deve~opment wuuld b~: too dense and that the property was boinq averbui.lt Mith 40s coverage. ~ • MTNt~TES, CITY FLANNI~~G COMMY:iSION, June J.l., 1973 73-356 CANDITIONAl, U5k PERMLT N0. 1A00 (Continued) Chairman Soyinour noted thet the matter betors tih• Commissiun wa~ lanA ued and that tha waiv~rN roqu~ste4 a~ i~ perkained to the rail.r~ed ~~roperty ~rerw minim~l. Commieeioner ~aywoa~~ ~bsorved the.re could bo a noiso tactor wiLh treina pa~,~~- inq the,t would ~~~f!~ct tho raet of theee alder'ly aeopler whereupon Chuixman Seymaur noted t1~.~t a di.stence. ot 10 feet wuul.d meke li,ttle difference in ~he n~ ~ ra factor • rm txaine pna~sing by , Commiseiune,r Kaywoad ata~od that denee landncaping could be ~~rov.i.ded iri tkiie additi~nel )~~ feet, which would dezden the noise congiderably. CommiaRioner Allred olYere« MO'fION i.ARRIED (CommiaBicnor connection with an c~xemption that the proposal woul3 heve fora, rocomn~ends to the Ci*_y is necessury. a motion, aeconded by Commisstoner Kaywuod dT1C~ Farano abser-t) , tk~at the Planning Commission, in c~eclarati~n Ata~tus reque~t, Pinde and determinoe no eignificant environmental impact and, there- Council thnt no Envi.ronmenkal Impact 3tatement Cammiesionex Herbsc oifered Rosolution N~. PC73-125 and mc^ved for its passege and a@opt~.nn to grant Petition fr~r Canditional UAe Pormit No. 140~~ aub~ect tc canditiions and a finding thLt '_h~ petltioner atipulatad to submitting an i.ngreas-earr-+s eas~ment to the City Attorriey' e Offica for approval and recarda•~ L•ion with L- ~ Orange County Recorder. (See Reao].ution Bookl On roll a~ll the foregoing reaolution was puased by the f.ollowinq votes AYESi CGMMT5STONF,RS: Allred, Gsuer, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: COMMTSSIdNERSr Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ASSTaTN: COMMISSIOtIERS: R~wland. VARIANCt' N0. 2509 - CONTINUF,D PUBLIC HEA2t1P'~. BF.RNARD NICHUNSKY, i~405 North- vale Road, Los Any~l~.~~~ Ca. 90064, Owner; M. E A1NI, 1117 ~ounta~n WaX, Anaheim, C~. 92806, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (A) PERMITT~D OUTDOOF. ~~S AND (B) REQUIREn 6-FOOT SOLID :dASONRY WALL Eti- CLO:ING OUTDOOR USES TO PERINI: AN OUTDdOR PAINT DOOTH on property degcribgd ae: A rectacigularly-shaped parcel uf land .,onsisting ~f approximataly .3 acre, havi.ng a frontage of approximately 120 i:eet on the w~st side of Fuuntain Wn,y, havir~g a maximum depth of approximately 125 feet, ~nd being located approxi- mately 203 feet north o£ the c:en'terline of La Falma Avenue. I's•operty nresentJ.~~ classified M-l, LIGF~T INDUSTRIAL, ZO:VF. Sub~ect petition vras continued from the <«eeting o~ May 30, 1973, for trp petit.toner tu subnit th~ APCD permit f~~r the paint opesation .nd for tt~e staff to :eview further huilding permit.s issued for the use. No ane appeared in oppoaition. A~though the Report to tihe Commission was not re~d at the puhlic hearing, it is referrdd to Anii made a pazt of the minutes. Mr. M. Baesa~ni, agent for the petitioner, appeared be.fore thc~ Commiasion and submitted the Air Polluti~n Gontrol District's permit for the paint bootli. rommissioner Seymour noted that an adrlitional request was to pormit ~~utdoo+: man~xfacturing, whereas thP M-1 Zone required manufacturing indoors~ whereupr.n Mr. Bassani etated that the 4nly outdoor work r.nat wae done wae the paintinq in the paint booth. but the: piece of equiFm~.~t being aprayed miqhf, be lnrgar than the paint booth, therefore, it exten3~d ut, :~:: thay only mancfaatured motorcycle exhaust Rystems which wHre peinted outdoors and braught ~ndaor far further completion, Commiss~.dner ~cowland inqu~,red why the cutuff and grinder machines wer~ autdoors; whereupon Mr. Bassani atated this equipment extended only about 3 feet out of the small building, b~ : if the Commisdion requi.red it, they wouid be moved in3oors. u ^~ ~ MINUTEB, CITY PLANN2NG COMMI5Si0N, June 11, 1973 V7~P.I7~NCE N0. 2509 (Continuedl Commitsionsr Herb~t noted th+it ixpon reviewinq *_h• r-as generelly ieeued to.r peir~tinq outdooxe, but Co lirsC ~lma Yi9 had ever seen thie outdoor paintinq paint bu~~h. 73~369 APCD perm.it it wae one which hi~ knowledge, ~hi~ aaa tha per~nitted in thie type of Commi~o~.onor RowlanCt then inquired as to the typra oP paint bo~th that waa erected therei wheceupon Mr. Haaenni ntnted it wse manulactured in E1 Mo~~te by the M+.ller Ccsmpany and thaC thers wau no o~-~rrprsy. The Commieaion t1~en inyuired r-het had been causin~~ the ~i ~colorntion around th~ building~ whereu~on Mr. Basaani atate~l that thiK w covQri;ig up paint due to eomeond having usecl red paint in pa~,nking ~ome "' ad' ~-ords on the building, and althouqh tt~oy tried to use tr-e same caloz paint ae tl~e building brick, ic. hAd not covared the re~i paint too we?.1. Then, in zedpQnsu to further C~mmie- r~ion questioning, Mr. Basea~ni. a~nrnd that he would etip ' ~te to n~ more than 15 f~t botween the buiidin9 and the pAint booth,~p~..~~.~.t.'~~n~"~•~~-~~-' ~" ,f~+,~..~. a~t.r.~_- , Gommieeioner Allred obeerved that havinq ~iewed the nurrounding propertiea, it appearod that r~a:~.r of the emslle,r induetries in thia tract were doinq a con- aiderable dmount of out5i,ao worlc, oven to uKing the alley, therefo , if t!ie peCitioner proFosed his paint booth, thia ~{hould b9 allowed provi~:d rhat th~; axea wne encloaed so ichat the area w~u1d not bA down~raded, an~: ~-l~ar viewing tho pict~xx~s aubmitte•i by the 2oning Enforcement 0£ficur. 'these nnpearod ta be a la~ of "~unk" b~- ~~~~:~~ it was not properly mainknined~ wheraup~~n M~c Raseani stated thet tho owner of the property woul d rather not ferlce t}~e ;,roparty adiacent tu the weat and north be~auae zt as up for sale and a~~y conatruction would hide the paint booth £rom viaw fro~ _hose are::s, and the proper'ty was not vieible from t~a Palmu Avenua. The Commi.asian then inqui.red why the petitioner dirl not feel that a chair-1i ~~k fence with rec~wood slata shoulr~ be requirecl even taough the adjoii~~ n~~ t~T'up ~•~ty could bo deve~oped; whereupon Mr. nassar:i atated ttsat eince tha pAint b~at~, c;ould not be aeen froz~ I~a Palma Avenue aiid barely eeen from th~, alley, he did nof feel that ahould be required. '1'he Commiaision then inquired how this faci.lity waa conatructed without a yard or fence ~.~n the first place; whereupon Zoninq SupervisoL Charles Roberts noted th%~t when the building was constructed originally it was probably a"snec" building, conforming with the ordinance, with the rear ~£ the property be3.nq ~ised for parking purpoee~, but with the outdao•r activity being sta~•ted, .taff became involved an~ had to adviae the property owner that a wall muat be constriicted eround any ~utdoor ma-iufacturing activity. .;ommissioner Kaywood ~+.quired about the tra.sh at~rage area since the Sanitati~n Division expressed the o~ifllon that it was not plxc~sd pron~rlyj whexeupon :1s. Hassani stated be haa talkecl witk~ the trash pi~;k-up peup.le. rvho had advised him his company had ~he best pick-up station becau3e they cvuld drive right into the lot and did not Y~~ve to qa more than 10 feet, ana Chat there was no pick-up prob' ~m. Commissioner Kaywood ~hen read comment~ by tk~e Sani*,ation Divieion and notod that the trhsh ato:.age area originally approved was for an ~ndoor operation, but the use had now changed~ therofore, the a~cea should be relocated. Mz. Robarta noted that the xepreaentative of the ~ar.itatian Div sfon fnlt tha~ the outdoor activity created prcblems v.ith painte s and equipment being in the way so that txash pick-up would be difficult~ wher9upor. Mr. Bas~ani stated that the trash was picke~ u~, before the work day stsrte~i, and according ta "~im" af the trash collection company, there wera no prohlema in collaatinq t.zash bacauae they picked up be~Ure i`U a•m• THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discusaion wns held by the Co~miseion ae to whether or not a chainlink f.encp witte radwood slata on the perim~ter ot the property wauld be sufficient to ehiold the outdoor painL• boothf wh~sther or not a hnrclship existed Rince t:~e uee was established illeqallyr ',hethsr a. time limitt+tian ahould bs eatabli~h ~or the c+utdo ~r use, even theue~h Lhe aqent atipuleted ta confininq all ~:ther wark ~ ~ ~ MINU.'L8, CITY PLANNING COM!lISSION, Juno ].1, 1973 V1~RIANGC N0. 2509 (Continued) _..._.~..~ _... 73-370 indc+or~~ end wh~thar a time limitstion o! thirty daye nhou111 ba given !or tohaX analoeura o! the properL•y~ a~id that even tt~~ouqh the RetitiQner atipu].ated tc> plaai.ng kho cutoff an~] grinder mdchi.nee i.ndoorg, trier.e wa^ nothinq Lhet would etop him t'rom D1nC~ng them outdoor~+ aqain Mr. At-esnni stated that BlIICN thaoe Nere movaLle mAChines, he could insti~uck L•ho workers t~ keep the aquipment indooro. Commieaion~r Allred offer~8 a motion, aecondc+d by C~mmiaeionez ~Caywood and MOTION CAItRIED (Commiasioner Y'arano being sb~senC) , th< th• Planning ~'~mmisutOn, in conneation with an exemptian declarAtton etatuo re~seet~ Pinds and determine• that• tne propoeal w~uld havo no aigniflcant 9nvironmst:al impacc and, therstor~. r9con~mend^ to th~ City Council that no Envir~nmente-1 n~act Statement i~ noceeeary. Commiss3~ndr 9oy~nour af.lerc~d Resolut.ion No. PC73-126 and muved For ite pasauqa snd +~doption to grant variance No. 2509, in part, pormitting ths ~utdoor paint booth ea reque~+ted aince the booth would be ad~acont to the building and en- c].oaed on three aides and Y.he outdoor paintinq act~vitX would b~e eoreened itcom view from adjacent pruper,~as by a redwood ela~t~d, chainlink funr.e encl~aeiny tY~e rear portion of the }~roperky - furttiermore, tha paint boot.h had been approved r,y the Anah~lm tluildinq Aivieion, Fire Department, and the Orang~ Countp Air Pollution Control Aistrictj that a zequost to permit outdoc-r fabri- cation and mz.nufacturing activit.iea was denied on the bauis the.t thP petitio ex stipulate3 to conductinq these actiyi.tie5 indoors as reguired by tT. M-1 zoi,e~ that wai.ver of tha raquired G-foo~ masonry wa~l. wns qranted on thra basis that aimilar wnivers hnd beer~ granted in the pAet in industrial areas and that the petitioner stipulated to providinc~ ,3 f-foot high, chainlink fenoe with redwood slats atonq the north, weat anci south propert.y linea~ that the p.roposad usp ::hould be reviewed in one yoar in order. to detArmi.ne if Lhe activitioa had bepn determi.ned to be dotrimental to the surzo~indinq propertiesi that all of the manufacturing actxvities with the exceptian of the paini: baoth v~ere being canducted e-~tirely wit~.in tho buildinq~ and. aubject to r.onditions, amending Cond.ition Na. 1 to include, "..providgd that a 6-foot hiqh, chainlink fence with redwood slats shall be instaJ.led alony the aouth, woet and north property lir~es at :h~ rear af the bui2ding, and further provided that all othQr manu- fa~t~•rinq and fabr.ication sha].l be aonducted totally indoure, as sti:~ulated by the petikioner, and that a time limitation o~ ~ne year ahall be grant~d fox the use of subject property, and upon wr~tt-~n requ~gt by the pet.it9.oner, an additio~~a1 period of time may be granted upon approval by the Planniny Commission". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foreqoing resoluti.on was passe~". k~y the f~llowing votE: AYES: COMMISSIUN~RS: Allred- Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSI~NERS: li.~ne. ABSECiT: COMMISSI~NE RS: Farano. VARZANCE NO. 2510 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ROYAL C.OAC~; OF ANAHEIM, INC., ~r+ 490 La Fayette Roa3, Hampi:on, New Hamp~ '~ lre 93E142, Owners f AD ART, INC., 1715 64th Street, Emoryville, Ca. 946U8, Agent; requesting WAIVEF OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-.~'PA~DING ~IGN on property deacribe3 as: An irreqularly-ehaped paxcel of laud cons3sting of approximate].y 3 ar.res, havinq frontages of approximately 700 feet an the ea~t stde of West Street and B00 feet along the aouthwest s±de of the Santa Ana Fre~way, an3 being locgted appraximately 300 feet south of ~he c~nt~:rli~e aF ~ou~~h Street. Propexty preeently classifisd M-1, LIi~HT ItiDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition w~s continued from the maptinq of Ma;- 30, 1973, to al.low the petitiones time to prepare a study demonstratinq a need for the height of th~. propoaed siqn. No one appeared in oppoaition. A1xlnouyh the Report ta the Commiasion was no~. read at the public haarinr., it ig referred to an8 made ~ part of. the minutes. - ~ n... ~ ~~ ~ Mit'J~~A, CITY PLANN[NG COMMiSSTON, June 'll, 1973 7.:-371 V7~RI11N(.~,~ i~n. ~510 (Continuody Mr. !11 P~tar~on, rapr~nenting khe agen~ !or tha p~ti.tinner, app~arad b~fore th• Commi~sion *nA 4tated tt~at aithough ho had flagyad ths ,prap~rty and had taken pictur~~, th• pictur~e,~ w~re not devolapabla, and be~oro he aould r4quaeT~ a c~sntl.nuana~, ho aould like~ to e~av that using the oan~~ery bui~dinq on tho weet mide of tha lreeway •nd t~king picturer lrom the homee on thc sMst side of the free~+ay, becau~s oP. haavy ahrubbery thas• homes were edequately sc~_eene~~ and provided a eu[licient buff~z', and then ~reoanted Polaro~d picturee `ay-~n from `.he lront oL th• homea on the roaidential atreet to illuetrate ti~e eareeninq already axi~tingt that at the time euhjoc~ praper~y we~s flag.la~~ tho pliotagraph ceken vrould not havs bean too relAVant; ~~: to tra~Fic qoing eouth fr.om thc~ over- ~,aoa r-hexe it ol~anged from a d~pr~saed fraewaj to a f.l~t fr~ewayt that when *hny origina].ly llagged and photographed the signing, thay k-ed ~aken r+ighting~ at 25, 43, and 5Q feet~ that i~ would eppe~~x ~ ~ propoeecl siqn would affect the homae at 25 and 43-foat heiqhts bacauae ol t.~,e loc~tian oP the wind~w~ of theee homes, v-hile x 58-foat hei.ght would be nbove the window line-of-sightj th.~t they amre takinq the oannory buildi~ 3 down, but goir.y~ narth on th4 Pr~e- way '-he Dall RoaQ o~verpaAS would block viewinq oF a 43-foot high aign~ an~ then p:~sent~d e~ictura taken from the lartheat corner at tha b~s~ of the ovarpneg whiah woulc9 indicate the property cou1Q nc,t be neen. Mx. Peter.icn furthor. not~d that menti~n wa~s made~ at the l~at public hearing rec~ardinq the fact that i_he repreeentative o! Sheraton Anaheim hed proven a hard~hip s.xietud, howrevei', their eign wae only visible because it was aqainst the overFasa, but the upper panol was not ~~iaible~ that tiie fir~t impre•sion fro~n loo'ting at the si ~~t was to re-do it, but there wds inteqrity to keep, just an identiti~xti.o~ as neede~d by the moto]. - so did this praperty need ide:-ti.ficekion, thera re, wa~ver oE tht. xequi~ament would be requeetedi that the Jclly Ox ReeCaurant had better vi.aibility from the Lreeway because they wero so cluse~ anc~ then in responc~~ to queeti.~ning by t:i~ C~.mmisaior., atated tk~at thA baeic ideal height woul~ b~ 58 £aet, but if the Cummieaion fe1L• that 43 feet would be adequute, then k-iey could J.ive with that height, but r.ot the Cod~-required 2S-foot height berauae there aas a aarvice zoad of 30 to 40 feet, and their elqn w~uld ha~~e to be beliin~l naid road, which would ba farther than any sign along '.he freeway. I'urtY~ezmore, al.though the agent for the petitioner, when the conditional use perrnit wa~ oriqinally approved far thQ use, had agree~i to complying with the City's Sign Ordinance, said man did noC kn~w tihe impli- caciona of propez ~igning £or a giver~ lncation. Commissioner Allrocl inqui.red for what purpose was the service road and whaL• busi.neas was bei~~~ serviced. OfFice Engine~z Jay Titus advised the Commfssion that the servioe ro~d served n~ or.e dt the presEnL• time, and i:he pr~pe-ty was giv~n to the City of anaheim k~y the Stato Aivieicn of Highways after. t;iis freewny was constructP::, and there was a rPquesL• fn prncess by the developer of aubject pr~perty to use the pro~~arty for landscapinc* purposes so lonq as there waa no permanent structuxe. Commissioner HFrbet inquired why the City clid not sell this, property to the petit~oner; whereupon °fr. T~~ll9 stated tt-at there w~re Flans for posr~ibly wider.inq the freoway or `.he overcrossing, and the land wou-9 then be neec~d. Mr. Pe~erFOn ndvised the Commission if they still needed the fl~;~ging of the property phot.ographed, he woul•i be glad to try t~ tak~ the pictures agai•~. TH~ .IEARING WAS CLOSEB. Chairman Saymour noted t',iat tY~e agent fcr the petitioner hsd in~i.cated that althou5h h.~ was not entirelX a~+.kisfiPd with the 43-foot hdiqht, ~hey could accept it, and .:ince the Commission had granted Shrraton Anaheim ar. 16-foo~ waiver of the siqn requf.rement, the pre~edonc had been establishocl for gra.~ting a similar wt-iver for adjoining developing p~operti.ea. Commisai~ner Ro~-land offered a motion, secondod :y Commisaioner Hpxbs*_ end MOTION CARRIF;D (t'ommisaioner rarano being absent), that the F~lanning Commission, in connQakion wfth an axemption declaration st~.tus requeat; ~~I1Ci3 ana determi.nos that the prapoaal would have no significan~ ~nvironmenta] Lmpact an~~ therefore, zecommende ta the City Council that no Environwental Imr t S~atemenc is necessary. ~ ~ MINUTFS, CITX ?LANNxN~ COMMISSION, Juna 11, 1973 '73-372 VARIAKCE N4. 7510 (Con~inuod) Ca mieeio~sei Hsrbot olfarsd Reoolutican l~o. PC73-127 end moved !or itd passaqa and ndoption to grsnt Fetition !or Varianr,o No. 2510, !.n pert, granting a A3-foot high eiqn o~ the basie that the adjoitting property hnd beon ~ra~ted WR~~/AL' of a similar aign heighti and aub joct to conditione. (9me Aesoluti~,n ~l ook ) On roll cnll th~ Pore3oinq reealu°.:ion ~+ae peseed by tho Eal lowing vnte ~ AYES ~ COMME83I~NERS: Gauer, Hor.bet, Ka-ytrood, itowlnnd, 9eymour. NOER: C~MMISSIONLR9s Allred. AHSENT: COMMI3SIONERS: ^aran~. CONDITIONAL USE - pUBLIC HEARING. UTSNEYLAND, INC., c/o Jamee G Roaa, PERMIT NQ. 1A04 Couneel, 1313 3outh Herbor Boulevaxd, Anaheim, Ca. 92803, '~~ ^~ Owner~ requesting ,pormir~aion to ESTJ-BLISIi l W.AREHOUSE, LOAD DOCK, AND OTHER SUPPORT FACILITIES FOR J~ THEME-TYPE AMUSEMJ:'NT PARK or~ prapexty dascribed as: An irrsqulnrly-ahaped parcel of land consi~t!ng ~Y appr~ximataly 2.7 acreo, having a frontaqe of annroximately 661. fee~ on the g~uth sido ot Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximetely 244 feet, and b~inq locaced appzoxtma.tely 70~ feet east of the cente•rline o~ West Stre t. Proparty preaently claysi~ied R-A, AGRiCULTURAL, 20N~. No one appeareci in oppo~i.' ton. ~~lthough the Report tA the Commiasion was nct read at tha public hearing it. ia referred to and made a part of L•he minutea. Mr. James Ro4s, repx'esentiny ~ianeylan~i, appeared beforQ the Commiesion :~nd indicated his pres9nce t:o anawer queations. Commissioner Rowl.and inquired what the plans wexe o£ Disneylend for the apace to the nortli ~f the loadinq doak after the home wa~ zemovedt wher~~upon Mr. Roas stated Cha~ there wore no plane ather than a turn-nround r~re~ for the large vehicles to back u~ to L•he new lusding dock. Commi.ssioner Rowland inq~ired whether it was reserved for futura dAValopmentJ whereupon Mr. Roea stated that at the prase:nt time thsy had not aaked for development of Lhnt progerty, but if ~l.an;~ changed, they would come hnak and ask for a~pioval of those pJ.ans. Commissioner ]towland then inquired whether there raould be any cb;jection ta making it a condit~on of approval that any further devel~pmant of the proper.ty would be suUject to approval by the Ylanning Commiss~.onj wh9reupon Mr. Roea concurred with that. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether it was planned to continue lxndscapinq along Ball Rond~ whereupon Mr. Ross st.atF~cl that they planneci to relocate the fence existinq alang Ball Road and plant shrubbery similAr t~ that whi.ch was along the perime~ar of the park, therefor~, the loading ~ock would n t be visible Pron- the atroat. Tl~e C~;r~mi3sion ~baerv~d that it ttppearen everything Disneyland did was done rig~,t, and iF ~ther prooerty owners w~t~).d follow suit with the same philosophi.- cxl beli.ef, developfnS a profess~onal way, there would be no need :~or all tne pubt~c h~aringr~ baforP L•he P inning Commisa•lon. THE HEARZNG WAS Ci.OSED. Commt~r~ioner Kaywood of~ere~ a mot~on, sec•~nded by Commisstonc~z A11red and MOTICN CARAIEA ~'ommissJ.on~r Farar.o being abeent), tha~ che Planning Commi~titon, ir .:~anection nith an exempti~n declarati~n status request, f.ind~ nnd 9etermin~as that the propoenl would have no signfficant environmental impacr z~nd, trieretore, recommends t~ the City Council t:tat no Environmental ~mpa^.t Statemenr ia necessary. ~ ^~1~ ~ MINUTEB, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Juno 11, :9'3 73-373 CONpiTIONAT. US~ PERMIT N0. 1404 iCantinued) ~ommisniu~~er Allred offera!! Re~olution No. pC7:i-128 and movsd !~r ite ~assaage and adoprion to qranC Patition !or Condit+.onaY Use parmit No. ldd4, aubject. ~ta conditione and tho addec9 r.ondition tt~at if any ~~rop~sal Por. devalopm0rit beyond kh:.:r. npprov~d undwz thirt co^di tiona]. uee pezc~it ua: cunoiuered, Qeval- opment plans eh~ll b~+ eubmittad to the Planninq Commionion for approval pri.~~r to tho ia~uanca of ~ buildinq pc~rmit. (soe Raeolution Raok) On rol7. call th Qorwgainq rc+solur.ian wa pn3ead by the tollowinq votA ~ AY~SS~ COMM~85 UNER3s All.red, Gauer, Horbst, Kaywooc9, Rowland, 9e~~mour. NOESi CUMMIS3I0NERSe Non~. ABSLNT~ COMMISSIONERSt 1"~rano. CONDITlONAI, U3E - P1IBLIC HEARII~G. CitRISZ' ANQ POROTI~Y M3-NES, 1418 W~r~t La PERMIT N0. 14C5 k'aima Avenixe, Anaheim, C~. 92801, Own~rn~ R03E MOHR, 423 ~ South Br~okhuxst 3treet, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, Agent; requeeting permieHion to ESTABL23H A AOARD ANO CARE HOME gOR A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN REGIDENT3 nn property deacribed as• A~-ectanqularly- ~haped pnrcel of la~nd c~naiex~nq of a~pr~ximate3.y .14 acra, h:~vinq a fror.t+~a9 c~g a~pr.oximataly 59 feet on the eouth side os La Palmn Avenue, haviny a maximum depth of approximaL•oly 101 feet, and being locate~ pprUr.imat~:ly 510 faet east o! the cc~~.erline of Dresd9n Street, Property pre.~~ntly clasaified R-1, ONE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. No one appaared in oppoaition. Althouqh the Report to the Commieaion was not rAad at the public hear.ing, it ia ref~~rred to and made rs paYt of the minutea. Mra. Roee Mohr, agent for t'~e p~titioner, appeared before thcs Commieaion and i.ndicated her presence to anawer questiona. Chairman Seymou4 inquired whether the peti.tioner was aware of the fact that if more than five guests were prapogEd, the pxc~perty would have ~t.o be sprink- lered in accerdance with L•h~ requirement o`_ the Fire Code, and if ahe was aware of it, would ahe sa st+-pulate to meeting this Lequiz•ementi whereupon Mrs. M~nr so sti~ulated. THE: HEARII~G WAS CLUS~D. Commissioner Kaywoad inquired whether ~t would be necessary to jufit make a stipulation as ta sprinkxering in the event mor~. ~uests were proposod. Zoning Supervisar Cbarles Roberta noted tha~ L-he Plai~r~ing Commiesion could estanlish a maximum that wo~!d be gPrmitted to reside at~ 2~he preaent time, and at ths ~resent time the petitioner was only requeatinq perm3~aion to have five guests in addition to the two residenta un the property, however, jf t~~ey wantad to have mnre than five guests, the}~ must come back ~o the C:~mmi:3- afon and at ~ publ~.~ hsai•i;zg request pFrmission to have more guesto, wi .h or without sprinkleri~~y. Commissf.oner Rowland oPf~+red a moticn, second~3 by Commissiox~er Allred and MOTtON CARRIED (Commisr~3oner Farano be3nq absent), that ttie Planning Commiasion~ in connection with an ~~xemption declaration status re~ueat, finds Pnd 3etermines that the propor~al wou].d have no s~qnificant pnviror.mental impact, and, therefore, recommeiids to the City Caunctl that no Environmental impa~t Statement, is nece ssary ~ Cammiasioner Kaywood offered R.esolution No. PC73-129 and moved fur lts passage and adoption to grant petition for Cond~.t.ional U~e Permit No. 1405 for five quests only; subject to conditions and the stipulation of tihe peL•itioner th ~ i.n the event more than five guests were proposed to reside there, that all buitdings ~+sed for residantial purp~aea would have to be provided with an au~o- matic apri..k].ing syatem. (See ItesolutJ.on Book) On roll c~ll the ioregoing reeolution wus pa:ae~ by tha Eollowing vote: AYES: ~OMMISSION~RS: F-llred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowlana, Seymour. NOEs; ~OMMTSSIONERSs None. ABS~N7.': ~OMMISSIONF.P.S: Farano- ..~. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLAN"tN('~ COMMISSION, June il, i973 "1]-374 V)1RiANCE N0. 250Z - PC)HLIC H~AriiNG. DARY L. WILES, 414 Le~nora Street, ^ l~neheim, Ca. 92805, Oanert requeet~nq W~-I~,:R Oi* MINIMUM REAR YA;tD SE~'DAGK Td CONBTRUCT A AOOM ADDITION a~ti property deo ~~hed ae i A rectn, qular~.y-ehaped percel oE land 1iav, ng a P~ontaqe of npp ox:metely 75 P.eet on thu eauth eide oi! Leonora streek, hnving a maximum dep~.h oP appre~ximately 115 f.eet, a~,d being loeated appraximr.tely 190 le~t east a! thr, canterline of Harbox• Boulavara. PropbrtX pr~sently clae~ified R-G, ONE-FAMILY 3UBURBAN, ZONE. No ona appeared in ot~positian. Alchough the Re~ort to the Commlanion wa< ~ot zeed et the public hearing, ie ie referred t~ a~nd mede a part of the minutes. Mr. Gary W'los, ownar of the parce.l, indiceted his preeance to ~+nawer quastio-~e. Cammiasioner 12owland inquired whather tho ~nelgrbor to the+ wee~ risd irzdic~te9 hie a~,praval of the propor~ul.= wheroupon Mr. Wi2ee stated that both Mr.. and Mra. Ring on the weat and Mrs. ~nd -Nrs. Grace on the opnosite ~ide had indicated no oppos'~ion. 2ontng Supervisor Char.7 ~s Roberta indiaated thnt a].et~er was on £ile Erom tho Grace family indicatin~ no oppooition. THE HEARIt~G WAS c T,~7SED. Commisaioner Kaywood off~red a motion~ aeconded hy Commi~•sionox Allred and MOTION CARRI~D (Commieai~ner' Faxano be,ing absent), that the Plann:ing Cnmmis~ion, in connectior- wit An exemption 3eclr~ration statua r~queat, f~nd:= ~nd cletermines tliat the pr~posa.- ~uld rave no sigi,i f.ic ~r~t enviranmental impact and, there'ora, zecommend_ o the City Council that no Environmantal Impact Statemer.t is nacessary. Commisr:ianex Allred oifered Reaolution .)o. PC73-130 and moved Por ir.s paseaye and adogtion to grant Petiti.on for '~a~~iance No. 2502, subject to conditiona. (5ee Resolutian Book) On rol~ cRll the foreqoing resolutior~ was passed by the followit~g vot.e: AYES: COMMISSIONER~: Allred, Gauer, Ho~bst, Kaywood, Roa~land, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONRRS: N~ne. ASSLNT: COMM'iSSIGNERS: Farano. VhRIAN^.E NO. 2516 - PUBLIC HEARING. ~MERSOfi ELECTRIC COMP~N':', 8100 West Florissant Avenue, St. Louis, Misaouri 63136, Own~ ; NORMPN MILKES, 9776 Kat~~lla Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92804, Agenk= reqiiesting W•lI'!ER OF PERMITTED US~S TO ESTABLISH RETAIL DISTRIBUTION OF PROGUCTS tt0'i• PROD'JCED ON THE PAEbizSES on ~~ perty descrik,ed as : A rectangalarly-shaped parcel of land aonsis ~3 of approximately 2.8 acres, having a fronta.qe of approximately 3S2 fe c,n thc: east side of Magnolia Avenue, leaving a max:'mum depth of approxin~~tely ?40 feet, and bei q located ap*~roximately 122o feet north ot the centerlinp oc La Palma Avenue. Property preaently clacsified Y.-1, LIGFiT TP]uUS'PRIAL, ZONE. Two persons indicated their pres~nce in ~~r~~osition. ~oning Supervixor Charlea Roberta reviewad the locati~n of subj~a~ ~roperty, ses estab].ishsd in close proximity, prev3aus ~coning action on the proper.L•y, and the proposa.l to establish a rPtail distrib~tion and warehousiny center for the st:,i~age, distr.:bution and sala of women's garman.tsf 1•~iat regional off.icea we,re alsa pro~osed on the 3ite, providinq service to both the re=ail and warehouse centar as well as other off-site retail outletbJ thdt ~he ware- houae facili'ty would comprise an arpa of approximate].y 13,600 aquaze £eet. th~ reqional office wou? d be coaeprised of a twa-atory structure appr~~ .imately 11,K:u0 aquar.e ':eet, anr~ the re'tail a~ea t~pQroximately 4500 square feetp that the retail and warehouse facility would i~e located in a one-atory bui~.ding constructed of t.ilt-up concrete panelr and tha* the entire facade ~f bath l~uildzngs waa pzoFosec: ~f cor.~rete panels anc7 glass windows. e +~ MiN~JTE3, CiTY PLANNING COMMI35ION, June 11, 197~ 73--375 vARIANCE NO. 25.16 (Continvedl ttr. Robarte Purther noted that the hours ot op~ratinn !or the r~t•~+il enles outlet would bo from 9~3n a~.m. to 5~00 p.m., Monday thxouqh 3atuxd~y~ *he war.ehause operatioa would ba from 8~30 a.m. to 5~00 ~.m., Mondsy through Fridey~ and the nflt~e liaura would be from 9~30 $.-a. to 9~00 p.n., Mondey through Frida~ which would provide dveninq credit rd~orence eexvice to u!t- sit~ retail outleta, ao well ae 3nily affl.ce aervice. Fu:•t.hnrmora, Ctie ple~ne Aubmitted indic~ted pesrking for t1-e reta~l ouClet and wr~r.ehau~a ~ent~~ to be fn conP.ormanc~ witii the M-1 ~~tandurda~ *_hnt minimurt~ M-1 1and.~ca~in.~ ~tc.nd~rda were propos~d~ Chat the proposa3 traah atozaqa areA would meet ~!ty requiro- m~nte i~~ regarcl ~o si.xa and location, howevor., Acceea to ~be, e1.tg woul~ be 1lmite3 to a 2~-i~oL alley, which would nat provide adequs4o turni~~y radius~ and t'~at if thia variance were approv~.d, the applicant shauld be nut on notice that if expaneion ~ras being consideze~l in the f.uture, he w~uld hav~, to provida adec~unte accommodations for circ~tlati~n of fire +~nd trnsh truoke with ~n aoce~awl1 wider than 20 foet. Mz. Roberta, in reviewing the ovaluatian, st~+tod that the General Plan pLO- jectod thie area far industrial usei that in t~iew of tlie ..dct that the pra- posed activity was compr.iepd of in~~xatrial and general retail usee and bardorQd onto commerc~.a1 usea, that aome consideration shou~.~i be gfven to ze~quiring landecaping to be in conformanco ~•~ith tne st~~ndarde of tha commercial xonAt and that the adjoining Wickas Furniture hud excQSdec3 conaiderably the landecap- ing requirements of the :~-~ 7or~~ and even tha aommeralal zon~~. Mr. Norman Milkea, agent f~r ::he petitioner, appoar9d bpfc~re the C~mmiaeion anQ rpviewed t.he pr.opo~ed developm~nt, r~o~i-~g it would be th~ he~dqu~+rter~ fnr ,7~a~m's women's ap~ar~l in c:on~unction wi~tn e wt~xehousoi that i•he area that was proposed to be de••oted to ratail saley apgxoximated 15~ of the Lot-1 area whiGh wauld be incidenta]. tc, th~ other d~+veJ.opmont eince thay had 18 other retail st~res in ~ovttiern Cali.fornia3 ar.d then reviewed theix vnrioua lorntionej that. t.here~ wculd '~e n~ stre9ts tvcated in t':e rlevelaFment aince acceasways would be i~.corpor~tdd -.to th~ ovdrall dp•.elopmen': and the doliver}• area wnuld be very li.nited, perhaps to United Parcel S~rvice deli.vering to them, as well as smal~ p~~nel trucks making dai].y 3eliveries to the ~ther different outlet~; that there would b3 no more tnan 2c1 ,.0 25 employ~ea, and these wQUld be primarily in the corporate oifires; and that tne de:ivery area would be in th~e center between the r. ~tail out~et and the warehouso so tha~. it wou3.d n~t be viewed from tr.e si:reet. Mr. Robert 3harp, represenL•ing Califo~ ~ Co~.,put~ r Praducts, 2411 West La Palma Ave~ue, app.:ared b..f~re the Commi3sic~ e oppoai tion, stating that. they opposed continuation of ~o~~ru•~rading of the i, _.ustrial area with commercial usea which had stdrted w~th Wick~s Furniture Companyj that they not only occupied their property on La Palma Avenue but five buildings at the corner of La Palma and Magn~lia '.venaes; that when waiver of the permiLt~d uses was granted to Wickes, they alsc stated to the Commisaion that this would be manufacturing and ware- housing with only incidental retail salea, however, they had no maniifactu.ring there now, and the aper~tion was ~rimarily reta.i.l, and aZth~ugh they did not further opoose the Wickes' operation, at that t me they wgnt on record as being oppos~d to any £urther expansion af co,nmercial ~ises in the arPai that the pe~'~i- tioner statad this woul.d be ~nly 15~ total squa~e foot•r.ge ~~vut~~d tc retail purpose:., but that di3 not mean when Chere was a 13,OU0-sg~tare foot warehouse that would be a primarily indu~*rial-related operaL•ion~ L•hat this would be an 3.nduce;nent fc:~ heavy traffic on ari already heacily-traveled streetj that they ha3 r~any of theix employees now using Mac~no~ia Avenue, azid the h~urs o£ op3ra- tion would be conflicting witti L•he hours o£ opexation of the ex?sting induatrial uaea i,a the areg, making it extremely difficulk for employees to mako left and rigt h turns at tha intersect.ion of tAag.~~lia and I.a PLima Avenues, arE~ting dan?erous traf.fi~ confl':ts; that nn atat,ement was made by the agent reqarding signing of the propert.~ and ..t ~r.e t~cne Wickea aske -~~r additional ai3ning, and he ~ias sure this potitior~er wou].d ask for cansiderably greater s3.gninq than the M-1 Zone permitted because of this retail use which would re~uir~: larger signingr and that hts company Was oppo~ed to injecting retail traffi~c into t:his area since they were try!c:q ta en~r,ouz'age industrir~l development in the aroa, aci3 the two traffic Fatterns ~f industry with larg~ trucks a~nd autom~k>iles fxom the commercial development wer~ incompatible. ... ~ ~ MINl1TE3, CI'~: PLANN7~~" COMMI3SION, June 11, 1973 ~~'37~ ~,iARIANCE NQ, 2516 _~ntl.nued) lA representative o! the Hubbsll Liqhtinq Uivi~aio~- at 7.212 No•r~h Magnolia Auenue, ep~sared before tha Com~~` _'~ in ~ppos~.ti~n, advi~in~ thc Gammit~ion they oacupied the old U. 5. t14ra~ uilding ad~acent to Wiokoc Furnltuxe and manufac- tured lightinq equipment:, and he vroulc~ ~i.ke to rcitsrat. otatemonte mafld by Mr. Sharp since he, too, was very much oppoaed to reta~il u~es and ita tratfic being projocted !or thle arsa. Mr. Mil.kAe, in rehuttal, otated they he dtd not tool that e ame-11 retail area would make much ditferon4a !n tra~fic in thi~ armn eince tho olfioe end wnre- houae uee would be permittmd. Furthermoro, there wao extensi•v~ retail u~eo far~her down Mdgnoli~ At~enu• end along La l~elma Avenue, and aven the H•tbbell ~ompany propoaed to have an of~ice building oc~ th at property~ that tha rtate- ment by Mr. Sharp thet thi. would downqrade the industrinl area was contrery to the way he aew thie uperntion, which he Eelt woul~ upqr~cle tha aieat that th~ Ci+.y of P-nahsim 81d not have a zo~e wharo both commercial and manufecturing uees would be permitted nuc11 ae many other air.i.ae hedj thdt Wickes Furniture wa~e primarily retai.l, while the ;~etitioner pra~~Rad a~arye aorporate, two- etory officA bullding and war~ehause facility L•o the rear of the retai~ uee, whic would be abcut I5~ of the buildiny area~ tha-t thiA would be a npw aetiap f~~r e and ~erhapa the ~50A-square fo~t retai] gacil~.ty would be too targe and not proPf~able, therefore, it might turri ~.nca offiue apacet and that the parking ~hey proposad would be in conformance with the various ueeR propoeQd. Mr. IWilkes also noted that t~e had one queetion regarcii.nq the tissli pick-up, namely, that. the propoaed area of 19x7Q feet would be dev~lcped, however the nrchitect relt th _ he would not• 11ka to be lf.mited to one aoluti~n to the pr~blem, but he wou'ld like to asaure the Commission tha~ they would meet the City'a requiramenta for trsah pi.ck-up. 'PHE HEARINv^ WAS CLOSED. Tho Commi~sion inquired as to ~he relationship of the propnaed retail atore ta th~ others which th~ cor~pany hadJ whereupon Mr. Mil.?ces atated that it would not be as large as the other stores i.n Lakewood, Buena F~ark or Cos~a Mes~a~ and that they propoaed s~me alterations of the garments, but this did not come withi~- the deftnition of manufacturing. Commission~r Her.bst noted that the City of Anaheim's M--1 2one ordinance ~,er- mitted retail s~.;~~s whEn the saleg were i.n conjsnction with ~srvicinq the industrial commutiity, however, he cou'd not see haw one could intqrpret that ~he sale of women's dresaes could be consiaezed as being a serv3ce to induatrys that he realipQd that Wicke~ Furniture mi~represented their operar.i.on when chey pzesented it L•o the Planning Commiasion, but: thia should not establish a preceder.t= that he did not object to the corpor.ate offices or warehouse faciii- ties, but he was opposed to a dress shop in tho indus~rial areu becaus~ it did not compiement the induatrial community, and to permit it would be breakinq ~dawn fihe industriaJ. areas in AnaY,eim~ r.hat there were manv ~ommer.cial areas in Anaheim where this facility could be locatedj an~ that just becausa only 15~ of the area was prc~~o.ed for retail uses did not mea» the use was compatible. Chairman Seymour inquirec: wl•~ether thi~, was the larqest or amalle~t retail atore in thi.s ch3in becaus~ 45U0 square feet, to him, represented a very large commer- cfal store; c~hereu~on !yir. Milkes stated it was an average size store. Chairman Seymour further r,oted that there hould be a variety of accessory items that could be available at thia outlut, not ~nly dressee, coa~s, and suitst whereupcn Mr. M3.lkes repl~,ed ~hat it was a~sychological thing to ha•ve a mixe3 aiaplay of itQms, out he did not f~el there would be a Zarge volume such as in a f.ree-standing store in d commercial area because that store wuuld draw from t:~e othpr commercial storea in the area, while this operation on sub}ect prap- erty would be disposinq of producta on a periodic basis, having aa].es o£ Roiled and damaged goods or excess merchandise aa was done elsewhere in the M-1 Lone. Mr.. Roberts noted that thd ar3inance did not permi~ this ty~e of use, however, thia did not mean it wa5 not b~ing d~ne. C~mmisaioner Gaues rio*_ad triera would b~ not only dxosaos but ~cc;essories, ~uet as other zet.ai ~ s~.oYes in ahogping cent~rs had, aad this ~o~ild become a req~ilar departmen~ sto~e. ~ ~ ~ MxNUT~3, GITX F1~ANNINt; COMMI93ION, ~7ut.e ~l, 1973 73-377 VARIANCE NO. 3516 (Cantinued) Mr. !~ilk~+~ i~quired whether it vruuld make a~ ~itferenr.a i r they proposea a 3500-Aquare f~ot r~tnil laoillt~t whereupon Chai:msn Seymour atatdd tt~a`. thi.a woul~l only imFly thnt thrre wauld ba a lesser u~aqe than in ott~er reteil operntiona, but when one quuted a Percentege Af bueinees that w~-e intonaed, thiv wde moze indioativst that M~e~ars. Sha~rp and Hubbsll wP.re ~onc~rn~~d with the amount of othes than indu~trial ~rnPfic t' rutai] use wot.tld ~~nerate, and if thie oooration were succ~v~ful, ~his w4uld in~ect a aonaiderabls amo~int ol Craff.'.a i! onn c~:neic9erad a d500-dquare foot ,tore, and aftar. k~av~ .q been "burned" ~y Wi~ke~ Furniture, the~ Ccmmieaion could imAgin~ th~ ~~5Q0-Pqua_a lont Pncilit,y would be increased, adding Puxt•her to the tza2Pic pr~'~lam~ ~-I~eraupon Mr. Mf lkee re~lied ~ha`. the tzond wnn in ~het manner in ~thei .:omc,s •' *i~a . t;hxirman Seym~ur nuted that reCail usds permitted in the M-:. Zon^+ of the C.l~y of Anaheim wera only t~ aerve inlluetry, n~c tha general publia, and then in- quired as to the t.ype of signing that waq nropa~ •Q - woulA t..Pxe be +~ prublcm .later on if aiqning permitted in the M-1 Zone proved tA he inede~uate Por Cti~ cetail uae ~ wou'~ the p~titioner b3 requeat~ng a waiv~r af the siyr~ requ3.re-- menta. Qa..r,.~.~ Mr. Mil.kes repl~ed that 3~w+„o~e'a clothing wpre m4~ium to higb~ priaed, rang.ing ~'~o,y '~s.~to $200 a dresst that; the si~nii~g wuuld ha c+dequate since th aalee propASed ~ox this fr~ci~ity would bc~ surplus of last yeai's fdshior~s and damt~gad good~ wliich would bE disposed o£ at t:hf.a l.ocation. Com:niseion~r Keywood iaquired whethor ic v.as proposed ta ha've a rea~erboard type siqn~ ~-he.reupon Mr.. !`iilkae ~tated they woul.l reot hava tha~ type of eiqn since they groposed that this fac:ilicy woul~ be the c~rporate offices and wanted to maintafn a*-iqho.r lavel appeararcd~ and that the reason tliey planned to locate i~z thir~ industri~sl arer. on Magnoiia Ave.iue was hecause of tnP adver- tisir~g gxpor~ure to traxfi.c; or. the .,t.r~e`.. Commissioner ~terbst was of the opinion that th'_a would h~ a regular ratail ~tore with pic;c-up from a warehouse, and ~here ~rould be a greater potential of rotail because of the ~olume availab].e at a nearby warehouses whc ~upon Mr. Milkes reptied that thPir business would ~enerall,y be dt a s1,opFing conter, and because of this loaation, there would be no o~ther sti'eets or at ser traffic since all they praposed would he the di~posal of excess atock. Commissioner Gauer expreseed the opinion that the Commission had l:en 'mis~ infoxmed so of.~en that hP would classi:y this as u retail o~~rat~,~n. Gccrmissioner Rowland obsazved that the petitioner was requeating considerr.•ton for a retail. operation in t.he industrial zane~ that this would not be a prime location and no "blue chfp" drawin3 of. custumerst 4h~t ~ ceta~' escabl.ish~nent of inen and women's clothing wuulu have to generate Uetween ~ne-half million and one million d~llars in retail sales to justify a 350U-squ~.re foot buzldinq which would, iri turn, ~enerate a high amounr of z•etail traffic, and these gigures w~re based on what h1s ata£f knew was e.xpected From a gi~en size of a retail busi~ esa. Commissioner Hgrbst noted that ~he ayent indi~:a~ed they only propoaed to dis~ pose of outdat.Pd merchandi$e, but this could later turn into curxent merchalxdiae being ofrered for sale, whi.ch wauld generate ~ti11 more traffic. Mr. Milkea, tn responsH to Chairmun Seymour's questianing reg.trding meetang Che landscaping requiremetits of the C-1 Zone, stipulbted that they c~uld. provid.e it. Commi~ssioner Ka.ywo~d noted ~hat tlie rot.si'1 sales hours of o~eration w~uld be in direct con£liat with the working hours of the adjoining mdnufacturing facilitiess ahereupon Mr. Milkea etatecl tha~ theae houxs could be chanyed, opening later and aloaing later, such ae 1C:?0 a.m. t~ '1:00 p.m., which wovld be latQr t;~an pe~k traf{ic hours. C~mmiasioner Kayweod observed that ~+~eopla were alWaya 'luoking for bargains, and there could ba a r.eqular stampede cnntinuously, ~rhich ~night necesaitate rEquirinq a left-turn signal to help relieve the traffic, therefore, ft was possibla that an Environmetitsi Impact Report may be required. ~ ~ MINUTE3, CITX PLttNNTNG COMM'[SSIOM Jun~ 11, 1973 73-378 l'l1~tIANCE NU. 2516 (C~ntinued) Che~irmr~n Seymuur, notod that th9r.s wauld be no re,~eon to r.oquest an ~nviranmontal Impsat R~port i~ the~ Commisaian d~.^ not l.ook favnrably on thi• pro~~ct. Further- mcre~ in rAe~ansa to r,onaern expxe~s~d by Commiasionar Ka,ywuod zeyardinq tuxn~nq xudiue ~ar l.ire and trash ~iok-up, sicaked that thc+ ngent for tha petitionar had otlpulatea to meeting the SaniteCl.on Uspartment'e requiramonta but wanted to p1'~er tho ercniteat a~lter.~~ativuo a• tn ahat Nee paesib].A. Cc- ~, seloner Kaywoo~ khan ir~quixsd ot Mr. Robarts whethor tt~e stipulRt.ion made by ..~ agent would be ddaquat~a to tR!ca aare o! the Fire Departmant rdquirement~ w'ne~~_up~~n Mr, ~berte atated that i! the p~titio~~er provictad adequate accaus !oz krnah, the other emerge~ncy vehialeA woulQ hnve adequat.e r~cceAr~ se we11. Commiseionrr Kaywood afferod ~ mot.ion, 0e~condeA by Commiasioner Allrod and M~TIpN CARFtSr;b (~o~.~mi~aioner Fnrano beiriq enaent) , that ~he ~'lanning Gomrnib~.iar~, ~.n connoction w±th an oxemption d~alsratio~ atatue request, find and detarm.inea th~t the p~'~poea:4 wo~sld have no oigniticant environmeatal impu~:t And, tFierefore, recommc~nde to lha City Caur~c:il that r-o L*nvironmental ImQuct Statamenk ie nec:ueeAZ1 Commissiuner Fierbet offerc+d R~QOlution No. PC73-131 a~id moved F.ox ite paesaqe and udo~tion to do*.Y 're~ition tor Vuriance ~o. 2J1~> c~~~ the baAie thet the px'~- pueed x4tail saloe distrib~rtion wuuld noC be an incidental uae eince tha eiz~ o~ the retail aroa pz•c~pogod c+ould be comrRrnble to a standard ratsil etora i.n any com~nercial cen~er and the u~o wou~d generete mor~~ r9ta11 ac^tivity than xt~ros i.n cummercial centers due xa tlia vnri.ety of pric~as Por snilad or dnmaged q~ode and pd8t aeasons' fRahic+ne anQ duo to the tremenduue invantory cepacity of the proZ~osed facil.ity j thnt the propoaed ~etail dietrlbuti.or. ga~cility would not be Frima~il~y ae~zving cornmarca and .tndustry but wculd ba qoar~ad 7oward servir-g the g~~neral public, ancY euch t~ full-blovtn r~t~iJ. uge covid generete cona3.derable t~affic into en ~cee davelo~ed or being de~~e.:loped with it~duotriel usest and that the grantinq ~E sahjaa~ potition ~ould bc~ granting the pe~itioner a privilega not onjoyed in othnz~ ~.~1dua~zial areas. (See R£dnlution .~ook) Gn roll call the foregoing resolutinn was pasaed by the following v~tet AYES: COMMISSIOI~E12Sc Al1reQ. Gmu~ar, HerL-r~t, Kaywood, Rowland, Ssymour. NOF.S: COPlM25SIONERS: None. ABS~NT: COMMISSI~NLRS: Farano. VARIANGE N0. 2518 - PUBLIC H~A~tING. FELIX AKD ELENA RHIIMAnA, 874 Red~ndo Drivo '- ~ East, Ana}~eim, Ca. 92901 and ROHERT AND DOLOXFS MURR~W, 370 ~ietioncio Drive l~ast, AnahaJ~m, Ca. 92801, Ownerat PHIITP SANU~, 874 Redondo Dri~~ East, Ar~aheim, Ca. 92801, Agentr requ~Pting WAIVER OF (A) MINZMUM Siil^ YARB~ (B? MINIHL'M R~AR YARD, (C) MINIMUM LOT ~REA, AND (D) MTNIMUM k'LOOR AREA TO DIVILE TWO EXISTING T~OTS Zt3T0 THRFE LOTS AND CONSTRUCT A SINGL'E-~FAMI:Y RESID~NCE an propezty deECribed as: An irrc~gularly•• shapec: parcel of land consiat3ng ~f approxima~ely .'73 acre, having a~rontaqe of approximately 118 €eet an the norkh side of the curved portion of Redando Drive ~as•t, having a maximum depth of approximately 205 feet, and being lacated approximately 230 feet north ~f the centerline of Y~onn~ Place. Froperty pre sent7.y classified R-0, ON~-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE. No one a~,p~~ `d in oppoc~.ition. Although the Rc:p~rt t~ the Commiesion was not read at tha public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the mi•~utes. Mr. Philip Sands, agent for the p9ti~.ionere, indicated they weie provoeing to conatruct home cn Portion ~ on1y, which would be located an the ndw lot thar was bein~ created and that .~e would stipu2ate to elimination of waivex of tha minimum rear vard and side yard setbacka. THE HEARTNG WAS CLnSED. Commissioner t.zrbst. of£ered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Rowland ar~c3 MOTT013 CARRIED (Commisaior-s_ Farano bei,ig r~.bsent) , that the Plann~.nq Commi~ai.on, in connection wf.th an oxea~ption :~ec,laratien statug request, finds nnd d~texmines that the proposal w~uld ha~we no eignificacit environmental i~npact ~nd. ther~fore, recommende to the City Council that no Env~r~nmental ImpA~t Statemen~ is : pcr.geary. ~ MINUTES~ C:7;'~Y PL~~NNING COMMIu9IUN, June 11~ 1973 VARIANCE NC~. 2518 (Cont~.nuo~l) 73•-379 Cummiseio~ex A.ilred off~i~ed Reeolution No. PC73~-132 a»<i moved for it~ pa~eego a~d aQoPhion to grant Varinnc~ Nn. 2518, in ~art, qrantinq Waivo:~ 1-c tor Portl,on 1~ and WaivOr l~d f~r Portion s on ths b+~,is tha~t the potitionar ha~ Wirl~dra-wn Wsivsrs 1-d and 1-b ~+nd eti.pula~ad to complying with Codo-required side and r+~a~r ynrrd setbuc:kr~~ t.hat waivere of. tho minimum qraund Fl.our eren !ax• ~ortion A an9 minimum 'ot r~ize f~r por.tion B wae grent~d on the baeie that th• pstitionex waa attompting to reeolve n difficult eubdivislon problom ox tt-o lar~o +~ paxti ot which waa noe now beinq ~eed and similer ~aivera had boare granted on e~djacent proporty in the pael•~ And eubiect to ccnditiane, amending Condition NA. 4 to rsqui re thet the plane ehall be revise8 to re flect aom~llance witF- Codo-renuirefl eidA and iear yard aetbdcke. (See Reeolutian ~ook) On roll on11 the for~going rea~lutian w~e par~s9d by the following vot•: AXE3: C.~OMMISSIONERSs Al.lzed, Gd~•er, Horbat, Kaywood, Ruwland, ,4~ay~nour. NOE:is COM6IISSIONBP.S: Nnn~. ABSEN'C: t;OMMISSIUNERS: I'ardno. REC~,ASSIFICA'"ION - PUDI.IC H~ARTN~. JAMES MATTH~WS, c/o LeonArd Sm~th, ~25••D pp, 71_73_5?. Sou~h Claudina Stroot, Anah~im, Ca. 928~5, Owner~ LEONARe ~ ~~~ ~ SMITH, 125-D South Cl,audina Strset, Anat-e:lm, Ca, q28Q5r CO!JDZTIOt~AL USE Agontj propertf ti9scribod as c A rectnngularly-ehdped PFRMIT NQ. 1402 parcel of land aonsieting of approximately .2 acrc~, having y a frontr~ge of approximetc~ly 50 feet on tne eoiith t~ide of Droadway, Y~aving a~rnximum depth of approximately 1'3a FoaL•, Ana being located at thc~ southeast corner of 8roac]way and Vine Streot, and further known as 900 East flroadway. Property preaently C1gSS.ff~~d R-2, MULTIE'LE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. RF;QUESTED CL}1SSIFICATION: C-1, GEN~RAL COMMERCIAL~ lONE. Rk'QUESTED CONDITIOI'~AL' US~: ESTAB],zSH A SMALL'^ANIMAL :iOSPITAL YiAIVINCy MINI1+aIlM BUZLDING S~TBACK FROM A RESID~NTIAL ZONF. DOUNDARY. Ona pez~son indicated hie presence in oppoaition. Assiatant planner Plhillip Schwartzo reviewed the Report to the C~mmiasion, notiny the location of duhje~:t property, u~es eotabli.3hed in closo proximi~y, anc~ the propossl to establish a sraa].1-animal clinic, rEmoving the older exist- ing, ~1ng1o-family residence anci conetructing a ne~r comm~rcial building dasigned specif~cally for the Qropoaed uset thet the Uu1J.di~iy would be a one-story build- ing with natural bc~ige, slumpstone walls and a mission tile roofi ~hat the building wouZd be set back 10 feet ~'rom Droaclway and 5 ieet from Vine StreEti that the easterly wall of the building, approxitnately 15~5 feet high, wouZd be built along the aaaterly lot line with na setback, for whi~h a M-aiv~r wr~s r~- quiredt tha~: the build~.nq area of 1775 ~quare Peet would cover 26~ of the: I.o~:t that ~t the zear of the buildinq would be a private yard. surrounded by a 6-fi~ot high sl,umpstone walli that according t~ the pet.itioner, the yard would be uaucl, if necessary, to observe ~he 3ait of an ar.~ma~. tio diagnose lameness~ t:hat a peraonal guar3 dog of ttie petS.tioner would bs exezcised in the yard ari•3 usod ea a guard dog ~t night= that submittec~ p~ans indicaksd th~tt parking f~~r ninE~ Care with pr~.mary access froin a dzivewny tc VinQ StrFet were proposEd ~~n the rear portion of. the prcpertys ihat sec~ndary accQSS to four ~f th~se s;oaces would be to t•he alley, and ~inae tY~e alley was unly 18 feet wide, an a~3~~itior~al dedication o£ one foot wes rshown on the p'_ane, that a standard trash s torage arets was ~ndicated on th~ plans ko be loct-ted at the southeast corner ~af the groperty ao tha~ trash could be ~convani.ently Qi~ked u~ adjacent to the alley~ that landacapi:~g was pr~vided alox~g both atrPets ln acc~rdanca wi.th Coc1e requirements, while a tree~ screon w~s al~o provided a].onq th~ eseterly resi-• dentia]. boundary line adjacent to the parkinq azeat thaL• meohan~cal eq~xipment: ~rnuld be roof.-mounted and wauld be concealed from public view by the a:i.oping tile ruof an three sides an~ by the p+srapet on the rematninq aidet tha~. the parapet, which was required by the Duilding Codc, wauld alse provide sc~und buffering to shield the adjacent re~identaal use from the nois~e gsneraeed by ~the mectiataical equipment; that siyne were not d parL- o'. t.!::.4 ~~stittion~ t+nd that information from the petitioner'o ngent indicate~i :i.are would be a emAl]., tao-faced a3gn on Bro33way fully compl,yinq with :t-e Sig~a Code. ~ ~ MINUTP~S, CZ'fY PLANNTNG COIdMISSION, June 11, 1973 "J3-38U ItSCLA58SFZCAT_I.ON N0. 72-73-52 ANO CQNY DIT'i~NAL U8R PERMIT NO. 140~ (Continued) Mr. Sahwartz~, in reviewing the ~valuation, r~atad thst ~he~ Ganeral ~~l+~n ilatiq- neted tliie ar~a as being apprupriate tar inAu~tx•la~ usoe alor~g tha rail.road, snr] prnpertien betweon Vino ;t.reat nnd EROt 9traet on both norkti and aouth ot Sroadwny a4r~e propoeed for medium-dbnaity r•~~a.n~i.n~. us~e~ that exiesting non- ac~nfortninq ueoe within the neighk~o rhaad may a!lect the implamen~ation o! ~ha a~noral k~lan Aince there Nas e gxe~ -oxi~ting, n~~ncun~lorming markat ann block ~.o tha eaxt o! eub ject ~roperty - th i e m+~rlcet wae x lonq~~tai~dinq uae of many yr,ar~t thet there waa aleo a amat l. eiqn shop being operaf;~d ~o ti~e roar ot the house, thrmo lotR to tha east ot ~ ub~ect propnrtyt that th~+ anly other non- conlorm~.rxq uaee in the neic~hborhoo d W~re located three bloaks awdy at the intareoctiorr ot SXOd$WRy and East Skreet:t Ch+~C on the eouthwaeaL• corner w~s e Nump repair bueinees and well driller aP meny years' ~-tending, a~nd tha servics ~tntioa at the southeaet corner v~raa euthorized by Varia~nue Na. 44~ nbout 20 yeaxe ago, in 1gS5, althouqh it waa aurren~ly nat i.n uso for retail dtapbnsing oP Qaeol~ne~ that `.hA Commiesian would wioh to dotarmina whether ~hd exietiny nonconfarming u~ses in the neighbc~rhood juatifi.ed the zone chnnqc~ and land uR4 pr.opoead an aubiect p:'aperty, and i! eo, pe~:IldpA the Ganeral P~an ehould be amonded tu zeElect c.ommercial uees along Aroadw~y~ and that thc only zecent new aonetruction in the neiqhborhood had Ueen in conformanc~ witn tho General Plan wherein a lourplex wr~s built in th~ sume block nn a parcol four lots to khe eest of su,b ject pr~perty. C~mr,~lsai~r~~r Rowlund leEt L-ha Council Chamber a~ 3:30 p.m. Mr. I,eonard Smith, xc~ent for the petitioner, app~ared boforo the Commiaslon mnd noted they weze requestiny th e¢oning petiti.onr. to establis;- a small- animal clinic and hos~ital in a nESw buildinc~ which would be deaigned Eor thie specific use, arid there would be no noiees ar sour.da coming fram tihe buil.ding, all activit.iee being canducted indoors except in the onclosed area i.n the rear. where tha veterinnrian wou].d obse rve an ani.mal *_o detormine whr~t Creatment waa ne~dedi that the builclin3 wou'ld b~ an asset tu the area~ whioh would be an offiae-dc~siqned building wh~.ch would uct as an isolat9.i~g factor to the proper•- ties to tli~ aaat, buLfering them from the noi~es oi ~he railroad; and L•hat it ~aould be an asaet to the area. Mr. Tom Ryan, 314 Sauth Vine Street, appeared b~fora the Commisnion in op,pdsi- t~on, notiny hia property was df.~coctlp to the south of aubject property and ~tated that rhe petitianer had not indicated how many kennels would be locatea outdoozs~ wlie.ceupon Chairma.n Seymour noted that there ~•ould bn no kennele out- doore ather than the enc].oae3 area in which the appxicAnt would walk an animal to ~ietermine tl•e treatment to be given and to exercise the watr:hdog which would be placed indovrs at night - othex ttian that, triere would be c~o ext~rnal usea nor would there be any animal waste ar debris placc~d outdoozs since all would be conftned to the indoors. Mr. Ryan no~ed that hz had worked in a aimi.lar operation in the past, and they had ~utdoor kennels and the dGqs barkod continuously, and re did not want to have that in addition to the noi ses that we.re alre~dy ttier~ f.rom the railroad and tza.ffic on 5roadway. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Seymour noted that a 15 ~i-£oot wall was proposed on the property line, wh~ch coulc~ place thia wall only 5 feet from the exiating atructurat whereupon Mr. Smith atated lie felt there would be a qreater. distance than 5 feet since i:here was ~a driveway between th~ prapaz~" t+ ~e and the }iouse. Zoning Supervisor Chaxles Rabez~ta r~ted ~hat t.. had quoted the 5-foot £iqure to the Commission, however, aftEr driving past i:;. property, he had found that thero was an 8-10•-foot dri v~way between the prorerty line and the al.ngle-family homn. Cbairman Seymour noted that the Commisei.on had approved fiwo animal hoapital8 within tho last four ta fiv~ e~ontha, end in both inatances the~$ was no enclos~d yar3 and inquixed whather tY~.ere wAa eomething ditferent about this animal ho9pital that required an enclosed yard, oven if the wakchdoq was ane o~ tha~ usea propoeed, the neiqhbors might teel diffe.rently about dogs barking. ~w. ~ MINUT~3, CITY' PLANNINa Cl7MMZSSION, Juns 11, 1973 ~~°~8~ RF.CLASSTFICAmIO'N _ N0. 72-73-52 ANU CON_DIT~ON3-L USii 1~FkMI7' NA. 1402 (Cont~nu~d) Mr. '~mith reapar~c~ed tx~at the veterinnrian waa rQp~Aainq h,ie ~resQnt ~aailS.ty lucnted on 9ycsaiore Bkrae,t ta Che webt of th• zailxoad trsaka, wl~o at one tima hdd atal:ed tha~t T~sa wauld us~ hia own dog sA a we~tchAoq beoai~~~a peoplA wa~za brea~k- ina in, and ~.! t3--aro wea a watahdog th~r~, thak waR not likely ta ha~p~n, hoW~ver thi~ could be wrsived einco the vetarinnrinn had stdtad that hie own d~g Mae toA valuablo to u~* ~e a we~tchdogt an,~ thmt lie~ r,ould aleo eqree to using tha~ ~n- cloe~d nxea ~nly Por the purpc~se of obeerving these doge, ~aven though khf.e miyhC be dono inaide +sa well. Commi~dioner H~erbet. inquired whet the puzpoae was of roalaesifyiny t:he prapnrty to Che C••1 2ondt wS~ereupnn Mr. Smith state8 ~21ac thiu wne a mr~tter of diacue- aion with etalf, and 1t wae~ ~9etermine~ that i f a variAnae waro re~quented, there woul.d be a long liet af wnive~za und he did not Peal ~+xten-ling the M•-Y ZanR i.nto thia aree ehould b~ caneidexed~ that commerci.e~l woninq a~par~r~d to bo maro appropri.ate aith u conditional u~e pormit nnd wo~xld be the rnore praat:ical u~e oP the pzaF~erty s thc-t othnr c~~mmercial uaes had alrosdy been developiny on property farthe~r to tha: east~ ~er~d thnt the only rese~n for ~:h~ commer.cial ~oniny requeat was to elim:.nete th~ many waivAra by the varir~nce. Commiaeioner tIerbet was of the opinian that roalatssifyinq thi~s propArty to the C-1 Zone would 2~e creating ep~r zon~,itg Ri.nce subject praparty wae bounde,d an three eidae by reai3~nti.al uona~ and on the fourth side with M-1 uaea, drad he c~uld see no raa9on for denying propnrty owner~ fartt~er down the street thoix roquests Por commercial usea~ tnat this would brenk down Che residential integrity of th~a area, ~.nd he was not in fa~vor of commercial ueea when tha downtuwn area had manX faciliti,•:a availabl~ . Mr. Smith repliad that when he Siled the petitlon far reclaeaif3cation, he noted that ther~ were c~mmei~cial uaes farther to tha ~net which had "grand- father rights" , such as the qrocery stUre and the pump company~ khgt in going westerly th~re were Also c~mmerctal uses, while to th~ north on Lincoln Avanue many of the a13er homes were con~ver~ed for com~nerciai uses, wher.eas they pro- po3ed to remove this old structu~:e and cons truct a new building which wauld give the aame appear~i~ce a~ the uffice across the atreet. Cowmissioner He rbat noted t.hat the propertie3 already had multiple-camil1~ zoninq for a conai.~erabl.e length ~f time in Yiopea that there would be land assembly of theso narrow Zots for apartment development which wou].d support the c~mmercial usQa in the dawnL•oian ar~a, but t~ continue commerr.ial usea along ~rterials , ae was being pror~osed, would break down further ttie residen- tial usea and deter r.edevelopu~ent o£ tho Centex City Area. Mr. Smith observed that th~ zoning request would be more satiafactory than having a variance request from the R-2 Zone j that he, t~o, would like to see apartments develaped to support the downt~wr~ commercial usea, but it was some- what difficult Co affor.3 purchaaing the pr~?~tsrty f~r red,~velopmQnt, however, this might come eventually. Commisoioner Gauer noted that this redevelopmez~t would not occur if requests for comtncrcial zoni.ng in ainqle-family areas was conatantly being applied forj that lhern were higli-rise bui~ding:a, such as the Sunk of America and those on Euctid St.reet, who were Yiaving a d.lfficult time baing filled up, snd if com- mercial usss wQre started in this aaection on Broadway~ this would further br~ak down the whole b7.o~k and encnuragd cc~n~mer.cial uses of ~he eingle-fumi.l.y homes rather thxn trying to encourr~ge peuple to locata in the existing high~ rise commercial structures. Continued disc vasion vrae held by tt~~e Commi saion and ataff., summe-rized as fallows: a) t2~at thie would contfr-ue to increase strip c:ommercial uses alre~a-dy prevalen~ thrauqhout the city= b) t.hat iF t:~e zone chang~a wexe approved, pe=~- h+~ps an Environmental Impact Report. a~:nuld be conaidered becaus~s of tl-.e impli- cation and its effect an prapertief :.o the aorth, south ~ind eastF c) tihat one lot in a bloc3: did not conetitute ~ need, eve~ though at~~ff might have sugqastod that an ~nvironmental Impact Report. wae necessary, how9v~jr, the grocezy o~.are end a atgn shop had beAn in exis~er~ce fox a- number oE ye;ars in this blor.)rt d) that the sta~f's concern regarding A changrs t~ the Genez,~l Pldn could hava been brought up as an ieeue in the aide y~rd setback waiver r,ather than ae ati Environ- mental Impac~ Report conceznj e) tY~at if subject potftiio:n were approved, the ~.w. ~ MINUxEB, CITY 9I,~~iN'tNG COMMISSION, ~7ttnp ll., 1973 73'~~~ itECLJ-88:°'iCATION___NO. 72-73-5~ AND CONDITION!-'~ U8l~ FERMTT N0. 1402 (Continuodl aetba~k raquirementx oE hk~e R°Z 2one el~ould ba t-dha~rACY Lot ~} that pr~viou. ~l.mi].az usec~ a-pprov~d by tha Comm~.syion aonrin~d n21 uoe indoors, nnG subject petiti.~n should he required to confine Ch• aotivity ~otaily inQoor~, partioulurly si~nco naiyhbora expreaaed opgoettion to ~oaaibt• outdoar uee~ ax~i+~ndiny~ g) t~hac Ch~ oppoaiti.on'e tormer work may have been in en erea where outdaox runo were pmrmitt~dt h) t:hat LhiN could be coneide reQ simil+~r to dn oflio~-proles~ionnl xona~ u~e beaause of the amount and type oP tratfici i) that e~ oomm~rcial uso ~l~oul~! be lacate3 more the+n 8-].(~ f~~~ lrom A rmsidential usa, pa~r~taularly whe~ a 15-foot riigh wall aeo pronused adjacant to ~ha prapexCy linai j) thnt somo bufferinq teahniqu• uhould be required wharo aommercl.A]. uae~x abut zesi.dentie-1 -~seer k) that ~f aubject r~alassification were epproved, caneideraticn ahould b~ given to prepaxa,tion og a study Por thia ~nti.r~ block ta determine Mhdt Mou1Q be most apprapriate~ and that a~praval a! sub;oct petition would ba a .~urther de~c~rring l~ator in tria reQevr~lopmenti o! the Centar City !-rea~. Ms. Smith, in reeponaa to Commiae:.on quae~ioninq r~garding A continuance far redeaigninq the etrucCUre to mAat the concerne expresa~8 by the CUmmiesion, atatied he did not know i~ the arahitect aould redeaig~ the building becati~se this atr~ucture was designed fo.r. the l.onq, narrow lot and it aou3d appoar develnpment plana c~uld not De redaaigned, and that a oonclit~ianal uoe+ pe~mit wi.th tha ex~stinq zaning would not be permitted by Che Zoning prdinance. Mr. Roherte r~dvi.sod the Gommission thnt t~he C,enere~l Sdctioii o~ the oonditi.onal use pd.mit woulc] perniit An animal tioapitrsl in the R-A, commerc~.al, or i.nduetrial 9ones Witli a conditional use permit within the C-1 Zone, but the uee wae ex- clud~d isi the other ragidential zonee witt~ or w•lthout a conditional uee parmit or variance. Mr. smith, ~.n responae to further Commirasion queationing, etated ~hat the cagea would be inc~oar.s, and r~lthougt~ theze we~ce no pldns Por boardinq dogs, a£ aome- one wont ~n vacation, there could be occasions thet thie might be aonaidered. Commir~a3.oner Allred was of the opinion that thia facility should not be locatad ~n this are~. Commissiondr Soymour offereif a~~otion, saconded by Commiasioner Allred and MOTION CARRZED (Commiseioners Fxrano and Rowlnnd beinq abaent), that the Plan- r-~.ng Commission, in caniiection with an exumQtion declaration g~atue request, finda and determines that the propoeal w~ould have no s3gnific~nt anvizo:~mental impact and, therefore, reoommends tc the Ctty Council that no Environmental Impact Statement ia necess~ary. Commiaeioner Allred offered Reaolutlon No. PC73-133 and ~aved for. itn passage and ad~ption to recommend to the City Council tha~ Petition for Reclasaification No. 72-73-52 be diaapproved on the basis that t.he proposrd reclassificaGion was not in conformance wi.th the land u~g desiqnation of the General Planr that th~e propos~d reclast~i~icat3.on wou~.d be "spot zoning" i.n an area primarily develaped for r.esidential purposes to the south, north and east, and the existing etrQet servad as a natural dividing ~.ine between exieting industrial davfllopment and the existing residential us~sst that ap~~roval Af the proposed reclassification would eatabliah an undesirable prec~:den~, encottrag~.n~q re~uc~sts foz continuecl c~mmercial itses along both sidea of SroaBway, thereby deterring r~development o~ the Center City Areai and t.hat the praposed use wouYd not kae compatibl~ with thQ exist3nq residential uges lonq establl.shed in thie ar~a. (See Resolu~ion Baok) On roll call the foreqo~.nq reealution was passed by the follawing vo~.e: AYES: CQMM:tSSIUNER5: Allred, Gauer, tierbat, ICgywood, 5eymouz. !~OES: COMMI3SIONERS: None. ABS~NT: COMMISJI~NERS: Fdrano, Rawland. Comnissicner Allred offered Resolution No. PC73-134 and moved fos ite paseage and ad~ption to 8ersy Petition for Condf.tionaZ Use Permit -~o. 1402 on the baeis t•.hat the use erould no~ be gexmitted •ln the exieting zone einae the Plnnning Commi.ssian recommen~ed dieapprnval of the reclaeaification of the prnpeztyr that the uee wou18 adversely afieat the aljoiniaq land usea and qrow~h and dev~elopment oi the areat that the si~e and shape of the oite propos~d fox the uee aas n~ot adequate to all.ow the full development o~ the propasad use in d c~snn~r not detrimental to this axea. (Sne Resolution Book) .~. ~ MxNUTE~i, CT~PY ~LANN~NG rOMMi~SiON, June 11, 1973 7a-383 AEC~#83IFTC______,_d,TI,AN t~J. 72-73-!~2 AND CON1,xTIONAL t)8~_PERMIT N0. 14~Z (C~ntinued) On roll call tha ~oregoin~ r~a~l~atian wae j~arNOd by ths following votec 71YB3 - COMMS89ZOt3ERS: 1-llre+d, Q~+uer, Hnf~b~t, KayMOOQ, Seymour. NOPlB a COMMI3S IUNF RS : Nand . AdBLNT~ COMMISSIUNh'RSi I~ncano, RoMla-nd. RECE83 ~ Gommi~sionex tlc~rb~~ mov~1! fox a ten-mi.nur~ recdas tt4 ~ 4:00 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Suymour recunv~aned ttie maetir~g nt 4:10 ~.m., Commissioneza ~e.:ano an~~ RaMldnd heing dbsent. RECLJIS9XFIGATION - PUHI,TC HEAR:[IJG. MARGARFl'T ~. LOVSRIN, 215 Narth 2tooe NO. 72-73-53 St.re~at, i~nc~hc~im, Cm. 92i1~5, Ownerp NARKY TRABANT, 632 ~r~ Fa~rst Katelln I-venue, Ora~nge, Ca. A26G7, Agent~ r.bqueating tYxat prok~erty deecribed te ~ A r.ec:tdngularl.y-shaped pa~rael a~ land aonsi~t•ing of• approximately .3 av^ro, having a fronta~e oE r~ppr.oxima~tQl,y 89 gaeC on the weat side a£ weRtern Avenue, havin~ a maximum depxh of approxi- matel.y 1~a feat, and beiny located app.roximat~ly 270 ~eot: ~auth of tha center- 'line of Cab~~t Dri~~t*, b~ rec].ase.i.Pied lrom the R-A, AGRrCU~TURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MUL~'IPLF-FAMII~X 12ESIDF.NTIAL~ ZON~. No ono appdared i.n oppositior-. Although the Repprt to the Commiseion wa.s not read at the public hearing, it is reie,rxod to ~nd mar9e a part of «he minutc~u. Zoninq Supervxsor Charloe Roberta notad that no plans ha~d been submitted far the+ deve~lopment since this was one emall parc:el eurrn~inded by vaaant Rnd devel- ope d R-3 gropertie3 that waa pr.•opoaed to ba included ~ln u guture development, mnd that the propoa~d zuning confor.med with Che Genezal Plan destgnation #or tha property. Mr. Harry T:abant, agent Po.r the p~titionar, in~icatell his presence ta answar queations. TH~ HBARING WAS CLO5~D. Commiseioner Allrc~d of:fered a moti~n~ aeaondad by Commissionsr Iiexbst and MOTxON CARRIEfl ~Commiesionere ~'arana ~nd Rowland abae~nt) , that the Fla~nrsin,q Commis$ion, in aonnection with an exemption d~c7,aration atatus requeet, fi,nde and determines tha~t the p.ropasal wuuld have na sign~ficttnt c~nvironmenta~ 3.mpact, and, there~oze, recommends to Che City Cotiinci~. tliat no ~n•~ironmental Tmpaot Statement irt necesgr-ry. Commiasioner Allred af£a~red ResolLtion No. PC?3~135 azid moved for ite passage and a~op~ion to recommer~d to the Gi.ty Council approval of Petition for Rec1AS- si~ication No. T2-73-53, subject to conditions. fSee Raoolution Book) ~n roll call the foregoing resolution was paased by the following vate: ~Y~S: COMMISSTONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymaur. NOES z COMMIS3IUt~ERS s None. ASSEN'~: COMMISSIONEA5: Farana, Rowland. YtECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. RCIBFRT RNU EVELYN HALL, 1"57 West ~,inaoln NO. 72-73-54 Avenue, }~naheim, Cr~. 92801, Ownera~ requesting thet ~xo~erty - de~cribed as: An irragularly-shapsd parcel oE land aonsiet- ing of appxoxi~na~ely 5 acres, having a frontage o£ approxi- matiely 702 Feet on ther sou~hwes~ side~ of• Manchesfier Avenue- having a maximum 3opth of ttpproximately 4S0 ~oet, and bei~ag located approximately 600 feet north of ttie centerline of Oraag~wood AeAx-ue~ ba reclassified £rom the R-A. AGRI- CtiLTURAL, ZONE to the C-3, HSAVY CO!MMEI2CIAL, ZONE . No one appearnd in oppoaition. Althouqh the Re~ort to the Commissi.oa aas not read at the public henrlRg, iic is referred to and mad@ a paxt oE the mi.nutes. ~ ~ ~ MzNUTEB, CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSI~N, June 11, 1973 73-384 RkCLASSIPxCATI~JN_N0. 72-73 •~4 (Continue~d) Mr.. Rob~,r.t: Hel.l., the potitiorior, indicdt~d ~he y~urpoae ~f Gh~ x~claeeification ws~ i.n ze~ponbe t~ discueai.on by thm Commi~rian rmgaxding th~ ~nntter of poninp Cho pr.opr,rky to the moet aF~ropriAto sone+ when Conditional L'bo kermit Na. 1361 ror tha Rutamobilo and r4cz ati~nal vehialw deelerehip hxd bAen appraved. 'PHE NE~RING WA8 CLnSED. Commisaionor A].lr~aci o~'fexad a. moti.on, ~eaondaQ by Cnm~nisn;lan~x Ka,ywoad und MOTION CARRIED (Commi.esic>nez ;~'ar.ano drid RoNland e~b~r~nt) , that the Ylanni.ng Commise~ion, in connPCtiori with an oxemption decluration otatua roque~et, fin~ls n~nd Qd*era~i.nen 'Chat tha pr~poeal wou].d hxvo no raiq~iti.r.dnt ~nvisonment:i impa~ct, and, theref~re, racatt~mends to the City Caunail tha~': ~~ Envi.r.onm~ntal impact Ste~eme~nk ie necaseary. Ccmmineionar Gauer offaxe~i Resolation No. PG7:i^136 and rnoved Eor iie paee.~c~e and adopt~an ta recoramcnc~ to the Ci~y Council thet Petition for. Recl~aeifica- tion No. 72-73-54 be Appraved, a~~hject Ca canclitione. (Se~ lte4ulution Book) On rall call the foregoin~ reooluti.~n wan pr«eel~ by the fol].owing vo~o: AYES: COMMTaSTON~RS: Al.lr~d, G+~uer, Narbet, Kaywood, Seymnur. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NonE. ADSLNT~ COMMISSIONI'RS: Farano, Rr.wland. REPO'RTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMEIdDAT~ONS CONiJITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO. 260 •- Reqllc~9t for ~~ approval of 3eve:lopm~~nt plarie - Frope.rt,y located at che r~orthwQa•t corner of 13aach Boulcvard and Arange Avenue - wa~t Anahuim Community Haspita7.. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts presentesd deveiopn~~nt pl.an~ foz another ho$nita]. a~dition, nAti.ng that the azr.hitec:t was present to anawer qti~stions. Chairman seymour noted that the acldi.tion t.~ the hcspital aoemed to con.f.~rm. t~ whe~t was qen~:rally propos~d under thc~ origina] consideratian of Co~iditiont~:t ~as~ Permit No. 260. Coxnmiasioner Kay~o~~o~f~fe~r~~o~~3~.r~~» ~~ -n,~~,,~.~Y C°mmiBAioner R.llred and MOTION CARRI~D,nto approve eve uF~ment planu f.or the praposed ~xpansion of 8000 sguare feet, which would inc].ude the hoapit.A].'s labaratory, physic,al. therapy, inhalation therapy, ar-d e~mer.•gency serviaea, as we].1 us onlar.•ginq the etoruge areas un~er Condition<~1 use Permit No. 260, on the basis tt~a* the 6xpanaion had been originally indi.ca~ed as part af the mast~er plan for the hoapital when the conditional use permit was araprovecl. ITEM NO. 2 T.ENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 6733 - Approval o£ p].ans - Property locat.ed on the north aide of Orangethorpe Avenue, ap~rar:imate~.y 330 feet east of i,akevi.ew Avenue ~ RS-SC~U~ 2one. toniny Supervisor Charles Roberts presented devel~pmQnt plans f.or homes pro- ~oaed to be developed under Reclasaification No. 71-72-53 ai~d 'Pentativa Mep of Travt No. ti733, noting that a c~ondition of a~pr.o~al of the tract map was the submisaion of house fl.oor plan.s and ele~vations of any hames pr.oposed by the develop~r to th.e Planning Comaiiselon and Ci.ty Counci.l for review and approval prf.or to appraval of a final truct mapt that t}~e aubmittad pl~na praposed three one-stary and onP t.wo-story f.loor plans ranqing in sixe fXOm 1225 square feet to 1702 square fe~eti that the exterior facac~es vari~d wxth floor p+ans and Qlevatians, with ~~asic c~mbinationa of plywood, stucco, alump- s~one, and brick; and that three t:ypea uf roofa wQre propoaed for th~ vari.ous floor plana, namely, tile, wood sY~inqle, a~id wood ahake. Commisaioner Kaywood offered a mot:ion, secanded by ~ummisaioner Allred and MOTIOI3 CRRkIED (C~mmisrsioners Faraino and Rowland abaent), to approve h~vse floor plans and elevations eubmitted in connection with Tente~~ive Map of Tract No. 6733, marked Exhibit Nos. 1~hrouc~h 19, and recomm~nd to the City Council approv of said house floor plans and ele~~ationa. ~ ~ 73-385 MINU'~EB, CITY PLANNTNG C~1MM1S5ION, Juno 11, 1~173 ITF.M N0. 3 VARTAN~E NU. 2292 (Lneco Indu~trter) - Rmqueet !or tezmination -~roper.•ty looa~od on Cho north ai~e ~f Miral~mn Avenue, a~,~roximetely 1.650 Pe~t eaet oY the aenterlin• of KraemAr Boulevard. A~eio~ant Planner Phi111p Sahwartze noCad that Vari.e~nce No. 2292 was qrnntecl, waivinq the re~uired 6-foot mAS~nry wt~ll ~CO parmit a chainlink fonce with aluminum slate, however, tliu petitioner n,oM roquaeted that thie be t.ermin~tec! ainc~: the required nasonry wall was anr~~struatee in a~:cor8dnco with Code and the vdrir~nae waa nev~r exorciac~d~ und that upon field inepe+ction it ~aao dnter- mi;ted i:hat t.he masonry wa11 had been coi.~dtructed in eccordance with Code. Com'~c~ier~ioner Geuer offered Rosolution tio. Pc173-137 and moved Por ik~ paeaage ~n0 adoption to terminate a].1 proceo~inge o» VArianca N~. 2~92 on the hd8~8 t1~e,t the petitionor rQquest~ed t~rminai~ion slc-~e he had no inten~ion of exer~ ci~sing the variancc~. (soe Resa~ution ~3ook) Or~ ra11 cal.l the forey~inq resolution wus pASSed by the followiny vota~ AYESi COMMISSIONEF.S: Allred, Gauer, Herbot, kaywood~ 39ymour. rpFSc COMMISSIONERS: None. '~A~Et~T: GOMMISSIONEFtSa P'arano, R~wland. IZ'EM N0. 4 CONUITIONAL IISE FERMI'~ N0. 1347 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 8142 - R.oquest for apprc~val o£ reviacd F~ ana - Property lac:~ted un the east side of Nahl Rancki Ro2d, spproxi.mateJ.y 1000 £flAt north of Serrano Avenue. Zoning Superviaor Charles Rober.ts presented to the Planning Commisaton •evioec! pLan~ covering ~ portion of Cc~lditiona]. llse lPerm3t No. 1347 as it pertai ~ed to Tentative Map of Truct No. 81#2, noting that the developer was rsquesting a de.termination that t:iese revi aed plans were auhstantially in r.onf.or.mance with plans approved under Conditi~~nal Use Permit No• 13~17. Furthermore, the revi.sed }l.ans indicato d proposal tc, extend the originally p.rop~sed grivate drtve from Caminu Grande Lo now connec'e with :ZOhl Ranch Road, whereas th~ oxiginal drive was a lonq cal-de-sac with fire access road to Nohl R~nch :2ottde and this exten- sion would improve traffic ci.rculati.on within the tractJ that the nur~ber of dwellinq units had b~en ir..creased from Ei6 to 57 units t that qiiest parki.ng ~paces had beon reduced fcom 50 t~ 39 sPacess that landsaaped parking areas that located at the west and r•orth ends a~ .he tract had veen reduced irs size; nine units were as much ~s 200 feet From the closeat guesc park~.ng stall and that new parking ratio v:~s 2.58 parking apacea per unit~ that the two major opEn spac~s lacated nea~• the south end of the tract between units fronting on parallel stree*s had bE-~:n reduced in size; that slopes had been increased in aize ati the east end u:' the tract in an area where littlc oz no slope areas wera sh~wn on the pre~'t~us tract mapr and that all unit3 would set ~ack a 6-foot minimum to 10--'.'oot maximum from the private drives in orcler to provide 3 mo*e varied stireet •acene. Furthermore, although additional op°n area was propos~d for the fru+.t af the units, ths rear yards were r.educed by an equal theudeveloper lndicj'ted~thabethestotallusable~gresn~area hadVbeen~increasedh .22 aares from 3.d7 t~ 3.29 acres. Chairman Seymour n~ted that the greatest concern of the Planning Commission Mas the reduation in parking as well as havieS~u~h~~ tihe developer addreserest quest parking arari, thereforE, he would su~g himself to providing some solution to ~his concern, and psrhaps the quickeet way woulcl be the aliminat~on of one unit in oXdo~ti.on~ofdtheitractguest parking spaces could be provided at the nurtheasterly p Mre R~b~eeL~tHez~ppe~Yedhbe£oreethetCommieaionaa-id~atatadGthat~ theeengineerec$cu'ld th p ~ better answer these questiona. M:.. ~amee McGirr, Wildan Enqineerina Company repreeentative, appeared before the Ccmmissi.on and stated that they had picked up additj.onal area which enabled them t~o add another unit by cutting d~wn rhe a].ope, and this was the only reason f~r the additional unite and that thc: street could be widaned so that parallel parkinq could be provided on the atreat~ ...~. ~ M.LNOTEB, CITY PLANN~NG CUMMI ~9ION, ~una lX, 1~73 ITEM N0. 4 (C~nti.nu~~d) 73-3fiG Chdirm~sn ~3eymnur. further noted thAt tl~~ Commi~sion was eleu concernod wi.th the I~o~n o! open ~paae, howaver, t'.iern~ wau nothing they ooixld do rogardinq nn} slopa- prablemet thnt park+.ng waa of vita~. imp~rtaao4 ~inca tram expertence the guestb ~f theae Pn~the~t unitn woulr7 novar p~.rk ar-d wmlk thnt 1Cq geet, ,ind in e~ll. 11ke~.ihood would park on th~ ra t~r.c-~~t, whiah wao not edeguate tc. ~r.ovi.de fur. on-streeC pazk~,ng~ tha~: tha engi.noer tur.ther eta~ed I:hey had ~~iokrcl up addi- tionul usable area bec~uso c~" Che ~'.'~nrye in e~14~~e, however, it would a'apenr th+~~.~ tl~-c~ recreatinn r~xeae h$~ b~+qn reduaed ~nd rnore of tb~ qreen area ap~eazad to bc~ .fn slope rather than ~.e usabla rrc.r.eation ar.ea. Mr. M~Girx aclvieed tlie CommL~sion that Ctiere wdxo sme-~,ler recxeni;ion area~s becaaue thoy had ch+~nqc~~ tho grading ec~mUwhat a~y~d picked u~ an addi tional un~t. (:Ummisetor-~r Kaywood not~d t:h+~t. L•ha dcavc,l.opex had re~~aced thA gueet parking epaces frani 50 tn 39, wY~~.rh we~c~ tot~lly a.nadequate to *.ak~a oare ~~f guee~te ~ar theso unitr~i wher~u~on Mr. Mcvir.r st_atod thmt they aot~ld incr6ase the width of L•he AtrAAt: t.o ~4 f.eAt f~r an-atreat pMZking. ~Mr., RnbarLo note3 tht~t tt~is would on~.y provide Pnur. additiondi. parkiny spacee. Commic~aioner ticxbs* notvd thni: when thiA ~rao~ had been approved, the deve.loper ~~ropase~ tl~reo pazkiny r,pacea per t~nit if prtvai;e ~tre~+te wero perm3ttad, liow- ever, t:~ta had nnw b~en raduced to 2.58 aarking apaces. aa~1 trie only raar~<~n the naxrowor ~hrc~ets wer~ e,ppravecl was becaua~n ~he developmen+: wxa praposed to have tt~r.oe par_king epaces p~~r unit. Furthormore, hti could eet~ no reaeon for cut~:ing c~own fur. ther on tha yr,~er~ a-zea ;~ust to provicis thi~+ parking a.tnce an additianal r~~ace was added to that previou~].y appraved. Therefare, he woald auggost that tho glan be xov~sed tr~ provide thia three spaces pex unit in order to a~?proxi- mate ~~~irking which tt-;~ city had 3.n c-ther reoidential ai-etta in town. Conti,yued dibcuasi.on wae held between the Commiseian and the davelAper/engineer regar.ding tiae re4ueti.on in number of guest parking, increaae ~n s~umber of unite an~3 re~iuctic~n in recreati.on area, and ati its cunr.lusion the enqineer ~tiy~ulatod L-o eliminati~g one uni.t iu the nar.th~ant sector of the 1:ract and convArting t~,at ar~aa formerly proposed Eor that unit into a landscaped guest parking a:rea, ;-.!,ereby again meeting tha SO guest parkinq epaces formerly propoaed. ,. McGirr, in response to Comma.s~ion quessticninq as to what wae elope and wha~ '~~,s flat area where uaabl.e recrea'r.ion araa was propoaed, lndicatsd on ~he map osted on the wall where the former toe of the slope was located ar.d the bound- ariea of the ~lope as well as the flat areas. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commiseioner Allred and MOTION CP,RRIED (Comniissioners Farano and Rowland beinq absent), to approve revised plans for C~nditional Use Pewmit No, 1347 and Tentative Map of Ts'act No, 8142 and recommending to the City Counci]. appxuval of said plans, provided, however, that the plans sha]1 be revised, deleting oi,~ unit al~i~ the north- easter?y boundary of the tract in the genoral arer o~ LoY. N~, 44 and converting said lot ir~to a land~caped ,quest pmrking areaj and that s;~i.d revised olan shall be ubmitted to the Development Sezvices DQpartment for review priaz to sub- r s~ion of the revised plans to tk~e City Council far consideration. ITEM N0. 5 WORK SESSION Chairman Seymour noted that he had been contacteci by the new preffi18ent Af Az~aheim Hills, who had requested adnside•rati~n of a work aession with thP Planning Commiasion to updatP the Commission on Anaheim Hills' plens for the Santa AnA Car.yori and inc~uired what would be the moat convenient time for the Commisaion. After discugeicn was held, it was determined thet June 20, 1973, at 7:30 p.m. wauld be an agreeable time for yaid work aesaion A... ~ ~ ~ MINUTE:~, CITY PI.ANNINO COMMIS3ION, Jurie 11, 1973 73'-3H7 ITEM N0. 6 TLNTATiVE MAP AL^ T1tACT N0. 7587 (Aneheim Hills) - 39 ecxet~ lACatad appreximat~ly 1000 tAet ~outh o! Walnut. Canypn Roeezvoir noar the aouthaaetarly termin~ue of WAlnut Canynn Roa~d pxapased !or suk~- divioi.an into 39 R-A ~onad lU~A - RAView ot etreet. sectl~~ standarda and right~-of-aay - Condit.ion of upprovnl a! tentetlve traat map. OPP~ce, Engi.neer Jay Titue ac'~vioed the C~mmiesion that sinoe the Report to thH C:ommie~ion hdd boen writtcn regarding ~h~ ytreer, etanc9arde, tha ;,~oeitlon oP the Publi.c Workg Director wa~A zeviaed bacauae thie t.ract hed beon filed about a~ yenr and a helP ago, and conAidexdhle 3lecuesion had been hald at that time o~ street sectione, and ~heee requiremc~nta had been givon ta the dnvelop~ri that the etreet improvament plans haci been filed with the depar.tment, an8 they hr~d gond through ttie firat chc~ck about x y~ar ago, however, the develorer hed bedn eidalin9d sinc~; ~hon bacau~A of development problens in thdt areet that the Engineering Divisio~ hAd decidad that the devoloper hed gone too far "down the line" to rev~s~ these .street standards approved by staff, therefqre, ataff~s poaition hnd changod and tl~e Engineexing etatt would recommend that the atrc~et s~~ndarda ns presentod in +:ho tract ~-dp befare the Commiseior. be approved by the Planning Comn. .aion. ~ ~ ~~R~ Commist~ionox Kaywo~d obeervecl ahe ha~ gone on a partial ~~~ trip inLo azea, and tT~e proposal by the Engineering Division appeaxed to be utterly r.idiculous - riot only was it impoaeible to park tharo, but A huqe tr.ailer was parked tliere, and having an.ly a ZB~fcot pa~ved eection with rolled curbe would mean people would be parkinc~ right on the sidewalk. Mr. Titlis atatad th4re waa a 40-goot z:ight-of-way witli d?3-foat travel way, and on each sida rolled curba and guttere of 3 feet, and ,robably a 4~i-Foot wid~ bidewalk, and perhaps tlie etroet .^.~uld be aigned th;.t no parking would ~~e permittad. Commissioner K+aywaod n~ted th~xt would do little good becauae the mot.oriAts would g~ over the rolled curb dnd park on the sidewAlk. Commissioner. Herbst note3 that the Planning Commisaion originally approved Che tr.act map with a 50-foot right~of-wa~y and inquired why this wae now reduced ta 4C feet - how could staff appruve this~ whereupon Mr. Titus replted that when the 56-foot right-of-way was consider«~d, the developer had included a ridi.ng and hiking trail Y,o be ].ocated bshind the aidewalk, however, neither. the City nor the developer wanted to mair.~tain the riding anc? hiking trail. Commissioner tlerbat obsexved that if tt~e 50-foot right-of-way had remained, this would havQ allowed Por a:i a~^ea of pazking if the ridiny and hiking trailts were eliminated, but the way the atreet atandards were naw pro~+oAed, it would mean thesc would be lese than pormitced by Code according t~ the hillatde atandard~. Zoning Supervisor Charles Aoberts noted that the s+trset standards had be~n diacussed at the public hearing, and as a result of thAt diacueeion, the Commission at~ached a condition to the tract map rec~uiri.ng that the atreet atandar.ds be approv~d by them since tY~ey had not been campleted according to the Engineex'ing Division, howover, the plan; at that time indicated ~ 50-£oot ~treet eACtion with an 11-foot ridirig and hikinq tra~l. ~y~n, in response to further Commisoian queationing, statad that if this riding snd hiki:lg trail was r~ot devaloped, it ~robably would give tihe develnpment deepsr lots than orig~nally apgroved. Commissioner A11red noted that perhaps the developer ahould view the Tvrtle Rock development aa nn example of what theae estate-type lots ehou].d look like. Commissioner Herbst offared a mo~ion, seconde8 by Commiaeioner Kay~voo:~ to deny tha request Por approyal of khe atreet staudarda as set f.orth in Ter ative Map of Tract No. 7587 on the be~si.a that the ~ommieeion ~riginally approved tt 50- foot wi.de riqh~-o£-way whl.ch inaluded ~n riding and hikinq trAi1 of 11 feetj that the ~ity bae ~tryinq to craato a morg d~eirable aren in Anaheim wherein ridizg an~l taiking traila would offer theeE+ residenta eamathing difl~rent than other regular reei8ential dr~se~~, and to now reduce tha street atendard to only 40 f~aet, creatinq a narrow s~rwet with only rolled curbe, macing the etreet almoe:t i.mposoiblA £qx street p+~rking, wh.ich was una-cceptablet dnd that i.t neitl~er the City nor the davelQ~mr wanted to take the raspdnsibility for main- tgnar.:ce of the riding and hikincy txails, then this additional aree ahould have been kept in open apacs ur ~ncludad in the ~~reet atan8ard. ~ ~ ~ MINUTEB, CIZ•Y PLl-NNTNG COMMIB~ION, June 11, 1973 73-38H IT~EM N0. 6 (Continuedl ConCinuod~di~auasian wt,P hald by the C~immiosian re+q~-zdin9 the motion, notiny that parhdps tha trn~t chauld be dev~Xoped aa oriyina+lly approvedt ~hat: mayb:. s~exf felt this had gc-ie beyaad the pnint oY requiriny a revi~sd tsact map, howevar, a condition of a-pprovel zaquirsd thses eCroet etandurdo to l~A eub- mlttad :•.u the D~an~inq ComQ.lsaion Poz approval~ end that khl~ appsarad to ba taking d~VdAtd$Y o! tha Ci*.y when cha required atreat. atandazd~ w~re waived tt~at reault~d in s reduction of th• ri.ght-nf-Md~-. Commieaionaz Kaywood noted thet ths peti~ionar wda aontinuously ~dv~rtiNing the inct that there wou].d be ridinc~ end hiking trails with ooneiderabl~ open space, ~-nd ohe would ].ike ta see tha dovelaper.• imp].ement thAee adv~xtimed alaims ::ath~~.~ than expraeainy only Wo;.de. Mr. RobartM not~:d it w~s hia reo~rllecti~a the~ti a mmintenanc~a district h+:,t b~en establiehed !or the maintanance at ridiny and hikinq treila in Ansi-eim Hi1Aa. Mr. Titu$ note~.~ that tho plana were in theeir firaC check, however, the map had not been zecorclc~. l;hairma;~ Seymaur euggested that tinal aot.ion on theae etr.e~t sL•anderde could be taken after the Commiesion had d wozY. seesion wixh Rnaheim H~llu whorein they oould explain what hed happnnsd with tho ridinq and t~iking trails, partictilerl,y einae a me~intenanea dietrict hAd been eatnbliehed b~+ the CitX. Deputy City Attorney Frank LAwry auc~gestod to the C~mxniesion that if an;~ oon- sic3eration wae qiven t~ thia ltem at the wozk seesior, he woulA auqgest ~hat the ~ommissi~n have tha work aeasion in the Council ChQa~ber in or~or ta dvoid implications o~` the lar.own Act, and tihat thia meeting be acijournad to the work soaeian. Commiseioner Herr.at withdrew h.is mctian for denial, ~nd Commissioner Knywood Nithdzew her aecondinc of the motion. Commissionez Her~t~of,E,e~r',9 mct, i9 s cu ~~~Commissioner Kaywood and MOTYON CARRIED,~to oon:inue ~one~dezation ot Tentative Mnp of Tract No. 7587 to the adjourned meetir.g af June 20, 1973, at 7:30 p.m., in order that the Commiasion could diacu~s with the r~px'esentatiivea of. Anaheim Hilln thQi.r reaeons f~r d~letiny th.~ ridinq and hikinq traila on this tract and why lesa than etandard atreet sectinne wera nuw proposed, however, fi.nal action would be taken an ,7une 25, 1972. ITEM t~0. 7 PROJ~ECT "ALPI:A" - Recommendation that the Commisaion's oriqinal recommendation ef approval be adopted by reso2ution. Aeputy City At~arney Frank Lowry advisQd the Comm~ssicn that in accor.dance with Section 33346 of the California Communitv Redevelopment L+~w and. Section 6S40i of the California Planning Law, action previously taken by t~ie Commission regard- ing th~ Redevelopment Ylan £or Redevelopment Project "Alpha" w~uld hsve to be by resolution th•i~ it conEormed with the General Plan, an8 recommend to the City Councll approval a~nd adap~ion of said redevelapment plan. Commissianer Herbst offered Resolution No. PC73-138 and moved for ita passage and adoption, reporting ~n the sedevelopment plan for Rodevelopment Project "Alpha" and recommending to t2ie City Council approval and adoption of said plan as bei.ng xn conEormance ~vith the G~neral Plan of. the City of Anaheim pursuant te Section 33346 nf the California Commui~ity Redevelopment Law and Section 65402 of the California Planning Law. (See Iteaolution Boo?;i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed Uy the foilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOE3: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F'aranu, Rowlar~d. TEMPORARY ADJOURNMSNT - C~mmissioner Herbet nffered a crtotion to ndjourn the meet~ng to J~xn~ 20, L973, at 7:30 p.m., £ur a work session with Anaheim Hilla to lbe held in the Council Chamber. Commissionex Allred secanded the :aotion. MOTION CARItTED. The meetinq adjourned at 4s45 Q.m. ~ ~ NINU:CEB, CiTY PLl1NNYN~ CAMMi86I0N, Jun~ ~1., 1973 73-389 7-DJOt11~NED Mti~_,__=Nf~ -'rhe a~djouxn~d m~~tinq of th• Anaheim City Planr-in~ Commi~~aion oxiqinally aohodul~d !or Juno ZU~ 1973, a: 7:30 p.m., y~d lorm~~ly •djournod a~t 7:y0 p.m. hy thfl c'a-am~rston Sear~tary flu• tc+ • lack ot a quorum. R~MpMOttully sub+n~,tke~l, G/iYt~s-~ ANN KR'SBB, Bearet~ry ~aah~~,m City Planninq Gommissi.on ~K:hm