The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1973/07/090 R ~ 0 MEC~O~II.Mi{~G SERVICE, INC. . . , , . ,. . , ., ,. ~ , ,„ , ~ LJ C i ty c~1 •.t 1 ]-nah~im, Cd3.i~'ornis ~uly y, ].973 A REGqLAR NBETIN_G OF ?PHS ~-~Il-HF~~N CITY PLANNING COMMI98xON RB6UlL11R -~ ~:sgulrr m~aeti.ng o~ ~hc 11nah~im City P1~-nninq Commio~ion M~~ !lEETSNO callad ~o orQer bY Chairman ~eymaur e~t ~~~0 p'•m•. a~ quoru~a being proeent. PRB88NT ~ GFII~ZRMAN~ Seymour. - COMMI9~IOi~ER~9 ~ A11red, Parena, aa~uar, Rexb~t, xing, Ruwlar-d. I188Ei~T - C:OMriI8SIONERS s None. 1tRaBENT - 7lseietant Development Servi.oeo Dir.eotor: Ronaid Thomp~on De~u~y City Attozney: Frank Loary O!lice ~nginsvri Ja~y T1~ue ~oning Superviso~: Charles Rdberte Ane_stant Planneri Phillip Sch~rartue Cmm~~iaeion 9ecretary: Ann Kreba pLLpGg pF - Commir~sioner Allr.ed led in the Pledge c~f Allegiance ta the 11LuEGI1~NC~ Flag. 11PPROVAL ~F - Ct~airman Sey~-oux oftor~d ~ motion, eeconded by Commiseioner THE MiNUTES Hcrbst and MOmZON CARRIED, to appzove the minutea o~ tAe meeL•ing u~ June 25, 1973, an eubmittrd. ELECTION C~F 1973-~4 CHAIRt~AN AND GHAIRMAN PRO TEM Chm~irman Seymour appoi~ted Cummissioner Fernno ae temparary chnirmnn for ~he oleation of. 1973~74 officers of ~:he P1anning Commisaion. Temporary Chairman Farano noted that nominatione were in order ~or the oEfice of Chnlrman of tbe Anahoim City Planning Commission for the 1973-74 fieca]. yaas. Commie~ioner Rowtand nominated Commiseioner Gauer aA cha~irman for 1973-74. Commiseioner SQymour moved the nomin~tione be claeed, Commissioner Hmrbet aaconded the motion, and MOTZON CARRIED. Commiaeioner Roalan~ movgd for a unanimou9 ballot to be cast for Comraissioner (3auez aq chairmrn, Commisaioner K~.ng aeconded thA m~tion, and MOTION CARRI$U UN,ANIMOU~LY. Temport-ry Chairman Farano noted that nominationa were in order for the oP=1cc~ o! Chaizman pro tem of the F.naheim City Plann~i-q Commission fox the 1973-74 fiscal yc~a~r. Commiseioner Seymour nominnted Commiss~oner Allred ss chairn~an pro t.em for 1973~74. Cox~m'_eslon~r F~erbat mave,d the nominations be cloaed, Commissioner King aecondeCl the motion, and MOTION C.AYtRIEQ. Gommisu~.onez Seymour moved £or a unanimou3 ~~laeconded@thegne~tion~oand~MOTION Alire~ ao ahairman pra tom, Commioeioner Kinq CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ChairmAn Gaunr e-aeumed the chair and requaated ~ motton far the appointment o! the Commission Seeretary for tlta fiacal yoar 147~-74. Coramiosioner l~e-rbst moved to appoint l~nn 1Creba as Commiseion SecretAZy for the tirCUl yeur 1973-74, Commiaslonsr Faxano seconded the moti.on, an@ MOTION CARRZSD. 73-409 w~ ~ MINUTLS, CI'~Y PLl1NNING COMM.[fiBxON, July '~, 1973 73-410 ChRirman c3a~uex intro4ua~d thc nsa P].anning Comm~asio~iRr Pxu'1 Ki.nq to 1:he uudienca Chairman dauor etated that sinc• th~ra wa~ a n~w nhairman ~nd ahatrman ~zo tem eakinq ottio~, he would r~qu~st tihak ths admin3~trative procedureo o!' ths Commiseicn be resd alaud, whioh v+es trie~ done by tl~e Cr,a-misrion seor~tesry. V7IRIANCL~ N0. ''.506 ~- CONTINUED PU~LIC HJ~11RTtiG. ED SILVERI, ~742 ~lo~t Urar~ge- ~ ~ thorpe Avanuo, Full~rtun, Ca. n263;i, Owr~or~ JOHN B. ~"RANKLxN, 6821 Ec~nio Bay Lane, tiuntinqton Bo+~ch, C+~. 92648, Agant~ requesting WAIVER OF (~) PERMITTBD OUTAOAR t~BES 71ND (H) REQI)IRBD 6-FOdT SOLTD MASOIJRY WALL ENCLOSING OUTD0031 U8E8 TO ES'~ABI.ISN OUTDOOR SIT6EL FAHRICATION PLANT on property describeQ ae~ A reatenc~ulsxly-ohaped parcel o! land oon~iati,ny of appraximately .~ ecre~ having a~r~nta~e o}' apprcxime+telX 132 laat on the north eide ot ~.n Cxests Avenue, having a m+~ximum depth o! epproximataly ?98 leAt, and bei.ng l~cated approximetely 795 ~e+ot AdY1: of the Opntecllno o! Dlue Gum 5;;raet. Properc:y presantly CZAAIb~P~@A R-A~ AGRIC(JLTVA.AL, ZONE . Suhjoct petitiun wes continued f.rom the meeting of May 30, 1973, to allow time Por thr~ eubmieei~n oP p],an~. Aeeiata+nt Nl~nner Philli~ &chwart~e adviaed the Commiasion that th~ patitioner no lonqer :lntended ta proceod with the request~ therefora, s~afP would auqqeak tt~at, aub joct p~tiCion be+ tPrminated. Commissioner Allzsd oEfered a m~t.ion, aeconded by Commi.r+rionor Horbet and MOTION CARRI~D (Commfaeioner Row.land abetained), to termina~te a11 pxoceodinge on Vatia~nce No. 250Fi on the ~SA~J that the pati~ionex nc. longer. plannad te exexci,se the request. ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT ~ COt~TINU~A P'CBLIC HEAItING. THE MC CAR2'HY COMPANY, REPORT N0. 93 attention ~f Eugene R. Fuller, 2535 We~t La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92801, and NENRX F. aND LTHEL C. ~ECLASSI'~ICATIflN DEL GIORGIO, 21191 Mohler Dxive, Rnaheim, Ca. 92806, N0. 72~73~39 Owners. ENGINEER: Jenninqs Enginesring Company, ~ 4419 Vac~ Nuye Boulevard, Sherman oaks, Ca. 91403. AN~E NU. 2492 VAkT ProparLy deacribed as: Ari irregulexly-shapod parcal . ef land consisting of approximately 3S arrr~s, having TFNTATIVE MAP OF a frontaqa of approximately 687 fe,et on the south aide TRACT NO. 4777. o~ Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximun: depth of REVIBION N0. 1 approximately 1500 feet, and beitig lncated aQproxi~nately " 3070 feet east o~ the c~ntexline of Ana~heim Hille Roac~. PraperY.y presently r7 assified R^A, AGRICULTUItAL, ZONL*. REQUESTk1D CI~ASSII"ICATION: R~-1, ONE~r'AMILX i~ESIDENT:CAL, 7.ONE. REQUESTEU VARIAt~CEs WAIVER OF (A) MZNIMUM FRONT SETSACK, (B? M17IdiMUM LOT WIDTH ON A CUL~DE-SAC, (C) MII3IMUM LOT WIDTH, AND (D) REQUIREMENT THAT SIdGI.~-FAMILY RESIDENTIF~L STRUCTURES R~AR ON ARTERZAL HSGHWAYS TO ESTABLISH A 135-LOT, R-1 SUBDIVISION. Sub~ect petitions and tract were contlnued from the meetinqs of• April 16, May 14 and 30, and June 11, 1973, to allow time for the aubmiseion of r~vi~aed plans. Aasiatant Pl~nner Phillip Schwartze adviae8 the Commiseian that the petitioner had submicted a rec~ueat for a two-week cont3nuanae in order to reviae ple~na. Commiasl.oner H~rbst oFfe~ced a motion, aeconded by Co~-miesion~r Seymour nnd MOTION ~ARRIED, to continue coneiaerati~n of Enviranmental Iuipect Repor~ No. 93, Reclassitication ~lo. 72-73-39, Variance No. 2492, and Ten~ative Map of Tract No. 4777, Revieion tJo. 1, ta the meeting of July 23, 1973, as rsquestad t~y the petitinner/de+veloper, howaver, if the peti~ianer st the ~7uly 23, 19'!3 meeting ia unable to present ravieed plans, the recl+~saificatiion, variance anc3 tract vrill be removed from the agenda and reacheduled, at the petitianez's expenee, wH~n said plans become av~~ilnble. w..w ~ MINU2~3, CITY PLANNING CC~MMIGSIQN, Jul.y 9, 1973 73~-411 CONA=TIONAI, USE - CONTINUEU PUHLIC NEARINv. THE MC CAR'.~'HX CnMPANY, PERMIT N0. 138~a attantion o! Eugene R. Full~r, 253~ Wast I~a Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Cd. 92AU1, Owner~ tsquaAtinq permiaoian ta E3TAaLl'SH A 4-UNIT PLIINNEA RBSID~NTI1-L DEVL~LOPM~NT TO BE USED AS 7- MOD~L H~M6 COMpL~;X WTTH SAL1~3 OFFICE on propezty de~aribed nei An irre~ulurly•shap+~d parael of lan~1 oonai.sting ot appz'oximatoly on• acro approximetoly 650 leat southerly o~ 3anta Ana Cenyon Roa4, havinq a maximum dapth o! approximatoly 170 ~eeL, and be~ing loo~-Cefl a~pproxim+~toly 140 leot ti+ee~t o! the centerline o! Mahlez Dr~va. Pr~~erty pr~e~ntly cler~ilied R-n, AGRTCULTURAL, 20N~. 8ubjec~ pekttion wes contiinued P.rom the meRtir.9~s ot Apz11 16, M+~y 14 and 30, ~-nd Juno 11, 1973, to allow time tax ths ~ubmis~tion o! pla-nt. Aeeistant Planner phillip Schwdrt~e advised tha Crmmieeion thKt th~ pe+ti.tioner had eubmitt~d a xeque+et for x twro-weAk continu+~nca in ozdsr tc+ reviec+ plan~. Commiasioner Herbet ~eferod a motion, secanded by Commiuoioriax Seymour and MOTION CARRIED, to c•ntinus con~ideration or C~ndition~l Usa ~'dra~it No. 138b t~ the meetinq of July 23, 1973, ~a regueated >>v kha petitic+n:+r/dc+veloper, however, if the petitionor a~C thd July 23. 197.~ maetinq i~ :;nable to ~~sosent revieecl plans, the conditional use permit wil~. be removed from khe agenda and rescheduleu, at the petitioner's exgense, when ~~ni.~ ~+7.ane become availabla. LN'VIRONMLNTAL IMPACT - PQBLIC HEARING. Atr'Ai~EIbY F.ILLS, INC. AND TEXACO REPORT N0. 96 VBNTURE3, INC. , 380 Ant-hai.m Hi11s Road, P.naha~.m, ~e. ~ ~ 9?806, Owner= regueating permiseio» ta ESTAHI.ISti A CONDxTIONAL USE P1tIVATE TENNIS CLUB on property de~cribAd +~~s An P~RMiT N0. 1406 irregularly-shaped pax~cal of land consieting of approximately i3.2 acres, having a ma.ximum depth of approximately 32Q feet, having a frontmqe of a~aproxi- mately 2500 f.e4t on ~he weat side of Anaheim Hills Road, and being loeated at the northweat corner of Anaheim Hills an3 Nohl Rench Ftoada. Property preaently claes~fied R-A, AGRICULTUF.AL, ZUNE. C:hairman Gsuor noted that staff waa i.n recoipt of a lettesr froni the peti.tioner requeeting continuanae of subject petition and EIR in order to :esolve eome problem~ . Commissioner Rowland offezEd a metion, second~d by Commisaianer Hezbst and MOTION CAttRIFD, to contin~~~ conaideration of ~nvironmentnl Impact Report Ha. 96 and Conditional Uso ~~ermit No. 1406 to the meoting of July 23, 1973, as requested by thc peti~ionar. CONAITIONAL USE - RFADVERT.~SED PUBLYC HEARSNG. GULF OIL COMPANY, 1840 East PL'RMIT N0. 1363 17th Street, Santa Ana, Ca. 927a1, Jwnert ROBERT P. HANKEY, -" ~ Bait-Be~ch Center, 1322 E~st Ec~inqer. Avenue, Santa Ana, Ca. 92705~ Agenti requeeting permisr~ion to ESTABLISH ON- SALE LIQUOA IN CON.?UNCTxON WITH Ai3 APPROVED BEER BAR on groperty des~ribed as: An L-shaped parcel of land consisting of apptoacimately .73 acre, having a- frontage of approxima~.ely 102 feet on the west side of Beach goulevard and 50 feet on th~ sAUth side o£ Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 230 feet, and being located approxima~tely 230 feet south of the centerline of 8a11 Raad. Property presently clasgi~ied (:-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAI., ~ONE. No one appeared in a~position. Although the Report to the Commisaion was not read at the public hearinq, it 3.a referred to and made, a part of th~e minuL•es . Mr. Rabert Ha~nkay, the aqenL• for the petitioner, indicsted hia pre,sence to x~nawer queeti~na. Commissiore~r Rc~wland inquired whether it aae the progosal of the ~etitioner to chanqa the approved beax bar to a cucktail lounget whereupon Mr. Hankey stated that ~hia ~a~ aorrect - that they hed been grantod a conditional uae permit to operate a~'~Weeds Pub, but becauoe of the loaation of the property, it rrsa felt it would be k~etker to eperate a cocktail lounga~ dnd a reataurant. . MINUT~9, CITX PLANNIN(3 COMMISBION~ Jtily 9~ 1973 73-412 CONDiTIONAL_USE P$PtMTT NT 0. 136~ iContinuad) Commio~ioner Row].Rnd ab~~rv~d that trom the ~i~s or thR ki~tahen on the ple~n~, ha wauld pra~ume ~hi• wauld b• A limited menu~ wh~reuRon Mr. Hsnk~y ~ta~ted that it wou1Q b~ ~ lair~y xull menu, beinp a~ steak housp, and that the bAr wauld be •oparat~d tram the rdsCaurant in eaoordance wi.~t- Cha plena. Further~ more, thA entranc• would separrte the bax lrom tha dJ.ninq area. THE HEARTNG W719 CLOBEID. Commioeioner. Faxano i.nquired Mh~thar this wc,t1Q be a lull xe.tsurent deepite th~ feat thaC there wa• le4o than half ot tho requl.r~d kltchen ~aai.lity spece tor a restnurant, and if. th~ Commisaion ware considering thi~ lavax~bly, they wouJ.d, in effect, be Nai.vin~ an impa.rtant part o! the Code ahl.ch th~ Gommleeion had u~held in tho past. Commisa.ionor Rorr.i+snd noted that tihe diwtinquiahing f~atura betw4en a bar an~, a reotaurant that ~aer~~ed ha~rd liquor as datermin~d by the Plar~nlnq Commission was tha bi.ze oP tho kitcheni thdt ii a full menu were eervad, lt was rsason- able to aseume that tull kitchen facilitiAS t+rould ba r~aquired, but iP thia waa propooed to ba a~ specin~ty zeataur.ant, than thia might ~ot ba an impartant ~'actor. Mr. Hankay, in ree~onse to furthFr que~ationiny by Cammisaionor Ferano, etatAd thnt if subject ~oti~ior. were grant~~d, they pxopoeed to leaeo ~~ tha oporator of the Bavaridn Resteurent locAt•eg about g mile east on Ball Road which had boen in bueinees Par tho pr~~t s!x to aight years, end thia oropoeed lee~aee wae deeiroue of tranefarring his license to n newex and lerqer facili*y. Commisaioner 9~ymour offer~d a motion, aeconded bX CommiaPioner Rowland nnC MOTTON CA~RIED, that L•he Planning Commission, ln connection with an exemption. declaration status requeat, finds and det~rr~ines that the propoea-1 would have no significunt environmenta: impacti, and, trierefore, rocommende to tha City Counc~t that no Environm~ntal Impact Stat~mant is neccsssary. ~ommissioner 5eyaiouz offared Resolution No. PC73-146 ~.nd moved for ita passaqe and adopti~n to grar-t Petition f~r Conditional Use Pezmit No. 1363, readver- tised, subject to conditiona. (See Resolution Book) Prior to roll call, cont~nued A~.scussion wae held by the Commiesfon reyarding the po~^ibi.lity of this bai.ng a sandwich-type operation rnther th~n the s~~rv- ing of Eull-typQ menls~ that the Commisaion i.n the past had beer. opQoan~ to un-sa'le liquor in a shopping center withast the ~Qrvinq of Eood in a fu1Zy enclosc+d reataurant~ that th~ operation was presently juet a bear bar, r.nd the petittoner was ,now proposing an-sflle liquort and then inquired why the petitioner was now propoainq on-sale liquor to that oriqinalJ.y propoesd in a aunposedl.y full-Pl.edged reataurantr whereupon Mr. Ha~nkey skated thnt t ~~ peticioner arigi~ally planned a beer bar antl ponl tables but found *.his was not practical because of khe depth of the property an~! the loca~ion of the beer bar and pool table~ was not in close proximity to the street.. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that thia was a beer bar and cocktail lounge with only incidental sale of food ar~d that he would not be in objection if adeq~iate kitchen Eacilitiea were provided. Commisaioner Farano inqui,red whether suhject petition could be approved as a cocktail. lounge instead of a.reataurant~ w}:eroupon zoning Supervisor Charlee Roberta noted that the ma~nner in which the petitian wae advortiedd wou13 permit on-aale liquor in conju~ict3.on with a beer bar r~tk~es ~han a ree~aurant wlth on-salo liquor • in this mnr,ner the Commiesion cou1Q approvo subject petition without readvertis~.ng, and that the reason for advertising it in this manner was on the bn.eie of a similgrly propoaed bar and cock'tai.l lounge facility at 7Kato11•^ and Claudina~ Ways, whersin th~ Commi.as:on felt that the use cr~uld not be conetru6d to be a restaurant, and they ~:.id nat want t4 dignify the oporation by c~liinq it a restaurant, and hsd, ther.efore, granted th~ u~e ae a beer bar ants cocktail launge, although the petitionur in this caae, as we].1 aa the other one, had ind~.cated there would be A bar and tablsa ~aith the aerving af steakA and salade, as well as oandr+ichea. ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNINC CpMMI8~5I0N, July '.1, 197~ 7~-413 CONQITIONAL 1lSE PF.RM7T N4. 1363 (ContinueQ) Camr~isai~nar Horbet wA~ o! the opir~ion tl~at i! thio waro approv~d, then av~ry baz in Anaheim would 'ce aeking Pur on-sala liquox, ar~atin4 dn unQ~eirebl• prace~ent. Commisnioner Farano noted that ha would ~ot~ i.r~ lavor c! thi• ss ~ aocktail lounga and bar but not ae a reetaura~:t. On ro~.l celi the tc~roqoin~ r~solutian w~s paaead by the Po].lowinq votei AY88~ COMMI3SIONERB~ F~,rano, Kinq• Rov-Zand, Sa~+mour. NOES: COMMIS9i0N8ASr Allred, Oauer, Herb~t. AB~ENT~ COMMISSIONERB~ None. ~GNDITIONAL USE - PU~LIG HEI4RING. aALLMAL~L PF~OPERTIFS, INC.. 1430 West PLRMIT N0. 1408 BX'OddMdg-, ,Aneheim, Ca. 92HU2, Owner~ A71V1'D S. COLLINS, 107? Noet Bal.l Rond, Aneherim, Ca. 92802, Ag~nt; requesting p~rmiaoion to LSTABI,ISH A BiLLBOARD EXCEkAiNG ALLOW718LE SI7.E AT OTHER THAN AN 11UT~i0RI2)ED ~,O~:ATION on property deacribe9 as s A rectangu].ar].y-At~ared psrcel a! ].and consistinq of approxima~ely .6 ncre~ having a frontage nf approximstaly 118 faet un the south side of Broadwey, having a maximum depth o! appzoximately 230 feet, end beinq locatod at the enutheast corner o~ Hxoadwny and Aclama Street. Property preeently claoeitied M~^l, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. No on9 appe~sred ~-. oppoaition. Al~haugh t,he Repnrt tp the Cammie~i~n wna a-ot read At tha public ha~-ring, it 3,s rePerred ta and maaA part of the minutes. Mr. David Co111ne, aqent fcr the p~titioner, a~peared before the Commieaiun anA ataL•ed that thie propoe~al could bH conaidered a pi.ece og w~sll ar.~ wh~.ch was adjacent to the parking lot ~nd wr,e advertisinq a facility where artisanA per£armed theix works of artt t~hat the art wa~ a contribution by two of th~ artisane, and in hia eatination wae a contribution t~ the ::ity even thouqh it wae ++dvertising P~pper Tree Faire~ that the position he would like to tnke was that this was a cnrtoon artj and that he knew there was some,thing technical aa to establishing a pracedent, but he di~ not feel thi~ was a billboard. ~urthermor~, ths Los Anqeles T~mes, in thair December 31, 1972 puhlication, noted there were a number of p~-cturea of wall brt rsra~ind Los Angalea and thay contributed to the architectural ~nd artistic beauty af their. a:tty. THE HEARING WA5 CLOSEd. Commiasioner Herbst a£f.exed a motian, seconded by Commianionei' Kir~q and MO'rI0t7 CARRZED, tha~t the rilanning Commiasior~, in connection with an exemption declaration statua requeat, finde and determinaa that the ~~roposal would have no significant ~nvizonm~ntal .impact, and, tnerefore, recommende to th~ City CAUncil that no Environmental T.mpact S'tatement ig no~eseary. Commieai~ner Allr~d afPered Reaolution tJo. PC73-147 and moved for ita paasaqe and a~doption to grant P~tition for Conditiondl tlse t~ermit No. 1408 for a period ~! ane year, aubject t;o raview and subject to conditions. (See Paeolution Book) Prior ta rn~l ca.~.l, diacussion wa$ h*~ld by the Commiesion on tne manner in Nhich thia use could be conflned to the existiny billboard only, and iP Eor eome reason it ~ras removed, thaL the condi.tional use permit ~ou13 be terminate~~ since generalXy a uae ~ras qranted ta run with the lgnd. Rt t:~r conclusion of the diacuss4on, it wae determiaed that a time li.mittttion b~ eaLablished tor one year to be revieNed at the end of said year to d~tc+rm~.ne whether or not any adverse effeats hed ~een exp•riencecl~~ith aimilar zequeate beinq made, '~ and that ~he u~e shall cease k~o exiet at such time as the eiq~ woul~ no lonqer advertise the uae establi~alted uader Varianc•a No. 2399. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY ~LANN7N(3 CUMMIS3ION, Ju]y 9r 1973 73•414 CONqITiONAL USE P~RMTT NO. 14q8 (Continued) Commiseioner Allrsd khan amsndod hi.e mot•ion to rstlect thnt the u~o grantsd undar Conditional Uae F~rmit ~lo. 1408 ehe11 c~aNe t~ exi~t at ouah time ao tho ~ign no ].ongex advorti~ed th• uq• artablishe~ under 'Usrianca No. 2349. Commipsionar ttowland notad tt~Rt he would hsve to vota again4L• pubject petition beoauaa ttfir~ wa~ adv~rtieinq~ oven thouqh it might be Na11 Ar.t, and tho peti- tion, iY appzoved, xas authorising a billboarA in an e-rs~ whore ano wa~ no~ normaliy tound. an roll call th• foreqoing reoolution wae passed by the followinq votet AYE3: COMt4ILRSION~RS~ Allrsd, Fmrano~ Cauex, Herbet, King, Seymoux. NOIES ~ CO@7MISSIQNER5 : R~wland. 71ASENT: COMMISSIANERS: t~ono. V~RIANGE N0. 252], - PUBLIC HEARING. MULLER HULUING & INVES'fMEN'I' COMPANY, 6353 Suneet Boulevard, Suite 700, Ho~l,ywoo8, Ca. 90028, ppner~ AUVANCED EQUIPMENT CORP., 241 Crascent Way, I-nahei.m, Ca, 92801, Agentr requaetinq WA:LVEI2 OF THE REQUIR~D 6-FOAT MASOtiRY WALL ARQUND AN OUTDOOR USE TO PERMIT A CHAINI,TNK E'ENCE on pr~perty deeczibed ae: A rectangularly-shaped ~arcel af 'lanii consisting of approximataly 1.3 dcrea, having a fro~~tage of approximately 160 €eeL on Cho weaY. side of r.,reccc~nt ~Va~y, he~vi.ng a maximum depth of appzoximately 354 feet, and being lacated approximately 915 feat north of th~a centerline of Lir~coln Avenue. Property preaently clr.ea~tied M-1, LIGHT INDUSTF.IAL, ZONE. Or.e ~erson indicatod hia pres9nce in opposition. Aeeietant Planne~ Phllli.~ Schwartze reviowad the locatio~~ of subjec.: property. uses esCablisk~ed in close proximity, previ.oua zoning action on the propqrty, and the propogal to conti.nue usinq the property as presently developed with a chainlink fence aroun8 an ou+~~lnor use, wh~re,ns Cada required a aolid masonry wa].1 ~urro~.nding outdoor storagei that the existing chainlink fence was not locatod at the rear of th~~ nraperty line, rather it was appxoximately 60 teet Prom the zear property line, with the remaininq propc~rty vacant and undevel- oped~ that the first floor lavel of. the a~artments ].ocated to the west of gub~ect property were vomposed solel}• of garages and there were no living quarters on thA firat floor~ that some of tha apa.rtment ~~indows on ths second floor lev~l overlooked the ou~doc+r etorac~e area t~ tY~e rear ~~ the build~ny on aubject pro~erty, and a 6-foot high, solid masoniy wall would proba-bly bts ineffective in sh~eldinq thd st.orage area from a viawer on the se~an~ floor level of the apartmen~s i f the ir,asonry ~rull wAre constructed zlong the proporty linoj that alats inqtalled ~n tihe existing fenco would provi.de snme acroeningt that the Commi3sion had required elats in the ohainlink fencea in aimilar situations if the wall requirement was weived~ and th~t ~the Sanitatian D~vision indicated that a refusa a.-ea should be provided located near the rear dlley but notao close that the, enclosure doors would apen into the alley, hc~~aaver. tne f.ence exista about 60 feat from the a7.~ey, which appeared to ellminate this poesibility, and a trash storage area to the rear of ~he buildinc~ with auffi.- cf.ent clear turn-around area ~toul~ appear to be appropriate. Mr. 5~ealey DickA~n, Maiiages of Ac~vance~i Equipment Corparatian, the p~tltioner, appeared befcre the Commisaion and atated that they had just received the Repart to thz Commiesi..r~, and the recommendations of the znterdepartmantal Committae were something he was not famil~ar with, and hR was not in the pos~tian to evaluate them, but if subject petition were granted contingent upon acceptnnce o£ theae candi.tionx, hd would have to reque3t a co~~inuance so that he could study the maan~ing of the items and con~ult wit`~ tha property oKner, and would thua request n f~ur-woek continuanc9. Mr. Leroy Penhall, repre~sentinq Penhall Company at 320 North Crescen~ Way, appeareci LePore the Commiseion and noked that he did not raa?ize the requeet befara the Cummfasion wae n~t the propsrty immediately south of their property~ therefore, ha w~uld wl.thdraw hie oppoaition. THE HEARING WA~ CLOSED. ~ ~ MINUT~S, CITX ?LANNxNG COMMISSION, ~7uly 9, 1973 ~~'4Yg VARIANC~ N0. 2521 (Continu~d) The Cnmmi~~ion notec that the conctitions aspiyned to the c~ran~inq o! a aoninq requa~t wne ,~tanda~rl~ proa~durs xnd were condition~ Chek ~-ould hav• to ro ~,~at in orQ~z to permit the waiver requ~entAd. 2oninq Superv~isor Charlee Rob~rt~ xt~viewsd the conclitions set forth by the Raport to the Gommis~'on and upon it~ cona].uoion, Mr.. Di~kson agdin ~'squertad e~ oontinunnce to eva+uste th~o4 reoommen4ed condi~i.ons. ~ C~m~Gi-~a:,:~nr Rowland atfcred s motion, eeoonded by Commisoioner Horbs t:.~id MC~'l'ION C111t1:lEA, '_~ *eopen tha h~arinq and acZtinue aonsidorar.'.on o! P e~ikion !or Vazianoe N~. 't521 to tho meet~nq ~f Auqust 6, 197~, ar, requ~4ted by 1:he peCi~ionax. VARIANCE NQ. 25::4 - PUBI.~IC HEIIRING. PETE~S ROAD SERVICE~ INC. ~ 1193 BlUe CiL1111 r~ Street, Anehein, Ca. 92606, Awnart resqum~ting W~+.:`~R OF (A) PERMITTED OUTAQOR USLS AND (B) FRONT 3L*TB11CK 1•~ CONTTNU~ OUTDOQR REPAIR ~F TRUCK TT1tES AND TO LOCATE A HLOCK WALL RWGLOSURE OF ~AIA OUTDOOR U3E WITEiIN TlIE FROiVT SETBACK on pzoperty de+earibed aa : A rectanqular~y-ehaoed ~arcel oP ].end coneisting a.f approximately .46 acre, ~t the eouthr-eat aornex ot Blue Gum and Coronado S~reats, hnving a frontaq• o! eppr.~ximetiely 137 feet on the waet side ~f ~1u0 Gum Streat ar~d ha~ving a fr.onteqe o! appxoximetely 147 feet on thg eouth eide of Coronado 9tzeet. Property presently cl~aoif~ed M-]., LIGHT INDU3TRIAL, ZONE. No ona appeared in oppoaiti.on . ~ Al~chough the Report to the Commiesion waa not reAd at the public hea rirg, it is re~err.ed to and ma~je a part of the minut~s. Mr. Pete Fletche~z, Lhe petitlonex, appea~red before the Commission, s tating he wae the owner af the property And psaeident of the ~orpurati~nj thdt ho had purchased tha propcrty five years aqo at the auggedtion nf the larme r zoning Enforcemont Oflicer, and the p3.ans were drawn and approved by the Ci t.y for the~.r present factlity, and now, after fiva year:~, tho proaent 2onirag Bnf~zce^ ment Ufficer ntated the operation was not legal becauee the wall was not ~ermi.tted in the requirod setback and outdoor usee werR not permitted since he was repairing truck tiras outdoors ~ tha~ he was tYie only truick ti re repnir operation in Orange Cou:-ty, and the rc~a~ot~ he purchased the prQperty was be- cau6e L•he usn would not be pArmitted in ths camcnercial. z~net that other estab- lishmeata in the area had not b~en required to constzuct a block wallr and that he had dane ererything required of him er.cept that the wall was inata].l.ed 3n the setback area, but ~f they compLied wit.h the setback areri, this would take zway t-11 of their work a~er.. Zoi:ing Superviso:c Cnarles R~~berta note3 that the raquest before tho Commission r~rae not sa simple as st~r.ed ~y Mr. F16tcheri that the usa requeelad was basic- ally one that wo~~ld be pF~r:aitt~d in *he M-1 2one, howevar, i*. muot be conc~uct~ad wholly indoors, and t2:e activity which tha pAti~i~ner referred to did n~t c.~mply with ~he regulations of th~ hi~l 2one site develepment atnndarde~ that hP ~tas nat sure of wha~ the pei:itioner refexred to when h~ eta-ted tha~ the Ci.ty ataff had told him what to d~ nnd he had eubmittod ple-ns , howe ver, there had been a number af discusaions with the petitioner over the gaeC two to three years about the Fact that his actiritiae were not in conformanca with the s~te development atan3ards of the M-1 Zone, and rocen~ly this had" come to a head" ~ e~nd that Mr. F: etchdr had been attemptinq for the past seve=al wNekA to c~mply as alose aa he felt possible with thase etand~rds, and the varience petition wAS one of these mathodR af complying. DapLty City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that Commiasioner Rawlnnd taad a financie'. i.ntezesc .in proper.ty in close proximity, -herefare, ainca Commiesion~z kcwlsnd had this intere it, he would refrain from taking part ~n the diaausaion ar,3 votiiig, which sl:auld 1: e noted in the mi nutea , M~. Ft~:tuher then noted thnt he wnuld lixe to do what wne requixed, but tho ~.lty would not let him~ that it waa neceaeary ~o work outeide nn theee tr~~ak tiree be~auoe the noiae wa-a deafaninq if r~quired to be cAone entircly Within ~ ~ ~ MItiUTEB, GITX PLANNxNG COMM~88ION, July 9, 1973 73-416 VA rl1NCtC N0; 25Z4 (C:ontii~ued) ••truorure~ th+~t thoir o~~ration v-ar enalo~ed with e block vrall in a loaation ~ormar].y oocupi~d bY a•etvioe •tation~ •nd th~t a r~umb~r o:f piaturmr h~4 b~~n submitted whiah isidtoated whae other op~rs~.iona, ~u.eh as Truck ttsv~n ha~d, whioh ~ero Nora~ th!: his c-pezsti.on. THE HE~R~NG I~AS CY.USED. Commise~ioner Seymour aflerod a motion, aeoondrd by Commis~ionez Allred an4 MO'fION CARRTED, that thw Planning Commia~ion, in oonn~ction with an dxempti.on declaration etmtus re~uest, linds And de~~rminat that th• pxopo~al wau1Q havs na signiticant onv;.conm~n~al impacL•, A11f~~ tharafora, x~oommendR to the City Counail that no Env.lronmental Impact Statoa~ent i~ nso~s~azy. Commi.esSune~ 9eymouz aff.exad Ree~lution No. PC73-148 nnd moved For iks p+~aaa~e and adoptian t~ qrnnt Petst,ion ~or Varianae No. 2524, subjsct to aonditions snd dev~lopme-nt in ac~or~d~snce aith plana submittod. (Sa• Resolukian aooky Prior ~o rol). call, discueeion waa held by the Commi~aion on tho motion that haS been pra~enta d, and that a condition who~~ld b~ ma~d~+ that there eh~il be no skackiny of ac~uipment or tires above tho heiqht of thd 6-Poot wall ~ khdt the variance ran with the l~nd, ~nd the Commiaeion did not ~rreni: to e~e this parti~Llar uae chanqed to al].ow wxecked vehiolea ~r- trie property, but juat the repair oP truvk tiras. Commisaionor Saymour then amende8 hia muti.on t~~ requira ChaC there be no stoxec~e af ti.res abov~ the heiqht of the 6-FoZt ma:sotity well and thnti the uee granted hy Lhis variance would be Por the repair of tr.uck tires only, Nith the variancE beco~ning null and void ~,i nnother use was propoaed or. aetablished. Mr. koberts advised the Commis~ion that he was sur~ that the Pl~nning Commiy- aion was aware o f the far.t that black wallca were not peXmitted th~ r~quired 50-f~ot buildinq setback abutting an ar~erial highway, arid this regulatian ht~d beeri adhered i:o by both the Planning C~mmieaian ~nd CitX C~~uncil for some yeai•s, therefore , hia queetion was whe~hez the Commission in~ended to cons ider a gossible deviation fr~m thi.s standard in qen9ral terms. Were there any ~;ircumstances in thio apglicat3orl which made it unique, and i f so, would the Commisaion give speci~ic findinqe? Commi~si~ner Seymour atated that hls reason far offerlna the motion for npproval w~s bas ed on the fact that the various City d9partmenta had approved the plana and a petition had been appr~ved. Commissioner Faranc~ notPd tha't thprA had been no nrevioua zoning ttc;tion an the praperty except fos• ehe M-1 zoninq. Mr. Roberts ~o*_ed that ti~e criginnl use was reproaented ~s a tire rebu: '_di.ng oQeration, which was a uee permitY.ed in the M-1 'LOne, and etaff aeeumed when tha uae wae proposed that 1t would be whol].y coaductec] within a bulldinq. Mr. Fletoher nate~~ thar acc~~rdinq to tha Ietter aubmitt~d with th9 ~setition, prior to purchasing sub;dct. propexty, he hxd meL with the Ci.ty officiala and had hia attorney with ?:im, at which tima the developmcnt ~lans had been appr~ve3 in the Development 5ervices Departmant. Commiaaioner Sey~r.~ur i:~~uired whethar Mr. ~'letcher had aopiee of the plan~ appzoved by the Deve?.opment Services Depa.rtmen~~ wbereupon Mr. Fletcher roplie3 thmr. he did not have the plana any longer. Commissionox Snymour then noted tht-t the C~.t~ovedg£nraindoorsvonlyhoruo~tdoora tho only questi on now wa~ Whsther i.t war ap~ ~u preaently exieted. ltr. F1et::her ncted that the Gtty'a Eormor Zoning Enforcement OfPiaNr had ahcc+urdqad hl.m to purchase eub ject proporty sinc~ he was aperating a Eim3lar uen lrom an old houae~. Mr. Roberts noted that L•hs pravioue operetian aaa also an illeqxl use of the p rop~+rty . • MINUTE3r C:I'I'Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ -7uly 9~ 1973 ~~'4~'~ YJIRIANCE N4. 2524 (Co~tinue~) Commis~ioner H~rb~t not~d that tho r~quir~msnt ~hat L•hi• typ~ oi op~x~tl,on b• aonduoCsd ic~A~~• , had ba~n ~n tho Code book o! the City o! 11nah~im !oz many yearet ~.:~!~'~~Aon Mr. l~l~taher akwted that it tiook at le~~t liPt.~an minute~ to ~dpair an~ tiire on a larga truak, ~nd that i! thi• Weru aon~~+~:.ed ind~or~, th~ noir~ vrauld ba unbm~rabla, ahile having th• opdr•ati~n oatQoor• would s,llow trucko to be moved into th~ work area to pork on th~ tixa~. Mx. I,ot+xy, in ke~pona~ to qu~~tioninq by tho Commieoion as to whe~her or not thl.e use could ba •~~aAliehod a~ a ons-us~ opwratian for oub~ect property, stated that Sn dcoordene• wittt Ssction 18.68.060 oE the 11nah~im Munioip~l CoAo, khe Planninq Cummissl.oa could limit the usa o! •ubieat propcrty ~o onw opaclfic uer~ 01 re~air o! txuck tirea. On r.all cu11 tha lor~going rweolution wae ~~.+~e~ by the following voCe~ AYES ~ COMMISSIONERS i Allred, Farano, Gauer, Horbet, Kinq, Soymour, N0~3s ~OMMI93IONER9~ Nane. AABBNT: CUMMIS3'LONERS: Nona. A88TAIN: COMb1ISS"ONERS~ Rnwland. VARIANCE NO. 2526 -• PUDLIC HEARING. ELAINE ~'AY:,OR, 1900 Eas~ Ocenn, Apertm9nC ~! 77~2, I~ong Baach, C~. 9Q802, Ownerj RICHARD A. FRAxIER, 555 South Anaheim Boulovaxd, A-iaheim, Cn. 92805, Agent~ re~uesting WAIVES QF PERMITZ'ED USES IN TH8 M-1 ZONE TO ESTABLISH AN AUTO U~tiOLGTERY RUSiNESS nn property deacribed as ~ A rectangularly-shaped paxcol of land consisting of ~ppro~cimntely .8u acre, hesving a frontage o! approxi~- mately 122 feet on th~ aou ~ si.de ~P South Strc~~t, having a maxi~um ~lepth of approximately 308 Pec+t, and being located approximetely 155 lsot weet of the centerline of Ea~t Street. PropArty s~resently cla~sified M-1, I~IGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE . No ~na appeased in opposition. Although the RepurL• to the Cammission wae not reaa ai; the ~ubl~.c hoe-ring, it ia refdrred to and made a{~art o£ the minutea. 1Mr. Rlchard Frazier, agent for the pcstitioc~ar, appeared befor.e *.he Commission and stated they were preaently locatscl at 555 suuth Anraheim t~oulevard~ tbat the lease on that facility wan ending, and he needed Yarqer faciliti.ee in the eamo yeneral area; that the proposed locati~sn wou.ld be ideal tor them~ tha*_ h~ knew th~ use w~s qer~cral~y permitted in the C-3 Zone, but there was none availablP in town ~ that his bueiness would be cunduated wholly in~oore and wae a quite clean operation j that the trash Fro~n his operation ~ould be only areep-up ~rashj and thon in responae to Commise~iun questioning, stated that hia busineas was primarily wholesalo wi.th insurance companiea anc~ the only posalble commc~rc9.a1 use the}~ might do w~uld be v~hat the school district brought to himt thnt thare was very little adverti~ing outside oE advertieing in ~~he phone book or once in a while p~acing an ordnr in the au~o ciealers' megazi.ne, but in tho sale of their seat covers they had a cus~om-made operati~n and rarely had x~ady-madc aeat covere~ that aay retail use v~ould be very incidental to th$ actual aperation it~elf ot manufacturinq euxt covers~ and that they occasionally did furni.tuze repair, }.owever, thia was primerily office Eurniture. Furthermor.ee the number of employoea Would be e{.ght, with a part-tir~e boo~ckeeper. CommissionEr Sey~aour noted therR appeared to bg a problem as to the location of the trash storaya area since ik might be difficult for the traeh tzuck to get into that area to pick up the tra~h; whereupon Mr. Frazier stated that th~y contracted privataly with Anahelm Dispoaal '_o pick up trash three timea a w9ek. Commisaioner seymouz inquired whether or. not it would ba ~ifficult to relocate the trash fa~ilitys whereupon Mr. Frazier stated that there already exie~ed a cemant block trash area which may , sve been 8eefyned for the induat.ry and was Preaently located fluah against rne buildinc~, however, he could aoe nn problem in relocating it, and he would havQ no objectian to havi.ng to xelocete the tr~sh area. w~^ • MINUTEBr CSxY pT,11NNI1V(~ COMMI89ION, Su~y A, 19'13 VA~til-NC~ N~. Z5Z6 (Can~inu~d) 73-~118 Commis~ion~r Al1r~E iaq~sl.ssd wh~th~Y th• p~tl~tiun~s propooeQ Co utl~lin~ ~h~ •n~~r~ buil~iag~ Nh~reupon Kr. FrAS ior ~katea that thsy M~re u~inq Uni~ "D", •nd Units "!-" And "B" M~r• u~~a by ~n aNninq manutaoturer, Mhil• ~nit "C" wae atill vnasnt. Commi~aionar HarbaC •xpr~~~oQ tho npini.on that th' txa~h loaatiun had b~~n ap~ro~-ed prsvioue].y, th~r~lor~, ho oould ~~~ no xed~on why th~ trrNh p.o~+l~ wor• noa objaat,ing to th• •x~sting laowtion. 2oninq 9upbrviear Ch+~rl~~ Rob~rti stat~Q thr+~~ he wae aot in a poaition to enowez th• reseon Mhy ainea hs did nat knoM i! i.ha Sdnitatian DivisSon had become involved in plannl.ng thi• propezty, howov~r, they had oa~n khs gl~n be!'ore tha Commi.neiom m~d h+~G exprw~sed t.helr opinion. Cvmmieeioner seymour n~teci that uri~il about nine monthe ago th~ Commi~~ion bafl never heard about traah truok problsm~, and now aC esch tin~eting ik epQ~dracl bACh one had ~omo Eorm ot n problam. Commis9.ioner Herbet Wea ~t the opinion that eub)acL• praperty w~p n,et invo.lved in City trash piak-up n• many ind,~,s~trial planto ueuelly were requix~d to corttrn~~ through n~rivete piok-uF aon~pany for their traeh piok-up, ~haref.or~, thc traeh pi ck-up probldm ahould not b~ aonaiciered. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commieetoner Allrod oPlered a n~otian, e~oonded by Cammiesioner 1Cing snd lIOTION C!-ARIED~ tlie-t the Planninq commie~i~n, in oonnection wi~h an axemption d~claxa- tion statua requeet, finda and det~rminae that the p~oposel aould have na signiPicant environmental impac., and, therefore, recommends to the Ci~y Council ehat no Environmental Impact S~ .,tameu~ ie nocessary. Comq~i~eioner H~rbst off.ered Reaolution No. PC73-149 and moved tor :ta pa~esnge and adoption to qi.ant Patition for Vr~rianct No. 2526, subject to oondition^ and i:he atipulation by ~he pAtitionar that tho traeh etorage area waald be rdlocatad i f the Sani~ati.on Divis ion cletermined it wae ab~olutely necasse-ry. (aee kesolutio.. 8ook) On roll call the Porequinq renoluLlon aas paseed by t.he following eot~: AYES: COMt1TSSI0NERSs Allred, Faranc~ Gauar, Her.bat, King, Seymour. NOEB: COMMISSIONEY2S: None. ABSENT: COMMIS3IONLRS~ Nune. ABSTAIN: ~COMHISSIONERSs Rowl.and. VARIANCE NO. 2528 - PUBLIC H~ARING. PAi1L AND ~tUTH KNAAK, 1751 Eust Skyline Drive, Santa Ana, Ca. 92~05, Ownersi ZACHARX SHAM, 615 L~'dbt Chapman, OrangR, Ca. 92666, Agentj regueetinq WAIV~ER OF THE SPECIAY, FFIONT 3ETBACIC ALONG LINCJLN A17E1~UE TO YERMIT EXPANSION OF AN ~XISTING NONCONFORMING SUILDING on proper ~e=:cribed as: R rec:tanqular].y- eh:.ped parcel of land limvinq a frontage of a~pproximately 100 feef: on the south side r,f Linaoln Avenue~ having a:aaximum ~epth uE approximately 150 leet, nntl beinq located approximately 19J faet ~east of th~ centerline of Brookhuret S*reet. Property preeantly classifiod C-1, GENEFtAi, COMMERCI~,L, 20NE. No one ap~~eared in oppos3tion. Althouqli the RepcrC to tbe Commiseion wag not read at Che public henring, it ia ral~zred to and made a part of the minutea. Mr. 2+~ohaxy 5hnmr agent for the patf ~:ioner, ap~eared before the CQmmia~sion and stated that hi6 client had puraha8ed an Abandon~d restaur~nt Nhiah had bean vacant for tt:rse ynars that ha knew of to remodel i': a.s a retail store 4or n nationel cl.othinq company chdin, ar~d they xouZa like to occupy the stzuokur• in tiha maniiex propose~d in ~rder ta main~ain thei r naZiunal tale- vis;,on ~.mage, however, this would pl~oe a portidn of the a~ruct~re in ~hn requir~d 35~~oot satb~ck n?onq Lin~oln Avenue, and even if the ovezhang w re x~etnoved, t:.ey still would ba aithin Lhe cequired satback, b it iP they t~ere w ~ MIN~'~~a, CITX PLAN~IN(i COMMI88I~N~ ~Tyl,y 9; 1973 73-4~9 YARxJ1NCE N0. 252Q (Con*.ln~~cd) xoquir~Q to moat thiF adtb~ok, alma~k half the building aauld be remov~d and po~~ibly r~duoY.~~Q thn •~aun~ o! p~rking~ that h• oounted a rninimum o! 15 oetbaak 0naroaahm~nt~ t-lonq Linaoln 11v~nu• betMe~n c3ain und Buolid 9traete, and m++.n~- o! tkti~e• er.oroxahmeatr w~z• n~wer. buildinq~i that lhsy prapo~b~i to he~v~ th~ir ~:~oa KinanN• Nh~r• th• avarhang presently axi.st~d~ end tha~t they would sl~o ~Qr~en th~ir a.lr conditioning equipm~ent. 1'HE HFAP'~NG WA3 CLOSL~Q. Commi~sioner Harbs~ obseYVed that th~ plane did nat i.ndicate any land~oapin~ i.n th• lront aetbaokt thbt th• Lincoln 1lvenue ~etbaok o! 35 leet wa~ n CitY Counoil policy which aould be u~ed !oz ~ome parking in additi.on eo thr, r~+- .~uir~d landsoaping, or iP nat u~~d far park.ing, then tota~lly lands~ap~d, ther~~ora, he lelt thet sl.nc~ th~ p~titio~.~r. wae sequasting ~rnives lrom tha City Cour~cil polioy. tha l.eaet h~ ooulQ do waa provide adequate lanQecaping in th. aetbnck W~.th p~antor• alonq the wall c~f the building, ae well a• land~oaping alonq the r~,ght-ol-~way. Mr. aham rep].ied that h1e alisnt would be gle~ to go to the mnximum an ~end- scaping to Anhnnce tlne fa-cility vrith tha lar-dscaping. Commis~ior-er .~11•red i»quired wh~Cher the petitior,er c~nsidersd eddinq to tho rear oP the buildiny xather than ~erpetuating tho encroachmen~. into th0 xe- quired 35-foot aetbeckt whereupon Mr. Sham stdted that onu af the prime con- sidorationa that they had wae the image thie op9rdtion had establiahed and ware desirous ~f maintaininq, And tha reaaon subject property wae eeleoket~ was becauae i.t ~itted the needs o! thie company, but f.f the settaak were not a].lowa~l, he did not know what tho poeition af the campan,y would ~et and that theze was only c. 5~fuut encroachment, while 65 feet were needed in the ree-r tor pazkinq~ Coma~ieaioner Allred observed that eome parking would bc~ a~~ailablo in the front setback i£ it wer.e 35 feet, how~ver, he did not knc~w what waa the l.easor of. tWO evils, lesa setba~k or more car~e. C~mmieaioner King inquiraa whether a two-story atructure was permitted ~n thio area e~nd received an affirmative renly from ataff. Commiseioner Herbst wae of the opinion that the propoagl would upgrade the area since the restaurant could be re-eatablished by righk. Commissi.oner Allzed offereS a motion, seconded by Commisaionex Seymour an~l MOTION CARRIED, that tha Plaaning Commiaeion~ in connection with an exemption declnratL~an atatus r9quest, finde and determi.nea that the propoer.i would have no eiqnificant environmontal impac~, and, therefare~ recommande to Che City Council that rio environA~ental impact ~tatement is neaassax;• Commisaioner Herbst offered Reeolu~ion No. PC73-150 and moved for its paaasge and adoption to qrant Petiti.on for Varianoe No. 2528, subject to condi.t~or-4 an~ tY-e atipulation by the agenL• Par the p3titioner that l~ndacaping, auah mF planters adjajent tc~ the building and along the rigY~t-of-way, would b~ in- stalled and that a landa.:aping plan ha11 be eubmitted to ttte Developmen~ Services Department: for review and a~proval, hawever~ if any qaeatio;~ aroae as to the decis~.on uf the DQVelopment Servicoa Department, this dacision may be sr~~~led to the Planning Commis$ion, requesting that landecaping pJ.ans be reviewed nnc] approved by the Planning Commission and;or City Councfl. (Se~ Reeolution Aook) On roll call the Foreqoina rasolution wna passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMTSSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, King, Rowlar.d, Seymour. NOESs COMMISSYONERS: Nane. ABSENTs COMMiSSIONERS, None. ~ MINUTEb, CITY 1?LAN NINC COMMI95ION, Ju~ly 9, 1y73 73-420 RSCLASSxFiCI-TION - Pt1BLTC HR11R=NG. IILHERT R. BRADLEY, 1••E~O~ ~teldnCon~ Dz'ivo~ ~p~ 73..~q_Z santa A:~a, Ca. 92709, Owner~ ~roparty dercribed a•c An "~ irreqularly-~haped paxo~l o! land havinq a~rontaqe uf GONOITiON~L USE approximat~ely 58 la0t ~n th• aorth eida af L~rtcaln 1-vonu~, N0. 141~ P$RMIT havinq a m~xia~um d~~th of appraximet~ly 203 P~et, an~ _ beinq ZOCAtfa ap~?xc,xima~ely 1000 !~e! ea~t o! L•hs o~ntar- 5.i.ne ot Stat~ Colloq• Boulevard. Pro~~rty preeent].y olas~iff~d R-1, ONE-FAMILY R~82AFN~iAL, 7,ON&. RLQq~BTED GLASSIFIC~TIQNt C-O~ CQMMBttCYAL O~'FICE, ~ONE. R8Q088TED CONDI'PIONAL USL: RSTIIBLISH A COMM~RCx~L OFFICE IN AN ~XISTIN(i 3IIVIOL$-P'Al'4ILY RSSID~NCEr F7AIVINCi (11) MIAIIMQM LOT J~-REA, (H) MINIMUM! SIDF. YARD SETBl1CK, (C) MAXIMCIM PERMTTT~D KEIGHT, AND (D) REQUIRED MA90NRY V~ALL 11HUTTINfi A RESIDENTIAY. ZONE. No on• appeared i.n flppoeition. Altho~~gh t•he ~ie~ort ta the Con~miaaian wae not resd at the public hearinq, it ia reterred to and made a part of ~.ii• minutee. Mr. l-lbert Bradl.ey, the petitic~ner, appesrad beEorp the Commiasion and utated t4-e~~. h• lasd ownad subject properCy ainoe 1954, and he would like to xemodal ths ainc~le-family residenco ae ofliae spdoe for a realtor or accountant-type uss. Cha~irmxn Gauer ok,aervec] tt~at the Planning Commiseion for a long time had discuaeed and encour.mgad land eaeaml~l.y of einqla-fam~ly homes fr~nting on arterials, particularly for thoee lots a~jacent to subj~af propnrty, for conversion to regulation-type commerci+~1 build~nqs, assemblinq two, three, or Pour lote rather than continuinq the convereion of indiviSu~l lo~s and homea tor commercial uses, Comm~.aei~ner Allred ii~q4ired whether the propexty awnera on either eide of aubject property were Freaent and recei.vod no rsaponae,. Mr. Bradley noted that the property to the weet was up for sale with the etatement that the property was zoned C-0, and properties three to four, lo*z to the eaet and the Paurth lot to the wsst were already zoned C-O. Commissioner 8aymour noted that there wer~ aome prablems with thi~ parcel, havinq only a 58-foot lot frontage, and the euggeation that there be l~-nd asaembly tn create more profesaional-type buiYdinge As redevelopment waa deairable, but to con~tider thi~ raquea~ with such a narrow lot with nothinq more thrsn screeninq in L•he front was aubatiL•uting one undesira~ale land use far another r~deairable land use. Mr. Bradley noted that the property L-c+ the eaet al.so had only screening in fr~nt, although he did not know h~w extenoive the reu~odeling was inside. Commisaioner Seymc~u~ inquixed whether the petitioner was fami.lia~r with the Area on IIrookhurs~ sttest between Lincoln Avenug and Crescent Dxive, becauee if thie co;-tiz-ui.ng use of rea~.de~ntial uees for comznercial purposes was approved, th~ same i:hing waul~ h+~pPen along Linc~ln Avenue, and the situation was som~thin~ the CoN~mission wae tryinq to nvoid, namely, convexsion of single-family homes wi.th commercial useb that weze proposed with minimal rade~ign to make t;iem appear te be a commer.cial bui.lding~ whereupon Mr. Hradley noted tha~ ha was fa~miliar roitt~ the axea ind~.ca~ted. Commiseioner Herbst i.nq~iired whother there was a reaolution of intent. to C-G Zon~ !or theae propexties on tha nortr.h sids of Lincoln Avenue east og State Colleqe Boule~vardt whoreupon Zoninq Supexvisor Chazles Roberts stated there Wao ao resolution of iastent, but th~ General ~lan proje~tec~ this area ae being aQpropriate ~or aommezcia2 office uaea. C;ommisaionex Harbst observed that perhaps i.t was a~ps'opriate for commercial otfice us~ss. but the Cicy shoulcl encourage land assei~bly - thl.s would be e Aeautitul slght :ronting on a me~jor arterial, +~nd to l~ermit indivi~ual Iot ~ ~ lNINUT!C9, CITX FLANNING COMMISRT'N, July 9• 1A73 73-yZl R1ECL11a8IFxCA,TtON N0. 73-74-1 AND CONDI~IONIIL UaE P~RMxT N0. 141Z (Continwd) dov~lopmsnt M~uld be th~ war~t thinq that aou1Q b• dane, p+~rtioularly sin~• many ot th~~~ lotr b~inq progosod w~r• in th• o~nkor of tho bloak, ther~tar~, th• •ta~t~ •r-d the Planning Comanioe~on 4houlA otudy th~ area to a~tsrmine NhaL type aP ~s~oondar.y ACOAns rt~oul3 b• oonsid~r~d - oven thou~h there was an a~l~y to th~ rear, thi• wauld inject oommeroial u~~~ into • r~eidonti.al alloy •xit- Sng to lurther re~ident.ial ~io~s, ar~stinq ~r. unn~ce~~~ry burden to ths s~ai- d~ntial etivironment o! th• n.ajaininq ho~no~ to th~ north ot the alle~yt and that land asaen~ly .-ith eufliaient lot~ to m+~k• a s~~abla percal with a~proprf~ts buildir~gs oi~ it would be en saset to eh• aity anQ .i~ulc9 also proviae o~~anAary acae,~e ba~ck r.~~ Lincoln Avenue. THF HEARINC. WAS CLOSED. Comtni.osir~nAr Farano oflered a motion~ eecondod by Comml.tsioner A11red and MOTION CARRIED, to direct eta!! to prapare an azsa development ~+lan !or the propur~.ioe on the north aide af Ltncoln Avenue lzom Stata Collaqe Aoulsvard to ae far eaA~ ne the Genazal plan indicated C-~ uees shoulG bn estnbliehAd to d~termine wt~et secondary ciruulation nhould ba providod dnd whether a resolution oi intant to reclapsiPy nll og theee properties to the C^A Zane ehould be initiatad since ho sAamed to recall thic waa determined ~o be aappropri.at~ at one time for rasidentidl uaes, even tl~ough khe General Plan now indica ~d th~.n for commercia.l usas, howover, it waa no long~r deeirable rasidentinl propnrty, but i.t wae also unsuitable for commerc:ial ~roper.ty without ~om~ aecondary uccesa othor than the alley to the north, +~nd to mppxova cammerci.~l. ~ffice zoning, converting theae l~ae thari dosirable resi8ential homes .:~d aubatituti~nq eubatnndard commercial uaeR in the homea, wae not improving tho City'e imeqat and that parhaps ~he C-0 Zone ahould be placed on all oE theae propertias so that all ag the property owners wera atrare th~~: the~re should be land Asaembly. Mr. ~radley noted tha~ tr~era wore several property owners who still resided in their homes, and perhapa they c~id not like commercial zoni.ng for their propext~esr whereupon Coa~mie~eioner Farar-o eteL-ed thak thia propoaed area devalopment plan did not mean they wou]d have ta move, but this would put them on recQr~l that they would have an opportunixy to pa-rticipate in land ass~mbly. Commissioner ~'arano offered a motion, seconded by Comm~esioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, to roopen ~hQ hesring and aontinue con~ideration of Petitions for Re~classification Na. 73-74-2 and Conditional. Uee Permit No. 14I2 to the meetinq ot August 6, 1973, to allaw time for the preparation of an area development plan for ~hocae pro~ertfes, includinq subject property, on the north aide of Lincol:- Avenue east of Stz+te College sonlevard. RECLASSIFtGATYON - PUBLIC tiEARING. CHTt+T,F;S AND pHYLLI5 EICHLER, 6888 Leilani N0. 73-74-3 Lans, Cypress, Cr. 9 G30, Owmers~ BILL PHELPS, 1095 North Main Street, Ura:t~~e, Cr~. 92667, 14ge»tt prapert,y dascribed VAt~IANCE N0. 2529 aae A rACtangularly-ahaped parcel of land having a front- a~e of a~+proximate7~~ ~10 faet on ~he sou~h side of Oranqe Avsnue, having a maximum 8epth of appx'oximately 2U4 faet~ and being located approximataZy 430 feet westi o£ the centerline of 'Westorn Avenue- Pro~erty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUEST~D CI~ASSIFIC'ATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-r'AMTLY RESID~NTIAL, ZONE. F.EQUESTED ~'ARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMTTTEU HEIGHT WITHIN 150 xE~T nF R-A 20N~D PROPERTY TO ESTABI,I5H A 15-UNIT APRRTMEtdT COMPLEX. No one appeared in opposition. Althouqh the Report to the Commiaeion was n~t zeaa at the public hea-rinq, i~ i~ referrad to and made a part of the min+ites. ~ ~ MINUTES- CI'~Y PLANNSNfI COMMI85ION~ July 9~ 1973 ~3'4~2 RECL7189IPICATION N0. 73-7~4-~3 11ND V)1RxANCL N0~ ~5Z9 QContinu~d) Mr. Bi.~]~ Phelp~, ag~nt !nr th• p~tition~r, app+ared belorN t~ho Comm~eslon a~nd atsted ha had att~mptsA to oomply with tha tiita devalupm~nt standarl~s o! tho R-3 Zon•t that it would b~a di!licult to provi,d~ a 38-loot Curn-sround sraa, paxtic~ularJ.y sinaa thi.s propexty wds only 110 E~~t in width ~nd it would tak• up approximstely 24~ o! the pzopurty ~.t r~quireA~ ~hat th• orQine.noe did not itato th~t traeh piok-up lte~d to b~ lrom stoxaqe bint on th~ proparty, th~re- xore, it would epp~ar to he loq~.cel to t~ava th~e oontainoro Aa th• rtrQat ~n~ pxop~os•d, and h• half been ddvie~nd bX ehe traeh :~ick-up p~opla that th~,y had no problem aith tr~r+h p~~~k-upt end thet ho _.rlt th• Fire Department nover raquirod more bhan s 27-lc,ot t.urnie~c~ xadiu~, nd thNn t~~yuir0d wtnether the 3 te~t in Findinq No. 16 ~t ths avaluatfon w~.:orr.ect. Zoning 3up~rvioor Cliarloa Roberte nated ttiat thie rre-e in errar nn8 ehould heve ba~n 3R l~et tor trash truaka, but. tha Fire pepastment aCdted thr-t a 27-~loot radiua would be adequat~ !or thwn~. Mr. Phelpa then notod tt-a~t if a 38-laoL• turning radius were~ required, thie would be an extremeiq d!fficult parcel to dava~lop beoauaa the Flood Control Aistrict had taken a portion oF land t~~ the eauth and a high echool propert,y M~a located ~o the north. Commieei~nez Herbst expcesaed COY1~@X11 that ~he proposal. would havo a density a! 39 _~its par, acre, and al•thouqh the C~de pormitted a maximtim a! 36 unita per acre, he Pelt Chat the Naiver requeetod wae permitting thie Aeneityr whareuQon Mr. Phelpe etated that h~ did not feel it vroul!! bo fair to limit thia property to one etory beceuse oP the adjoininq R-A property, eii~ce hhdt property might lat~r be permitted to develop two atoriaa. Commiseioner Herbet then etnted he would not vote on anythinq which did not~ meet the Fire Dapartment requiremen~s~ whereupon Mr. Phelpe stnte~ that since ttse proportX had A depti.h of juat over 2Q0 fe0t, the units propnt~ed were wii.ttiin the requirement oi the Fire Department that units b~+ no more khan 200 feet Prom a~ dedic~ated straet. Chairman Gauer inquir.ed who would be re~sponsible for damaqe and loae a~ lito if thi.s were appxoved ~nd a fire occurredt whereupon Mr. Phelp~ ateted that he did not geel it would be a prablem of that magttitude, and i~ there were that type o~ pr.oblem, the F~.re Mareha]. would have aited this, Which wus not done even tho::qh the avaluA't~on indicated euch a fee].ing, however, there would be no problem in fighti.nq a fire. Commissionsr Far~tio, after reac3ing aloud 1^indinq No. 17, etated t.hat if thore was e cAnflict of opinion to that of the Rep~art to the Commission, this would have ~o be ror~olved aince tlie petitionar woLl@ hAVe a d:Lf~icult timQ Abtaiu- ing approval by the Planning Commias~on after the Fire Department sta~ted this was inade3uatc. Commisaioner Seymour inquired why the Fize nen~rtment ~ould make suah a Axate- m~nt that thie was unacc.eptab?es whereupon ~.. ph~~ s~uted tha* the fronk doors were within 200 feet, while the distance ta more than 200 feet, nnd since the lot was o;~ly 20~ resr yard, thi~a would placa the frant doors~ about street, howev9r, he di.d not wt,nt aub ject petitions Department conditions were baeic nncl would ha~•e to reur propsrty line wae :t deep with t~ 12-fooL• lb~ faet from a dodicated cont3nued b~cause the Fir~ be met. Commiesioner Faraao nfferea a motion, e0condecl by Camcaisaioner Hsrbst a-n8 MOTION CARRIED, to con~inue coneideratinn of Petit~.onx Por Rocla~ssilicstion No. 73•74-3 and Vari~nae No. 2529 to +~he meeting ot ~uly 23, 19'73, in order that a~tatf might obtatn clariPicAtion from the Fire Uepnztmelst ae to why the propoRed development was inadequa~te Por fire-fighting purpoees ae well as the reason why the proposal for tx~ah pick-up wae inadequat~ a~ r~~L tarth by the~ Snnitation Divlsion. ~ MINl1TE8~ CITY PL71N~lIN(3 COMNIa5I0N, July 9• 1973 73-423 RECLIISST~'ICJ-TION - PUBLIC HEARINii. GARDEN k71RK C.Eh:.^*T. H09FITAL, 9922 Gilbort Np.w~3_~4..4 ~, Straot. Anaheim, Ca. 9Z8Q4, AND JAMES ~. ~+ND UONNA E. G7LMOitE, 99~1 Myotic Laus, ]~nahaim, ca. 92804, cJwnereo CONDITIQNI-L U8~ C. i.. GA~~LAI, c/o fiard~n Perk den~r~l ~~uspital, 9922 FERMIT N0. 1410 (iilb~xC 8kre~fi, 7lnshatm, Ca. 92804, 3~gent= praperty de~aribed ~s~ 1-a irraqula~rly-ahap~d parael o! land oon- ~iebing o! approxtmete:'y 4.68 acre~, haviny a frontage o! approximately S52 faet on the ea~t tiidc of Gilber~ 5tre~k, having a ma~ximutn depth o! approxl.matolu 46~ P~st, and beinq located spproxim~taly 210 leat raorth of the oentarline ot dall Road. Prap~rty presently olaOe~iPled ORI~NGS COLiNTY R3~ APART[~ENT DTSTRICT (PORTYON 1) AND ORANG~ COUNT!l R1, SINGt,F-FAMIZY RESI- pL~NC_E D237`RICT (PORTIOtiB 2 AND 3) . REQUT;STED CLASSIFICATIONt pORTIONS 1~ 2, ANO 3- CIT7 UF 1-NAHRIM C-0, COMMERCIl1L OFFICE, 7.ONE. ~tEQUEBTED CONDITIONAL USEc I~ERMIx FXPANSIQN OF Ati EXxSTING HOSPI AI. WITH WAIVER OF' :iUMBER, TY'PL~, )1NA STZF OF SIGNS. Commissioner RowlAnd loft the Cauncil Chamber r~~ 3s40 p.m.~ static~y that because of conflict oP in~orest, einco he wae tha Architect ot tha projeok, he would not part~ke in the discuasion or vote. Ten paraone indicated their presence in oppneition. l,eniatant Planner Phillip Schwartze reviewed the loca-tion aP subject proQerty, ~aes entabl~shed in close proximity, and noted that subject prop~rty wae atill within the juriediction of the County of Oranqe, b~at the zoninq a~tion wae~ pre-zoning on the property before annexation~ that ~-e patitianer wae request- i:1g C-0 zoning for the pxoperty, proposinq to expand the existing hoe~ital with n three-atary addition as wall Afi a parking lot~ tha~t :.: ~ingle-fmmily dwe111ng would remain an Portion 3 and be uaed ae a reaidenco until po3aible incorporation into the hoepital sitew that t~he exist~.ng sinqle-story hoepital building had a ground floor a~rea of apptoximately 35,OOp equAr.e feet, and thes propose~t threa-story addition would have a ground floor area of ~zoximately 12,BQ0 aqubre feet and a~otal floox area nf approximately 38, square feet, makl.ng a total gr.ound floor axea wi.th the exieting and propoAed facility of 47,80~ square faet~ or a lot covmraqe of 23~, wi*_h a qro~s total of all floor areas of 73,061 ~quare feet= that thc~ proposed addition wc,uld be set back 15 feet from tho ultimate riqht-of-way of Gilb~tt Street, and the exiatinq hospital wes set back 40 feetj that the existin? hos~i.ta1 was e~+t back 24 feet from the R-1 homea to the eastJ that vehicular accesa to the aite would be provided frnm an existing 20-foot wide ~llay along the south progerty line ana Nould also he provided by three dri.vewAya off Gilbert Street~ that the submittqd plans indicated 31 parking epacee to the aou'th of the exi~ting building, 5 emergency spaces off the aouthern-most drive from Gilbert Street, and 218 apscea directly off L•he two northerly drives from C.ilbert Streeti, with another 12 apaces tu the east of tha hoapital in an area between Portior. 3 and the remnin~ler of My~tic Lane~ khat the ~otal number af parking apacer~ w~uld be 26~3, w:th '/3 spar_ee requiredi that a 6-foot high masonry wall would be provided alo;ig ~he nortt~ and zast proparty linea sot back 10 f~et Fram the streata' righte-of -way, wit:~ an 8-foot Y~iyh wall a3jacent to the ~c~maining reaidence on Myata I~aner th~;t a 20-foot landecaped buffer would be provided atong the nurth a1. eaet propozty lines ad,~acent to the dwelling units remain- ing after the pzopo~pd expansion~ that a 5-foot landscapa~c~ s' ri~p and a 30-+nch high block wall woul~ be extended to buffer the expanaion a.rea alonq the Gilbert ~treet frontagA, and interior landecaped areas woulr~ include plantera at the encla of parkinq rowst that the exteri~r of L•he propoAed buildi.ng addi•- tion would be finiehed in rainfo•~ed briak, red in color, and windowa would be of "solnr bronze color" with .~~atchinq aluminum detailinqr and that thd tras~ atorage area would be provided to the centor of the eouth aide of the exi.sting buildinq. FurtheYmoze, plans alao indicated car.etructicn cf tr-o additional free-standinq eiqne, one of which ~aould bg ~imilar to one alreedy located on tho hospital prop~rty alonq the sauthweat corner oP the Gilbert Screet frontaget tha~t all aigns were gropoaed to be viewed tram the stxeetj that one of the new eiyna was propoaed to be looa~ed +~t ths northMe~t Corner of the property a:~d mnathar 6x12-foot wido sign wnuld be a oombination d~rect~.onas/identification sign Nhich wae propoaed to be locat0d in the cente+r of thd property along Gilbert Str~et. ~~ • MINUTE9, CITX PLANNINC COMMTS~ION, July 9~ 1973 73-424 xtECLA&BYFIGAT'lON_N0. 73~74-4 AND CO_ NDITIQNAL USE PE_AMIT N0. 1410 (ConL•inued) Mr. 8chwart~a then reviewnd tha num~rou• lett~r• rAaeived lrom aQjoining property owners regarding drain~qe trom H~rvert Lane tio Gilbert 8treet~ vonstrucbion oP the block Nall prior to remaval a! tr,e ho~ss and qxadiny to minimi~e dust ~nd naeurs th• oat~ty o! the locel ohildrent looatiun of •ecurity lighting L•o r~duce tha impACt o! ouoh 11Q~r.ing un adjacsnt rnei- dances~ iocation of empl~ys~ parkinq wAthin the propoead oite to minimi.ze nuiae~ end li.ghtr that would ~eault trom vehiclea u~od by nigl~t ahif.t posaon- nelt end peat control appli~d ta the homes to be removad to pr~aluQa aprw~d og existi,ny tarmitao e.nd other auoh inA~ats into an area said t~ be lres ot such ins~cte at thi, time. Mr. SchwArtzo turther noted that the hoepital leASe~ ~c]d~.tional psxking areas aouth o! tha alAey, a-nd the existir+g on-ait. parking c~nfiqaration reeultad 1n private c~rive widtha and corner aut-oPte which wo~ld riot ba acceptable by City of An~heim atandarde, thuc the proposed parking plan w~ td eppear to edtiefactorily reeolve an exi.atinq pnrkinq pr.oblem~ tihat th:. Commiegir,n may wieh ta explore tha locetions and quan~i.tiee of both emorqoncy and out-patient p~rking and aleu khe ~.OCdti<7R and q~.antity of ].odding apaces t~hntc the ~ati- tfonex propoeec~ Co develop in phasee, r~nd if eo, Phase T would be the con- structio:~ of the firet two atoriee, which would not l,nolude aflditic~nal beds but would inolude additional ancillary unite~ euah ae X-re~Y facilit•ies~ and ~'hase IT, i.f canetructed, would include an additional 40 bede, bringi~~g tYie *otal number. oP d~edn From 97 to ~~proximately 140~ tt~at the petitioner £urther i.ndicAteS that e land trade wae in pracess whiah woutd 3.nvolve krading the hodpi.tar-ownec] lot end dwelling, Portion 3, foz the eaAterly-n-o~t lot and dwelling of the nartherly lots being part of khis peticiont tha~ the new qwiler of the proi~c~rtiy (Portion 3) would live in thi~ residP.-ce, probably for about two yeara, nna this owner would have an option to sell back the propexty to the hoepital at any time duri.ng the next ~Cive yea~ra , therefora, tha petitianer was reques~inq a reeol~.~ti.on of intent to C-0 in order that thls lot might be included in a PuLure expaneion without the r.acessity of an additional re- alaeA~.fication ac~iont that the Cornmieaion m~ght wi.sh to coneider reguiring dedication of vehicular access rightg to Hdrve~t Lane on Portion "s upon f3nalizat.ion o~ the C-0 zoniny in or8ar to preclude the proparty beinq uaed fox othor than hospital parkinq~ and th~t khe raques'~~d waiver of the sign type was required becauae a free-standing an8 directional sign wore not per- mit~ed in the C-O Zune, wlierea~ th~ petitioner was xequesting threg free- atanding signa, two of which would be directional siyns and the ot.her would be a aombination i.dentifice~tian/direc'tional sign. Mr. Randy Aosch~ repre~entinq Dan Rowlan~ &~esor.iates, architect Far the proposed development, sppeared b~fore the Commi9sion and stated that the 40~bed additioi~ would be a replacement of existing bads and would be to aupport the anci.llary usesj that this still would be a 97-bad hoepital and no more than thatJ that the Repozt to the Commiasion pointecY out tbe purkinq and circulation proLleme this parcel currently was faced with Nould be re- ~olved with the prop~~sed development, and the locat~.on giqne would help also to remedy the circulation problemst that the hospital administrator was avail- aAle ~o answAr any questionai that th~y had been warking wlth t2~e nef;t~bore and i~ appeared they had warked out the probleme and were improvins~ the sl.tuation~ that regarding ths concern expre$aed bX eome of the neighbore a,bout t:ze property at the eouthwest corner af Myatic and Harveet Lanee, khey had roviewed thia and found it w~s in the besk intareat to keep thi~ gor parkinq purpoamat and that the request of~ the remainino• ainq2e-family property aWner ad~acent to aub~ect property for an 8-foot wall to ~rotect their prop- erty would be complied with. Mr. Mike Young, 95G1 Mystic Lana, appeared before the Commi.egion ead noted tha+ he was sp~akfng only Por the ownere of Lot No, 46~ that he wa+s not neceaearily in oppositior, but wanted aomo atip±~latiohu snade by the patit.~.oner r.egArdinq tt-• 8-foot wall ~ tk,at they h~sc1 purcha+aeci hhoir prop~rty many yeere ago, long beFore the hoepit~l wa~ in ~xist•ence, an~ tha}• would be the only homeownars on Myetia Lane, therePore~, if ~he hoepit.+al Mould .gree at thn publ~c henring to praviding the 8-foot wall, thie aould zesalve c~:±e o! their probleme. In ad~ition, he would like to know who wauld maintain ~he c~+l-de- sac on Myatic Lane si:-ca he wouid be the on~~.y proberty orvner on ths atreet - ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMI98ION, July 9~ 1973 73-4Z5 RECT,A33IFICATIaN N0. 73-74-4 AND CdNDITION~-L USE P~RIdIT N0. 1410 (Continued) would the oul~de-oaa ba adequate in ais~• !or lir~ ~nd tra~h vehiole~ to tuxn sroundt Nhera wou1Q the amployee~ park an th• ~vaning ~hitt boaause th~y wou~d pr~fer ~hey rrould ba r~eQuir~d to park along the tiilbert 8treet Pxontuga si~a~e they did n~t Mant them next ta Chair badroom Mindown~ ths~ ha wou14 alao auggeat. that no aooen~ bs allaw~d to HarvuAt Lane, and acaardinq to th• mep on thA vra~11, it would appear tha•re wn~ QOhA propo~md~ that ten o! tha hames NflYQ p.roposcd ta ba~ remo~ved ~x drmolieh~8, and th~y would like to bo as aomfnrtcable in their homo~ ~uriny construation as they presently en~oyed their aomfort, tlie~refore, they telt the ~well and lnnd~caping an ~tyotie I~ane chould be completed prior to constr.ucti~n± and that his major oonaern wae that it Wae hoped they would be ab1e~ to livo as comlortnbly in their homes during the c~natruction etage as t>>c~y had during thm ~ast 7.8 yaara. Deputy City Attorney Fsank L~wry a~dv.iaed tha Commisoion th~t the r.oquaet by the op~oeition rega~rding removal or demol.itxon at• the homee w~uld be up to ~he petitioner to request pe~:m~taeion from Che Clty Council ko remove the homee, ar~d the CitX aould not enfo=ce a rAquirement oP ramovinq rather. than demolish- ing the homoe upon the petitioner. Mx. Young ~tatea that if the hom~s were not removed a~ hhey were, he wuuld reguast t.hat they bo entirely fumignted ~o that tha adjoin3ng property owners wauld nat be subjact~d to termiteg an8 other vermin, Mr. Clem Zaker, 9921 Harvest Lane, arpeared before the Commisaio~i and noted that. the exlating wall adjacent to hi~r pzoporCy wae only 5 PePt, which a~uld i~ot give him the neecled privaay from a commercial uae, therefAr.Q, he would requeat thut the wall be extended to either 6 or 8 Eeet~ that eorne ~rovi~ion ahould ba made to keep heavy ec~uipmant of.f of Nar.vNst Lane eincn the con- structi~on oE the street wae ot soft :naterial anc9 wou1S not withstand the weiqht of heavy equipmentt an3~ finally, in Finding No. 23 aP the Report to the Commi3e~ion reqardinq the acceae to HarvASt Lane~ he could see ~o necesaity to creating more traffic on a residenti~l atroet by permitti~~g commercial tra~fic from the hoepital. to ent~r Harveat Lena. Zoning ~upervieor Ch~rles Roberts not,ed that t'or clarlfication ptir.pot~es on the suggastion made hy ataff on Fi.nding No. 23, i~ was the ~.n~ent of ata~f to keep the commercial traffic from using iiarve~t Lane, however, at the preaont time it war~ planned to use the home es a resAidence and accetsa, then, to Harvest i,ane would be necessary, and the auggeation was L•tiat the vahicular acce~ss be ~edicate~ to th9 City of Anaheim priar to the znning to C-O at auch time as said Qropesty wae utilized for additi.onal parking purposes, makinq tha only meane of gaining acc~ss to the property throu~h the hospital property from the weat. Mra. Arthur Guillet, 9832 Harveat Lane, appeared befor.d tha Commiaeion dnd inquir.od whett~er the City of Anaheim pxovided the landscaping on x cul-de-sac or did the hoapital provide it Rnd maintsin it, since they were wonrlering about the sprinkler syst~m and did not want to have eny additional drAinaqe problom at Harvost and Mystia Lanos. Furthermore, she wotild like to thenk Mr. Sixb~r, the hoapital adminietrator, for hia courte$y in trying ~to offer every assiatance poee~lble t~ t}ie homeowners in thia ar~a. Mx. ~d Harrison, 9847 Harveat Lar..e, appeared before the f:ommisaion and noted that this wae County propert~, and k~a wondered why th3s petitian wae not being conaidered in Santa Ane since he couldn't see any reaeoa for dedicatinq d pi~ce of pzoperty to the City and then redediaating it back to the County. Mx. Rober~a x-otad that the reasor~ the reclagsificAtian was before the Planninq Co~nu~ission ~vae that it was proposed to annex the hoaQital properCy ~o rhe City of Anaheim, and this wna pre-zoning prior to completion of sni.d annexatian. Mr. Harriao:~ noted that in the demolitinn ~ f *_::9 homes, why couldn't the City edviee the contrnctor at the time he filea ~the biiilding pexmit request that heavy aquipment waa not peYmi.tt~d ower City stre9ts, an8 the Ci.ty aould pertniti only certain routea ar~ far as relocating the houea• or far heAVy equipment ~~~ ~:raverse City atreet~. .~w. ~ MINGTEB~ CITY PL7~NNINA COMMISBION~ July 9+ 1973 7~-4Z6 R~CLA~9IFIC1-TION l30. 73-7a-4_ANU CONDiTIONAL__Ug8_PER~MIT NA. 14i0 (Cantil.nued} Mrt. 11d~lina A~ ~erhudt, 9452 Vanoouver nrivs, appaared belore Che C~mmlasion and ~tat~d thxt erie w~auld liko to hnve an 8-toot wall adjaaant to hor prop~rty, and that thay had chany~d thsir minds altex havinq lookad mt khe plan~, al~ though thsy had previov~?.y +~qreed ta a 6-loot wall. Mra. Doluzu~ Drown, 98A1 Harve~t La~n~, A~,pearpd betoze the Commi.rion and notsd th+~t the parking lot wds very large, more than wr~at was requirad, and w+~• there anything tha~ would permit them to aonotruct on the parking prop~!~•ty o,Q~ ~c~nt tn thoir. property 1_ne~t wheraupon Commiealoner 3eymout noted ~ha~ti i! subjeat petltion• were dpproved, thay cauld not ahengA thair pdrkinq apaee, without some coneidexation by the City, and this w~uld havo to ba dor~e dt • ~ublic hedring. Mr~. Brown notad thwt ~hey were tao close to ths parking area, ~her~~ore~ she a4o quit~ r.onaarned regerdi.ng any ~uture expannion. Chairman Gauer 3nquired whether the majority ot the paople w~ra in favor or in oppoaition to the proposed hoepital addition, and +s ehowinq of hande indiaated that all wero in fav~r o~ the ho~pi.tal addition bu"u they just wantedl apecific conaitions epelled out by the 3e~-elopar. Mr. Hosch, in rN~uttal, notnd thnk Mr. Z~ker mentioned a 5-foo~ wall exiatia~g, howe~er~ the AnahAim Municipal Code requirad a~ minimum of 6 feet, ther~fore, they would have to meet the 6-foot re~quirement and ehoul8 relieve th~ concern ot aomo of the peoplet that there appeared to be e variation of tho wail height, which could creeta a hardship on the pe~itianer einca aome wou18 prefer an 8-f~ot wall while others would prefer the 6-foo~ wnll, and in many itsatanaes waiig of greater he~ght wer.e growne~d upon and were no't allowed at a11~ that they had made a epecial exception in tho case of the Xoung praQerty becauae of the oxientation of their living eite and the cul-de-sACr ttiat aome of the zesidents felt the ho-u~s should 'be moved rathar than demolished 3ecauss of a~oaeible termi~e threa~, however, there wer~ no plAne t.o m~ve theae homea becnuea ot the weight of hcmea o~i a City ~trF•t, however, it would depend upon e~pproval of the City Counail whether theso homes would be re~loc~ted, and it was di.fiir,ult to judge what would be done, although it :vas aheaper ta move the homes than to demoliah them~ th~t ~the concern expressed regardinq dirt an~ dust fram the ;+raposed exFansi~n and the requeat to construct the walla prior to conatruation o~ ~he addi~ion had been s r~,quirement of tract developers in the past, and someti.mee walle thAt were construc~ted wrera damaqed during con- struction and they haci no contxol ov~r tha~ proceas. Chairman ..auer notsd that the petitioner could provide dust contro]. meaeures to minimixQ heavy 3eposits of dust and dirtj wh~reupon t~r. 3oech atated that dust control. could be provided, and they would ao stipulaL•e. Commi.seioner Herbat inquired why th~ aqent for the petitionor could not stipulnte to constru.^,tion of the cul-de-sac and an 8-foot wall nn all perime- tera ad~ac~nt to residential property, not just the Young property; wheraupon Mr. Bosch atated that tr.Ay hnd agreed to the 8-foot wall on ~hc Younq property bu~ the balanae cf the people had stated they pref~rred a 6-foot wall, and !te would pr~fer that the Commiseion meY.e this s condition of spprovalt that thc~ need for more parking wad base,~l ~n the fact tliat the City's requirement of one space per 1000 equare feet was very inadequate, toqather with the existing deve].opment now havinq p~+rking problema, which cou1Q be taken care of by the ~,ncrease~ nuttabez o~ parking sgaces y and that the l~,ght control and e•r-p].oyee pa.zking problems ~should be a concern wl~ic~ the hospital mdministrator ahould diacuee. Mr. Ed Bixby, 9922 Gilbext S*rc~et, Administratar of ~he ho~pital, appear~d before tha Commiesicn and etated that moet omployees preforred to park near the building at niqht~ that they had 185 fu11-time employeea on three ahilta, ~+ith the night shi£t havinq 2Q employeea from 11s00 p.a. to 'fi00 a.aa., and 'the a~tesr-oon ehift, wh3ch aould be leaving mt 11s00 p.m., baving 35 to 4Q emplo,yees, however, there would be adequate parking immediately ad~acent to the building !or ti~g ataff. ~ ~ 73-427 MxNUTES~ CIT'Y P'L14NNING COMMISSIQN, July y, 1973 RECLASBIFIC~A,TI~N N0. 7.3~74^4 AND Cl7NDITIQNAL U9E PERMI'1' N~. 1410 (Conti.nue~d) Commiosioner Herb4~ inquiraQ whather tihe hoopital coulQ deoignete ~he ar~e- fur the emp~oye,e parking~ whereupon Mr. Bixby el:ated that Ch~y would mdke evory attampt ko, but they munt also q,ive cc+noid~aratian to provicl~.nq publ~ic parkinq. THF HEARING WA5 CLOSEU. Commir-siar-ar 8eymour observed that tha drehiCect !or the potii:ioner had indi- catod tt~ey wasid be willing to con~+truct an 8-faut well for the Young prop¢rty~ but Celt• it was toa m~.~ch o! n burden to the ~etit~.onox to providd the osme amenitiee tor the okher pr.oprxrty ownera, howevor, he did not FQal the impaat wae tha eamo on the Younge, which had pe-rking probl~ms, anA on those on Herveet Lane, t~hiu would be a building nroblemt whdreupon Mr. So~ch etated it wnuld be noisA trom the pAZking of cara and lighte, nnd~ Mz. Hixby and the Y~ungs had worked on thet prablem beca.use of the locati~n of tha Younq'a homo anR their environment would be changed as to living areas end ad~acent to their k,edr.ooms. Gommibytonex' Herbst noted that he had a phobia reqArding mason:y walla, snii he would like to qivc+ coneidoratl.on to a 6-fout we+ll with e row oP r,ypreae tr9PS grown to 15 or 2Q feet, whiah would minimizs the et~ect oP a block wallt thia might bo conei~lexed to of_°aet thc+ atark reiief ox s w~ll. Mre. Guillet stated that she did not want any more treea adjacent ra her property bec:ause ahe didn't want uny leav~H in hor swimming pool• C:ommiasioner~ Allred inquirod whether the potitioner would be wiZling to ~on- etruat an 8-fo~t wa11 adjaaen~. to the sinq~e-~amily properties along both the north and edst pY ~erty 1lnest whereupan Mr. Bo~ch at+ated that they did not atipulnte to that because they were pr~viding a 20-foot atrin of landscapiny in ad3ltion t~ 1:t-Q 6-foot wall. Commissi.oner Soymour notied that the agent fox thc petitioner was more concerned r-~.th th~ economicg of the development, whereas he should b~+ mor.e concerned with the fact that this was disrugting the existing environment, and he did not foel thet requiring an 8-foot wall would bankrupt the hosp:tal. Commiaeion~r Allracl noted that one person had already indiceted she aanted an 8-foot wall along the nortli of ttie hnspital proQertX and inquired how many of the ot•her lotss whereupon two m~re persons indicated they wan+~d the 8-foot wall. A womar in the Council Chamber. noted that at the present time cars were parked alongaide the wall, and because of the narrownesa of the roadway, the larqe t.rucks would scrape along the building wall of the hospital and the sweepers would start cleaning the parking area early in the morning. Commissioner Farano inquirFd what was pl.anned for the easterly aide of the atru~ture north or Harvdat Lane; whereupon Mr.. Bosch stated there were no plans to changg triat area. Cammiesianer Farano noted that if what the womai~ in the Cha-mber atated w~s true, then delivery trucks wexe going into that area, and cars must park there beaause the a~rea was stripeu. Mr. B~sch atated that after this expana^ n wae built and adclitional parkinq Was provic~ed~ the~e trucka wou13 not bt sllowed to park triere, and this drivo- way was one af the two aac:essWays to the parkinq arent wheretipon Commissioner P'art-no noted that tYxis acceae was really not needed after completion, there- fore, he would euggeat that this be devolooed with landsc.aping. Mr. Boach stated that this would create one l~ng, deaclend parking area. Commiasianer Farano noted that this would be a lonq t~lley aZong the south, and if the parking spaces were deleted, there woul~ ~w~uldnbedmorehattractive. parked elonc~ this alleywayy furthermore, landscaping Co~missioner :~erbst ~nqui.ted whether ~here wae anqla pa~king there~ whereupon Mr. Hoach atated there was parallel parking. ~ ~ MTNUT~B, GTT'1( PI,ANNIti~ COMMI3830N~ July 9, 1973 73"~~g RECLA3SIFxCATxU.t NJ. ?3-74-4 AND CONAIT~ONAL~ USE P~RMIT NU. 14.~Q (Continuad} Commiesio~er Harbet stat~d that ~.t wa~ hir c+pir~ion all park.lnq ehauld be re- movad Prom thmC eree and the nr.ea campletel,y 4a+vHloped with ?.and~cepingt wheraupon Mr. Bl~xby et~tad that they were vQry e:r~-mped et th~ ~~enent time fo:~ parking, nnd thi~ waa the reas~n !or paralJ.e1 perk'nq. Commie~i.ahor El~r.bqt Chan stated that: the 0-loc~t etrip tor pa~rk~,ng ehould be remo~•ad end ull the rrea ~rtiraly l+snracaped~ whereupon Mr.. B.ixby e~+~tec~ tr-aC he Pelt tho ^i.xe Department sl~ould he coneulted regarding thi~ ein~:e thdy rt.ight ne~d ;~:c~ee into kh~ area. Commiselonei~ Faznrio nnted that tlie Fire Depart:ment wa»ld hsv~ nc trout~le in ga~ini~~., acae~a to thl~ exea beceuae oP cl.rc:ulaciun tti~af. wea proposed. Comm~RSioner lierbet ~atad t.i~at there wpuld ba bettar circuletlon it there wex~ n~ cnr~s pazked i ~i thia aroa, a~nQ l.e felt tho peopl., sh~ulQ bo qivon eome protaction with 2andscaF~f.ng. Mre. Marien IidXAAM~ 9509 Ynrdley ~'*..reet, app~~-rod before the Cammiesian an3 ota~ted that ahe h~-d live8 in her ~~me f.or lfl yeara end inquirod what would happA~l if thi:. prop~eal wcre al.loweci ta go to the commeraial zone - wac~ 1": posaib.le L•hat ~heir homes woul@ be turr~ed into doctors' ~tl~ cee~ whlch ~~au, somet:hing ahe wonld nut 11ke ta see because this wna e+ vc+ry nic~ residontial ~zeA, althouqh they were not iii oppoaition to the h~Rp~tal. CoM-aisaioner ~eymo~ ~ natod thnC the Commission could not gaaranteA that tt~e r~aidentia'. zone would remain on the balanco of the nr.operti~e euxxounding the hosnita2 since evcsrrone f~ad a righr ta dak fc~x a xocltaeilication of their property. Mrs . Barnea then inqui red ~~tx~~ ` wauld hap~en to the two home~e owned by the lioapital - would th~:~e be turtiod i,:*.o officest whereupon the Commi~..gion adviaed that deve~.opnent aould b~ve t~ be in t-ccordnnce wikh the pl.ans presantec~ to the Planning rcmmisaior~ at th3 public hearing. Commis~iot~sr Se:-m~ur offer~d a mction, s~.condQd by Commissic~ner F'arano and MOTION CARRIEA, that the Planning Commission, in connection with ~-i er_emption aeclaration atatue request, finds and det~rmines that tl~e propoeal ~rould ha~~E no aiqnificant environmental imi~act, and, tnereforo, recommande to the City Council i:hat nn Environmontal Impac~ :,tatemen~ ia ~neceaeary~ Commi~~{.oner Ai.zed offerAd fiasolutlon Nn. PC73-151 and u~oved tor, its oas~sage and ado_ ?•.ion ta recommen~: to the Cfty G'ouncil that Petitlan for Recla.~ iffca- tior~ tdo. '3-74-4 be approved, subject t.r app~-ova1 0£ Conditional Use Pezmit N~. 1410 and dcvelopment in accordance with ;~lans and :•pecifica'•ions on iil~ with the City o4 Anaheim marked E~:hibit Nv3. 1~,hrnuyn 5, provid«~d, howev~r, *.hat an i3-foot masonry wall be conc,tructed alon~~ all. residentigl property lineas that the parking ar.ea to the east c~f tha existirig fac111ty be removed and Za.ndscaping pz'ovided inst~:ad~ and t.hat a11 down-lightina shall be a maximt~m of 6 feet in height in the pzrkinq ireasj a~d sub~ect tn ~~~nditior.5. (See liesolutton Bopk) On rell call the Poreg~ing resoluticn was passed by the i~12~w!»g vote: AYES: COMMISSIONER~: *.ilrad, Farano, Ga~~er, Herbst, King, S.ymour. r~4~S: COMMISSZONERS: None. ABGENT: CUMMISSIONE~tS: Rowl~nd. Commisaioner Seymour off~r~d Rebulution No. PC'13-152 and maved fos its paasage and adopt~ion to qrant Petitic+n for C~nditional Use P~rmi~ lio. 1410, subject t~ construction oF a~n 8-foot masonry wa11 and ~11 downlightinq be directeci away from the resi~lential r~mes anc3 be a maxi~num of 6 f.e~t in :.eight, and eubject to conditione. (Sea liesolution BooS:; On roll call the ~ozAgoing resolution was pasae' by the !o1'nwinq vote: AY'ES~ COMMISSIONERS: :llred, Fsrano, Gauer, Herbat, Kinq, S~ymour. NQES~ COyMiSSIONERS: None. ~,BSENTs :OMMISSIONERa: ROWland. ^~ ~ MINU'PLS, I:ITY pLANNING COMMI59ION, July 9, 1~73 7~-429 RECBS9 ~ Chairm+~n O+~uaz r+~cas~ed th• m~eeti~nq !or ken minute4 dt "-'" 4~ 30 p.m. RECONVENE - Ch a~rman Gausr reconvened ths m~~ti.nq et 4~40 p.m., Commieeiuner Aowland being ab~ent. RSPn;.'.3 AND - I'PBM NO,^ l REGOMMENDI`TIONS CONDITIANAL tl3L~ PERMIT Nb. ].395 (Dor~ Gonz~l~a) ° R~quset !ar exkenaion d~ time Por nonconlArmin~ ue~ o! propozty located at 40U enQ 400~ 5ontli !ive 8treet. Aaei~ta~nt Plar.her Phil'iip Schw~~rtzo r~viewod the findi.~qr o! t:a Report to 1:ha Cumm~ssl.on regarding the lo;~etion nf aubyeat pro~erky nnd tho petitioner's request for ~.n exten~iot~ uf time to oither rol~c+sto ~'our ex~ese "gu~wttf" o~ the te-n currA~tly at her. Uotsrd and cnre home tu A new lc~cati~~n or to x~es~lve I e City Fire Dapertment er.rinkli.ny xequirement which had limited khe c-umbex of poraone to aix +~t Ch~.e lo~n*ian, and thie extension was being rc~qu~eted ue- ceuse o~ action taken by ~ho City Zoning Enforcement Otficer~ that tha ?lanning Commission, on Mdy :i0, 1973, had approved Conditional Use Permit No. 13~5 to eatablieh an exis~:ing reet home Por women o~ limitod capabiliti~s r~~bject to n con~li.ti.on that until the two re~idonces were aarinklezed in c:omplir~nce~ ~rith the Fi re C~da, only six gueeta in eddition to the h~usokeepes• should ba ~ermitted to resido on thu preminear L•hat oii~co sevarel o! khe zesidenta of the aras expreseed cor-cern reqard~.ng tha adequAte auperviAion oP the requested number. of. gueste of limi~od judgment, the Planni»g Commiss:.ui- c9et.ermined that a time limitation uw two yeaxa should be place+d on '.:he uae in ~rdar t.o determina if the us9 w~ald be detrimental t.o ~he areet thut the C;ity Zoning Enfozcembnt Officer had been to the properky i:wice eince the use wuA qrAr~ted b.~ tha Planninq Commie~lon i.n an e~fort to g+sin compliance as to the numbc~.' of ~ueets apprvvad~ and that on Ju:l.y 6, 1973, the City Fire Deprrtment inciictst~~,i cn~t the State Fire Mara~al had ru].od that thi.s iacility was a G-5 claseifi~~cic~n (1 or.cupancy) , thus ~tha peCitioner would be permitted tc~ keep ~ive peraor:r. in each dwe111ng without a fire alnrm eyatem or aprinklez syatem i~eing instt,lled, nnd tho (:~~y Flre L~Aga tment wo~~l.d abide by the SL•~te r'ire Marshal's ruling, theratcre, tha Com:nisaion woulci wiah te conaider whottier in vie-~r of the revie~ed tire occupar.cy requiremeata en upward revieion af the number ~f permitt98 qucata rrauld b~ appropriat~~, or, if not appropriaCa, ahould a two-wee): exteneion of time be granted to allow the petitioner time tu r.elocate the exoses queate. Mrs. Dora Gonxalez, tr.a hetitioner, app~ared befozy the ~ommiesi~n and noted tha't when sk~e hacl talked with the fire ir.apector inepector she hm~4 faund that Title 24 did ~ot requi xe a sprinklar ey~tem so long es no more th+~~n Pive pereone ~,vera ir~ each hom~e and khe conditional use perniit al~awed be~ween six a,-~ ten pe~caons, therefo~r the .nspector scated t.hat no mare than ten gezsons would. be permit~ed in the two homes sliP had. Commi~ ioner Faxarza noted that he ha3 ofEe.red the mation of ap~,r~•:al of Condi .ional Uae Purmit Nc. 1395, and it wae his intantic+n r~ot ta authorize moz•e than six pereana without rbgard ro whether the facility wae aprinklered r~r no~, anc~ thA resolution was c?early stated becau$e~ t~•is had been talked e~ ~out k+ecause of th~ number of people attendinq ths public hearing, ana there ~es no c~ueation in hia~ mind that six aere authorir~ed, theiwf~ry, if Mra. Gonzalez~ the petitionar; wanted m~~re than aix persons, t,:.s would hnve to be consi6ered at x public tiesrlnq. Mre. Gonzaiez th~n r~eiterated thn statement: made by ~Che Clty Fire Inapector.. Commiesionsr ~'+~rano aye~in otatelt he was only ~oncErned ebout tho namber af people, not the e~prink':.er eyetem or ~re Fira Dapartnent r~quireu,ent, a.~rl then read both th~ m:nutss snd the .:esol,ition o~ L•h9 Planni~q Commiseion for the meeting of M~y J0, 1973, W''ich aet i`orth that no more khan aix perwons were permittied to r~si]a on th.~ nremises in addition to rec~uiring the aprinkler sysL•em. Contiss•~ed diecus~sian v-as held by the Co~!ni3aion with Mre. Gonrsla~ as to thfl rights qrant~d hur ur.d~ex the cr,nditi~nai ua.~ permit. r. L MINUT~$ ~ GITY BLANN2Nfi COMMISSt ION, July g, 1973 73-430 ITEM N0. 1 (Contin~a~d) CamMisaianer seymour noteli tha-t oommentr me~de by Mr~. (ians~les regardiny tii~ !~r• re9~latione aex~ ba~~d o:s kha f+act th~t rt~~ wa-d in~orpr~t3.s~g ths 9twt~ Cods, hoNevar, it was th• 1-n~-heim Planning Commiesi.on k,hAb w~uld qive ~he p~rmis~ion to he~ve aix to t~n p~x~onr, not the Flr~ Coa~, and ~h~ basi.• oP t1?e grantinq ot the conditioral u~• permit was nat oniy xAgardin4~ th• •pr.ir~kler ey~tem but Al~o the numl~~r ot p~apl~ to dotermina ahoth~r oz not s uee ~ ~u:ld ba de~ ~-i.mentts.l to th~ drea. Tha Commirsion inquired s~ ro hoW lonq it would teke ~a reloaa.-s the~• qua~tbr v-hereupon Mrs. Gonsalo~ eta-t~d thnt ehe had purchased other reel eMt~ts, ana theae adr~itionnl ~iueets woLld b• relooated vrithin thirty day~ ~ and the~C. sl~k hsd ha3 mure~ ~hart six gu~st• et thie looatian evar s~11CA ~he public hearir~g. Commissloner ~'aranu noC~4 that Mr.s. fionzelaz had prerent~Q a r~~u~st to the Planning Commis~ior- Por six t~~ tan ~ereon. , howevex, tha ra~olutian tha.t w~s pa~sed was for no m~z«, than prreane, with oz without th• Fize Department's e~provul, and the p~ti.tioner w~,a in violation oi rh• oaaditional use permit ee gr~antec7, therotora, ehe did not havc~ i.ha pri~ iloqo to decida~ horu lang ehe would ha-vc L•o kaep theoe people at thie ~.ocatio ~ and whether or not closinq ot the escraw would giv9 her `.h~s Nr~vi:ege af requ ~etinq an extdnsion ot ~timQ tor the uee unlees the F Yanning Commiweion desized to adopt sdmath t.ng to the aontrary. Commiaeiandr HArbet inquired why thc Z~ning Enforcem~nt Officer'e attention wA.. brouqht to this ~~iolatlo~n ~ wh~nroupon Zoaing 3upervisor Charles Rabnrte noted that a~eiqhbar hnd ct~lled ~ounoilman Sneec~ae ~nii hnd ~civised h,.m that more than aix peopls •~rere rmsiding at the Z:remise~s, artd then Councilman Sneegae had reQue~ted that the Zoning Enforcement pfEicex inc•~~+'cigate thie, and his investigation r~avealed that there aeze ten pereons re~iding at the premises. Commiosioner Allred noted tha~t the Commiseion had ~dviaed Mrs . Gonzal.ez at the time the conditional use pe rmit we~ granted thet ahe wau18 have to Eind oth~ar means E~r thoee in ex~esA o~ eix parsone r.eaic3inq on tha property immediately etter the action was taken by tho Cummias~on. Nlre. Gonzalez thrn, ij~ rbapoz~se ~o questioninq by Conimissioner King, mteted that ehe would need thirty daya in which to finalize escrow. Commisaion~r Herbet afferad a motion to grAnt a maxi.mum of thix*.y day~ ta relocrte the exceee quAet~ ovor six peraone granted under Canditional 17se pc~~•m~.t No. t39S on Ms~y 30, 1973, and that if the petitioner was dasiroug of hayinq more ti,an gi.x queets , ehe would have to initiata stepa ta re~dvertise tk~ie at a pubiic h~aring at ber own expenae. Commiaeioi~~r Allred ~~~conded the motion. On roll cali r.he foreqoing a-otion paseed by the foll~winq vote: AYES : COM:SISSICNERS: All rFd, Gauer. Herbst, Kinq. rOCS : COM*1TSSIONERS a 5 ~y~r~ur, Farano. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ITEM r10 _ 2 CONDIT'~ONA~, USE ~ERMIT N0. 1226 (Slim's Towing Service )- Proporty located c>n tY-e east s ide af Lakeviec~r ?,venue, approxi~ately 1100 feet nnrth of ~.a Palma Avenue - Request Eoz extension of tiime fo r c:ompletion of conditions And rQqs~eat to us~ add~tional ~,ropsrty for towing ~erviae. Zonl.ng SuperviROr Charlee Rob~rta reviewed the location of $ubject propexty, aurrou~dinq land uaee~ previoud zoning action by tre Planning Commission on March S, 1~71, in wnich the Plaaniny :~~nm~.saion had npproved Conditional UeA Permit tio. 1226 to ea~ab :irsh a towi.ng snrvice and ~mpound yard .Ln the M-1 2one with waiv~trs of minimum required l+~ndec~pe ettback e+nd the zequired 6-foot masonry w+~ll~ thAt the Planniti• i Commieaion appxoved the r~queat ~or the uae for two ~+eare and ninet~y days, with temporery waiver of the land~cape ~•etbacY. and block wa11 encloeure raquiremer~~s cf the M-1 ~on~~ ~hAt the Piar.ning Commiee-ior- P~xrther qranted relief fzc~m the wtreot improvement and ekruat lighting requiremente along Lakeview ~+venue Por tho eame t~o-yPar and *~ir~ty-flay period of kimA, eaid tia~e limitatiur. having oxpired on ,7une 8, 1973~ C, at a lettek had been aubmitted by the ~etitioner statinq ~rAk he had atarted tho proc- ss cf r.b~iildir~~ tchis lnceti~n and had ,~rupnr4d plans ar,r] submiktsC ~ ~ ~4tNi7TL"9, CITY PLANN ING COMM2$SION, July 9, 1973 73-431 ITH'M N0. 2 (Conti rau~d) them to the City fcaz plan aheok •nd lurther indicatod that he wa~a attemptinq to sell npproximatsly one a~ot• o! lAnd At thu cu~.~thwopt oarnsr o! th• nro~erty adjacont h.a thA exietinq towinq end l.mpaund fac:ility in o~:d~r to hqlp finance the new buildiny, taoa~vsr, ~o date ha had bean uneucae~oLul in tre~n~nctir~g euch a dAle~ thet t~u lur~:her hed lcern~d at tt~ir tim• that thers hed not bden any grade l~evol bc t Por I.eke~iew Avanue, and on tho be~siR o! khose iteme, he wa~o requeating th- ~: h• be allawed additianal time in which to onmply with th~ BtLF~!1t improvemc~r~,t- requir~mento~ tha~ in e eep+rate lottsr to thee Ple.nning Comm~eeton the E=titilor,er lin8 sl~o indiceted he wiehad to ut~l.ize tha on~-acxe parcel whioh he was proposinq to aell for ths purpoea o! p+-rking hir~ t~w trucka on d tompozary ti~t~a i, - thin one-acre parcel w.~.H edvarkis~d a~ ~art af ths proper~y concidc~re c] undar Conditional Uee Fermit No. lZ'!.6 v+hen it wee originally connider~sd by ths planninq Commioaion, however, the approvcd plene did no~ ~.n~ alude+ ~ny towing o x pnrkinq aetivity on ~hi$ particulsr pie~o aP proportyt that khe petitioner had indice~ted ~heL• the one-ncre pacoel wne en empty tie~ld, and L•he front porti.on, which was the aree he wiahod to utilize for purking o! L•ow truaks, wd~ hebvily oilad, thoxeby eliminatiny any duat lact~rt and thAt th0 Fa~ltioner Euethor indianted tliie wauld anl,y be a ~emporary nrranqement until hia ne~- offir.a bu~ lding waa r.ampleted. ~"urthermore, phyeicnl ina~ection of +:he premiooe on Ap ril 26, 1973, indicated tha~ a 6-tout manonry wall had Leen erected around tlie raar impound yar.d arerat thnt thore wae c{~an atorage o~ wrooked vehicles C approximately one dozen) alonq the chaintink fenoa betwHen the house end the ii~pound yara; thnt a blac;c wnll had not been conatructe~ arourid this p:tion of the proparty~ that tre enrlosod poztidn ~~f the impound yard was n~pr .:imeately 30! to 40i ~ccupied with wre,;~.ad vehicles~ tha~ the pzemises were qanerally i~eat und well-maintained~ thdt t:~~ aophalt cantra-ctor's prnmises on the abutting prnperty *..~ the narth wao subetantinlly in ~ hd samA condition as it was two yeare agut tha.t the hoiisc~/office remai.n~rd within the ulti~ate right-of-way of Lakeview Avenue, and sucli premiaes, if locat~d within the City of Anah~im, wouicl be requized to have a block wall r~round the outdoor etorage areaj that the pekitioner had submitted p?.t~nE £or plan check in F'Pbruary, 1973, for. a new office and shop bu.ilding, and the plane were picked u~ for c~ ~ctions on Marc~h 16, 1973, ho~vever, ~'~ey had not been r.eturr~ad to date; thdt the pe ~ition9r. tiad indicatad that ~rades had not been sat for La~Ce- view Rvenue, howe ver, information from the o.fice of tho CiL•y Engine indicated that street improvement pla,is were b~iny checked by his ofEir,e dnd ~ ~ nearinq the final approva 1 staget '' 1t based on atipulati~ns mado by the petitioner at the public hea ri.ng on C. .-ditionnl Uee Permit No. 122fi, itemy that he was sup~~sec~ to have c~mplied with within two years and ninet~~ days would ~nclude the ren~o•~~? of t'r. :: exist~.ng home which w~R being utili~ced as an office and the construction o£ a new facility whic:h wculo comply with the required 50-faot sbtback along Lak evi ew Avenue, and, £urth~~rmare, he was t~ comply with tne 6-faot masonry walZ encloaure areund the ~utdoor us ~ area, and .it should be pointecl out t.hat this had been constructed around a ma jor portior~ of ~he iu~- pound area, however, not around the ~ntire impo>>nd and parking area ~ that the t:,~gineeri.ng Aivis!on had i.ndicated a bond had been posteil to guarantee t: e~ttzeet improvem~nts, h~wever, thia bond ~+hould be increasecl hy 51,440 co cuve•r. estima~a9 cost increasest Lhat 'the fut.ur.a County project ~f tt~e Lakeview Avet~ue overcroar~- ing of the Ganta r'e l~ail.road and Orangethor~~e Avenue to tk~e i~or~h of -~ub~ect property had not been budgeted during ths next five-year ~eriod, and it ~n,tql^.t be ao~:e time before traffi.c on Lakeview A^~enue justified thP expense~ tha~ while the grade lcvel miqht chang~ ci~le to the slope leading up t~~ th : overcrnssin,y, tl:ere ~~-ere no grade changes propoaed at this tii~~~ Lr.om tho grade wc-ich wae set f.or recent ~tree t improvQmen~ on abutting proparty to thc~ eouth of subject property, rhere~ore, the Planning Commission would wish to determi.rie whel'her additional time shoul~ be granted to comply with the D1-1 sita devElopment stand-• ards, and if this add:.ti~nal time were grAnted, the Engineerlr,g DivisZon roaom- mended thak an addi~ional bon6 ir~ the amount of 51,440 !~e posted to cc /er estimated increaaed aosts ~f imFrovemente along Lakevie:+ Avenue, said bond to be posted within thirty dnye. Mr. Carroll Bdrnhart, owrnez o£ Slim's Towing SE. vi.ce, a~peared befc~re the Commi eaion and reviewed what had been done on t:ie proporty, noting thst ~h•_ wall he-d been conetructied ar.c~und the rear portion of the impound yard~ that he proposed to •iae the one-acro postion for tri~~ park_' ng of t.rucka, said acrs havinq been included in thA l~gal ~escription attd in th~s approv3d plan= t~af~ he had originally g1Ann~d to develok the pr~pezty qnd had eubmi~ted the plana 1"'..,,. • MINUTEB, CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION, July 9, 1973 73-432 YT~M N0. 2 (Cantinued) ', for e~p~raval, but k~dnau~ae hs could nok q~ti qrnding plan• alonq the lins o! Lskevivw Avenae~ se w~ll a~~ the lsat thkt property d~volopinq al~+nq I~+~ P~lma Avsnue adjacent to h1s property wa~ in con~idernble variano~ with hi~ plan~, the.relora, he d~aided not ta pur~u• Ch~ pb+~n^ he he~d or~qinally ~ubmitt~A to th~ Building Division for epproval. Comaiisoioner Ferano ob~ezved that the patitionor hac! •ub~nit~.~d plan~ ~o th~ 8ui,lding Department o~- February 8~ 1973, and hsd picktd thsm up !or aorr~a~ tion~ on March 16, 1973, howsver, nothing hnd baen submit~ed to ths ~uildi.nq Givi~ian sinae th~t time, tt-eref~ze, 1, Nould like to aee eome de,finit• plsne eubmitted tor this property - ao~ne lirm oommitmsnt ar3 evi6enaa that tho petitianer wae intending ta qo aheed in bringing in tho p' ~• Mr. Bernhart r~oted that hle reason ~or nok brinqinq th~ plmre back wa~a bacsusa the plans that he hed d±d not cnincide wl~th th~ dovelopment occurring adjacetit td him, therefore, he wanted to have t1.me to produce diPfv~~~t plena. Comuiani~ner rerr.no inquired how long it would ta~ke t~ eubmit revisod plans~ rrhereupon Mr. Bdrnhe-rt e~tated that he ha~ discussed this with his hnnker, end he ha~d auggested tha~ he a~k for a, year'e entAnaion of time. Commira~i.~ner Farat:o was of the opinion tha,t the Commi.er~ior. shosld no1 yrant .~ onb-~yemr extension of time ~o submit plans~ whexeupon Mr. Barnhart .~etdd t-~at hd woulcl naed at ]enst nfne~ty days for the submisaion of plene~ for a~:proval. The Commission d.tacuased the roquea•t for a c -year extenei.on of hiwa fox the submiesion of p].ane and far conatructio~ the fnct thet the petitioner was aeking permiseion to store vehiclea on the adjacent property, and i~ ~this ~tere grantsd, then thia pzo~art;~ ohoul3 be genced in~ whereupoa Mr. sarnhart s~at~d that he proposed to park the`'7 tow trucks they owned on thnt P~o~~~tnut becauae he had no room ~n the proLerty that wus fencb.i in, and th~t plAn at this time to 3e11 this acreage sin~~e it appeP.Led he wou'ld nood ~::. Mr. Barnhart then inquirad whether thc Commiasi~n war-ted him aYso to etart construct.ian in ninety days, as well. aa the submission oE pl~ene~ whereupon Co~missioner Far~nc ststed that it was only neceasary to aubmit plane fUr consideration within ninety days, and he did n~t feel it w~.s xight to have a continuous dela; on comple~ion of conditions,granted under the conditio~81 uae permit. Mr. Robert~ noted that the area ~n wh~ctt the petiti.uner proposed to parY. his towing vehicles waa o:~e~quarter of the southwest portion, ~}'lhe Wt~erea~ro~oeing the towin~ service, and based on the approval of that pJ.an, . y P P only to use three-quarte_., oE the property. Cc+mmisaioner Farano offered a motiun, seconded by Commissi~ne: H~erbst, to require that the petitioner submit developmEnt plans for `he impound ya+d gnd towing service qra.~ted u~nder Conditional Use c~er~-i.t t3o. ~.226 within ninety ddys, t be submitted ior .review and appreval by the Planning Cammissi.cn~ that the petit.ion~,r be allowed to pazk hie trucks in the area requQAtefl for the period of n~,nety days} that thc: petitioner shal~ submit additional bond tco aover the increased COSt9 of street imFrovements for Lakeview Avenue. Mr. Roberta i.n~uirac~ ~hether the Plannit~g ~ommissi.on wiahec~ to egtablish a time, lf.mitation for the complel:{.on of the construction of the dcve ~opment plans: whexeupon Commi_esionez Farano noted thaY. the ^ommissfon wnnted to r~view the plans and coms,ent bef~xe deve3.opment ahould oc^.ur, and that i~ the Planning c:ommission a~pro~•ad the develupment plans, COAB~x'UCtiSQ11 must• be ccmpleted within six a~onthF aft~r nppruval. ot said plana. Comm~ssionor FaYar.o then amende~i hia mation to include that upon approval of said development plana, development of the towing and impouiid yard ahall be compteted witl:in six months thereafter. MOTION CARRIED. ~~w 0 bIINUTB9, CITY ~X,l1NNING COMM7aAION ~ July ~, 1973 xTE^ M N4_,3 1NEI(iHa0RHO0D IMAaCT ~L$NiENT OF TH8 IlSLBVgLOPM~N7~ PL11N. 73-d33 peputy City 1lttorn~y Frank Lopry preo~n::~4 tu tha (:ommiasion the propao~a r~sriutZon from thd planninq Commi~~ion to the Citiy CouncS],, r~co~nmenainq ~ ahanqs in th~ prapoaoc~ Rad~v~..opn~ent l~l~n la~. th• Alpha R~d~vslapm~nt Pro~eae •nd reaomm~nding Lha~ thn ctty counoil. appxov~ and abap~t ssi.Q pl~en ~~ qhanq~Q, •naampa~~ing *.he sst~blf~ehmsi~t o~ a N~~qhborhoo~ impect IElemant and •tavnding th~ boundarioe o! Projeet "Aipha" by d~lutian of an aree aroas-1,et:cFed on Ex~ibit "e" extanding cn bo~h eids~ oi Lineol.n Aveaue •.rom Eaot Str~et to Ri.o Vi~te- Straet And north and routih o! the Or.a~nqe l~reewey to La Filma ~-Y~nu~, noting thet i.n e~rror the Naiqhborhocd 'impaot or Hou~ing r lement h4d b~~~~ d~lota0 by the Attarnoy !or khe Redov6xo~m~nt Comruios~on there~ore, At waN n~eo~Aary t~ nmend thc+ oriqi.nnl reool.uEion aAo~sted by th Planninq Commi~~io.•. C'Iisi.rman Ge•ser inqufred whether or not he ahould partici.~xte in the aotion ~ince ne lived i.n tha Praject "Alpha" axoa~ wherenpon Mi. Lowry +~dv~~ed Chairmnn ~auer, thc.t he could vote on tnia project. Mr. Lowzy furche~r noted thet a etatemsnx was needed Prom the Planninq Comcnieofoa to Qelete ~het por~ion a].ong T.i.ncoln Avenue ~s t.he Sta:~ no lonqer required oon~iguous boundariea in e R~development Projmct, and that unddr Laa Whan a project area was definod, tlie Downtown Cora Area and the Northeaat Induetrial Area na lonyer ne~ded to be tied. Thia law beaame eff~ctiva in September, 1972 . Commiseioner. Seyn.our offered kesolution No. PC73-153 and ~naved for it~ ~aesage and adoption to recommend to the City Co+incil the chanqo in the propose8 T,tedevalopment Flan for t~-e Alpha Redeve~.opment Pro~ect a~nd recommendinq that the City Council ~pprove anC! edop~ said ~lan ae al:anged, establishinq a Noiqh- borhood In~~aok El.ement and dPietinq that gortio~ of Projdct "Alpha" aA depictad on Exhibit "B", the crose-hatched exee. (See Reealution Book) ~n roll call the foregoiny rosAlution waa paseed by Che fol'lowLng vote~ AYES= COMMISSIOI~IERS: Allre~, Fmrano, Gauer, Herbst, Kiny, Sdymour. NOES ~ COt~MISSIQNERS: Ncne. ABSENT: CCMMISS:ONEkS: Rowland,. :C'1'EM NO. 4 CONSIABRATION OF STREET tiEC'PION STANDARDS AND kIGHTS-OF-WRY FOR T~NTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7"87. Zoriinq Superviaor Charles Roberte rdviewed the ten~ative tract map r~nd the submitlced plans, indicatin~J the atreet section statid~rds and .righta-af-way per condit•ion of approval of '~°.ate-tiva Map o.f Tract No. 7587, noting that Lhis item had been c~i~cuss~ad ~~y tho Planni.ng Comr~issior. at i:he June 11, 1973 meating and was cariie~i over to ~:ie work Aession oz June 20, 1973, which wAs subaequently poetponed and aqain consi~ered at the June ?5, 1473 meeting and h~+ld over for further discusalcn r-ith the pctitioner at s w:~rk eesaion on July 'l, 1973. A syttops~.s of eventa ~s compil~d by the City Engineer's offica wrse then reviewed, noting that the c:om~iaaian oriqinally had reviawda a P~^Peeal f.or e 50-~oot r.ight-of-way on Strest "A" conta~.ninq a 28-foot paved sect3on aith rolled curba and inaluded an 11-foot ri.di~nq and hiking trai]. on ths aouth e~de of the stresC in ~he City ot Orange, and at the November 29, 19'1 meetinq, the Commissicn rppruve~l ~atreet anctions ae ahawn on Exhi;~it ''A" ~ that tke submitted atreet plane now indicat~d a pr.opoeal to constract both SL•r9eta "A" And "G" in the tract hith a 4Q-laat riqh~-ef-way, cor~taininq a 2S-foot paved section- 3-fo~t curb aad qutter eeations, and 4~-foot eidawaika as ehown on Exhib:t "B", however, the current e~reet standards for a hillside collector with dreess, adopted in Janunry~ 197:.- aould require a 52-foot r.iqht-of-way on Street "A" with a 40-f.oot pAVed aection an.'. 4-2arot iide~~alk~ ~. ~ MINUTI"9~ CITY PL)1NNING C~MMI3SION, Ju~~- 9r 1973 ITEM N0. 4 (r~ntinued) 73-4 34 th~t 8tr~~t "GI" Nould requirs a 50•loot. riqh~-ot-way~ tu iaolude ~ 36-toat pav~d o~oGion ar-d e~ ~-lou1: eidevra].k, ther~Eoz~, the Commis~ian wauld wish i:o d~t~rmin~ wheth~r the revis~d p1Ans w.rs ~ubstuaCially in canl~rmazea• with th~ intsnt o! thu Commie~i,on'e s~ppxoval o! TxaoC No. 7587, keep~nq in mind that th• di!l~ranae betMe~n thP proQo~~d ~tre~t pl~n~ •nn tho~e nppxovad by xh• Planning Commixsion an Novembor. a9, 1971, v+ao Ch~ •~iml.,-aLion ,f the ridin~ ana hi.king tra11 0~ the south o~.de ot th• qtra~t. Co~' ml,a~ion~r Harbet noted that a-e s Comm3aaionex th~ m~p had b een prer-un~ed at n p:~blio hearing~ that eaid mep had also 1.nai~idaQ ridinq anZ l~ ~ng trailar i.:~l thir Mas aomathiny that t~o, ar~ a Commir~r ionex, ri~ not want to have dal~tad ~in~e it would have to be khe preroyati~•o n~ the City Gouncil if the+y Wis~~d ~o daleta it. 04tice Engineer Jay Titug noted that the origina t~lene which the Planning Commi~eion had approved had a 4Q-loot right-ol-we~y and dn li-foot riding an~l hiki~.4 ~xdil. Commi.~el~:+er S~ymour ofterc~d ~ motio,~, seconded by Commiaeion~r All.red and MOTiUN CARRIED, tha-t T~ntetive Mep uf Tract No. 7587, street seation eta~ndards and riqhtn-of-way, be required to hxve a 40-foot riqht-~f-way, n 28-lao+t road- wAy, and an 11-foAt ridinq ,~nd hikinq trail on the north eide o! the etreet in the City ot Anaheim~ tha+; said ridinc~ and hiking trail be maintained uy a ataintenanao diatrict to be f~rmulated, and to r.ecomme~nd to the City Gouncil adaption oP the a~orementiona~ ~~quiremen~ts. zTEr ,o. 5 CONDI'PIONAL USE PEI3MIT N0. iY3G (Melr:..~~ Abbey MAmorinl Propertiee, Inc.) -• Rnquest for cn extenaion of ti~e - PraNerty located eouth af Orangewoad Avgnue b~tween Lewie Street and Mancheater Av~nuA. Asaistant Planner Phillip Schwartze reviewed ~he 'locatien of aubject proparty, previoue zoni~g action on the prc,perty to establish an existinq mausoleum, cemetery, and funazal chapoi aa a conformi~g uae and tc establiah a mortuary in conjunction with these extating faailitiea, ar.d prevtous acl:ian of the Planning Cnmmisaion granting a ane•year extension of ~imr_ expiring Maroh 22, 1973, for the completi~n of condit~ons of approval ir~ Rasolution No. PC~9-193, noCinq that the pet~i.tionex further requested a one-year extenaion of time for the completion of two conditions, namoly, dedication of land foX Lewis Street and Manchester Avenue, as well as postinq of a bond For the j.nstallation of o£f-eit3 impzovement~. ~ommi~eioner Seymour offered a motion, Aecandpd by Commis.~ioner ~Cing anr3 MQTION CARRIED, to grant ~ one-year extansion of ki.me, retroactiv~ to March 22, 1973, and Lo expire March 22, 19i9, far the completian ~f cnnditiona gratited in Resolutlon N•~. PC69•-193 for Cnnditional Uae Permit No. ]~.36. ITEM Nn. 6 CUNDITIONAL USE PF,AMIT N0. 1052 - Property loc~ ~ted i~~ the 'triangul+~rly~shnped paxcel buunded by Wal~ut Street, Sani~a Ana St:~eet, and Mai~chester Avenue - Approwed tnr e- trucking tezminal on the southerly Fort~.an of the proForry ~nd foz establiat~iny as a confor'aina~ us$ the tow~ng s9rvice on the northarly half of the rroper~y. xoaing Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewb~i tha iocation of subject prope~ty, previoue aoning ac~ion on Lhc propezty, and tl.e raqueet by ~he Planninq Commiasian on June 25, 1973, for eta~f t~ inveati.gate the concern of ane a; the Commis~ion reqarding his observa~tion of t~u a~~~"rent ~ubetiitution of an impound yard ~or a former trucking terminnl on r.ne eoutherly portion o~ th~ ~.... ~ MTNUT~S, CITY PT,ANNING COMMI98ION, July 9• ],973 ~~"~35 ITBM NA. 6 (Continua~!) prop~rty~ notAnp that the plnnning Comml.o~ion on 3eptember 11, 1968, pran'Erd p~rmi ~ion Por th~ astebliwha+~nt o~ a trur.l:ing yard nnd t~rminal with r~ldted truek ovarhmul snd rspeir tacilitii.e~ a-~ a oonlorming us~, •ubject tr~ condi~- tione, i.ncluding development to be sub~tantially tn oontozmance with eubmitted plene msrk~d Exhi.bit Nos. 1 end 2, and a].4o the conwtruatton af a 7~tout higl~ maoonry w~ll slong the eoutharl.y prop~rty linet that ~xhibit 2 proposed that the northsrly portion trie building alonq Menoho~ter Avenua wouid be used !or auta repair enc~ th~t thp builclin~ along Vi+-lnut 9treet wauld be used ~or a~n oPfiae, AL't0 body ehop +~nd paint booCr., end, turthsr, that thh ~+uilding nlonq the baoe oP thv northerly portl.on r-auld be uaed +~r an au1:o 1-npound as'Ba end tha ut~ ovnxed mid~lle area would b• availabi• !or qeneral cl.rculation end parkit~gt fit~nt prior to termi ~ation o~ t~ta truoking terminal nn the eo~ithorly portion, th~+ northezly por~ ~n had at aoma time oeaeed to aunform L~ the a,pprovod Exhibit 2, e~ACificdlly, that ths auto body shop and peint boorh wsrs replacad by t;:A etorage af dismantlad a~uto part.s, a port.ion of the tormar auto repair sho~+ wea used foX the perkinq ot tow trucks, e,nd the s•~mainder :.nt ~tore~ye of wrocked vehialee~ thet th• uneovared middle ared hed boen etur.kad with wrecked vehicles - it~ ahort, it would app~ar that the ue~a had become prlmarily dn auto diam~ntling opera~ion~ that ae obaerved now, it ap~er~zod the t~torag~+ of impoundes and de~magad vehi.~le~ nad been eetnbliehed in the aouthexly 8`:AA iormerly or,oupied by khe txuckinq tsrminali that on May 12, 1970, the C~ty Cotincil approved a request for an exteneion of time for Condi- ti.ont~l Use P-rmit Na. 1052 in order to complete tindl buildinq inepaction, and at thnt t~.me, s~t•aff noted that several conditian~s remeined to be met, includinq s~~ndard traeh are~s, lowerinq of securi~y~ lighting, final buildinv inspectione on the sevaral naw buildingg, and payment for or installatlon of ati~~et lighta fcr which several previous requeatA for extensione of ~ime ha~' baen granted~ nnd tliat a review of these conditions would indiaate theet wit- tlie poesible 9xception oa tha lo;aey+ng of secusity lighte, khe afor~mentio,~ed conditiona had not been u~et. ~'~irthermore, the City Attorney's staff had xecentl,y discuased this pr.oposed expansion with the petitioner but were not ful].y mado aware o£ the ox~Ent. ox nature of the pro~o~ed 9xpansion and thus suggested to the potitioner that the propoeed expanaion would be in ~cc:ozd with tho intent ~f the Conditional Uae Permit No. 1052 ae appraved, 'xowover, when the Development S~rvices D~partment revealed to tY.e C~~y Ai;torney's ataff r~c~re details regarding the developing expansion, the City Attorncy then felt that auch a use would actually not be in nccord wi~:h the use origina~ly ,.~Proved, there£ore, the Commission would wish to ~etermine iE this new use wsa in kaeping with the originally ap~proved use and also if the u~e as i~ naw ex'Leted would ati11 waxrant thd originally a~~roved waiver of a 6-foot masonry wall enclosing the outdc+or uae. Ueputy City Attorney Frank Lcwry noted ttia.t aince tho Planning Comn-iseion pelieved this new uae was not in acc.ordance with the u~e originally appruved, they should re~~uest that tYie City Counc~.l. turn back to the Planninq Comr,,isaiore to determine at a publi.c hearing wY~etlier the uae was in accordance with the use as oriqina.lly approved by the Planning Comm~.saion. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commiss~oner Herbst and MG'PION CARRxED~ ~hat the Planning Cor-missiao requeats that the Ci~y Cour..cil refer b+~ck to tha Planning Commisaion for aunsideration at i gublic he?~-ing Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1052 to determine whether or not tt~e use naw bein~., made of t'.:e ~roperty i~ in conformance witt, the use o°iginaLly appro~~od by the Plan»ing Conimission un September 11, 1u68, and whether recommendation should be mafi~ to the City Council that rhn petitioner ahow causa for not terminatinq Conditianal t Permit No, i.U52, on the basis of an invostigation made by staEf rega.rding the approve u~e and the use af the property as it presentJy exists. ITEM NO. 7 P.ESOLUTIQN QF APPRECIATtaN Commisaioner Gauer nffered a motion, eecanded by Commis~aionsr Sarlast, to forward a resa'.+~tion oE epprecia~ifln as gollows: ~ ~ ![INUTICB, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 9, 7.473 73-43b ITEM N0. 7 (Conkinued) ~9 ,OI~UT~ QN C1P J1!]tR~CxATxON_ NKBRt~t-9. Miriam K~,ywood ha~ s~rv~d k.he aiti~~n~ of the Ci~Y d! Anaheim ao a m~aebor a~ tho City Planning Gommib4ion ~ram Jut~~ l, t970 ~h rauqh June 30 ~- 197 3 i And wHERBnS, h~*r mesnberehip on tb~ Flar~nir-g Commis4lon o! the City of 1-naheira aom~r ment~d thie yroup o! lr_,,m~n in th0 part~a~rmance o! thaf r dutiee ~ an . WHE1aTsA8, Miriem Kaywood hao fuithf+~lly Pulfilled her dutiee xe a memb~x ot •ai.d Fl+~nning Commioeion, not havinq mipamd s msetinq o: work sese~on, an~l hae Ande:avored i;~ repr.eeent and earva tha interaote o! tl~s p~,ople oP tho City o~ nna.haim st all ti.mse~ and Wt!$RERS, the Planning Cc+~nm!•~aion o~ the Ci~y uf Anaheim reqret.e the depar~ure of Mi~iam Kny~ruod as a membar o~ tiha (;ommleogion beaause eh~ wae a value~d me,n-ber and gave fresly vf her ~~eaial knowledge in the many c~e~i~eions made b.~ the Commiee~ion. NOf9, TH~REFORE, SL' IT RE30LV'ED that tha Planning ~'~>mmie ~- ~.un o! the City of Anaheim does hereby exprees theix e-PPzf'~'~~-~~•r>~ for the Marvic:ea whioh Mir~am Kaywood, r~s a membax o! the '.anni~~g Cummie~ion of thn Ci~y ot Anahei.m, qave in xhe interea~t of the ci.tizsns oP the City of Anahei m. BL IZ' FURTHER RESOT~V~D thati th~e resolution shnll be ~ada a ma•tter ot recard in the official mi.nutee of tho City Plt~nninq CnmmiQ~ion of the City of ~+n~heim and thnC m G~PY ~e~ommiseloner~oP Mtiriam Kay~uod in appreci ._on oP her sarvioee ae a the Ariaheim Gity Plxnnin, ~ommiaeian, and Purth~r exprese their beFt wia~has for h~r quod health and can~inued sucress ~.n all her future e~deavnre. THE FOREGOING RES~LfITION is hereby eiqned this 23rd day of July, 1973. (eigned)_ MTlbourne Gauer CHAIRMAN ,A,NAkiEIM CITY PI,ANNING ~OMMYS3IOtJ (si~ned) Lenzi 1~llrec, , ,_ CHAIRM7~N pro tempoze ~ (signed) Floyd Farano COI~ItAI S~ IONE R (siyned) Lowis Hezbst COMMISSI~N~R (signec.- pan Rowland ___ COMMISSIONER (afqned)~ Johr Sevm~u_ __ _ __ COMMISSION~R ATTESTs (ai na~l) Ann Kr~bs 3ECRSTAR. R1rAeiExt! CI'i'Y P:+ANNING COMMISS.'_ON wis 4 7~-43'1 MI~IUTE~1, CITY PLANNtN(3 COMMIS9TON, ~7u1Y pr 7~973 iT1~M_NO. 7 (Cor~tinu~d) l3TATE OF CALIFORNIJI ) COUNTY. OF OR71N(iR ) A~+• CZT ~~" A:~111HL~IM ) I, Ann Krebs~ S~cratary of tha ~i.ty P:annirig Cnmmi~aion o'! t~h• ~ity o! 7-r-ah~i.m~ do n~r~by a~~:tity thst tl~• ln.r~goinq r~us~~lution Maa pews~d oa11 adopteQ s~ a m~er.ing ~~ the Gity plann~ng Commiraion ot ths City o! J-nnheim held on July 9, 1973. IN WITNESS WH1~^FOF~ I h~ve hereuntu at my hand th1~ 13rd ~1~y ot July, ~973• ~~ned) Ann xxsb~ 88CRETARI AN~,H~IM CI'~~' pL~IKNYI~~G COMId~8820N 1-UJU!URNMEtiT - There bc .ng rio fusthez bua taeee to disnuua, Commivqion~x ~ P,]~lrad ~ttorod a motion L•o adjo~~rn tt~~ ~detinq. Co~•atie ~i~nar 3eymaur a~cond~s3 the m~~~~~.an. MOTYON CARRIED. The roeeting a-d~ourne~d at 5~37 p.m. Reapac:.~ul~y ~ubmitfi~ed, ~~~~~ AN1N ~CREBS e Seoratary P.,~.:h9 w City Pl.anning Commiauion AKshm