The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/02/040 R C f~ MICP,~fILMING SERVICE, IMC. :. ,.. . ,, , , , . r~ L_J ^~1~ ~ c~.tY NAi~. Anahoim, Californi.a February 4, 1974 REGU, AR MERTING ~I~ THE ANAH~IM ci~.cY PLANN~NG_COMMT~Si0~1 _ ~........r. - - - - - - ItEGULAR - A regular meetinq of the Anahelm City Planning Cammiesi.or~ was MEETING cu11E to order by Cl3airman Gr_er at 2:00 p.m., a quorum bejng ~reaec . PRE6ENT - CHAIRMANs Gauer. -- COMMISSIONERS: I'e~rano, Johnson, King. ABSENT - C'AMMISSIONERS: Herb~at. (It was notod that new Planninq Commissioner Richard Murley wae present, h~wPVC±.r, he a:AS not eli~ible to pae:ticipate in the Planning Commission matters, pursuant to legal r~quir.e- ments governinc~ City officials.) ALSO PR~;SENT - Asaistant Devele}?ment Services Director: Ronald Thompeon Deputy City Attorney: Fr.ank Lowry Office Engineer.; Jay Tit~r~ Zoning Supervisor: Charles Rober.ta As,aistant Zoning Supervi8or: Phill.ip Schwartze Assistant Planner: Ralph Campton Commission Secr- . .ry: Patri.c~a Sctenl~n PLEDGF OI' - Commiaeioner King led in the Pl~dge of Allegiance to the k'lag ALL~GIANCF. of thE United States of America. P-PPROVAL OF - Commissioner King offersd a motian, secondec3 by ~ommi.ssioner THE MINUTES Farano and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaianer Herbst be~.ng absent) tu approve the miiiates ~~f trc meeting ~f December 10, 1373, as s~b• ~itted. CONDITICN~ U~E - CONTINUED PUBLIC IiEA.RTNG. J. i~ . AND STELLA NORTAN , 1217 P~RMIT N0. ~.44Q Soutih Nutwood Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92809, Owners; GERALD - A. DT'C~JT, 3640 Malibu Vista Drive, Malih», Ca. 90265, Agent; reque~ting permission to ESTABLI:SY. A PRE-SCHOOT~ THRQUGH FIRST GF ADE SCHUQL WAIVZNG (A) NPAXIMU~1 BUILDINC HEIGI~T, (H) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, (C) MINIMUM SIn~, SETBACK FOR SCHOOL, p.ND (D) MAXIMUM t'ENCE HEIGHT IN S2DE AND kFAR YARnS on property c3escribed as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land cansisting of approxim~ately .8 acre, havir.g a froritage of approximately 168 fe~t on ~he south side of Ba11 Read, having a maximum dep~h of t~pproximate~y 197 feet, and being located at the southweat corner of Ba].1 Road and Nukwood Street. ~roperty presently classifxEd K-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Subject peti.tian was continued from th~ mectinq of ,7anuary '', 1974, for sub- mission of revised plans. No one ap~peared in ~pposition to subject petition. Although the Sta€~ Regort to the Commissioa dated February 4, 1974, was not read at th~ public hearing, it is refer.red tn ~nd made a part oi the minutes. Mr. Gerald A. L..cot, ag~nt fcr the pei:itioner, appe?_ed hefore the Commi~sion ar.d stated he had reviewed the Staff Report; that chey were requesting waivers fram the Cad~ '.o allaw Flac~m~nt of tY:e proposed building as close as possik,le t~ the progertl~ line to prevent the chiZdren from hidi.ng ~around the sides of the building= that the waiver of the maximum fance height waa to keep the older children out of the premises, as well ar; to koep the yot•nqer children in; that tne propoaed 8-foot fence would be safer= that regarding parking, he was :zot aware of the need `~r creating a~aider turning radius , bowevAr, he :~ad no objection fc~ so p.aviciing as he had allocated more parking epace than usual and a reducxion af two park~nq spaces would not areate a hardship whats~ever~ and he so stipulated. ~ 74-58 ~ ~ MINUT~S, CITY P~PNNING CGMMIShTON, FebruAry ~, 1974 74-5~+ CONDITIONriL USE PEftMIT N0.__1440 (C~ntlnuoc~) TEiE PUB~.IC Ii~:AI2ING WAS CLOSiSD • I,1j~011 q~, ~r~L.nning by tihc~ P~.annin~ C~mmies~.oners, Mr.. Ducot stated he would h~ve no objec~tior- tA comp].eting Recles~~.fic~t~ion No. 69~7Q-~5 for C-:. zor~ing, now pendiiig, on thg subject property. Aseistant 2oning Supsrvisor Phillip Schwartze noted for the Commiaeion tk~at by having C-1 xoning on the suk~jQCt property, there would be dif.~erent site dev~l- opment ttrsndarde for ~~e~ .1Qpmont and fu~ure e~ ,ansio~~ an the pr.op~r~y. Mr. Schwar~.ce clazified thE. e would be no additio,. :~ filinq feea in cQnnectior~ witri the completion or R6classificatinn No, 6S-70-y:+. Cammiseioner R;.~g made an obAervatia» that by the elimination of tha two par~cing apaces to i~c~.c~a~e xhe turning radius, tk~e sanitatlon trucks entering the park- ing area would nc.t have to back around, endangerlna the ltvea of tha oh.ildr~n. Mr. Ducot statod he was flexi.ble regarding ~ho l.ooat~.on af the traah storage area, hoMAver, h~ u;-derstooc7 lt was better to locate +_his ati~aX i'rom the pruperty li.r.e . Tn reply ta questioning of Chairman Gauer, Mr. Aucot erated th~ childr~n woiild be braught to th~ school Ly private carsj that the school wou~.d open at approxi- mately 6:3Q a.m. and th~ ctiildren were delivered oyer. a period of two and on~- half hours, or vntil a~pru:.imately 9:00 a.m.; that it was conceivable that c?uring cl~-e two and one-h~lf houra 100 cars could enter the pFrking arpa; that the children would be picked up during the afternoon beginninq at noon until approximately 6:OU p.-°. Commissioner i~g offered a motion, seccnd~~d by Gommissioner Johnson and MOTION CARRI~D (Commissianer Her;~st being absent), that ~he Plannfng Cammission, in conile^tion w'.th an exemptiori declaration status request, fi.nds and determines that ~he proposal would have no signifi~arit environmental impact and, thexefore, recommends to the City Council '~hat no Lm~ironmental Impact StRtement is necessarX. Upon inq~~iry of Commissioner Farano, Mr. Ducot ~tipulated to perfecting the C-1 2one dev2loprent standards far suY~ject proper.ty. Chairman Gauer offered Resolution No. PC74-•21 and moved for i.~s passage and adoption to qrant Coraditional Use Permit No. 1440, and graritinc~ the waivers on the bas:.s of ~he foregoing findings, subject to the stipulations Y~y the petitioner, and subject to condi~ior~s. {See Resolution Aook) ~n roll call, the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vate: AYES: COM~iISSIONERS: Farana, Johnaon, Ki.ng, Gauer. NOES: COMMISStOr:; RS: rlone. ABSENT: COMMYSSTONERS: Herbst. ~ONDITTONAL US~ - CONTII3UED PUBLIC HEARING. I+~E C. AND JOAN H. SAMMTS~ 94 PEFtMIT NO. 1443 Linda Isle, Newpur~ Beach, ~a. 9'165Q, Own~rs; requeAt:ing per~nission to FSTA.".'CSH A PLA*l~1EA UNIFIEB INDUSTRIAi, SERVICE CENTER WITH RETA.CI DISTRIBU'rTNG AND SERVICE BUSINESSES PRIMP.RII~Y SERVING C~MMERCE AND INDUSTRY WAIVING (A) PERIrSITTEA IISES ANP (H) MINIMUM REQUIRED FARItING on pr~perty described as: Parcel 1- An ir ularly-shapEd parael of land consi;~ting of approximately 9.3 acres, hav- ing a frontage of approxima~ely 830 feet on the east side af Valley Street, having a mar.im!:~:~ depth of a.pproximately 830 feet, and bexng lacat~d approxi~ mately 360 feet north of t'r~e centerline of Creecent Avenue; and Parcel 2- An irregularly~shaped ~arcel of land consi~ting of approximately 3.9 acres, hav- ing a froiitage of ~pproximately 487 feet on the north side of Cre~ .:~3.t Av~nue and having a fr~l.tage of a~+proximately 240 teet on the east side of Va11F Street. Pxoper~y nresentl;~ classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Gubject getition was r.~ntir:ued from the me^tings of December 27, 1973 and January 21, 197 ~l ~ fc•r fur~h ~+;~ sti+.z~ e ~ • MINUTF.S, C7TY PI,ANNING COMMTSSIUN, Fe'~tu~~ry 4, 1974 74~-60 COND?TIONAL US~ ~ERMI7.' N0. 1443 (Continued) N~~ one r~ppeared in oppoai.~.ion to subject petition. Alt}lough the Stuff Report to the t:ommtssion dated February 4, 1974, was noL- read ar. the ~ubl~.c hearing, it is r~ferr~d to and mRde a part ot th~ minutes. Mr. LPe Sanunis, 1901 Dove Street, Newport Bea~:h, app~ax~d befor~ tra Commiasion ae the ~~etit:ioner. and stat~d he wa~ a p~+rtner in th~ Don ~Call Com~~~ny, ~PVeloparr of inc~ustrial and cffice-tyge real astr~te. Mr. Sammis pr~s~rtc~d ~xArial ~~hotos and samp].e elevr~ti.ons f.or Planninq Cammissi.~n review and a~ate,d that on December 27, 1973, he had applied for a cUnditional. use permiL L~ estab~i~~~ th~a planned unifa.ed induatrial aervicc center, i,ncluding a r.estaurant rnd oRtering facility, general busine~s of,:icQS and retail digtri~utio~~ firmsj that he agreed with t.he Staf.f reaommendations, however~ ~t the Planning Commissia:~ m~etin~~ of December 27, 1973, several points were raised and subsequAntly ~ c~ntinuance wae requeated and an attem~t had been madQ to put som~s of the pc~incs in writitig for clarifica- tion; tliat geographically, ~kie subject property had approxim"te.l~~ 1800 square feet of frontage on thN 5anta Ana Freeway which pxavide~~ a high dA~r~e c~£ ident- ity and th~ p•ro~erty was a].ao loaa~:ed along tlie axis o~ D~ okhurst, Crescent, Valiey, and Gramercy Placp and adjacent to a four-way o`f-r%~mp at the Santa Ana Fr.eeway; that the propArty was not x;1 a major tndustria.l di3trict and he des- cribed the surrounding uses immedi~cely adjac~nt to subject pr~~perty which in- c7.ud~d some industrial usess the~k the in~c:rsaction of Brookhurst and Crescent was turning m~re towards :, ~~mmerc;ial-type charact~r. and the southwest and south- east corne~s thereof were presentl;~ being held and priced for aonunercial devel- opment; that the subj~ct property was comprised of three sepazatP parcels which were contigucus; that the ~etition wag being submitted on the ].3-acre portion af their property at this location and ttxey we:re ur~der conatructi.on and had build- ing pezmits for apr.r~ximately 225,J00 squar~~ f~et of buildi.rig; L:~ar Staff had indicated r.he proposed proje^.t was a Phase I acid Phase II development, however, the project would be completed as a si>>gla-phasP development; that he was not asking for a wz~ivPr as to parking spaces buc tne rPques•_ was ger.exai:ed since the character of the area '•a~~ show:. many inquirie:. for orfias-type tenants; ttiat the condit~or~al usz pe~mit was requested because it ~;as difficult to show a tenant a spac~ and elicit his interest and then huve to go through a time~ cnrisuming procedure while tY:e ~Pna~-t •~as waitin5, and that in such a case, the tenant would probably go to a competitive type projc~c:t; that they were not seeking office zoning for the tota'. developme.n~c; that they would be producing an indu~tria:~ develop:nent and seeking certain officE uses within sp~cifieci areas; that the type of o:fice tenant that woL~ld most likely occupy their development would no~. otherw:.sc acciipy a mid-rise ~ higl~ •ris~: structuz~e and would want con- venience and accessibility; tihat garc3: ype, sir.gle-story offices were proQosed and the type tenant might include an .ylneering firm, a graphic art producer, ~n architectur~~. type firm that desired certain sxecutive offic~s but might also desire a~ortion of ttie bui].ding developed with a dropped cPiling, tile flooring, and h~ fulty a.ir-~~onc?itioned, which could not be afford~d in a mid--rise or high- rise type structur~; that the situa~ion h~ was tryii~g to pr~ject for the Commis- si.on was evident throughout their inaustrial deve].opments across the country with the developanents turning more and more toward intex-mi.x~~~ uf the type of u~es mentinned as well as industrial uses, ?~rzd tney were very sucGe3sf.u1 and were ~reparing all of their davelopme,lt.s to mee~ the demand. Mr. Samm~.s continued by stati~g the developm~n~s required a higher ratio oF parking to accepi: the pxoposed u~es; that normally there had nat been the zoning problem with their developments; tha~ usua].1y the zones allowed far the particu- lar :nix of uses being proposed, however, additional parkin~ was required; that as to the location f~r the variou~ office uses, their preference would be not to have tc designate the exact bay~ or build~.ng locations since it was not known ~rlU.r to the ~act where the particular ~~fice-type te!~aat might ~vish to occupy space, however, in an at+~empt to be rao~~e specific, the plot plan indicatec! that Bui7_dings 1 and ~ would ~e de~ ~ted co ~~ffice-type use~ not to indicate that ~he entire building would be devoted to 3uch ue~s= that also portions of Buildings 2 and 3 and the en;d units of Buildi:~gs 9 an~ 10 w~re suggested for off.ir.a-type uses; that some of tne bays in those builclings indiaated might be used 1008 for office use functionally, but not necessarily im~roved fur that type use; and that 'th~ liat of. sugg~,sted uses had been submittecl in wXiting. .~.v. ~ ~ MZNUTES, CZ'~v 1~I,riI~N1N~ ~"C~I~iN1ISSION, Fpbr.uary A, i974 74-61 CONDITIONAL USE PER! v~.~1443 (Cont.inued) Mr. 5ammie aontinuPd, that the prapoeod reetaurer~t was bnaicdlly to aerve the on-site tenai~ts and alt.ho+ugh the rc~guPSt was f.or 3000 square feet, tlza re,~tau- rant aould be much amall~r. r that tha restaurant. woulci be a- ezndwich sho: wi.th $ome dlnner trade~ f.or the ta:a~n~ts xema.tning in t:hQ cemplax durinq c~vening h~ursp that the reetaurant was not plenned for tho gsnexa7. public= ~h~t in thei.r othor develapmeiita, the restauxants were extromely ~ucaessfu7. ag they were time-savera for th~s tenz~ntst that regard:ing parking for the restauxarxt, the Code requirement was being honored as 8 s~Nc~s per 1000 aqua~-e feat of ~loor area was being pro- videcl, haw~ver~ it was col:eivable that meny ~f thc~ tenants wauld leavo their c.ars in oi:her axQae of tho complex anu wa~.k over. t.a the reataurant; and t~-at hc~ wauld etipulate that the re~tAUran~ would bo l~~cated an the Croacent frnn~ag~ if it: waa ~o desired by tha Commission. Furthero he str~ted the commercial use~ w~uld be industrially-ariented and wauld serve the induatrial pazl: an~ not appeal to the genaral public; that the suggested uses included a buair-ese machine sezvicing, dir~play, repair and distrik~ution operRtion where thit~ businPse machine user or off.ice machine user also deaired some display r~rea and wnuld in effect be r.~t~ili.n~ to the tr.ade £rom that .locz-tion; ~t.her ussrs might include a sta- ~io~~~ry store and other types of uRes f:ha~ wou~.d support the offi ce-typ~ user~; and that th~ uses would not includ~ the =~alo of carpeting, mattress sales or anything cl~s~ there~o. Regarding signing, he r~ta~e~ the tenants would ba given a tu~iform or atandardized sign of a spec~fipd dimensior snd all the signs would t~e sandblasted witt- logos or lettering as opprapziatej and tha+; th~r.e would be no variation of signing between the cn*.nmercial, ~ndustrlal, off.ic~, or tha reataurant area. With respect to par'ing f.or the complex, Mr. Sammis stated 615 spaces would be requi.red by Code if the complex was developed 50~ inclustrial and 50$ offiae park; that ther.e was the ability i:o provide 589 to 631 spaces, the ni°fexence being the degree of oFfice apace; ~hat the offic~-type uses would have "fill in" p~rking where othei-wisE there would be truck d~ors and where a truck dc.;r was '~own on the ~~l ans, that door would be rem~ved and woul.d take t'ie form of sto~'e Lonta and entryways into the offic;e buildir~gs, with ylass or wal:l encloasres; that they werp requesting 35~ of tne develooment to be office park and the re- mainder to be industrial, and since sizinc~ was requested, the retail functian would not exceed 8$ nf the total floor area. THE PUDLI~ HEARING WAS ~I,OSED. Upon questiu~iing :~~f Chairman Gauer as to the tra€fia thu~ would be 5enerated from the propased development, Mr. Sammis indicated study had ~ot Ueen conducted as tu the number of people Per car that typicall.y would o~ecupy the space and r.e therefore cou1~ n,ot provide figures conaerning circulation. Ciiairman Gauer inquired concerning the change to th~ proposed over.pass on Brook- hurs~ Street which wauld relieve congestion at Brookhurst and La Palm~, and Office Engineer Jay Titus advis~d he did not have the specific schedule for thoae changes, t,owever, construct~.on of said overpass :vould pro~+ably be awarcled during the curren~ fi~cal year. Nsr. Sammis stated there was a four-way off•-ramp for access of the proper .~ t~ the free~vay and tkiere waa a full frantaqe street which would also assist the airculati.on in the area. In reply to questi.oning of Commissioner Fara~io, Mr. Sammis statod that the build- ir.gs which were more oriented to otfice use would ~e Buildings 1 and 4 which were located fronting on Crescent Way and Building~ 2 and 3 which wer~ a~s~ part of the Crescent 4Vay and Vall~y Stree~ phasing and the end units af Buildings 9 and 10; that in comgarisan tc the rest of the co:nplex, the to~a'1 floor area of Phase I was 53,700 square feet out of a total floor are.~ of 205,000 square feet; tha~ it was not suggeste1 that the buil.dings mentioned would be 100~ pure of£ir.e space, hewever, since the C~mmioRi.on had reques~ed they be more definitivE regarding locations for the office-type uses, the buildxngs or portions ~hereof were being specified; thatc the entire tsn buildings in the complex consist~ng ~f 205,000 square feet raould be constructed at one timej th~.t tlzere would ue an intezmix of office space users within the buildings ~uggeared and the restau- rant could be lucated in either ~uilding 1, 2, 3, ur 4. ~ ~ MiNU'rES~ CITY PLANNIt~t7 COMMIS3TON, Fehruary 4, 1~74 ?4~62 CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'~ NO. Z44J (Continue+d) Upon yusc~tiianing af Chairman Gauer, Mr. Sammia i~ndiaatad that although no plan-- r,inq had been mac~E: in reyard to thc~ abilit~ to soz~vo li~uar in thR rostaur.ant, it was deairab~.e ta aerve baer ttnd wi~c~. Cc~mmissioner Farano inqu~red regarding signing of th~ aomplex, nn~9 M:. Samm~.s indicatad locator si~ns woulcl be placed at each tiuildin~ for that resp~ctive huilding, however, cantr.al. tenar~t l~~~ators hAd ..ot been vtiliz~d in ±.heir prsvious pr~jects. Mr. Sammis prasented photogi-aph~ of. the typi^al sirns that woulcl be uaed which wAre waoden, car~~oci or recaesod type eigns. C~tntniayi~~.ner Farano then stated he was not su,r~ che devoZo~er could nol.v~ thf: ].~~cat.'•.on problem for all c~f the te~nants without the use af a aentxal lc t~rt that an ar.chitect or law}•or teniint would not b~ very enthusiastic ahouc havir.y t'r-e~ir c..stomers v.~undexing abo•xt lookinc~ f~r tneir offices; that a degrae of flexi- bility ahould be preservndt #:hat, in his opinion, the percQn~~ge uE nsither induetrially-oriented nar aervice bua~nas,3es was extremely hirl; and l1e wAS noc s~ire that the developer knew exactly what would eventaally happen ?n this r~gr~r.cl. ;~:z. Sammis stiihmi' ced that the bu~ldinc~s were nnt total~.y improve~ly that to do sn woulci ~e defea~ting the ida~ of keying the bays to tha 2axticv~.a: needs of the tenants, as tre *.enanta may r.at wish to have chei:c entiYe arera t~tal.ly improvGii as offi.ce epace. In reply to ques~.ioning regardirig the uses aiiowed for th~ Dunn Proper~ie~.~ deve].opment on Da1.1 koad and La~t Stree~, Zoning Supervisor Char.les RobezL~, advised that ti, ~hat ;~zo ject th~re was nn i ndication as to what portion c.~f the tota'1 building area rould be used for the retai.3. dlstribtiting fiirms or the professional offices, a~ they werP pr~.mariJ.y serving industry acid commerce; that the xe~olution approving that pro~ect erated cert~in tyrea of uses were permitted, listing those ~ypPg, and i..dicat~.r.g if for some reason a use as proposed did not fall w'_th9.n that c3te,~ozy ~r within one of the categories intimated in the resolution, tb.at t:~e mat:ter. would be brought back beforP th~ Planning Commission for cansid~?-ation; that there was no indication a~ to what percentaqe of tre buildi.ng c~~ald be uEZd fo;~ that ~urpose. Mr. Roberts furtlier acivised that the manner in whicti that dpvelopment wss approved would ~nvolve a policing on th~ part af the Staff to dQtermine at what point in tim: the p~rk- ing spaces had been used up and fr~m that point on only p^.rmitteil iz~<<ustrial uses could go in w:~ich would be at the rate of twa parkiny spaces pfr 1000 square feet of gross flo~r area. Mr. Sammis reit.Fr.ated that th~y were not seeking 100$ offi.ce spac~ £•ar each of the buildi.ngs ~reviously mentioned. Commiasioner Farano noted that subject property was not commercially oriented and he would not like to see any office space there Gt a11; thAt to :~is ze~ol- ~.ectian, #:he Dunr. Properties development included only wholesaie fii,ns that dealt xn such items as photographic supplies to reta~l m~r~hants. N~r. Sammis stated concerning the application of Dunn Propertie$, that it was more pointed toward retail-type uses w;hich were not etat~d as wholesal~-type uses; that tY:e proposal w~s not to include th~se :-ype uses on the ~ubject property= that the commercial o~fice uses were ~~ecifically sapport-type uses for the industrial complex and not uses which wou~d appaal to tre general public. Commissioner Farano reiterated tha±• in his ~pinion tlze plans and *_houghts of the deveZoper had beer. s~ flexible that ~t wss diffiault ¢o g'ra:~p what the concept of the development woul.d be; that he wauld quest~.on how aa attorn~y's office would be industrial.ly oriented, And Mr. Sammis stated it wuuld not be industrially oriented unless that ~fficc~ cate.rad to ~the n~~da of the ten~nts in the complex. Commi.r~si~n~r F~.rano noted that the developer was requasting 35$ of the total ~~omplex for commercial-type use and that the dPvaloper was also trying to get a feel ~~r the marY.et, and Mr. Samn-is stated there needed to be a differenti~a- tiun betwsen affice-type u~e anci commercial-type ~.ae; that commercial uses generated traffic and thei.r intent was not to ca~ar to t::e qeneral public a7.- thougY. there woulcl be some drop-in trade. Mr. Sammie continu~d, that their company was ~he largest in th~ field for multi-occuparicy ranmtrenation, and ~ ~ MINU'rL:;, CT.TY PL~ANNING C(,~MMT:,SION, Februery 4, ].974 74-b3 C~)NI>ITiONAL U,Sl: PERMIT N0. 144 3 (Continued3 ttiA pr~paeel was i:ypi.cnl of thmir previoug de~velopments r that they buil~t s~ec buil.dinqe withaut a tc~nant in minc~ and apeciall~ed in provi~ling Pc • the neec3s of th~ emall bueina~~sman~ that th~y a~u].d not dPter.mine ah~ad of i.i~n~+ whaL• ~he t~-nan*. wou.~~ C'.69'LZ'Q w9rhin the confinea of 1 pArt.icu].ar huildingj that f.rom ex~erien::e, 80~ af khe offtce-ty~Q tenante wanted 50~ to :~0~ oP a par.ticulRr bdy for o~fice ue~i that thay were geoki.r~g tha flexibility to act:ept what they viFwp,; us the market £or a pa.rtic:ulax l~cation and being able to aer~•e it with- ou' ~uch r•ime ha~ r~g to came before L•tie Planning Commiseion ~ar a uae vari.anc~ foc a~,artic~rlax ~c~.nt~nt, and further that 21~~e to khe t.ime elemant i.nv~].vod th~ •potential tenant wc~uld usually go e].sewhara but would at.ill not be able to af.£ord high-rie~ aifice epace. Ctiairman Gauer nated that a large induatri.dl commercial op~ration hdd been c.arrir~d on in the Area fnr a numher of a~ears and there had been no probleme v~ ith that us~ . Mr. Sammi.s s~tated that the c!~aractgr of I3rookhurst St•reet had chunqed and exist- ing ~ffice ap~+ce in c1os~ ~roximity to the subject property was very succQSSfulj thnt they wiahed to preservt flexibility witli the proposed develapment in order to s~rve L•hc~ tenants' needs. Commiasioner Faxano nc~ted that it was cancai.vable th~t the con~~pt as propoaed could be succossful and he was not ~c~ say i': couldii't bet b~~4 th~~t hE found .it difficult to s~t c~nrinuurs pa~.terns for invadiiig induatr.ial laz-d with what was clet~rly commercially•-oriented use; that there was no d;,ubt that with the flexi- hility bui1L• into the dgvelopment, ff office 1:~nsni:Q cauld be founu to occupy ?.00$ of that, i.t w~uld be c~a ~cc, .gied due to the Pconcmics 3 that che difference bet:;ec~n the sti.pulationa or r~llegati~ns of the applicant and wha~ turned aut to bs truth arzd f.act sametimes differed very greatlv and that conFormance to *.l~e standards wa~ u practicalit.y uf the matter; thd~ h~ was n~~ in f.avor of the 358 offic~ use~; that although tk~e buildings for the ~ffa..•e uses had b~en identi- f.ied, thP specific location for th~: restaurant had not b~en stai:ed. Mr. Sanmis sta~.ed he waiild. be happy to stipulate to a s.~ecific building for the resta!~--~nt lacation. Commissi.oner King ~ffered a CARRI~,U (Commisaioner Herbst connecfiion with an exemption that t~,n pzoposal woulc3 have f~re, recommends to the City necessary. notion, seconded by Commission~r ~'arano and MOTION being ab~ent) , that the Plannitic~ Commission, in declar.~ation statug request, finds and determinss no _ignificant env:ronmental impdct and, there- Council that no Env'ronmental Impact Statement is Mr. P.obe~i:s noted far tlne Conunission that regarding the Dunn Properti.es devel- opmerit ~t Aall Road and East Street, he had reviewed the file and the 2ist of uses included some office-type uses and, thereiipon, Mr. Roberta read the list of uses contained therein which included intprior der.orator for manufactur3.ng of drap~s, ~e' c. , mattress ~nanufaaturing and distributian, cdrpet and flao.r covering distribution, wholesale plumbing supplies, axchitec~ural servicQS, constructian o•_ices and warehou~e, jewelry rnanu£acturing and wholesale, glass cutting and wholesale, ~urniture Manufacturing and saies, autamotiv~ accessor- ies warehouse and distribiition, photographic studio and supply distri.bution, gales officss and di3tributior centers, tr2wnin~ centers, and stationery supply sales. Ltpan questioning of Commi.ssioner Farano, Mr. Roberts fuxl.her advised no percentage was indicated in thF referenced appro~~al for the of.tice-~tyge ases. Cc.mrnissione~ Farano stated that inasmuch as a similar reques* had be~n approved, h~ would like to know if th~ developer would abi3P by the ?•lst of uses enumer~ Rted by 3ta~f. Mr. Sa.~nmis stated those ~ises were nct as te~able as thefr awn suggestione and they w~ould not a11ow th~c type of retail uuea ~n their developmont as it woul~ detract severely ftom what L•hey were trying to develop; that foz their F~articu- lar type of project t_*~ey were asking f~r something that would be much r+~xe ae.sthetic and acceptable, and envirQnment~lly satisfying than that list of uaea read by .:he Staff. ~ r] ~ MINU'x~:~, CITY ~~AI~NING COMMTrBION, k'abxuary 4, 1'J74 74`~Q C~* pITIUNAL U5L PERMIT N0. 1443 (Conti.nu~d) Comn,;.g~ic iQr King o.ffer~d Reeolu~tian tJo. PC74-28 ana maved for ato passn~~e and adopL•ic~n t~ gxarit Petition far Con~f~ianal Uc~e PermiC ~lo. 1443, eubject to stlpulat.ions contc~ineed in Mr. Sammis' l~attex dated Janu~ry 310 1974, pertaining ta perc~ntagc~ of of.f~.ce space ar..d typ~r, of ueee and ~.t~~i: xotail commeicir~l u~ee~ would not exoosd 9e af. tho total f.loor ~rea o~E the ~Hn-building ~ompl~xl subject to ~h~ ~t.i~.ula~a.on th~t B~iildings 1 nnd 4, partion~ of Hui]dinye 2 and 3, and the enct ux~i~e ot' Buil~inqa 9 and 10 would ~e al.:ocr~tecl t~ oftice-type usos, said offic:e apaco not to exceed 358 of the totdl. flc,oz Rxe+a of the ten- uuildl.r~c~ complex~ that it wae deY.erminecl that on-sale b~~r dn~i wine, as requested !~y tlie pc~ti.ti~n~ar, be an~l hexeby i~ permittea in con junction wi.th the eale of fac~d Kna nc~t a~ a bar, c~i~~ce the use wau18 be a~proprit~to at. ~h~ eubject Ioca- tion= ~nd sub j~act to the furthor stipult-tions by =he ~e~ti~fo:~er. ar~d aub ject to aonditione. (S~e Reeo].ut~ion B~ok) On rall ca11, the f.oxegc~.ing resoluttori was passed by the foll~wing vot~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, King, Gauc~r. NOES: COMMISSIONER5: Farttno, AF3S~NT: COMMTSSIONERS: Harbs~. Commiasianer Farano noted that his "no" vot~ was not becguse he was not in favar of the tiotal project; but becauso o.f the lir~t of ueesF khat he was also afraid a preceddnL- k~ad been created which mi.ght prove ta be unde~irablej that with the subject development and the development ~n Ball. Road and East Streat, a new range of uses had been committed ir~ the induatrial ar~as. CONDITIONAL US~ - CONTINUEA PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM A. BAYZERM~IN, 6980-C PE1tMIT N0. 1951 Kriott Avenue, Buena Park, Ca. 90621., Ownert TONX SFIUBA5H, "'! g722 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92809, P-gent; rec~ueating perm.is~ion to ESTABI~ISH AN ON-SALE LJQUOR ESTABLISHMENT an property describa~3 as: A rectanguLarly-shaped parcel of land ~cY~aist3.ng of approxiniately . B5 aor~~. havi.ng a frontage of approximat~ely 135 feet c~n tihe east side of Euclid Stre:et, having a maximum depth of approximately 275 fee~ and being located a~proxim~itely 195 feet nor~kh of thc centerl.ine of Ar~adway. Property preaentl,y class:ified C-1., CENERAL COMMERCTAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued fram ths meeting of January 21, 1~74, for ~.eviseii plans. Nca one appeared in opposition. Although the Staff Report to the Cornmission dated February 4, 1974, was .not read at the pub~ic heari.ng, ~.t is referred to and made a part of the minute~. Mr. Stan Hietala, 430 Ruby Street, Laguna Beach, appeared t,efore the Comm.ission as repres~ntative for the pekiti.oncar and stated the plans for the proposed on- sale liquar establishment had been revised to providz a£uIl screen, separati.ng the baz ~rom the dining area and ttiat said plans met the intent and require- ments c£ the Anaheim Municipal Codt: for the sale Qf alcoholic beverages in conjuncti.on with a restaurant. Assistant Zoning Sup~rvisor philli~a S:;'~wartze read. a letter da~.ed J'anuary 18, 19'14, frr~m the Anah~im Board of Re,3it~rs ~.n opposi}ian to sub ject petition, and said letter is reFerred to as if s~st f~rth in ful~ ia the minutes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano noted that ther~e were severa.l si.milar establishments in close groximit~y to $ubject location. C~mmissioner Farano offered a mota.an, seco~ded by Commissiongr King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner FIerbst being absent}, tha~: the Planning Gommission, in connection with an exemption declaration status request, finds and determines that the propoeal would have no siyniffcanic environmental imp~ct and, therefore, recommends to the City Gouncil that no Environmental Impact Statemen~ is necessary. ~ ~ MTNUTP~S, CITY PLANNING COMMxS8I01~, Fc~bruary 4, 1974 74-65 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NC. 1451 (Continu~d) Commiesioner Far.eno ~ffe~ed R~anlut~on i~o. PC74~-29 and mc~ved far ite paeeaye and adopti~n to grAnt Petition for Condi~i.onal Ueo Permit No. 1451 on tT1Q bsais of tk~e farec~oing findings, and subiect ra conditiana. (,ee Resol.ution Book) On roll. ca11, the foregoing resQlution was passed by the Followlr~g vote: A'(ES: COMMISSION~RSs Furano, Johnsan, Kiriq. rac~rs: COMMISSIONERS: GauQr. ABSENT: CAtM1ISSI0NLitS s Harbet. RECLASS7FICATION - CONTINUED PUBY.,IC YlEARING. L~RUY ANA SUSAN H~~:TMANo ~8900 N~~~ 73_74--2~ Ironwood, Sunn,ymead, Ca. 92388, ~wner.e= ALEX IIELI,EHUMEUR or HENRY M. ROB~RTS, sR, , 946]. Gr:lndley, &uike 206, C,yprQe~, VARIANC~ NO. 25G'3 Ca. 90630, Agent. FropNrty clescribed as: A roctangularly- "' -'-'"`- shaped parce,l of land conoi~ttr~g of approxin~ate].y 1.7 acrea, havtng a tz•ontage af approximtttely 264 fe~t ~n the north eide of Ball Koad, havi.ng a muximum depth of a~apraximately 277 .feet, and being located appraxi~nately 400 feet east of the centerli.ne of W4etern Avenue. Proper.ty pz~esen~tl,y cla~sified R-A, AGKICiJLTURAL, ZON~. F~EQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-.3, MULTIPLE-FAMTLY RES:LDENTI~IL, ZONE. FtE(2UESTED V,}1P.IANCE: WATVER Qk' (A) MAXIMUM E3UILDl'NG EIFIGEi': WxTH7:N 150 FEET OF SIDIGLE-FAMII,Y RESIAENTIAL ZUNE, (B) MINIMUM XAI2DS 1~]D BUILDING SFTBACK~ (C) M:~NIMUM DIaTANC~ BE'1'WEEN HUTLDTNGS~ (D) MINIMUM WILTH AF PED~;STRIAN ACCESSWAY, (E) MINIMUM OFF'-STREET PARItING SPACES, (F) WALLS AD~7ACEN:C TO R~A AND SINGLE-F1~MILY ZONE, TQ ESTI~BLISH A 50-UNZT APARTI~NT f,'O1~ LE X . 5aid petitions were continued from the m~ etings of December 1(~, 1973, for further study ~nd Janua2y 21, 1974, for t3~e submission of revir~ed plana. Three persons i.ndi~~ated their presence in opposition to sabjeci: petitions and, upon ir.qui.r.y of Ch~~irman Gauer, saic~ persons generally concurred thAt full reading of the Staff Report to the Commi s sion dated February 4, 1974, be waived. Said ~taff Report is referred to and made a part a£ the minutes. Mr. Yenry Roberts appeared before the Commission as the develaper and inqu~.teu if new Planna.r,g C~mmissioner Jr~hne-on was desirous of a review of the prev~aus discussions rE~garding subject petitions. Commissioner Johnson indicated that althauqh h~ was not sitting an the Comn~is- sion on January 21, 1974, he had been prege~zt at said meeting and heard the discussion regardin~ the subject ma~ter. Mr. Henr.y Rob~rts atated at the previous meeti.ng they had made certain 3tipula- tion~ which were of signifiGant concern to the resi.dents in the area; ~liat the project wou].d be of benefit to the City of Anaheim and to the developer and community in which the pr~ject would be located; that there: was a question re- garding the two units in the 150-faot s etback ad~acent to the R-1 properties on the north and also the ~ligh~ encroa ~Yiment to the prope~ties loaated to the south acro~s Ball Raad; that he had not been abl~: to addres~ himse~f to any changes that might he required i.n connection with the 150-foot setback, howeve~r, Mr. Bellehumeur was present to sp~ak to those specific is~u~s. Mr. Alex Bellehumeur, 8662 Av~r_ Circle, I,a Palma, President af Statewide Devel.- opers, appeared before ~the Commission as the developer and st~ted they were nc-t a huge compan~~, however, they did build in ae~•~:ial cotnmunities in Narthern ancl Soixthern California; that over the past few years, r-ot only the property awnez:s in the surrounding areas but the City fathers , hAd become extremel}~ conscious of good projects which would remain good for future timeJ that their projects were quality bui.lt and thQy intended to cont:~nue this practcice; that. they had also o • MINUT~S~ (:ITY PLANCJ.I.NG CUMMISRTON, February 4, 1974 74'~~ REC'LASS~~ICATION N0. 73-74-•29 AND VARIANCE N0. 2568 (Con~.inued) built rapport and provan the~r~se~lvos to k~c~ guali.ty bui].ders ~or the pre~ant and for the futura f.or all particla concornedt that they had found it dif.xicult. at tim~s to convince the commun.ity in genor.bl oP the jab they woul.ci do~ ~h+xt they had gonc to cor-siderablce lanqthe ta r.ooparate with the City S~e~f and t~iey found xa~iprocity; that thoy had a,:temFtea ta eatis~y the~ noQda of evdxy~ne, ina~much as they intec~ded to conatxuct addit.lonal proj~cts within the C:i.ty und they fur~ther intend~d to porfn:m as they iapr~s~r; ~=c~c~; th~t tt-ey had r.aceivc~d con- etructiva advicc~ from the City Staff as we:Ll as from the pr~porty owner~ in ~he areaj thnt thAy wAr~ ~iirr~nt-ly n~aotiating £o.r 360 ar.res in Anaheim Hi118 For development and a 9-acro parcE+l on 1~incoln Avenuo. Mr. B~1lohumeur continued ~+y etatiny that the Qconomics of the pro~ect coulcl be roduced anly so far in t.erms o` dansityi that they were prapared to further reduce the den~it,y to 43 uni.te which would eliminate the tw4, two-sL•ory tinits which were encroaching in tho 150-faot setk,ack on the narth 1 that tt~ey hnd made conceseinna at tho expense of t.hP developer in order to st~~i~fy tlie neighbare ancl iL• that was vahat was requir~ad to make the project auocPSSfuI, th~y were v~ry happy to d~ ao. Mr. Alfred R. ~eehus~sn, 3~07 Ball Road, Analieim, appeared b~.foro the Commisoi.on in oppoeii:ion and stated he owned the proper.ty imn~~diate~.y e.ast ~f sub;jec:t proQerty, and inyuired regar3ing the status of the requested waivera. Assiatant Zoning Supervisor Phil? i.p Schwartze advised that the pzoject ha3 been previously reduced to 4~ unita fr,om the original zequest to c~nstruct 50 units, and the plans had been eo ~evise~; that the petitioner had previously stipulated ta construction of Certatn items ~nd increasing di.stancea, etc.; *hat four of the six nriginal~y reque~~ed waiv~~rs remained for consideration; that since t.t~-e meeting of Januazy 21, 1974, no cllanges hacl been made to the ac~ual plans, how- eve.r, the developer was presently stipulating to further r:educing the pro ject to 43 dwelling unite which wauld Eliminate thE requested waiver of the 150-foot se•tback fr~m those properties located ta tYie nartht that ~onCerning the 150-.foot aetback fr.om the single-£amily res~.;l~ntial properties tA the south acros~ Ball Road, a waiver was etil~. being req~ested; and that W~ivErs a~ b, c, and e were still applicable, however, Waivers d and f were na long~r required. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts r~oted for the Commisaion regarding wai.ver Of minxmum off-street parking spaces, that it was determined that the family rooms boing 50~ apen along ~the wall of the adjoining li~~ing room were consi8ered to be a part of the living room and na't consider2d a b~droom for the purgos~s of interpr.eting parking requirements. 'rhe Planning Commissioz~ers entered .into discussion with Mr. Henry Rober~~ conc~rning the proposed developmPnL and in connection with the buffer strip required alonc~ ~he north property l:~ne. Mr. ~toberts indi.cated the propErty owners would like to have an 8-~foot fence rather than a~-foot fence ana the developer had agreed if the Commissi.on so requested they wou:Ld stipulr~te to so providing and the grade of the prope~rties wou].d be taken into conaideration; th~t the 3-foot, 8-inch plarted strip was ~ls~ agreeable to the neighbors on the noxth . Mr. Seehusen again appeared befor.e tize Commission anc3 stated h~ was opposed to tY-e two-story units on the east side of the subject property. Mrs. Scotty McEnterfer, 3136 Glen Holly Drive, AnahEim, appeaxed bef.ore the Comomission in opposition to subject petitions and stated her home was located directly north of subject property; that if there was a.law that the develope~ ~ could not cons~ruct a two-story unit within 150 feet of k~er praperty, ahe was hopinc~ the P~.anning Commission would uphold that law. Y ted in rebut~al tha~ the pxoperty to the gast and weat of Mr. Henry Robe..ts sta subject property was indicated en the Master Plan for mu].tiple-family zoninq= that by removal o~ the i:wn, two-story unit~:, the remaa.ning two-s~ory un~.~s would be 150 feet or more from the single-~amily residenti.al properties. ~ ~ MINUxES, CITY I.~L,ANNiNG C~>MMI~9ION, F~:bruary 4, 1~)74 74-67 RECI~ASSI1?JCATIOrI NO. 73~-'?4-29 ANQ VARZANCE NO. 2568 (Continued) ~ommi~efonc~r Ki.ng note~d for the Commisaian that C.ommi~~ianoz Herbet haa previ- oualy indi.cat~d di.8s~tis£action witli the wa~11. at the nortt~ ~ro~arty lina= th~t tha higher we~ll causQd l.ack of air c;irculati.on az~d lack aP vi.ew. Commiseionez~ King inqulred r~yard~.nq th~ typo wal.l that: Mr. Nenry Roberta watt F~roposi~iy nt that pro~orty line. Mr. ttc~nry Robort3 aGated that th~y had pxPViously prap~eed a 12-f~sot carpart wall on the narth ~ic1e of the eubject praperty ad3ac:~nt to tha eingle•-family rQeiden~:ial propPZty= that th~ 12-fnot w~ll would havo gi~ran viaual pri.v~toy ~a both ~he a~Artment proje~ct and the adjacent prop~rty ownersi that tt~e plana n~w were to have a standar.d 8-f.oo~ carpor~ wall ancl a standard f~ncc~ at tllo discretion of the Planning Commission, sa~d wall to be a masonr5- bloc~ wallt ~tt-at he had ~reviausl,y atipulated k.o cnmpleting the fenco at tha north property line where the fence entt~red into a subaL~ntiial port.ion oP a peraon'~ back yard, and to construction of the carports on tt~e eas~ aide of aut~ject prap~r~y. THE PUDLIC IiEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissione:r Farax~~ noted for. the C~mmi.ssion that other devel~•-pexs had been requzred to pzovide the 20-foot buffer strip ad~acent to ai..g:.e-.family residen- tiat properties and that the least that had been approvec] w~ts for 15 feet in the Canyon area. Upon inquiry of Mr. Henry Roberts, Commissioiler Ft~r.ano stated the encroactimdnt intu the ].50-foot setback from the praperties located to thQ south of Ball Road adjacent t~ subject p.r.operty, since the arterial highway separated that pr~p~erty from the subject developmen~, was de~.e~-mined to be diminimous; that an the ba~is of the f.oregoing findinas, a precedent would not be set. c:ommissioner Farano further stated that the proposed 3~foot, S--inch landscaped str3.p was just not enough pratect.ion for the single-family residential property to the north and tli~t it was certainly unEair to the other developers not to require the 20-fo~t wide landsc~ped strip, and he could see rio reason why the Commission should de- part from the adopted policy rc:garding this matt~r. Upon questioning of CommiSSioner King, two persons indicated their presence wlZo lived on Glen Holly Drive and whoss property a~u~ted subj~ct propert-y. Mr. Ernest Emerson, 3150 Glen Iiolly Drive, Anaheiin, ap~,eare~ before the Connt~is- sio~n and stated even though trze 8-foot carport. wall was pror,osed in cen junctiari with 3 feet of lanciscaping, his visior. would be impaired from hia propexty; that he was previouslX agreeable ~L•o tl-iat wall provision, however, his positi.on had changed; that perhaps it was economically impossible to provide the 20-foot buffer zone; and that the develop~r had ~een patient to review the plans several times with th.e t.omeowners. Upon inquiry~ of Commissioner King, Mr. Emerson stated hi.s preference would be to have hom~s ~uilt on the subject propsrty. Mrs. Joyce Okura, 3125 West Ball Road, Anaheim, appeared be~ore the Commi~t~ion and stated she lived on the north side of B411 Koad and her property~ was zoned R-A and d~veloped with a single-fam~.ly dw~lling; that although her property was zoned R-A, it did not seem f~ir to not be treated as single-f.amily, since tLae proposed dwelling units were ap~roximately 66 fEet away fro~- her pr.operty line. Mr. Schwartze advised that althougr Mrs. Akura's property was zoned R-A, it was clesigna~.ed on Anaheim's Master Plar~ for multiple-family development. Mrs. 4kura furt;~er stated that she had invc~sted a l.ot of money into her property and the=e were others who had done so, also. In reply to questi~niny ~f. Commis- si.oner King, Mrs. Okuxa stated slie ciid not fe~l the proposeci clevelnpment would enhance the value c,f her propertyr and t}iat the Code was her on.ly protectian. Mr. B~ellehumeur stated that the subj~ct property was presantly~ in escrow anr3 unfortunately time did iiot allow for another cantinuance Qf the petitions. He further stated that all of the homes in thc: arEa were in good canditian and would be aroun3 for a long time to come; ~hat by eliminating the two-story units to provide priv~cy sv that no ~ne wuuld be looking down into the yaxds of th~ adjacent properties, it was not feas.ible ~o also l~ave the 2U-faot l.andscaped buffer stza.p to the east and ~~est of t}ae subject property. ~ ~ MT.NUTES ~ CI'PY PC,31NNiI~G COMMIS ,ION, F~t~•cuar,y 4~ 1974 74-613 RECLASSTFIGA'PION N0._ 73-74-29 AND VARI]-NCF I~O._2568 (ContinuPd) Tt was noted that Lhe Planning Commi.~ei.on l:ook ar- acti,on on December. 10, 1973, recommending to the, ^ity Council. that r.~o ~nvironmental Impact StatEm~nt wee neaessary. Commissioiior T'arAno aff.erod Resolution No. PC74-30 ancl movad fQr ita paseage mnd adop~ion to rocommsnd to the City Coiancil thRt Peti.tion f~r Rec].assificA*_fon No. 73-74-29 be a~proved, 9stabli.s~h~nq R~-3, Multiple-~'am~.ly Reg~dontial Zoning on Aubject propcrty, sub;}eGt to the fnzegoing findi.ngs by the Planrting Cnmmis~ion and stipulAtioris of. the petitionErt and aubject ta the condition that a 20-f.oot wido landacapad atrip, in canjunction w.t~.h the required 6-foot hiqh masonry wa].1., ~hall be provided alone •:he north ~+rope;ct~~ line; and oubject to conditiana. (Soe Reaol.ution Dook) On rotl call, the foreqoinc~ resolution was petE~Bed 1~y the follow~.ng vote: AXES: COMMISSIONE R: Farano, Jnhnaora, King, Gauer. NOES: COMMZSSTONERS~ None. ABSENT: CAMMISSTONERS: Hexhst. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC74-31 and moved for ita passagc And adoptian to grant Petition far Variance No. 2568, in part, granting Waiver a on the ~asis that the r.equegted waiver, as it p~rta:Lned t~ the single-family residentia]. ~~roperties located s~u~:h of 3a11 Roac~ adjacer.t to aubjeat property, was d~termined to be di.minin-oua sinc:e an arterial highway sep~r.ated that prop- erty from subject development; that the ;~djacent R-A propertiES were designated on the Anaheim General Plan for multiple--family zesidential uc~~, and th3t the petitioner stipulated to eliminating any second~floor units within 150 feet of the single-family residential properties to the narth; qranting Waivera b and c due to thE design concept and size of thE~ proper.ty being developed; and that Wai~vers d, e, and f were witharawn by the petition~•c; and subject to the condi- tion that a 20-foot• wide landsraped strig, in ronjuncti.on with th~ required 6-f:oot n~ayonry wall, would be ~rovided along the narth property line and that 3aid 6-foot wall shall. be conti.nL~ed westerly af the north property line of subject pr.operty to the full width of th3t R-1 parcel whic:h pari.ially abuts subject property a~t the northwest boundazy, ~~s stipulated to by the petitioner; and subje~t ta ccnditi..ns. (See Reaoluti~~n Bcok.) Commi.ssioner Farana noted that he would not vote for. the project without the 20-foot buffer strip at the north nroperty lins bet~aeen tha k~lock waLl and the parking stalls of the carport, and~this m:ight be vital to the pro}ect; tha~ the Comn-ission had tradi.tionally required more landscape setback where commer- czal or R-3 developmeni: abutted single-family r~sidential pr.operties; that the Commission policy had proven t~ enhance the property values of both the develop- ments and the adjacent prop~rties; and that the 8-foot carport wa1.1 with the 3-foot, 8-~inch landscape strip proposed was not r..onsistent with good living Pnv~i ronment . Mr. Bellehumeur statec: that thz subject prop~.rty vras a very shallow lot. Eie furcher stated ~hat they would like the flexibility of.cacrking with the Plannitig Staff to revise ~he plans in connectior~ with the landscaping to tk:e nortl~ prior to City Council rEView, without an additional hearing beforP the Planning Commi~~ion. On roll a311, the ~uregoing resnlut.ion was passed by the followiny vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Johnson, King, Gauer. NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. L ~^1A ~ MINUTE~5~ CxTX PI,ANNING COMMISSI:UN, I'~bruury 4, 1.U74 74-69 R~CI~ASSIF'iCATI[7N - l~l 3LIC E(F.71I2I.NG. WEST ANAIILIM COMMUNITY NO~PITAl~, 7NC. , NO. 73-74-38 3~.53 WQDt; Urar~ge Avenuu, An~tic~im, i:u. 928Q4, Ownezt ' ~"" I'It1.NC7S ~. WERI,R, 395`.i Btacct~ StrGet, Nc~wg~rt T3each, Ca. 92 U, Ay~nt; requosCicaq thnt prc-~~erty dd~~:ri.b~cl ae: A roctmnqularly-shapc~ct z~, .^.e.l oP ].mnd conai~tit~g c~f ap~r.•uximatc~ly A.8 r.rr.ee, havi.ng a f.rontage of at. rox:i.mate,ly 34~ £t~~t on kha nor~.h :~ic1e nf Orangc~ Avenuo, having a m~tximum depth c.~f t~pproximai:~aly 62Q Lhet, and h~i.n,y located ~~pproxi.- matc~ly 65:i feet wc3t of the conterlir,e of t3eacli Fioul~var.d, b~ reclma~sifi.e~ fzom ttl~ R-A, AGRICUY~TUI2AI., i. !1JE ~o tl~~ C-O, cor~r~~~cr~t, OFk'1:C1?, ZO~Ir. Two paraone indi.cated L•hc~ir r~rer-r~i:ce in up~oai.tion to yL1L~~f3C't p~titior~. Assiste~nt 2oning S~~pex~~ris~r. Phillip ~c~warL•de r~r~ii the ~taff Ra~ort to tti~: Commission dated February ti, 1974, and said Stafi Report is ref.erred t~o as .if s~,t f.orth in full in the minutc~s. Mr. Jim MoFfett, 395~ Birch Street, ~iewport Beach, appear.ed before the Commis- sion representing the pPtitioner an~ statod that th~ submit:ted placis i.ndicaCod exactly what was cov~z~d in the StafF tteport And he dic•1 riat feeJ. udditional comments wPrF necess~ry in that. respect. Mrs. Elizabeth Lanca~ter, 235 South Beach IIoulPVard, Anahe~m, appeareci hefore the Commission in oppo~ition to subject pFtition and stated she owned t.hP Cherakee MobilEhome Park whic}i was located north of the sixbject pz~pA~:tyi thz~t ehe represented 300 people who lived in the mobilehome park, many of wh~m were elderly people wtio reliecl on her for protr~ction; that the petztianer was pru- posing a bridge over the flood cent~~ol ahan~tel to connect wit?z the 1.2-acre portion of subject proptrty which was 5.so~;~ted north of said ct~annel and which abutted her gropert.yt that she did not think that noitherly p~rtion af the proper±y should be u~ed as a parking lot as van~als and peeping t~ms, etc., would jump over the fence to get 1.I1t0 the m~bilehome park; that also many people wnuld be usi~lg the bri.dge for ho~ping over the fence to get in~c.~ ~the area north of the sub7ect property and t.he bridge woul.d ir.creas~ the ~ar.iaunt of persons 30 doing; that she had insta].lecl a barbed wire fenr_e tc };eep ~he tYespassers out; and that she did not feel th~ nort.h port.ion af subject property was a good location f.or a parking lot s~.nce her home was 25 .fcet from that properi.y line. Mrs. Lancaster presentec~ a petitxon aigned by appruxixnately 95 residents of the mobilehome park, said oppositi.on being specit:icall~ rel~ted to that portion of subj~ct proper.ty lacat;ed ndrt:~ of the Carbon Creek Channel. Mr. L. Laxicaster, 3037 Kalen Avenue, Long Beach, appeared before the Commiss~ion arid stated he was ane of the owners r~f the mobilehome park; that their fence was u~ed for ingress and egress quite frequently, zspecially to and from Qlinda Lane, which was a ci~l-de-sac s~reet, even though they had a barbed wi.ze fence, and they were basirsg their oppa~ition on i~ractical experience. In r.ebuttal, Mr. Nloffett sta-r_ed th~t si;~~ce the chann~l separated thc ~ubject praperty i:~to two portions, nothiny would be more suitable than par~ci.ng to develop it; that t:hey were willing ta provide a block wall with barhed wfr.c on top of it, as well as a landscapiriy buffer; that it was a policing pxoblem of the owners to l~:eep youngsters out of their property an.d this was ~~erx hard to do; and that ht~ did not knota what use coul.~.~ be made of that p~rtinn of subject property, if. not for parking. Mr. Gharles A~h1e~~, Administrator for ttie We~t Anah~im ap~eared bef.ore tYie Cotnmission and stated the property L•lood control cha~inel had been a problem and tt~at they with the Lancaste:cs to possibly exchaz~ge some property would prabably so:lve the problem; and i:hat he preser..tl his company for t:rade of the land. TH~ PURLIC HEARIN~3 WAS C.~OSEI~. Comn~unity }~o~ pi~a~., divti ded uf,f ty ~he haa baen regotiating i•c~ the west and this y had a propo~al into Commissioner Farano inquired if tne nax'therly portion af s~ubject praperty could be held aut from the consider;~ti.c+n ~t. cni~ time, and Mr. Moffett s:ated that would meet their apprUVa1; that they Y.ad nat necessarily intei~d~d to develop the parking lc~t pre~ently but felt they should pursue it as a matter of con- ventex~c~ a~ this timP; and that *here was no reasc~r. why that portion c;ould riat be held out un~il such time as they were zeady tc develop it. ~ ~ ~ '~1INUTES, CITIf PLANIJING COMMISSION~ ~~~bru~zry 4~ 1974 74-%0 R~CLAS:iIFICATION NC). 73-74-38 (C011t~IlUAC~) , The Planning C~mmie~ionare ontez•ed ~.rito r~ di.scueaion with St+~Pf ~anc~:rnlnc~ holding Aut tha northerly port,i.r~n of. subject pr.apor~y in quPStl.an, durinq which neF~u~y C1ty Attorney I'rank Lovrzy tnd i,~,tte~i to d~a e~o, a new percol mep would uo rc~quirod, and Commis~gioner F'a.rano suggested s~ectPicalll axcl~xdina tha~ p~rtion of tr~e pr.opezty north of th~ channel and consider.ing th~ roolas- s.if.i.cation for L•hat portion ~~f aub,jec~ prc~per.ty lying aovthQrly of the channel. Zoning SuperviAOr Charlea Robertr, suggeRted i.n order to save ns much adminis- trativF cost~ as possiblc~, that if t;lie Con-mis~ion was cc~ncf~r.nod abaut the use ~f thu property north of. the channE~l. that tY~~ fir+~t read9.n,q of the ard.inanc~ reclasaifying eub~ect propert:y coulii b:: conditi~ned to the subinission and approval of pzacise pl.ans; then ii t}xe We~t Anaheim Gorununi.ty Hospital wan~ed to procoad with development of. the southarly portion, abiding by the site develupment etdndards of tP-e C-~0 ?one, th~y c:o~.x?d havo ~he ordinance raadJ that whereas if there wAS a aondition that eita plans had to be approved on ~hat portion north of the chan.nel, then those p].ans would havc~ 1:.~ come back ~o the Planning Commission and C~~ty Council for review and approval befor4 the ordin~nce wAS read that would actually change the z~ning~ that 5y doing tlzia thera would be a savine~s of. t:he refiling anc2 public ht~ar.ing F~~g~ c~.tc. Mr. Lowry stated he would disac~roe with Mr. Rober.ts' suyge~~iut~ in ~:hat a parcel n-ap would be requirerl to exclude ~a portior~ of. the propPr.ty; that, in e~fect, two parcels wer.e bPir~g create3 and t11e fl.r.:~t atep v.~uld be to hsve a xecordable map. Co;;nir;~io,~er Farano further c].~rifiFd his sug~eation by atating th~t the devel- o~er. could stipulate Yhat h~ wou].d not ui:ilize or develop tYie portion of sub;act proper~y north af the channel, e~~en thaugh it was includec] in subject reclassi- fication and thi.s woul.d t~e mad~ a condit.ion. Mr. Moffett stuted they would be interested .in an "out" so that the prope~cty cou].d be brought back U~~fore the Planning Cammisszon for parking at some point in time . Mr. Lowry statc:d he d~.~.9 nat sse how such a conditi.on could be enforced; that the p..OI~lE'ill was a le~a1 one in that. it was his understanding that t.he Planning Con~ni.~sion waa desi.ra~as of splitting the suk,ject pxogerty into two parcels wi~hout tlie b~nefit ct a parcel map as required by the Subdivision Map Act of the State uf Calif.orriia. C~mm~.s~;.ioner Farano furthe~.• clarified his suggestion by stating the petitioner c;~~ilc9 s~ipulate khac he would no`~ Uuild a bridge over the ehannel without coming back before the L~lanr,ing Commission for speriPic anproval, and Mr. Lowry stated he woula ce~icur in this procedure ~ince the: parking lot could nat be cc:istructed wit2i~~ :: first constructing the bridge and, thereupon, Mr. Moffett se stipuZated to ~he condition of approval. Commissioner Farr:..zo offered a motion, secondec:k;y Commissioner King and MOTION C;ARRIED (Commiss:.oner Herbst being absen~), t.hat the Planning Commission, in cannection with an exemption declaratior~ status request, finds and determines that the propos~.l would have no significant ~nvironmental impact and, therefore, recommenc~s to t'ne City Council that no Environmental Impact Statemez~t is n~cessary. Commissianer F3rano offered Resolution iVa. PC74-32 and movecl far its passage arid adoption t:o recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 73-74-38 'Qe approved, establishing C-O, Commerair~l affice, ~oninq on subjAct property, suk~~ject to the conditi~n that a bridqe ovEr Carbon Cree'c Channel to develop that portion of aubject property located north of saici ^hanneZ shal]. not be constructed until such time as revised plans are submitted, reviewed anc: approved by the Planning Commission and the City Counci].; and ~tibjeet to condi- tions. (See Resolution Book) On roll caYl, the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing v~~te: AYFS: COMMISSIONFRS; Farano, Johnso:~, King, Gauer. NOES: CO~iMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMNiI~SIONERS: Herbst. RECESS - Chairman Gauer declared a fi.ve-minute recess at ~:55 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Gauer recot~ven~c~ tlie meeting at 4:00 p.m., with "` Commissionprs Farano, Jchnson an3 Ring being present. ~ ~ M7:P~UTF::,, C:~T.Y pLANNYNC~ CO~M4:(;~SIUN, H'~b7~uAry 4, 1~~74 74--71. VARIANt'E NO. ZS77 - F~~)DLTC tIF.ARINC~.. WII.~,iAM tiARyll1TZ AND WT.~L7AM :.,. ~ri(~EMF.KER, """""'"""-' -~ f~17 Weqt 'ith 5tr~e~, Roam 707, Los Ang~+lce, c:a. 9(~Q17, Uw~~er~; ANACAL ENGIN~~RING C;c)NIPANY~ Iy. ~. Dox 3668, AnAhe~.m, (:a. 92803, Agettk~ re.Zuosting WAIVI~~R OF PERMITTF.A USFS ::' ESTr~r~YSH 1~N GL"~Dl7bR TRAILER ANU DOA`i' STC~RJIGE~ Wl~-IVTNG NFQUIR~r1E;~~T THAT ALI, tJS~S I3~ CONUUC'~ED WIxHIN A BiIII,u7NG an properr.y desc~:ll~ed ae : A ruc:t~ngu.laxly~shapad pc~.rcol of lanc~ c~~nc~ietiny of ap~rc:xl.me~tely 2.4 aare9, h~ving a fr.ontag~ of a~prcximnt~ly 294 f.eet on th~: ~aHt s:.c1o ~f w~lnut S~r~c~t, lir~ving u m~~cimum dop+.h o~ ~~~raximatQly 350 fee~, and ~Gin~~ lo~ate~ appxaxJ.n~ate].y 3G8 fc~et south af ~hc~ aen~~rli.ne of. Bull. Roa~l. ProperY.y prc~aently r.'i.a~flific~d C~R, ~OMMER(;IAL F~CItLATION, ?.ONF:. ThrQc~ ~precma i.nalcat.4d l•.hefx~ ~rra~r~nae i.n opposition t~ 3L',bj~~ct petitt~n. A~vai.atant 2anJ.ng Supervx.sor P" :llip Schwartze r~3ad the S:,aff Itu~ort ta the Commissior~ dated r'ebzuary 4, 1~17h, ~nd saicl Statt Report ia re~erre~ to as if set for~h in iull in tre minut~s. M~. Cal Qi.ieyral ~f Anac~.l Engii~o~r'_ng Campan~~, t~pp~ar.~3d b~fore the Conuni:~eion a~ the lgent far t~l~e petiLion~.r and a~ated similar uF,oa had been qranted in the areaa to th~ ~outh o:f subj~ck p.rapor~y; that. a pr.eca~.ent had k~e~n set and the u~se as prapus8~3 wa~ warrant~ed; that they hmd no objaction to relocat±ng t:t~e prc~posed driveway to directly oppasit~ Gaodhue Ave+.iue anci this ctiartge hlci bec~n auggeeted pr.F~~iously by the As~iai:ant Aave~.opment Services Director and had inadvert~ankly failed to be carrected on the plan~.; that they we.re proposing chainli.nk fencing ~i•ound the suk~jer.t property An.d had no ob~ection to pr.oviding ~ancl~caping ~!ithin the fence; that the pXOpoaed use was an interim u~e arid that the owner ha~l prapose~i a~imilar. i~sc~ in 1969 and was denied, and a short time tkierea~ter a similar u~e was ap~roved ~.n the :~rea, and the subject pioperty owners h~-d aaitecl a long time ta obtain some benefit f.r~~m said property; t.hat tkie proposeci use was conten-plated f~r a fiv!~-}~ear period ~nd cer~ainly for a maximum of ten years, and they wanted to spencl as little as neces~ary tc make the use ~aonornically feasi.ble and ha~ve sor.ne visible characterj t13at i;he grant- ing of the conditional use permit on the property to the aouth was subjeci: to construction of a bloclc wall along the proper~y line which abutted the subject propertyt that they were pr~posing the chai.nlink fonai.ng with landscaping that would serve until such time as the block wall was constructed on ~.he acljacent garcel; that there cvnuld be rio need for screening on the Past sine~ the prop- erty ownershi.p continued past 'the property line. Mr. William Harmatz, one Af the p.roperty ~~wne•ra, appeared befnre the Commission and stated he did not know the status of the poat office dE+velopment to the north of subject prooerty. riira. B~tty Ronc~ni, 12~51 South Wa].nut Stre~t, Anaheim, a~peaze<4 hefore the Conunission in opposition to subject petition and gtai:ed she 1~.ved opposite the the proposed gate to subject developmont; that sh~ was gpeaking for the hon~e- ownErs on Walnut Gtreet in the immediate area; that the ;.roperty owners apor.oved of the simi:.ar project approved on Walnut ~treet to tr. soiith with the lar.dscapW ing, lighting, and the berm; th~~t th~y would iik.~ to see Gooc~hue AvPnu~ rxligned with the propo~ed dr~vewa,y; ~hat she did not knaw the construction plan~ foz the post office develogmei~t and she inquired if a.t wa~ possible to include that appX~ximately 200 feet in tr~e street wi.dening between subject prope~ty and Ba11 Raad. 3he also inquired if the additional r~treet wi3ening could be accom- plished ~nd the developer billed for it. at a later time~ Ch~irman Gauer advised it was not the usual procedure to follaw the method for street widening L~einq ~uggested by Mr~. Ron~oni. Furth~r, that the pi•oposed use was an intPrim use for a peri.od not more than ten t~ fifteen ~rears. Mrs. Rona4ni further requested that the enclosu~e for the n~rth and south sides af subiect propert,y be ,fu].l.y view-screer.ed with some kind of solid fencing. It was noted that Mrs. Ronconi had filed a letter c~ntaining six signa~~urea, all in oppoaition to sub~ect petition. tQr. Queyrel stated that the property owner to the so~:th had a resolution of iiztent to deve~op that property with ttie same us~ as was being pro~:osed, ~nd a block wall was required and the sub~ect prap~rty awners could noc affor3 the wall; that they were proposing fenci~.g of a~c~ynporary nature; tih~t no screening ~f the east property line should be raquired; and he was not sure what type of fenciiig would be construated by the post of.fice. ~ ~ ~ MINUT~3, CITX PLANNSNG COMMJSS:[ON, Februar,y 4, 1974 74-~~ VARII~NCF N0. ?577 (Gontinu~s~) Upon inquir.y ~af Chdi.r.man C,AUe~r, Mr. 5chwartxe ~dvieed thar. tho ~ropos~aci d~vel- opmont plt~r~e ~]if:fer~d from the sim.tlar usa ~o the eouth .in th~t ~ 10-~oot land- aca~o strip v~+xa being propo~ed inatec~d of a 20-foot la~ndacap~ etript Chat the two develaptnenitR were sxmi.lAr but th~a Propo~ai wae not Re exteneive ns the fl~uel~pment tv the souths fur.ther., tr,at. tltd propo~Rl was to pave the sub ject ~roper.ty with decomposed grr~nitc~ tr~st~ad of r~t~phalt. Upon queAtioning of Commigai~nnr King, Mr. Schwnrtz~ advised that it wme a cond~.tiun oE «pNrav~l t;hat black wall.s woL,ld bt, can~tr.ucted on tho pr~perty tc~ the ~~uth .i.F ~.nci when 3aid prapert•.y wa9 r~av~~lu~ed. Upon CjlxASt~.Otl:lllfj af Commission~z F~az~anc~, Mr. Clueyrel ata~e~ a dump station wa~- not prc~vidQd ~~n tt~e plans, however~ on~e cou].a be pr.ovidod in the aauthweet cc~rner of rho ~r.~per~y. Commiesionor Farano atated that although it wae not r~ rAquiremQnt~, it wuul~ be a good ides ta hav~ a dump at~ti~n. Commis~icner Farano ~cyntinued by inquiricig if the p~titionc~r wuuld b~ wi.lling to follow the aame Landscaping ~nd setback as appr~~~ed ~or the propez~ty to thc~ sauth ai.nr.e it wuuld be clesirablA to be co~isistent along Walnut Street•, and Mr. Quey~:•t, stated although some secur.ity proulema miqht b~ created in ao do~.ng, ho would sti.pulate t~ prouiding those items if the Flanning C~mmisa~on so desired. M~. Que,yrel further stated that not knowing wha4 the development pians were far the pr.opoaed post of.fice, con~truction of a;olock wali on that property line mia,ht be a waste of money. Mr. Dnnalc~ IIrown, renre~ent.ing Vacationland, Inc., the pr~perty owne.r to the south of subjs~ca.: property' ~ppeared before the Commiesion and atated they di3 noL- intend ta go ahead with the dev~lopmerct c~f the property to the south of suk~ ject proper*_y~; that L•hey were in the ~rocess c~f selling tneir interest, t-~owPVer, he did not know what the intent of ~.he subsequent buyer would be concerning that ~3evelol~ment. Commisaio:nei~ Farar-o tioted that the proposed chainlink f~ence miqht become p~rma- nent if approved, howeve~, approval c~uld be conditioned eo that th~ acreeni.ng could be r~vi~wed at the end of a year or sa for deter.r.iination as to its adequacyt *_i1r~t chain~ink f.encing and landscaping, how~ver, were also expensive and a case in painr hapYenec3 in the Noxtheast Industrial Area whsre a developer thought proviaing c:hainlink fencing wi.i:h dense landscaping as an effective screen would be less expensi.ve th~n a b'loak wall, but af.ter checking out the casts, he decided to constrc;c:t the block wall; ~hat the chainlink £encinq would be allowed for no longer than a period of one year, at the end af which time iL• wouZd have to be ren+.oved and a block wall canstructed; that the term of the use would be for a maximtun of tifteen years; and that AC asphalt paving would be required for the s~ib_ject development. Office Engineer Jay Titus advised that the words °'and ~.~ Orange County F~~od Control District" could be removed from Condition 6, as set, forth in the Staff Report sizce thnse words were not applicable. Commissio~er Farario offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTIOD' CARRIED (Coz~missioner Herbst b~~ing absent) , t:hat the Planning Commission, in conn~ctior~ witti an ~xem~ation dEClaxation status request, finds and dater•ma.nes that the proposal would hav~ no significan~ environmen~al impact and, therefore, recommends to the City Council that na Environmeni:al Impac~ Statement is necessary. Commissianer Farano offerE~d Resolution No. PC74-33 and moved for its pass~ge and adoption to grant Petition For Variance No. 2577, gr~tr~ting Waivers a and b on the hasia that similar types of uses had previously i~een approved for riearby parcels, sixbject to the conditions that the entru.ice to subject property shal.l be relocated i:o directly op~osite Goodhue Avenue, as stipulated to by the petit3.aner, that the pavix~g of the storage area and driveways shall consist of AC asphalt, that a fiftecn year time limit sh~all be estubl.ished f~r the proposed interim use, and that ~he proposed use is per.mitted siibject to adequate protection being given to the residen~tial integrity of the exi~+ting homes to the west, and that dense landacaping and walls shal? be installed along t.he ProperLy 1'nes to fully uisu~lly scresn and sound buffer the use from the surrounding ~ ~ MTNUTG3, CITY PI~IINNINI; COMMZSSIUN, FAbr.uary 4, 1974 ~4°73 V"AF~tANCE N0. 2577 (Continuad) uses, with the exce~tion that t:.e p~titionor s~.ipu].ated to provi(ling d~naQ land- c~capinq aand a chainli.nk fence along the :~outh property l~.ne and, in th~ av3nt the prGper.ty to the ec~uth is not devsloped with a 6~~oot blc~ck wa].1 abut~.ing sub]ect. proporty within ana year from t~he ~ate const•~uction bAgins on ~.ho subjeot devol~pmont, the petitioner further e•ti.pulated to ramoving said ohain- link f~rica t+nd t.o installirtg a 6-foot blcck w~ll dt said pro~~rt;y linel and ~ub ject ~a Conditi.~nc~ 12-t, through e, as eet Porth on page 6-b oP. th~ Sta£f Re~ort to the Com~miasion dated Fobruary 4, 197~, as stipulated to by tho petitionerr and aubject to conditj.ona. (Seo Resolutior~ Book) On rol:. aR11, ~.he foregoing r.~aolution was passed by tUe following vot.~: AYE.• - COMMISS:LUNER.~ t T'arano, Johnson, King, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs ~Vone. .'ABS'rNT: COMMTSSIONFRS: Herbst. CONDITIONAL CJSE - PUBLIC H~ARYNG. AI,FXA,NDER F~AAGEN, 777 Si.lver Spur Road, PERMIT N0. 1450 Rolling Hi.lls Estates, Ca. 90274, Owneri DAVTD L. HOAG, GEORGE A. RU550, J'R., ANll 11NTIi~JNY SCALARO, 19677 1'orba Linda Boulevard, Yorba Li.nda, Ca. 92686, Ag~ntsr requeatirig PERMtSSION FOR Or:-SALE BEER J1ND W1NE IN CONJUN~TION WITH .A RESTAURANT on prop - erty des~ribed as: Rn irregularly-shapecl parcel of land conststing of a~proxi- m~tely 10.6 acres, l~aving ~ frontage of approximatel~ 750 feet on the South side of Santa Ana C:anyon Road, ha~~ing a maximum depth of appreximatc:ly 7G0 feet, and being located at the soiithwest corner of Santa Ana Gan,yon Ftoad and Imperial. Highway. i~roperty present].y classified C-1, CENEI2AL COMMERCxAL, ZON~. No on~ ap~ear.ed in opposition i:o ~ub;Pct petit:ion. Alth~ugh th~~ Staff Report t~ the Commissxon datec? February 4, 1974, was i~ot read at the public hearing, it is reterred to and made a pa~t of the minutes. Mr. Bavia Hoac~, the petil:i~ner. appeared b~fore the Commission and atated thc complete plans liad been auumizted and that two similar establishments were located within one-quarter. mi].e frcm the subject property. THE PUIBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Co~nissioner Kiny offered a mr~tion, ye~ond~d by Commissioner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst being absent), that the Planning Commission, in connection with an exemption dec?_aration stat,~s reqtxe~st, fir.ds and determi.nes that the proposal would Yiav~ no significant environmeritaZ impact and, therefoze, recommends to the City Council. that no Er.~ironmental Impact Statement is necessary. Commissioner Kirig offered Resolution No. PC74~34 and moyed for its passage and adop~ion t.o yran~ Peti.tion for Condi~ional Use Permit Na. 1450, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the ~oregoing resolution w~s passed by the following ~vote: AYES: COMMIISSIONE~S: Farar.o, J~hnson, King, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTs COMNlISSInNERS: H~exbst. GONDITIONAL U5E - PUHLIC HEARING. JOSEPi~i AND GRACE ROMO, 1340 West La Palma PER1~lIT NO. 1452 Avenue, AnahQim, Ca. 92801, Ownersf z~questing permissirn to ESTABLI9I~ A CIir~D CARE NURS~RY nn property d~scribed as: A rectaagu7~arly-shaped parcel of land having a frontags of approximmtely 65 feet on the north sid~e of Dogwood Street, having a maximum d~pth of appraximately 131 fe~t, and baing 1oca~ed an the northwest aorner of Dagwood Street and Loars Street. Properry presently classified R-1, ONE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SONE. Thr.ee persar~s indicated their presenc:a in opposition. ~ 5~ M:CNUTk~S~ C~7,'Y P:.31NNIr1G COMM:LSSIqN, ~'c~brudky ~1, ].974 74-74 COKG'~^1p~A~, USE ~~i*EthIIT N0. 1452 (C~ntinuad) Asaiatant 'l.~ni.i~g ~u~°rvi~aa~ phillip Schwartze r~ad tln9 Staff iteport to the CommioRi~n cir~ted Fobraaay 4, 1974, nnd sai.d Str~~~ itap~ rt ie xa.ferr~cl t~o ne if set iar.•th in ~ul.l in the mi.nuL•e~. Nr3. Czace Ramo, 134q wVm~~t La Palm~ Avaauc~, Analieim, the ~otit_ioner, ~ppaarNd befara *_he ~'~mmiseion t~nd atr~ter~ the proposal tila9 Yo ~atablier. a nuraery oc:haol for twa ~.~nd Lhre~c~•-year-~1d chizdran at th~+ gubjeCt location= thr~t i.n n~ wa,y would ~he builaing be dit~torte~~ Ka~ it k~uuld cant.inua to look like an R-'1 home; tht-t r~u~h n. nursery r~llould bc~ located in ai~ R-1 h~mo for thr~ c:nvironmental effQCi,; t;iat thP ch~.ldren woul.d be deliuored ~a the nursery ~nd pirkeci u~+ at atagg~r~d hours ~nd ~Lhit~ would provent ar~y traffic congest.ton in the area; that play ~imen i~~~ ttia children would b~ during *he day but tho children cvpuld ~~ in the h~uee after 3:00 p.m. so a~ n~t to caudP a aistur.bance in t.he areas *»h~3F, sh~ had ~e~n in bu~iness for fiftesn years and had established auality nu:seri:~s fn the City during that time; that high-qualiry riurc~er.ipg were noeded far 1~1~.~ motFier~; khat the nursery would not destroy the con~n~.nity in any wa~-; that: the area was ~surruunded by hospit~ls and scho~l district~ i.~ a11 directions and that the parents of tti3 children wnuld be loaki.nq for a nursery r~err a school; that there was a need, espeGially for. young i~milies, f~r nursery care in the area. Mrs. Bet~,y Toxr~:~, 1405 i~ogw~oc3 Stre~t, Anaheim, appear~d bef.ore the Co~rmission ic~ oppbsition and atated ahe had lived in the neighr~orhoo3 for aighteen years; that the proposec~ location was a residential ar.ea and ~hculd be kept aa suc:h; tY:at tliere was a nurserX locatad un La Palms Avenue direct].y b~h~~-d her prop- er~:y ancl the noise fr~m that operati.on was unbearable; that she had no ~.riv+~cy; that the p.rc~rert;y had ne 7.anr~scaping iii the back yard and ~.he trees were graw- 1.ng ir~to her ~wn back yard and into the al:l.eyway; that *here was only ab~ut. 12 fe.~i: of space betwFen the hames in ~he area and the noi.sF would be very unsati.sfactory; ~:hat th~ txaffic in the arp~ was presently exceptiorlally heavy and th~~re had been ahout tweive accic~~n~s ~lready; that when the nursery was ap~rove~ on La Palma ~lvenue, it was to have 25 children and that nor~ ~here waA from 40 ta 50 cnildren beine~ cared for at that facility; that in the m~rnings she eould harc~ly enjoy her break~~st due tn the nuise pr~sently being c~enerated; that her neic~iibor to the eaRt had written a let,.ter in opp~sition and stie was pre~enting same in her b~half at this time. Mr. Jaclc G. Miller, owr~er of the prnperty at 1409 Dogwood Strset, which was presently thE~ rESidence OF 1'1].S par~nts, appea.r.ed before the Commission in apposi.ti.on a~id stated he wished to back up th~ si:atements of Mrs. morres; that thE pxesent nu.rsery facilit,y owne~ by th~ petitiener on La Palma p.venue was ill-kept in apFearance and there was no r~ason to ex~ect that the subjecL- pr.operty would :.~e better;. that regarding traffic in the area, tliere was a 90-dsgrPe :-urn and on occasians proper~y in the area had heen damaged by cars attempi-.ing to neg~~ti.a~e ~hat turn. , Tn rebuttal, Mr~, I~om~ statsd that during tl~e day, the chilciren played irom 7:30 to 9:00 a.m.; ~.hat the facility was a day school and n.ot a day care f~cili~y, and con~is~ad of music and constructive p~.ay; that the children did not glay i7i the front yar~~ that the property to ~he east of the Eacility on La Palma Aven~ae was in ~r~n~bles, whereas her pr.operty was well ~vatered and ~e premises were w~l~ kept at all times; that the proposed. play area consisted o~ sarxd ox otl~-~r ~lxrfac; ng that would be sa£e for the children; that reqarding the t.ren_ tha±: overshadow~~d Mrs. Torres' property, that tr~~~ was 25 years old and wds rieened to shade the et-.ildreii, and the seealings could be ~icked up; ~.hat the lar.dscaping on tr.e sub~ect pr~perty was not gond aiid they intended to im~rrn~e i~; tha.t at the:i..r sch4ol in east Anaheim, the landscapinc~ and the children w~r~~ we11 kept~ that Mrs. Torres worked and, therefore, wa~ not home durirg the hi~urs the nursery was in operatinn; tl~at the nursery should not interfere with Mzs. Torres at ail; anc~ that the nurspry woulc~ not operate on Saturdays and Sunda;~s. THE PUB~IC NEARING WAS CLOSED. In xeply to que~ti,~ning c~f Commissianer Farano, Mrs. Ramo stated she owne~ the property directly north of tY:e subjeat p!-operty, and she lived at 1340 West La Palma Pvenue. ~ ~ M~NtiTE5, CITY PLANNING (:OMMISS.ION, Fabxudry 4, 1974 74-75 CpNDITI~~NAL USE ~ERMIT N0. 1452 (Cr~ntinue3) In reply to quest i.oning af Cc,mmis~s:i.oner K~ng, Mr~. Romo statgcl tha awner of tho prop~arty developed w1.th a~wo-g~ory realdence adjacent to her. praporty hud approachc~d her to pur.chase thr~t prop~rtX fox uae tts a nurser.y faci].ity and it was determinec! the buildii~g was uns~fe and unusable as it ~kood. She furthex indicated that ~he under~tood the Firo Dopartmen~ rocomniandations for tha ~ropospo l~catian and tY~at ahe woul.d c~mply with thoae requirements. Regarding the present fencing, ~4rs. Romo st~ted the sub~ect property 1~~-a complecely fen4ed on tho ~ide abutt.ing Mrs. 'i'~rr.es' property. C~mmissioner Farano inquired ii tYiE in~ent was to evontually operate the prU- puaad nuraery iri conjunctio~~ i~i.th the nuraery an La Palma Avenus, and i.n reply Mrs. Ramo atated s:~e ~nd hQr husband wauld operate both nurseries and thAt in adclit~on one qualified ciede~itial teachar was provided for every 12 ch9.~dren ~r~ ~cco.rdance ~vith the State Code. Commisa:lonox Farano made an observation thafi L-rom a qood busineas standpaint., it woulci make eco;~omical s~:nse to combine ths two opezations and, in rebuttal, Mrs. Romo stated i:he safety of the children would be involved as the r~ew fa~:ility was for the sma].].er twQ-year-olds. She furthQx atated thati the twa an3 three-yi3ar-old child.ren were not noisy if they were well supervi~ed whlah t}~ey wou~.d be= and that t:he sub ject prop~rty was 60 by 130 ieet and the fzr~nt uf the propnrty ~would not be u:~ec1 far pl~y area. Upon que~stic:~ing of ChaLrman Gauer, Mr. Schwartze advi~Pd tY~at child nurseriea wer:e wllowed in R-1 Zones for six or less children and more L•han six requtred a conditi.Gnal uae permit. Commissioner Farano f+~rther oUserved that there would be a c.nmbined total of 70 childr.~en at the two nurseries, az~d Mrs. Romo stated thRt enrolltnc~nt was not at peak tlzroughout the l~ar and she ant.ici~ated that there would L•e betwe~n 45 and 50 toi:al enrollment ~t any one time due ta illnesses. Mrs. Rom~ reiter~.~ed that the clelivery and pi.ck-up time for th~ chxldren would be s taggere~i with deliver?.es beginning at a~proximately 6:30 a,m. and pick-up around 3:30 p.tr~.; that if th~re was c~nly about :ive chtlarQn left at the end of a day, thQy would prob~ibly be ~:aken to ~he facility on La Palma Avenue for pick-up ihere by their p~trents. Commissioner Faran~ noted that although the use lzad 5een preva.o~s'y germitted in R-1 Zone~s, he was not really enthusiastic about itt that he did not rgaall ttiat a nursc~ry the size of the facility on La Palma Avenue had be~n spproved. in an R-1 Zc-ne; and there was nothing to preclude the busxness from ohanging to eventually c~~mbine the two faciliti.es; that constructively speaking there were 70 chil,3ren that would occupy the two homes and it would not be consistent with R-1 zon'~ng; and, in additior~, Loara and Dogwood Streets were used as routes to La P~~lma Avenue ~~~nd were very heavi~y traveled. Mr. Schwartze noted for the ~ommission that Conditional Use Permit No. 222 was approved twPl•~e years ago for the facility ~n La Palma Avenue and no limit had been stipulated as to the number of children th.dt couZd b~ cRred for there. Chairman Gauez• not~~d that. the subject property was essentially located in a cul-de-sac a.nd there was na way to protect it from the dangers of the traffic which m~ght a~cidently run .into the property. Cammissioner I'arano noted that the use wa~ too intense fur a residential ar.ea; that it wa:s not coresistent with previaus appl:.catians approved by the Planning Commisaion; that when the opportunity presented itselE, the proposed operation might be comb~ned with ~he iiurs~ry presently located on La Palma Av~nue, thus making ±h~ additional nursery ircreasingly incompatible with the arsa; that the presence of the two nurseries would bring an exorbitant number of children into the P.-1 area ~nd would derogate from the surroun3ing R-1., single-family residentxa]~ area; and, in addi•tion, would not be consistent wi.th the general environm~nt of tne neighborhood. ~ ~ MINI1'I'F'a' ~ CATX PIiANNING CO:M1ISSl:'~N ~ Fek~ruary 4~ 197A 74~7fi rONDITIONAL U5~ _ I'F.~FtMIT NO. 14 52 (Co~ ti.iuod) Cnmmiesl.oner FaL~a31o offer~d r~ rx~ti.~n, e~c~ond~cl by Ct~mmisei~nQr ~?ohne~n ~nd MC~TTO~~ CARRIF:D (C~mmi~~ionc~r F(erbet beiri~ nbeent) , that the Flannfn~ Conunieroion, in connect~on wlth an axempti~n d~clarxtion Atatus roqu~ak, ttnds an~! dekormine~ that tho prapoael woulc~ havo no significant e~nvironmental imQact a7d, the+rotore, r.ocommands to thc~ Cit•y Cauiicil. thr~t no Environment~l zmpt~cL Statement ~e nocee~ary. Commi.aei~nex Far:in~ off.E~red Itebo].ution No. PC7q~35 ttnd moved Eor. ite pas~~+aqe nnd aduptiar~ L•a ~s.1y ~etit.ion far ('ondi.t~.onnl Uee Pe.rmit lta. .1A52 on the br~sie of the forego! ng f:indir~gs. (Soe rasolt~tion Bo~k) On rol.l call, the foregoing ~esulution w~s pa~aFad by the fallowing vote: AYES s COMMISSIONERS: Far~ac7o, Johnaon, King, Gauer, NOF:S : COMMIS5IONERS : NOIlP.. ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS: ti~rbet. CUNDITIONAL USE - PUBLTC 'HEARING. LEORA MOORE, 1225 War.m Springa ~lvenue, PERMIT N~. 1453 Boiee, Idatio 83')A2, Uwnert J. R. GIf;SON COMPANY ItEAL ESTJ4TE, attention of Aori~s M. Gibso~, 111 Weat 1'7th Street, Santa F~na, CA. 92706, Agent~ regues~ing permission to rSTABI~ISH A AOARDING ANA I~ODG:ING HOME FOR THE CAF2E UF 11Pt~ROXIM7~T~LY 1.5 EMOT'CQN- ALLY DISTURBED, MENT~'1LLY RETARDED CHILD~tEN on property doscribecl as: An irxegularly~ahaped parcel of land coneisting of approximately~ 4.26 acres~ having a f;:ontag~ of approximately 169 .feet on the ar.uthwest side af a private rQad, having a cr.aximum depth of appr,~ximAtsly 485 feet, ~.d being locatE~d approximately 1200 feet south ~f tho centerline of Sunt~ Ana Canyan Raac.. Proj~erty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTUItAL, ZONE. I'wa peroons indicated their presence in oppoaition to aubj~sct petition. Aasistant Zoning Supervzsor Phillip Schwar.tze read the 5taf£ R~=part to the Planning Commiesion dated Febr~uary 4, '_974, and said Staff Report i~ referred to as if set forth in full in the minutes. Mra. Doris Gibson, the petitioner, appeared before the Commissian and stateci she was preaident of the nori-profit corpozation that would be cperat~.ng the proposed facili~.ys that the 4.26 acres o~as completely fenced by a chainlink ~ence and the property was classifi.ed as fores~ proper:.~; that the purpose of the faci].ity waa to provide care for the emotionaZly dis~urbecl and me~ita~ly ret~rded childr~n whose greatesi: feeling came fram ~he l.and itself and the people who were taking c~r~e o!. them; that the children were not mentally ill but- had retardation pro~+lems since birth; that the chll.dr~n Zeede~ extra time, love and care, and the only way this couZd be accomplish~d was through i:hese facili~.ies; that tttere were foster hnme~ a11 ov~r but the only similar facflity to that being proposed was in V~sta, California; that Lhe chil3ren needed a home~like atmosph~re; that the new Canyon Hi.gh Scho~l at Iinparial and Santa Ana Canyon Road would kiavE a new scl.ool for thase children which k~ould be with- in ane mi~~ of the subject property and she had talkea k~ith Dr. 13arton who wauld be handling th.e children from the proposed facil_ity at t.yat school; tha~ the Froposed facility would be in somewhat of a vala.e,X and the property behind it was unlikely to be developed; that the thre~ neighboring properties werP aware of ~he pro~~~~zl; that the Cards~ wha li.ved i.n front of the subject prop- ezty, had a retardpd child and were aomewhat sympathetic with the proposal; that a minimL~m of one acre would be farmed by ~the children; that a playgrovnd, ag~sxoximately 130 feet by 100 feet, was lo~cated dirEC~ly .in fz~ont of the h~use ~n the progert.y which was ~hain' nk fenced ar,d could be vieweci from almost any poi.nt within the hom~s; tl~a•t thc :ome was cua+~nm built with five b~ 3rooms and an adeq~iate kitchen, other thax~ for a chang~ in dishwaehing Facilities; that th~ facility would be Stat~ .lic~nsed and must meet City, C~unty and Statp Codes; that nine Orange County children were presently shipped to either San Bernardino, San Di~go or Los Angcles for this type of care and workers had to go to those children to make tl'-e required calls which were paid for thraugh taxes, and w~.th facilitie~ located within the County, the expense would be far less; that th~ plac;emen~ of the c.hildren would be by the Orange C~unty Itegienal Center; that ~ MINIlTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMZ~SIQN, Fabrtimzy 4, 197A 74~r~ CONDI~IONAI~ [iS~_PCRM7T N0. 1453 (Cantinued) the ch ildren would be oxparienoing thoso tti inc~8 wl~ioh ~hey could not ha~vo in a Sta~e inetitutioni ~hati although tt-a ci.ti~~r~u wAro paying for Stat.e insti.tu- tione, the inetitutiona wera not do:ing much fc~r C~10 children and the ahil~zon dovolc~pod lnto prob.lemsi that parente of retaxded aha.ldren oftentim~s were c9ev~t~d but, by and .large, visited their chiidr~n aometim~e ~nly once or twice a yc~ar i that tho retarded c:hild was not accep•ted ~ncl iP plaoed in the type faci.~ty propased woulr~ be much botter carad ~orJ that the ohildron could be tre~inesd nnd tt-eiz ame-11 ~ccomgli.shmenta werA ~verwhelmingt that they could leern L•o make thc~ir beds, r.aok, r~aka leaves, et.c., and e~ grea~ derxl of time must be spent with them in order to see thdse Atridcaas that. within thr~e yoc+ra, ono out of t~n families would have a child in an ine~ituti.on and th.ore nedded to be aome concern and that was the reas~n the non• prof~t nrganizakion was formed~ thdt thay could have organized ~n ~ prafit level but in that ~nr~nner enouqh of tho money woul~ not go to the ~hildr the~t in a~Aditian~ they 1'tad had much voluntear halp. Mre. Gibson continued by atati.ng an emoti~:~A1~ly di~turbeci child was on~ that, for inatance, his mother anc~ father wexe obt~ining a divorce and the child neQded to be in tt Eamily-t:ype atmoaphero and the Orange County Reqional Center would want to place him iri a h~+me auch as the one pxopoaed. M.r. J~m Stroop, 4127 Like Avenue, Bell, appoared befor~ the Cammisaion in opposicion and stated his property was 300 f~o~ from thp subject property line; that the facility should bP in a rsral atm~ephere and s~.nca much of th~ land in the area was planned for development with condomini ums , it woulc- iiot bA rur~ , that the facility propoaed was really needed but should px~.,bably ue placed on 10 acros or so to allow enough roomi th~-t wa.ter to the sttk~ ject property was provided by a small company whicri was appr.oved far small use and water ~,~~ould have to be braught int that in case of a fir.a, wt~ter was presantly one-qu$rter mile from the areaJ that conc~r.ning the private road, it was 12 fee~ wide and barely wifle onouqh for c~rs to pass and schc»1 buses would create samewhat of a problem; that the prope~rty would need to have a sprinkl~r system; that ~.here was no aewer. line to the subject property; and that the house, which h~d five bedrooms, would be accomrnodating three adults and fifteen children. Mr. Larry Patterson, 20270 Santa F+na Ganyon Roa~.., Aazaheim, appeared be.for~ the Corrmiesion and statPd his property was at the northeast corner of subject property; that c~xtain clarifr_cation and conditions needed at~entiu~n; that this was a non-profit cr~rporation, responsibility was involved, and the property was very c~xpensive; ti-at in 1966 there was a bud fire and the home or subject ~rop- prty was saved by virtue of someone getting ontc+ the roaf with a water hose and ttaere t'.ad been many firFS in the Canyon since that time; that tt~e priva~e roa'. was by way of an easpment through his property ext~~nding approximately 200 feet and with the prevailing hreeze bl4wing right up to his home, a great amount of dus t would be realized ~Erom the parents, the teachFrs, etc., who would be traversing that road; that perhaps a p~ved surfac~ was 3esirable over the ease- men t; that the thing that concerned him mo~t was the children themse7.ves and whi 1 e he would differ concerning the locat.inn, he would support it in another area. ; that the ch~inlink f-ence was not a securit~ fence for thP children _.n- valved; that he woulci euggest a two-fence and two-gate area wherp the cars w^w ld be entering the property in orcler to secure the children; that in dealing with these children thexr physical strengt;h was unbe].ievable and this Y~ad t3~-a nei ghbors rightfully concerned; that he wauld much prefer 1ooking on the acreage with some children and animals sather thaii a condominium proiect but that he hau serious queations concerning '.n:.~ wx~dom involvedt that he personalLy felt there was no assurance that ~he ag~~ group for the ch .ldren would not expand tn .14, 15, and 15-~ear•-clds; that the cunc~iti.ons of appr~~val should be s~rious in order ta keep faith with the neighbors; that this was a wonderful cause and he questioned it in the very expens~ve area; that if something happened to the non-~rofi~ corpora•tinn and it was r-`. economically sound, aome precautions should be taken ~.o cov~r that situation . In rebuttal, Mrs. Gibson stated the u~ual response was that the people supported it but wanted it to locate ~omeplace ~lse; that the facili.ty war~ needFd where ~ schc~ol waE in clasR proximity and where the children could be near normal ch i ldr~n; that the z~etarded schools were part of tlte noxmal schools and it was ~ ~ MINUTLS, CTTY ~LANNING COMMISSION, February 4, 1974 74-78 CONI)ITIONI~L USC_PrRMIT N0. 1453 (Continued) found khat thQ chi.ldron. did much better in such ~ eituationj t}~at tiLibil9Ct propert:y would remair~ as a r~nch nnd that it haa beaf~ in r~nd out ~! eocrow meny t:imes ~ that t.hora wou].d be notihing but improvem~nt to tha propertyt that the chainli.nk fe,ncQ was the c~ize uood for h~ree~s and thezQ wae a wood~n fonr,~ on one ~ide of the pr~p~rty alsa~ that regar.ding firQ protection, the~e w~~~lc3 be new fire ].ines and a now fir.~ hydrant acceeaible to tho property and a tir e- br~ak prosantly ~~~tietedj tltat the barn c~n tlie ~r~poxty wag construct~d of cement block and had u bath and kitchQn facilityt that th~e garaga wo~ld be convertedl Rnd that thesy wauld hava up to 15 children which wc,ulQ t,ake approxi- mat.ely 15 manths to attain. Mrs. Jan Card appeared baf.ore thd Commission in f.avor ~~' the p~tition and stated shQ lived rl.ghk acrass from the subjc~ct pro~ertyY that. her pz~per.ty w~s 3 ac:rea and shc~ hRd no objections to seeing sub~ecr _>>-oParty con•~ertec~ to this usaj that ghe had two normal children,ages 11 and 12 and one rPtardod child and she wac~ tl~rilled to be a paxt of tha J~rop:~Aal. Mr. Edward Roy, Aas~ciate Directnr uE thc: Orange Coun*.y Reyio,nal Center, a~,po~red bef~r~ the Cocnmiss~i.on anc~ sts~ted as u rt:at~er ~f rscord that 85$ ~t these children lived in the commuriit~~ and thia w~~ not a pr~r~.^.;, until it was made a prohlem; ~hat people hr~d a~-fferent aonceptap that thg chil3ren ir~ the propoeed fmcility would go to the special achoola znd hopPfL~lly be upgraded to th~ normal. schaols as much as possible and, easentially, •aou~.~ be no di.ffer- ent from nonr-al children and mos~~ o~ '-.hem did not have physical abnormalities. Mr. . ~,ul MaKenzie, 10582 Blake Street, Garden Gro~-e, appeared before tha Commi.ssion and atat~d he had worked wit.h retardecl children in dif.ferent c~roups such 3s tt:e C~.~' Scouts fnr approximately 17 years and the advantage the~t a retarded cti~ild had in a situatioii like the one propoaed was that they hac. the oppoxtunity to ha~~~: rESponsibility; that there wauld be one chilr~ far eactj 12,000 sqrare feet o:: land at the propc~sed facility whicr. wauld offex~ tYie children 1:h~e opportunity to adv~nce; tha!: he had never seen a building that would bett~r serve ':he purpoge of the fac:ility than the one on subject propPrty= ~hat he had a 1^-year-old ret;~rded daughter and with regard to gtxength, re- tarded chiiur~:n were just the opposite of what the gentleman wa~ trying to express; that the children were fi.lled with love ~nd did not understand hate. Mr. Patterson again appeared b~forP the C'ommission ,~.d inquired if tl~.ere was any way the Commission could be assured of the ~ge ~oup of the chilc~ren ~e ing from a minimum of twa years to a maxiinum of twelvE lears of age, that: the:°e would be na more than 15 childrEn, and that the use w~uld revEr~t bac~: t~ i t s present status if the ownership changed. Mrs. Gib$on r?tated they were State licensed for only 15 children; th;at the children wo~ld be batween the ages of two and twelve years; that the~y hari gone a lia_tle younger than usual for special reasons and it would be to ttieir advantage to stay wi~hin the twelve years of age; th~t the private rcad wh i ch wa~ approximately '187.98 feet trom the paved street was nat blacktopped nor was it~ naved and i*_ had not been traveled much, and there was grass growing there. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Upon inquixy af Commissioner King, I+lrs. Gibson stato3 the residence oii subj ect property was 700 or 800 ~eet from the Patterson's re~sidence, and that the private road would be oiled or paved. Upon inquiry of Coznmissioner Farano, Mrs. Gibson stated the non-~+rofit corpora- tion was owned by herself, her husk;and and one ot'~er individual and there wer~ grants; that it was possib~.e that one man wou'ld be pa,ying for the property and donating it t.o the ccrporation. Upon further c~ueationing by Commissioner Farano a~ ta whether the non-profit corporation would be cannected with any State or any other instituti.,.n for mentally ill or mentally retarded childreri, Mrs. Gibson stated the pr<~pnsal was their f.irst project and she did not know if *_hey would have more fa~i.lities at ~ future time. r~ ~ M~NUTCS, CJTY P~,ANNSNG COMMTSBIJN, Fabrusr.y 4, 1974 • 74~~g CONUITIONAL USE P~RMI~ NO. 1453 (Continuecl) Commis~ioner F~ar~no noted ~or ttie Commiesion that thnra h~11 besn a numbc~r of foster home a~~plir.ation~ to tako in cliildren euch ae thoa~ being diecu~sed= Chr~t Mrg. Gibann wae indicating rier facili~y wdo ~the only on~ of its kind in 5outhern Califnrnia and in 1~-iaheim, however, e.lmi.l~r facili~ieo w~~r.a locA~ed in the ~rea on tho same baeie for approacimately t~ve or six c1i.ildr~snl that th~ other. facilitie~ basicdlly operntea the adme And had thA c~amo patients or occupantst and that he did believe k}tere was some~ op~x~rt»nity Por thi ~ type facility i.n Ansheim. Mr.~t. Gibac,n atatAd fc~ster homes were not State liceneEd and C;ommi~aioner Farano noted that in moat r.ase~ wher.e ~ost~r homes hnd beyn conaic~.ered tho Commission }iad always inqaired and was advised t.1at the onerati.ons were Stute licensed. In reply to further qu~sti~ning by Commiseioner. F'arr~no, Mrs. Gibson stated thay would have the children for a periocl until *.hey r.eached the age of i:welve years or were able to be returned to tneir fami].ies; that thoac l~avi.ng the facility at '~le ~age~ of twe~.ve would ~:aually b~ movod up to ano*:her facility but by the ~.ime the children werE ~t~;e~vQ years old, she hoped they would be far ennugh advanced ta be returned ~co their familiea = that the public achoalo were able ta providP what foaCer homes were unabie to provic~e; ~hat she was not in the opQration to raie~ money wher~as foster par~nts were in it for ti~at reason. Upon inguiry of Commiss~oner King, N1r. Patter.son withdze~w h~.s objection ~o the proposal on thP basis that the prc ~nent would ~11 or pave the private road. Commissioner King offered a moti.on, secnnd~.. by Commissioner rarano and MOT:LON CART~:CEA (Co~nisaioner Herbst ~eing absent) ,~hat t,~e F~anning Commiasion, in connectioz~ with an eMen-ption declaratinn status requ~gt, finds and determines that thc~ ~rAposal would have no significant enviro.rune.lt al impact and, therefore, recommex~~.s ~:.o the City Council that no environmental ~*:~paCt statemant is necessary. Camm~-i~sion~~ K.ing off~red Resolution ivo. PC74-36 and maved foz its passaqe and adop~ion t4 yrant Petition for Conditional Use Perm~.t No. 1453, subjecL• to the stipulation bX t.h~ v~titiuner that the private stre~t woul.c~ he oiled or pave3, that there would be no mors than 15 children cared fur a*. the facility ~-t any ane time and that the childr~n would be between t;~e ages of two and #_welve year~ old, maximum; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) Commissioner Farano noted the s tructure proposed to be ~~se3 was not a facility but a single-family resideizce in a single~family ar=a; th~t t~?e C~ ^'~R~.89~.OT1 had previously conaidered applicati.ons of this nature ~n~.3 Mr ~. Gibso '~ad ~~een very careful to distir.guish her facility= that the Comniission had nevex 3p~r.~ved such a facility on such a large sca:~.e; that he recalled tr.e ^~~vnisfij cn had ~`»en careful to limit the last appli~caticn to aix cYiildrer.; that d.Lscu:- on~ on thia type application t~~nded to avoid the connotatinn that the operatic.,~ was regardec3 as an instit»+:ion ,~~ Ls.cility; that t,ie proposed use w~s incic]enta.l a*~c~ not s primary uae in tl:e R-1 Zo:~e :nd if ssbject petition was granted, it w~ulcl op~~n the door to non-primary usc~c i~n other areasj that t•he pr~p~sal wa~.s a primar.y use ~.~.:: would set 3 precede:~•..; triat no one wanted to see a chlld in such a condition given anything but ~he best, however, it was also the Commission's duty to protect the int4grity of the zone~ ~hat tihe use ahuuld be madified in terms of numbers to keeP it on cn incidental basi~; th.at the sub ject property was pr:lmarily ~•acant land an3 soned with a resalutiori of intent t.o R-H-22 , 000; that the numuei of children should k~e restricted to six as the use did not only relate to the square footage b~it to the conversion of the property to an institutional use. Chairman Gauer noted that facilities had boen permitted in r~:si.dences that did not have as much room as subject propezty and he did not see anything wrong wi~h the proposal. i:ammissioner King noted that the Crmmiasion would be setting a precedent, hcw- ever, subject property was isalatad and if a similar prUposal was presented in the f.uture he would vnte for it. ~ ~ MJ.NUTFS, CLTX PLANNING COMMISSIUN, Fabruary 4, I974 ~q~~~ CONDI'I'IONAI~ U^F PERMIT N0. ].4 5:i (Continued) Commiheianer .Tohneon ~notoci thar. a fnci.lity limited to ~+ix ch~.ldrnr would bo s~tiafac:tory Lor e rac~l.de~nce in town, however, t,he pr.opor~m]. from whet had baen ~~resonted waR a~aprapri.eto At tho sub jec~ locati.an. On roll. r.all, tno foregoing r~~~lixt~.on was paeeed by the £ollowi.ng v~te: AYES: CUklMTSSIONERSi Fcrrano, John~on, King, Gauer~ NOES: COMMSSSIbNERSt None. AHSENT: COMMISS'lONERS c Herbat. CONDITIONAL (3SL - PUBLIC NEARING. RnB~RT P. DUP1t~ AND J. RICHARD FARLEY, p~FtMIT N0. 1454 341 "A" Bayaide Orive~, Newpart Beach, Ca. 92660, Ownara; "" PHARAOH SALFS CON~ANY, c/o Glenn Blick, ~.321 Narth Kraet~er .oulevard, Anaheim, Ca. ~2806, Agentt requeating permissiar- ko T2AISE QUAIL IN 1-N ENCLOSED STRUCTUFi~ ~n pxoparty deecrib~d ae : A rectangu-- larly-shap~d parcel ~f land oansiat.ing of approximatel,y 1.5 acres, having a frontaqe of approximately 175 feet on the weat giue of Oranqethorpe Park, having a maximum depth of approximately 381 teet, ~+nd heing locatod approximately 760 feet north of the centerline of Orangetho~cpe Avenue. PrQperty presently alass:I- fiEd M-1, LYGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZUNE. No ~z~e appeared 9.n opp~oition tu subject petition. Although the Stiaff Report to t.he Commission dated February 4, 1974, was not read at the public hearing, it ia refarred to a~d made a part of the mi.t~utea. Mr. Earl PPyton, 9854 Belfair Avenixe, bellfl~wer, apQaared before the Commi.ssion and stated hQ had reviewed the Staff Re~-ort whi.ch aet forth their intentions and he had i~o furL-her statemgnts to add, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Upnn inquiry of Cammiss:loner King, Mr. Feytan stated he did x~at anticipate any oaors and quail were not similax to poultry in that regara; that they presently had some quail in the building and had not experionced a problem; that the manure would be removed daily and they had not determined whet.her it wms salable; that the use would be entirely contained within the bu~ldingi that if there wer~ ~dors, ~hey would have to deal with themt that he hac~ been in a building with 50,000 quail~ and had not expexienced oddrs; that the operation wou'ld probably draw some flies; that they would have approximately 120,000 birds; that the product of the operation was Cornish hens for the gourmet m~r3~et; that the quail was not gubject to Newcastle d:tsease and was required to have no vaccination, however, the re~~s used for the guail cantained antibi~tics to keep diseases out completely. Commissioner Faxt~no noted that any sanitary canditions would have to be given caxeful attention by the F~enlth Department and, in all good conscience, the Cotmnission should have an Environmental Impact Report since the circumstances raised enough questions to necessitat.a reviewing such a report prlor to appro~- i.ng the use. Up~n questioning of Chairman Gauer, Mr. Peyton advised the closest operati~n that could be observed was the Marsh or Rosemary farms in Santa Maria; however., they ~resently had approximately 2,000 quail in the building at the subject location. Zoning Supervis~r Charles Roberts inquired if the quail had '~een removed from the Kraemer faci].ity and Mr. Peyt~n indicated in the affirmat~ve. Commis~ioner Farano off~red a motion, seconded by Commisr~ioner King, to require an Environmental Impact Report prior to consideration of Petitian for Cor.ditional Use Permit No. 1454. ~ ~ MINUTES, C];TX PLANNING C~MMISSION, Februc+ry 4, 1974 74-81 C~ND~TIflNAI. USL PEIiMIT NO_ 1A54 (Continu~d) Commtseioner FAreno etated he underetood thAt the Commisaian wou],d bo settiny a pzecederit by ~pprovinq~ eubjeat ~re~itiaz~ and h~ would xequeat that St~ff provide auch informntion on any ~uture epplicatinn~. Deputy City Attorney ~`rank Lowry inquir~d if the petitiar.or. NOU~.C~ T1dV0 All~- ob~ections to pr~viding an EIR on tha aubject petition and, thereupan, sugga~ted ~ faur-waQk cAi-tinuance to allow k1m4 to ao pravi.de. Mx. Peyton at~ted he wae not fami.liar with tho pY~ocedurc~e ar-si indi.cz~ted he would pr~aPyd to obtain an ~IR. (:ommiaeianer Farano withdrew his original m,otion i~nd Commisaioner King withdrew hte ~econd, and~ thereupon, C~mmiseion~sr Farano uf.torv~c~ a new r;,~tion, eoconde~ by Commieaioner Kinq nnd MOTIO~I CARRIED (Conunissiondr ~ierbst bAing arisAnt) te reopen the public hearing and continue con.raideratian of Pe~ition for Conditional Ueo Pern1.t No. 1454 to the mc~etinq oi March 4~ 1974, in ardor to alluw time foi the petitianer to submit an EYR, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC FiEARING. INITIATE~ BY THE ANAHEIM CITY' ANAHEIM 1~IUNICxPA,L COD~~ PLANNItiG COMMISSION, 204 East Linco].n Avan~ae, " Anahe.im, Ca. ~28Q5t to aonsi3~r amendments to Title 18 o.f thQ Anaheim Municipal Codo, Chap~ter 18.E2 - Signs, Adver~iaing ~~.gns and Structures, Sectinna 18.62.030 - Definitionsp 10.62.050 - Multiple-Family Residantial Zaries, Permii:~ad Signa; 18.62.0908 - Free^Standinc! >ic~na; and 18.62.090J - Monument Signs. No one appeared in oppositioi~. Assistant Zaning Supervi.3or. Phillip Sahwartze noted for the Cammission that Mr. Ken Denny, who represented the local service statiane in the past, had indicated to Staf~ that he was not oppoaed to the subject amendmont.^•, to the 5ign Code. Commissioner King offered a motien, seconded by Commissioner Johnsoi~ an:. NiOTION CARRIED (Com~missionez• Herbst being ab~ent), to puatpane the publia hearing to consic3er ~men~ments to Tit1e 18, Goning, to the meeting of Febriiazy 20, 1974, to allow more time for discussion. R~PORTS AND - ~T~M N0. 1 RECOMMENDA'rIONS CONDITTUNAL USE PERMIT NQ. 1361 - Property located on the west side of Manchester Avenue south o£ Katella Avenue, and 660 feet north af Orangewood Avenue -- Requ~st for approval to estak~lish an auto- m~bile sales and service facility (Oranqe County Volvo) . Assistant Zoning S~~pervisoz Phillip Schwartze preaented the 5ta~f Report dated February 4, 1974~ and subjpct r~quest and noted for the Commission that revised plans, tu establish ~ motor home sales and service faci.llty {Winnebago) ~n the southerly portion of sub~ect property~ were approved by the Planning Cnmmission an March 1Q, 1973, as being substantially in accordaz~ce with plans originall.y approved under Conditi~na'1 Use Permit No. 1351; that apprr~val of the re•~ised plana was mz~de su~ject t~ the patitianer's atipula+:ion that any repair work done would b~ minor in naturPj aiid that no rapair ~work would be done on enrtines, tune-t~p, body ar fendp~ work, painting, or tire repa3rst that although motor home sales anci aervice facility was establis~•ed on subject property, :::e use no longer existe, and th~ petztioner was now req~~esting to establish an automobile salef and aer~vir.e faci].ity (Orange County Volvo) on the southerly portion of ~ui~i~-^.t pxoperty. Comanissianer King noted for L;~e Gommission that he had visfted the subject sit.ef that the garaqe was loca~~ed in the rear of the building; and that there was an approximate~y 5-foot, S-ir~ch black wall, in addit~on to treeg, provided for buf~ering of the ac]jacent r.es~.dential uses. ~ ~ ~ MINUTE9 ~ CI':Y I~LI~NNING COMMI83IUN ~ Ft~l~runxy 4~ 1974 7A-82 ITEM N0. 1 (Continudd) ._,,._~ ...~. Thereupon, Commia~lonAr Kinq offered a motion, cecondad by Comminei.~n~r Far~no and MUTION CARRIFD (Commi.asioner tierbst being Abae~n~.) , to Rpprova eubie+ct r.a~ueot Ae being aub~tantially i~ conformance~ wi~.h the intent of t:hr~ Con~nie- sion'e original approval of Conditional Use P~rmi~. No. 7.36~.. IT'LM NO. 2 Vp~'C`E~10. ?.548 (G~nyUn G~nerel Hospital) ~ kequ~st fc+•r interpretati.on of C-O, Commercia]. Uffice, ?one signing. Aesietant Zoning Supervi~a~r Phillip Schwartza noted for thn Comniia~i~n ~.hat on December 10, 3.973, a request from Canyo~ GQn~ral Hoap:~tal fox an aclditional Yroe-stsnding, 3 x F-foat aign, to be located on prop~3rty ~-t ~he nor.t~k~weet corner of Riverdal~ and Lalzeview Avenues , and more Rpecifically to l~e i~net~l .ed on Riverdal.e Avenu~, wa~ appraved by the Coiamissiant arici tt~at latar an ln the meetiny on December 10, 1973, Ueputy City Attorney Frank Luwxy had inc~icate:d concein thAt the aub~oct request shou].d have rQquirec~ a nublia hear~.ng. Mr. Sahwar.tze continued by noting that two frca~-standing monument type ..; ~~n ~ fox :ide~ntif.icatior- purpoees had prev~ously been appr.oved for. the subjc:ct p~:u~- erty under Variance No. 2548t that fallowing the meeti~ng nii uec~rc~er 10, 1973, S*af:E had d+_scussed the matter of the additional sign wi~h th.e ~i.tX At~orney's offi~~e and it wa~ felt ttiat the C-0 Zone sign atandards could permf '~he requ~ssted monument type ai~ne; that L•Y:e requested sign waulii be the ~nly "emerqency" sign for this hospitalt t;zat if tlais sic~n wou.ld be p~rmit.~.e~d by determination of the ~ommi~eion, the Commisaion might da~i.~e tQ direct ~he Staff to x•eview th~ sign requiremente tor the C-0 Zone tc~ determine if an "emez~gency" sign uf thls type might be pertititted in any hnapital ap~lication, and that Staff al~o be d scted to svaluate tihe appropra.ate si~.e~~ fo.r auch s igr~s . Cnmrtisaioner King o~fered a motion, eoconded by Commissi.ancr Farana and I~SOTI~i1 CARl2IED (Commissianer Johnson abataining, Commissionez tt~:rbst b~ir~q absen~) , to :reafflrm the Planniny Cam.-nisRion action of December 10, 1973, t~at per- mi3siAn bf: and hereiay ie granted to install a.z additional 3 x 6-fqot free- standing monument sign identifying the emer~ency entrance of ~he Canyon Genera:l Hospital, said sign to be installed at the southweat end o£ subject property un Riverdale Avenue; and, furthcar, that Staff be direated to review the aign r.~quirements fo.r the C-O, Commercial Office, 2one ar~d make a x?commandation to ii-~~ Commission as to whether the subject si.gning would be apprcpriate for any hoE+oital making application for same, said recam,~z.^.d.-~tian to in:.lude app~opriat:e s i~.es for auch s igns . AU,JOURNMENZ~ - There being no further business ta •?iscuss, Commic~sianer "' King off~zed a motion, ser_onded hy c:.~nm-issioner Juhn~an and MOTTON CARRrED, ta adjaurn the me~~txng. The mneting adjourned a~ 6:30 p.m. Respeatfully submitted, /~ /, ~'~.,~.~c._c._o-J /~a • Y-~ ~yt~~L-~,_. ~ Patricia P . Scanlan , Secretary Anaheim City Planning Comznissian PBS:hm