The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/06/240 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICr, INC. , .,.. ~~~,,. . ,. . ,. , ~ ~ ~ City Hell Maheim~ Ca~ifarnia Tune 24~ 1974 [r.ECULAR MEETIN~ OI~' THL~ ANAHEIM CzTY PLANNTNG COA'Q~IISSION RBCULAR - A cegulaz meeting of tkie Anaheim City Fl.enning Commi.eeion waa called to MEE'PING order by (;huirman Gauer at 2:U0 p.m. un ,1une 2G~ 1974 in ~he Council Chnmber, n quor.um being presenk. PRESENT - CHA7.RMAN: Gauer - CUtRrtISSI0NER5: Compton, Farano ~ Johnsoti, King, Mo~[] y ABSENT -~ COMMISSIONERS: HerbaC ALSO PRESP,NT - Aseietaut Development ServiceR Director: Ronald Thompeon Deputy City Attornay: Frank Iaawry Office Engineer: .Tay Titus Planning Supervisor: Don McDaaiel Zoning SuperviROr: Charles Roberte AealaCant Zoning Supervisor: Anaika Santalahti Aeaociate Planner: Bill Young A~nir~lant Planner: ltobert Kelley Planning Commi9sion Secretsry: Patricla Scanlan PLLDG~; OF - Commiesioner Farano led in the Pledge of A~.legiance to the Flag of ~he ALLEGIANCE United StatPS of AmErica. APPROVAL OF - Commiaeioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morlc+y and THE MIIvUTES MOTION CA,RRIED (Commissi~ner Johnaon abat,~lning and Commissi.oner Herbat being absent), to approve the ..~inutes cf the meeting of May 29, 1974~ as submitted. ENVIRONI~fENTAI~ IMPACT - C4NT'iNUED PUBLIC HEARTNG. ANAH~IM HjLLS, INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES~ 'dEPORT N0. lll_, INC., c/o Horat J. Schor, 380 Anaheim Hil].a Road, Anahelm~ Ca. 92807, Owner. Property de~cribed se: An irregularly-ehaped parcel of land RF.CLASSIFICATION conaiating of. approximately 24 acres having frontagea of gpproxi- N0. 73-14-28 mately 830 feet on the east eide of H13den Canqon Road and appr~xi- mately 2630 feet on the r.orlh side of Av~nid~ de Sat~tiaga, having a VARIANCE N0. 2566 mxximum depth of approximately 403 feet and being lacaCed approxi- ~ matel~ 5U0 feet eou~heasterly of the intersection of Serrano Avenue TENTATIVE MAP OF and H~dden Canyon Road. Property presenCly cyaeaified COUN'~Y A1 TItACT NQ. 8520 (GENEP,AL AGRICUI.TURAL) DISTRICT. REQUFSTED CLASSIFICATION: R-H-22,000 (RESInEN1IAL HILLSIDG, LOW DENSITY, SINGLE-FAMZLY) ZONr. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIV~ R1sQUIR~MENT UF SII3GLE--FAMILY LOTS FRONTING ON AN ARTF.RIAL HIGHWAY. TENTATIVL~ TRACT REQUGST: ENGINEER: WILLDAN ASSOCIAT~S, 125 South Claudina StrPet~ Anaheim, Ca. 92805. 5ub~ect property is propused for subdivieion into 21 R-H-22,000 zoned lots. Sub~ect patiCione were continued from the mestinga of December 10, 1973, January 7, Mlarch ].8. and April 29, 1974 at the requeat of tha petitianer. It was no~ed that Che previoue continuancas were requeated in order ta resolve annexation bouaidary questiona and mattere relating tu tite locaCion of water re~ervoir facilitieA. and that Che petitioner was requesting a further continuence to tha meeting o£ August 5, 1974, in order that final madificacions might bP made to the proposed development pJ.an. Commiseioner King offered la motioc~, aeconded by Commieai~ner Johnsan and MOTION CARItI~O (Commieeiuner Herbat being absent), ~~ furthRr continua the public hearing and considera- tion of ~nvironmental Impact Aeport No. 111, Reclassification No. 73-74-28, Variance No. 2566 and Tentativs Map of Tract t3o. 8520 to the meeting of Augu~t 5~ 19?4, aa requested by the petitioner. 74-289 ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PL,ANNING COMMISSION, June 2k, 1974 74-290 CONDI'fIONAL US~ - PUaLIC HEARING. SPONSORS~ TNC.~ c/~ Roy Oteu~i, 224 Norkh Glaseell PERMI'f N0. 1k75 Straet, Orangc~~ Ca. 92666, Okmer; requeeting parmiseion tn L~STAALIStt A HALF-WAY HOU3F FOR AI,COHOLI3M MiD DRUG-RELA'~6p PROBLEMS on praperty ~laecribed as: A rectangularl~--ehaped parcel of ]and conpixting of appruximacnly .25 acre having a frontage of appYOnimutaLy 71 faet on the weet eide oE Claudina Streot~ having a maximum depth of :~pp~ruxlmaCela~ 155 feet. and be~ng located approximaraly 314•fcset north oi the centnrline oP Broadway. ProperCy presantly classiEiod C-2 (CE*IEItAL COMMFRCIAL) ZONE. It wsa noted that the petitioner was reques~.ing a four-~veak continuance to tha meeting uf July 22~ 1974 in order to reaolve some m+sttera axeociated with the propoeed uso of the subject property. One pexoon indicatad he~' prEaence in opposition t~ ~tub~ec~ petition. Commi.seioner Ki.ng uffered a motion~ seconded by t:ommie9i.oner Compton and MOTION CARRIED (Commiseioner HerbsC being absent), to cpnCinuR thc publi.c hUar.ing and coneid~:ration of Petition f.or Conditional Use Permit No. 1475 to Clics maeting oi July 22~ 1.974, as requested by tlie pekiCioner. P.NVTRANMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC H~ARING. ANAHBT.M HILLS, INC./TEXACO VENTl1RE3, INC., REPORT N0. 129 c/o Jam~e Bari3lc, 380 Anaheim Hilln Road, Annheim, Ca. 92807~ Owner. Pr~perty deacribod as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land conaiyt- VARIAN(:L ~10. 2610 ing of appraximately 29 acree having frontages of approximAte].y ~ 444 feet on tlie north side of Canyon Rim Ro~d and 937 feex on the TPNTATIVE MAi'S OF BouCh side o£ Cunyon Rim Rngd, having a maximum depth oE approximately TRACT NOS. 8455 889 £eet and being located approximately 1200 feat east of the center- (REVISION 3) AND ].ine of Nohl Ranch Road. Property preaently claesifiecl R-A 8456 (REVISIQN 2) (AGRICULTi1RAL).20NE. REQUESTED VARTANCE: WAIVER OF (A) RLQUIR~NT THAT SINGL~-FAMILY STRUCTURES REAit ON AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY, (B) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGkIT IN SIDE SETBACK AREA OF REVERSED CORN~P i,OT, (C) RGQUIREMENT TNAT LOTS FRONT ON A DEDICATED S'PREET, (D) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH QN A CUL-DE-SAC, (E) MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK, (F) MINIMUM LOT AREA, AND (G) MINIMUM LOT WIDTK. TENTATIVE TRACT R~QU E5TS: DEVELOPER: WESTFIELU DEVELOP2~NT COI~ANY, 178Q2. SkJr Park CirclP, Suite r04, Irvine. Ca. 92707. ENGINEER: WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, 125 South Claudina Street, Anahe~m, Ca. 92805. Sub~ect pruperty is proposed for subdi.vision as followe: Tracc No. 8455 (Reviaion 3) - 37 R-1 zoned lots And Tract No, 84~a (Reviaion 2) - 34 R-1 aoned lots. Sub~ect petitione were continued f.rom Che meeting of June 10, ?.974 for the revisi~n of tract mape• One peraon indicated her preaence in opposition to sub~ect ~etitions and, upon receipt of a copy of the Staff Report to the Plauni.ng Couuni9eion dated June 24, 1974, the opponen=, Mrs. Mary Ainndorf, waived the full reading of said 5taff Report. Althuugh the Staff Report to the Planning Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is re£erred to and madE a part of the minutes. Mr. James Rogera, President of West£ield Development Company. th~ developer, appeared before the Commissior~ and atated thnt since the meeting of June ].0, 1974, they had reviaed the propoaed plane and conaiderably improved them by adding parking in the cu].-de-sa~ areas, as r.Y~at had been a concern of the Planning Commission. Mr. Rogers dieplayed draw- inge ahowing Che redesign of the cul-de-eacs eliminating one of tha lota at the end o£ each cul-de-eac, redilcing the number of lots ::-^m 73 to T1, and redesigning the street. He stated they had not only reduaed the number of tot~s but had eliminated tha need for street pasking; that on one cul-de-sac the etreee parking hed been increased from 3 spaces to 15 speces and from 4 spaces to 13 apar.ea on ~he ather cul-de-ssc, making a total of 21 more parking apacea than originally propoaed; snd that Chey had not taken anything away from the pro~act in the r~~e:ign. ~ i MINUTES, CI'l'1C PI~ANNING COI~tIS3I0N~ .J~~ne 24, 1974 74-291 ENVIRONMLN'fA1. TMPACT R~1'ORT N0. 129, VARIANC~ N0. 2610, ANU 'fI:NTATIVE MAYS OF TRACT N09. 84551REVICION _3Z ntvn 4~.S..K •.~VISI0~2~„ (Conk~rLu~,d~.._ - --- Mr~. Mnrv Dl.nndorf~ Prceident of the Sante Ana Cany.~~~ Impravement Aesor.intion, Inc., 131 Ln Pnz~ Anaticim~ appeared before Che Commieai.on and com~endnd Mr. Rogeri for doing a gi~od ~ob on the eub,~ect deve,lopmenr., Shn read n prepared atatemenC lndicating theC the Aeyoci.e- tion wna protoeting r,tie propo~od davelopment of Tract Noa. R4S5 end H4S6 on kh~ baeis that tt-Q GIR wne inndequ~-te ancl that according to ;.he GuidellnaH oi the 3Cntc~ of California for implementation of th~ Califarnla Bnvir~nmentai. Quality Act which app.liad tu charter citiea~ eho noted eeveral deficienciE~s relnted Co air qu~lity~ incr.eaeed naise levels, increc~o~d traffic~ xnd no significant alternatives which applied only to the sub~ect project and, in addLtion. that tha Aeaocfation had nol been askc+d to comment or evaluate the draft CTR. Her i~tntewent further indicated thaC Chu main ~hruet of the protest was that the Ci[y oE Anahuim had no definitlve ordinance pAr.tair,inK Co hilJ.oide develapm~nt~ and until suct~ time na un ordinanc~ wae enacted, hearinge eucti ae ti~e one at hand were an exercise of futility, and that in thEir opinion it was not fair to tho d9velopere ar the peo~le proCeAting when there were no guide~ines to be adhered to aince ttie developer was noC sure of liie reaponalbilil•y or limltntiona and thoee 1n oppoeition had no firm zoning requiremenCO to contest. In ,<~nclu9ion, Mrd. Dinndorf. sugg~ated declaring a maratorium on all hillside pro~ects until euch time as a firm policy atatemenC had bPen enacked to serve as guideli.nes fox all concerned. Mr, kogers atated he had r.o rebuttal but was available ta anewer xny questlonA of the Planning Comminelon. THE PUBL'iC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commiaeioner Compton commended the petitLoner iar thE manner in which the twa waivers had been eliminaCed, namely Che maximum fence height and setback area and lot fronCage on a dedicated atreet, and noted that t.hoae were not the only poin~s of cantention by the Planning Commisaion; thaL in reviNwing the remai.ning tequesCed wnivere he questioned whether they could be ~uetified on a hardship baoi.s. He further noted Chat aoma drastic changes had beem m~de as evldenced by the ravised plat ~, however, with a 11tCl.a lesa "aqueeze," all of the walvers coulcl have been eliminated. Mr. Rogera stated they could have e~iminaCed all of the waivers but as 8 TP.BLL~.t they would have l~ad such few lats and such large lots that the pro~eat would have been impractical; that they had no control to change ov~:r the given pade o;: land and they had one point of access far ingr~~ss and egreas; and thaC they were providing more diatance between the homes than would be found in a typical 7200-square foot lot davelopment. Mr. Rog~rs dis- played a acaled plat plan of the oubject property geared to 7200-aquare foot lots where the homes would be 10 feet apart and atAted if that plan was beang conaidered, they would not have eo reque:.. any waivers~ however, they were proposing a auperior plan and did not feel the waivera were unreasonable aincs thP nropoeal w~s better than an avera~e 7200- aquare foot lot development~ the livability was su~~erior, and they had asked for and were granCad the same waivers for their ad~acent tract e~n the south s'_de of Canyon Rim Road; that the adiacent track was a fine ~omwuni.ty and environment and there would t+e no dis- tractiona fros the pruposed proj~.:t; and that everycne thought the proposaly being in a hillside aetting, was cxcellent. Conmisoioner Compton noted that atout 40X of Che propoaed development was out o: the realm of cope in relation xo the ~ninimum lot width requirement. CommisaionPr Johnaon noted that he concurred with Commtsaioner Compton regarding the minimum lot width; that it appeared to be a beautiful project and he certainly wanted to ~~mpliment the developer on the proposgl tY~us far, however, wiCh the hil.lstde lots the uwount of land to build on wae obv~ously decreased comF~red to flat land development; that he did not like to eee the lota squeezed in and the burden being left for the property ownere; that the Coaeni8aion may not be in a poeition Co declare a moratorium on hillaide developmeat unlesa there w~ere eome guidelines, but he wou11 like ta ~~ay cto~ser to the existi.ng Code until guidelines were available. In reply to Chai•rman Gauer, Mr. Rogers otated in order to conform to the lot width require- menta~ they could lose between 5 and 8 lota whic:h would be a disaster to the pro~ect. In responae to questioning by Cammisaioner Farano~ Zoning Supervis~~r Charles Roberte advised that tt~e minimum lot width requirement on a cul-de-sac was 60 feet at the building line setback and only two af the cul-de-sac lots were lesa than 60 feet wide at tt~at point. ~ ~ ~ MINU'f~5~ C'LTY PI,ANNING COMMI~SION~ Junn 24, 1974 ~4"?y2 ENVIRONMENTAI~ IMPACT REPORT N0. Z29~ VAItIANCI: N0. 2G10~ AND TENTATT.VG MAPS OF 1'EtACT N4S. A455 (REVISIQN 3) ANA 8~,5~ (RF•VISION :t) (Con~tiqued~ _ ._.._..__... Cormnineioner Farano noCad tliat lie conr.urred in Comu'.iseiuner Johneon'e etatAmente and aterc~t that it ahould be naey Co conform to thn 7Q-f~ot lnt width on the etreigl~t portio~ o£ the etreet~ howovar~ in looking at tho propoeed plane, ha would conclude that the devel.uper reduced tha widtli aP thQ lote to keep the ddneity ~~p eu that ths proJoct would provide a greater pxofit. Mr. Rogere atuted Chat tha reviaud plane had reduced che density of L•heir pro~ecr to below 2.5 dwelling ~inite per acra; and tliat the homes themeelves would be from 48 ta 52 fae~ wide. He descri.bed the typical pi~-ehaped cul-de-aac lote and tha opAn epace tliat would be pravided in the pro~act. Cummiseioner Johnaon n~ted that he ngrc~ed with the problen-e creatAd by cul-de-~9ac8 end working wilh hilleide proparty. i~owever, an tt-e straighC portion oE the atreet tt~e land wae fairly flat foc building nnd the propoeal seamed to Ue "wholesalE" uac of the narrow lote, and he did not accepC the argument that the lots ehoulri be made narrower bacause of tt~e usable Land in the back of the liom~s. Mr. RogQrs atated thaC 100X of the pads of the narrower lots was usable pad area. Commissioner. Farano reiterar.ed hie concern regc!rding tt~e narrow lots and Mr. Rogers atated even in the cKSes wh~:re thp lots were narrower on thc~ front, they were exCremely epacious in the rear. CommlASioner Compton reiterated that the petitioner was at~king Lor 40X of the proposed lota to be und~r the 7Q-foot required 1ot width and, in h9.s opinion, Chere were too many lota in the development. Mr. Rogera then atated that probahly 40X of the proposed lots were on a cul-de-suc, an irregular curvAture~ or a slope. Commisaion~r ~arano noted that the Lote which requir.ed a variance were r~ot on the cul-de- saca but were on tYie straight-uwa,y, however, khe one lot which originally tiad access along th~: 20-£00. wide easement over the ad~acent lot was acr.eptable ae presently proposad. Mr. Rogers stated with the project now wiCh 71 lata, and working in a reAtrictive area, he did noC feel the proposea. was unreasonable since a few wore feet to the lol•s wauld not add anytning aignificant eince there was greater space between the dwellit-g units than there wou~d be in a erandard tract; that the development ae a whole was leas than 2~5 dwelling units per acre; and that the averagc dietance ~etween lhe homea was 17 feet, with a few being ~~xtremely far apnrC. Commisaioner rarano then noted that perhape the aub;Ject pro~erCy was not 2.S density land, and Commiasi.c r Compton inquired what the ~~eveloper's opinion was in th~t regard. Mr. Millick again appearFd before the Comm~ry°+nn repre~enting Anaheim Hills, Inc., and etated that cnnvexting from the originally-approved R-2 tract to the R-1 proposal was perhaps one of the probl~ms; thaC the developer was proposing to conatruct the eame product as was constructed gt Woodcrest I and II; that they were trying to trade off in terme of the width opposed to the Hctual uRe of the lota; that Che developer had f.ound Chat with hia particular product which he had been selling in this area, he did not nead to have a wider lot; thaC the idea had been not to have wore land in the aide yards but to have it where it was really more usabl.e; that the developer. hr~d laid out the lats to get more premium in terms of vi.ewe; anc7 that, in his opini~n, the density wao academic because thp pruject was below 2.5 dwel~.ing uni.t~ per acre. He suggested looking at the project it~elf. and not the technicalities. and e~tated that the ad~acent tracta conatructed by the developer had been very aucceaeful as far as sales were concerned and, although Chere were ordinance violationa, it was g ueablo product. He furtner stated that he did not agree with the suggesCion for a moratariwu on hillside development aince the City S:af£ was working diligently on thoae guidellnea. Commiasioner Farano noCed Chat h~ was not in favor of the requested varianae b~r_ause the percentage of narrow lats wae Coo hi.gl~. Aseiatant Development ServiceR Dir.ector Runald Thampaon noted £ar thQ Cowemiesion that if the developer had made a prop~eal f,ar RS-5000 zoning, most of the waivers would have been eliminatEd; and that the urea was d~aignated on the General Plan f~r Anaheim Hills for low-mediu+n denaity and one of the zanee which implemeneed that clensity wae R5-5000. ~ ~ MLNUTI:S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ June 24~ 197~~ 74-~Z~3 ENVIRQNMENTAL IMl'ACT RGPORT NA. 129 ~ VAFtIANC~ N0. 2610 ~ A1lU TEIV~rn1'IV~ MAl'S OF TitACT NOS . ;;';55 (ItEVISION 3~ ANl) 845¢~REVISIUN_,2,~„ Conti~yc+~,_,________.._ - In rQply ~a questinning by Commiaeloner King~ Mr. Th~mpuon advised that ct~e petttionarA hud th~: right to peCitlon for whatever zoning they wanCed and that the petitioner in Chie caee had requeated the R-1 Toning. Commiasioner Compton ci~ced that wfth (~5-5000 zoning, if there were too mnny lute, che petitioner w•ouYd etill naed waivere and~ thRreupon~ Mr. Thompaon noCed Chat the petition~r might want a c~ntinuance to ra-work the plnne. Mr. Rogers atated that if. Chey changeJ over Co khe RS-5q00 r.oni.ng, the pro~ecc would atay the same ae far ae the n~imb~r of lota wae concerned; that they had a~sumed ttie davelopment propoeal ehould be for R-1 zoni.ng; and that thelr ad~acent trncte had bo~n k-1 und khe eame w~ivers had been raquo~ted and granled for the eame product. Coaaniseioner Morley noted that he did not see where granting waivera of tha other Crac[e ehould make iC right to grant kt~em un tt~e aubject tracte. Commieaioner Faran~ offerad a motion, ae~onded by C~mmi~sioner King and MOTION CA1tRIED (Commiaeioner Herbat being abagnt), that L~nvironmentnl Impact Report No. 129, augplemenCing mneter GIR No. SU, having becsn coneidered thia Qate by the City Plunnicig Commiaei.on and evidence both written and oral having been preaented to aupplemenc auid draft EIR No. 129, the Planning Couuniaeion believes that said druft EIR No. 129 doea conform to the City and State Guidelic-es and tlie State of California Environn-ental Quality Act and, based upon euch inf.ormation, doe~ hereby recommend ta the City Council Chat they cerify said EIR t3o. 129 ae in compliance with said Envirunmental QualiCy Act. Commiseioner Farano offe:r~d Kesolution No. PC74-128 and moved f~r ita passage and adoptian to g•rant Petition fur Variance No. 2610, in part, grantin~ wnivere a, d~ e and f on the basie that the hillside topography ~uetified deviatiune from the "flat land" development aCandarda as delineared in the R-1 Zone, and the propoaed deviatic~na apply only to a r~elatively small percentage of the total nu~tber oE lota; tt-at watvers b ~nd ~ were with- drawii by the petitionar as evidenced by the revise~ plana, ae submi.tCed; and denying waiver g on the Uaeis th~t the propoaed ~?eviation appliea to too manq lota (4UX of the total) in the development. and that althuugh rhe waiver of minimum lot width to Che south si~e of Canyon Rim Road was granted for the development immediately to the east, tt:ere ia na ~ustification to perpetuate the eame waiver an so many lots in the subject pro~e~.t; tihat the variance is granted aubJect to compZetion af Reclessification No. 71-72-4k and aubmisaion of revised Tentative Mapa of Tract Nos. 8455 and S~s56 and spproval thereof by the Planning Commiasion and/or City Councii; and aiib~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the for.egoing reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONFRS: COMPTON, FARANU, JO~iSON, KING, MORLEY, GAUER NOES: COt~AtISSIUNL~RS: NONG ABSENT: CO1~L"SI3SIONERS: t1ERBS'T Commiasioner Farano offered a motioa, aeconded by Commiasioner Morley and MOTIOI~ CARRIED (Commissioner Herbat being abaent) Co deny Tentative Maps of Truct Nos. 8455 (Reviaion 3) and $456 (Reviaion 2) on the basis Chat the Planntng Commlasion granted Variance No. 2610 in part and the tract nu~pa a~ submltted would not be in agreement w~.th aaid Variance as granted. RECT.ASSIFICATION - PUBLI:, HEARING, INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, N0. 73-74-61 204 F.ast: Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; proposing that property deacribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel ~f land canaiating of approximately 23.7 acres having a frontage of app~'oximately 720 feeC on the south aide of Imperial Hi.ghway, having a maximum depth of approsimately 1100 feet, and being lo~ated approximately 3000 feet northwesterly ~f the intersecL'ion of Orange- thorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway be reclaseified from the COUNTY A1 (G~NERAL AGRIGUL'~URAL) DISTRICT to the R-A (AGRICULTlJR.4L) ZONE. No one appeared in oppoeition to aub~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to [he Planning Commission dated June 24, ].974 was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutea. ~ ~ MINUT'LS ~ CI'1'Y PLANNING CQMMI3SIQN ~.iuna Z4 ~ 1974 74-294 i'.ECLA3SIFICATIQN V0. 73-74-61 (CnnCinued) It w~a~ notad Chat the eubir.ct property wae ennex~d to the City of Anaheim un May 3, 1.y74~ end wne a portion of the "Orengatharpe-Ni.xon Fraeway Annexation" And appr~val af l•t~ir rec.l~e~iFication would estebli~h tt~a Clty of Anahaim R-A hold:ng zona peadinR appxoval of soma dovelapment c~~nQ at a future date. THE PUBi.IC lIEARING WAS CI,OSG~D. It wae noted that Che Director of Uavelopm~nt flervicQe had determined that ttie propo~ed activity fel'1 within Ctie defiaiCion of Section 3.Q1~ C1ase 1 af the Cit,y of An+~l~eim Cul.dsline8 to eha Requirc+mente for Ail F.nviranmental Impact Repart and wae~ tharefare~ ca~Cegoricnlly exempt Erom the requirement to filo an EIR. Cammi~Aianer Marley offered Resol.ut{on No. PC7~+-129 end movod for iCe pas~age ~tnd adopClon Co recomaaend t~ the City Council approval of RRClsesification Nu. 73-7G-61 to Qotablieh the City of Anaheim holding zone oa the eub~act ptoperCy pending approval of dome~ devel- npmunt zone aC s fukure date. (See Re~+olution Book) On roll call~ thes ~oregoinR reeolution was peseed by Lhe follawing voCa: AYE3: COMMIS~'L4N~RS: COMPTON~ FAltANO. JOFiNSON~ KING~ MORLEX, GAUER NOGS: COIYAIISST.ONERS: NONE ABSENT: COhQdISSIONERS: HERBST ENVIRONMENT.4L IMPACT - PUBLIC NFAFtING. TH': WILLIAM LYON COMPANY. 356 San Miguel DXive~ 1tEPORT N0. 107 ~uite 201y Newport Beach, Ca. y2660, Owner. Property deecr.ih~ed as: (REVISION 1) An irregularly-ahaped parcel of land cotaeieting o£ approximatel,y 23.7 acres having a frontage of appraximately 720 Eeot on the vouth RECLASSIFICATION side of 'Lmparial Nighway~ hnving a maximum depth oE approximately N0. 73-74-62 1100 feet~ and bei.ng located approxlmxtsly 3000 feet norehwester].y '-'~ ~T of the interser_tion of Orangethorpe Avenue ~nd Imperial. Highway. VARI.~c~iCG N0. 2612 Property presentl.y claesified R-A (AGRICULTURAL) 2~JNE. TEN'IATIVE MAPS UF REQUE3TED CLASS?.FTCATION; POP.TION A- RS-5000 (ONE-FAMILY) 7.ON~; TRACT NC1S. 8511 PORTIOK B- R-2 (MULTT.PLE-FAMILY) ZONE. (ItEVIS20N 3) AND 8707 _ REQUE~TED ~~~0 FEET OFEANRR-b ZONE ANUI~(B)pREQUIRED ~MASOtNRYWWTAHLLN AIiUTTT.NG Ati ~t~A ZONE, TO ESl'ABL?SH A~6-UlIT, kS-5000 ZONF.D, SINGI~E-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PORTION A AND A 170-UNIT, MULTIPLE-FAt~:ILX RLSIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PORTION B. TF:NTATIVC TRACT RFQUErTS: ENGIiIEER: TOUPS ENGINEERING, T.NC., 1010 Nortk. Main Skreet, 5anta Ana, Ga. 927Q1. S~~~ect properry ie proposed to be aubdivided as follows: Tentative Map of Tract Nn. 8511 (Reviaion 3) - b R-2 zoned l~ts,; Tentative Map of Trs~ct N4. 6707 - 26 RS-5000 zoned lots. Approximately six peraons indicate~. their presence In opposition to sub~ecX petitions and upon rec~eipt of a copy of Che Staff Report to the Plann~nR Comn-iasion daked June 2k, 1974, the full reading of said Staff R~~~ort wae wai.ved by the upponente. "lthough the S~aff Report to the Planning Commiaebor. wae not read at ths public hearing, it ib referred to and made a park of the minutes. I~ was tioted that on November 26, 1973 the Planning Commiesion approved the Tentative Map of Tract No. 8511 and Reclas~ification No, 73-74-27, propoeii:g the establiehment of a 232-unit, m~~ltiple-family rzsidential developmant~ and those petit'.ona wero in con~unction with VariancP No. 2565, which gradted waivers eimilar to those pra~ently before the Commission; that on November 19, 197G~ the City Council coatinued the aforementioned p~etitions to allow the petiCi~ner an apportunf.ty to aubmit revised piana in order to pravide It5-5000 zoned luts on the northweeterly eaction of aubject property and to confine the propoaed condominium development to the more aoutheasterly portinn; and that aubae- quently those petiCiona were ref^rxed back to the Plaaning Commisaion for readvertising attd rehearing. ~ ~ ~ MINUTE3, CITY FW-NNING COMMISAION~ Juna 24~ 197G 74-295 ENVIRONMEN'CAL It~'ACT RGPOR'f NU. 107 (REVISION 1), RBC;LA9SIFICATION N0. 73-74-62~ VARIANCE N0, 2~2 ~, ANA T&NTATIV~ M~PS QE TRACT , OS K VI~,SIwO,~ 3) I~ND_ B~,Q,~_~ottk,inue i~ Mr. Peter Ocha, I:xe~cutiva Vlce P• oside.nt o: The Willi.am Lyost Company, tha devaloper, app~ared befare th~ Comanienion and reviuwed thn hintc~ry ~f Cha propoeed development of eub~ect property and doecribud the revi.ead plaae pxeeently b~fore the ~ommieaion and the land uese ad j oining tha eub~ec:t property. Ho 6eated Che City Coun~i.l had not boan in Eavor o[ th~ previuuely-propused traneiCion be~weer, the wub~ect property and the axisting RS-S000 tract Co thP nArcl~woet• and that by li~htening the dnne~lty on thac portion of the praperky, any truff~c probl~ms would also be reducad; that r.hc- overall denaity hed bnan apprnv9d previoudly by thw Planning Commission for 232 unite and thn~ present propuesl wab fot 14i. units ~ ur a reduction ~f 36 unfte. He revlewesd r.1~e deneities for the varioue Jwelling unit typoe in the proJQCt and stated tha d~tnoity f.or tha mulCiple-famlt;~ r4si-- dantlal portion of the development would be 11.95 dwelling units per. acre. Mr. Jerry Schult~~ 192? ~ldar Gl~n Circlcs, Anaheim, appQared before the Commiseion and etated the City Council hud ~aade eome very distinctive reroarke conc~rninq the projact which was previousl.y pr.apooed~ including r.hat the pro~oct wae a poCettr.ial sl~m; that thg only change The Lyon Campany had made to the pro~ect eince that tima was to conetruct a buffer zone conoieting of 26 RS-5000 Y~omes; that a Gonnci.l mdmber had also euggeeted a proJect more in line witl~ RS-5000~ revisi.ng the pro~ect to lower tha density and using better cons truction. In xebuttal, Mr. Ochs etated the City C~uncil hnd r~ached a unanimous dec:lsion regarding th~ai.r direction xo ~,roceed wirh r~vlsione~, and the developer had neked the Council at thAt meeting to d efine what their widhes wa~~e and that che developer had pro;.~eded in Chat diraction Co the pl.ana presently being propaaed. He further stated thaC one of th~ let tets in oppoaition had urged ~he Cummission to ~aes the matter un quick~y to the City Counci 1 and that nc~ more continuances be gr.anted Co ths buil.der and, tn rebuttal, he atated tha t the prop~sal met Che r.eecta of the City of Anahei.m; that many of the people who bought in the Orchard project could not a£ford to buy there or in the proposed pro~ect .oday; that the peoplP of Anaheim were being forced out of the i~oueing market; that the developer would be ffieeting the neede of the Ci.ty with whaC hr. felx wae good, quality ccnstcuction; that hy blending the denaitiea an the sub~ecC property to create a smooth tran~±tion be- tween the exi.ating and propused d~velopment, and etaying vithin the General. Plan for the area, they were meeting the re~l nEed thaL• e;tisted in the City. Mr. Ochs then requeate.? to be allowed to go on to the City Gnuncil to present the revi5~d plana there. It was noted that five letters in opposition had been received. TH~ P'UBI~IC FIEARING WAS CLOSED. In zeapona e to queationing by Chairman Gnuer, Mr. Orha stated there werP two exita from Che proposed development at the south; that the traffic had been reduced by approxlma tely 500 trips per day by changing the denslti•y an~ that Che szxeete provided were for the needs of th e people who would liv~ in the dev lopmenG. In reply to ~ue~tioning by Commissioner Compton, Mr. Ochs stnted that The William Lyon Company ownQd the R-3 property to tt~e south except for wtiat the 5tate owned for highway purposes. ZoninR Supervisor Charles Roberte noted that the 11.95 un:te per net acre applied to 1 7.81 of the tota.l 23.6-acre pai~cel, and included all of the multiple-family eype development. Mr. Uchs stated that tt-ey ~:era achieving an average denaity for Portion B of 11.95 dwell~ ing units rer nPt acre, ttowever, any area might be higher than the average density. In re?ly to queationing by Cammisaicner Con~pton, Mr. Ocha ataCed there was a main recr ea- tton area which wa~ approximately one-haZf acre in size, in addition to a"t~t lot" $nd Commissioner Comptnn suggeated reducing the numioer. of residential buildings and enlar~ing the recrea tion areas. Mr. Ochs then stated that they felt the recreation areao were more than auff icie~t and were consideYSd adequate accotding to the standarda, and that r_he main area cou].d eaeily accommodare 225 to 250 residente and the RS-50Q0 portion of Che proposed developmen t would not be a part of the homeowner.s association for u~e of the recreation areas; that they were having severe costs in the development of the pro,~ect and would pxoba~ly break evea ar be marginal, and The Lyou Company believac: in inveating tremendou~ amo~inta for landacaping their pro~ecte. U ^~1 • MrNUTES~ CITY PLANNING I;OtR~1ISSI0N, JUn~ 24, 1974 74-296 ~NVtItONMENTAL IhII'ACT RLPORT N0. 107 (REVI.'~7.ON 1) ~ RF.Cy~ASSIFLCATION N0. 73-74-62, VARIANCE N0. 2612~ ANU T;ENTAxLVE MAPS OF TRI~, T OS ~§,~, REVISIQN,.,,~3 , AND $70 Continu d~ In reply to queationing by Commieeioner Murloy, Mr. Och.a etated they would prefcr to develop tho R9-5000 p~rtion of tl~e pru,~c+ct first~ tha d~uplexee eecond~ etc. ~ t+acause of the uCilitioe lnvolved. In reply to y~~e5tioning Uy Conmileoioner Farano. Mr. Ocl~a acntecf thnt tha density £or the ' total. pra~ t.:t w~s 10. 5 per not acre or 8. 3 per gro~s ar_re. Tha Plann ~.g Cor~uniseion antared into di.HCUeaion regarding the RM-aGOQ Ordinanco wrhich was ocheduled ~'~r Clcy Counc•il conalderat~ on June 25, 1'a74~ during which CommiReioner Farano n~~r_ed thr+t r+cCion on tha eub~e~~ propoaal ahould ba withhald unti.l the new ordinanca wne consldc~red since tha CiCy Cuuncil mtght pref~r RM-4UOQ, in whi.ch case the propoeal ~~ould not i~e in conformance, and that although he wae ~not very enthueiaetic about the prooosRl, ~f Che City Council approved the RM-7600 Ordinance, he would have to vote for the pr.opc~~flJ., Commieyioner Johnson noted thAt there sc~emed to be a~'i.ecrepnncy betw~an what the developer had in~nrpreCed f•rom the previoua City Council public t~eari.ng on thc subject proJect and what the actual Cil•y Coun~il minukes und lettera of oppoeition recel.ved indicated. Mr. Ochs stuted that many commnenta that were drawn from the Anal~eim tiills pro~ecC which w~se coasidered ut ttiis meeCing cc~uld have indicated sc>meCh3ng rather than Che concl.usion that the Commissionera urrived at and this was not unc:amQaon; that enginearing~ etc. , was very costly; that l~e was intereyted to knuw what the 1;ity Coun~:il would like to see, alr.huugh he felt Che developer had worked with the Council's wishee on the matter; that th~y were not in the bueiness just for fun; ar-d that there wae only one body that could answEr to wliether Che plane fit Che Council's wishes :~nd he felt said plans ware in com- piete confurmance with whc-t was euggested by that body. Commisaioner Compton noCed ~het the praposal would provide houeiug for the low and moderate inco~e rangea; tt~ut the develuper had laid ~ut a reasonaole buffer for the exiating RS-5000 tract; that if thc tract was developed entirely RS-~OQO, the low anci moder3te income familieo coul~ not pur:.liase them and he c:~ould question where. tkiose peopte would live; and~ i.i: his o~ tnion, the develaper had made an attempt to caeet the need nf the City. Mr. Schultz apFeared again before the Commission and atated evEryone needed a place to live; thzt two years Ego he was not in a poeition to purchase a home of any kind; that there w~re ar~rtments and there were homes and he was not opposed to condominiuma in particular; however, he would J.ike to aee well-deaigned and constructed ho~iea; that the exiating Lyon trnct was inferior in deaign and conetruction to anything in the reat of the Canyon and Che homea in the area were valued fr•~m $65,000 to Y100,000 and tbe proposal woul.d place $20,000 condominiuma acrosa tile street.; that iL• the type pro~ect propased was consistent with tl;e area around it, 'i1e w~uld have no abjectiona; And thaC he would suppott good q,uality in a practical plsce. Commiosioner Compton than noted that if the City did not provide for low and moderate inc~~rte houaing~ Che federal government would do so at the taxpayers' expense. Mr. Schult~ sCnted tt-at his ob~e~.tion way based on the quality of the conatru~tion and the d anaity. Mrs. Janlce J~nes~ 191/+ c.ld~r ~~ =:- Circle, Anaheim, appeared beiore the Commisaion in oppoaition to sub~ect petitians aad etated that the IOW-COSt housing could be placed some- place el ie in the City• Mx. Ochs then stated that over half of their huyers were be•ing diaqualifiea becauae of low income level. Commissi~.,ner tto:ley suggested that the ~omma ssion continue the eub~ect pubZic hearing for the outcome of the City Council c~~neicleration of the RM-3600 Ordinance. Thereupon, Commiaeioner Farano offerF:d a mation, seconded by Commiesioner King and MOTIO'.l CARRIED (Coimnisaioner Herbat being abaent) to reopen the public hearing and continue renaideraCion of Environmetital Impact Report No. 107 (ltevision 1), Reclasaificstion No. 73-74-62, Variance No. 2612, and Tentative Mapa of Tract Nos. 6511 (Revision 3) and 8707 to the meeting of .uly 8, 1974; as discusaed. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CI1^! PLANNINC COMMISSION, June 24, 1974 74-297 RECLASSIFICATION - I~UBLIC HF.ARING. INIT'iATED BY THE ANAHETM CITY PLANNING COI~4tiSSION, NU. 73-74-63 20~~ KasC Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim, Ca. 92H05; proposing that ptopurty deecribed u~: An ir~:egularly-ehapad parcel of land cundieting of approximntely 1]. acres having a f.rontage of approximately 400 feet on tha norCh eida af 5~nta Ana Caiiyon Road~ hnving a maximum depth of approximaCely 1008 f.eet. end baing located ap~rox.tmately 2300 Eeet west of the cenCerline of Mohlar Griva ba rAClASOifind from the COUNTY A1 (CLNBRAL AGRICIILTUItAI.) DLSiR1CT to the R-A tACRICULTURAL) ZON~. No one appe4red i.n oppc,r~itlon to eub~ecC petition. Altli~ugh the Staff RcNort to Cha Plc~nning Commiaeion dateJ June 2b, 1974 wae not roc-d ah the public hearing, it ie rof orred to and made a part of the minutes, It wae noted thnt Che eub~act proparty wue anne,xed to tt~e City of Anaheim in Tanu~sty 1973 as a portion of "Santc- Ana Canyon No. 4 Annexation" und approvalTO~V~~tli~f 3ame~davelopment would establish the City of Anaheim lt-A holding zone pending PP zonp at a furur~s date. THE PUBLIC HCARING WAS CLOSED. Tl• wae noted Chat the Director of Qevelopment Ser.vicea liad determined that the propa~ed activity fell within Che definitioci of Section 3.01~ Clnsa 1 of tha City of Anaheim Guldelinea to the Raquirementa for ~n Environmental Impact Report and wae, therefare~ categorically exempt from ehe requirement to f ile sn L+IR. Commianioner Compton offexed Resoluti.on No. PC74-130 ~i~d move3 for ite paesa8e and adoption to recormnend to tha CiCy Counci.l approval of Reclassif tcntion No. 73- 7~}-63 to eRtat~lieh L•he City of Anaheim holding zone on the eub~ect property pending appruval ot eome devel- o~ment xone at a future date. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution wus paased by the £ollowing vote: AYES: COrIl~tI.SSIONF.hS: COMPTGN, FARANO, JOHN50id, KING, MORLEY, GAUER NOES: CO@4~tISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HEI2.IiST CONDITIONAI. USE - PUBLIC iiEARING. BURTON MORAN PROPERTIES, 2912 Colorado Avenue, Santa PERt~iYT N0. 1474 Monica~ C~. 90404, Owner; OMEGA PROllUCTS CORP., 606 Chalynn Circle, Orange, Ca. 92666, Agent; requeating permiasiun to ESTABL~SH A STUCCO PROCESSING FACILIT"Y oa property described as: A rectangularly-ehaped parcel of land consi~ti_ng of approximately 1.0 acre having a frontage ~f approximately 190 feet on the norCh side of Vi~ Bu.rton Street, having a maximum depCh of appr.oximately 23U feet~ and being located approximately 470 feet weat of the centerline of State Cullege Boulevard. Property presen~ly ctasgified M-1 (LIGHT INDUS'iRIAL) 20NE. Two peraona indicated their presence in oppoeition to aub~ect patition and, upon receipt of a copy of the Staff Report to the Ylanning Co~mmission dated June 24, 1974. the op~oneur_s waived thE full reading of said Staff Report. A1L•hough ~he Staff Report to the Planning Commission was not read at the public hearing, lt ia reierred to and made a part of ~hz mi~iut~~. Mr. John Shepphird~ Attornay, reprar~Enting Omega Products Corporation, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiaeton and requested that the Staff Report to the Planning Commiseion dated June 24, 1974 be made a part of the record since he had no further comment tv make regarding the proposal. Mr. Charlea E. Bradley, representing Bryan Induetrial Properties, Inc., appeared before the Commiseion and atated his comyany wished to go on recoYd as opposed to the subject petition for the reasona stated in their le tter dated June 'l4, 1974. Mr. W. E. Allen, 1805 Via Burton St~ee.t, Anaheim, appearad before the Coamniaeion and etated t~e owned the property to the west of suh~ ect property; that he had ~.ived with United Par~el for eome time and found it unpleasant, howevor, lt wauld be heaven compared to the proposed facility; that there had b een a lot of trucka in the nrea, however, Che trucks that wovld be involved with the proposed operaCion would comp~icate the traffic and he would strongly opposp the petftian. ~ ~ MINUTL3~ CI'PY PLANNING COMMiSSION, lvne 24~ 1974 74-298 CUNDITIONAI. U9E PEItMIT NU, 1474 (Conr.inued) Chairman Gau~r nc~sd thut he itinderstood the United P~rcel faciliCy wae a conforming use and thut it wae a distr.ibuting ftrm althuuKh it did huv~ Crucking invul~vad. Ln rebuttal~ Mr. Shepphird etuted he had not heard any epecific ob~eckiona to tho propoeul; that the operaCion was designed eo that no duet or mater.ial antardd the atmoephero; that tha APCD had givan thnir approval wh~ch wus require:d prior ta conetxuctinn and an additional approval wuuld be required following conetrucCian; thAt the operation would be a completely encloeed ci.rcuit and once the raw material entered the pl.ant it would leave only in packagea; that khey would huva approximataly three employ~sae, and three dal.iveriee of materi~l would be iaade per month with an estimuteri sevPn pickups of matarial per day which, in his opinion~ would not cr.eate an adveree traff.ic ~sltuaCion in rl~e ndighbcrhood; that ic~ viawing the athar operatione 'ln the ar.ea~ many had o~~~.door eCor.aga and Cha propaeed oper~tion would have ite full operatinn, including etorage~ ineide thn plant; that i.t woe probable that the objectiona to tl~e propoeal wero Uased on misco~iceptions about the operation of th~ plant, which wae not che cypical opgi•ation ueually conducted out in the desort; and that tt-ere wauld ba no impact on the neighborhood ar tha environmQnt thereof. Mr. Roy Lauer. engineer representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and etated the Los Mgelea operation wae presently being dieao.lved followi.n~ 45 years of operation; that that plunt was within eight bluckt~ of ~he Los Angeles Civic Center and was 9SX porf~ct; and that the oPc~ration ln Los Angeles paralleled Che proponed operation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~;D. Chairman Gauer noCed that the main ob~ection was the dust from the trucke, etc., and Mr. Shepphird atc-ted that extreme safeguarda were taken ao that there wae no du~t from tha movement oE the trucks; that the loading and proc~esing of the materials was a11 done in- aide t}~~_ plsnt and it was alwast 100X aseured thaC theze would be no increase of dnat in the are~; Chat if a package ~~rc~d accidenCally drapped off a truck, it would be rare and would be pickeci up in a mat~e:: of minutea. Commissioner King inquired if tt~ petiCioner had checked other locations which might be more remote f-or the auU~ect operation, and Mr. Shepphird indicated that the sub~ect location met a11 of the requirementa of the petiti~ner. Commissioner Morley inquired regarding the noise that wauld be generated, aud Mr. Lauer discussed the vsrious machinery and vehiclea whtc.h would be used at the eite, which included trucks, pneumatic pumps~ air-proof eilas and hoppere which would be co~'ered with canvasa. Mr. Lauer stgted L-here would be I.ittle noise generated f.rom the sand trucks othec than the ordinary hum of the motors; and that the proposa]. was not a terrifically high-powered operation. Chairman Gauer noted th~it perhaps more study and information was necessary in order to make a aound decision on the matCer, and CommisAioner Compton concurred and stated that when the final inspection was made it would be too lats to deny Che appli.cation and also that an FIR might be necessary to make a determination. Commissioner Johnaon inquired if the petitioner cou?9 provide the Commieaioii with the name an,i addrESa of aome comparable opexationa which could be viewed in ordex to assist in making ~ decision, and Mr. Lauer suggeated Upco Corporation-Selectile, located at Marguerite and 17th Street ir~ Long Beach aud Dixon Chubbuck Aseociates, 11815 East SJ.auson, Santa ~e Springa. Commisaioner Johneon t}ien atated that tlie Commission was tryi.ng to he fair to the petitioner as a buainesaman; that the Commieaion would like to look At similar opera•- tions aince if an EIR was f~Lled, it might be unfavorable; and that the Comm~isaiun was not promieing a poaitive vote but at leaet they would be ~ble to vote properly. Mr. Robert BiUle, Preaident of Omega Products Corporation, appeared befoxe tne Commiasion and stated his businesa wae not a trucking firm; that his plant would be up-to-date and could not be compared with the La Habr.a operaCion,which was referred to ici a letter of oppoeition, with respect to dust since his operation was better or he would not have attempted to start the new plant at the propoaed location; that hia product could compare with the La tlabxa operation only as far as manuYacturing was concerned; and that '~ hed subm3tted a11 of the plans and apQCificatione by whi~h the propoasd plant would be constructied. ~ ~ MINUTES, CI'~Y YLANNING COMMI35IUN, June 2/~, 1974 ~4'299 CONDITiONAL USE PEKATI_'r N0. .147~i (Continuad) In reply to questioning by Mr. Shepphird~ Zoning Supervisor Chaxlea Rab6rte advised that any additlot~al informati.on which could be providad to allevinta somo of tha environmenr.nl concerns of the Plnnning (:ammiseion would be appreciated. Cammieqioner JnhnAOn offere~l a mQCiun~ secanded by Commiaeionar King and M()TION CARRIND (Commie9lonc~r Herb~t beic~g absent), to raop~n the public hearing and contiiiue coneidez•.-- Cion of Yetit.ton for Conditional Uae PermiC No. 1474 to the meeting nf Ju1y 8~ 197~~~ .ln ordsr tt~at aome ~f tha Planning Commi.aeioners r,ould revi~w similar facilitlea in the f ield. [tECESS - Chairman Gauer daclarad n reca~e at 4:17 p•m• RECONVFNE - Chairiaan GuuAr reconvened the meeking at 4:27 p.m.~ Commiesionar fioxbet beinq absent. ENVIRONMEN'CAL iM'ACT -• PUBLIC HEARING. UUNN PROPERTIES CORPORATION, 2009 ~ast Edinger Avenue, REPORT N0, 12? Santa Ana~ Ca. 927U2, Uwner; requesting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM HEICHT - ! OF BI.OCK WALL, (B) PERMITTED USES YH THE M-1 ?.0?~E~ (C) MINIMUM VAR]:ANCE NO, 2613 BUILDING SETBACK FROM AN ART.ERIAL HIGHWAY, (D) MINI*fUM DIS'TANCE BETWEF.N FF. .F-STMIDING SIGN3. (E) MAXIMIJM NUMBER OF F~ZRE-•STANDrNG SIGNS, ANU (F) LOCATION OF FREL~STANIDING SIGNS TQ CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING S~RVING THE GENERAI~ PUBLIC on property described ae: An irregularly-ehaped parcel of land conaisting o: appruximntely 1.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 268 feet on Che wagt sidp of Magnolia Avenue, having a maximum depth of npproximatel,y 224 feet, and being located approximately 900 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Property presently c.laseified M-1 (LICHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONE. tlo one appeured ln oppoaition to sub~ect petiti.on. Although the Stc-ff Report to the Planning Commisaion dated Jun~e 2b~ 1974 was not read at the public hearing, it ia referred to and made a pnrt of the m±.nutes. Deputy City Attorney Frank Luw~~y noCed for the Commisaion that Coaomiasioner King hAd filed rs Declaration af Conflict of Tntereat at the May 13, 1974 Planning Cotmmieaion meeting in conne~tiou with Reclassification No. 73~-74-55 whi.ch included the sub.~ect property, and that said document was on file with the City. Thereupon, COMMIS5IONG~R KING LEF'T THE MEETING AT k:30 P.M. Mr. William Gray, Vice Presi.dent of Dunn Prop~rties Corporation, appeared before the Commiasion and displayed plane of the extcrior el~vations of the propoued structure, as well as floor plans. Ae stated that the ~ntended u~-e was for an A1Zst~te Inaurance Company 1oca1 claims office; that 103 parking stalls were propased on CI1P, aite, 3 of which would be under a canopy; thaC the building was aet back 30 feet ta accentuate the greenbelt; thac a block wall would be consCructed at ~hP north property line, 8aid wall to s~rve as a shield fnr the proposed Delco water treatment plant; that the 6-foot wall would be set back to the righC-of-way line; that the atructure would be a concrete tilt-up with pro~ec- tions in concrete and glase; and that the atructure would be 1n keeping with the architec- tur~l t.heme of the induetrial park located to the weat. THE PUBL.LC HEARIN3 WAS CLOSED. In reply to questicning by Commiasioner Morley, Mr. Gray atipulated to withdrawing request for waiver of Che maximum number of free-etanding aigna. which w~uld eliminate the need for waiver of the miniaum distance betwec:n free-etanding signa and location of free- standing aigns, since the developn,ent could live with only one free-atanding sign to identify Che induatrial park which wo~].d not front on a public atreet and they would be eatiefied with the sign to be placed on the propoaed building. It was noted that on May 29, 1974 the Planning Commieaion recomQnended EIR No. 123 to the City Council for certification, eaid EIR having beEn submitted in conjunrtion with Reclaseification No. 73-74-55 which included the subject property. ~ ~ MINU'I'ES~ CITY PLANNZNG COMM'[SSION, June 24, 1~74 74-30Q F.NVIRONMEN'~N.~ II~'ACT REPOKT NU. ~2_~AND V,.,~~C& NO 1 (Continued) Comml6eioner Morley oft cr~d Itc~olut lon PC74-1:~1 and moved for ite paeongc~ and udoption to grant Fetition for Varinr-ce No. 2613, in pnrl, grnnting waivor of tho maximiim height o£ e block ~ral.l on tha bnsi~ that eaid wall would e~rve Co prutect and/or buffer the M-1 z~nod praperty to tha north since the hc~rein requeatod ueQ wae gen~rully a r.ommercial uee; grnnting waivere of Che parmiCted uaes i.n the M-1 'l.ona and minimum b~~ilding setback fro~n c+n arteriAl hi~~~~way on Clla ba.yis tt~st the parcel. to the Routh wao recommendAd ~or. C-1 zoning by the ~..unning Commieaiuu on May 29~ 1974 and, therefore, the requeeted uAa and eetbxck would be c:uu-patJ.b~.a and would provide a txanRitiun betwean axlating M-1 prop~rCy to the north and the Appraved C-1 devolopmc:nt to the south; that the petitloner etipulated to w!thdrawal of th~ three waivere por~nining to eigne and to complianca with the Sign Ordi:tance; and ~ubject Ca condition9. (See Reeolution Booki On roll call, th~ forc~going resolution was panned by the inllowing voCe: AYGS: COMMISSIONERS: COMPTON~ FARANO. JOHNSON. MORLEY~ GAUER NOBS: COl`41ISSIONERS: NQNE ABSENT: COMMISSION~:RS: HI:RBST~ KING COt~QYtISSIONGR KING Itd-ENTERED THE COUNCIL CHAMgER AT 4:35 P.M. AMENDMEiNT TO :ITLE 18, -- PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED IIY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING AllTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS COA4IISSION, ~:04 F.aa~ Lincol~~~ Avenue, Anaheim~ Ca. 92H05; to consider an amendment to Tit1e .lA which would raquira the granting of a canditionel u9e permi.C for the conetruction of xutomobilc~ service etaCions in commerr_ial and indueCrial zones. 'I~ao pereone indicated their presence in opposition to sub~ect amendment to the Municipal l:ode. Planning Supervisor pon McDaniel presenred the Staff Report to the Planning Commiasion dated June 24, 1974 and said Staff Report is referred to ao if get forth it~ ful.l. in the minutea. Ma. Euneatu Richardaon, representing Weatern 011 & Gc~s Aesocl~tion, a trade assuciation located at 609 South Grand St:eeC, LoK Angeles, appeared before the Co~iasion and read o prepared staGement directed to the propo~ed changee 1n the Zoning Code, the statement referr.ed to the proposal. dealing with conditional use permits and also restriction of the number of aervice stationa ae interaectiona and requiring an agree~aent to rec~.ove a etation var.ant for a period o£ a year; that regarding the conditional uae permit requirement, the Asaociation was unaware that a conditional uae permit was required of any other retail. buainesa prior to site development; :.;.at if euct~ a reatriction was placed on a aervica staCion, its application would not only be unfatr and improper but would work counter to their desires; th~:t in~tead of e:ncouraging the upgrading of existing faci].iCies, they had found ChaC the requirement inhibiced or diacouraged desirab~e u?grading activity; that according to the State Board of ~qualization sCatiatica, in 1968 there ware 241 active service ~takiane in the City of Anahelni and in 1973 there were 2~7, or a decrease of 24 atations in a five-year period; and that in view of the recent and current new conatruction trenda, it appeared obvious [hat there would be very few new atationa for which this would ~e effective. Ms. Richardson continued that the cundikional use permit had been used as a regulatory device to impose atandarda on uses infrequently found in a community or in a particular zoning diRtrict. l.e., hospitals, power substations, ceme~.eriE~, mortuaries. schoola or ott~er unusual uses poaing apecial problema i:i plr~nning and zoning that truly juatified the requirement for a conditional uae permit; that an automobile aervice statio~ was a common and frequent neceoaity to the way of life; that since it was a uge that had been developed with some frequency~ it geemed reasonable to ask that a co~nnunity, by ~~xdinance, require fair ar-d reac~onable etandarda which were a matter of law and wi-ich applied equally and conaistently to all land uaes without excaeaive publlc h~aring and the imposition of arbitx'ary de~~elopment standards. She requ2eted that ~utomo~ive service stati.ons be lieced among the permitted uses in the various co~nercial district:; and, further, that auch use be permitted subject to certain reasonable etandards that wc~31d be Racertainable ae the time a building permit was requeated; that, in their opinior., this recommendation conformed to the intent and purpose of the proposed Zoning Code; and that as an alternati~ve to the • ~ ~ MLNUTES~ CI.TY Y1.ANNING COMMISBION~ Juna 24~ 1974 AMEND~tENT '1'0 'CITi.I~ ~ 8 AU'fOM09TGL~ S[~RVICE STATIONS (Continuea) 74-301 conditional. uee permit requirement. thay strongly recomnended that the City's C;ode enforce- ment cnpability t,e util.izad. In referrit~p~ to the proposed changea relative to rastriction of numbar of eervice etationa at an lntarsactian. elte indicated that. tl~te waa morely an erbitrary menne ~~f con~rol and questioned the legA1 ri.ght of thQ C~.ty o£ est~blish an arbiCrary form~il~ eince Aervi.ce etutione were rot differenr. fram any other ratail escab- liehm~nt in that sp~cif.ic coneidorat~une euch as vehicular tr~nffic flow~ number of credit card -~oldc~re within the area, proximity to high-deneity areas and eocial and economic factore were xl.l important locational coneideratione; and thxt the right of nn oil company~ ar any other rc~tail establishmcsnt, Co decide whc~re and when to riek their capital ehould ba of very eerious concern to everyor~e; tliat regarding the proposed one-year maximum vacancy, they would have no ob~ection to tl~ls stipulutioii provided it wnd als~ applied C~ a11 reCail facilltiee and propertiea and they saw no nead for new ac.d edditio«al legisla- tton eince regulr~tionA nlready uxiated for dealing with a public nuieanca or dangerous bui.ldi.ng. Tn conclusion Ma. Richardaon etated the City would be sub~ecting itaelf Co cexcassiva public llearinga; thaC arbici~ary developmenl. oCandurde ehould be replaced with an atfective enforcement capability; thaC thay believQd it might be worCh the tirae to mur.ually explore a better anforcemcnC progrem; thaC Chey hed found the Code enforcement capabili.ty CQ be extremely eEfecCive i.n dealing with service etation r.e].ated problema and thnt by cloee coopArariot. ~~*_~aean the s~rvice ataCion operaCors and the Code EnforcemenC Officer~ thay could work eogether to avercome niany oi the probl.ama; and thAy would reapectfully request that the City coneider Che Asaoc:l.ation's recommendation as an alternative witii regard to the proposed changes deuling with condiCional. use permita and alao the restric- t~on of ti~e number of service statione aC an interaection. Assistant Planner Robert Kelley noted Chn~ conditional use permita were required f~r ol-l~ec uaes, such ~s drive-in restnurants in all zones. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised regarding the conditiocial use permit method for approval of r.he aervice skatioi~ that in view of the Supreme Court's ruling, conditional uee permits were permissible to conttol eervice eCation uses since it was conaider.ed by the Supreme Court to be an undeairabl~ use itt some cases and in some placea within Che City and in view nf that deciaion, the City Attarney'e Office ha~i no basic objecCion to the use of the condition~l use permit methad at thie tima. That regarding the abatemen[ of service etations within one year~ the enforceabi.ltty of that section would rest upon the right to contract purauant to the agreement with the develuping oil company and tl-at i.n ttie absence of such an agreement the validity might be doubtful. Chairinan Gauer noted that had there been a Service 5tation Ordinance earl er, there would noC have been so many ubsolete service atntione constrvcted in Anaheim. He questioned whether the CiCy of Palm Springc~ uaed a condiCional uae permit procedure for service atatiune, and Mr. McDaniel z~oted that 5U% or greater of the Orange County c:itles pr.esently requir.ed a conditional use permit for aervice stations. Commiesioner Farano noted Chat he underatood that the oil companies considered one aervice ataCion for every .t500 populatian was normal. Mz. Ken Denny, also representing Western Oil & Gas Aasociation, appeared before tha Commisaion and atated that the ratio cited by Co~mmissioner Farano wae a good ratio al- though the figures might vary; that very seldom did the compan~ies go on a ratio per capita per service station; that there were many factors in determi.ning where a service atatian would be located such as tho3e not neceaearily related to the nt:mber af people but the number,of people in combina.!:ion with credit carda, traffic ~low, general density, etc. Commiesioner Farano then computed that if there ~aere preRently 217 se~cvice atationa in the City of Anaheim with a popuS.ation of 180,000, that wou~d be one service staeion for every 829.4 people. He staxed that he had }~ezaonally discuased the results of the recent oil. crisls ~nd the iropgct upon citiee, Cheir inhubitante~ etc., and had b^.n told by rather BubsCantial executi~~ea of oi~ companiea c;~at they ware taking a nQw look at the credit cerd app~coach; that their regulations ac~d approach toward grant~ng the uae of credit carde were becaming much more dis:riminating ti;9n before; and tY~ey would not bs nearly so generous; that he did not kncw there was a drep in the number ef servlce stationr~, howevsr, in hie observatione most of thE service stations were simply going out of buaineas for one raueon or another; that tt-ere was aub~~cantial infl~-~4e in determining whether a servlce etation continued to operate and this ~uight be determined by the presaure that the oil compatiy brought upon the indivi.dual aervice atation uper+~COra or by the c ~r~my, Cheir ~ ~ ~ MINUTE3~ CITY PI.ANNING ~OMMi.SSIQN, June 24~ 197k 74-302 AMI:NDMPNT TO TITLE 18~ AUTOMOAILE SERVI.CE STA'fi0N8 (Continued) uwn control or thc manner in which Choy conducLAd Cheir bu~inaes; that in rACant timae he hud nat expertenc~,d any nrtl.on that l~ad such r~ profound effect upoct the econoQy and the inliabitnnCR of the (:ity, ae the oil crieis and the waiting lines at the eoxvic~ etations~ tt~a unavaL1ab11iCy of varioue typae of fual; thut with the ubility of. the oi1 companiQS ta exerc:ise thi~ much contro.l and impuct on the Clty and i.te inhabitante, the cltie~ and inhabitanke eliou]d be nble to protec~~ Ghameelvein agginet the impropnr uaes ChaC might follow of eervica otatiocie, againet the blight and re$ultant effc.et upon property values Erom cloeed eervice etatione, that ttie CiCy ahould take a look at the mannar that the aervico etatione were located~ whera r.hey were locat~d, and how many were allowed; that he did nnt know if a conditi~nal use permiC wns tiie beat approach, h~wever, tha Coum~iseion had epent a lot of ti.me with it and it wauld appear to be tha moet saneible approach that he had sean eo d~tc+; that while the ec:onomy was noC a proper baei~ for conaideration •ln a zonir-g actiun and L'he eeCabllshmenC of a zoi~ing ordinance, in hie opinlon~ witti the potential itaFacte Chat induotriee could heve ~n s ciCy the city muet take el•eps to pr.otect itself by ugQ of zonin6 to prevent any future harm to iCse.lf by propprty deCerioxation +~nd vA1ue; that the cunditional use perml.t w.~s the only tool availabla aC tiie ptesent time, alChough i.t might not be tha b~st, Co make cextain that service etatione were l.ccated and the land uses determined based L.pon the beat and most b~ nefit for tt«+ City; and that in ordcsr to do thie the CiCy wuuld have ta cot~aider each aervice station on its own merit through the conditional uae parmit procedure. Commissioner King inquired if Mr. Uenny could point oux a~iy earvice •~`at;.ona L•hat had bepn aban<'ioned and utillzed later for an attractive bueiness~ and Mr. Denny indicated there wae one in Snn FranciACO that was usrd for a church, and that there was one in Orange County on Lincoln Avenue which was being used :Cor a florist or nursery, which he coneidered Cc be very attracCive~ Cocnmiesi.oner lCing then noted that the Commisaian was reminded of the Arco aCation on the southeast corner of Anahaim Boulevard and North Street that wae boardad up with wires around it to keep people out, and which was not very attractive £or tiie Cit~~ Chairman Gauer noted thr~t thete were severa] service etatione in the Northeaet Industrial Area Chat were boarded up. Mr. Dsnny stated thst many aervice atations were owned and operated by private individnals; that, in Los Angelea CounCy, out of 178 servi.ae stations~ 14 were conaidered to be abaridocied~ one of which was owned by the oil company; that out of the rema~ning 13 abanduned service atations, all of them were elther owned by a private ~.ndividual or other agency, i.e., churchea, inaurance companies, etc.; that generally if oil company service etatians were cloaed they ware pending sale or there was a lease etipulation whereby the oil company could not move in any fashion to do anything with the station and in those inatances the leasea were usually approximately 20 yeara old; that t~e recent leasea did not have those problems und ~bandonment wae only approximately five years old; that with the new leases there were stipulatlons that the oi.l compani,~s had the right regardlesa tio take over the property, remove the tanka, etc., and return L`::. property t~ i.ts original configuration, or as close as poasible, in that e:vent; that they were emphasizing the Code enforcement capability because through their dealiciga with the Code Enfurcement Officer a considerable number of things were being accomplished and he respected thaC there were problema which faced the City and the conditional use perm:lt would provide certain an.ttwere to some of the problems; that the diacuasion was not about new aervice akations being conRtructed but exisCing servi.ca atations where ttie operutora did not maintain them ira a reapectable manner; that in a recent a~irvey, he had determined that in the State o~ California Chere wer.e 35 federa.t ageacies, 24 etar.e agencies, and a number of county and city agencies which governed the oi1 companiea fr.om a merchandising, taxing, and employment etandpoint; that he d•!d not believe the oil companiea were really as guilty as everyone likecl to believe; that he did not beli.eve that thc~ conditiongl use permit would re:solve the inter- national problems; and that his recommendation would be to deal with the City of Anaheim in the er-forctment capability as well as explore other avenues. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PI.!-NNING COI~4~IISSION, Jutte 2G~ 1974 74-303 AFf~,t~UMByT TO ~„I'~I~ 8~A_UTOMOBI ~„3~RVI('E 9TATIO,~iS (Continued) Mr. Lowry r~commanJed tliat the wording oP pnragtaph 7. Nection (e) ~f A~pendix I to rHad ue folluws: "(e) Automobile aervice atatione. Ae a condition for the Rcanting of a c:onditianal use permit for an Rutomobi~.a eervi.co etation, the eppllcant sha11 agree in wr.itin~ to remave the etructures 1o Cltie avent thr~t the oervice etation ie cloeed for a period of twelve connecutive monthe. A servlce etation Ahall be coneidered cloead durl.ng any manth in which it ie open for laer+ then fifCeen days." Commieoiunor .Jolu~eon note3 Chnt if he were in tlis oi~ bueineea and wae faced wikh the p~sgibility at having to tear down hiA building~ he would conetruct a minimwu building to begi~t with; und thut the present sltuation was a blight to the City. Commissioner King ~~~:..~ ~~~at ha would want to be eure that the ~ opoaed Code funendment wrnild not. ba di~criminetion; thar he felt it could be diecrlmine~kory ana ~ould leac! to trouble b~acause the Cl~~y might not be treating all bueinesses tt.e same. Mr. L~wry advieed that the Supre.me Court had anewered that conaern; howevar, regardi.n.g the abatement of vacant serv.lce stat~ons, khe City Attorne.y`n Office wsa cAUtioning that such an ordinance, ae present~:d, if applied onlv to servi~~ etati.ona m~.ght be co:~eidered dia- criminetory and, therefore, might not be enforceable. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS C'LOSED. Commiseioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC74-132 and moved for its paesagP r,nd adopCion to recommend to the Ci.ty Counci]. adoption of amendmei~t tu Title 18, Zoning, of Che Anaheim Municipal Code, as set forth in lppendix I, and that paragraph 7, section (e) bt amended as recommended by the City Attorney's Offi.ce. (See Resolution Book) On -011 call, the foregoing resolution waa pase~d by the following vote: AYhS: COMMISSIf)NE1tS: COMI'TON, F.'~RANO, JOHNSON, MORLEY, GAULR NOE5: COMMISSIONERS: KING A$SENT: CON4~lISSIONF•kS: HERBST AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ° PUBLIC HEA~tI~VG. JNITIATED BY TH~ A23AHL~IM CITY PLANNING OFF-STREFT PARKING COt~iI3S70N, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; REQUtRE[4ENTS _ to consider an amendmeat to Title 18, Chapter 18.28, R-2 (Multiple-Family Resid~ntial) Zone~ Section 18.28.050, Site Development Stnndards, Subsect~on. (10), Off-Street Parking Requirements. Standnrds applicsb].e to the R-2 %one also apply to the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone. 1~ao persona indicated their presence in oppoaition to sub~ect ~iunicipal Code amendment. Planning Supervisor pon McDaniel presented the Staff Repert to the Plannang Commiasion dated June 24, 1974, and sa~d Staff ReFort is referred t~ As if set forth in full. Mr. McDaniel noted that the Planning Commiseion held public hearing on ()ctober 10, 1973 and reviewed a study prepared by the Development Sarvices Department ak the Commiasion's direction and recom~ended to the City Council that parking standardo in multiple-family ~onea be increased in order to meet apparent inadequacies; that the Ci.ty Council continued hearings on the Commiesion's recommendation to July 1974 in order to assess poteritial impact of che propoeed Traneportation Control Plan o£ tha Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which was acheduled to be heard in December 1973; Chat it kas determiued at the EPA hearing that: said Transportation Control Plan ahould have no impact or a minimal impact cn regulationa now under coneideration by tha Cit,y. He reviewed rhe nazure of the survey that was conducted by the Development Services Departme*_-t which wae to determ~.ne what factore might bQ implied in the apparent defi.ciencies in park~.ng requirementa, and noted that as a result of that survey and aurveys of some other Orange County cities, Staff was recommending a change in the current R-3 parking atandards to require 1.5 ~tgl.la par unit for one-bedrnom or lesa units and 2 atalla per unit in the two-bedroom or greater units; that the r~commendation was a sliqht r.e-gllocntion of otalle and the over-all net effect would be to incre~-ua the numbet of sCalls for the typical apartment complex. ~ ~ MINUTES, i.IT'i FLANNIiJG COMM'.[SSIUN, l~me 24, 1914 74-304 AMENDM~N'1' '1'0 T?TL~ 18. UFF-STRH,BT PARKIi~G REQUI}t~MFNTS (Continued) Mr. Cared Smitti, 2043 Waetcliff Ullve~ Newport Beach~ ap~earcd before the (:oarniseion and stated he did noC have uny application pendi.ng ot on f i.le witt~ the City nf AnahQia~; tt~et the aurvcsy conducted by the City was not comprehanai.va enough to provide adc:y~~~te inf.orma- tinn slnce a respunAe had onl.y benu receiv~d frum 150 of thoae pal.l~:d; tt~et ther~ was no queet3on thut Kame pro~ects~ depondinp upon their makeup, hed inadequata parki~~;. hawever~ ho believed that t!~• propoeed parking ordinance woul.d atill be inadequate in c~rtain situal•:i.~ns; tt~at cumpJ.exes primari]y made up of Cwo. three and faur-bedroum unita would have inedequate parking and there would be more end tnore of thie ei.ze complox bacauea of the coek of houeing; thal• complexes primarily made up of one-bedroom unite, 2SX L•eing bechelor unite~ there would be an exct~se uf parking in the projecte; thar. tie uae basing hie etatemente on etatintical data preeented by Bitmingt~am Dev~slopery~ howevo•r, no data wae provided regr~rding three-badroom or greator unite; that regnrding guest parking~ lese than 20X of the reaidenCe would have guests at the same time and aG any given time Chere wou~d be lOX vacancy due to paople being e:C work~ taking vacations, or vieiting peoplR olsewhere, ~tc.; thaC he waa interested in having adequate parki.ng; nnd Chat it r;osts less to put !n parking than landscaping, however, it wga waeting property to put in blacktop opposed to green area and nny coets were always pasaed on to ~he renterK. Mr. .Iohn Millick, repr~eenting Anaheim Hills~ Inc., uppeared before the Coimnisr~ion and el'ated he raould d~fer hiN comments to the nexC iCem on the agenda. In reaponse to the oppo~ition, Mr. McDaniel. advised that Mr. Smith's rttt.it.ude was that ~~~e pi•oposed increase in parking was stil~. in8dequate, however, in SCaff's optnfon, lt would depend upc~n the allocatiun of parki.n8 more than anything elae; and that the parking was recommended to be in two categ~ries rather than per unit and a eurvey had indicated rhere were relatively few threa-bedroom units. Mr. William S. Phelps, 1095 North Main StreaC, Orange, appeared before tne Commieaton und atated he was faced wi.th deep, mixed r~moti.ons regarding the propoaed amendment; Chat the auggeationa made by Staff were exce'llent and there was nothing derrogatoried os undisci- plined as had come about in other cities; that regardi.ng ratioa of parking to density, m~ny times parking suffered becauae of this; that the proposal was an excellent way ~o secure density/parking; that he had never found it difficult to design a pr.oject in the r,ity und meet the t;ode requirements, howevpr, there were many times when he co~ild hnve added more parking but because of the deneity factor he had redLCed the number of apaces hecause it reduced his number of unita, which was economi.cally wrong ~iccording to the developer; that there were many ways in many areae of Anaheim where there were odd lots and the parkinq requirement became a star.tlin~ siCuation where to u~eet the Code and every phase he could get 20 units and 40 parking space~ but with the 40 spaces he increHSed his alley to s~~ch a poink where he could have ~nly 16 snits; that there should be aome con- sideration by a11 concerned thaC if 20 unit~ and 30 parking epaces were there, based on 1.5, then any other apace would be a"bonus" to thP City, thE development and ever~thing, and was c~ definite Advantage to the tenant nnd the inhabitant,+ of Anaheim; that it aeemed atrange that more parking could be provided but in a few plac~=s they had bpen hurt density- wise; that the propoaal waA adequate, howe.e~', he would appreciate some diacuseion and consideratiun of the "bonus"; thaC regarding the compact cars, more paxking could be added through this consideration which was preaently being practiced in the City of Fullerton and one space could he added for every 9 regu]ar-sized car spaces. Cummisaioner King noted that, in his apinion, Sraff had pu~ in a lot c~f work on the proposed amendmeut and they had done about all that could be clone to make the requirementa proper and correct. THE YUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commisaioner King offered Resolution No. PC74-133 and moved for ita passage and adoption ~o adopt and recommend to the City Council for adoption, :mendment to Tit1e 18, Zoning, Secti.on 18.28.050(10) Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, as recommended by Staff. (See Resolutlon II~ok) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONER5: COMPTON, FARANO, JOl~1SON, KING, MORI~~Y, GAUER NOES: COA4IISSIONEP.S: NONE ABSENT: COP41iSS.'.ONERS: HERBST ~ J ~ MINU'CES ~ CITY PI.ANNING COt~tiSSION. June 24, 1974 74-305 AMENDMJ'sN'1' TO TIT1.F. 18. - IUDLIC H~ARINC~ INITIATCU SX THE ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING CAItA(~C SBTBA4KS AND CON4tISSION~ 204 Eaet Lincol.n Av~nue, Anat~eim, Ca. 92805; PAkK1NG STANDARUS to cAnaider amcndment~ to Title 10 pertaining to aite developmenl etandardA of ane-~amily residentia.l sonee - Caraga Aetbacke and parking etandardg. One pereon indicnted hls presence i.n ~pposit~on to Bub~ect Municipal Code ~-mendmenl. Asaociute Plflr.ner Bill Young read the Staff. Keport to the Plunning Cotumieaion datad JunP 24, 1974~ and eaid Staff Rep~rC is referred to and mada a paxt af thN minutes. Mr. Joim Millick. reprc~senting AnaheLm Hil]e, In~c., appeared before Lhe (:o~iaeion and addressed himeF:lf Co the R-1 detached nnd R-2. or attnched, houeing and some 1'UDs wi.th "zero" lul- 11nes. He etated ~hut unleEi~ the street widthe were reduced nnd pflrking lanas eliu-inated in t:he righti-of-way, tl~e r.esult would be 6 parking spacae per unit which he felt wse very excesaive; thar he felt there ahould be n trad~-off and it the developar pxovided the parkl.ng oNaces then there nhould be aume reliaf 1n the road; that xhe road reduced Ch~: gr~as area and Che developers were penallzed for lt; that wikl: 6 parking epaces, the City would be nRking for residences with garagea ta turn them into hobby ehoFs and would also be encouraging etreet parking; end that iC was very easy wi.th 2 spaces in the drivewn,y and '2 in Che street to malce the qarage into a storage place Lor junk. He raviewed the "Gallery" development and stated i£ the prop~aed amendment wax adopted us writCen, the City would not hsve that kind of land plan that had a lot of landscaping; that he disagreed with the findinga made by the City Staff eurvey; that he liked to aee th~ setbscks broken up and that he wanted to see abaut achieviag thie by eliminatlnR ~ne parking lane off the collector road and having parking ~n one side only, and this would not encourage the residents to use Caeir garagea for storr~ge; that tt+a setbacks could be allowed wtCh a certain perceutage being 25 feet and anuther percentage at 1A feet, etc.; that with the proposed amendmnnt, as written, the developers woul.d either develop the 25-foot setbacks like "soldiers in a row" or there would be icuaginative land plans with v~,riance requeats; and that the propeaed amendment would not allow for creative land planning. Mr. Young advised that Mr. Millick was referri.ng Co PUDs which were presently hnndled under thP conditional use pera-it~ snd other zones, ra~liEr than one-family, detact~ed zones which the proposed Code amendment pertained to. Mr. Millick atated that in the R-?~ detached developments they could havP a simllar situa- tion referring to the hillstde natirre that would be involved; that every timE they came in with a plan on a flat land basis, they euded up with variances; and that the deve~.opere did not like "side-or~" unless they had a site where they were forced to do so. Commissioner Morley noted that. providing parking on ~ust one side of the street would be diacriminaCing, and Mr. Millick stated that with the viewa Chat were a part of the Anaheim Hills developments, the resale or appreciatton fnetor would not be etfected by the parking. TNE PUBLTC HEARING WAS CLOSED. I.n reaponae to comments made by Commieatoners Morley and F'arano, Planning Supervisor Aon McDaniel noted that in ehe past tlier, had beer_ diffiaultiea in using the tect~nique of percentagea since it wRS applied uniformly Chroughout a particular zone; that the propoaed amendm~n[ pertained to single-family developmenC and while the. technique of percentagea might be applicable for townhouse or multiple-family development he was not sure it would work iii a aingle-f,aa-ily subdivi.aion; that re~arding the effeck on the exieting or approved d~velopmenC cu'trently in the mill.; ther~~ was a l:ii~y Counatl policy which allowed the City AtCorney's Office Co make a dete:cminatian as to whether the davelopment could develop under the old or the new regulati.ozis and this determination wae made in a11 fairneas with circumatances being considered. Commisaioner Farano ofXered a moCion, seconded by Commise:l.on King an~i MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioner Herbst being abeent), to aet a~~ck aeasion to discuas Che subject amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code for Jiily 18, 1974 at 7:00 p.m. in the Counc3l Chambers. Mr, Jerry Crowther of Pacesetter Homes appeared before the Commission and atated although he was not prepared to apeak on the sub~e.ct maCter, he was prebently conetructing severa~ RS-5000 trac[~ in Santa Ana Canyon and hc: would like to he present when the aub~ect metter was considered again. He further atated that site planning and lati.tude for breaking up fr.ont setbacka ~aes critical. Commissior.er Farano offered a motion, seconded l~y CommiesionEr King and ,10TION C.ARRIF.D (Commiasioner Herbst being abaent), to r.eapen th~ public hearing and continue considera- tion of the prop~aed amendmeat to the Anaheim Municipal Cade to the meeting of Ju1y 22, 1974. ~ ~ • MINUTE;i, CITY PLANNIN(: COMMISSION, .7une 24, 1974 74-3U6 ENVIRONMt3N'rAL IMPACT - R~qupet for upproval - 1'roperty lncz~ted between La Pqlmo Avenus RFPORT N~~. 11.9 nnd Eeparan~u Road, approximritely 1-2/3 milos eaet of Imparial - Highway and prapoe~~d for development o[ '1'entetive Tract N~. 74].7 consieting of 90 roaidential lota zoned R-2~500Q. The Steff Report tu xhe Plaruiing Commieaion dated J-ine ?.4~ 1974 wae preaeneed; and eaid StafF Report i~ raFerred r~~ ancl mede a part of the minute~s. Mr. Cal Qunyrc~l~ Pre~ident of Anmcal Engineerinq ~ompany wiio prepared the aub~ecC Environ~ mentn~. Impect Report. ~-ppeared before Che Planning Commisa~on in eupp~rt of t;-e EICt No. 119 documenC. it w8s noted that the sub~ecC BIR waa caneiderad by Ct~e Planning Commiaslon on April 1S, 1974~ at which time iC wae recommanded thut the Gi.ty Council ce~tify said EIR wad in complianae with the Cnvi.r.onmental Quali.ty Act~ sub~ect to the rec~ui.rement thnt ndditi~onal information about rhe railroad noiso bo submitted ~nd tliat the applicant coneider and include in tlie RIR Ghe methode Co be used for. protecr.io~- of the rer~idences :rom said railroad noiaa. SuUsequcntly~ on May 7~ 1974, tiia City Counci]. referred thcs E1R Uack to Che Ylanning Co~iesi~n for i.i.r.luston of the additione-1 noiee inforn-ation prior Co cerCi- fic~C~on and, in compliance t:o tl~jit raquirerne~nC, the applicant eubmitted a report from a coneulting fi.rm stating khat thp eiCe tvas unucceptuble in its preaent state eccording to the HUD Kuidel~ne~ far noise asoeasment and that lt would be necessary to erect a line-of- sight noiae barrier between th~ railroad and the aite and tu include speclal ineulnr.ing and ventilating conetruction techniques in the homes in order to %eet the HUD criteria~ ancl a letter was recei.ved from the Placentia 5chool DisCrict recommending that 'fentative Tract No. 7417 be planned for occupancy no earlier than Januc~ry 1976 in or.der to coinci~le with the opening of a new elemenCary achool _or the area. Commisaionet Morley of£ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Compton and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst beic~p abaent), Chat Environmental Impact Report No. 1.19, havi.ng b~.~en considered this date by tl-e City Planni_ng Cammission sr.d evidence both written and oxal havin~ been preaented to supplement said draft E'tR No. 119~ and sald Report having been modified to include the infor.mation reyuested by the City Council, the Gity P].anning Commisaion believea that said d:af~ EIR No. ?.19 does conform to the Ci.ky and State Guide- linea and Che State of California ~nvironmental Quality Act and, besed upon auch infor- maClon~ does t-ereb,y rPCO~nenJ to the City Council that they certify eaid EIR No, 119 ie in compliance with said ~nvironmental Quali.ty Act. REQUEST FOR ET.R - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1111 - Property locr~t..d southeast NEGATIVE DEGLI~1tATION of the interaection of KatellA Av~nue und State College Boulevard and prapoaed for develupment of a 50-unit motel. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Planning Commiasion that on December 26, '_973, the City Council reviewed the appl.icant's request for an Nxtansion of tim~ for Condi.tional Use Perinit No. 1111 on the subject property and withheld action pending aub- miesion ~f an Gnvironmental Imp~ct Report or a Negat•lve Aeclaration; that the applicant was requeating a Negati.•~e Declaration; ~ind that a review of the initial etudy indicated that the pro~er.t would haae no adverse env'_ronmental impact, Cherefore, Staff ~~as recom- mending tY-at a tVegative Declaration be approvpcl. Commisaioner Conpr.on offered a motion, seronded by ~ommiseioner Morley and r:OTtON CARRIED (Commiaeioner Herbat being abaent), that the Planning Commission recommenda to the CitS• Council that the sub~ect pr.o~ect be exempt from the requirement to ~repare an F.nvi.ron- mental Impact Report pursuant to the provisiona of the California Environmental Quality Act, REPORTS AND - ITRM :10. 1 P.ACOI~ASENDATIUNS REQLT~ST rOR EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION - For Grading '- Permit for industrial aike on the northeast ccrner of F'ee Ana Street and La Palma Avenue. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts n~ted for the Planning Coum~ission that tne s~~b~ect pro~ect was located in the Northeaet Induatri~l Area and the prapoaed development wuuld be coneiatent with the Anaheim Geueral Plan; that the pro~~ct aite was zuned R-A, with a Reaolution of Intent to M-1 under Reclasaiflcai.ion lvo. 6~-70-39; that tha site w~xs ~eve]. ~~~ `J •w~ ~ MINUTI~,S. c:I'1.'Y PLANNINI; COFII~lISSIUN~ .Juna 24, 1974 L'fL~M NU. ~ (Cunti.nu~d) 74-307 und thera war~~ no dr~luaga problaiaq; and thac the teauance of a grading permit under the~e circ~metannoe would ueuully bc~ c~t.egorlc~-lly exempt from ttia requirement Co file an Environ- meYir.al Impnct Re~ort. huwnvcr, rr,ie~ pr~~oct wae J.oceted within the Scenic Corri~t~r an<i tiit~ Cuidallnee tu the Roquiremer~tN for un Envlronmontal Impact ReporC did not :+llow categariral exception in a oc•enic araa. CommiH~~ioner King ufPu.~d r~ motion, suconclr.d by Commiesioner ~acnno and MOTLON CARRIED (CommiASloner. H~~rbet being nbe~nc)~ thnt the I'lanning Com~nise~lon recommendR to Che City Cuuncil Chat tl~c auU.~ect pco,jec.t Ue exempt from the requirnmNn[ to prupnre an Gnvironmental. Impar.t Report p~ireunnt to tl~~ p~uvisi~ne c~f t:he California~ Envi.~unmantal Quality Act. ITEM N0. 2 AECLA3STFICAm'ION N(.~. 7Q-11~40 - Reyueet to amet~d 1Qgn1 description - Property ~OCAtN(I on the eaet aide of Anaheim tti.lla xnd Nohl Ranch Road~ and zoned C-1 wilh ~ portton re•naining R-A. Zoning Supervi»or (:liarizs !tobette read the Staff Reporl to thE Planning Commisaion dated June 24. 1974~ and said 5tc{ff. CteporC i.s rcic~rred to as if. set forth !n full itt the minutes. Mr. Roberte noted thnt on April 5, 1971, r.he Plnnning Commi.ssi.on adopCed Resolutl~n Nn. YC71.-58 approving RecluaNificntion No. 70-11-40 xnd the legel descr.lption i.ncluded in Chal reROlution wr~a incom ~e since un appr.oxim~-~ely 4-ucre porti~n of the 14.~-acr-~ s1Ce had been omi ttrd; <ind r.hAt the peti.tioner was rey~~er~Cing to amend Che origi.nalJ.y submitted incompletc legal deacription oF tl~e suUject properxy ea ae to ptaperly incliide all. of the property within the (:-1 zoned ~rea. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry Advised the Conm~ission that the legal. deacription could be amenied by re~olution, which would be tha eimplest, quickeat and leaet expenaive for both the City and the developer, however, this procedure would be consi.dered more sub,~ect to attack from a legal stand~oint; or the le~al deacr.iption coul.d be ~mended by approval of formel recl.AZSificntian action covering the appropriate portior-~~f the sub~ect property, howaver, this method would be mor.e time-c.onsuming and expenslve to l~~t•h the developer and the City, but wouJ.d be the most appropriate from a legal etandpoint. Mr. John Millic:k~ reprer~enCing Anaheim Hi11A, In=.~ app~ared before the Co~aisaion and ststed Chey would lika to l~ave t.he matter resolved as qvickly as possible; that the intent Co include the entAre parcel .tn tlie original approvr~l was clear, since the Com- miasion and the City Council reviewed it as a total package; and that the title company had probaU.ly already iasued ttie title polScy. C~mmi~ '~ner Farc~~~o offere~l ResoluCi~on No. PC74-~.34 and moved f.or its paesage and adaption to amend Resolution No. PC71-53 based ~n the fo_~egoing findinga, to reflect the original intent of Che Planni.ng Coanniasion in their approval of Reclassification No. 70~71-40, by deleting there':rom the legal deacript•lon in ~tR entirety and adding a new legal description to r.:rad as follows: (See Teesolation Rook) u.ginning at t.he Nor[hwesterly ;.erminus of t~at certain ~c~urae i.n the buundar,y of said parceY map shown as "N 13~' 44' S7" W 202.43 Feet"; thence alon~g the boundary ~~f said pr.*cel map S 13° 44' S7" G 202.43 feet, S 24° 31' 11" E 62.65 feet, 5 37° 14' OS'' E fi2.80 feet, S 30° 03' 16" E 91.85 feet, S 21° 10' 2G" E J.35.66 fe~t, S 11° 31' S1" E 190.84 feet, S 53° 25' S6" E 39.O1~ feet *.o a potnt on a non-tangent cur~•e co~-^.ave Southeasterly with a raditis of 600.00 fe.et a radi.al to said point bea~s N 53° 25' S6" W, Southwesterl,y along eaid curve through a aenttal. angle of 0° 34' 04" s distance of 5.95 feet, tangent to said curve S 36 00' 00" 'h' 217.73 feet, southwestErly along s tangent curve concave North- westerly with a radius o£ 60q.00 feet through a centrsl angl~ :f 20° 08' 25" a dfstance of 21).91 ~.eet, tangent Co said curvp S 56° U3' 25" W 236.00 feet, N 33° 51' 35" W 115.00 fpet, NorCt~- westeriy alonk • tar.gent .~u~c've concave Sot~thwesterY~ with a r.sdiue c.t ti10.00 feet thraugh a centrnl angle nf 31 58' 33" a distance cf 452.05 feet, tangent to eaid curve N 6S° 50' 09" W 28.10 feet, N 24° 09' S2" E 54.31 feet, Northerly rslong a~angent curve concave Weaterly with a radiue cf 600.00 feet through a central angle o~ 52° 59' 15" n dtetancQ of 554.83 feet, radial t~ said curve N ~il 10' ''~ 45.OQ feet, N 70° 51' S7" E 338.29 fQet and N 83° 25' 15" ~. a.8.59 feet to Lhe point of beginning. Cnntaining an area of 15.91G acrea more or lesa. s • MT.NU'1'ES. CI'I'Y 1'LANN~NC COhAirSSI.ON, Jtinn 24~ 1974 7~i-708 ITGM N0. 2 (Cun~l.nund) On roll call. th~ foreqolrig rcaolution wae pae~~d hy the fo:lowinR voCn: AYf:S: CQP41IS310NEK5: COMY'l'ON~ FARANO, JOHNSON, KLNG~ MUF2LG~Y, GAUL~R NO~S : COMMIS5 iUNf:RS : NO*'~ AIiSENT: C:OPU~fISSION[:RS: HERAST IT~M N~). 3 RBQUGST I~OR FZR YJBC.ATIVS D!?CLAltAT10N - For. Cradfng P~rmit for Aingle-fnmily homesite ut 455 Pernlta Hills Drivn. Zoning 5u~ervie<~r Chnrlea Robarea noted for the Plunning Commiadi~n that ChQ sub~ect proJect eitc+ wad zoned R-T r~nd no zoning action waa rc~quir~d; thaC hhe Cngineering ~ivi~sion hnd I.ndlcated the grading wne Approprtate and no problame were anticipated~ and the grading would involve an eatimated 400 cubi.c yarde of cu~ and 150 cubic yards of fill; nnd that ttie pro,jeck was locnted within the Scenic: Corridor and khe Guidellnes to the RPquirementR for an F.nv~.ronmental Impect Report did not. allow caCCSgorical excE:pkion Ln a acenic aren. (:ortunleeicn~~r King offered a motion, aeconded by Commis~ioner Morley Rnd tdOTT.ON CARRIED (Camuniseloner Johaeon absGaining and Co~uaieaioner Herbst being abse~t), that Che Planni.r~g Commiaoion re~nmmenda to tha City Council Chat the dub1ect projece Ue exempt from Che requirament t•.> prepar~ an Environmental Impact Report purauant eo the proviaione of ttie Culifornia ~uvironmental (~uality Act. 1TGM N0. 4 CONDTTIONAL USE PGRMIT N0. 1463 - Request fur reloc~tion of 6-foot high fence - Property locnted ut 1524 West Mable Street and zaned M-1. Zoning Supervieor Ch~rlea RobErts preaented the Staff Report to the Planning Co~nisaion dated June 24, 1974~ and said Staff Repurt ie referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Roberte noted for the Planning Commission Chat on April 15~ 1974~ the Commieston granted Condition~l Use Permiz No. 1463 to permit the continuation and exNansion of an existing nonconforming contractor's storage yard :~ith waivera of minimum etructur~] setbacka from Broadw~y and Mable Street and maximum permitted fence height; thal- a 6-fc~ot high mai-onry wall wus to be located along Broadway w:'th a 10-~foot aetback and nbutting the norCheasterly pr~perty line ad~acenC to the 25-foot wide ~'ailroad right-of-way; that dur.ing the public hearing on April 15th there wae dic~cuesion cor.cerning the petitione~'s intent to lease [i~a 25-foot wide fltrip of land which wan owned by the Southern Paciiic Land Corepany and ~eperac:ed a purtion of xhe subjecC praperty fro~ Mab1e Street; that the petltioner had secured a Iease ugreement with said Land Co~pany for the 25-faot wide arrip and wae now requesting permission to relocate a portion uf thia approved fence so that ~~ would be located on Che railroad rro~erty immediately ad,~acent to the Mable StrPet cur~; that tlie petiti.oner had fu~rther indicated that the aew fenc~ would conaist of 6-foot high chainlink with interwoven cedar slats, opposed to the aame height mnaonry wnll designated on the appxoved plane; r_hat the petitioner {ndi.cated the readon for relocating the f.ence to the curb line was uue to an existing flood control culvert on tiie railroad property which prohibitad a fence skructure Ueing placed directly over it and, additionally, more of the railroad property cou~d be utili~~ed for stvrage purposea. Mr. Roberte pointed out that if the chain.link fence was pexmitted to ba constructed at the propoaed locn[ion and the driveway was COllBiI'11CC8d~ traffic hnzarde wo~~ld be created, ann tt~at Che railroad properCy ~~as immediaCely behind the curb but tlie petitioner's property ].ine was back :'S feeC from Mable Street. The °lanning Commiisaion entered into discussion wtth Mr. Loiis Curtis, who was repre- aenting Che petitioner, concerning t~e plar.ement of the dri~eway und the danger af having anything stored or parked against the fenc:e Which would obscruct the view from the r+treet, and Mr. Roherta clarified that the waiver of the "no setback" granted by the Com~niseion under Conditional Uae Permit No. 1463 applied to a specific portion of the sub~ect property on Mable Street in the east/weat direct:lon, however, if the propesed relocation of the fence wae behind the proppi•Cy line 5 fae' and landscaped, Chat caulr~ be dane without an additional public hearing. The Pl~nning Comomiasion GENERALLY CONCURRED that the c~ub~ect requeet. ae propoaad, wus not within the intent of the original approval of Conditional Use Permik No. 1463 and that the matter ~ould require a public hearing. ~ • ~w 0 MINU1'ES ~ CI'fY I'1~1NNTNC COMMISSION, June 24, 1974 74-309 REPOltTS AN~ - ITl?M Nn . 5 RGCOMMENnATi0N3 VARIAN~ a N0. 257'l - R~rqueet for clarification of r~ROl~tinn ^~ ~i ~. ,.rovnl No. FC74-•5 - PropArty loc~tod al• the southwaet cornar ot Bn11 Koad and ~upire 3treat. the street a~draee bei.ng 2100 Wnet Ball Ro~d. 7.ouing Superviscr Chorlne Rober te read the Staff Report Co Che Fl.enning Commiseion dated June 2G. 1974~ und euid Stnff It~port ie reEerr.~d Co ae lf eet forth in full in the minutos. ~dr. ktoberle revi~wed Varianea No, 2512 grnnCed in parl• by the Planning Commiasion on .Tanuary 7~ 1~7~~ to permit the expnnei.on af an c~xixCing nonconfurming buildii~g~ bning a residential eCructure ic- Che C-2 7ottie and used for commer~:tal purpoees. Ne noted that tl~e agent £or thcs property owner had Atipulated to wittidrawnl of the originally-roquedted waiver to all.ow u thern{-y And maeaage purlor t~~ operntc. in u reaidenl•ial etructure in tha C-1 Zone; th~-t tha pern~itted limiCed commarcinJ. use of n residenr.ial etructure did nat includn therapy and maseage par lore; that tl~e ng~nC for the peticioner lind f.urChar etipu-• lated to Cermin+iCing tha exisCi ng nanconforming use, being a therr-py nnd masauge purlor, immedietely upon comp.LeCion ~f the davelopment proposed und~r V~rir~nce No. 2572 xnd that tlie bullding would be utilized entirely for gener.ul businese officex rl~erenfter; thak subsequent Co the l:ummlr~~lc~n's approvnl. of Vari:ince No. 2572~ the property owner. obtained a building pecmit to consCruct a tuo-~tory nddiCion to tha property immediotely ad~acenr to the axiati~ig two-story rQe~id enCial structure and due to che Cype of cunstruction of the existinR strucCure, Cha Buitd in g Code would noe permit that thcs new addition be etructur- ally tied lntn tl~e existing ~s identinl etr.uclurP, however~ ir was permiseible that paesage- wc-ye anJ corririors in both buil.'.ings cuuld be tied together eo that thare cou2d be fre~+ move.ment beCween the two portiona of tt~c h~.~llding. Mr. Roberte further noted that xhe petihtoner was requesti.nt, tu de nb].e ta retain the waseage par.lor use on the oubj ~ ct property, EQeling that the new additiou ahould be c~n- eCruPd as a commerci+al building nnd~ conseqiiently, ehould be parmitted aince au~h usea were permitted ao a matter of right An s coromerclal Uuilding in tha C-1 2one. He then noted th~-t r~presentntive~ of b oth the City AttoTne~'s Offiae and Development Services Department had reviewed the pl ane for which Che i,.llding permit wae iasued for the addi- tion and in their opinion l•he expaneion for which hui.lding permir.~ were iaeued fell within the cutagory of. nn expansion o f an exisCing noncpnforming building and waa not construed ae a aeparnte commerclal atruc ture on the property. Mr. Lawrence Gallegos~ the ne t itioner, appeared before the Commisaion and stated he was not at the public heuring for the aub~ect varianc~; tha~ he Y~ad indicated to nis agent ttiat he did not wish to 2pply for tlie vnrlr~nce in hia tenant's behalf concerning the nonconform'.~g uae and therefor e tl~ie reyueated ~ aivtr had been wi.thdrawn; that when the building was completed three o r Eour munth~ ufter the perniita were iasued and the build~ng bro~igl. up to Code~ hia l.ntent was to re-lease the space to ci,~ maesage parlor and h. did not feel h~~ had forfeited his righC Co re-lease; that hia atCitude was tliae when Che buildi.ng Fer~;it was iesued and the pro~ect was begunr it wae found that the whole building could aot be expanded even though Che architect had certified that it war~ built out of wood~ so they retained another architect and new plans were drnwn up and the buildiiig permit was cancelled; Chat th e new architect recomwended that a aeparate and independent building be constructed; that th~ new structure was now approximaCely Cwo montha from completion; that Che oY~ buil_d ing would appear to be the aame as the new one although they ~aere not putting in much expen ae since it would even!ually be turn down; that he ha•t met wi.th the Ctty ACt~rney regard ing terminating the noc~conformin~ use and concluded that because the new building was ~ eparntE~ and entir.ely independent they could legally have the massage parlor in the new bui 1 ding~ however, afCer examining the new plans, it was deter- mined that the new structure was an expanaion. Mr. Gallegos continued by sta ting that if he wauld not be able L•o legally lease the apace ko the massage parlor~ he wou ld request a vnriance or atherwise a liat of items to be d~ne within a Cime period of about one year to bring the entire building up to Code to enable him to lease to the massage p arlor. He atuted that the pr~~perty wae an eyesore previously and taat he was developing it into a bexutiful project; that tt~e massa~e parlot contribi:ted about 75X of hia incom~~ a. a ~...-minating that uae w~>ald creat.e a hardehir fot him at this particular time since ha was preparing to teke the bar Pxamination 3n rebruary 1975 and needed eame additional time. -..J ~ MT.NUT~S, CITY PIJ-NNTN(: CQr41IS5I0N, June 24, 1974 74-310 iT~M NU. 5 (Continued) ' Commiaeionor Harnno onCa.red into discuaei~n witti Mr. Callegoe concerniYig ~the conditions of epprovnl of Vnrluncu No. 2572 end ttia stipulatiuno mxde in bAhalf of tha pot:itioner at L•hat ti.me. Commiseionor Frirano notod r.hat tho inCent wae Co diecontinue thP maesage parlor uAe at tt~u euU~~ct location and Mr.. CHllaqop eCatad that he had chnnged hi.e mind nnd wished to continue Che use in the exieting erructura~ and that an a nonconfarming uee che variance wae no long~sr nppllcaUle sinep the var iance wsa granted to uxpand a non- contorming building. Commiasioner ~at'ann noted tha~ in hie upinion t}~e petitioner, who wus nbAenk ixom Clie public heuring on .Innunry 7~ 1974, wae soizing uPon a c3eC ot cltcumeCanc:ee; tt~at liie~~ ~~. anRwer to allowi.~ng Che d-aKeage parlur to contlnue in the ex.leting buildinQ~ would be no . and that th4 pc~titioner would need to £ile for an additional varl.ance Ca ba al.lowed to continu~ the uee in question, Mr. Gullegos tl~en atuted that hie underetnnding was thnt tha mnseago I>>~rlor wc~i~ld be allowed eo continue in the new building; that he pr esently had a£ive-year lense with the m~esage parlor wl~ich was eigned in October 1973; Chat i.f he had about a year's pertod t~e could e].iminate Che Elnancial situation he wae preaently :tn; nnd thet although it had been stipulnted thaC he wou.ld termin~te tha massage parlor uae, he did not terminate h1s righ-: to chunge his mind. In response eo Mr. Cc-].legos' request for Che City Atkorney'e opini.on in Lhe matter. Ueputy City Atturney Fratik Lowry advised thuC the queation before rhe Planning Commisgion was for a determination of the inkent of the~r previoua ac tion xnd, therefora~ could nor. be re- solved by Che City Attorney's Of.fice. Commiasioner Farano offered u m~ti.on, aeconded by Chairman Gauer and ri0TI0N CARRIF.D (Comm:.saioner Herbst being ubsent) that the ~•equest Co continue tha therxpy and massage parlor uae ~t the aubject iocation ls not in confurmance with the intent of the Plauning Commis~ion's approvaL of Variance No. 2572 aa set f orth in the minutes of cl~c~ January 7, 197k Plnnning Commiesion meeting and in Reaolution No. PC74-5; and that if tt~e ~etition~~r wtshed to pursue rhe requeat f.urther~ then a new variance petitiori would be required. ITEM ti0. 6 MQHL~R llRIV~ AR~A STREET NAMES The Staff Rep~rt to the Planning Commieaion dated June 24, 1974 was presented, and said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of Lh e minuCea. It w~s noted that the s~ibject streets were located in and around the prESent M^'^'^r Arive and Mohler Place aren~ suutti of Santa Ana Cssnyon Road; that Che reaidents in t}..: area were requesti.ng to nau-e several pri~ate streets and re-name severa'1 publlc atreete; that follow- ing s~nnexation of the area, wembera of the Zoning Divieion, Building Division and the Fire Department had met with the area residents in order to determine the iesaibility and deairability of the residencs to re-t~ame and re-number existing public and private streeCs in conformance with City standarda; that it~ was d eter.mtned that numEroue problemr~ existed with the preoenC names nnd numbers and especially for emer3ency v~hicles as well as veli~lcles which onl,y occasionally used the streetsY that the area re9idente liad submitted a list of proposed rtreet namea i.n ar.cordance with City pol iciea and the street nawe and numbering ordinance, No. ).5.08; and that following review ar.~ analyais, Skaff was recommending tl~at the propoaed s;.reet name "La ~oya" be deleeed since it served ~nly on~ houae. ~It ~~ras furCher noted thA'. all of the resi.denta and property ownera were noti£ied by mail of the proposed street names and numbera. Commissioner Johnsun offered a motion, secon~ed by Commisaloner Morley and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioner Herbet being absent), to recommend to Che City Council that the following street numea be appruved for numing or xe-naming, as requested by the property ow-ners on said streets (se~ also "Exhibit A"): 1. Coyote Lane (private) 2. T imken Road (private) 3. Corto Rottd (private) 4. V ia ViaCa ~private) S. Cooks Corner (private) 6. Country Hill Road 7. Old Ranch Road (private) 8. Vistn De1 Sol (private) 9. Grivey Lane (private) ~ ~ ~ MINUT~3~ CITY YI./~NNYNG COMMI98ION, June 2b, 1974 74-311 ADJOURNI~,iNT - There b eing no ~u~cthmx bu~inare Co di~cu~e~ Commie~ioner Morley otfnred a m~~~ton~ oecondad by Com~i.anioner Cting and MOTION CARRIED (Commi.seiun~r H~+rbet ba~ing abeant), Co ad~~urn ~he moating. Tho maeting ~-d~ourned st 7:10 p.m. Reepeckfully eubmitted, ' ' ~ p~"a'~n'.c.d.rt~ ~ Patriaia B. Scanlan, 3ecr~Cary Anahaim C~ty Planning Commisaion PHS:hm