The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/07/080 R C 0 MICROFILMING SFRV~CE, IPiC .. ,, ... , ~ ~ ~ City }1a11 Annhoim, Ce11fc-rni.~ July 8, 1974 REGULAIt MCETING Or 'PH[~~ ANAHEIM CLTY PLANNINC COP44ISSI(1N REGULAR - A regular meeting oC tl~e AnAheim CiC.y !'l.nnning Commiasion weA called l:o MEETING order by Chairman G.wer ut 2:00 p.m., a quorum being present. YRESENT - CliAiltMAN: Cnu~~r - COr41ISSi0NE:RS: .T~hnaon, KinB, Morley ABSENT - GOMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst (It wae noCed th~t new Planning Commis~ioner H~rold V. Tolar was prea~nt, howevcr, hr was iiot ellgible to particlpat~ in tile Planninp Commiseion matter~, purauant lo legal reyuiremente governing Cily officials.) ALSO PRrSENT - Deputy CiCy Atturneys: rrP.nk I.owry MAlcolm Slaugliter Office Engineer: .Jay Titus Planning Supervisor.: llon McDaniel Zoning 5upervisor: Charlea Roberts Asei.stan• Goning Supervisor: Annika Sanlalahti I'lanning (;ommissioi~ Secretary: Patricia Scanlan PLEllGE OF - Commiaeioner King led in the Pledge of A1legiance to tt~~~ Flag of Che AI,LEGIANCE Uni.ted Stal•ea of America. ELECTION OF 'PGMPORARY CHAIRMAN It was noted thaC the term of office for the Chairman of. the Planning Coffiai.egion expired as of June 30, 1974, and that since a full Commisaion was not present, it wo~ild be i.n order to elect a temporary chairman for the meeting. L'ommissioiter Ki.ng offered a motion, sec~nded by Commissioner Mor.ley and MOTION CARRIED BY UNP.NIMOUS VOTG (Commiesioners Farano and HerbyC being absent), that Commissi.oner Gauer be elect~~~t temporAry chairman for tlie July 8, 1974 Planning Commigaion meeCing. ELECTION OF COI~4IISSION SGCRETARY FOR FISCAL YEAR 197~s-75, Temporary Chairman Gauer assumed the chair and noCed that a motion was in order to appoint the Planning CoQ¢nission Secretary for the fiscal >~~.~r 1974-75. Commisaioner Morley of£ered a motion, seconded by Carmmiesiocier Ja}~nson and MOTIOtv CARRIGD BY UNANIMOUS VOTE (Commiasioners Farano and Herb~;c heing absent), to reappoint Patricia B. Scanl.an as the Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion Se~retary for the fiscal year 1974-75. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION OT SERVICE TO FORMER YLANNIIvG CU*41ISSIONER Temporury Chair~aan Gauer note~ ior the Commiseion that it wn~~ld be in order to discusa the mattpr of some formal expreasion of appreciation to foriaer Planning Commi~sioner Compton for his period of service on ttie Planning Commisaion. Commie9loner Johnaon offered a motion, aeconded by Commisaioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE (Co~nnisa~.oners Farano and Herbet being abser~t), that Staff be and ltereby ia directed to prepare ~ppropriate resolution of appreciatior to iormer Planning Commisaioner Gaylen R. Compton. APPROVAL OF - Commissianer King offered b motion, seconded by Commissioner Johnson and TIiE MINUTES MOTION CARR7ED (CommisRioners Farnno and Herbst being ~bsent), to approve Che min~ites of the meeting of June .10, 1974, as submitted. 74-312 ~ ~J MTNUTES, CI'I'Y i'1.ANNING COh1MISSI~N. Ju'_•+ 8, 1;74 INTRUUUCPI()N OF NI:W 1?LANNiNG CUD4118SLONIsR 7~i-313 1'empornry (:t~n:rmen C:au~r inCroduced r:ew Plflnning Commiseic,ner Harold V. ToLur. IC wae noted that Mr. 7~lac t-od been u residc~nt of the city Eor upproximurely 16 yenre nnd ~vae in tt~~ real estute f iold. CNVIRONMENTAI. I.MPAC1' - CONTINl11:U PUBI.IC hEARING. '1'NE WlLLIAM 1..YON CUMNANY, 366 San M:l.guel RFPORT NU. 107 Dr.tv~, 51;Lte 201, Newport Deach~ ~' ~. 9'I.6G0~ Owrier. Property RE:VISION~ dcecrih~•~l ae: Aii irregularly h:<<~c~d parcel of lnnd consisting ot ' __~_. ~ u~~proxi~uitely 72.0 approximately 23.7 acrea he~vl.ng ~ fronta~~~ ~~~ R~?CLASSI~TCATION kect on the south eide of l:~r.perl i!~ tbliw~y, having a mt~ximnm depth . 73-7G-62 cif appro~.Lmntely 1100 feet, ~n~l ~,ing loc~ted approxLmutely 3000 faet northwesterly of Che (~LLer.r~e:cti~~n c~f Oranqetlu~rpe Avenue and VAItIANCE N0. 2612 _ . - imperiul lil.ghway. Prop;~~ Ly presently clr~eaified R-A (AGRICULTU1tAL) ~ __..__ .._._ 7.ON~. 7'ENTA'fIV[: MAPS OF TRACT NO5. 8511 R~QUES'CBll CLASSIFICAI'T.ON: POR'PION A- RS-540i1 (QNF-FAMILY) ZONE (REVISION 3) AND YO[tTION B-!t-2 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY) 7.ONG 87U7 ~~~ ^ IN RCQUES'fEll VARIANCG: WnIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM P~ItMITTEU HGIGHT WITH 150 FGFT OF AN R-A 7.ONE ANA (8) REQUIRT'~ 'tASONRY WALL ABUTTING AN R-A ZONG, 't0 ESTABLISH A.o-UNIT, RS-5000 ZONED, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UGV~LOPMBNT ON PARTYpN A AND A].70°UNIT, MUI.TIPLE-FAMILY RESTDF.N:IAL DEVEI,OPMENT ON PURTION B. TENTA'PIVE TRACT REQUc,STS: GNGINEER: TOUPS ~NGINBERING, INC.~ 1010 Nortti Main 5treet, Sunta Ana, Ca, 92701. Subject pr~per.ty ie prop~sed t~~ be subdivided as follows: Tentative Map of Tract No• 85~.1 (Revision 3) - 6 R-2 zoned 1ots; TenCative Map of 'Pract No. 8707 - 26 RS-500Q zc..~ed lota. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of June 24, 1974 pendi.ng City Council coneidpration of the RM-•3600 Ordinanc.e. Ttao perdons indicated their presence in opposition Co aub~ecl• netitiona and, upon lnqui.ry by Temporary Chairman Gauer., the opponenrs waived the full reading of tt~e Staff Report. Altliough ttie Staff Report to the Planning Commissiun dated July 8, 1974 wae not read at the puUlic hearing, it is referred to and made a part of Che minutes. Mr. Peter Ochs, repreaenting the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and reviewed the past hietory of Lhe proposal for development uf the sub~~ct properCy dating bnck to November 1973. He stated that at the meeting af June 24, 1974, the Planning Commission had indicated they would like to withhold ac:t.ton on Che subject petitions until the City Council took an action regarding the new condominium (RM-3600) ordinance of the City; that he would ].ike to put the proposul in the perbpective of ite historical backgraund rsnd not in the perspective of the new RM-4000 Ordinanc~ that was adopted; that he was pleased tc s~y that the proposal n~et mosC of the requirements of ti~e RM-4Q00 'Lone~ except for three or four areas tt~at were minor and alttiough they did c~~~t meet the exnc.t letter o; the ordinance they would meet the spirit. Regarding density, Mr, Ocha st.ated that originally they proposed 12 dwelling unita per net acre on the subject property und the City Councl~ in their review suggested lowering the density nexC to the exisCing aingle-family tract to the weat, aad that based upon [hat suggestion and the standards of the City, the developer was prop~sing 26 RS-S000 lots and e condominium plan over the balance of the p~opesty; ti~at since the property had been trear_ed ss a whole prior to this time~ it ahould be treated as such at Chie time; that the RM-400Q Ordjnance permitted approximately 10.9 dwelling units per net acre~ and l~oki.ng at the condominium portion af the proposal the density exceeded that to 11.9 dwelling units per net acre, h~~wevPr, by looking at the entire project and i.r~corporating the condowinium portior, with the plans for the aingle- family portion, the density would be 10.4, or lower than RM-4000 density; that they we*e providing for the t:ansitioning of I:he project from the existing single-family tract with the higher denait• portion being placed to Y.he easterly edge away from the existing tract; that the proposa?. was baeically in conformance with the newly-adopted RM-4000 Ordinance; that the pro~ect was well-conceived prior to the adoptior~ of the new standarda; that they h..d been processing the proposed p*'o;ject with the City for almoat a year and had moditied the pLan on sev~~rul. occa~iona at c• ~giderahle expense to the devPloper, with the most recent changes being made at the request of the City Council; and that Chey had pur~~l~~• l the property and proceeded in good faiCh. ~ ~ MINUTL5, CITY FI.ANNINC CUP4IISSIUN, July 8, ].974 74-314 ENVIRONMEN'fAI, IMI'ACT R.[sPpR'l' NC~. 107 (RF.VISION 1) , ItBC1,ASSIFI:CATTQN N0. 13-74-62, VARIAN(:G N0. 2612, AND TF.NTATIV~,_MAPS OF TRACT NOS. 8511 REVISION 3) AND 8707.~ Continued ~_, Mr. Ucha dis~~luycd a c.hnrt indic:~~ting lhe pr.i.ce rangea for tt-c propcer.d pruject~ the mor~thly paymente~ and the requlreJ inc,,me f.ar the {iurchae~~re in LhP project; nnd etuted the middle income ~emlly wae being priced o~.~k uf the houeing market generally; nnd thr~t the pr.opod~L wuuld mnke 1.t poseibte far the uver..Ke reaidenr af Annhelm tc~ ~wn his o~vn home. btra. Jnnlc~ Jones, 1914 Elder Clen Circle, Anaheim~ appeared before the Com,~~idelon a~id etated her obJecti.ona to the prapusal were that the dPvel.uper wea presently constru~:ting 318 unite in Che area whlch were cha~-ply conatr.uctFd; that tr.nific h:~zarde~ and congeation wo~ld be creaCed in the axe:u~ h~pecially etnce Eeper.anza Higt~ School had been op~ned; L'liot she hc~d escaped condomini.um l.iving and did not wnnt t~ return to thaC Cype environment; thaC lota-coat houeirtg wc~e not compatib.le witti the exiAting housing Ln the area nor wao it Ln Che c~ame price range. It was not~d th~t lettere af oppoeition hAd been rec~ived from Mre. We~de Beose, C. Jone~/ Janice Jones. Julie Vurn, and Mrs. Michriel Adamec, ull t'eaidente of the suUject are+~. THG PUBL'IC H1:A1tINC WAS CLOSED. Conuntseioner Morley nuted for the petiti.oner thaC, in h•Ls opinion, tt~e Ci.L•y Couucil and Planning (:ommiesion wouYd like the deneity to meet the requirements o£ the new RM-4000 Ordinance, but not by including the sing:e-family port:ion in the combined total. I.n response to queskioning by Commidai.oner King, Mc~ Ocha etated that the denaity of the condominium portion of the pro~ect was 11.95 dwelli.ng unitr~ per ..et acre. Commiseioner Johnaon took e~cception to tt~e lr.lter au~+m{tted hy Mra. Janic~_.lonee in which it was ~stzted thst "..not c~ne Comwissianer took time to inform himsel.f by reading th~: min~ites (of the City•Council) prior to the meeting even though correct page numbere were given..." He stated Chie was preaumpCion on Mrs. Jones' p~rt but he could aseure her that the Pl.anning Commissionere had read r.he minutea referred to. Commissioner Johnson entered into di~cuseion with Mra. Jonec~ regarding the number of liomes tt~at would be facing Cresthill Drive, and the traffic aituation, and Commiseioner Johnaon noted that the traffic wauld be difficult but neverthPless the City Traffic Engineer l~ad indicated that the ~CrPet would have to go through for ssfety reasons, fire, etc. Commissioner .Iohnson further noted that he would be in favor of tY~e propoen~. if the four- plex units were ic~ conformance wiCh the RM-400~ Ordinance, with approximately 10.9 dwell- ing units per net acre instead of 11.95; that, ici hia opinion, the developer wae giv.tng the purchasers a good buy for their money; that Anaheim was probably obligated to furnish some houses below tl~e $30,000 und $50,000 price range and, otherwise, the federal govern- ment c~ay do it for the Ci.ty and the people i.n the areas concerned would not be granted the public hearings that were granted by the City; however, he would vol-e negatively on Che proposal unleas the densiry c~nformed to the new RM-4000 Ordinance. In rebuttal, Mr. Ochs st:~ted the 1>roposed units were award-winning units; that the Orchard tract sold in the high $''0,000 and low $30,OU0 price range at 7X interest, and thoae people could barely aff<~ d to purch~,;e at that time; that the poaition of his company wae that they had been thro~, ~ several public hearinga before the Planning Commission and City Council and at each hearinp direction had been given and the developer Liad ~ttempted to camply; that while it might mean a negative votea he thoughC it ~aas important Co So on to the City Council to get their current thinking in regards to the development of the prop- erty at this time; and thaC r.he developer could not afford addittonal processing time since tiiey were spenciing a tremendou~ amo~ :t of money for taxes and intereat. In respon~e to queationing by Commiesioner King, Mr. Ochs atated 9 dup].exes were propoaed aad that none of Chose units were ad3acent to anything other thnn the fourplexes. Temporary Chai.rman Gauer noted that, in his opinion, the project was wel.l planned, how- ever, it did not meet the RM-4000 requirements. U ~ ~ MINUT~S. CI'1'Y PI.ANNINt~ CUN~tI5S10N, July 8~ 1974 74-3].5 NNV1tZUNMRN`lAL IMPACT RE~POl~1' N0. lA7 (REVI3ION .1)~ RF'.CLASSIFICA'fTON N0. 73-74-62~ VARIAN(:N N0. 2612, AND 'TENTA'fiVE FWYS OP 'PCtACT N09._ 8511 REVISION 3_ AND 8707 Cont~nued) Commiesioner Morley uffared a m~tion, secondod by C.ommieeioner Johneon and MO'P'ION CARRIEU (Commiaeionera Fareno and Herbat boing abednt), that EnvironmQnt~] Impaak Repurt No. 107, Rnvieion 1~ suppl.ementing mast~r EIR No. 107, ha~-ing be~n conaidexod thie dar.c by L•he City P2aiining Co~maiaeior~ und evidenc~e both wri[ten and oral hav.ing been prasentad to supplement suid draft EIK No. 107. Revi.aion 1, the Plnnnrug Commiasion belleves thut Aaid draft F.IR No. 107~ Reviei.on .1, daes conform to thc CiCy und StAt~ Guidelines and ttie Stute of Californta Environmental. ~ualicy A~t: end~ baeed upox~ euch inforau~ti~n, douB hareby recom- mend to the Ci.ty C~uncil thut they cextify said BIR No. 107, Revis' ~si ]~ ie in cumpltunce wiCh said Environmental Q~n11Cy Act. Cammieoioner Morl.ey offered Resolution No. PC74-135 and moved Eor ite paas+ig~ and adoption Co reconunend to th~: Ciry Council dlanpPr.oval of [teclaFSifi.catian No. 73-7~ 62 nn tha basiti that the propoaecl developmr.nt far Che :~ubject pt'operty is noC uppropri.ac~ lnce it does not conform to the newly-~dupCed RM-4000 Zone c+Candarde~ which 1lmit the maximum permitl•ed deneity to approximAte].y 1.0.88 dwel.ling un:t~~ per net acre, ttie proposed deneity being 11.95 dwelling uni.ta per ner ucre; and tl~at the petit:L;.ner had ind~cated he wae not inter- asted in a continuance but wished to be heard by the City Council as soon ae poddible. (See Reaolution Book) ~~n roll call, the foregatng resolution wae pusAed by the following vote: AYCS: COt~RtISSiONERS: JOHNSON~ KING, MORLEY, GAUF.R NOES: COMMISSIC;IERS: NON~ ABSENT: COD4IISSIONERS: FARANU~ HERBST Commissioner Morley offered ResolutLon No. PC74-].36 and moved for itg passa~e and adoptian to der~y Petir.ion for Varianee No. 261.2 on T.he basis that since the Planning Commiseio^ has recommended disnpproval of the reclassification. of subject properr.y, the propoaed develop- ment could not be accompli.ehed within the site developmenC etandards of the zoning currently on the sub~e:ct property. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution w~e paseed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JOHI~SON, KING, MORI.EY, GAUER NOES: COr1MISSIONERS: NUNS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, liERBST Commissicner Morley oEfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Coumissioners Farano and HerbRt being absent), to deny Tentative Maps of Trnct Nos. 8511 (Revision 3) and 8707 on. the basia that aince the Planning Commission recommended di.s- approva'1 of Reclasaification No. 73~74-62 and denied Variance I~o. 2fi12 on the subJect propPrty, the pr~posed development could not be accomp~ished within thn site development standarde of the zoning on eubject property. VARIt1NCE N~. 2589 - CONTINUI:D PUBLIC HEARING. S. V. HUNSAKER, JR., P. 0. Box 128, San Jua-~ Capistrano, Ca. 92677, Ownar; DOMINICK TALLARYDA~ 704 Souti- Kno~t. ApC• S-3, Anaheim, Ca. 9280~~, e+gen.t; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO EST~IBLISH A SANDWICH SHOP AND DELTCATESSEN WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING IN1)i7STRIAL COMPLEX on property desc~'ibed as: An irregul.arly-ahaped parcel of land located at tha aouthwest corner of Orangethurp~ and Placentia Avenuea, consist- ing of approximately 4.~. acres having approximate frantages of 605 feet on the sauth side of Orsngethorpe Avenue and 325 feet on the west aide of Pla,,entia Aveuue. Property preaently clasaified M-1 (LIGH'I' INDUSTRIAL) ZONE. Subje~' petirion was continued from the Planning Commisaion meetings of April 15 and May 29, 1~74 in order that the peCitioner could eubmit revised plsns and make application for a conditional use permit pro~,oaing a bona fide r.estaurant with on-sale beer and wine in an existing indtistrial complex. Zoning Supervisor Charles R~berte noted for the Cou:.:iasion that the petitioner was re- queating to terminate and/or ~~rithdraw the sub~ect petition. Commis~ioner iCing offered a motion, eeconded by Commissioner Florley and MOTI6N CARR'"D (Commissionera Farano and Herbst being absent), ~o terminate all proceedings in cc-nnection with Petition for Variance No. 2589, as requeated hy the peti*_ioner. • ^~ ~ MTNUTEB, CTTY PI.ANNING CUMMIS9ION~ .1uly A~ 1974 74-31.6 AR1;A DNVRLUPMF•NT - CON'PING'ED PUBI.iC HEARING. INI7'IATED BY THB rWAHEIM CITY PLANNINC PI.AN N0. 11S COb4dISS10N~ 204 !'suat Lincoln AvesnuQ. Aneheim, Ca. 92805; Co condider ~ vehicular circulation and acce+se for approximestely 2 acres genorally bounded by La Vc~rne Straet to tho north~ Harbor Boulevard r.o the west, Nortti Stc'aet to Che eouth~ and Helena `~t.eat to the eaet. S~bJect Araa Qev~~l.opment Plun wue conCinuo~ from rhe meeti.ng of May 29, 1974 for furtt~cr etudy. Ik waa noted ChnC no one w~s prasent at the public hearing regarding tha euhjact Aren Anvelopment P1an. Tha Planning Cummieaion s~ter.ed into diac~iAeion wi.th Staff regarding the n~ed Co procead with the coneiciexation of tha eub~ect Area Development P1an at thle time, during which a continuance of the nwtter wgs discusaed, and Deputy City Attorney Nialcolm Slaughter advised that if a aontinugnce £or a r~~riod of a year wae desirable, then tha mf-tter should be readvertised aC thnt Cime. THE PUBLIC HL'AItING WAS CLOSEU. Commissioner Xing afFered ~ motlon, secocided by Commiseioner Jnhneon and MOTIUN CARRIED (Cormaiasioners Furano and Herbat being abaent), to re~nove Area Development P1.an No. 115 from the agends~ esid Plan tn be readve:tised for publlc hearing whon appropriate. VARIAYdCE N0. 2609 - CQNTINI1ETi PUBLIC HEARING. DOU~GLAS OIL COMPANY, P. 0. Box ?.500, Coata Mesa, Ca. 92626, Owner; WILLIAM R. WUOA, 17905 Sky P~rk Boulevard "P", Irvi.na, Ca. 92707, Agant; requesting WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING AI)JACENT TO RL'SIDENTIAL ZONE, (II) MAXIM-JM BUILDIPIG HEIGHT, AND (C) MINIMUM NUMBEEt OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, 'PO CQNSTRUCT A T410-STORY CO[~1ERCIAL OFI'ICE BUILDING on pr.operty deacribed as: A rectangularly-~haped parcel of laad conaisting of approxiwately 14,000 aquare feet located aC the northweat c~rner of Magnolia Avenue anct Ball Road, having approxtmate frontages of 80 £est on the norr.h side ~f Ball Road and lii0 feet on the west side of Magnoli$ Avenue, and having s waximum depth of approximately 1$0 feeL. Yr~~perty presently c].asaified C•-1 (GEN~RAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE. Sub~er.t petition was continued from the meeting of June ].0, 1974, for revised plane. No one indicated their presence in opposiXion to subject petition. Although the Slaff Report to the Planning Commisaion dated July 8, 1974 WII8 noC read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minut.es. Mr. Derrick White, 4242 Campus DrJ.ve, Newport Beach, represen[ing the pro~ect engineer, appeared before the Commission and stated that the revised plana eliminated all nf the originally-requested waivera witt- exceptlon of Che maximum building heigt-t within 150 feet of Che single-fxmily r.one. TH~ PUIiLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to questioning by Commissioner Mor.ley, Mr. White stated landscape strips wer~ being provided as part of Che proposal which he hoped would satiyfy Che landscapinR requi.rement; that the developer did benefit from the guidance wi~tch hud been given by the Planning Commission; that without the secand srory, they could not develop the property; and that there would ba no windows looking out ta the west. In r.eaponse to questioning by Commissioner Morley, Mr. White atated the existing Crees on the adjacent property to th.e weat were approximately 25 feet high and were very dsnse. In respon~e to questioning b,y Commiesioner Johneon, Aesistant Zoning Supervisor Annika SanCalahti advieed that the xesidential properey to th north presently had a r~eolution of intent to tt-e C-1 Zone. Commiasi.oner Johnaon then noted that ordinarily he would vote against the aub~ec.t pr~posal efn:.e the Planning Commiseior~ had been very stringent in regard to the requested wuiver, ho~+ever, since there was no opposir.iun either by presence or by ].ett~r, and the. proposed offi.ce building would be approximately 63 ~eet from the no*th property line, he would be inclined to support it. ~ ~ ~ MINIITES~ CITY P1.ANNING COI~4dIiSZON, July 8~ 1474 ~ 74-317 VARIANC~ N0. ?.60g (Continued) Commiseioner King indicuC~d he concurxod in tha f~regoing eCnCemanta by Commisei~ne~r .lohadon. Commiaoiuner Morley tY~an note.. that tho petiCionec hnd taken a troublesome p.i.eco oE property and wAe propasing a go~d pta~a~t ~~o it. Tempot•ary Chairman Gauor not~d that although th~ requeeted wbivAr was in vialn~ion af. the Plannit~g Commiaeion's pnRt etandards, the pro~4ct was no deei.gned that it would not int:erfe:a in any way with tho reaidential properC:lee in the urea and ttic~re was r~o oppo- F~iCion Cu indicat~ otherwise. Comial8ei.oner Johne~n offerod a moklon~ soconded by Commi~eioner Morley r~nd MOTION CARRTL~U (Commissionare Farano and Herbet being absent), Chak Che Planning Commi.seion recommenda to the City ~ouncil thnt the eubjact pro~ect'oe exerept fr.om the requiremonC to prepare an Environwental Impact Report pureunnC to the provisionrs o£ the Cal.if~rnia Environmental. Quality Act. Commiseioner ,Tohneon offered ktesolution No. PC74~13' and moved for i.ts paseage and adupti.on to grsnt PetiCion fox Variance No. 2609, in pact, dina~ waivers o£ the minimum parking area landecaping adjacent to reaidanti.al zone and tl~e minimum numbar of ~~ff-atreat parkin~t epnc~e ware withdrawn by the petitioner based on the revised p.tans ae auhmitted; granting waiver of the maximum bullding height wittiin 150 feet of aingle--family zone on the baais that the aub~ect property ie a diff.icult one r.o develop due to its size and ahape and the proposed development is so designed Chak it wi11 not inter.f~r~ in any way with the reeiden- tial subdiv~sion to the weat. thnl- a screen of mature trees approximatel;+ 25 feet high exists along the rear praperty line of the adjoining reaidenttul properties to the west and said screen wi11 ~:rovide an eifective landacape buffer between tne commercial develop- ~aent ar.d the reaidencea, and that the lesidential propertieA along Magno~ia Avenue to the north uf subject properry are zo.e.d R-1 with n rpsolution of intent to C-1; and subject to condition~. (See Resolur_ion Sook) On rolt call, the foregoing resolutior. was passed by che fallowtng vote: AYEC: :.'.)r4dISSIONERS: JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, GAUER NOFS: CONII~lISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COA4YII5SL~NERS: FARANO, HL~RDST CONDTTIONAI. US~ - CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING. BL'F.TON MORAN PROPERTIES, 2912 Colorado PERMIT NC 1474 A,venue, Santa Monica~ Ca. 90404, Owner; OMEGA PRODUCTS CORP., 606 Chalynn Circle, Orange, Ca. 92666, Agent; requesting permission to E5'TABLISH A STUCCO PROCL~S5ING FA.CILITY on property described as: A rectungularly-shaped parcel of lnnd consisti.ng of approximately 1.0 acre having a frontage of approximately 190 feet ~n the north aide of Via Bsrton Street, having a naximum depth of approximately 230 feet, and being located approx~matel~+ 470 feet west •~f Che centerline of State College Boulevard. Property presently claesified M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZUNE. Sub~ect petiti~n was continued from Che m~eting of June 24, 1974 to allow some of the Commi.saioners an opp~rtunity to visit similar operatioris in other cities. Three per~uns were present in opposiCion tu auh~ect petition. Assiatant Zoning Supervieor Annika Santalahti read the SCaff Report to the P].anning Cowni.saion dated July F3, 1974, aiid said Staff Report ta referred to as if :~et forth in full in the minutea. Mr. Robert Bible, Preaident of Omega ProducCs Corporation, the agent for the property owner, appeared before ~he Commission and staCed the discusn.ton at the previoua Planning Commiasion meeting regarding the faciliCy which was located in Los Angeles was not exactly corsect and that that facility compared only witl~ regard to the use of tha Norblow Bag Houae equipment. Mr. Bibie displayed drawinga and described the proposed operation as being fully encloaed and stated if the sacks of the product were bandled a lot they would be exposed to break- age~ however, he would be using gondolas. Mr. Bible then diaplayed pictuxes af the refer- enced gondolas. He explained tLiat the oppoaition did not understand the propoeed plont operation and had r.ot seen the plans; and thst he had gone Co a great deal of e£forC to preven~ evPr be~btails at max mim whichCwould handl R 80 ton2U0 eack~~ofematerialtper would be seven • o MINUTE~, CLTY PLANNINC. CONII~tISSYON, Jul,y 8, 1974 ~4-31$ CONUITTONAL USC PG[tMIT_I,~O. 1,474 (ConCinuud) dny~ and tl~orc would bc fuur or five deliveriae uf oAnd per montl~. and tha aur.raunding nei~hbore to tlie subject property would have morQ trAfkic ganerated by thQ1r omployees than hie buainesa wuuld t~ave sll t~~l.d. Mr. Bible continued hy stnting Chat the zoning~ ae presenCed, was correcC; thnt tt~e properly wae zunod for sheet metnl yt-opR +-lso~ which woul.d be a noisi~,r operati.on than he wae propoei-~g; nnd thc~t bect-use of the way hie machinexy waA sut up, other bueinessea in the aran wou.ld create more duet thun h~.s proposad operation. It wae noted that four latCere of oppoaition h$d been read at Che June 24, 1974 m~eting, said lerc~re beinp, from Donald W. Shaw Construction (dxted June 20, 1974), Fluidmaster, Bryan lndueCri~t1 Properttea, Inc. und E:poxylite. The Planning Co~mniaeion SecreCar,v then read an ndditi.onal letter of oppoei.~ion dated .Tuly 2, 1974 submitted by Donald W. Shaw Conetruction. Mr. P.ay Ost~ reprase~iting Avionic3 Structures, appeared before tha Co~nlsaion and sCated thep were~ dafinitely opposed to the aub~ec:t proposal; Chat no totatter what the patitio-ier did~ the,y would have leakage into th~ Area of the tuxic mnkerlal; tliut there were nice manufacturing biieinesaes in the area which had co~~~ in with good fuith ~r.d hACi confnrmed; that Avionic Structurea fiad p8dding under i:l~eir mnchinea fpr noiae; and that l•hey would enliat the CommisaLon's consideration l•o not granC Che sub,jecl• petit~on. Mr. Carl. Clor, S47 Conunonwealth, Fullerton, appeared Uefore the Commisaion a~nd etated he wae representing ttie property owner ef. the 7 acres acrosa the atreet from the aub~ect property and they ~e ln Che process o€ development plane with a p~rtion alr.ealy betng ready for submiasion to the Citv; that he wa~ expreaeing cancern that the sub~ect proposal might be detrimental to hio proposal; that the 7 acres now had storage of conetr.uctian equipment of various t~ypes; thaC it was possible they would he in the development stages within the next few montha; and if the sub~ect proposal ware granted, evary precaution should be taken to control the detrimental elementa. Regard•ing tarking~ Mr. Clur queR- tione~ wliether the petitioner would have enough parking epaces when che equipment wa8 on the aite, and Asaistanr. Zoning Supervisor Annika SantalahCi advised tl~at the petitioner was proposing suf£icierit parking for an indur-trial uae. In rebuttal, Mr. Bible atated the oppoaition had not given an arguu:enr. regarding the conetruction of the prop~~sed machinery and facilitiea; that the proposed facility could not operate without ttie approval of the AF~D; that the property was aold for warehouaing which would Ue more detrimental than the aub~ect proposal; Chat they were proposing 32 parkin~ spaces which was more than adequate; that 90y of the loading and unJ.oading wo~ild be done inaide the buildin~ and there was more space on the inaidr. of the building thnn he would hav2 need for to process the product. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Temporary Chairman Gauer noted thal• some of the Planning Comc~issioners had viewed two facilitiea loca;.ed in oCher. citlPS. Commiasioner King noted that,•in his opinion, the praposal was For t,he wrong area and suggested that the petitioner check the heavy industr.ial areas or to contact the Chamber of Commerce for arpropriate locations. Mr. Bible stated his competitors were locatec' ;i the hub of the induetry and that wae also his deaire; thaC every precauCion should be c:.~cen to make sur.e that the operation would be clean; that he had taken fl look at Che two facilities which the Planning Commiasion viewed and neither af them would compare to hi.s, although one of tl:am wae very cleart. Commiasioner King then noted Chat he and Comm~tiesioner Johnson t~ad viewed the facility in Long Beach; th~t hQ was not worried about the duaC but moresa that Che project would not blend wiCh the area visually aince the ailos were to be 42 feet in height. Mr. Bible atated that the appearance of the ailos was a matter o£ opinion; that he prefer- red their appearance t that of a stack of palleta or cea-ent blocke; and that the silos would b~end with the building since they were 30 feet behind the prvperty line o~ the two ad~oiiiinR buildinga. ~ ~ ~ ;1LNU1'F?S. CI.'fY Pi.ANNING CQFtAtISSIUN, July N~ 197~i CO;~UITIU[,',I, I~SL' Pl:lttliT NO. 1474 (Continuad) 74-319 Commidalonex Y.tng C.lien r~uted Chat Ct~~ro wa"~ eiloe located on RH11 itaad eaet af the ~anta Ana Itiver~ an~ Mr. f31b~e etated thoae silos were: for. concreta m1r tt~ut Ctiere wae n~ moieture or watar uKe,d in making hio product eince '~e ~uet blende~ tha maCerialr.; and that ul[iiough thc eub~e~~t locutian wxe nica~ hu wo~il.d li;:e t~ bc+ J.n ~~~metliing evan nir.ar. Cowmie~siattic+r John~c,n nr~ed chut the p~tilionor h~d dona a finn ~~~b with tha p~'~~sontation; that wht.le hc~ Lolt tho puCitioner was conetructing a plant thnt wns far eupc: lor to tlio othter fncLi~icP Che CommiKelon had viewed~ he did not want to go ugninat Ch~• citizenK who had regietcred thuir oppoKitian~ an@ takQ q chance that lhe propoea]. would he d~etrim~~atc~~.; nnd L•hnt tht proposal wno n guod une buC not in the aren proposed. Mr. nible Chen etntod Ghnt llia innterial anc3 the handling theroof were patr.olled by tha APCll nnd OSkIA; und that the struekR in tha uc'on wauld be no more vulnernbla to hiA pro- p0:3HC~ operAti.c>n thun other .xieCing uperAtl.onH in the ~uE;ect nxeR. ]'n iPply to ~ueetioning by Temparnry Choirman Gaue.r~ Mr. T3ibl.a p~ated tl~e mater.J.als were blown from lhe tiu~:lca pn~umotLccitl}~; except thnt tt~e a+~nd wae dumped undar aanvns cover inCo the sil~ whict~ took abuut ~0 seconcls. CommiHSioner Morlcy noCed that eomc ot the oppoel.tion wae the ~~eight of tha 4iJ.~s and, in reply to quasti.oning as ;;o wiiether Cheae Hilae could be ]~wer«d, Mr. 131b1e reiterated that the si.los coul.d be re-engl.neered and put inside tt~e buildicig, althougl~ in that fnehion the oper~Ciun woul~l be (ILL9~y, Ttie Planniiig Commisaion entered .lnto diecuseion regr~rdinq tlie environmentnY impact of the praposed fncillty .luring wnich Temporar.y Chriirm~n Cauec notpd that the rec ~~nen~ia'tic+n frc . ttie PACD 9hould solve that question i:o a~xeat ex' nt. Camniiasi.oner King offer~~] ,~ mution, se~:onded by Commiesioner Johnr~on and MUTION CARRIED (Taraporar.y Chairman Gauer votlnh "no" and Commi~aionera Far.ano snd Herhst being aUsent), ttiat the Planning Coumission XCCU11fIDPRdA Co the City Council that the reyu~sC. for a Negative Declaration for Euemptinn fot thc Requir.enents t~ File xn Em~ironmental Iiupact Rep~rt be denied on khe bas•ls that the nature ~f + propor~ed :+usineas establishment i~ such ttiat an EIR ehould be z~~quired, sc•.id GIR to cox:,.lder 3i1 of the posaible environmental imF•acts. Commissioner King uffered Resolution No. PCl~i138 and moved fox its pa~syge and Ldoption to deny Petition for. Conditiona). Use Permit Nu. 1474 on the basiR L•hat thE izature ~: the proposed buainess sstabliatvnen~ wo..id not be compLtible with t1~e existing uaes in the area and woi-1.'. o,~ : n imp~-irment to the character of Gh~ area. (See Resolut.fo~~. B<~~~k) ~n ro11 call, the for.egoing resalution was pa'38P,d Uj the f.o].lowing vote: AYE~: COMMISSIONGRS: JUHNSUN, KING, MGRLEY, GAUER NOES : C(it4iIS~IONERS : NO'VE ABSrNT: COI~AIISSIUNERS: F'ARANO, ~IERAST EIV~IRUNriEAIT.AL It~ACT - CONTINIIED PUBLIC NGARING. WOODBLNE CORP., 838? Wilshire noulevard, REPOR.T N0. 114 5uite 700, Dever'~ Hllls, Ca. 90.^.11, Gwner.. ' op~rty ~escribed as: ! An ~rre.gularly-sh,_~ped purcel of land conaiating ~f appro:~imately VARIANCE N0. 26~1 25.8 acres having a~ronta~e of appY'~ ..iv~atel}~ 2100 feet on ttie -"'~' ~` aor~h side ~~f Sarra~no Avenu~~, h~ving a maximum depth of approxl- TENTATI'J~ MAP OF inatety 670 feet~ and being located approxLmntely 1760 feat aast '1RACT 1v0. 791$ of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Roxd. Property presently clasai- (REVIST.ON 1) f ied R-A (AGRICULTURAL) ?.ONF.. ' FEQUESTED VARIANCE: WATVER OP (A) MIDIIMUM LOT WIDTH, (B) MI.NIMUM LdT AREA, (C) MINIMUM I.OT WIDTH ON A CU1.- DE-SAC, AND (D) RE~UZREMENT T(1 REAR ONTC~ AN ARiERIAI. HIGHWAY . I'EIrTA'PIVE xItACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: TOUYS GNGI~~E~:RING~ INC.t 'v'0 Narth Main Str~::t, Santa Ana, Ca. 92711. Sub,a,~ct property is propoaed for subdiviaioa into 87 P-1 zon~.d luta. ~ ~ MINU'fES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Jua.y 8, 1974 74-32U E~ULRONMEN'fAl. IMPAGT REPORT N0. 124, Vnft1.ANCE N0. Z6Ul ~ ANU 7'~N'CA'CIVp MAP Of~ T[tACT N0. 7918 REVT.SIJI~ 1) G~~n ~~.inu~___. __ ___._.r.~. ._-. Nu ~~ne indi.catnr! thulr preseitce tn oppoeitl~~n to Auhjc~t potit~on. Although Ct-e Stnf: Roport tu thd F:anning CumanieRion dnted Jul.y 8, 1974 waa not raad at tha public hoarinq~ it ls r~farrod Co and made n parC af khe minuCee. Sub~ect peti.r.ion wae conCinued from the mac~tings of May 13 and June ?,.1974~ fer the eubmiseion and roviaw oE ~n Envlranmental. Impnct Report, ae rnq~ested by tho potitioner. Mr. John Cc~rcin~ 2U~12 ~iindcuve Lune~ Huntington I~each. reprasenting the paCiCio~.er~ appearud bufuro Cha Commie~'ton and etated the propoAal wae i.dentical to another pro~ect with 245 lote whlcl~ ~ua~N]eCely surruundod tha eubJect property; that Che I~~~mee woul.d be 1n the $55~000 prico ra~ige; and that he was available to answer questione cor.~erning the ptoposal. 'PHE YUBT,IC HEltRING WAS Ct,USED. In re~poi~se to quQOtioniz~~ by Temporary Chairmsn Gauer., Mr. Gercla atated that although the application was I'or the It-1 lota, thNy wer~ raqueatir~g tu develop under RS-5000 atandardA; and thaC the developcr had aseumed thie would be the wny l•o procaed on tha application. Commiseionar Morley noted tha[ it was hia undera~unding that lf the pro~ect wu~ developed under RS-S000 etandards~ then wniver•a of the minimum lot width on a cul.-de-eac. minimum lot width and minimum l.ot• rea woi:ld not be reyuired. Co~isaionar M~rley then quoeti~ned th~~ procedure far cliangir-g zoning once a petition had been advertised for publi.c hearing, ~n3 ?.oning Su~ervisor Charles Robarta advised that there wae a res~lution of intur.t to R-2 :.~~ning on the sul,ject prop~:rty and ic would be at the discretion of the Plbnning Cc.i~-iooiou ~.. City Council to establish a leea intenae zone, however, under the RS-5000 eite develop- m~.~it standarde waiver. of Che requirement that single-family reaidenti.al sCructurea r~ar on an s~rterial hi.ghway would still be needed. Mr. Garcia asoured the Planning ~.~mmieaion that the project could be developed auccess- fully under the RS-SOUO zoning. CommiesionPr Johnaon noted thaC it appeared approximately 7UX of the propot~ed loCe were 50 to 6A feet wide and il waa his understandinq from rti~ presant Citv Council ar~d the people of Anaheiw that those lots would be a li.L•tle too narrow. Mr. Garcia then explained their .~rf~it~al irtent ~aas to develop townhou3eR on the sub~sct propert~ '~ut tney l~ad changed their p].ans end wanted Co develop g high-prJ.ced, R-1 projecc inate~d and there wna no request for variance from the set.back requiremenc. lie furttier stated that most c` tl~e 6 Co 1Q-foot aetbacke would have garagea wiCh autamatic door openera. Mr. Roberts advised for the pptitiuner Lhat the City Council was vigorousl}~ tryir.g t elimit~ate ttie 6 to 10-foot aetback~. In respoc~ae to questfoning by Temporary Chai:~man Gauer, Mr. Garcia etated there were approxim~:tely 15 of the 5 tu 6-foot setbacks propo;~ed. Temporary Chairman Cguer then <<oted that development with :-50~0 rather than the R-2 wauld satis`y the philosophy regarding lo.-er 3enslty, however, he did not feel the 5 to 10-•f.oot setbucka would be appro~ed by t'~e City Council. Mr. J'ohn Millick, Vice President of An~.httm F.ills, Inr.., :tppeared befor~ the Commission and discusaed hte ii.terpretati.vn af ~he City Council's ldeas regarding the setbacks and the r~aultant un~lulated streetscap~. He st+~ted thar thP eub~act propoeal k~AS uning the vary~.ng ~etbacks and would not have `_he "soldiers in a row" appearance. Temporary ~"ha'.r+nan C..uer nuted that he had opposed R5-500~ zoning when it waa first initiated, however, aeveral projects ~..~d been approved and the sub~ect proposal, in his npi.nfon~ was a good RS• .OQO de°lelopment. He further noted that the pr~~posal woulc~ nor. be a good R-1 develc~pment. e ~ MI.NUfES, CI'fY PLANNINC COMMISSION, tuly 8~ 1974 7G-321 ~NVIItONMEN'PAL IMPACT ItEPOEtT N0, .12~~, VARTANCG N0. 2601~ ANA TENTA'i'IVF. MM Us~ TitACT N0. 7918 ~R,~VLSIQN 11 (~ontinue{U ~. __ - ° Commi.ssi ~n~r M~rley offareJ ii mutlon~ oocondnd by Commiaeion~c King and t~tOTION CARRIR,p (Contiul~r;ionere Furano an~ Nc+r.bx~ be~ing nbe~nC) ~ that Cnvironmenial impact Repart Na. 124, supple.menting caaeter EIR No, 80, huving been coneidoresd thie date by the City I'lanning Commiseion und ovldence boCl~ wrtttun a~d ornl having been ~~~ ~~9entad to eup{~lemenC eaid draft EIR No. 124, ttie Clty 1'l+anning CommiRSion bellevea thli. eaid druft Gltt No. 124 daes ~~nform Co the City and 3tac~ Cuid~ilnee uu~l th~ 3tat~ o~ Calaiorni.a E~nvir.onmerttal Qualtty Act and, buAed upon ~uch intormaCt~,-~~ 3oe8 hereby recomvaend to the City ~.~~u~c 3l that they cartify suid LLR No. 124 ie in cumpl.ianca with eaid Environmental Qua:lity Act . Temporary ChaiXmr~n Gnu~r ~~fferod Raeolution No. PC7G-139 and moved for iee pasoage and actoptiori to grant P~tirion fc,r Variance Ha. 2601~ in part, granting wnivt+r of lha ~eyuire- ment rhat si~igln-fam~ resiJential etructures rear on an arCeri.al hi.ghway on thu bneis that the hillside toti~~.~ c•aphy ~ueCi[ied devia Lon from tha "flat land" davelopment stand- arde as delineuted in the R-1 7.on~~ , Hnd the ,~r~posed deviation appliea tu a talativel.y smnll p~rcantago of khe takal number of lot ;'.hat waivere of the minimum lot width ~~~~ a cul-d~-sac, minim~~ lot wic;tli and minimum 1~t area were withdrawm on the b~~ais that th~ peei.tionec• propusea to file u requesk for RS-~SU00 zoning, whi~h is a leeser intense zonin~ thah the R-2 Zone for which eub~act propar.cy hne a resol~~~ ian of intent~ and the develop- ment propneal. se submitCed would be in cunformance with the RS-50Q0 Zone ~ite dt~velopment atatidarde; and ttiat the P1anYiing Commiesion :eco~ends to the Ci.ty Couneil that an ordinunce be read Eor R5-5Q00 zoning on thc~ suh~ect proper.ty, inetead of R-2 zor~~~~g for which lherE ie a reAOlution of intenC or R-1 zoning whi~h the per Ltioner nrig±nally requ~sCed; and sub~zct to conditions. (Sea Keeolution IS..~k) Deputy City Ar.torney Malcolm Slnughte.. advised that he had r.eservstions regaruing the legrslity of reuding an ordlnance f~r RS-SOUQ z~ning whe•.- there was a reaolut ion of intent to R-2 on the aubject prop~srty; however, he would be discusaing th~s mfll•ter with Che Staff Rnd, if corrective action wao neceasary, that could be accompliuhed at a lat e.r dmte., On ro11 cr~ll, the foregoi.nd resal.ution wae passed by the following vote: AXF.S: COAIIYlISSIONERS: KTNG~ MOItLEY, GAUER NOES; COIY4dIS5I0NERS: JOHNSON ABSENT : COtMtISSI0N~R5: FARANO, HERBST Commissioner Johnson noted for the Commiasion khat he had voted "no" eince. in hie opinion, it caas time ~or leas deneity in Che hills area and ttjet hia ob~ectt,,n was not the R-1, R-2 or RS-500G zoning but the narrow lots propoaed. Temporary Chafrman Gauer offered a ~aotion, seconded by Commi.ecioner Morley and MOTION Ci~1tRIED (Co~iesioner .Johneon voting "no" and Commi~aioiiere Farano and Herb st bei.ng aL• sen[) , to approve Tentative `tap of Tract No. i9.la (Revirton 1), reconm~ending ~o tY~e City Council that an ordinance be read for R5-5000 zoning inatsad of R-2 zoning on thc~ s~b,~ ect ropert~• or the R-i zoning which the petitloner originally requested, subject to the ~ollow,,ig : ondi~tions: (1) Tt~at the approval o: 'Pentative Map nf Tract No. 7918 (~eviaion 1~ ~s grsnted eubject to the completion of P.eclasaificution No. 77.-72-4k anc: Va~ ' ance No. 2601. (2) That should thie subdi~~isio~? be developed as mure than one subdivision, each subdiviaion t:~ereuf eha11 be aubmitted in tentative form for t~~~roval. (3) That a 6-foot, decorative, openwork wall shall Ue c~natructed At the top of the slope adjacent to Serrano Avenue on the south property lines of Lot Nos~ 38, 43, 44, ~5, 56, 65, 66, 69 and 87. Except that fot• corner I.ot No. 38 said wall ahnll be stepped down to a height of thirty (30) inchsa in the required front yard aetback. Reas~nable lAi~dscaring, in~luding irrigat~.on f~cilltiea, eh~ll be inRtalled in the unce~.~ented portion of the arterial highway park~af-y the full distance of ea•ld wall, ~ilans for said landacaping to be submittsd to Rnd eub~ect to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenanc.e. (4) Ttiat all lota within this tract shall be aetved by undergrourd u t111tiea. ~ - --- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~lTNUT[iS, CITY PI.ANNiNG COI~tLSSION, Ju1y 8, 1974 74-322 BNVIRONMENTAL IM.i'AC1' REYQKT N0. 124~ VARIANCE N0. 2601, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAC7' NU. 7918 ~R~VISLO~, 1) (Cu~inued) _ - ----•-- (5) xhat a final tract rtwp of Aub~ect properCy ehall. be eubmi~r~d to and approved by the GiCy Counci.l and then be r~~coxded in the Uf.fice of Ch~z Orange c:~~~-nty RmcordRr. (6) That etreat namea eh~tll be nppravad by the City of Anahei.m prior. t~~ approval ~i' n finel tract mnp. (7) .i~at the ownor(s) of eub1ect px'c-perty al~all pay Co the City of Ax-nho~m the :~ppropri.atP pnrk and ra.cent.lon i.n-~ Lieu feee ae detc+rmined tu bn nppropri.ate by Che Ci.ty C:uuncil~ seid taee to ba paid at Che ti~ne tha buildf.ng permit !s ienued. (t-, That dral.nege of suid property ehAll be diepueed of in a mannesr eatlsfactory to the City Enginenr. If, in the preparation of the oite sufficient grading ie required to neceseiCr~ta a grading permit, no work on grading will be parmitCod between Oct~~ber. ].Sth and Apri.l 15th unlese al.l reQuired off-e~te drainago facilities have t.~en inetalled and ar.a operattve. Positive aesurance sha17. bo pruvide~' khe City that euch drainage facilities will be completed prior. to October 15th. Ne~esenry ti.ghC-of-wsy for off.-situ drainage facilities ehall be dedicaCed rn the City, or the (:i.ty Counci]. ahal.l hnve init:tated condemnstion proc~edi.ngs therefor (the coate of. which eha1.1 be borne by tho developar) prlor to ~he ~ommercemenr of grading operatiuna. The taquired drninaga fecilitise ehatl be of a eize an~i type sufEicien[ to carry runoff waters orlglnating from hiRher proy~erties ~hrough said properCy to ulCimate disposnl as appTaved by the City ~nginepr. Said drainage fa~ilities ahall be Che first iCeaa of conatr~ickion and ehall be completed r~nd be functional Lhr~ughout Cho tract and frum tha downstream boundary of t;~a property to the ultimate point uf dieposal pri.,. to the isauan~ce of any final building inepections or oacupsncy permite. Draina6e dietrict rtlmburaenecnC a.greemente uuiy be made available to th.. developere of. said proparty upon their r.equegt. (9) That grading, excavation, und al]. other conetrucCton activities ~shall be con- ducted in auch a cr~aanaer ao as to minlmize the paseibiLity of. any eilt orlginaC- tng from this project being cnrried into the 5anla Ana River by Atorn- water originating from or flowing tli~auRh this pro~ect, (10) That Serruno Avenue ehall be ciedicated to 38 feet north of tl enterline of the street. (11) That parking bays be provi.ded along Serrano Avenue in accordanca with ~{ty of. Anaheim Rtandard details. (12) Thac a minimum 20 acale plot plan ahowing all on-site improvementa inc2udicig eave ovexhang and proposed lucation of air-conditioning equipment be submitted for building permite. (13) That fire hydrants eha11 be iil;~talled and charged as required and ~ietermined to be necess~sry by the Chief o~ the Fire Departmec~t prior to co~~n.:eu:ent of structural framing. (14) Tliat prior Co the appr~val of the final Cract map, final floor. plana and eleva- tiona shall be aubmitted to and approved by the Cit}~ Council. Commiasi~Yier Johnson natect for the Cattmisaion that he had voted "no" aince, in his opinion, it was time for le~a density in thP hills area, and that hie ob~ection was not the R-], R-2 or RS-5000 zoeing, but the narrow lota proposed. ~ ~ MIPil1TES, CITf 1'Lr1NNING GONIMISSIUN, July H, 1974 74-323 ~NVIROi~ME~TAI. iMPAC~ CON'fINUED PUBLLC NEAR~NC. ANAlI~IM HII.LS, iNC. /'CRXACO VENTI'RES ~ INC ~~ FtEPORT N0. 129 c/o .Jemea Barieic, 380 Anehaim Hilln Road~ AnxhQim~ Cn. 928C6~ th~ner, ~+ ~~ Prc.~perty deACribed ae: An irregularlymehepad percel of land ~oneiet- TL~NTATIVE MAPS OF inq of npprox.imaCuly 29 r~cres hnvf.ng frontagee of approximatoly 4~G 'CKACT NOS. $kS5 feet on r.he nocth eldn of Canyon Rin R~nd and 937 feet on t:he suuCh (RLVI3ION 4) AND oide of Canyon Ri.m Road. havinq a mnximutn dapCh of apprc~ximatel~~ 8456~REVISI~N 3 889 feel end baing located approxim~r.e.ly 1200 fee.. ead~ af Ct-e canterlino uf Not-l +anch Itoad, Propurty proPently claeslfipd R-A (AGRTCULTIJRAI,) 7.ONE. T3NTATIVE TItACT REQUESTS: n~vr:[.ot~~it: WG~STFI.F.I.p DEVrLOPM~NT COMPANY, l.7$02 Sky }'urk c:ircle~ Suite !.04~ Trvina, Ce. 92707. ENGINELIt: WiLLDAN AS~OCIATES, 125 SouCh Clnudinn Stront, An~h~im, Ga. 92805. Sub1ect propnrry ie propoaed for eubdivieinn u ~llowe: 'fract No. 8455 (Revi.aion ') -.~ KS-•:i000 xoned lots; and Trr~ct No. 8456 (Revision ~) - 3~ RS-5000 zoned ].ots. No one indi,caCed thelr ~reaence in opposition tn Che sub~ ~ tenCativs trnct tnup~. Although the Staff Report to the Plunning Commission dnted July 8, 1974 was not read at the meeti.ng, i.t is referred to nnd mn<le a paxt af the minutes. IC was noted that on June 24, 1974, the Planning Commisaion coneidered ~r ianc~~ '4u. ?.610 along wi~h the sub~ect tentari.ve tract maps; that the pruposal at thn tlmc wn:~ to ~ievelop R-.l aubdiviolona with some lote ~iaving areas and widths lees than Cht~i. required by the R-1 Zone site devn?orment stundarda; that the Commisefon approved tl~e vartance, in part, denying the i.:~{ucyi ~d waiver of Che required 70-foot lot wic~th ainc<, khe ~~•aiver applied to Approx•lmakely 40% of the lots in both trn~ta; and that based on this denisl, the Commisaion also denied both tentative trac~ maps. Mr. John Mil].ick, Vice Pr~sident of Anaheim Hills, Inc.~ nppeared bafore the Commiesion and reviewed the history .~f the zoning on the sub~ecr property, th~~ d~.-eitiea in the Anaheim Hills area nnd how iC relatpd to the new ~Lty Council. He dLscussed thr ~~re- viously propu sed project coneisting of 11E units on the sub,~~ct proper*v ancl ~:ur.^~uded by atating that altliou~h the presently pr~~Fos~d lot•s wax'e not 70 feeC wide, the ra:.ultant density for the develapment was reslly very lok. Mr. .James Rogers, Presldei.*. of Weatfield De~~lopment Company, 178!12 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, appeared befors t~ie Commisaion as the developer of. the sub~ect property and staCed tt~.ey were now requesting RS-5400 zoning and the aubinitted ~ract mapa conformed with a11 of the si e develapment atandards of the RS-5000 Zone, except for the proposed ''side-on" lots and a waiver was granted under. Variance No. 2610 to permit khe four lota eiding on Canyon Rim Road. The Planning Commiasion discussed the fact Chat ~~~en the P'lnned Community Zone was granted for Anaheim Hi.lls, the sub,ject property was appru~ed for c1~ velopmenC of r~ maximum of 200 dwelling units u~.•;er the It-2 Zone, and thia devel~~per was now proposing a lesa inte~n~e, inclusive, residectial development uncler the RS-5(100 Zone dev~lopment st.andazds, It was no~ed that on June 24, 1974, the P lanning Comraiss`.on recommended that the City Co~inail certify Em~ironnental Impact Report No. 129 c:hir_h was submitted in con~unction with tlits applicstian. Comuiisaioner King o£fered a aiotlon* seconded by Commias'toner Morley to a~prove 'leneative Map of Tract No. 8455 (R~vision 4) sub~e~ t to the InterdE~~-rtmental Committee recommendaeions. Zoning Supe. isnr Charles RoberCR auggeated thst if the P;anning C~~mmission was recommecid- ing approval of the propoaed RS-5000 tentative tract maps, since t'~.ere was already a resolution of lntent for R-2 zoning, it would be •>propriate for the Commisaion to include a L-inding recomm~lding to the City Cauneil that an ardinance be read for R~-5000 zoning inetead of R-2 zu:.ing on the sub~ect property. Commiseioner King restatecl his motion, which was aeconded by Commisaioner Morley and n ~~ MOTION Ce.KRIED (Commiseioner Johnaon vn~ing no and Commiss•lanere Farano and Herbat being abaent), to approve Tentntive Map of Tract No. A455 (Reviaion 4), recommending to the c:ity Council that ar. ord.inanc~ be read for RS-5000 zoning inetead oF R-2 zoning on the aub~ect property, sub~ect to the zollowictg conditions: ~ ~ ~ MINlJT~3~ CITY P1.ANNING GUMMI."i3IUN~ July 8, 1974 74-324 ENVIRONMISNTAL IMPAC9' RP•POKT N0. 129 AND T~NTATT~-I; MAiB OF TRACT NOS. 8455 (RP.V: ~)N 4) AND R456_~R::VISiON ~ (Coneinued) ,~~._ ,~ ..__, --- (.11 Thut ctie npproval uf Tentativ~~ Map u: Tr.act No. 845s (Rovirian Na. 4) ie Qrnnt~+d r+ubjdct Cu compl~~tion ~f Rcclas3lfication No. 71-72-44 and Variance ~,~. 2610. (2) '['l~~et should thiN ~ubdlvie.lo~ti be devel.oped aa ~aore thnn one eubdivi~lan, eaeh eubdl~. t,~ I~~n Uieroot ehn~ 1 ba eubmttted in tenCative f~~rm fox approval. (3) That a11 .lote within thie tract ehall be servc~a by und!• ;round uttlit~~s. (4) That a Einal tract awp of e~h~act property •ahall br eubmiC[ed t~~ ancl ~pprovad by the CiCy Council +.tnd [hen Uc~ recorded in t~ Office of th~ ~~~nqe County Recorder. (S) That any proposed covenants, conditiona ar. reatricCions rihnll be eubmiCted to nnd approved by the Ci~y Atturnoy's Officc priar to Cir.y ~ouncil approvel of Che tinal tract map and~ further, that Lhe ap~rovad covenente~ conditione a~d roetrictions ehall be rscorded concurrentiy with Ch~ finrsl txnct map. (6) Thnc etraet n~mes ahall be aPproved by the City of Anaheim prior to approvul of n f inul tcact cnap. (7) That prlur to filing the finut tract map, tha a~plicant shu11 eubmit to the ('ity Attornc.y for approval or deniul a complete synopei~ of the propoead fun~tioning of the .,paraCing corporutiun, including but nut limited to the ar.ticlee~ of incoxpoxation~ bylaws~ propoaed methods of managem~nt~ bonding ta ina~•re main- tenAnce of common propercy and buildinga, siYd sucb other i ~rc~tition as t`~A City ACrorney may desire to protect the City, its citizena, and the purchasere of th~ pro~ e:r t. (8) That the owner(s) uf auUject pr.operty shall p~y r.o tha City of Anuheita the appropr.iute park and recxeutton in-lieu fees sa determined to be appropriata by the Ci.ty Council, said fc+es tu be paid ttt the time the l~uilding permit ~s issued. (9) ihat a 6-foot hi.gh, decorative, openwork wall shall be conetructed at the tup of the slope r+djacPnt to Canyon Rim Road on Lot Nos. 1~ .lE, I9 end 37. except C~iat said w~ll may be reduced in height to 42 inches in tha front portione o£ theee lots. Pl.ans for ariid walJ. shall be submitted to the Planiiing Cummiesion ~r City Couacil for approval prior to npproval of the final tract map. Reaaonable l.andscapfng, including irrigazio~: faciltti~s, shall b~~ inat$lled wiChin the slope areae of each lot ad~ar_Pnt to tht roadway and in tha unce~ Zte~ portion of the acterial highway parkway r.i~e full dLstance of said wall. Plane for said landacaping ~shall be aub~nitted to and sub~ect Co the Approval of the Superintend- ent of Parkway Maintenance. Following in~'a].lation and acceptance, tiie proparty ow~ier(s) ahall aseume responaibilitv far maintenancr of eaid landacapLng to khe lut 11nes, and the City of Anaheim ohall asaume the xesponsibility for maintenance of the Zandacaping in the Csnyon Rim Road parkway. (10) That Che ~~ehicular ~~~cess ri.ghtF, except at street and/oz~ alley openi~-gs to C~.nyon Rim Road, shal.l be dedlcate~i to the City of ,'~naheim. (11) That dra:Lnnge of aaid property shall be d~spos~~l of ln a manner satisfactory to the City ~ngineer. If, in the preparation of tt,~ ~ite aufficient gl8dir.g is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted betwee~ Ocl•ober 15th and April 15rh unless all. requir.ed off-site drninage faci].i~iea hav^ been installed and are opsrattve. Positive aESUrance ehall be pr.ovided the City that auch drainage facilities will bE~ can~pletad prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drain.tge facilities ahall be dedicated ea the ci.ty, or ~he City Councll Qhall have ini~:iat~d condamnation proceedings therefor (the coata of which shall be Uorne by the developer) prfor to tha commencement of grading operatir,na. The required dr~~inage faclli.ties ehall be of a siz2 and type aufficient to carry runoff watc~r~ originatir,g from higher propertiea through said property to ultimrite diapos~l ~s approv~d by the City Engineer. Said disinage Fvcilities ehalJ. be tt-e firat i.c:em of construction and ahall be completed and be functional :'~ro,:ghout the tract and from the dowr.stream boundary of. the property to the u'timate paint of aiepoeal p:ior to the iseuance o£ any final building inspections or occupen~y permite. Draina~e dintrict reimbursement agreementa may be made available tn Che d~~velopera of seid properr.y ~~pon Cheir r~quest. ~ ~ s MtNU'PEc~ CITY P1.ANNING COMMISSION~ .Ju.ly 8~ 1974 74~-325 1'sNVIRONMGNTAL IMPACT ItEPOR'f N0, :129 AND TENTATIVB MAPg OF TRACT N03. 6455 (C1;JTSIUN ~-) AND 84,~ VISION~_~Contin~ad) _ (12) Thnt gradtng~ excavution. e~d ull othar conetruction act'ivitica ehall be conducCed iii euch a mannc~r ao ae to minimiza the ponelbiliCy of any e11t eriginuLin~ from thie prujc~ct being carxied into tha Banta Anq Rivar by etorm wate,r orisinnting from or flowing through thia pro~act~ (13) Ti~nt fire }iydrante ehall. be inetal]ad and charged ae ru~uir~d nnd deCermiited to be necessary by the ChieE oE the Yire UepaxCment prior ~:: corroa~nc~~•ment of structur.nl framing. (74) Thc-t a maximum 20 acal plot plan ehowing al.l on-eiCe impcovamonte including eava overl,ang and propoae~ iocation of air.-condiCioning aquipment be oubmitted for build•ing permita. (15) Th~t prior to approval of th~ flnal tracC map~ thQ petitionPr ehall mnk~~ some provision~ acceptable to thc City Councl].• for landecaping atid maintenance of the alopey wi.thin and/~r creaCed by the developmnnt of thie properCy. (16) That finul floux~ plans and elevat~lons for each phaed of development ahall be subrair.ted to and approved by the rtamting Commieeion and City Council pr:lor to approval of tl~e finnl traat map. Commissloner. Johnson noted for the Commieoion that he t~ad ~~oted'~no"sinc.e tt~e previous action of Che Planni.ng Commisei~n concerning tl~e eub,~eat property wae t~ aupport reciuced denaity in the Aiiaheim Hills area, and t.hax no one lived wikh a lagal description but with the homee ~at would be conetructad. Commiasio~ r King oFfered a mat:un, seconded by C~mmiesioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED (Commieoioner Johuson voting "no" and Co~niaei.onerg Farano and Fierbet being absent), to approve Tentative Map ~f Tract Nc,. 8456 (Revision 3), recommending to the Cily Council that an ordinance be r~~d £or RS-5000 zoning instead of R••2 zoni.ng on the subject property, sub~ect to the fullowinb conditionat (1) ThaC the approval of Tentati.ve Map of Tract No. a45ti (Reviaion No. 3) is granted aubject to coc~pleti~n of ^eclttesification No. 71-72-44. (2) That ~+tiould this eubdivision be developed as more t•hun one subdiviaion, each sut~division thereof shall be eubmitt~d 1n tentacyve £orm for approval. (3) That all lota within thta tracC ehall be served by underground utilitiea. (4) That a final. tract map of subject properCy sha21 be eu~m3tted to and appratied by the C,ity Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Rec.o~:~er. (5) That any propoaed cnvenant•s, conditions and reatrictions shall be aubmitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office pri~r to City Council approval of Che f~nul tract map and, further, that the appro~ed covenanta, conditiona and restrictiona shall be recor.ded concu-•rently with the final tract mxp. (6) That street aamea ahall be approved by the ~,i.ky of Anaheim prlor to approval of a iinal r_r.act map. (7) That prior to filing the final tract wap, the applicant shall eubmit to the City AttornPy for epproval ar denial a complete synopa{e of the proposed functioning of. the operating corporation, including but not limiCed to the articlea of incorporaCion~ bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding Co ineure mainte- nF.~ice of common property and buildinga, ai:d such ~~ther infor.ma:ion as tha City A+:torr.ey may desire to protect the City, ita citiz~ns and the pu,•chasera of tl~e pro,ject. (8) That the owner(s) of sub~ect proparty shall pay to c:e C~}y ~` Anaheim tha appropriate park and recreation in-lieu feea ess determined t, be apprapria~.e by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time Che but~ding permit is issued. ~ ~ MINl1TES ~ CITY PI.ANN[N(; CUA41'[SSIUN, July $, 1.97=~ 74-326 F'.NVIRUNMENTAL It~ACT ItEPOR1' N0. 12ri ANU TF•NTATIVG MAPS OF TFtACT NOS. 8455 (RGVISIQN 4) AND 8456 (REVTSION 3) iCon~inued~~ _ _____~__,_ - (9) Tl~at n 6-foot titgli ~ ciacorative, oponwork wall ehall be con :Cruc' e~i at the top of s].ope adjacenk to CanyoTi Rim Kuud on Lot Nos. 1. tliru 6 und along the HI40 1~~t lirie of Lot No. l nh lr~xet Co the rear cor.ner of Cho hc~u~e on sn.id l.o~ Plane £or said wall eh~z11 bc submitCad Co thc Plunning Cotnmiasi.un and City Couu<•{.1 [or approval. pr.or tu npproval of th~ fiiial tracr map. RenKOnab2e landecnping~ including lrrig,~cian facilittes, ahall be itiatz-11ed within the Ellope areae of ~~~ch lot ad,jacent to the roadway and in Che uncem~ntad portion of Che arterial highway parkway the fu11 dletunce of eaid wall. 1~~.anH for said landecnping shall be submitted Co and r~ubleck to the approval ~~f the Supurintendenr of P~rkwny NiaintenuncP. P'ailowing :tnqc+111ution an~l ~cceptanc~:, tha propsrty owner r~l~ aeaua~s renponeibiliCy for mnintennnca of eaid l.andec~-ping to the 1~t linea~ and the City of Anaheim ehall asaume the Yesponsib911ty for mainc~+nunce of Che lnndacapinq in the Canyon Rim ftoad parkwuy. (10) That vehicular access rigiita~ ~xcept at street anU/vr ulley opening3, to C~nyon Rim Road ahall Le dedicaCe~i to the City of Anaheim. (11) That drainage of said property shall be dl~posed. uf in a mannsr sutia ~ory to the CiCy F.ngineer. If, in the preparation of 'the sLL•e sufficienC gr~ ~ng 1a .equired to neceasitate a grading permit, uo work on grading will t~ permiCted batween OctobHr 15th and April 15th unl2ss alJ. required off-site ~' -~inage fncilities have Ueen i.nstalled and are opera~ive. Positive seau~ ;ice aha].1 be p:avl~ied tt~e Ci.ty that such dr.ai.nage facilities will be compler , prior to October 15th, Necessary right-of.-way for off--aite drainags f: ~litiae sha11 be dedicated to the Clty, or rhe ~:ity Coun~~i.l ahall have initiHt- .t condemnntion proceedings therefor (the costs of whtch ~hall be Uorne oy r'e devaloper) prior to tl~t comme~~~•etn~nt of grading operations. The required dr~:lnuge fscili.[iea o~iall S~ ot a size and Cype sufficient to carry runoff warere origi.nating from t~igher propertiea through said property to ultimate diapoAal ae approv~d by the CiCy Engineer. Said drainage facilities sh311 be the first item af conKtruct:on and sha.ll be completed and be functional throughout the tr~zct and from the downstream bounciary of Che property to the ultimate point of disposal pri.or to the 1ASUance of any final building iayp~~rions or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimburaement agreements may be made avAil.able to the developers of said property upon their requeat. (12) That grading, excavation, snd all oCher construction activikies shall be cun- ducCed in such a manner co as to minimize Che ~oasibill.ty uf any silt originat- ing from tliis pro~ect being carried i.nCo the Santa Ana River. by storm water originating from or flowing through this pro~ect. (13j That fire hydrants ahall be installed and charged as required and d~:termitied to be necessary by the Chief of Che Fire APpttrtmen~ prior tu commencement of. ~Lruc- tural Eraming. (1G) :har prior to approval of a final tract map, the owner(s) of sub~ect property ahal.l ma;ce irrevoc~ble offer to dedicate an easemer.t for riding and hikii~g trail purpusPa over thnt porri.un ~f subiect property ~ver which the Four Corners Pipe Line Company has un easement for pipe lin~~ and incidental purposes on the datc~ of t:his resoluti~n. Said offer Co dedica~e shall be irc~vocabl~ foz a period of twenCy (20) years and may be accegted by tl,~~ Cit;~ o;: Anaheim at s~xch time as it is determined Chat development of such facilities would hP in Che beat inCerest of the City of Anuhe.tm. Said irrevocable offer to dedicate shali be recorded c~•n,:urrently wit}~ ~ I~t final tract map. (i5) That a minimu 20 scale plof. plan showing all on--site improvements in,:2iidi.ng eave overhang and proposed location of all atr-conditioning equipm~:nt be sub- mitted for building permits. (1~) That the pr~cise loc.ation of the public access easement to the property to the north of aubject tract shall be determiried and shown on the final tract wap. (17) Thxt prior to a~~r~val of the final trac:. map, the ~.etitioner shall make some proviaion, acceptable to the City Co~incil, for land~capin~ and maintenance of the slopes witt~in and/or created by the dev~~opment of this property. (18) Tt~at finnl floor plans and elevations fc,r each phase of development shall Le ~iebmitted to and approved by the Planning Commisaion and City Cc,u~~~•i1 prior to approval of the final tract ma~. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY. PLANNTNG GUPQ`1L5Si0N~ J~1y H, 1974 74-327 ENVIRONMENTAI. II~ACT Itt;pORT N(i, 129 A;~D TI:NTATIVE, MP.PS OF 1'RACT NOS. 8435 (RP;VTSION 4) AP1D 84SG ~„RGVISION ~) (Contlnued) _ -• Commisr~ioner Johneon noted Eor the Commiealon ~hnt he h:~d vnt~d "no" Aln<_c ~hQ previoua action of the 1'lanning CommiaAlon concerning Che eubjecr prol~erty was to aupporC raduced d~nel.t.y in Ct~e Anaheim Htlt:i area~ and th+~t nn one livt~d with n ~oqAt ddacription but wlth thu t~omae that wuuld be conatriicred. ~~g; - Tempozur.y Chairman Cnuer declared a recedH at 4:1U p•w. RECONVENE , - Temporury Chi~'.rman Gauar reconvensd the meeC~Inp nt 4:22 p.m. wlth ~"" Comu-ieaionera Farxno and Herbst being abe~nt. VARIANCr N0. 2615 - PUBLIC HEARLNG. MR. AND MRS. GII.BERT SCt1RODER~ 18585 Lofl I.~ ~nPa, Fountain Vulley, Cn. 92708, Owner; KENNETH OLSON, 527 South Narhor Boulevard, Anaheim~ Ca. 92805, Agent; requeati.ng WAIV~R OF (A) PERMtT'TGD USES, (B} MI~IIMUM SIDE YARA Sk~TBACK~ (C) MINIMUM NUMBER Or YARKING SPACES, (D) MAXIMIJM WAI.L HEIGHT, AND (E) MiNtMUM SETBACK AKEA LANDSGAPING. TO PdRMIT EXYANSION OF AN RXISTING NONCONrORMZNG PHOTOGRAPHTC STUDIO ~~n property deacribad ae: A rectangularl}~-shapad parc~l of land consisting of approximately .3 acre having u frontrge of approxlmgtely 1.7.4 fae!: on the wesk oide uf Harbor aoulevard, tiaving a muximum depth of appr.oxiraately 95 feet~ and being locatad npproximntely 330 fPet south of the centerllne of Santa Ana StreeC. Property prasently clasaified R-1 (ONE-F'AMILY RF.SIDENTIAL) 70NE AND C-0 (~OMMERGIAL OrFICE) ZONE. No one appeared in opposi.tion ko sub~ect petieion. Although the Stuf' Kepurt to Che Planning Commieaion dated July 8, L974 was noC reacl at the p~iblic hear'-~~?, it ia referred Co snd made a part ot the minutea. Mr. Kenneth Olson, the agent for ~he property owner, appeared before the Cammission and etate.d that he had operated the aubject businesa in t'he City of Anaheim for thc past tweive years, seven of those years at the subiect location, and there hnd never been any repercusaions in the area cuncerning the bueinesa; that the buainesa dealt with large groups auch as Northrop, Nurth American, Union Oil, etc., and aa a consequen~e there was not c~uch traffic or activlty generated; thak they did not cater t~ the general. public but to th~~ busl.ness commuaity, and probabl~~ one person pen c~ar. would come into the sl-udio during an average eight-hour dxy; ~~-~~1 that, in his opinion, the area on Harbor Boulevard was developing with commercial buslne~ses. THE HEARING FiAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mcrley questioned Che number of parkl~~n, spacea proposed and Mr. Ols~n etated the parking wauld i,e eatisfactory for his type of operr~ti.on; that instead vf twenty p.~trons with amaller items, there wou.id pro'~cibly be three or four witn larger itenis anci tt great deal of parking was not necessary. Commiasionpr Morley noCe~' that if the type of busine~s changed in the future, the parking situs~ti.,n mignt not be adequate and therefore create s problem for the City. In response to questioning by Commissioner Morley regarding the requested wall hei.ght, Mr. Olson indi.cated the wall was proposed to be higher than the Code allowed ~o that the chi.ldren in tl-e area would not climb on it. C~wmi.ssion~r Morley then tioted that when ehe ad~oir.iu~ properties developed, the wall heighr would be satl.sfactory, and that the t~roposal was to conatruct a r.ew f.acade for the e~.isting building. It was noted that tlie Di.tector of r~evelopment Services had determined that the prupoaed s~ctivi~y fPll within the definiti;n uf Section 3.0?, Class 3 of the City of 4nahPim r;uide- lines to the Requirements for ai- Environmentnl Impact Report and was, theref~re, categori- cally exempt f:om the requirement to file an EIR. Commissioner 'riurley offered Resolution No. PC74-140 and moved fur its passage and adoption to gra~t Petition for Varianc~ No, 2615~ granting waiver ~~f the permittea uses in the C-0 Zone on the ba:~ig that tlie use t~ad been in existence at the suh~ect locatior~ for a prt tod of npproximately twelve years and is a profeaei.onal office in nature; Rranti.t~~; ~~aiver of Lhe minimum aide yard setback on the has:s that the existing atr~ctur.e hag been in exlst- ence for longer than twnlve years; pranl-ing wuLver of the minimt~m number of parkin,g spaces on the basis rhat the proposed parking spaces er~ adequate for the use, as proposed, and ~.ice the petitioner indicated thaC khe photcgranhic studio would not cat~er ~o the general ~~ublic but to the business community; and gr~nting waiver of maximum wall height un the isasie of the sesthetic value of the development proposal, as eubmitted; and s~tibio;,t to cunditione. (See Reaolution Bookj ~ ~ - MINUTr:S, C1TY -'LANNYNC CUFLMISt>IUN, ,Iuly 8, 19/4 7k~32A VARIANC~ N0. 2(~1.5 (Continued) ~n ro11 rA~L~ the £orugoing rusulution wae paee~~d by CU~ ~l.lc~wing voCe: AYL'S: C.'~41ISSInNCRS: JOHNSUN, hLNG~ MURL.I:Y, i;AU~R NUES: COMMtSSI.ON~RS: NON~ ABSHNT: COMMISS~ONF,RS: ~:+RANO, HrRBST CQNDITIONAL USi? - PUBLIC kiEARTP~G. OIt~~NGfi SAVINGS M1i) LOAN, 230 Chapman Avenue, Urange, PERM[T N0. ]47b Cn. 92666, Ownc+r; G?T..DERT ~ARC'LA~ 1435 Anncapri StreeC, ganta Barbaru, ~ Cri. 9~101~ '• :nt; re!~~~~~eting permiselun to ESTABLIStI AN 0'rEICE IN AN EXISTTNC R~~~~ .I)BNCE WAIVLNG (A) RLQUTRL'MENT THAT ALL YARKING SHA,.L DE PROVIDEU 1'0 'CHE REAR UF TNE RESi11EN'TIAL 5TRUCTURE, (B) VEHICULAR ACCCSS DEA.[CATION~ (C) MA7CIMUM WALL SIGN AREA, (Uj !~tTNIMUM SIllE YARQ SF;'fBACK, AND CE) t'IAXIMUM NUMBCR OF WALI~ SzGNS un property descrihed ne; An irregularly-shaped parcFl of l.and coneisting af approximutely .58 ac;re located At `~~e eouthwaet corner of Sanea Ana Street and 'Harb~r Houlevard~ I-aving approxlmate fronta~es of 175 feat. on the west ei.~e of Harbor Bou.i.~ vard and 1S5 feet nn the e~uth side of Santa Ana Street. Property preaently clasaified R-3 (MUiTIPLF.-FMSILY (t~SIDL'NTIAL) ZONE AND C-0 (COMMERCIAi. OFPICE) ZONE. No one indic:~ced thei.r presence in oppoaicion to auh~ect petitiur~. Althou~n tt, Staff Report to Che Planniog Com:•idRion dated July 8~ 197k was not read at the public h~ari.ng, i.t ie r.eferred Co and ma~le a part ot the mi.nutr,s. Mr. Gilber~ Gar.^is, the agent `or the ~,roperty owner, appeared before the Commiseion and yta~~~i the ~ubject prnperr_;~ was on khe cornpr of Harbor P,ou7.evnrd and Santa Ana S'_reet; Chat, in hiP opinion~ the ~ubject area was develaping co~mercial; tha+: the Staff Repart to the P1~nninK Commisaion was self-explanatory and r.o•~::red Ct~c proposal adequately; and that he was a~otl~ble to answer quesCions regarding aai.l propossl. THI ''IiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commiaei~ner Morley questioned why the peCiti.or.er wanted to go to Cne expense of remodel- ing the residential. s[r.uctur.e and then tearing it down and rebuilding i.n the future, and i•!r. i.arcla atated the Orange Savings and Loan wanted to be in the ~~r~a as aoon ts posai~le, and rtie priority waa opening the uffice SI1CI manning it; and tt~at once there was b temporary faci.licy~ they could plan ca:efully far u perr.ianent facility. In responae to questi.oning bq the Planning Comaission, Mr. Garcia slipulated that the temporary raci3.itiea would be used £or eight~en months, at the end of which time Chey ~vould be demoliahed; that regarding the use of a trai.ler situation, they felt their pr~- posal was leas expensive and more expedient; thaC when the temporary structiire wab removed, khat area would Uecome parking space; that one of the reasons for the wai.vers was Lhat they were working w~th an existing stz•ucture und it was unlikely that they c~uld fin.i a facility that would mest all of Che requix•ements for a comme~rcial use. Mr. Tuny Padilla, 537 South Harbor Boulevard, appeared b~fore t~~e Commission and inqui~ed regarding the type wall proposed to be constructed betw~en the ~ubject property and Mra. Barbara Fitzpatrick's properry at 515 Harbor Boulevard. He stated _cs. Fir_zpatrick l~ad a dog and woul% need a fence. In r.eply, Mr. Garcia stated a 6-foot ~~';h wall was proposed, as ahown on [he plans. Mra. Barbara Fitzpatrick appeared ~~ore the Commiasion and ataCed her property, wh_,.h fronted on Harbor Boulevard, was so an L-shuped parcel and ~~~~nt behind the subject pr.operty; that hpr property would no;- be t~Lg enough to be develoned commercial and it wa~ hard to s~ll an L-shaped ;~iecP of property `.or comme~~ial uae. Assistant Zoi~ing Supervisor Ann:.ka Ssntxt<3hti noted for Mrs. Fitzpatrick that an alley had been consi~ered in an area develo~:ment plan along the property wh~cn wae subject ta the commercial properties deveJ.opiiig it; and that one uf the condtCi~no of apprav-1 as sPt fortli in the Staff Report for the aub~ect petition was Chat the alley he improved; and that said s:.ley aould go around Mra. FitLpatxick's property. Ca~issionQr King noted that there could be problems wit~i the accaes to Harbor Boule.ard ar.d that the sub~ect prorGrty had iiigress ~nd egre3s fram Sauta Ana Street, ~+ ~i Mr. Garcia stated they had considered the access with the Ciiy Traff ^' ngineer wtio inlic~.ted with egresa only there ahould not ~ie a problem, and to ~xxke it lesa of problem it should be only one w3y. Co~migaion~r king noted that lie banked with the arange Sav!ngs and Loan and questioned Dt~puty City :lttorney Ftank Luwry if h~ hsd a conflict of inter~st, and Mr. Lowry indicated in the nega;.i~!e. ~ ~ MINllTL5, CITY PW-NNING CUMI~~~SS]~N, Jul.y 8, 1974 7G-329 CQNDITIONAI, USG PERMIT N0. ].476 (ConCinued) In reeponse to questioning by Commiaeionar Jutineon~ Mise Santalahti advi.s~d tliat vAhicutai accesa riQhts to Flar.bor Boula~,-ard were dedlcnted to and acc~~~~-c.ed by :he City in 1968 ne a condition oE the finc~lization of C-0 zening on Che northerly pc,rtion of aub18ct property; Chat the peCi.tioner was now aeking for vehlcular acc:ess rights to be rceinotated to hip property contrary tu the r~quirements of the C-U zoning; an~ that the City AtCornoy had ~.ndicated that tho requedt for delar.i.on of the ccn~lition requiring dedication of vehicular accesA rights to Harbor Aoulevard would liave Co be coneidered aC a public hearing. In reeponea to questlaning bp Go-nmiseioner JahnAOn~ 7.unin~ S~~p,rvisor ~harlea Robertp adviBed t.hat tempornry nccese to Harbor BoulE~.-t~ cuuid b~ r~commend~d on tha basie thAt thQ access wculd bc for eighteen monkha onl.~. Mise Santalahti adviaed that n condirion Alaauld ba edded to t.l~~~ Staff ReporC "That thio conditianal use permi.t is granted sub~ect to the completion of Reclaseification tdo. 63-64-90, now pending." It was noted that the D~i~ect.or of. Developmenl Seti vlces hud determl.~~c,:l rl~ut. the propoacd activity £ell within the definition of Sectian 3.U1 Class 3 0£ the CLty of Anaheim Guidelines to the Require~ments fur an Envirui~menral fmpact ReporC and wxa~ therefote, categorically e,cempt from the requir.~m~nt to f11.~ an EI1t. Temporary Chairman Gauer of;.ered Resolution No. PC74-141 ar-d moved for ita paes~ge aud ndoption to ~L- :c 1'etitton for Conditional Use Permit PTo. 1476 and tha requeated waivere, for a period of eighteeR munChr~ on the baeis that khe pei:itioner atipulated the propcsal to utilize a resi.dential etructure would ba temporary; ~~~~t the Planning Commisainn rECOm- menda Co th~ City Council thr.t waiver of thc~ vehicular acces~3 dedication be granted for a p~r.iod of e~ghteen montha, being R temporary accesa only to be utillzed in con,juncclc~n witti the propose~t temporary uae; and aubjecC to conditions (See Resolution Book) On roll ca~l~ the fureg~ing T'~sJ1UC'~_OI1 was paeaed by rhe following vote: pyGti; r,p~?~(~SSIOI~ERS: JOHNSON, KIrC, M~RLEY, GAUER NOES: ..OMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CON~lISSIONERS: FARANO, HERBST Mr. Roberto clarif.ied for Mr. Garcis that an~thcr public heazin~ would be required before the City Council in urdpr to iegain vchicul.sr access righta for the permanent faci.lities when ?r~~posed, and that it might behoove rhe petitioner to conaider some interna'1 circula- tioi, so they would not have t:o have access to Harbor soulevard; and thek the Cemp~rary acc~as Ueing granted applied ~ Ly t~~ the temparary facility and for the eighteen montt~ period of time. VARIAIJCE N0. 'L616 - PUBLIC HEARLVG. BROOKHliRST APAR'PMENT FIJND, LTD., c/o Charlea Clavton, -'-" 1b205 East Whittier Boulevard, WhitCier, Ca. 90603, Owner: HARBOR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., 601 Dover Ari.e, Newport Beach, Ca. 9266U and WESTOVER, CUR~EY AND MATSEN, 500 Newport Center DrivF, Suite B, Newport Be~ch, Ca. 92680, Agents; requesting WAIVER OF (.A) MAXIMUM SZCN A1'l:/: AND (b? MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS, TO 1'ERMIT '.:HE CONTINUED USE OF FOUR EXISTING SIGNS on property deacrihed as: A rectangularly-ah~ped parce~ of lar3 con.~isting of approximately 13 acres located aC the southeast corner o[ Creacent Avenue and Valle~ Streer., having apvroximate frontagea of 940 feet on the south side of CreacPn: Avenue and 60. feet an the east eide of Valley Street. Property preaently classified R-3 (MULTIPL~-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL3 ZONE. Nn one indicated their presence in oF;.c~sition to auhjecC petition. Altt~ough the Staff Report to the Planning Cormai~oion dated July 8, 197G was not Yead aC the public hearing, it is referred to and maut ~ part of the minutes. Mr. Jeff ' ~sen~ ^Ctorney w1.th law firm of We~+~~ver~ Currey & Matsen, the agent for the property owner, appeared before the Commisaio., and explained the location of ti~e eubjecC property and the ad,i,acent land uses and statPd that the new owner had spent in ex~ess ~f $100,000 to upgracle the apartment cumplex at the ~ubject l.o:ation; that exposure w~s needed and t'.~ey were requesting to continue t1i~ ~se uf two signs that were presently ~n the souChwest and northwesc ends of the building, said eignR indicating the name nf the apartment comp?:x; that two additior~al si5ne w~re requested to be inside oi Ltie apartment complex to fndicate "rental office"; 3ad ChaC alau there was a free-atanding aign on tho north side of the property facing Crescent indicn[inR '~Terra Hill Family Anartmente." ~ ~ ~ MLNUTES, CITY YLANNINC+ CON4fISS10N, July H~ 1974 V .~:L N0. 261.6 (Continuecl) 74-330 Mr. Charles Clayton, the properCy owner, appwared before the Commisai.on and ~+tatal ha acquired the eub~eci. proparCy in Jr~ciuary 1974 and Chut at Chut titae the pru1~~et was i.n deep financial trouble; ttiat the pro~ect wsc9 canatr~~cted in 1970 ~nd there waA difYi~ulty r~nti.ng i~ and tho vucare::y factai• wae 60 to 1GX in .lnnuoty; that n~ ~>t' thie datn l'h~i project wae 100X occupi.ed And he w~~~~l.d attributs thal BUCf.l4$A pximnrily tu the aigns; that he had pereona.lly epettit over $100,U00 to bentiKify tl~e proj~ct with lendH~:nping, etc.; thnt ttiere waro ~68 family-orientecl ~ita with ovor 800 childron on 13 acreH~ e-nd tlie complox had ite own child care f~cili~~~; thut wiLhour. the signn on lirookh~~rat he did nat feel Che pro~act ould have Ct~e vieibility wt~ich would inForm Lntereeted tennnCe Cliut tha pt'o~nct ~wae fqmi~.y-oriented; thpt 90~ of the peoplr~ who cnmo Co them had seen the aigne; thaC there were no res~dential propcrtia~ to tho north ot the oubject propert;~ who would eee the signs and ~here would be no vit;lbi]iCy fr.um tha freeway; that to Che south wore apnrt- ment houseo and ~o Che east was a 15-ucr~ etrr~wberry patch; an~l thut without l•he signe they wauld be in dPe{> trouble. THE PIrI~LtC t1L'ARING Wi,S CLOSED. In repl.y ta queationing by C:ommiayi.oner Kir.g, Mr. Clayton statad Har~or Management~ Inc., had been retained l•~ mni.~g,~ Che {~ro~ect; that although the pro~ect was presentl.y 1('QX occupied~ Che signa w4re s[ill needed ainca there waR a turn~~ver of 10:1 in terme of individuals to ccuples, and a h.uri~over ~ f approximaCely 50 fumilies per ~nonth; acid Chat they were r~:questing approva:. of the exiating eigne. Commiseioner King not4d thut he and Cammir~~ioner ~toriey had viewed the sub~QCC ~r~parCy in ~he field and the signa were no'z ob,~ectionIIble or offei-oive, and Commir~siozer Morley 9cated that the 31gns identified but dJ.d not upper~r to be ob~ectiot~able. Ii- reply to queationin~ b;: Temporary Chairuan Gauet•~ Mr. Clayton sCated the banner and flag thak ar~ce were flowu at the pro~ect had been removed at the request of the City. It was noted that the Director of Developmen[ Services had dPtermined that the proposad xctivity fell within tlie definition of Section 3.U1, Clnss 2 of the Cit~~ of Anaheim Guidelines t~ the Requirements for. an Envi.r~nmencal ImpACt Report and was, therefore, categarically exempt from the requicement to Eile un CIR. Commiseioner Morley o£feied Re~olution No. PC74-1G2 and moaed for lts passage and adoption to gxant 1'etition for Variance No. ?.616 on tt~e beais of the foregoing tic~dings and aubject to ~onditians. (See Resoiution Book) On rAll call~ the toragoing resulution wns passed by the f~~llowing vote: AYES: COt~1ISSI0NERS: JOHNSON, KINr,, MORLEY~ GAUER NOES: CUA4vtISSIONERS: NONE AB~FSIT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, HERBST V/~ltIANCE N0, 2619 - P[IBL'TC HEARTNG. WF•.YEI2HAEU5ER COt~ANY, Tacoma, Washingion 98f;0i, Uwner; WEYERHAEUSER COI~LLANY, c/o M. L. So:ber, Manager, P. 0. Box 10~~ Anaheim, Ca. ~?.805, Ageat; reque~t~ng WAIVER OF PEFtMITTED LUC~1i'ION UF A SIGN, TO CONSTRUCT A FREE-STAND~NG SIGN on property descril~Ed as: An irregular].y-shaped parcel of land consieting of approxiroately 4.3 acres ltaving a frontage of approxtmutely 55 feec on the south aide of Cerritos Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi.mately 761 feet, and being located appx'oxitaatel.y 535 feer, west of the centerline of Lswi.s Sr.reeC. Property presently clx~saifi~:d M~1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZOP~E. No one indicated their presence in oppoRition to subject petition. Although the SCuff Report to the Planning Commiseion dated July 8, 1974 was not rea~l at the public: hearing, it is referred to and madF g part of the ~ninutes. Commisaione.r King noted that he and Commiasioner Mor.lPy had viewed the gub~ect property in the field and could see no adverse effects to grantin~ the reqt~~st. '~HE PU3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ MINU'Pf:S~ CITY P(.ANNTNC (,OIrQ~1i5SI0N~ Jt~ly 8, 1974 7~~-331 VAftIANCE N0. 261.9 (Continued) It wae noted that the Dirc*ctor of Development Serviaee had dc+t~+rmined tt~iit the px'oposed uctivi.ty tPll withln tho definition of S~ctioii 3.01. Cla~e~ 2 of Che City o.E Anuheirn CuidelineA to Che Raqu:irementa foa an Environmentnl Imp~cC Report ar.j wna, r.herefore. categorically exempt from Che tequiremenx to file an ET.R. Commie~ioner King ofFered Keai,lutlon Nu. PC74-143 end mcsvud for lte pnaenge and adoption tu granC Petitlon f.ar VPrianca No. 1 an the baeie CtiAt char~ are exceptio~al or extt.a- urdinary cirr.umst~ncns or cunditions ~ppllcable to th~ ~cuperty involved or t~ tl-e intended uds of Che propcrty that do not apply e~norully to lhP properr.y : claas o' use in the sume viclni.ty ~nd zope; ~hak tlin requeaC~d vari~nce ia n.~ceaear.y for the {~~reaervation e~nd en,~oyme~it of a aubatanCinl property right poenesaed Uy ner property it~ the sa~e vicinity nnd zone and denied to khe prupar[y in questian; ~nd tl..c thr .:.~iest~d vartance will noC be mater'.ally detrimentai ~o tt.e publle walfars oc in.jurio~..~ to tne pco,~erty or impr.o~~r.- n•~nts in such vi.c:initv nnd zone in which the properky i.s lor_ated; subject to condil•ions. (See Reaolutian Book.) On roll call, the foregoing resolutian was pasaed by the following vote: ~YES: CQMMZSSLUNERS: JOHNSON, ''ING, MORLEY, GAU~R NOES: CON11iISSIONERS: N(lNG • AIISENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, '.iERHST VAl2IANCE N0. 2617 - PUBL'IC HEARING. VILLAGE i:1N INVESTORS. c/o Mervyn Phelan, 1911 Eaat ~ ~^ Cettter Street, ~~iCe 203, Anbheim, Ca. 92805, O~~r:~r; requesting WA.YVER OF Y~RMITTEll ~IGNS, TU CONSTRUCT A FftFF-S'1'ANDING 5IGN IN 'i'HE C-0 ZONE on property deacribec~ R3: A rect:sngularly-ehaped psrcel. of land consisting of approximately .'+ acre havLng a fr~~ncage of apt~roximately 122 faet on the north side of CentEr Stree~, having a mRximum lepC1~ of xpproximately 136 feet, and being l.ocr~ced approximately 92 fee! eaat of the centerline of Coffm~n 5treet. Property present?.y clasyified C-0 (COMMER~.lAL ~1T~•ICG) 7.ONE. t~o onc indicated tneir presence iu up~ositton Co subjec: petil;ion. Although the Repor.t to the Plauning Com~-lseion dated July 8, 19 y was nu: read at [he..publ~c he»zing, it is re.ferred to and r~ade a part of r.h~a m~.iutes. Mr. Ken StilweJ.l, representing the groperty ownier, appeared b iore the Commiasion and sts~ted tYiat although the requeaCed free-standing aign was not Fermitted by Code, there waa a har~ship since a sign on the building would not be viaible trom both directions on CenCer Street; that the 3ub~ect property waa located close t~ tlie corner of Genter Street and Lincoln Avenua an~l buainess could probably be dtawn frum Lincoln by the proposed sign; and there were free-r~tanding signs approved for other properties in th~ area• TFIE PUBLIC HEARIVG WAS CLUSCD. Commissioner King noted that he had vi.ewed the eub~ect ~,roperty in the field nnd tt~ere w~re exiating free-standing sign:i iu the area which created a precedent. It was n~ted that the Di.rector of Development Servi.ces had ~etermined that the p~oposed activity iell wiehin the definitior~ c,f Secl-ior 3.01, Class 3 of the City of Anaheim Cuidelinea to the Requiremen~s for an L'K and was, therefere, categurically euempt from che requirement Co fil.e an EIR. Commission~er King offer.ed Resolutton P'.o. PC74-144 and m::ved fur its passage and adoption to grar-[ Petition for Varianr_e No. 2617 on the basie of the foregoing findir.gs; subject to conditions, provided~ however, that trash storage areas shnll be provided t-- accord~nce witt~ apprcved plane on file with the office of the Dlrer.tor of. public Works, including accr:ptabl~ acr.ess thereto. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the f~regoing resolution was passed by the f~llowing vote: AYES: CflA41ISSI0NERS: JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, GAU~R NOES: COMNiISSLONERS: NONE ABSF.~1T: COI~lISSION~RS: FARANO, HER3ST • ~ MINUTES, CITY k~I.ANNINC COMMI.SSTON, Jul.y B, 197b .~~``~3~ VARI.ANCI: NU~ 2614 - I'UBl.1C NGAKI.NG. (1PE.td ROM Rk. U.TY ti UF•V~LOPMrN'P CUriPIWY ~ 101 '- -' Cont~nente~l lioulevr~rd~ E1 Sa,~undo, Cei. 90245, Ownar; AU-ART, INL'. , 17i5 G4Ch Slrr_et, fGieryvtlle~ Cu. 94609~ Agenl'; requedCing W~IVGR OF (A) MINIMUM ll.S'CANC.F: IlE'fWEH:N S1(;NS, (B) }'FR.'`~i'r'lh:~ U~~ATIUN OF A SIGN, ANll (~j ~SA}CIMUM N~1MAI:R Oh S[GtIS, 'lU CUNS'fRUCT 'tliR1:E, FREG-S'PANDIN~ SIGNS un propNrt'y ~lesc:rlbed riK: An irreg~larly-si~up~d pe"cel of. l.und coneieting oti ~pproximatel.y 'l.U acro~ lacated E3~)UCII- uaeCerl.y c~f the Sunta ~ na I~rceway and Wa~~ Street, nuving e front~g~ ~f approxlmat~ly 656 feet on Che c~ast side of WeKt Stree[, having a maximum J~~pth of npproximntely 41~i feet., and being loreted approximutely 320 feet ouuch of Che ctutarline of South Sernet. Yr.onerty presentl,y claselfied [~l-:L (r.IG}t't TNDUSTRIAI.) ZONt., 1t was noiced tliat the prtitionNr wae not praRe;~C and following a telepl~one call made by 3tnff to th~~ petitioner~ it wue~ detc~rminr.cl that the representaclve for the petir.iener would bc unable C.o be preac~nt even for the evening seeaion of thia meeting and, thereupon, Commiss:oner King offered n mation, a~conded by Commissioner Morley and MOT10N CARRIEll (Commissionara 'Fnrano und Herbat b~ing absen~) to puetpone the publi.c hearing for. Vflrinnc~e tlo. 261.4 to ttie meetir-g of July 22, 1974 in order thflt the p~~tif.ioner ar a represenCutlve could bc present. REP~T1tTS AND -• ITGM N0. 1 RI:COA4~fI;NUAT_IONS RE(7T..ASSIFICATION NU. 70-71.-40 - Rescltid Resolution ~ ~ No. PC7G-115. Zoning Super•~isor Charles Roberts noCed ttiut on ApriJ. 5, 1971, the Planning Commission adupted Resolution No. PC71-58 recommending approval o[ C-1 zoning for u propoaed shopping center to Ue :L~cated at the northes~st corner of Anaheim Hills Road and Noh3 Ranch Road; ehat iu earl.y May 1974, it waa datermined that the legal descr.iPti~ ndeacribeeCheytotal peCitioner (Anaheim H1.113, Inc.) was not correct in that it did noc st~opping center property depicted un the approved site plan; that on May 29, 1~74, upon the recommendation of Staff the Ylanning Coumiisaion adopted Reaolution No. PC74-115, amending Reaolution No. PC71-58, nunc pro ~unc; that subctequentl.y, the City Attorney rul.ed thal adoption of Resolution No. FC74-115 was not proper becfiur~e the error was not submitted clericfli in natiir.e, but eimply a maCcer of the wrong legA1 description being Co tt~e Clty; that on .Tune 24, 1974, the Planning Commission adupted Resolution No. PC74-134, am~ndi.ng the legal descripti.on originally contained in Resolution No. PC71-58, however, Resolution No. PC74-115 wag not rescinded as lt should have been. Mr. Koberts then n~ted that it ,~ould be appropriate for the ''lsnning Commission to rescind Resolution No. PC74-115 at tk~is time. `omreacin;le~lannin~fCommisoion1Res LutlonpNn4`PC7~+a115m~ondtherbasispof8the foregoingion t findings, (See Reaolution T3ook) On r~ll call, the foregoing resolution was paeoed by Che following vote: AYES : COMMISSIONERS : JOL~IJSON, KING, MORLEY ~ GAEJER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONL ABSENT: CONQ(ISSIONERS: FARANO, HERBST I'TEM N0. 2 roval ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOFT N0. 128 - Request for app o£ supplement pertaining to railroal noi.ae attenuation in 'Pentative Tr.act No. 7422 located between EspTOximatel~a and the future ext~nsion of La Palma Avenue, app Y 1.5 miles east of Imperin.l Highway. P laediJUlSuaer1974r and said~StnffeRepart isereferr.edetorastifisetpforthninC Fu~l.lsin~the oat Y m-lnutes. Mr. McDaniel noted that EnvironmenCal Impact Report No. 128 referred to Tentativeroxict No. 7422 which consieted of 87 sing~.e-family liomes zoned RS-5~00 on a aite of app mately 16.8 acrea. bouncied on the north by r,ie A.T. d S.F. Railroad; and that the EIR had bc~en req1ested by the Ctty Council in connr:ction with a req~ieat for an extension of time f or developme.nt of the tract. ~ ~J M[NU'l'ES, C'LTY PI.ANNI:JG COMMISSI(7W, .(t~ly d, .1q7G 74-333 1'fl~l NU. _2_ (Contlnuecl) In reHpvtt~.: to yuestLoni.ng by c:ommieHion~r King~ Mr. McOan1.o.L adviaed that thurt~ wnE ~i•n exnmpl.e ~t a 6-[oot higl~ wnl.l. ancl ~~artt~en bQrm 1n tt-c Cnnyon ar~e betw~en the £rouwuy arod Sanla Anu ~+•rryon Road nnd thnt there waK n two-to-one e~l.upe lanctecap~ J wiTl' icePoximnte:L ivy gr,und r.ovr.r, Mr. McUaniul furCher ndvised that the berm woul.d equ1. ~. app' y 2G fec~r ot pcopert,y, with 12 t'e~r. beln~ o~i elther elde uf the wali: ~^T~~data`thc+~landt, [or i~r,re~~+lnq Lhc I.ut de~the nlong ruilroads end £reew~ye wag Co ,ucc ncap~d b~rm, Mr~ Jack Hall~ repre~enting Hnll and I'oremHn~ Inc. , who prepured ths sub~ecC Llli for Mauer povr.lopment Compan,y, appeared bafare the Comn~i.s~ton gri~ ~ro~conetructgthe115~feottwall~,ias nul ~~bject to cocietructing Chu herm~ ttiey would be happY recommended hy tty~ conaultunr.. }le Ata ted r.hnt the rullroad was abo•~P tf~e Rubject properCy at app[uximaCely (~ f~et in one ar,~a and 8 fael- in anotlier area. Mr~ McDaniel clart£ied thnr. Staff was no~ euggesti.ng that the berm be canstructed~ and ~fieXe tnight be some way~ to soften t.h~ 15-foot hl.gh wnll. }te noted ttiat tho consu].tant ~rne recommending thr~t the ]5-fooG higt~ wall be r.ottsCru~ted attd,A~n ~f the°FIR,oSCaf.frwas Chn[ the wall. w~~uld bf: provicled in r.hc: r.ract and nc~t e9.mply a p t suggesting that the Coromisaiun recommend to the City Council a furtlier c~ndir.ion ro ~~~~t1IIC R grnnting Che requested exten9ion of time fc~r Tract No. 7422, suLd condi.cion being noise barrier be conetructed along Ghe railroad r.ight-of-wny and ho~ne insulaCion meusures be incorporflted, as apecified in the report from Bio-Acouall.cal. I:nginEering Corporation dnted June 'L7, 1974, and the accompanyi.ng sketcl~•" iu response t~ questiuning by Chair.man Gauer, Mr. McDaniel note~i that Che 5taff was con- cerned that inconeistenciea would develop along railruads nnd freewaya if the developera r!ere ollowed in euch case tu provide their own set of circumstnnces; und that thare wae a requirement that ther.c Ue 6~ dBAB outside xnd G5 dBAs inei.de the hon~e~. In reePonse 13-foothwalls~i.ni thc+.r develop entsGand~'those wlalls~didenothFeemato~be8objea ~ 10-toot and tionable s~.nce the residents liked ttzeir privacy. Chalrman Gau4r offered a motioii, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED m (Comraissionera rarano and Herbst being abseut) , that the report ~nd sketch from B o-• ~icousticul Engineering CorporatioT~ dated June 27, 1974 be accepted a9 a euppleinent to EIR No. 128 and that GIR No. 128 and S~ippleme.nt, having been consider.ed Chis ~late by the Planr_ing Commiasion and evidence botti written and oral having been presented to supplement eaid documents, the Plannir~g Couauission believes that sai.d draft EIR No, 1?.8 and SuPPZ.P' ment do conform to the Ci.ty and State Guidelinea and the Galifornia Environm~ntal Quality Act and based ll~Oll such informari.on does hereby recommend to the City Co~ncil rhat they certify said ~IR N~~. 128 and SunplemenC are in compliance with sRid Lnvironmental Quality Act; flnd, furt-her, that Che Planning Comrmission recommends to tht C3 ty Council that a cond~tion be imposed with the granting of tlie extension of time fo: 'Pract No. 7422 that a nolse barrier be constructed along the railroad right-oF-way a~~d home insulation measures be incorporated, as speci.fied in the report from Bi.o-Acouatical Engineering CorporaCion dated June 2'7, 1974, ~nd the accompanying sketch. ITEM_N0. 3 CHINO HiLLS PRESERVE AtttiA Request from Rancho Santa Ana and the Anaheim Union Water Company to redesignace certain property iii Santa Ana Canyon and Chinu Hilla from "Prt~ervP" to "Planning Reaerve on th~ 1983 l.and Use Element of the :.range Cuunty General P2an Property located norChwest ci ths intersecti~n of Santa Ana River and the Urange County bound~ry line, the consisting of approxi.mately 4200 acree. It was noted that the subject request had been been tentatively acY~eduled before the Orunge County Planning Commission oti AugusC 20, 1974, as an amendmeni to the 1983 Land Uae Llement; that "Yreserve" arese were those where development was neither expected nor encouraged during Che. period ending in 1983 and "Planning Reserve" areas wcre thase areas on che urbati fringe in w'~ich a plar~ning program wae under way at:d where criticAl planni.ng declalonK~Pi~ln~he ~~erve"iwould~probablyWhave~the8effectt ~ c~eceleratingndevelopment~ect ar~a~ as 8 ~ ~ M7.Nl1T~S, CITX PIJ-N~'~~N~ COh4~1ISSIUN, .luly 8, 1974 74-33~ ITEM NO. ? (Concinuucl) Commie~ionnr King n~~'arnd a rnot inn~ ~ecanded by Commieeioiit~r Mor.lr.y e~nd MOTiON CARRTED (Gormnisgion~r~a Fnruna r~nd Nert,sc haing at s9nt) ~ rliat ti~~~ ~1.R~plan:~ing Coromieaion ~at~~ thnt th~ Anat~~im l;ity Councl.l recommend to Cho Or~nge County' ~,en~~,~~ Plun (D73- Prupoec~d Am~~ndment ti~ tho 1983 Lund Uae Elament of the Oreng~. CuunCy GSA) be danled on tho bne~.e Che~C redaeignation of the aubJect area from "Pteperve" to "Planning liess~eve" woul.d b~ extremely pr.ematura and ltiat plr~nnl~6 and devc~lopment in thie ar~a ahculd be diKCOUt'age~d unlll f~lrChex e~tudy has ehown that it wauld be coneietant with regional lnncl u~c pianning und growtl~ policice. I'II3M N0. 4 VAR'iANt;L N0. 2267 dequest for ext~~teion of time - Pr~perty located at ehe northweet corner af Midway Drive ~-nd Anaheim Boulevurd, further described aA L411 South Aiic+lleim Soulevard~ and currently soned C~1. it was noted Chnt ti~e poti~ionor wAS requesci.ng upprova~ af a one-yoar ext ension ut t~.me fot Vc~rinnce No~ ZZ67 tu permi.t tl~a cuntinuance of exi~eCing outdoor servic~ facilities and uae of n moUiluhpme as an affice; that Canditi.one No. 4 and 5 of City Counc:l Resolutl.on 71R-i2fi grnnting tha sub~ect variance specified thnt the use of the mobilehome as an officF und the outdoor service faciliCies were granted T.emporarily for a perivd of one year to determin~ whether saic~ uaea would be detrimental to the area, after which time an additional p~riod of time might be granted; r.liak on April 2~i, 1973, the City CounciJ. sustained the action ~:aken b~ the Planning CommisRion to grant r~n exteneion o£ time to explre on July 20, 1974; and ttiat fie"ld inepeckion by s~aff rovedevariance andtcontained a property appear.ed to b~: devel~ped i.n accordance wi.th the $PP~rtions of the afor~mentioned mobilehome utilized as an office and two (2) ~an~ro~ertyeline~ aervice epacea located adjacent to tlie westerly p p Co-nmise~.oner King ofPered a motion, seconded by Commissio:ler Morley und MOTION CARRIEll (Comm3seio[tt=rg Tarano and Nerbat being absent) ~ to grant a one-year extension o£ Cime for Vari.ancc: No. 2267, to expire .1uly 20, 1975. I'f EM NO . 5 JOINT ME~TING - PLAtiNING COI~AIIS~'?ON~CITY COUNCIL Coflmisaioner King o£Lered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morl~y and MOTION CARRIED, that the City Council be invited to the k~ork session of the Planning Com~aission seC for July 18, 1974 o~iac~ionsgif that dateiis convenienL~forttherCityeCouncil toeattendCouncil and Plr~nning C RECESS - Teanporary Chairman Gauer deciared a dinner recess at 5:~7 p•m• RECONVE~IE •- Temporary Chairman Gauer teconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.ID• - with ~ommiseioners Farano and 'rterbat being absent. ~ ~ MINUTI?3, CI'f1C Y1.ANNING COMMISSION, July 8~ 1974 7G-335 CONDiTxQNAL USE - PUBLIC Hi:ARINi~. JAMF.S A1.DL+RSON. 241g South Loaru SCr~et~ AnaYinim~ ~:a~ PEKMIT N0~_1477 ')28U2~ Owner; JOf~' H. FINNBY. 2208 }:ner. Veranont ~venue, Anaheim, Ca. 92806, Agun:; requesti.ng permiHalon to ESTABL'ISI: AN AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITX on pr.operty descrlbad ae: A rect:navularly-ehapc~d parcel. of land cuneieting of approxlmuColy .4 acra locat,ad at the n~~rttiwasC corner oF I.acy Avnnu~ Alld BABt Street, having a~proximnto trc~nta~ee oi' 13A f.~:PC on tha north eid~ of. Lacy Avenue and 138 Eoar ~n the west yid~ uf Eus[ Streot. Pro~~~rrty pre~c+~itly claeni~- f.led td-1 ~LTCH'f 1NUU8'PRIAL) ?GN~. No one i.ndlcated Ghelr pt^sence in oppoeition to sub~ecr. petit~. • A1Cl~ough tt-e Staf f Rep~rt to t:lte Planning Commiesion d.eCed .iuly A, 1974 was not read nt the public hear~.ng, i~t ls referred to an~ o-ude a part of the minut~a. Mr. Jol~n Finnry, thc~ c~gent for tl~e property owner~ appear.ed before the Commiaeion nud indicated tt~at tha Staff. Report was complete and t.t~at ho woul.d havQ no comment to make at Chie point. Tl{E PUIILIC HEARINC WAS CLOS~D. I.n respon~e to questioning by the P lanning Commi~sion, Mr. FinnF.~ atipul.~Csd that, eince the building wad ahout one-fo~.irtt~ lacger than neceaeary fur Liiair purposes, u11 repair work would Ue done inside the buil.ding and theie would be no vehiclea purked oute~ide the building awaiti.ng repair; and ttiet thei•e would be no •~arking outaide the building uver- night of any vehic~.es eince the veickuQBdurin dthaC~duy;dandnthat~heawuuldlprovide addi-81 uut'omubilee or vehicles aweiting p p 8 tional fire prevention devices if determined to be neceasar.y. It was noted Chat Che llirector of Development Services had determined that the propoaed activiGy tell within tlze definition of Sectian 3.01, Clasa 1 of ~he ~ity of Anahaim Guide.lines to the R~quirements f.or an Environmental Impact Report and wae, theref.ore, categorically exempt fron- the requirement to file an EIR. Commisaioner Johneon offered RescluCion No. PC74-145 and moved for ~ts passage ard adop- tion to grant Petition for Cond~.tional llse Permi.t No. 1477 sub~ect to the seipulati.ans of the petitioner and sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On ro21 call~ the foregoing reaolution was paseed by the following vote: AYES: COM.NIISSIONERS: JOfL'~ISON, KING, MORLEY~ GAULR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~ARANO, FlERBST CONDITIONAL USE - PiiBLIC HE~IRING. JOHN PL~NNINO, 7429 Via Amorita, Downey, Ca• 90241, Ca. 92802, Anaheim, PF•RMIT N0. 1478 Qwner : JACK VAN Y.AASTER, 350 :;est l:atella Avenue, Agertt; reque~ting permiasion to ESTABLISH A,I3 AUTU RLNTAL AGENCY on property described as: A rectangularly-dhaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximately 1.1 acres having a frontage of approximately 228 feet on the eouth side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depCh of approximately 205 feet, and beir.g locnted approximately 900 feet ea~t of tt~e cent•erl~Lne of Harbor Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A (AGRICULTllRAL) ZONF.. No one indicated their preaence in opposition to NubiecC peCition. Altt-ough Che Statf IteporC to the Planning Commisaian dated July 8, 1974 was noC raad al the public hearing~ it la referred to and made a part of the minutea. Mr. Jack Van Haaster, the agent for the property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was a partner in the carwash and the automobile rental agency would be sub-leased. THE PUBLIC HEARING WA:; CLOSLD~ In reaponse to quest:toning by Cammisaioner Morley, Mr. Van Hsaeter atated ti~e automobilea would be stored on thQ southeast area of the aub~ect properCy ~.'hich would be blacktopped/ paved; that there would be room for 150 cars wh~ch wae as ~ny as they fntendedhat therc~~ th~ sub~ect location; and more than one-half o~ the cara would be rented ou~o erty on would be no diepl.ay of aucemobi.les for rent along th~ frontage of aubject p p Katella Avenue and all of the automobiles would be toward the rear uf sub~ect property. • 0 7G-3S6 MINUTGS, C1TY PI.ANNING CUPU~tI~S10N, -ful.y 8, 1974 (:UNUITIONAL SE YFRDII.'1'_t 0._ 147H ~CC)IlCiT1LL0(~~ In coHponse Co questi.aning Uy Commieaiuncr Kin~~ Mr. Van HRIIHCaC Ktr~t~d thair c~dvar.tteing was donu Chrougl~ thc. m+3in offices ln 5an Dlego nnd San Francisc<~; and that any ~igna would bn ln co~tfor:unnce wiCh the Sign OrJin~nce. In reepon~e to yuoetlonLng by C~nm~isei.oner. Morlcjy. Mr. Vnn liriuster KtlpulatQd th~xe would be no retall eal.~~r+ of automobilae at tli~ c~ub~ect l.ocAlion~ ?t wue nated thr~c the Dir~ctor of llavelopment Sorvices had dethrminad ~hat the propooed actlvity fn11 ~aithin the d~finiCion of Sectiun 3.01~ C1nsR 1 of tlie (;f•ty uF Anuliiz.lm Guidelin~a Co ttie RFquirementa tar nn i?nvlr.onmental. Impact Rcaport ATl(j wc~x. tharefor.e, cutegoricalty exempt from the r.~quirem~nt. ko Lil.e an i:IR. C~mmni.esioner Ki.ng ofEered ResoluCion No. PC74-1G6 and moved for ity passage snd adoption to gc+.~nC YeCition for Gonditi~nal Use Permit No. 1478 on ChF baeis "f~5ee ResagutignfBook) i.ngs and atipulations of thf. etitioner; and sub~ect to conditions. On roll cr~.l.l~ the foregoing r.~esolution was pusaed by the following vote.: AYES: COMMISSIONIsRS: JONNSUN, KING, MORLI;Y~ GAUER NOES: COIYII,II5SIONERS: NQNB AI3SENT: C01~41ISSIONTRS: PA[tAN~, HF.RBST CONDITIONAI. USis - PUBI~IC HEARING. GULF OIL COMPANY, 1840 East 17th Street, S~nta Ana, F~RMIT N0. 1479 Cu. 92701~ Uwner; PACiFIC OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COl/PANY, c/o J'ay Kingry, 1.740 Nsrva 5txeet. Las Angeles, Ca. 90031, Agent; requesting permigsion Co CONTINU~ USE OF AN EXTSTING IiIGLIiOARD, WALVING (A) PERMITTF.D LOCATION AN~ ~~) ~IMUM HEIGHT WITHZN 300 FEET OF A RESIllENTT.AL STRUCT~xicnatel~~p5racre deacr.ibed as: A reckangularly-shaped parcel of lan3 congieting of app raXlmate located at the aouthwest corner of Broadway and Anaheim Bou~.evard, having app frontages of 131 test on the south side of nroadway and 176 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard. Yroperty presently clasaified C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE. AND CONDI'TIONAL USE - PUSLIC HFAItING. AAR}3ARA GILLIAM, 120 Gilis Place, Playa del R~y, Ca. PERMIT N0. 1480 90291, Owner: PACIF7C OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMP~AN`f+requesCi.ngipg~ieai-on - 1740 Narva Street, Los Angeles, Ca. 90031, Ag ut; to CONTINUE USE OF TWO EXISTINc; B7LLBOARDS, WAIGING P~RMITTED LOCATION on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cons~isting of spproximately .45 acre located aC the nortlieasC corner of Bruadway and Anaheim Boulevard, havtng approxi- c~te frontages of 155 feet on ~eg~nClyhclacsifiedrC82W(GEN~RAI.2COMMEKCIAL)hZON~.~~ gide of Anahetm Boulevard. Property p No one indicate.d their preaence in opposit:ion to subject petitions. klthough the Staff Reports to the Plannirig Couomica.ton da~ed .Iu1y 8, 1974 were n~t read at the public hearing, they are re£erred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Jay Kingry~ representing I'acif{.c Outdoor Adverti~ing Company, app~ared before the Com~{saion ar:d statsd L•hat although he underatood the Anaheim Ordinance in thia reaper_t, very we11, he did noL• visit the pxuperties involved bt~t went to rhe B~ilding llivision and obCain~d the Fermits to erecC the billboards; that had he known the bi.llbaards were in the area of AnaneLm Boulevard and Broadway, he would have know!i it was a reatricted xrea for billboards; that the building permits were issued in error; that in 1972 they had removed some i4 or 15 billboard structures wYiich were nonconforming, in order. to comply witti the ordin~nce; that Che aub~ect locationa were very valuable under any circumatances whi.ch Ufl0 that hud mi.ght be impoaed dince they needed some help to recuperate the $3,OOU to $4, neen inveated in the oillbonrds; th~t the b3.llboarda were in an area that was unobtrus.ive, and a bui.lding wae on ench side and the. area was under redevelopment; that if the City would consider letting the billbaards remain up until the area was redeveloped, then Chey would hs`~e no claim f~r compensa;.ion at reimbursement on the billboarda; that under normsl r_ircumstances, they would :eceive compensation for removal of boards in a redevelnpment zone; however, under tf~~ circumatancea in this case, it would not be right•. for. them Co request compeneation. 'fH~: PUBLIC HEAR7NG WAS CLOSED. ~ s 7~~-317 MINUTES~ CI'lY YLANNTNC CUMMISSI~N, J~-ly 8. 1.97G CONpITIONA.L IISI: Pt;KM17~S NaS. 1479 AND 14•80 i(~~t~~.~n~~~~~ Ln responeo t~ queariuning by Commiae:lor~~,r. Johneon~ Aeeiatnnt %uning Sup~rviAOr Annikn 5antnlnhti advieed that epproximotely 30 property ownarg were noCiflc,d of Che suti~act puhlic hearinge and two ;ettera we+re rescuivecl in oppoait:lon to Cc~r~ditlonal Uee Pe,rmit: N~~. 1479 und one let.ter wue r~cai~ved Ln op~:ot~iti.on tu Conditi.onol Uee 1'~~rmlt No. 1480, Commiseloner Mor.ley nored thet ttie paCitioner iiad au-d~= a mistake which we~e compounded by the Ciiy :laeuing Chc buil.dl.n6 peXmita; chat l•he ra{:tri.~ Outdoor Advnrtieing Company wa» thuruughly awAro of the zonln6 nnd the billboardR ehc>uld nev~jr have boen pr~p~sed for tha sub~ec:k locaCiane in Gh~~: fi.rrit pl.ilce.. Mr. Kingr.y etatcsd it woul.d Uo [n reaponse to yuaetloning hy 'Tem[3otnry ChAirman GA~.-e.r~ difficult to kn~w how 1~ng ll wou.ld take tu recupecate L•heir inv~~etmei-t in the billboardes; however~ an oetimnta would be a~pp~'~xi.mately r.wo yeaxs sirice thay had overliead of lightin3, maintenance, etc.~ und that any c~neiJr~ratioii given by the P1ann:Lng Commiaeton wou.ld be apprecixted. ;empcrary Chairman Gauer noted that thP City had made an orror nl~o and Chal• the petition~r ehould not h,ear tFie F.ull blunt of tlie u-ietake; howevex~ he did not. feel A long perlod oP time woulci be ,justificd. 1Kr. Kingry Chen stated Chat he could understand why the ordinance was thore and t:he City l~ad the riRht Cc, make Che building permite invslid; however, it waa xn honeKt miatake. c;ommiseioner Morley noCed, tn responae to queationing by Commie~i~ner King, that he would vote against the r.ime extension for remova:l o£ the bil.lhoards. 'The Planning Commission entered inCo discussion regarding what would be an appr.opriate t~me exGena.ion for removal oE the billboards, during whlch Mr. Kingry requested to be given a perS.ad of aUaut one year retroactive to when the billboards ~;ere erected and to expire on April 1, 1975. Tt was noted tht~t the Director of DevPlopment Servi.ces had determined th~t the propuaed acCiviCies, ~~ propose.d under Conditlonal llse Permit Nos~ 1479 and 14$0, f.ell. within the definitton of Section 3.01, C~ass 3 of the City ot Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirement~s £r~r an Environmentr~l. Imptact Repott and were, therefare, caCegorical.ly exempt fro~~ the requiremenC to fiiF an Elli. Commissioner Johnson offered Resolution No. PC74-147 and moved for its passage snd adop- tion to gcank Petition for Gonditional Use Permit No. 1479 for a period of. one yesr, retroac~:ive eo April 1, 1974 ~n1 to expire on ApriY l~g~bject~totconditionsWh~(Seeime the billboard shall be removed from the subjeck property; Re.solutioa Buok) On r.oll call, the foregoing resolution wae pasaed by tlie following vote: AYES: COrQ1ISSI0NERS: ~01'-NSON, KING, GAUER NOES: COI~fISSIONERS: MORLEY AA3ENT: COI~tISSIONERS: FARANO, HERBST Zonir.g SupPrviaor Charles Roberts noted that eince Che agent for. the petitioner had indicated a willingneas to waive all right of severence dama8es £or removal oE the blllt~~arda in c.onnection with C~nditional Use Yermit No. 1480 in the event the Communlty Reclevelopmant Agency acquired the subjec* property for redeWelopment prior to the expiratic~n of the cond~tiona.l use permit, the Planning Commiasion wight wish Co make that stipulation a conditi~n oF approval. Thereupon, Mr. Kingry stipulated for Deput} City Atturney Ftank Lowry that he was Che agent for the petitioner and that he had the authority to hind for and on behalf of the petitioner. and that, in the event the Community F.edevelopment Agency acquired the aub~ect propest~ofaeverenceland/or other dacnageseforrremovalfof~thetbillbuardsPwerethereby4waived1 r igh . Mr, Kingry then inc'i.cated that he could not speak for the property °~~erty lineSreturn Anaheim Boulevard in connecCion with the dedication of the 25-foot p F for atreet purpases~ and he questioned whether anyone wculd narmally ob~ect to such a dedication undez the circumetanceg. ~ ~ w 7/ -33d MTNUTFS~ (:fT1f PIANN~r~(% (%OMM1SSl.UN, July 8~ L974 CONUITfO 1~S~..~j~t.jL~.~..~IQ.s:.~~i~~.~t~p (Conk~.i~ued) nEt ice Ln~tinnar ,1~v 'ritua adviaed that an aasament deed would b~~ xaqui.r~~ d~dicRtin~ +~ purCi.o~t of CI'~a Nrop~rty ta tha t:icy~ whic.h th~ propiarty aNnar woul.d hava to sign; tho: ycars ago hh~sn the, clght-ot'-way Wne obtained~ the portiun ~i~i.ng requee~Ced +~t this tioa wae not obtAinad by Lha City~ und that ao ~oning sctiun~i had comn bQFox~e Che City~ tho C•.ty w~-s obtaining thor : lght-•~f-~++y which aae to mnku the radiue o~ th• proparky ltn4 ba.zind tha eidnwalk. Cnm-aiaeionor Jof~nAOn mad~ an ob~ervation that t4r. Kingry aFpoarad ta bs yuwetioning Che va.lu~, of Ghe bill~~oxrde ln reepect to the ].ength af. tlme Chay wot~ld ba up and tha raquired ~ed{.cati.an, and Mr. Titun then n~ted Chat ~~A~'~W~tuldpnol:~benvalil~unlsnn tl~acond~.tionhn cie~iication, the condi.ti.anal uee petmit app regardi.ng dsdicatlon wae mrt. Co~ai.ssioner Juhnaon ~ffeted Rer,olution No. PC74-1/iii atnd moved for its pas~age an~:l edup- tion t~~ $YaAt 1'aClCiot~ for Conditionel Uad Perroir. No. 148Q £or a pariod of ane year, r~etroactive to April 1, .1~174 and t~.~ expi.ra on April 1, 1975, ac xhe end af which timn the b.illboarda ehnl], be ree~noved from tha eub3ec~: pruperty; thut in thn c+vent thm Camninifiy Reclevelopment Agenay pcquiree thQ sub~ect property for redevelopment prior ko th~ ~xpira- tion nf tliis condition~l uea permit, a11 rigtiCs to ae,verence damng~oe for romoval.. of the billbourde. are hexc.Uy w~-ived~ ae atipulaced Go oy the petiCion~r; and mub,eat ~~ conditionB. ~;iee Resulution Bonk) On roll call, tha f.oregoing reBOlution ~aas pae~sed by the following vate: AYLS: COM4YI.ISSIO~IE~.S: JQHNSON, K7~G, GAUL~R NOFS: COMMISSIAtKERS: MORELY ABSENT: COMNIISSIONEFS: FARANO, IiERBS'C AD.lOU&'VMENT - Thsre baing no fvrtr~er businesa t~ dl.ecuss, Commiseioner King - offered a motion, seconded by Commis~ioner Morl~y and MOTTON CARRIED (Commisaion~:re Farsno and Heebst baing 3bsent), to gdjour~, xhe meeti.ng to July 18, 1974 z~ 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. The mzetin~ ud~ourned at FS:00 p.~• RespectfuLly eubmitted, . ~ ~ ,~A~.~,,~,.~ ~ Patri.cia B. Scanlan, Secretary Anaheim City Planni.ng Coaaniesion PES : tun