Loading...
Minutes-PC 1974/08/050 R C 0 MICROF~ItMING SERVICE, I~iC. s • City Nall Anahelm~ Cali.for.nia August 5, 1974 Ft~GULAR i4EETING OF THF_ANAHEIM ~:I.iY 1'I~ANNINC COtM1ISSI0N KEGULAIt - A regulnr meeCing of the AnaheLm City Planning Camn~lAeion was called Cu MF.~TING order by Ch~lrmnn Horbet nt 2:0(3 p.m. in Che i:ouncil Chamher, a quorum being preaent. PR~SENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbat - CaM~tISSION~RS: Faran~, Gauer, Johns~n, King, Morley, Tolar ABSENT - COMMISSIONF.RS: Non~ SO PRESENT - De~uty CiCy Attorney: A'[ I'rank Lnvrry . c)ffice L~ngineer: Jay Tltu~ Flanning Superv9.sot: 1)on McDaniel A~,eistant Zoning Supervisor: Annika 5antalahti Aseietant Ple~nner : A~. Laum Aseietant Planner: Dill Youn~ PAtricia Scanlnn Commisaion Secretary: PLECG~ OF - Commtsaioner ~ing led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the ALLEGIANCE United StaLea of America. APPItOVAL OF - Commisaiuner King offer~d a motion, eeconded by i:oanniasioner Joh•naon and MINUTES M01'iJN CARRIED, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commis~ion meeting of ,lul,y 8, 1974, as submitted. The minutes uf the meeting of July 22, 1974 were deferred to the meeting of Augu~t 19, 1974. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUF.D PUBLIC HEARiNG. RAPT COMF'ANY, c/o Penniman 5 Campany, Ii203 Irvine~ Ca. 92707, Owner; RONALD G. PERMIT N0. 1k82 17802 Sky Park Circle, , CAMERON, 331.48 Pacific Coast Hi.ghway, Malibu, Ca. 90265, Agent; requeating permisaion to F.STARLISH A PUBLIC SKILL DRIVING ioximatel property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel c+f land coneisting of app Y 10.75 ~cres loaated southwesY cf Yatella Avenue and the Orange Fteeway, having a frontage of appxoxiimately SOOffeet~n PropertyhpresentlyKc]assifiednMela(LIGHTiINDUSTRIAL)mZONEth Sub~ect retition w~e contin~ied f.rom the. meeting of July 22~ 197G, for fi~rther study. No one indlcated their presence in opposit'_on to aub~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to Che Planning Commisaion. dated August 5, 1.974 was not read at the public hearing, it ia referr~d to ac-d made a part of the minutes. Mr. Ronald Camerun, the agent for the property owner, appeared betore the Commiesion and stated he had mel• with rep_eaentatives of tl~P Maheim 5tadii~m, the Ca].iforn~a Angels and othera since the P1ar.ning Commission meeL•ing of July 22f ]yi4; that it was determined that the propoaed use could be good neighbors af the Stadium, and Staff was recotamiending thaC additional. conditions be imposed thgt a11 the lighting be aimed away from the Stadium and that a lighting plan be aubmiCted for review and a~proval t+y tha City, and also that the devel.opment plan, including a deCail.ed landscaping plan, be submitted for review end approval by Che Planning Co~misaion. Commiasioner Gauer expreased concern regard•ing noiae that might be objectionable fcom the proposed use during a apecial event at the Stadium~ i.e.~ a Billy Grsham appearance, atc. 74-361 ~ ~ MINUTES ~ i.ITY PLANNING COI~tI83~ON, Auguet S~ 1474 ~~'-~fi2 CON,pi'P]'ONAL U8C F~RM~ ON , ].~ (Coc~l•inued) Mr. Camaron etatecl that st the meet.tng with r.epreeunCntives of tt~e Stadium, eCc.~ ik wae agrued that there waP no pcuctical way to handle Ct~e eventual.ity ouCline~l by Co~iepionar Cauer~ but to be good naighbnre they woul.d closo thn rnc~sr.rack a couple of timee a yearr howaver, it wnp aub,joctivc judg,ac~nt whether it would be the noi.se from thd propuaad use nr the nolee [rom KaGc~lla Avanue that wauld int^rfere wlth a epacial. meoting ar gatharing in tha SCadium; that 1:ha eound report indlcated thero was more nuie~a genesrated frnm Katelln AvenuA th8u would be generaCed from tl~e propased uee; and thc+C the agr.eement wae- more or leee. tt~aC if the epocinl avents were only occneionc~lly~ the hours for the pro- pooed uee could be adjueted. in reapon~e ko queationing by Ceanniaeloner Tolar, Mr. Camecon rei.ternted that the hours of operarion for the driving course would be from 11000 a,m. to 1.1:00 p.m. on Fridgye~ SaCUr.days, and Sundeye, and from 11:00 a.m. to ~:00 or 10:00 p.m. duriiig tlie week. Mr. Cctmeron eCipulated that pursuant to tha nolarior.:lr. khe S~aff Report:, they wuuld hold the City hurmlese fr~m the effecta of tha lighting at the Anaheim Stadi.um. Mr. Tom Liegl~er~ Di.rector cf the Mah~im Stadium rsnd Convention Center, appeared before the Commisainn and advised that thA proposal was in keeping wlth the efforCa to provide [he arPa in and around the Stadiuu~ as a recreational focal point i.n the c~mmunity dince the proposal fit in with a rec.reational-type anvironm~nt; ttaat the concerne had been ~he llghting and noioe; that he did not know what th~ noiae factor ahould be i.n the neighbor- haod or what dBA rating the Stadium could live with; and tiiat he was 1.n agreement wiXh the proposnl Rnd the California Angels could see no ma~or, pzohlemR in conner.tion ther.ewith. THE PUBLIC HEAItING WAS CLUSL~D. Chairman Herbat questioned the reverberation of aound when more thaci one car was operating on t.he track at one time, and Mr. Cameron etnted that the testi.ng of the sound was done next to a buildiitg and he was assu.red that the noise levEl intensity would not change; that the Leq averaging of the whole operation over r~ 24-hour period, including th~se hours when there wHS no activiCy~ waa in the 60s for dBAs. Chai.rman Herbst questioned whether the further use of mufflera could be accomplished in the event the sound, which wae an unknown at this poinlannedato useuthettetandardMmuffler Cameron stated that would be poaeib.le, however, they p of a aedan and there was no reaeon Co mrike a certain amount of noise. Chairman Herbst than noted that since the meeGinge ar gatherings ut the Stadium could be for lengtr~y periods of time and there would be eo~-e difficulty in making stipulati.ons to take cace of the eituation, he woul.d like some sorC nf maximum dBA rating establ.ished for ttee use. He further noted that with 60 dBAs at the property line hP would feel fairly certata that the use would noC interf.ere with the uae of the Sradium. Mr. ^ameron then stated thzre was about one-quaxter mile betweec~ the aubject property and the Stadiwn; and that he did not tect~nicr~lly underetand the information contained in [he sound repcrt regarding Leq values. Chairman Herbe~ nated for the petitioner that no condition wovld bQ imposed tor this application that would not norm~lly ue impoaed for an induetry in this same area; and L•hal- Uecauae of the moCor vehiclea }~eing a s~~parate category, a condition would have to be contained in the conditional use peimit :o cover the sound. ~ir. Came.ron then stated the sound *e~ort indicated they would n~t make noiae that would bother the nei~hbors and~ furthermore, that the Stadium had agreed that the u.ae would not bother them. Chairman Herbsl mude an observation that he did not believe the proposed uae would bother a baseball, football, or other game in t:ie area, hoWever, this would not apply to the off- aeason evente which at times required complete ailence; and that with th~ 60 dBe1 require- menC, the City would not have t~ worry about cnnflicting noise. Mr. Cameron etated thaC Mr. LieglQr had indicated 2n case ~f con£licting noiae. he would like to be gble to say somethin~ about it. ~ ~ MINUT~S~ CITY 1~LANNING COMMISSION. Auguet 5~ 197G COND1TtONAI, l1SE PBR~t'r' N0, ~4~ (Con•.inuod) 74-3b3 Commiseionc+r Farano noted Chat full.owing a reviesw ~f thc plans~ he woul.d ~ropose an~~ roqueat tt-at dense landecaping along Che property 11ne aburting the reilroad bc pru.lded; thnt with etepping up o£ the powar plant~ thQ use would probably preeenC :- prnbJ~em; l•hat he would suggeor that a line of demarcatiun be drawn and a etipulation madH Chat the erund would not exc.cecl 60 d13A outeida tho fence line tci the souC.h, giving Chc petltionar tho bene£iL of the ].andecaping at the property l~.ne; that tfiE use ux propoaed would probably not preaent c. problem~ however~ it' at aome future date it wea chengad there might be a sarioua ~~rublem. Deputy City Attorney Frtink l.owry advised thqt eince automobilen were exempt in t}~e ordinance. Che Planning Commiael.on could muke n determination oa to the uppropriatc dBA level aC any point of demarcuCion. Commiseianer Cuucr noted that he woutd rather aee the llne of demarcation drawn on the other nide of tt~e r~ilroad Crc-ck from the aub~e~t propeY~ty. In reeponse to questioning by Commiesionc~r King, Mr, Cameron atated 15-gallon evergreen treea were proposed to be planted on 20-f.uot m~an centere along ttie south property line; and that tl~e enginea of the care would be Rimilar to a Mazda, and not gao and oil. Commiseloner King furtliar inquired if the plan was to have right-hand turna only for leaving the sub~ect prcperty to enCer the buAy L•raf.fic on K~te1La Avenue, and Mr. Camnron indi.cnted that was a good point. Commieaioner Farano it;yuired if Che sound angineer for the petitioner had un opinion whather that porri.on of the Stadium which was open and faced directly into the aub~ect property would liave a funneling effect of, the nuise from the proposed use, and Mr. Cameron ytated only lhat the railroad embankment would pr~vidP an additional reduction of about one-half of the dBAs and that the effect would be no different than funnel~ng of aound from Katella Avenue. In response to questioning by Commiasioner Farano, Mr. Liegler adviaed that the atxeet noiae had not created a noise problem t~ dat'e. Commiasioner King offered s motion, se~onded by Commisaioner Johnson and PtOTION CAP.RTED, that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the aubject pro;Ject be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the proviaions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Coc~nisaioner King off.ered Reaolution No. PC74-154 and moved for ita passage and adopt~ion to grant Petition for Conditional Use Yermit No. 1482, subject to the Cit}~ being tield harmleas Erom the effects of the lighting at Ch~a Anaheim Stadium, as long as the lighting ia controlled iii the basic manner it is preaently controlled, ae stipulated r.o by the petiCioner; that the landscaping along the ao~th properCy line shall be dense to prcvide additior.al sound attenuaCion; that the noise lev~l on the aouth eide of Che railroad trgct:s ad~acent to the south property line of the subject property shall not exceed 60 dBAs for the proposed use; that all lighting for ~he proposed development shall be directed away from the Anaheim Stadium and the freeway, and that a lighting plan shall be submitted for review and ~pproval by the City, as stipulated to by the p~titioner; and subject to conditions• (See Reeulution Book) On roll call~ the focegoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FA1tAN0, GAU~R, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, H~RBST NOES: C~MMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIOt~ERS: NONE ~ ~ MINU7'ES, (;1'PY PLAN~IING CUFIMISSION, AuguAt S, 197G 74-364 VAftIANC~ N0. 2614 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HF..1IAING. OPEN ROAD ~tEAI.TY & DEVELAPMF.NT COMFANY ~ 101 Contlnentnl. 8ou.levnrd, ~1 Sagundo, Ca. 90245, Oamer; AD-ART~ INC., t715 6kth StreAt, F.meryvilln~ Ca. 94608, Agent; ruquesCing WAIVER Ur (A) MTNIMUM UISTArI:.E Ii~T~JE~N SICNS, (B) 1'ERI~ITTTED LOCATION OF A 3ICN~ AND (C) MAXIMUM NUMB~R UF SI~yNS, TU CONSTRUC'f THREE F1tEE-STANDINC SIGNS on property described as: An irregularly-shapc+d parcel of land coneisting of. approximataly 3.0 acrae l.oc.at~d south° eaeterly of thu Santn Ann Freewny and West Street, havinP a Lronr.age of up[~roximatel.y 6S6 feet on the ensC didQ of Wcet Stce~t, having a maximum depCh af appruximaCely b1G feet, and t~ding located approximaCely 320 f.aeC south of tha center.li.ne n.f South SCreat. ProoerCy peesently cla8eifieJ M-1 (LIGHT iNDUSTRIAL) 'LO~iN'. 5ubj~ct p~_tition wae continued from the maetinge of July 8 and 22, 1974, in order for thH petitioner ur t-is agent to be present. No one indicated his presence in oppoaition to Bub~ect peCitlon. Alrhough the Staf£ Report to the Plnnning Commisaion dated Augt~et 5~ 197G wae not r.csad at the public haaring. it ie referred tc and made a part of Cha minutee. Mr. Dick Demer,~i.an, 4550 Ea.st Olympir. Boulev~rd, Loa Angeles, represanting the agent for the petltioner~ appeared before tha Comiaisaion and apoLogizer] for the previoue poatpone- menks of the aubJect petition, end etnted he was not particularl.y prepared to uaake a presenCatlon~ however, l~e could pr~bably anewer any queationa regarding the propoeal. H~ ata~ed the proposed s:tRna were essantic~lly ent1ance and exit signs to direcC traffic safely to the different parte of the large co:aplex and ellminRte confusi.::n; that the dlaplsy would be very bmall. and the heighC vir~ible to the tra£fic; and that the eigns would be ill~.~m.tn~te~l but would not flaeh, THE PUBLIC HEARTNG WAS CLO5ED. Commi.asioner Morley noted for the petitianer that direction~l. aigna were permitted without a variance~ nnd Mr. Demerjiat, etated that the permftted sire was xoo reatrictive Eor th~ lettering they proposed and thak he was not familiar wtth the waivers requested. Comr~issioner Morley then reviewed th~ requested waivere and statad if only one additiona_ free-sland-ing aign was permitted~ Walvers b and c would be eliminated. Chairman k[erbst n4ted zhat Che amount of lettering provosed ta be placed on the sign5 was pr.rt of the problem; that no loao or name wAS al.low~d aince the eigna were directional; that he would question the hardship to go beyond khe intent af the ordinance. 'Ihereupon, Chairman Herbat explained the basie for a hardahip. Kr. Demer~ian stated he believed the amount of lettering on t}:a aigna made it neceasaxy to have a larger s~gn and the message would not fit on a smaller one. Commiss~Loner Morley made an obaervation that by dropping the words "Open Road" from the signs, tt-ere would be r.oom on the aigna for lettering that was legal. It was noted that tl-e Dire~tor of Development Servic~~a had determined that the praposed activity fe12. withii~ Che definition of Section 3.01, C1ass 11 of the C1ty of Anaheim Guidelinea to the ReauiremenC3 for an Fnvironmental Impact Report and was, therefore, categorically exempt irom the requirement to file an EIR. Commisaioner Morley offered Resolution No, PC74-1S5 and moved for ita passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2614, granting waiver of the minimum diatance between eigns for one addiCional free-standing ~ign, ~aid sign proposed to be located near the southweat corner of subject property and 290 feet from an exiating free-standing sign on the aub~ect property, and eaid waiver being granted un the basis of the narrownesa of suhject property; that waivers of the permitted lacation of a aign and maxtmum number of signs are hereby denied on the hasls that the petitioner did noC demonatrate that a hard- ship would be created if said waivere were not granted; and eubject to conditiona. (See Res<;lution Book) On roll call, the faregoing reROlution wae paesed by the followi.ng vote: AYES: COI~AtISSIONERS: GAUER, tOHNSQN~ KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: C0~4lISSIONERS: FARANO ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Discussion puteued regarding the landacaping requirement of previnue zoning actiona on thQ subject property, during which Commidaion.r. Gauer noted t.at it appeared some of tho land- scaping hr~d died oif, and Commise:.oner Faran~ noted that it appeared there was no landecap- ing aJ.ong the freeway. ~ ~ t.[NIJTL:S~ C]TY PI.ANNI~IG COMMISSION~ Auguek S, ].974 74-365 VARIAN~';~;, N0. 2614 (Continued) Planni.n~ Suparvieor I)on McDaniel advised Cl~at thetQ was [~ hnve bean eome landecaping providEd on the eite. c:hairtaan Herbet inetrucCed Stnff to revinw tha landacaping which was a pnrt af thR pre- vious appllcaClon on the sub~oct property to dete~~mine if. eaid l.andacaping was in acc~rd- ance with tho origin.el. plnn; and that a reporC on eame ba mnde to the Planning Commi.aeion. ENVTRONM~NTAL IIrQ'ACT - CONTINUED ~'UBLIC HEARINC, ANAHEIM I~ILLS~ INC. A.ND 'fEXACO V~NTURES, RGYOR'f N0. 111 c/o Hora[ J. Schor, 380 A,n~iheim Hills Road, Anahcim, Ca. 928U7, ~ Owner, Property describc~d as: An irragularly-shaped parcel of RFCLASSIFICAT.ION land conaiating of approximat~ly 2G acres having approximnte front- N0. 13-74-28 ages of 830 feet on the easC eide of Ridden Canyon Road and 2630 ~ feet un the north side af Avenida Je Santir~go~ huving a maximum VARIANCE N0, 2566 depth of approxlmately 403 feet, and being located Approximntely ~~ 500 feeC southeaeterly ~~f the inxersection of Serrano Avonua and '~'ENTATIVL MAP OF klidden Canyon Ro^d. Property preaently clasalfied COUNTY A1 T.RACT N0. 8520 (GENERAL ACRICU:~iURAL) 4TSTRTCT. RL'QUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-H-22~OU0 (RESIDENTT.AL HILL3IDE, LUW DENSITY, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZOr~E 1tEQUG~S'fED VARIANCE: WA7VER ~F REQUIR~MENT T'HAT SINGLE-FAMILY LO'PS FRONT QN AN ARTERIAL HTGHWAY. TENTATIVG TRACT RFQUEST: ENGINEER: WILLLA,N ASSOCIATES, 125 Suuth Claadina Street, Anaheim, Ca. 928U5. Sub~ect property is proposed for aubdivision into 21 R-H-22,000 ~oned lots. Sub~ect pEtitiona were cant•inued from the meetingr~ of December 10, 1973, Janu~ry 7~ Mnrcl~ 18, April 'L9 ar~d June 24, 1974, aC the requeat of the petitioner. It wae noted that the petitioner had aubmitted a letter requeating that thia matter be contimied for an additlonal si.x weeka to the meeting of SepCember 16, 1974, in order that final modifications mighC be made to the propoaed deve.lopment plan~; tt~at due to problema associated with land.locked parcels and the inr_Yuaion of additional pr~pert-y into the pro~ect, it was neceasary to readvertise both the reclassification and the vartance, and said readvertisement could be accomp],ished eaeily within the requeated aix-*aeek period. Commisaioner King off~red a motion, secanded by Commisai.oner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED, tu further continue the public hearing and consideration of Environmental Impact lteport No. 111~ Recla3sificatior- Na. 73-74-28, Variance No. 2566 and Tentative ~Sap of Tract No. 8520 to the meeting of September 15, 1974, as Yequested by the petitioner. AMENllM~NT 'CO TTTLE 18, - CONTIPNED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED B~ THE ANAHEIM CI:Y GARAGE SETBACKS AND PLANNING CQhtIiISSIQN, 'l04 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. PAR;CING STANDARDS 92805; to coneider amendmenta t~ Tit1e 18 pertaini.ng to aite development atandards of one-family residential zones - Garage setbacks and•parki.ng atandarde. Sub,ject amendment was continued from the meeting of June 24, 1974 in order to hold addi- Cional diecusaion at a work sesaion on July 10, 1974, and from the meeting of Jul.y 22, 1974 for further study. No one indicated their preaence in oppoaition to sub~ect Code amendment. Althou~h the Stxff Report to the Planning Commission dated Auguat 5, 1974 was not read at the. public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Asaiatant Planner Bill Young reviewed the proposed amendment before Che Planning Comonission, following which the Cammiaeion determined to close the public hearing. ~ ~ MINUTBS ~ CITY PLANNTNG ~~OhII~1ISSIGN, AugueC 5, 1974 7G-3b6 Mt[:NAMC T TU TI__T1~E _~,8, ~~ARAC~ SF;1'DACKS AND }'ARKING STANDARDS (Contlnued,l Cha~rman Herbet noted thnC he wae not in fnvor of g~ing back to tt~e etraight 25-toot eat- beck eincA iC had been uaed in tho City for year~ nnd did not appnnr to ba effeccivo; that witY~ the 6 to 10-foot eetbacke~ ehe CiCy hUd na coiitrol aa tar ae the devHlopexs wete concerned, howt~vor~ ha had studied tl~e euggestian of Staff th~t perhape an averaging would woY'k einc.e it would givn tha davelopar aome £lexlblllry ru~her than a aCraigliC li.nF set~• back for houeing; and he would he in Eavor nf krying eamething now euch as Cl~e averaging and if it did nut work out, a changp could bd mado; thar the average could be eet at 16 or 18 feet Co give f.lexibjlity; that the Ci.ty cu~lld contrul the davel.oper using the setback avornging but perhupa not the pereon wtiu 1uet went~d eo edd Co an exi~ti.ng t~ome. In response to queetioning by' Commiseionec .Johneon, Chairman Harbst noted that the e~verag- ing would be verified by Staff And if a developer did not tneet the required satback average~ a var.iance application would beco~c~ ne~:eeeary. Commiesionec Guuer noted thak elnce Che 6 to 10-foot detbacks wers unsucc~saful, it was doubtful Chet the nveYaging would be. Commiseioner Dtorley agreed Chat Che avaraging Hhould be uaed, and that this ehould be done by percentagea; and that he nls~ agreed concerning the thr.se-car garages Co be required where 6 to 10-foot setbacka were pe.ra-itted in order to provide Lhe udaquate number oi oti- site parking spaces. CammJ.eaioner Farano n~ted that the 25-foot eptback was not given ~ fair chance or trial *.hat it ehould have had; that one of the firet develop~,aent~ under that ordinance was that tY~e developera inCerpreted the 'l5-foat setLack Co be an average or a certain percrntage of the ].ota; that the proposed or.dir-ance would have its greateat application in the Hill and Canyon Ares becauae of the aignificant ahortage of single-family residential property t'hat was left in [he City; that, in his oplnion, Che propoeal ehould be let;. at 25 foot since it wo+ild app].;~ basical~y to "f1nC land" eCandards and eince a review was forthcoming of the Hill and Canyon zones. Chairman lierbat then noted tt-at r_ertain areae in the Hill and Canyon Area would need to be able to have S to l0~foot setbacks wi•thout applying for a variance. Mr. Young reviewed the proposed amendment as it related to the various zones and noted for the Commission that essentially the ordinance would auhstantially affect three zones, being the R-1, R-0, and RS-SQ00, which were the emaller lota; and that the other zonea had pru~risions for redur_fng be:~ow the 25-foot sert~ack. Commisoioner Gauer noted that much time and work by the Staif and Planning Commiasion had gone into the prepar.ation of the propoaed ordinance and it sh~uld be adopted~ as presented, and tri~d. In reaponse to questioning '~y ('hai:man Herbst~ Mr. Youn~ advised that under the propoaed amendment, "fronC-on" garages would h~ve to be set back 1.5 feet unlese the Planning Commiseion desired t~ leave in the pr~vision for 6 to 10-foot aetUacks where autowatic garage door openera were provided. Chairman Herbst tY~en noted that "side-one" would reduce the number of 6 to 10-foot set- backs and these wauld be included in the ~verage whic:i he would suggesC bei.ng approxi- mately 18 feat. Commiasioner Farano offered Resolutiot~ No. PC74156 and moved for ite passage and adoption to recoumnend to the City Council Amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoni.ng, pertAir.ing to garage setbacka and parking standarde in ona-family residential zanes, as set fortt~ in Exhibit "A". (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was paeaed by Che following vote: AYES: COI~SISSIONERS: FARANU, GAUEK, JOHNSON, KING NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: MORI.EY, TOLAR, HERBST ABSENT: COT4IISSIONGRS: NONE • ~ MINUThS, CT'l'Y I'LtWNING CUh4tIS3LON. Aup~u~t 5~ 1974 7b-367 RE,CLASSIFICATiON - PUBI~IC HFARINC. INITIATBD BY THE AIvAN~IM ~ITY PLANNING CUt~tISSION, N0, 74-75-7 20G Baet I.incoln Avonue, Anah~im~ Ca. 92805; px'oposing that property ~ de~ecribed ae: A i•ectnngularly-shapod pnrcel of l.and coneioti.ng of app.~ouimetely 4.7 acr~e locntc:d between Om~ga Avenue and Wineton koad, having a~{~roximnte frnntagea of 330 feet on the eouCh eide of Q~oega Avenue and on the north eldn of Winato~i Road~ hc~vi.iig n roaximi;m depth of approximately 628 Peel•, and being locetad approximnC~l.y 310 foet west of the centorltna of Sunkist Sereet be reclasaified f com Cho (:Ul1NTY R3-•120Q (APARTM~NT) llIS'TRICT t~~ the It-A (AGR~[CULTULtAL) ZON1;. No on~ indic~CNd their presance in oppoaition to eub,~ect peti.tlon. Although thd Stnif lteport tu the Planning Commtaeian daL•ed August S. 1974 was not read at the publf.c haarinq, it ie referred to nnd mnde n pnrt of ':he minuC~s. It wna noted tliltt the proposed reclassification would eAtaL11e1i Che City of Anaheim t~olding zone on the subje~t property pending appr~val of s development zone at a.latcr data; that the proposed recJaeaif~c:ation was in <:onfurmance with Che Ar,nheiw Genera]. Plan; and that Cha s~~b~ect property was currenkly pendi.ng annexation under the "OmNga-Winaton Ar.nexation." THE PUBL,IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It wae noted khat tha Director of Dovelopment Servicea liad determined thut Che proposed activity fell within tha definiCion of Section 3.01, Class 1 0~ the CiCy of Anaheim Guide.linea to the Requirer~c~nts for an Gnvlronmental Impact Report aad w~-s, kharefore, categorically axempt Lrom the requirement l•o £ile an EIR. ~ommleaioner Ga~ier offered ReaoluCion No. PC74157 ar.d moved fur iCa paasage and adopt~on to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclaeaification No. 74-75-7 bnsed on the forego~ng findinge, subjecC to conditiona. (See Rsoolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by tYie folJ.owing vote: AYES: COt~41ISSI0NERS: rARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERTSST NOES: COMMI~SIC~N~R5: NONE ABSENT: COP4~ISSION~RS: NONE RECLASSTrT.CATION - PUBLIC HEARTNG. VERA WASSER MYERS AND RAYMOND G. SIMPSON, TRUSTEE, N0. 74-15-/ 4101 Calle Bienvenido, Saa Glemente. Ca. 92672, Owners; JOHN A. tiARV~Y III, P. 0. Aox 11485, Santa Ana, Ca. 92711, Agent; requeseing that pr.operty described ae: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.7 acres located between Omega Avenue and Winston Road, having approximate frontages of 330 feet on th2 ~outh eide nf Omega Avenue and on the nor.th side of Wineton Road, having a maximum dept:x of approximarely 628 feet, and being located approximately 310 feet west uf the centerline of Sunkist Street be reclassified from the R-A (Ar,RICULTURAI.) ZON~, to the M-1 (LTGHT INDUSTRIAL) 20NE. No one indicated treir ~resence ici opposition to subject petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commissian dated Auguet 5, 1974 was not read at the publi.c hearing, it ia ref.erred to and maae u part of the minutea. Mr. Frank Morris, the architect for the developer, ~tppe3re~1 before the Commisaion to anewer queetionn ~oncerni~ the proposal. and took exception to the condition set torth in the Staff ReporC, "'~ha~ aubject property sha11 be aerved by underground utillties." He stated that he ui~derstood ti~e Utilitie3 Department did not want to go underground with the utilities for the sUhject property. TH~: PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEC~. Comraiseione: Gauer noted that the City Engineer's Office would probably be responeible to relieve any requirement for the utiJ.ities in queation. Deputy City ACturney rrank Lowry adviaed thaC the co;~dition in the Staff Report was appatently at the requeat of tre Utiliti..a Dapartment, and if the petition was appx'oved, the petiCioner would have an opportunity to discuea the, ~t*er with the Utilities Depart- ment prier to CiCy Council review. ~J ~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNLNC COt'QIISSION, Auguet 5, 197b 74-368 RGC S IrI 0 ()_:_.74 ~4 (Concinued) Mr. Morris etate.d that the ukil.itiQe in the area were overhAad. 'In redponae to quoetioni.ng by Commiesi~ner King~ Mr. Morria :tndicated tha[ he wae aware of the xequlremente concer-iing traeh etorage ax~aR. xince lie ha~i dQVeloped the property co the *:est of eab~ect proUerty and aatiefisd those requirsmenta. Commiseioner King offered a motion, seconded by CommiAelone~~r Gauer and MOTION GAItRTEn~ that Cha Planning L'ommiseian recouraends to t.he City Council thaC ttie sub~ect pro~ect ba oxampt f~om the requiremac,~ to prepare sn ~nviranmantnl Impact Aeporr:, purauant to the provleione~ ot Che Califarniu Envlronmental Quality Act. ~:ommiesianex King offered R~+solution No. PC74158 and maved f~~r ita paesage anci adoption to reconnnend to the Ci.ty Co~<<~ ll approva]. of F'etition for Rec.laesi. ication No. 74-75-4, aub~ect Co c~nditione. (See ResoluCion Book) On roll call. thcs foregoing resoluti~~n wae paesed Uy tha following vote: AYES: COMM'I3S7.ONERS: FAltANO, ~AUER, JOHNSON, KING~ MORZEY~ TOLAR~ HBRBST NOES: COF4lISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT.: COMMISSIONEItS: NONE VARIANCE N0. 2625 - PUBLIC HEARING. THRIFxY REA~.TY COMPANY~ Worldway P• 0, Bo~s 92333, 5051 Rodec Road, Las Angelea, Ca. 9001b, ~wnar; GEORGE E. COULT, 4320 Campus Drive, Suite 120. Newfport Rea:h, Ca. 92660~ Agent; requesting WAIVER AI' PEK1dTTTED USES T~ CONSTRUCT TWO Il1UUST~tIAL SU7I.DINCS WITH C01~4IERCIAL OrFICES on property deoctib~d as: An ir•regu].arly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of anproximxC.ely 3.9 acres located northwesterly of khe interaRCtion af. CNrr.itos Avenue and StaCe College Boul.evard, having approximate frontagpe of 525 feet on the weat aide o£ State College Boulevard and GO feet on the north g~diesentlrrclaesifiedeM-ln(LIGHTng A maximum l~pth o~ approximately 55 feet. Property p Y INDUSTRIAL) ZONE. No one indicar.ed r.l~eir presence in appasition to subject peCition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commiasion dated August 5, 1974 was not read at the public hearing. it ie referred to and made a part of the cninutea. Mr. George Coult, the agent for the property ownsr, appeared befcre tt-e Cotmmission and skated tha propoaal would enltance the area and would be ~:ompatible with the surroundin¢ property. THE FUBLT.C HEARING WAS ~LOSED. Chairman Herbat inquired if the application was for get~eral commerclai uses that would be open to the gensral public, and Mr. Coult stated the~o oged t~beaconstructedhrunning the Mr. Coult further etated that the upstairK balcony p p widtR of each building would provide access and would give depth Co th~ pro~ect and slightl~ more variables for the type of ~enant they would have. In reaponse to questioning by Commiseioner Gauer~ r~gerdinR ths n~rmber of empl~.yees the propoaed uae would have~ Mr. Coiilt stated the number wanld be higher tnan for. atrictly industrial epace and, therefor.e, rhey were ptopoaing more parktieg than normally ~-equired. Commiaeioner Gauer .*_hen noted that it hsd been the Covaniesii.n's po~i~~affictitawouwd commercigl uses in an industri.al area becauae of the different typ ~n~erject, etc.~ and Mr. Coult et~ted the commercial wae but a emall portion of tlie total praiect, or 13,000 squar~ fe~t out uf the total of 55,00~ s~uare feet. In response ~o c,uestlcning by Commiasi.on~r Hezbat, Mr. Coult advis~d that the type uae in the ind~strial p~rCion o£ the pro~ect would be predominar~tly warehouse and other emall uaes. I*~ reaponse t'.o questioning by Commiseioner Gauex, Mr. Coult Atated it was not likE:ly that they would have offices for lawyers; and that thsxe would not be ext~neive foot tra£fir.. • ~ MINUTLS, CYTX PLANNING CQMM'I5SION, AuKvdt 5, 1974 7G-?59 VAItZA~,~'~ N0, 26~,,~ (~ontinu~d) ~ommiaeioner. Kinq q:ee~etiot.ad tha dinpoaitton ~f khe Craet~ encloeuro oteae for the propoaed pro,~ect~ end Mr. Coult etatad tha archituct f~~r the pro,~~ct tiad furChor diacuseions with the Senitation Divf eton +~nd thA rzobl~ne woulci I~e wocked out to meet ~ha rxquirmmonte. In reeponen to qu~~~t luning by Chnirmx-i Horbet. Mr. Coult RtaCed the conaner~inl ueee would be geare~ci to the induetriul community becauee of the urea. Chairman Herbet then dta~ed hc~ would ~ot be ubl~ co vota for ueee ae ganernl un thoea propoHed. Commiasi~ner Johne~n notad thnr ch~s proposed buildinge were beautiful; hawaver~ th~ usee would be dlLuting the it~du~~Tlat area wil•h cummeT•cial ven~urao; and that the uses t~ak had bae~n preaiausly permi.tted huci hc~en cloeely defined. Mr. Coult Ch~n explained rhe ueee proposed nnd srated th+st induetry muAt be earvc:d by othar typee of uean; and that uePS eirnilar Co thoae prop~eed hud baen +ipprov~~ct nn Ca~rritos Avanue and on 5tate Co1La~e Boulevard . Chxirman Herbst clarified that Che ott~ei c~mmarcial usee fn the area were not general in naCure; tt~at the Commiesion dtd not wioh to have the general comaaercial takon from thd downtown area; t.hat the bulk of the commercial should be to et~rve the in~luetrlRl community; and that the propoenl wae to have the commercinl uses above tha i.ndueCrial useR. Mr. Coult then staCed that he had hoped the pro~ect would be e better-than-av«~rnge pro~ect; and that he wae inter.ested to have uses thu• would be coneiderod appropriate Cor the area, or usea rhaC wuuld be to s~rve the industrial c;ommunity. Ghairmat~ Herbst indicated that if the commercial uses did not serve Che induecrial community, those uses ehould be downtown. The Planning Cov~u~iasion entered into discusaiun regarding the uses prop~sed and other user~ previousty approved in the Are~ ~~ ger.erally concurred thet the propo~ed usea were simp'le office space that could be exr and basicrally the petiCioner would havs rwo zonea on the pr.operty pes the proposnl. Thereupon, at :::25 p.m. Mr. Coult rc=queated that diecuseion regardi.ng ehe subject mat.ter be continued to later nn i.n the mee t ing to allow time to prepare a reviaed liat of the comanercial uses for con~ideration. (The Pl.anning Commiasion considered the next item on the Agenda, being Reclassification No. 7~~-75-2 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1483 at this poinC in Che meeting - see later on in the minutes of the meeting.) * * * At 3:55 p.m., conaic~eration of Variance No. 2625 waK reeumed and Mr. Coult :ndicated to the Planni.ng Commiesion that he had rev iewed the proposed uoee and would stipulate to the ~ollowing: "ThaC Che office tenatits wou:Ld typically coneiat of advertiaing agencies, architects, engineers, graphi~ arCs a(~enciea and contractora; and additionally that firms engaged in permitted genernl indust rial funr_tions may also aieh to engage in thc retail sale (ae long a.a they conformed to th~: 3nduatrial zone) and display of pxoducts manu£actured, etoced or diatributed; and zhat the pro posed supportive uaee of the induetrial complex might inciude b~ieinese machine and equipment display, sales, aud service, drafting, blue- printing and pho~ocopying services, dupllealinR, mimeographing, addreasing, secretarial and telephone aervices, electronic dnta proceexing tabuiating end rer.ord keeping servicee." Commisaioner Tolar expressed concern that if tl.e p1•oposal was ~pproved, there might not be anything ta precl~~de the pro~ect f~com becoming 50< comnerr.ial and 50X industrial, and Mr. Coult etated that if there were changer~, it would be reviewed by the Planning Co~nieai.on since approval would be tied to the plane. Co~niseior.er Tolar ~:hen stated that he ~aould question ~ueX how ueeded the propased type office ~paces ~ras for an in.dustri.al zone; that, in hia opinion, there would be duplicat~ zoning on the prnperty; [hat the p lans were beautiful while khe pxoposal wae for the wrong property; and th$t the eubject property was not farthcr thAn 15 minut.es from the downtown corridor. Planning 5uNervieor pon McDanfel not~d foc lhe Commiasion rh:~ the manner in which a propoeAl euch ae that before the C:ommiseion could be monitored wnuld be througix the bueinees license procedure; and ttlat the files would be chacked to determine what uses ware approved with each uae aa app lied for. ~ ~ MINUT[~S~ CITY PLANNINC GUI~PtISSLON~ Augu~t S. 1974 74-370 VA.4~ANCL` N0. 262 (Cunti~ued) Comraie~ioner King notod Cliat lie wae ~n agreement with tha pro ject ea long a~ the ueoe wera related t.o i.nduaCry. Chairr,dn Herbet notad. in hie ~~plninn, that• tharR wae u need foc bueinesees to s~rve the i.ndustrial area und thnt yimi.lar uxee li+~d been approved in ~ther urea~. Commiaetonar Johnson ~ioted that hQ wna inclined to go along with tlie petitionar her.ause of tho exieting precede-~t, although he coul.d envision the pro~ect changing in propnrtion ; and that ha did not believ~ it r~ue tl~a Eunctj.on of the Comroixeian to eart thro~~gh the lieC uf u~ea. Comu-ise~ioner King pointod out from the Staff Rep~rt rhat i.n the past, :umanlasion had approved limited commercial af.fice ueeA in the M-1 Zone~ sub3ect to w~ itCen requ~et and review ~y Staff~ tho type of offic~ usas being si•a~ilar to thoae propoded by the petitionet. In responee to quer~tioning by Cummloeioner Gauer, Chairman Herbet notud that X-rsy l~bs were needed in industrial ~reae~ and that the revised l.iet of usea for Che eubjc~c[ property wae proenntly leas than what wae approved at Stare College HAUlavard and Katella Avenue. Commiseioner Morl~y offered a motion, eeconded by Commiseioner King nnd MOTInN CARRIED~ that ttie Planning Commission reco~mnends to the City Council that the eub~ect pro,~ect be axempt from tY-e requirement co prepare an Environmental Impact Rapor.~ pursuant ta the proviaione of the California Environmantal Quslity Ace. Commisaionar Mor.ley uffered Re~olution No. PC74-159 r-nd moved fot ite pa9eagg and adoptioa to grant Petition for Variance No. 2625, granting waiver of parmitCed usea on thc: basis thaC slmiiar waivers have Ueen granted in the past snd said uses have not been detrimental to Che surrounding induatrial land ueea; provided, however, that ttie uses ehei 1 be reviewed ~nd ar,proved purauant to the lisC of uaea atip~.l~ted by the petitioner; aubject to the fort~going findinga and atipulationa by r.he pet!_tioner and suhject to conditions. (See RaeoLution Booki On roll c~ll, the foreg~ing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMI~i1SSI0NERS: JOHNSUN, KING, r:ORLEY, HERBST NOES: CO*~'IISSIONERS: FAR.ANO, G\llER, TOLAR A$SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RECi,ASSIrICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. wARREN AXELROD, ET AL, 350 North Canon Dr ive, Bev9rl y N0. 74-75-2 Hi.lls, Ca. 902.10, Owners; WILLIAM L. SNBLLING~ 350 North Canon Drivc Bever.ly Hills, Ca. 90210, Agent. ~roperty described aA: An ir•~gularl,y- CONDITIONAL USE shaped parc~.l of land consiaci~g of. approximately 0.2 acre havit-g a PERMIT N0. 1483 frontage of approximately 92 feet on the east aide of Mou:itain View Avenue, having a iaximum depth of approximately 132 feet, and bPing located upproximate? 210 £eet south of the cenCerline of Katell.a Avenue. Property presently clasaified R-A (AGRICULTURAL) 20NF. REQUESTED ^,LA5SIFICATION: C-1 (CENL~RAI. COA4IERCIAL) ZONF REQU~S'TED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMtT AN AUTOMOBILE LEASZNG, RENTAL AND WHOLESALE AGENCY WAIVINC (A) 1tEQUZRED TREE PLAN^_'ING, tB,) MINTMUM PAItKING AREA Y.ANDSCAPING AI3D ((:) MAXIMUM cENCE HEIGI1T. One peraon indicat.ed her presence in oyposition to sub~ect petitions and uPon inquiry by Chairman Herb~t ~ said opponent waived the full reading of the Staff Rtport. Althougli the Staff Report to ttie Planning Commission dated Auguet 5, 1974 was not read at the publi ~ tiesring. it ie referred to And t ade a part of the minutes. Mr. Willxam Snelliag, the agenC for the gr~perty ~wner, appeared before the Counai.usion rsnd reviewed the previous Conditional Use Permit Na. 1387 on *_;~e ~ubject prop~ -*.y and atated taat the in~ent of. ttie Planning Comaieaion wa~ to protect the area from the sCigme of an automobile busineas. NP expla!ned the fact t~+ft there liad been g caae ~rhere the Zoning ~ ^w~l • MINU'fRS~ CITY PI.ANNINC COMMISSI~N, Augu~t 5, 1914 RF.CLA~~T.FICATIDN N0. 74-7`> •2 AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMiT NG. 1.483 (Continued) ~ A-'j 71 ~nforcemant Of fic.Qr had fuund "for eale" ntgiie on aome of thetr care ~~nd tFiat eubsdquantly he had appeared be£oro thu Planni.ng Commleaion for clariFicatl.on and found ChaC the facae on Cho Commieeaion had chnng~+d since hie or:.ginal applicati~n. Mr. Snel.ling then oxplainad hie bualnase oparneiun and Ct~~+ philoeophy of the automobilR lenr+t.ng busi.ness and etated they cou~d work out tlie deeirk~e of the Commiseion and what wae nece~soary to mnt~tain the dignity oE the arNa. Mr. Snelling th~t~ Bextad thnC thn waiver of Che anaximum fencs height wae raquested stnca Mountain View waa a d~ad-und etreet and unlighted and a 6-foot fencc~ might preclude the poesibility of thievery of tiree~ rwdloe, e~tc. , from tho automobi~.es in thc~ lot; that the parki.ng lot +vauld be blaclctopped and tied in with their exinti.ng operation to the nocl•h; Chat they were requesC.ng w~ivor uf tite mini.mum parki.ng area landscaping nnd did not underyt+~nd whether that wuiver wae ac t~ially necesenry. Mre. Jean Morrie~ 40U Torray Yines C:Lr cle, appeat'ed befa~~ the Commlaeiun as n repreeenta- tive o£• th~~ Anaheim Aea~iCiful Coromittee end etated the CoIICnittee waR interested in up- grading ~ha various buainposea in th e City nnd the surrounding areas; that tt.a sub~ect application had not convinced lier Chat treee should not be provid~d in cartain areae and th~ patitioner was nut proposing an adequata oub~titutQ; that thert was no beauty along Haxbor Boulevard with the vnrioua automubile agenr_iee; and thaC aho hoped the Plsnnin~, Commiesion would exper.t n litt.le mor~ from the appJ.icnnt Chan he wae propoeitig. In rebutCul, ~tr. Snel.ling etaCc:d the location of the aub~ec.t propprty wAe pertinent and he would aqree that a r_oncc•ete ox asphalt ~ungle was not beautiful. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Commiesion~:r Gauer nated thut the Her tz Rent-A-Car. was located ad~acent to the eub~act pruperty and if ehe petitioner was planning to ~ust pa~'k automobi.las that wuuld be whole- saled, he could see t~uthing wrong with that; C.Y~at Hertz wae a rental agency, and thay also sold their automobiles laCer nn. In rasponae to queationing by Commias ioner King, Mr. Snellitig atated that tha sales aepect of thei.r operution was governed by th e State and under State e.utho~ity there was a dls- tiuction berween wtiolesale snd retail sales depending upon when the salea taxes were paid by the purchaser; that if ~~les Caxes were col~ected at the point of sale, that would be diatinguiahed ae retail salet however, if the sellers did not callect Che eules taxes, they were noC r.etal.ling per ae Ni.t~ - the gurchaser wouJ.d be paying the taxae at Che time of regi.stration of the vehicl~. Mr. Sne lling contin~~.ed by stating they were not ir the businesa uf selling uaed cura per se; Chat they never t~olc t.rade-ins; that Chey would own ehe automobiles from the time tr.ey were new until they were dispo~~ed of at the end of the leases; and that the rental aspecl: o£ their uperation was aimilar to the Hertx Rent-A-Car. In reapon~e to queationing by :ommis sioner King, Mr. Snelling atalyd if a peryon came in to buy a car, ther~ w~a a 50X chance t11aC he would rather lease tnan bu;; that aometimes cars were reconaitioned following a lease period and released; that the agency would cater to Che buain~sa in the subject area; that they would not have banners and flashing lights and they fought to overcome the atlgma of a used car. l.ot; and r.hat their cars would be bqsically in the vinL-age of one to two yeare old. In response to queationing by Chgirman Herbat, Mr. Snelling sta~ed that they would have a aign at a later date for whi~:h a zon ing appLication would be made; and that the sign would be dignifted. He statEd thaC at oae time eigns had been nlaced in the wind~wa of the car.s that were for sale, and those signe were removed immediately Aince they were put there ~~y some of thei~r young employees and in vio lation of the City's policies as wall ae the policiea of Che agency. Mr. Snelling conti.nued by etating that the 1Qasea would be the "oppn csnd" type lease whereby at the end of a two-year leaae the peopl.e could purchase the cara; tr~at Chey advertiaed the cars for sale in the local newapaper Co bt=tact people who would bid c.~ the caz~. Chairman Her.bat noCad thaC the Cotmniseion was concerned that the p.~perty might turn inCo a car lot that would sell Co tha general public; and that the Commiiasiun's earlier intent was thaC the operaticn would be a wholasale outlet from which sale~ would be made lo oCher dealere. Mr. Snel?ing then stated thut unde r CondiCicnal. Use Permit No. 1387, he had agraed not to sell any cara ~hat were not origina lly owned by the aqency. .^~ ~ ~ • 74-372 Mi.NU'fE5, CI'fY PLANNINC CUA4~11SS'IUN, Auguet 5~ 1974 It~CLASSiFICATION N0. 74-75-2 AND CONDIT~O;JAL U3E PF.R.`1I'P N0. 1483 (Conlinued) CommieRiuner ~urnno noted thet he hnd ~unCxibuted a ma~or poreion of the di.ec~~ewion nt the pxevioua public hearing for tha eubject u~c og the prupc~rCy; thnt at th~ prAVioua hearing~ the Commiseion wae und~r. the impreseion that "wholeeale" Wae a technique of diepoaing of csro an3 rather [han selling them on the premieee~ the cars would ba dieposed ot thr.ough automobile dealere~ ae bor.no out throuqh tl~e minutee of thnt meeting; khat tha Commieeion never i.ntended to creata a publlc ealee outlet far automut~iles at thp eubaect Locution; that elthough ehere wae a conc~pt that ehe point of collection of r.he ealea tax determined the extent of the ues. for all intente end ;.urpuene~ the use ae propoeed would become a ueed cnr 10l•, whather carA were taken in tr~do or noi; thet under the zoning an the properry and tlirough the ~dvertteing of aare for aale~ fl.aehing uaed car typ~ eigne might even be put up if the Southwef~t L~neing Compeny al~uuld abandon the usa; and that ha wou].d not ne in fevor of turning thc property lnto a ue~d car to~ eincQ it was not sn appr~printe location for ~uch u uee. CommiQ•'' ~ner Cauer indicnted thaC at thc• Hertz Renr-A-Car Agoncy, a per~~~~n~ could T~.~rc~iaee a car., and said ag~ncy was in the vicinity of thr_ sub~ect pruperty. Cocumiselonei~ Farano then nuted that ha did nat ba1:l.eve th^ Commia8lon'e intent wae for. tha HerCz Agency to sall auComobilee~ any more than for the Southweet l,eRSing Company to do do, Comaaisal.~ner King queationed why the prop~sed sel].~.ng of automobiles would bA any differenC from the rlazda and Volvo dealerahipe that wara located nat too far from the eub3ect locati.on~ and Dep~ity Ci.ty Attarney Frank L~wry advised thAt those dealerehipe had received the permi~- Aion of tt~e Planning Commfsyi.o~i and t.he City Cauncil. Conqaissioner. Farano explained the requirrments for ~utomabile dealerdhips whlch related to square footuge of ehowrooms, gnrnges, etc., and that a dealerehi.p was recognized ae auch from the beginning; and thaC he doubted tt~at Mr. Snelling had en~ugh property to qualify for. a dealerahi~~. Ne reiCazated thak the eubject location was not appropriate for uaed car BA1~9~ that the property dhould nol be ~~ped in th~ same manner as Anaheim Boulevard property, hooraver., under the requested zoning~ Che petitioner would be uble to do that. Commiseioner Morlay indi.cated thn'_ he concurred in Commiesion~r Farano's atatemente. Commieaioner Farano then requeaCed Chat the recorda oi the Hertz Rent-A-Car be reviewed regarding the use that was permitted and to compare and determine if the ~peratio.~ was si.mtlar to tnar_ being proposed by 5ot~thwest Leasing Company. Commissiuner Morley noted that it might be appropriate to base the Commission's decision on the subject petitiona on the operations of the Hertz AAency and, thereupon, Commiesioner Farano suggeated that the aubject mat.Cer be postponed to further on in the meeting in ordar that the review could be accompllRhed. Mr. Snelling aCated That the queetions being raised were what he lived in fear of since he did not want unother Anaheim Boulevard at the sub~ect location, and he off ered to give e hiatory of Lhe leaeing businesa tc~ enable the Commission to better understand why they needed to have the use as propoaed. (:ommisaioner King questioned tha need for thQ watvers of Che required tree planting and u~inimum parking area landacaping and~ thareupon~~ Mr. Snelling atipulatec. to whatever the Pla :g Commisoion would determiae neceseary, however, he pointed out that the Police . Department did not want higti hedgea in tront of this type use, althou~h they would be able to aee between trp.ea. Aasiatant 7oning Supervisor Anni.ka Sautalahti noted for the Commisaion regarding waiver of Lhe reyuired tree planting~ that Che owner of the adjacent residential property had fi.lad e request for commercial zoning and, if finalized, the trees ~-ould not be required. At 3:55 p.m., the discussion regarding the eub~ect matter wae continued to later on in the meeting to alloF~ time for revi~w of other similar uses in the area. ~The Planning Cummission ~o~sidered che laot portio~i of the previous public h6aring~ being Variance Nfl. 2625~ at thia point in the meeti,tg - see earlier in the minutea of the meeting.) ,t * +t At 4:06 p.m., the Planning Commiseton reaumed con~ideration of ReclasAi`ication No. 74-75-2 and Canditional Use Permit No. 1483, ~ ~ MIInlTE3~ CI'1'Y PLANNING COl~41IS3lON~ Auguet 5, 1974 74-373 RECLASsIFICATION N0. 74-75-2 AND CONDITIONAL J5~ PERMIT N0. 1483 (CatikinuAd) Commiosioner F'arar~o rcad from thQ minute. und l•he con~iitione of approval. ~f V~riance Na. 2345 for the Hertz Rent-A-Cnr Agency in the vicinit,y ~~f thca a~~b~act property, and etated Chet if' the petitioiier wne propoeing Co eell ueed cars to the publtc~ a ueod cax dealership woul.d be crented, however• he did naC alsh to imply e~tything as far ae thQ integrity of the Soutt~west Loaeing C4mpany; and thnt if th~ proporty wns z~ne+d C-1, the petitianar could h~.ve an appropriaCe elgn to advc.rti0e tho ueed cara. Mr. Snelling etlNulnted r.o the aandiki.one o.f r~pproval of Variance No. 2345~ as eet £orCh for the Nertz Rent-A-Car~ beinR thet no used vohiel.de aha~l be cakan in trade, thut the ealea of the vehicl~s shall be conducted only on the parr.el located aoi~tt~ of the exieting automob~.le leasing agar-cy, that eules of vehicleR ehall be roetricted to those vahicles originally aesigned to the Southweat Leaeing Compai~y facf.liCy locaCed at 330 Enet Katella Way~ that no prices ahall he placud on the windehieJ.ds of the vehiclo» b~ing offered for eale, and that thle conditional uee permit sha11 become null and void at such tlme ae tl~• leasing and rental facility terminar.es ~perationa on eub~ect property nnd the northeXly parce:i. Mr. Snelling further atatod that said conditions wuuld r_ontrol the use and p:•oCect the intagrity of tre prap~aal i.n that there would not be a uesd car lot c:reated. iie furCher stipulated to withdrawing tlie request for waiver of Cha minimum parking area landscaping and ekated he would eubmit a landscaping propoeal to the appr.opriate City Deparkment. C~mmisaioner Farano questioned if the sub~ect peCition should be changed to a variance~ if the uee Wae going lo be approved under zhe c~nditiona otipvlated to, and Mr. Lowry advised that the Conditional Use Permi.t application was appropriate. In reeponae to questioning by Comanisai.oner King. Mr. Snelling atated that the proposed fence w~uld be chainlink, with slata and so11d acros~ the fron~; and he atipulated that there would be no accesA to Mountain View Avenue from the eub~ect propPrty. 1' further stated that the exiating fence an Mountain View would he carried through. Mr. 5nelling conti.nued Uy stating that he did not want Co conetruct a blor_k wall ad~oining the R-A property since if that property was zoned commercial in the near future, he could have a chainlink fence. It was noted that the Director of Developmant Services had daterarined that the proposed activiCy fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11 of Che CiCy of Anaheim Guide- linea to the Requirementa far an Envi.ronmental Impact Report and was~ therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Commissioner Gauer offered ResoluCion No. PC74-160 and woved for 3ts passage and adogtion to recowmend to the City Council ap~roval of Reclasaificc+tion No. 74-75-2, aub~ect to c~nditiona. (See Resolution Book.) On roll. caJ.l, the foregoing reaolu*.ion wae pasaed by the following vote: AYES: C01~41ISSIONERS: FAR4N0, GAUER, JC~HNSON, KING, MORLF.Y, TOLAR, HERBST NOGS: COMMISSIOhFRS: NONE ABSENT: COMMI5STONERS: NONE Commissioner Gauer of£er.ed Resoluti.on No. PC 74-'~il a•Zd moved for ita p$~sage and adoption to granC petition for Conditional Uae Petmit N~. 1483, granting waiver of the required tree planting on the basis that there is an intei to rezone the adjxcent residential property to C-1 (General Commercial) in which event the requn_ated waiver would no longer be required; tlnat waiver of the min~imum parking area landscaping wns withdrawn by the petitioner; that waiver of ths maximum fence 1'~eight ie granred on the basis that the petitioner demonstrated that the propoaed 6-foot fence was neceseary for security reaROns, however, trees would be provided with'.n tre 3-foot landscaped setback ttd~acent to Mountain View Avenue; that the proposed wholesaling of automobiles ie considered an appropriate accessory use to the pri.mary uae of the aut~mobile leasing and rental operation, however, it woul.d not be conaid- ered appropriute aR a primary uae and, therc:fore~ upon termination of the primary uae, Conditional Use Permit No. 1483 ahall become null and void; subject to the stipulations of the petitioner, and sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was paseed by the following vote: AYE5: COA44ISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MQRL~Y, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: COPffrIISSIONERS: FARANO ABSENT: C01~4~1ISSIONERS: NONE ~ ~ ltINU':ES~ CITY PLANNINC CUMMI3SION~ hu~ueC 5~ 1974 1G-374 RECE3S - - At 4.'0 p~m.~ C~-airman Harbat declared a rocee~. RCCONVENA - At 4:30 p.m., ChairwAn Horbet recunvened the maet~ng wi.ri; all Cnmmieeionmre boing present. CQNDITTONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. WT.LSON l5 HAMI'TON Pi:INTING CONTRACTOR8, a/u ROBLR'C U. PERMIT N0. 1G63 HAt~PTON~ 1524 Wesk Mebla Street, Mal~~im. Ca. 92A02 a~d 30UTHEltN ~EADV~RTISt;D) YACIFIC LANU CUMPANY. b1U Souch Main 3tr.~ot, Los Mgelee, Ca. 9U0~.4, Owners; ROBER'C D. HMtf'TON, 1524 Weet Mnl,le SCreet~ Maheim, Ca. 92H07. Agent; ruqueeCing parmisaion to F:XPAM~ AN 1:XISTT.NG, NONCONFORMINC CONTFACTOR'3 STORAGE XARD, WAIVING (A) MINIMUM 9TRUCTURAL 9GTBACK ANU (B) MAXIMUM F1:NC6 HEICHT on proparty described as: An irregularly-ehr~I~~:~l parcel of l.and c:oneieking of approximately 0.8 ncr~ located between Mable 3treek and Broe~lway~ h~ving approximate frontages of ?.85 feet on Cha southwastarly eida csf M~blQ Str.et and 60 feet. un the north eide of Broadwuy, ancl being loct~ted approximakaly 840 feel eaet of the c~nterli.ne of Loara Street. Proparty predently cluesifi~~J M-1 (LICHT INAUSTR7:AL) 'l.ONN~. Subject patition wae readvertised in order to conaiQer addltion.al property un~~r Conditional Use Permit No. 1463. No ~ne indicatad L-heir presen~~ in oppoeition to eub~ect patition. Although the SCaff Report to ~he Planning Commiesion dated AuguHt 5, 1974, was not read at the publir_ hearing, it ie referred to and mxde a part of the minutes. Mr. Robert D. Hampton, the petitioner.~ eppeared. before the Commiesion to anewer queetione regarding tha proposal. THE PUBLIC HEARINC WAS CLOSL~D. In rESponse to questioning by Commiaeioner Morley, Mr. liampton stated he would have no ob~ecti.one [o having no on-street parking along Mable Street on the ~o~~t:l~west aide abutting the norCheast boundary of s~ib~ect property. In responee to queationi.ng by Chairman HerbaC, Mr.. Hampton atated Che prop~~-al wou.ld add oleven parking spacea on the inaide of t~~eir development. Commisai.oner King noted that if there w e no on-street parking, ttiat portian of Mable SCreet ahould be painted red. Deputy City AttorYtey Frauk Lowrq advised that eince the subject conditional uee permit wouYd noz be lieard before the City Council unless appealed nr brought up on the City Council'a oe,m vo].ition, the City Staff could be instxucted ta bring the matter af no parking on the one slde of Mable 5treet, etc., to the atten~ion of the Traffic Engineer for a recommendatioii to the City Counci].. It was noted that the Director of L~evelopment Services had detel•mined that the proposed activity fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3 of the City of Anaheim Guide- lines to the Requi.rements for an Environmene~l 'impact RegorC end wa~, thereEore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Commisaiorier Morley offered Reaolution No. I'C74-162 rtnd movpd fo1' its pass~~~a and adoption, t~ amend Resolution No. PC74-80 ~hich grar.ted in part, petition for Condi~l~~na1 llse Permit No. 1463, said amendment being to add additionel pzoperty; granting waiver of the mir.imum structural aetback from a local atreet, which applies oaly to the propoaed fence, on the baeis that simi].ar waivere have been granted previously in Che immediate vicinity; ~ranting waiver o£ r.he maximum fence height on the baeis that the petitioner demonstrated thE neceaeity for the 6-foot high fence for the propoaed use and that similar waivers have been previously granted in the sub~ect area; that the legal description, as seC forth in Resolu- tion No. PC74-80 ahall be amended to include the additional 25-foot strip of land along the northeseterly boundary of the property originally considered under Canditior~al Use Permit No. 1463; and that the Planning Cc~nniseion recommeade to the City Council that no on-atreet parking 1~~ allowed a.long Mable Street on the aouthwest side abutting the northeas~ boundary of subi~ct properCy; sub~ect to conditione. (See Resolution Book.) On ro~l cal!., the f~regoing reaolution was passed 'by the follow~ing vote: AYES: C'JI~IISSION~RS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: C~'1MMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COI~.'MISSIONERS: NONE ~ ~ ~i.INUT~S, (:LTY P1.ANNINC COMMTSSION, Auguet 5~ 1974 J4-375 ENVIRONMRNTAL IM1'ACT - PUBLYC HFARING, J. RI~HARD rARLEY AND ROB~R1 P. DUPRE, 341 Haysi.de dRPOR'r N0. .131 Drive "A"~ Newport Beach, Ca. 92660~ Ownc~re; QUAIL~ i.NC., 1140 South ' ~~ Cyproee Street~ I.e Nabra~ Ca. 9U631~ Agent; r~q~aeting permiuslon to CQNDITIONAL USE ESTABLISII A QUAII. HATCHBRX on property deRCribed as: A rectanQularly- P~RMIT N0, 1485 shapQd purcel of Land consieting of approximatel.y 3.0 a~xes having ~- " frontage of appr.oximntely 340 feet on the west eida of OrangeChorps Park, hnving a maximum depth of approximately 381 feet~ and bcing located xpproximately 58~ feet north af ttie centerli.ne of Orangeth~rpe Avenue. Yropert:y preeently clanei.fied M•-~ (I.IGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONE. No one indicatod their praeence in orpuei.tion ko euhJoct patiCian. Although tha S~aff Repu~C to thQ Planning Cummieaion daCed Auguat 5~ 1y74, wae noC road et the publlc hearing, it ie referred to and made a part of Che ~nlnutes. Mz. Hank Bogardus, ropresenCing tha agent for the property uwner~ appeared bei~. the Commie- sion to anewer questiui~e regarding the pr.opoea.l. THE PUBLIC IiEARING WAS CL,OSED. In response to queeti.oning by ~ommiaeioner Gauer, Mr. Bogardue etatad thay were ae concerned about their nnighbora as the Ylanni.ng Commiseion wae; t:hat they prapoeed to properly mai.ntai.n the hatchery ainc~ they were in th~ Utieiness in a commsrcial capacity; tl~at thay operated a ;.ommercial hatchary in La Habra ae a teat facility and they had outgrown that £acility; and Chat th~ previoua applica~~ione concerning quail raieing were not connected ~aith hie company in any way. In reoponse to yueationing by Chairman Herbet, Mr. Bogardua eCated he had discusaed the watter of the diapoaition of the bird waete with the Sanitation Division and the mntter cauld bp resolved with ~.o problems. Mr. Bogaxdus further aCated that they wou'.d be producing bi.rda up to 7 and 8 ounc~~a eact- in aize; that they would be constructing thelr own c~geR, whict~ were about ~ne-f ~irtti the aiae of 1 chicken cage; that r.hey had used the USC-Davis technique for canstructing Cheir breeding cagt~s; that the bird waste wnuld drop through the cages onto craft paper that wo~ild be pulled through underneath the cages on rolls; that th~ peper c~r..- taining the waete wou7.d be rolled and placed in plastic bags and then placed in dumpetera; and that their plane in the fuCure would be to sell the fertilizer product of the birds eince i.t would have commercial value. In reply to questioning by Chairman Herbat, Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that if the waste materi.al waa handled and bagged in the psrticular manner described by Mr. Bogardua and carried straight to a dump, since it wae not ~ toxic material, there would be no problems; however, if the bags should get tot'n, the Orange County Health Depar~ment would get involved with regard to the flies. Aasistant Zoni.ng Supervisor Annika Santalahti noted for the Commisaian that there was no zone in which to allow the proposecl use, including the agricultural zone which did noC allow bird raiaing or hatcheriea. Mr. Lowry further udvised Lhat the getitl.oner would need to obtain approval and permit from the Orange CounCy HPalth Department for the operation since that agency enforced all animal contro]. in the City of Anaheim. Commi.sison:r Farano inquired regarding the sir flow, temperature and humidity conditions, and Mr. Bogardus atated the quail would live in about any environment placed in; that ex- haust £ans would be used and the doors kept closed; that the odor a person F~ould ame].1 on the premiaea wou:ld be the feed used and uot the animal; and that detergente used in cleaning would deodorize +and eliminate any other odors. Commis~ioner Farano questioned ehe release of air or the in~~ection of air through the eMhauat to the e.tmosphere and how that would contribute to a fly problem, and Mr• 13ogardus deacribed the c:leaning achedule whereby tk~e droppinge would not sit more than 24 hours from one pick-up to the next, including Saturdays and Sundays; in other words on a daily baais, and would be w•r.gpped in a contaixiPr and sealed; that :egarding £ly abatement, they would be using a progrf~m thaC was not. aprayed~ but was a sugai'-based chemical that would be eprinkled on the flaor to attracC and kill the flies. He furtlier atated that the flo4rs would be mopped seven days a week and that the eanitary aepect9 of the operation would be under the control of the Health Department. ~ ~ MTNUTES, CI7'Y PLANNING GOMMI53LON, AugugC S~ 1974 74-376 ENVIRONMENTAL Il~'AC'1 lt1:PURT N0. 131 AND CONAITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0. 1485 ((:ontlnued) Comwieoi.oner Farano t.hen questioned whether tha fACt that. the quail would be coneuwed had anything Co do with whut they were fcd. and Mr. Do~ardus eCatsd feed mixea wera uoud that contnin~d no t~ccelcsrutore; that the birde would 'aa JSDA certifiud; that the oggs would bo boilad, picklQd~ etc; thnt their operation would be furthe~r. controlled by Fesderal and Sta.to healtt~ agqncios; and that thay wure going to a canCroll~d envi~ranment in order to maintain a henlchy flock. Mr. Bogurdus furkher etated that they had researched at the La Hnbre locati.on t~~ Ree i£ the pr~poe+~l woul.d wurk and chey were convinced tt~at it woul.d. .u reaponeo to queytluning by Dtr. LoWry, Mr. Bogardus etlpulaCed thak there ~ruuld be no co ~~ercial i>> ~~~:~asi~ig ot quail ~r quail producta on the premisss, i.ncluding eluughtexing o£ tht ~~u,~ll. Chairman lierbst nored that one of the l~rgest tr.ailer. perka in Anuhnim wne lacated ad~acenC to the sub~ect Nroperty across thF railrond tracts~ and he woul.d qu9stioii tha proceseing af odors int~ Che nir on a 24-hour basis In the evenf. tlie houaekeeping wae nok kept up daily for any roason~ and Mr. Bogardu~ exploined tha location of Che pr~poeed facility in relaCion ahip to the location of the trailer park and ekatad the winds tti the area would predomin~ttely b~.uw in the opposite direc.tion of the trAiler park; thaC the exhausC system was not to get rld o£ abnoxious odord~ but to aseure Ctiat the birds would not die from cr~rbondioxide; nnd tliat there wae nu need tu filter the sir since the quail was a cl~ac~-feathered bird. In response to furtti~r queat•ioning by Chairman Herbet, Mr. Bogardue atated the La Habra facility was ].ocated within one block of homes. Commissinner Johnaon noted that he would like to see the sub,~ect petiCio~~ granted; that now and then it was difEir.ult £or. the Commission to plug ati unusual application i~ o a type of zon.e or area; that, however~ he £elt the use was queotionable since ther~ would be approxi- mately 6U,OU0 hirds and, although he had been adviaed that the birda were not odorous, he had checked the use in the fLeld and found they were odorous. Mr. Bogardua then stated thnt uuder some conditiona the birds were od~rous, however, there was no re~son for those conditions with the proper hygiene; and that ther.e would be no other way to oper.ate in order to get the maximum utiLity out of the apace. Commisaianer Farano noted that the line of demarcation was hun-an conduct and the abiYity to perform in this case~ Pnd pexhaps tt~e uae would not produce the effects that Commisaioner Johnson bnd he had experienced. Mr. Bogardus assured ti-e Commiaeionthat he was as cuncerned as he hoped the Commisaion was and that he was veYy aarious abaut his propoeal.. Commissioner Farano then questioned the presence of vermin and insects in connection with the use, and Mr. Bogardua sta[ed the feed would be replaced every 30 days and that if iL• was necessary they would obtain commercial rodent trapa for proper control. Commiasioiier Farano noted that the vermin might be attracted to the other developments around the suU~ect property, auch as the trai.ler park, because of the aub~ect uae; and Mr. Bogardus atated that was why they would he keeping tbeir doore closed. c;ommiasioner Gauer noted th:t ha believed in being a ltttle innovative eince he did not see l~ow the petitioner aould afford to have anything but a well-run operation; that, in hie opinion, within a year the applica rt woul.d either be doing a lot of buainesa or be out of businesa; ti~at the Commisaion had been innovaCive in other mattera xnd there were certain itema which ahould Ue experimented with, the sub~ect pro~usal being one of then. Comffiisaioner Tolar noted~ in his opinioi-, that policy would dictate that the operation would have to be kepe clean os the petitioner would "lose hie ahirt"; that the proposed use was nut a bad one for tt~e area, howevet, it shuuld be p~rmitted and tried fur a ahort period of time to determine its eLfecta. Commissioner Farana noted that th~ only problem appeared to be that ~he proposal waa a high ri.sk, aince its eucceas would be based on the pe~itioner's ability to perfo:m. In reply to queationing by Commisaioner Tolar, Mr. BogarJ~ia stated he would be willing to aperate for one year and then come back before the Planning Commisslon for review of thz uae. • ~ MZNUTF:S, CI'CY PLANNING C0f~1]SS[UN~ Au~uet S~ 1g74 74-377 L~NVIKO'NMEN'.I IMPAC'P R~PURT N0. 131 AND COND'LTIOPIAL U3N YERMTT N0. 1485 (~:~nl•inuod) Chairman Hcrbst nuCed ~l~et lio cacicurred in Commieeinne~r Cauer.'e etatemenc i~nd Ct~at, iF the propoeal. wne ollowed for ~ period of ono yenr, Chert thers wouid be timn to recoive any complaints from che citizeno in the area, if there were any comNlainte. Coatmoiseioner. Tolar offorad n motlun~ BecondQd by CommiAei.aner ~auer~ and MOTIUI; CARRIEll, that Envlronmentul t.mpacr. kepork No. 131~ having be.en coneidared thie date b,y the City Planning Coc~i~eion gnd ovidr.nce both writl•an and orxl having been presented to aupplemcsnt eaid Dr.aft N:IR No. 131, th~+ Ylnnntng Commieeion beli~vas that aaid Draft FIR No. 131 dnes conform to the Clty and SCat~~ ~~uidalinee and the Stata of Cal.lfornia F.nvironmental Quality Act and, bF~sed upu-~ auch information, doee heraby recomm i~d to the City Council thut they certify said [:IR No, 171 !.s Ln compliance with said ~nvi.i lmental Quality Act. Commiseioner T~~l.,ir offere~l Redolution No. PC74-163 and movad for its paseage and adoption to grant petltion for Conditional Use Permit No. 1485 f.ar a pariod of one year. aub~ect to reviaw and coneideration for exCencion of tlme b,y tha Planning Commi.eeion and/or CiCy Council~ upun request by ttie peCitioner; sub~act to Che etipulations by the petitioner; and eub~ect to conditi.one. (5ee Raeol, ~ ion Bool.c.3 On roll call, the foregoin~ resulution was paseed by l'he followi.ng vote: AYES : C02~4dI S510NERS : GAl1ER, KING , MORLEY , TOI.AR ~ HERBS'f NOES: COMMT.SSIONERS: FARANO, JOHNSON ABSENT: COMMTSSIOIJGRS: NONE VARIANCE N0. 2627 - PU1~I.IC HEARING. ATCHISON, TOPEKA, SANTA FF. RAILROAD, 121. GesL' Sixt'h SCreet, Lor~ Angeles~ Ca. 90~14, Owner; 5ILZLE PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 7].1~ Auaheim, Ca. 92805, Agent; requeating WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM Lt11VDSCAPING ADJACENT TO A LOCAL STREET~ (B) MAXIMUM FENCE HETGH:', (C) REQUIRED FENCING MATERIAL r D(D) MINIMUN 'fR~E LANI)SCAPING. TO ESTABLISH AN OUTDOOR STOItAGF YARD ot- property deacribed as: An irregularly-ehaped parcel ~f land consieting of apProximaCely 1.12 acrea ].o,;ated at the soutl,~+ast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Atchison Street, having approxim~te frontages af 133 feet on rhe south aide of Lincoln Avenue and 341 feet on the east aide of Arc:~ison Street, and having a c~nximum depth of approximately 512 feet. Property preaently clapaified M-1 (L7GHT INUUSTRIA~.) ?.QNE. Commiseioner Morluy noted L•hat he had a conf.lict ot interast as defined by the Anaheim MuniciFal Code Sect~on 1.1.4A0 and Government Code Section 3625, et aeq., in that he did businesa wi.th the Silzle Company; that pursuant to the prov3sions of the aforementioned Codes, he was declaring to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the public hearing i~ connection with the subJect peCition ,:~r Varian•~e No. 2627, being Item No. 11 of the Pl.anning Commission Agenda, ancl that he would not take part in aither the diacussion or the vottng thereon; and that Iie had not discusaed the sub~ect matter with any member of the Planni.ng Co•~nmission. TY~ereupon, COr4IISSIONER MORLEY LEFT THE MEtiTING AT 5:05 P.M. No one indicated Cheir pneaence in oppoaition to sub~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated Augiist 5, J974, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to atid made a part of the m•lnutea. Mr. Bill Silzle, representiiig the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and atated that the sub~ect petitian had been ttie result o£ a zoning enforcement action; that they were requesting permisaivn to construct a 10-foot high chainlink fene~ that would be interwoven with aluminum slats primarily since, ta his know~ledg~, the cedar slate were a maxfmum of 8-feet high and a fence on top of a fence would be wore offenatve; tYiat they were requesting waiver of `he minimum landacaping, not because they did not want landscaping, but becauae they were crowded for epace; that the stored material.s were uaed in the fruit process- ing plant l.ocated to the eouth of sub~ect property; that their operation required a lot of packaging mater.ials wlti.ch had Co be sCored; that they utilized palletized materials, which was a more widely used method in the induatry; and that they would 11ke to continue the out- d~or usage. THE PUBLIC HEARItJG WAS CI.OSED : Commissioner Ga~er noted that ft appeared that the petit~.oner would have to provlde the lands~aping and keep the stored material. below the 10-foot leveZ; that it had come to his attention that there was a pouaibility that the Rapid Tzane~it might take tt~e sub~~ct property for a statinn. Pir. Silzle etaced that they had a 5-year lease and a good chance to purchase the property at the end of that time; that he betieved thA property owner had additi~nal property near the • ~ MINUTB3~ CITY PLANNING CUMMISSLUN, Augaet 5, 1974 74-318 VARZANCE N0. 2627 (ContinuAd) bal], perk which was mocp desirnble fot a eCation; tha~t the potitiottQr owned tho pruperty to the eouth whic:h ~~ae dev~lope~ wiCl~ tlie fruit pruceseing plant and they were trying tu acreen tha sub,~ect proparty and hide Cho mess; and tt~at the fence would not: be conetructed ri~hC on Lincoln Avenua~ ae they would b~~ ueing rhat xrea for parking. Chairman fierhsl mad~ rsn obearvatinn tliat the propoeQd 10-foot fencQ would probably be unelghtly xnd that trea+~ plunted on 20-foot cenCore could break the monotony oF saic! fenco and~ thereupon, Mr, Silzle etated that he would not be able eo eripular.e tA additionel dedication on Atchiaon StreeC bu~ thxt that mattar would Uc~ up ko Che~ prope~.'ty awner. Chairman Harbet Chen suggsatad that the petirioner ehuuld vieiC the Irvine Complex to view the 10-foot fencea wiCh rodwood s1aCp and th4 tree welln inetalled to break tho monatony an~1 give a bQautif 1 effect to the area. He further notad that a S-year lease with an option for additi.onal cime cuuld not bo cor~eidered ehort term and as long ae the peCltioner. wa~ going to hnve a buainess at thut location, they ehQi~ld try to beautify Che City~ and aeking for a few trees ehoul.ci not cauae A hardship; and that he would certai.nly lika Co sQe the ar.ea upgraded. Asaietank Zoning Supervisor M:~ika 3antalnhtt noted fo~ Che ~ommisaion that if the petiCioner provided 5-foot wide landscaping, wniver af tha minimum landacaping a<Ijacent r.o a local etreet wuuld no longer be necesoary. O.fficc Engin~er Jay Titus adviaed that the property line presently w~e et 20 fee[ frum the centerline of Atchioon Street, or at the existing curb face, and there was an existing eide- walk; 2hat tlie City was aaking for dedicaCion to the back of the aid~walk and if dedicaCion was not mF-de~ the Commieaion cou13 not accomplish the 5-feet uf landscaping required. Pleiining Super~isor pon McDaniel noted for the Co~iseion that tree we~ls would not eaCisfy the landacapi•.g requirementa, whether eald landscaping wae at the curb or 5-feet back from Che curb. Mr. Silzle etipulated that they would be happy to landscape the parkway; and Commissioner FRrano noted that the type landacaping required was usually behi.nd the aidewalk. Ntt. McDaniel then noted that the aidewalk exiated on private property and the City wae requeeting the property owner to dedicate to 30-feet width frum the centerllnE of Atchisoti Street, and that waiver of the minimum landacaping would apply to the 5-foot aetback from the new right-of-way li.ne. Ctiai~man Herbat inquired how long iC would take the petitioner to get in touch with the property owner regarding the requested dedi~ationo to which Mr. Silzle sCated that could be accomplished within the next day or so; and Commiasioner Faranr, noted that it would be within the parametera of the Planning Commission to apecity the conditions for the proposed uae regardlesa of whether the property owner would dedicate or not. Mr. McDaniel noted ehat typically dedicatian was madQ ae a condition for the granting of a speci.al privileg~. to a proper.ty owner; and that the dedication was nceded by the City and there should be no questi.on regardi.ng whether or not it should be made a condition of approval. He further noted Chat tree wells would not satisfy the Code requiremer~te, technically, however that could be approved as a substitute at the discretion of the Commisaion. In response to questloaing by Chairman Herbst, Mr. Silzle etated thaC the S fent of land- scaping would not hurt tt~e pro~ect, however, it should be noted that they would lose five times 270 £eet (the length of the property), which crould have been used for storage purposea. In response to questioning by Comm~seioner Johnson, Mr. Silzle stated that Chree cubea of palletized material would be higher than a 6-foot fence and conformance to that requiremenC would create a tiardahip ta their aperatton, aince the volume of their operation was increae- ing; and that an 11-foot fe-:ce would cauge some proble~ne in connection with the winds in the area. Regard~ng slatting of the proposed fence, Commisaioner Farano notecl that the Commisaion had tried in their developwent standards ta stay away fram aluminum s1aCs becauae of the generally bad appearance. It was noted that the Director of Development Services had determined that the proposed activity fe11 within the definiti.on of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the Ci:y of Anaheim Guide- lineA ko the Requirementa for an EIR and was, there£ore, caCegorically exempC from the require- ment to file an EIR. ~ ~ MINUTE3~ CITY PI.ANNINC (:OI~Q~ITSSIUN, Auguxt 5~ 1974 74-379 VAItIANCG NA. 2G27 (C~ntinued) Commt~eioner F'arano offered ReaoluCion No. PC74-lb4 and moved for ite paseage and adnption to grant petition for Varianca No. 2b2? in part~ grenting wnivar of the permltted outdoor usoo an th~ basis thac the eub~er.t uao I~as beon i~ e~xietence f~r a pexi.ad of timu and hae not heen datricaental to the area; dnnying wa.ivor of the minimum lanc'acuping a~d~ucent to x lucrl Atreet on the basid that Ch~ peCitioner did nut drimonstraCe thaC a hnrdehip would be created it eaid waiver wae not gxanted; grenting wAivar of the maximum feiice height on the baeis tt,aC the petitionNr demonaerated that +n hnrdehip would bo created if eaid wai.v~r wae not ~ranted; denying waiver of. the requirad fencing ~oat~rial on the baeie that the peti.t:laner did not clomonetrate that a hardehiR wo„id ha ~:reated if eaid waiver wae not granted; tliar. waivoe of the minimum tree landscaping to screen o~tdoor~ uaeB was determined to ba no longer tiec~,seary eincp waiver of the mi.nimum landecaping ad~ucent to a lor.nl ~~treet ie denied and the fence would be locatad fivn feet from the propurty ].ine~ en:t the propo~ed f~nce hoight wo~-ld, tt~erefore. be permitted; eub~ect to conditi.one, (See ]t~~solution Book) On roll cnll, the foregoing regolution wes pagsed by thfl fo;.lowfng vote: AYES: CQt~1ISSI0NERS: FARANO, GAUER, .10HtTSON, t~ING~ '1'OLAR~ HERBST NOE5: COMMISSIONERS: P70NE AB3ENT: CONatISSION~RS: MURLEY CONllITIONAT. USE - YUBLIC HEARING. NORLNE McCARTI~Y~ c/n RoberC Ward~ 131 West Wilshir~ PERMIT N0. 1484 Avenue~ Fu].ler':on, Ce. 92532. Owner; EARLY GALIFORNIA SPECIALTIES CORF'. ~425 NPlI Clz~cle , Placentia~ CR. 92670, Agant; tequesting permiegion to ESTABLISH '1TI ENCLOSED RESTAURAIiT WITH COCKTAIL LOUNCF on property deacribed as: A r.ectangularly-ahapad parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.4 acx~A having a frontage of approximately 187 feet on the Faet eide of Tustin Avenue, having ~i maximum depth of approximately 340 feat, and being located approximately 350 feet aouth of Che centerline of I.a I~-lma A.venue. Property prespntly clasaified R-A (AGRICUI.TURAL) ZONF.. No uue indicated their presenca in opposition to subject petitian. Although the Sta£f Report to the Pl~nning Comtnisaian dated August S, 1974, was not read at the public hearing, it is referre~ to and cnade a part of the minutes. rir. Thomae J. Clementa, representing the agent for the property owner, appeared before the Commiasion to anawer questione regarding the proposal. THE P[3BLIC ~iEARING WAS CLOSED. Commiasioner King noted that t~:~ sub~ect property had been checked in the field by Commiseioner Mor.ley Rnd rims~lf and the proposed uae appeared to be appropriate at the aubjec.c location. Mr. Clementa stated that the structure was two storl~a with a arine cella:- in the basement whtch had a aeparate outside entranceway; that the fir~tt floor wou~ld have dining rooma a,.' the second floor wo~.~ld have a cocktail launge and a waiting room; tha[ Che establiahment could promote family-type trade; that tt would be possible for paCrans to have a drink with l•heir dinner even ttiough there was no bar propose~ to be lacal•ed on the dining toom level; and that there was :+ definite need in the sub~ect area for a restaurant auch as tlze one being proposed. In reaponae to questianicig by Commiaeioner Tular, Mr. Clementa stgted the puxchase of the propercl~ waa not contingenC upon approval of the subject petition; and thaC the property was purchased through a probate sala which disallowed any continge~tcies. Coma-isei~ner King of~ered a motion, seconded 1~ ,i~iasioner rarano, and MOTION CAItRIED (Couunissioner Morley being absent), that Che Planning Comnisaion recom~ends to the City Council that the sub~ect projecC be exewp' from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Tmpact Report pursuant to the prnviaions uf t~-e :.alifornia Environmental Quality Act. Commiasioner Kiag offered Resolution No. PC74-165 and moved f~r its passage and adoption ta grant pe:il•ion fflr Conditiunal Uae Permit No. 1484, sub~ect to conditione. (See Resolution Book) ~n roil call~ the forego~ng reaolution wae passed by the foll.owing vote: AYES: COt~IISSIONERS: FARANO, GP.UER, JOHNS~Nf KING, TOLAR, HBRBST NOES: CONIIdISSIONERS: NONL ABSF.iV1': CONR4ISSIONERS: MORLEY ~ ~ ~ 74-380 MINUTF.S~ CITI( PLANNING t;UMMIBSTON, Auguec 5~ 1974 VARIANCP. N0. 2623 - PU11LiC HBARING. KA~tI, SATOK, 9j6] Hazel. Circle. V~llla Pack, Ca. 92667, ' pwnor; TEKFORM PRODUCTS CUMPANY, 2770 Coronado Streat~ Ma'haim, (:a• 9280b, Aganr.; requeeting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM Nl1MBER OF SIGNS AND (B) MINIMUM DISTANCF B~TWEPN 3ICNS TO E3TANLISIi 'Iti,iO FRP.B-STANDINA SIGNS on property deecribad es: A rectangulnrly-ehaped parcal of lnnd consisting of. apprcximataly 3.1 acrae having a frontage of approximatel; 459 feet on the auuth ei.de of CaronHdo SCreeC- having a maximum depth of approxinu+r.ely 29A faet, and baing locaCad +~pproximately 200 feet weet of th` cantAr- ~.iqa of 111u~ Gum SCreet. Property pree~~ntly claeeified M-1 (LIGttT INDUSTRI'AL) ZONE. No ona indicated tl~eir presence in oppoei.tlun to eubje~t actition. Although the Staff R~port to the Flanning Commideioa duted Augaet S, 1974, wae not read at thc~ piiblic hearing~ it is referred to r.:~d mnde a part of the minutNe. Mr, tton ChUlman, representing kf~~ ngent for the property owner~ uppeared before the Commie- aion and atated they wece propoaing to have two nice eigns; th~.t thP.y had a problem with the~rthQ~si~nnonnCheetankywouldkbe~use,dtrondirectltt~eevisitor.satorthefr 1ocation,h ho other- rha S wiee might bec~me loet. THF. PUBLIC HBARING WAS CLOS~D. In response tu questioning by Chairm+,n Herbet~ Mr. Chalman etated they would need the eign ~n Che tank f~r a y~~+lr's time at r.ha most; tliat there were at Least 12 or 15 other huildinge surrounding their property; and thu~ clie tank wae located to the rear of thE eubject properCy fac~ng toward La Palma. CommiesionPr Ferano noted that he could not eae how che aign an ths tank would help rhe trade at the sub~ect location, and that ~he patitin»er ,..d no more of a problem than anyon~ else since e•~aryorie would like to have a sign 15 feet in the air. It wae noted that th~ D:lreckor of Development 3ervicee had determined that khe pruposed activity fell withln Che definiCion af Szction 3.01, Clasa 11 0~ the City of Maheiw Guide- lines to the Requirements for an EnvironmanCt~l Tmpuct Report and was~ therefore, categorically exempt frum the requireu~ent to file an EIR. Cannni~siuner Farano offered a resolution to deny petitian fox Variance No. 2623 on the basiR that the sign on the tank could be viewed from the adjacent Lreeway and that the monument c.ype eign would be adequaee and would also be beautiful and lend mora dignity to the subject firm. Commissioner Gauer nated tbae other companies had been permikted to have identity from the fraeway and, since the aign on the tank would be for a short ppriod of time, he would be in favor o£ granting the subject petition. On roll cal~, t.he for.egoir~g reaolution to deny petition for Variance No. 2623 failed by the following vote: pyES; COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, JOHNSQN NOES: COIiMTSSIQNL~R~: GAUER, KIN~, TOLAR, HEABST ABSENT : CaI~Q~IISSIONERS : MORLEY Commissioner Tolar offered Res~l~tion No. PC74-166 and moved for its passa6e and adoption to grant peeition for Variance No. 2623 fnr a perlod of six monthe, ar the end cf which cime the variance w9.1~ termi~aCe and on~y onc free-ekanding slgn will be permitted in accord- ance with tlie Ar.aheim Municipal Code; aubject to conditione. (See Reaolurion Book) On rol~ call~ Che foregoing resolution wae passed bp ~he following vote: AYES: C01~lISSIONERS: FARANV, GAUER~ Jn1~1SON, KING, TOLAR, kIERBST NOES: COMMISSION'~RS: NONE AB5ENT : COI~tLSSIOD!ERS : MORLL~Y RL~CESS -Chalrman tlerbat declared a dinner tecoae at 5:50 P.M. R?CONVENE-Chairman Herbst reconvened the meatieg at 7:35 p.m. with ComQniesioner Morley being absent. ~ ~ MINUT6S~ CITY PLANNI:NG CUMMISSIGN~ Auguat 5. 1974 74-381. GL~NERAl.~ NLAN - PUBLIC HEA~ING. INITIATED IlY TNB ~~~ZM ~I~'~ro~oneiderOaMSei.emia M1EI~5MiENT N0, 132 204 Eac~t Lincolrt Avenuo~ Maheim. Ca• 92805; and Snfeey Element ~£ Ctie Anaheim Gener.nl Plan. i'la,nning Suoervieor pon Mcpnniel introduced the ~ub~~ect mattar by etatiog C:~at it wee neceseary to drxft the Selemic and Safety Eleroent fc+r conAiderat~on for ndopticn aC ~he CiCy level prior Co Soptemb9r 20~ 197G, ae required by ttse State of Ca1:Eorr.ia~ and Ct~at thQ ~eiamic Elrment and the Safety E1e~men~ Lad been combined lnCo one e~amenc for conaider- ation at thi.s time. Asxi.etant 1'lanner A1 Dau~a read the SCaft Itoport to the Plannlu~ Commisei.on dated Auguat 5~ 1974~ end said 5taff Report is raferred ta aH i.f eet forth in full in :lie minutes. Mr. Stewart Moee~ rapresenting tl~e Santa Ana Canyon PrapetCy Owi~ers Aseociation, appeared before the ~ommiaeion and atar.ed he had briefly reviewed the eub~~cC doa~~neuC aad questiu~ted whethpr ~ny ~ddiCiunal study l:ad beAn made regarding thg lfqutficatinn o£ ooila during a h~avy enrthquack or aeiemic activlty. Mr. Daum repli~d that tha County of Orange, in thnir etudy~ liad done xn:~~-depth geo-technicel analyaie whiah ovarlapped the analysis oF the City of Anaheim, and in khaC otudy there was an indication that the liquification of so!].s in the Ca~~yen atea was a potential factor, and thaC thera was au attempL- Co prcvide for ~u~.h an occurrence in tY~e Bl.ement. Cocmniseio:~er Farano question~d what use Che propoeed Element would be other than to meet the SCake requiremente, etc., and Mr. llaum advised Chat while tlie aCudy wae gear.ed to meeting the State requlrementa, it would provide a besie for policy guidallnes; r.hat if the City wanted Co eo incorporate 4t~e Element, it conld pertnin Co basic conetruc,tion; that the ElemenC presently incorporaCed risk analyp~.e and wae a document which could be expanded upon and provided suffici.ent data and reseaxch to an~wer yueet!ons pr~pounded by developers; that the Clement was not intended to be an extenei~e geo-technxcal analysis and one cou?d noC conatruct a project based upun the informaCion contained therein; however, the Element wou~d serve ae a guide for a site analysie. Mr. McDanie~ noCed for the Commisaian that the varioue elum~~nts of the Anat-eim Generul Plun did noC, i.n and of themselves, do anytlii.ng apecifi.c except to i.dentify the posaibilit~.es and ramif.Ications; that the S~iamic a~id Safety Element euggested poeaibla implan~xCatio~t techn~gqie~nII and discaeRed some of Che concerns to aid additlonal etudy; and Chat one of the Fugg within the Elernent was thal- "It is desirable that additiunal gealogi.c rsnd aeismic investiga- tion and analyais be conducted by a q~~111fi.ed engl~eering geologiaC to ~ietermine acceptable levels of riek thraughout the City of Anaheim and to ~ecommend policies to d~al with exisCing and nroposed atructural requirements to minimixe potent,ial Aeismic hazarda"; and that basic- ally Ch~ ~lement would set the par.ametere and place everyone on notice that the City had such a document. Commissioner Farano inquired what were the i~tentiona for the use of the doc~iment, if adopted; and Mr. McDuniel advised that with its adoption, the City would have a tool with which Co facilitate any course of action ior seismic and safet~; that there was a p~ssibility the City m~ght wanC to hire a geologist ko ~o geo-technical. reporting to determi.ne the risk involved if buildinga were proposed for constructton in certain areas; that as an ElemenC of the GenerAl Plan, the propoaed ~,lemen,: was intended to be a framework within which to accomplish the necessary things with rigard thereto. Commiasioner Gauer notad that the aub~ect Llement would put peopiabilit~ttoe~chteaCittleifwthe in an earthqttack area; and he questioned if there woul.d L•e any Y y people indicPCed C~ey ahould have nad sooner ~oti~icakion. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lawry advised that preaently, tu his knowledge, ehere was no liability on the part of a city who allowed c~natructi.on to take place in an earthquake area; how~ver, the State legiElature had mandated that rhe City muat have a seismic an,i a sa£ety c~lement as a NarC of their ~eneral p].an to plesce the pub].ic on notice that such a document existed; Chgt the document would give the City another eource of information for ~onaidera- tion tu be ~aeed in conjunction with envtronmental impact r.eporta and any other doc~unentation that might be needed to aubstantiate an opinion, i.e , th~e document might aubatantiate a reason for denial of a tract. Commiaeianer ~arano then noted that due to the timing involved with adoption of th~ groposed Element Co meet the St~te deadline, followiz~g adoption he would auggeat an i.n-depth stsdy of said Element by each Cowmisai.~ner in ordpr that ir could be used ae an effective`hAff~ asauming the document was authoritative and ~heze were con~petent and knowledgeable mpmbere to gulde its usage; that the Element could establieh the criteria for futuse plan- ning which might Zimit the areas remaining for development ir, the City; an~ that he would ho~P that the propoeal cauld be put to good uae in the CiCy. THE iUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED. u n U M1.NUIES. CITY YI.ANNINC COhR~1LSS10N~ Auguet S~ t974 GP,NFRAL FGAN nMBta[~MrNT N0. 132 (Coneinued) 7G-'j82 Chairman 1{orbet euggaeted thnt +~ work yc~a~ion b~ er,heduled i~ the ue~at future Co di9cuea c~ propoBed [:1.omont in urder Chat thu Planning Commiealon cnul.d fnmil:eri.ao itself with ito contente; en~t. ln hie ~plnf.on~ an undnrAen~~~ding of Aai.d document was osecnl+.al. Cc~mmieeiuner King offer~+d Reaolutlun No. PC;4-167 and moved for it.e p~aser-ge and adoptlnn, to adopt und x~c,~mm~nd to the City Counc:il udoptian of Anaheim Genc+r.nl c'L~a Amendment No. 13?.~ ne the (;ity'~~ S~alemic nnd Safety F:l~me~~t of kho Anaheim Cenornl Plan~ in nccordance with F:xhlbit A~ ~e pruden[~d. lSeo Re~o~.uCion Book) On roll. c.~ 11 ~ the f ~regoing rogoluti.on wae paseed by the t.~ I.lowiag voto: AYGS: CUt~1ISSI0NfRS: FAKANO, GAUER, JOHNS~N, KINC, TOLAR, 11[?,IIIfST NU[:S: COt~L'HI3STONERS: NON~ AIISENT; COMl9iSSiUNERS: bl0ltl.`~:Y TF.N'fA'fIVE MAP OF' -• D~VEI.OPER: CRT'fCRION DL'VTsLOPMENT COt~ANY, 17722 Irvine Boulevar.d~ 'fRACT NU. 8713 Suite 4~ Tustin~ Ca. ~2G80, h:NGINEER: ANACAL EN(~CgEE92g~3C0~"~ubject "'-~ - 222 Ea~t Linc:oln Avenue, P. ~. Box 3668~ Anaheic~, property~ con~oi~ting of upproximately 7~05 acres located northe+~eterly of Mohl~r Place. approximntely 3500 feet sou~Ch O~ S8Llt8 Ana Canyon Road~ is proposed for r~ubdivieion into 10 R-N-"2,000 RGSIDENTIhL HII,LSIDI:, !.OW-DENSITY, SING1,E-F'AMILY ZONED loCa. Althoughlc,lheurinf Ritota tefer.r..dttonanc~l made' nePartd°F~~heuminutea.,~7~ WRH not read at thc puUl 8+ Mr. Cal (~t-eyre:. r~~preae~~cing the en~ineer for the developer~ epp~-~arad bQfor~ the Commiseton 8rimmisaion•hand~thatrhe wasrpresentiL31ong8with othernrepresentativesr~:ouanawerlanying Go . questiona concerning the proposal.. Mr.St~wert Mnss, repr.esenting, the Sunta Ana Ca~ryon Property Owners Aeaucintiun, dpPeared before tlte Comt;~issinn And atatecl th~ developer had requented Che Aseocitir.lon e°aevclopment pro~ect and commer.t; that the Asaoclation way ~r~ry miic.h encouraged ~y tt,e typ propo~a~ and r.he unly comm~~nt woiil.l be regard'_ng the sewage dieposal for the trnct; Chat he wanted tu k~o~r i E there woul.d b~ ri munitoring of the sewage for t}~P posaible hazard wiCh aeptic tank in thia particular :.ea~ that it had been ttie pecaonal. experience of the people living i~i the Mohler Drive ar.~a, that the soil dXainage for. septic systeme Wxa very pour; thnt 11e ~~3 be~'n aetoured by the peuple from the Criterion I;evelonment Company thiat soil. r~p~~rts liad be~n submitted to COA1Pr,~e1lL' septic enginearing £irma to deaign a septic syst*~m foi the sub.ject developmen[; that the Associarion would like snme very definire assurancc ~hat this would be taken a~re of; L'tlAt the City wae aware uf thP potentia~ h~zarda of the year-round running apring tc the ncrthwest corner of the aubje~ properCy which drained 81n1~3t the entire north face of the subject property, nnd that ~~~at apring preyc~tly drttined into a pond on tlie Del Giorgio propPrty; thar he ~i.d not kn.ow what pl. ns werc~ being nNde far that nartic.ular water saurce h~~t ir the soil conditione aere such that any effluent or iiquid matter fr~m sep[ic systems above should drain into the pond i.n Che future~ it could creat~ a prublem; that much o£ the problems wout~i',~inge on how aoon a se~~P~ syatem came into the area; and Cha~ there mighC n4t bc a prub.lem at all Fnd the que:..fon was not being raised as a measure to hinder Che project b~cause it was the type project the people wer~ look~n~ for in the axea. M• . Mose continued by stati.ng there were eo~e pr~peri:ies ii~ the aub,ject area that hu~ a prob.lem relati~~c to raw aewage d*aining clown into the lower elevations where it waa comii~g o~ir of ttie atrata below th~ aept' c ayateu~, ana this was a naturul occurrence in a hilly area where thc strata was cut to allow l'ne Q~Ppage; and that he wnnted eome assurance C~iat a health problen wou~d no+: be created and if ~:he City would have any prcvieion for monitor- ing this Lype of situation. Deputy C~ry ACtur~~~~y Frank LowrY advieeo that the Orange ~uunty Health DeF~rtment monitcred lhe septic tanks in the City End whEr. they ne~ded to be dr.ain_:d. less thaii 2~, hours were givei. for ztbaCeinent. In r~apor,se to questi~ning by Mr. Lowry r.aqarding a c~ntract ~or a sewPr truuk line in the area, ~f f ice Enginec:~" 1ay 1'itus 3c+.vtsed rhe City was ~xtending a aewer lateral undPr Santa Ana Cany~n RoTddevelo~mente nndtthat~wasn3stfarSaR~ the~City~waeWpr posing to~excendlth~~a1 to aerve tt~ei P ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PL~ANNING COh41I59rON. AugueL 5, .19~4 74-3H3 T'EN9'ATIVE MAP OF 7'RAC'f N0. 8713 (Continued) yewer at thie time. Thae regarding a time as to when the sewar laC~r.nl might b~~ extended~ Mr. T•ltus etak~d he could not give s dafiniCo t'me B1nce ic wc~u]d dep~~nd on whun a euf~i- cient number c~f propertiee had paid Che qRSessmonr. ta Cie into tha l.i-w to make 1[ aco;tomi- cally feasible for the L'iCy~ whir_h might Cake a numbor of yeare. In resp~n• c.o quaetioning by CoimniaBioner Fnrano~ Mr, T'.tus co~.'trmod tluit the tr.a~t map could be ,~proved an~i that for an unforeaeeable pexiod of tiwe, ~ liu pr~perty could be aQrved by septic Cnnks. Mr. TiCus then recommendad an additlona3. :~ndicion oP approval being "Thar, appropciate sewQr acraage foe~, ae detarminod by the Ciky Rnginaer, ehall be paid to ths City of Anahc+im prior to 1eBUance of a t~~wilding permi.t." In rPSpone~ to yuesti~ning by Commiseionar Johnaon, Mr. I,owry udvised that tho C:xy had a Pund for improvFmente such aa eewers~ strent lighting~ Qtc.~ and when the zoning ecti.ons wera handled, the conditions regard:ing the EAAS were atrachad ln order to avcatually accamplish the improvamenl•s; and that wt~en t.ha aoeeaema-ztg wQre paid, the properLies did noe alwaye have the improvemants .nstalled right Kway, ae wae avidenced by the absence of e~treet llghting in the Northeaet ~~dustriul District. itr. 'Titue further advixed Chac, ln addition to the sswer acreage fec+a, tlze property owner etill would have to paY for the actual connacr_lun to r.ha eewer line; and that eepkic CAi1KB were eti.ll being permitCed in certain areae of tha City until sewar llnPe ware n~'ailable. In responec to q~iesti.oning by Cartmitaeioner Cau~ar, Mr. Lowry adviedd thaC tt:e eeptic tanka were allowable under ths private aewer section of the Unified Plumbing Code under cartain conditiona wherP no eewer llnes were available. Mr. FrFnk Fe11ar., co-ownc~r of Criterian Development Company, appeared befor~e tho Cowmission and etated thay intende~l ro conetruct tYie dry Aewer linea for future tie into City e~wer ~acilitles an3 ttiaC the CC&Ra woul~l include condiCi.or~e that wh~n sewer~ were svailable Che homeuwnere would be required to connect to them; that disc~ieaion had taken place witk- septic tank ~nginaers and tha tanks would comply with the U.P.C. reyuiremes~t Ghat a hazard- ~us interim condition would not be created; ':hal: the eept3c tanke would be aubjected Co the revlew of the Orar.ge County ~?~alth Depttrtment and tha Regiona]. Wnter Conttol Hoard; thut the system wo4•.ld be designed to acco~adate 1250 gallons per unit, which was a atrin- gent requirement; and that they felt with thF eize of *.he lote invo'lved, and the seepage areas providPd~ that there would not be a buzard involved. 7n response to questioning by Commissioner Gauer, Mr. Fehs~: stated pumpin~ of the tanke w~uld create a problem; that the septic tank would be used for reCention to allow the di.gesti.on of solid mar.eri~l, and afCer the retention period wa~ esta~lished, the leach syatem would go into effect. Coar~issioner ~arano n~ted that bIr. Mosa' concern oras with reference to [hp seensge reach- ing ~h ~ waCer table. Mr. Moss explai.ned tbat ~ is AsAOCiation wovld have no argwnent if the developer could asaure thut the syt~tem wauld be adequate and that monitoring would be provided for further assur~nce sinca the proposed trac.t would be the largest gtoup of homes ttaat had been constructed at one kime in tht~ Mohler Dxive areA. Mr. Fehae tren aCar,pd thaC thP two agen .. es (Orange County kiealth Dep+artment and Regional. W:i[er. Control Board) would be watching t` a a~ ate.ra, in addikion to the B~silding niv{ sion of the City. Mra. Jean Morris, 400 Tcrr.ey Pines Circle, Anaheim, app~ar.ed before the Commiesion and questio~ied the nature of the construcCion af the aeptic tanka~ and Mr. Fehse desaribed said construcrion being that the septic rank was a solid concrete cank for tt~e fira~ dis- charge from r,na house ac~d provided retention for the solid ma:~rial, and then it would 80 to another :.ank and khrough a seepage syatem of perforated pipe, etc. ; and that each lot had been testecl aeparately for aoi3. conditConA. COMMISSIANER MORLGY RE-ENTERED THE MEI3TING A.T 8:15 P."1. In responae t~ questioning by Cac~uaigt~icner Johnsoi-, Mz. QuEyr_1 atipulated for the peti- tior.er to the condition requiring :' e sewer acreage feea ~nd said feea to be paid priar to the iasuance of building pe.-mita. ~ ~ ~ MTNUTHS~ CI'fY PLANINING (:Oh4NI3~ION, Auguat '~~ 1974 'I'tiNTATIVE MM ~' TMCT~Nn. 8713 (Co~-tinued) 14-'~N4 Commiseioner ~'arano noted r.haC the pc+titionrr had reproeentad thaC only minimum giading would he dun~. bneically foundation pade~ and he woulcf be intereetud to vi.ew those grading plnne on whi.ch the grnding permite were t~ ba iseued. and Mr. Titue adviR~d that aithough those. plc+n~ wer:e p,enural.ly approvNd by tlie City Engi~~Qr~ ttiey coul.d be ~avi.awed by the 1'lnnning Gomat~iseton prior to tha e~l.gning of aaid pJsne. Thereupon, Commier~iuu~r N'arano Indicated thak 1~~: did noC wnnt co hold up che pr.o~uct eo rhnt ho w~~uld have th~. oppcrtun.t~ u reviaw Che plans~ liawevhr. Commiseioneti. 1chnaon oftered a mc~~.ion, ~econde+d by Commi.eaioner King and MOTIQN c:AitKIED (Commiseione: Mor±ey nbqtnininq, r+ince he wae not pxesont for th~ aw~or portion ~i tlie discuseion r.eoarding :he ~ubjoct tract)~ tt~r~t the P~.anning Commiesian recommen~H to the City Cuuncil thar the eub~ect pro~ecr be ~xempt from the requi.rement to prepar~~ an L~nvironmenta:. Impact Report puraunnt rc, the ~rovie:lons ~f the Callfar.nia rnvironmental Quali.ty AcC. Commi.esioner Johnson ~f~'cred a motion, seconded by Gammydaioner King and M~TIUN CARRIF.D (Commissioner Motley abs:-ui.ni.ng, aln~c~ }~e WBT~vetTentativQ£Mapg4`~TractUNoi8713~sub~ectato cuasion regurding Cha oubj~~~~ tra~L), to apP the following canditions: (i.) That fi.re I~ydranta shall be i.netullecl and cl~arged as required und determined to be neceesary by the Chief oE the F'ire Dr:par~ment prior to commencement oE atructural frnming. (2) That appropriate water a~sessment feey as determined by the Direct • of Public Utilitiea shal~. be paid to the City of Anati.:im ptior to i.xeuance ot a building pcrmit. (3) That appr~~priate sewer acreage fees, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be paid to tlie Cir.y of Anaheim prtor to i~s~ibnce of a building permi.t. (4) That should ~hic~ subdivisi.on be developed as mor.e ttian ona subdivislus~, esch aubdtvision ttiereof shall be eubmitted in ten.tative form for ~ovaJ_. (5) Th1t all lot.s within Chis tract ahr.'1 be served by underground utilittes. (,) That drainage o£ said property ahall be dispc~:~d of i.n a manner satiafactory to the City Cngine~r. if, i.n the preparation of th~ aite, eufficient gradinR is required to necesaitaCe a gradi.ng permit, no work on gra4ing will be permitted between October 15th and April 1~th unless al]. required off-flite drain~~e facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive asaurance shal'_ be provi.ded the City that suc~ drainage facilitiea will be completed prior to ~cr.ober ZSth. N~cessary right-of-way tor off-aite drainage facilities shall be dedlcited to the ~ity, or the Ctey Councit ehall have initiated condemnation pr~ceedings th«~re£or (the coat~ of whicti ehall be borne by the devaloper) prior to tt~e commencement ot gxgding operations. The r.equired drainage faci3ities shai]. be of a oize ar... typF. suffic' ~nt to carry run~ff waters originating from I,lgh~~ properties tr,r~ugh Raid property to uJ.ttmate diapoenl as approved hy the City Lnginee~r. Said druinage facilities ehall be ~he firat item of conatruction and shall be compl~ted and ba functional throughout the tract and frocn the downstreum boundar,y of the property to the u].timate point of dispooal prior to .'-e isauance af any final b+iilding inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage disCrict reimbursement agreements may be m~:~e availabl.e to ttie 3evelapers of aaid property upun their request. (7) That the owner(s) of aub~ect property shall pay ru the City of AnaheTO riate b nppropxiate park and recrestion in-lieu faea se determined to be app p Y the City Council, said feea to be paid a: t<<e rime thE building percnit is issued. `8~ planspandrelevationeIIto~the YlanningtCo~nissiontandpCityjCouncilaforaapprovsl or (9) That a minimum 20-scale ~lat ~lan showing all an-eite improvaments including eave overhang and propooed lc:cation uf air-conditioning equipment b submitted for building permite. (i0) That a11 private streeta ahall be developed in a.:cocdance with the City of Anaheim's atandarda for. private atrests. ~ ~ ~ 7r~ 185 MLNUTFS, CL7'Y PLANNTNG CUMM'ISSION, AugueC 5, 1974 'CENTATIVE MAP OF TRAc"1' _NU. d713 (Conrinue~j) (ll) That privutQ etre~st nnmes ehnll be approved by tha City of AnahF~im priox to approvttl. oE' a f.inel truct map. (12) That qny prapoeed cavenanGe, cc>ndiCione and restrlctione shall ba eubmittad t~ and npproved by tho City AtCorney's Off~ica prior to City C~~~t~cil approvc~l o£ tha final Cra~t. mup, and. £urther~ thaC tlie sppr.ovad ~ov~,nante, conditions and roetrictlunµ shali be rec,orde~l concurrantly wlth the ~inal trart mnp. RECLASSIFICATION - PUI3LIC HTARII~G. URANGE COUNTY RUDD1iIST CHURCH. 909 llale Street, NA. 74-75-6 Anal.~im, C~. 9280G, Owner: CI.YDE ~, MITCHELL~ 11G71 Bowl.es Ave~ue, - Gnrden Cruve~ Ca. 92641, Ageut; requesti.ng that property described as~ A rectangulurly-Ahaped parcel of land conaiating of approximnl•ely ~..15 acres locsted at the norlhwest corner of Ba11 Raad and Ual.a Avonue, havinp approximate trontages of 289 feee on the nort.h eide of Dall ltoad and .i74 £eet on the weat side of Dale Avanue be reclaesifiQd from ttie lt--A (P.GRiCULTURAL) 'LONE t~~ the :-1 (GENERAL COMMI?RCIAL) ?.ONE, No ane indicAted their pr.esence it~ oppositton to subject Netition. ~i.though the Staff RQport to the Ylanning Comm1•~Rlon dated Augi~et 5, 1974, w~zy nar read at the public hearing, i.t i~ referred to and madc a part of ehe minuC~s. Mr. C1yde F. Mitchell, the ageaC £os the prope~ty owner, appeared before the Commieaion and etnted his inCention wae to cunstruct a sm~';., unique, at,opping center, zs deecribed in the Staff Re~orC, at D~le Street und Batl Raad; that the subject property wae adjacenr r~ the Huddhiat Ch~.~rch and the pro~:osed archirecLUr.e would blend wikh that af the church. Mr. Mit;chell read a letter from the Pre:+tden~ of the Orange County Buddhiat Church, wtiich wae addresse;l tu the Analieim City Plnnning Connniseion, indicating their concurrence with ths propoeal. Said l~tter was then presented to the Covunission Secretary £or filing. THE PUIII,IC HEA.RING WAS CLOSED. Commiaeic ~r King questioned the disposition of the trash enclosure area, and Mr. Mitchell stipulaCed *h~~t was in the procec~s of being resolved to meet City st~ndards. In re~ponae to questioning by Cha::rman Herbat, Mr. Mitchell aCated the proposed uses would lean toward the ethnic ~omtaunity and woulZ include a food aervice atore or convenience marl~.et which ~•~oulc~ have imp~rted io ~d speciaLtie~ a t~noe repair ~hop, a drug store with Japanese proprietorship, etc. Regarding the possibility of a liyuor atore b~ing included, Mr. Mitchell stated he dld not envision a liquor etor.e, however, there would be a position for one. Mr. Mitchell further. atated therQ tiad been no reacCion to the proposal from the property owners to the west. Mr. Daniel Stauffex', 2823 West Ba11 Road, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission 3nd inquired regardl•,g the ience ad~oining his property, and Chairman Herbst noted, according tu the •ubmitted pians, a G-foor wall wae prapoaed with :landscaping/trees. THE P~BLIC H;:AR~NG WAS CLOSED. Commisaioner ICing oftered a moti.on, seconded by Commisaioner raran~, and MOTION CAitRI~;D, that the Planning Commi.ssion recommend•~ to the City Cauncil that ti~e oub~ect pru~ect he exempt froII~ the :eq~ ~e.ment to prepare an EnviroiuaenCal Impact Report pursuant co the proviaions of the ratifornia Envixonmental Quality Act. C~mmisaioner King offered Resolution No. PC74-168 and moved for ita paseage and a~~pti.on to r.ecoa~end to the City Council approval of petition for Reclassification No. 74~-75--0, sub~ect Co the condi'ion thut rraeh dtora~e areas shall be provided in acc~rdan~e with approved p2ans on file with the Uffi~e of the Director of Public Works, as atipulated to by the petitioner; ~nd sub~ect to conditione. (See Resolution Bqok) On roli call, the foregoinQ r.eaolution was passad by the following vote: AYES: C01~49ISSIONERS: FARANO, ~Alih~R, JO}iNSON, 1CING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HEF:SST NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ~ # • MINUTES~ Ct'TY PLANNING ~OMMiSSIO'~V, 1-uguot 5, 197G 7G-386 RFCLASSIFI(:A'PION •• PUBLIC Rh'.AR~NG. D'R. GrORGE 0. K~RKELIE. 937 North I~emon St.reet~ N0. 7~4 75-5 , Aaahsim, !:a. 9'L805, Ownc~r. Proporty daecribed as: A rectnngularly- ehaped pnrcol of Zdil(~ coneleCi.ng of approximately U.3y n~~ra, having a VARIANCE N0. 2626 frortogo of approxim~tely 11U feet on tha nor.th ~1.da of c:enter StraeC~ ~~ ^ havi.ng a~~aximum dc~pl•h of approximately 140 fee~~ and beinq lacatod np~ Kim<<tal,y 92 f~at west of the cenlerline af Cofftnan Sr.Y~eer.. Proparey presently cla: '~~d R-2 (MULTIPLE-FAMIi.Y RESIDENTIAL) 'LONB. REQUESTEQ CI,.'1SSZt~ ICATION: C-0 (COMMI:RCIAL OFF iCF.) ZONE. REQUES'I'~:D VA1tTANC~: WAIVFR ~F (A) MINIMIIM S~TE AK~A, (B) MINIMUM SETB~\CK AItF.A LANDSCnPINC. (C) REQUIRED MASONFY ~•"~l.L, AND (D) PFKMI'fTGU 5IGNINC~ TO CUNSTRUCT A COtrQ:EKC IAL OrF Lf:is BU 1 ~,UING . Une person indic~:ted his presance in oppasition to sub~ect pRtition. Althaugh the Staff Repor.C to the Plnnning Coum~i_esion dnted Auguet 5~ 1974, wae not read ar the public hexring, it ia re£erred to ancl made a part of lhe minutes. Dr, George 0. Kirkelie, the p~tiCioner, appear~d be:ore "_he Cocnniasion and stated hc~ was tn complete agreement with the atar~~menCe contained in tlie Staf£ Reporc. Mr. Mic~: • I Garan ~ppeared befare the Comonisa~.on ~-tid eCnted he was one of the prop~rty ownera ~ tt~e weat ot eub~ect property; that he wns not adveroe to offices to the sast of liie properey, however~ hP wished to r.eview the plana eince Cheze were questione with respect to a previoua prapoeal nnd he had not geen the new plaus; that there had been a reqcee~: for muCu:il ing_~sae and egrass pravio~.sly and that one of hia parkners did nat wisti to go along wit•h that proposal; and that the trash truclce for. the aubject pruperty would have been Rb1C to clrcumvent hie own property. Thereup~n, the pJ.ans were paseed to Mr. Garan for his rev~ew. TFi~ ~'iJBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairmai~ ~tc~rbst n~~~ ~il that the purpose of the zoning on the property in the subject area was to hopefully have aome land aesembly; and that if the propoDal was ~pproved and constructed, ti-e property to the eaat would bz a sub-standard C-0 lot. He queationed if there had been aay effort [o asaemble that particular corner parcel with the eubject property. Dr. Kirkelie sCated th~re had been some effort to assemble laiid, including the parcel ment•lor.-ed by Chairman Herbst; that the aski.ng price far that p3rcel w,~s out ~f. propoTtiun t~ the net price; t.hat Mr. Garan had also tried to contact the awners of th:~ par~el to the east and the property owner had hung up the telephone on him; thar it had been ratY~er difficult to talk witn thal nroperty owner, however, there would tzave been no problems if they had been willing to pay the askinR prica. Chairman Herbst noted that when the parcPl to the ear~t was ready to develop, it would be much harder to ~ueCify the v~ariances that might be n~ce~sary, in the event they did not sell at this time and combine witF~ the sub~ect prapsrty. Dr. Kirkelie diacusaed the requested vari.ances and atated that Ar. one tia~e they tiad hoped for a common dri.veway wtth the property to the wPs*, so that ~he trash could be pick~d up in the rear of tnEir .lot; and that tl~~ proposal was to h~ve the trash storage area ~~ithin s planter area which might need to be enc~.osed by decorative gates. , Commisc~ioner Gauer noted ttiat the owner of thc property to the east should be notified thut they were building in th~~tr ow~~ hardahips by not combining with the sub~ect property since that property mighC not be lar~e enough for. a logical developmet~t; and that the ldea of the C-0 ~oning was t~ assemble the parcels of land. Dr. Kickelie then staCed they hacl not 3lacus3ed Cheir proJect with the pro~~:rty owner to the east, but rad simpl;~ tried to purcha~e that property about 24 months ago and again about 18 months a~;o, and that becauae thaC property owner, Seaeide Oil Company, had hunE up the tele- phone on Mr. G~ran, they had i~ot tried to purchase the propert; again. Mr. Guran confirmed that he t:ad indsed been treated by the Seaside Oil Company in the manner deacribed by Dr. Kirkelie; that Seaside had been very unrealietic about the price of the property; chat they had offered $15,000 for that property at one time and the asking price was $35,OU0, and Igter offered $20,000. Mr. Garan conti.nued b~ atating that following hia review uf the plan~, he had one objecticn, being that the proposed building aould he setting ~ ~ M7NUTES, CYTY 1'I.ANNING G~ *~t:SSION. Auguet 5, 1974 It~CLA3SIFIC,ATION NU ~-75-5 AND VAIt[.ANCG N). 2626 (Continue .i 74-387 forwar.d approximately 4 f:eel in Erant aE the reet o£ the bulldings alang the atreet front,~p,c~~ which would be ~letrimantal tn the [1ow ~~f bui.tdinge ia the ima-c~diaee nraa. 1n raeponae to queatlaning by Commi.seioner King, Mz. Garan stated that if the p.r,opoet~~1 building was Bet back in line with thQ pillars of hie own building, thett would be ng~'eetible es long as the CiCy nepured hi.m thKC there wa~ adequut6 parking; thel one of liie pnrtnere had ~~reviously re~ect~J a propnea]. on Che sub~ect proparty becauese of the parking; thttt they hnd u~1ifL•icult r.i.me ~iCh the parking spMC:e due to the rentals; and t1iaC he did not wnnt to tiave c~,~y probl.eme be ~ waan tenancc+ wi th •~~e parking apace eituaCion. Mr. John Sw~~nt, the Jaeigner of the proposed pro~ect~ nppenred befor~ the CommtASi.on and, in reaponRe ~o quesC.l~ning by the Plaitning Commideion, `._ ateted that the c+ub~ect property wea c-ot very deep and wae further complirttt~d by the requ;red 10-foor landscaping in t;he rear plua the landecapit~g for the front; tt,at diaganal parking ~ou1d not b~ uti.lized because the pArking area would be deade~ndeu; ti:at the walls on rF~e nutth an3 w~st property linea wera both 6-Eeet hlgh; thnr if the landdcapin3 was ahortened in the rear~ the Luilding could Ue movec~ be.:.k gbout 5 fuet; and that the old atructures on the norCh sidE of the eub~ect property wexe not occupied. Commiaeio~,er Gaiier then noted ~_hat with the 5 feet of lt~ndscspin~, ~t the reaY of the property, a buffer would be provide~t for ~iint area, ae well as allowin~ the building to be moved back appro~:imately 5 feet Co align it with the adjnc~nC comwercial building~ to Che weat. Mr. Garan atated that moving thr~ i~ nosed atructure back from the btreec would cauae l~as muinCenanre for the ~e[ittaner ..,~~ rear, as we11 as create a bettc.x look from the atreet ]. i.ne . Dr. Kirlcelie stipulated that hc~ was in compl~~te agreement with moving the etructur: ;etback to 15 feet from the aouth property line in order to align it with ~d~acent commerc_ buildinga to the west. Comm.tssioner Gauer offeL~ed a motion, s.~conded 'oy l;ommieaioner Farano~ and MUTION CARRIED. th.at the Planning CommtsAi~n recomwende to the City Council that the subject pro~ect be exempt from the require~ent to prepare an Environmental Impact Re~art pursur-n*. to r.tie pro- visions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Cowmissioner Gauer offered Reaoiut~on No. PC74-169 and mo~red for ita paseage and adoption to recomm~:nd ta the City Counci.l approval of Reclasaificatinn *iA. 74-75-5, subjpct to the stipulati.ona of the petitioner, and sub~ect to c~nditions. ~See Resolutian Book) On roll call, the faregoing resolution was paased by t.he following vote: AYES: COA4~[ISS't~NERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOl1NSON, KING, MOItLEY, TO;~AR, HEK$S'~ NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: NQNE ABSENT: COP4[ISSIONERS: NOI3E Commiasione:r. Gauer ~ferea Resolution Ho. PC74-170 and moved for its pass~ge and adoption to grant petition ior. Variance *Io. 2626, granting waiver of tF~e minimum site area on r.he basie thar the petitioner indicated attempta to aasembXe-~djc~dng land had failed and, there- fore, a hardsbip would be created if said waiver was :~ot granred; grantin.g waiver of the mini.mum eetback area landscaping for the,east and caeat property lines, as requQa~ed, and ndditionally that waiver of the minimum setback area landacapin~, to permit a five-foot setback alor~g the north p.roperty line is aleo gr.anted on the basis that the pel•i.tiaiier atipulated to moving the proposed building to 15 feeC from the atreet to align it with adjacent commercial build.tngs to the west; granting waiver af required masonry wall adjar.ent to a residential zone on the baeis that the ad~acent pxoperty, although zoned residential, is developed with an oil company facillty; grantir-g waiver of permitted aigning on the basis that similar signa have been prevLously granted in the area; aub~ect to conditions. ~See Reaolution Sook) On ro11 call, the fore~oing reaoluCion was paesed 'oy the followir.g vote: AYES: COA4iISSION~;RS: FA_RANC, GAUER, JOHNSUN, KING, MORLEY, T01.AR, H~RBST NOES: COt~iISSIONERS: I3aNE ABSENT: C6MMISSIONERS: NONE Chairman Herbst requested that the peti~.loiier make additlonal efforts ta acquirP or otherwise combine the suhJect proporty with the ad~ofning property to the east for development as one pro,ject, due tu tha size oF Che parcels snd the variances that were n~ceaeary for their devel- opment us separate ~-0 project~; and Dr. Kirkelie etated he would certainly make that effort for the reasona stated by the Chairman, in additi~n ta the fact that there were two ugl.y buildinga on that ad~accnt parcel at the prePent time. ~ ~ MINUTE'~. CITY YLANNINC C:Ot~Q~1I53TQN~ Auguek 5~ 1974 74-388 VARIMI~~ N0. 2624 - PUBLIC HEARING. MICHAEI, PAWLUK, ET AL~ 242 ~ate Streut WesC, Anahei.m, - ~r Ce. 92805~ Owner; r~qu~HtinK WAIVER UF MtNIMUM NUMB~~t OF PARKING SP~.CES YN A GAEtAGE TO P~FtMIT Ttl;: CON'fINUED USB UF A ONL~-CAR GAMCE on property described as: A roc:tn-tgular.~y-el~aped parc.el of land coneiseing of approximately 0.14 acre having a fruntage of approximately 6b feet on the eaeC ei<'~ of Dake 3treet Weat, heving e maximun- depth of approximately 105 faet~ und he.ing locuCed approxltnAtely 170 fduC north of the centarline of BroH~+•~~ay. Yropert.y presently claasifi~d R-1 (ONB-FAMIL,Y RESIDENTIAL) yONi? No o-~e in~licated thnir preeanca tn oppoei.tion tn sub~ect petiti~n. "~liough the StaiC Keport to Che F'lunning CommisAion dated Auguet 5, 1974~ wns not r~ad at ~t~e public hearing, .it ie rnferred rn and made a part o£ the minutee. Mr. Michael Pawluk, the peti.tioR~sr, appeared bE''~re the Com~nieoion and etated the purpose of khe ~ub~ect prr~tton wae to get clearance for a builQing pi+rmit for a toom addi.t which wae a bathruom conetructed in a portion of ttie exi.ating tWO-car Rnrage and which wae constructed without n ~~uildi.ng permit; and thst thay wer.e in the procese nf delling the harne under a V.A. loan and could not do so ~.ithout the building permit. THF PUI~LIC H~A1tINC WAS CI.OSRD. Cawmiaeioner King n~ted thak t~e had v•lewed the eubject property in the Eield and observed that there was room for Cwo c+ara in the drive~~ay and two carg in the etrret, and inqutrect if thie wou'_d meel the new parking standards. In reply, Planning Supervlsor pon '`.cAaniel advised that the new ~rdinanc.e would require four off-etreet parking Rpuces. Commisaioner Morley noted Chat, in his opinion, the petitioner had e hardship since hN had purchased the home not knowing $bout a Code violation existing concerning the room ad4ition. In reaponae [o queationing '~y Commi:seioner King, the petitioner indicated he did not know whethr~r the room addition wauld pess a building inspectian in compliance with the Cod~ requirements. it wxa noted thak the illrector of Developaent Servicea had dete~'mined thRt the propoaed activity fell within the defini.tion of Sectiun 3.01, Class 1 of the City of Anaheim Guide- lines to tF~e Requirementa for an Environmeutal Impar.t Report snd was, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to 1'Le an EIR. Commisaioner Morl.ey offerad Resolution No. PC74-171 and moved far ite pasea8e and adoption to grant petition foz Variance No. 2624 on the beai~ t.tiat the petiticner deaanAtrated that prior to purchasing hie home, he hsd no knowledge that the bathroom conetructed ~.n the existing garage was ~iot permitted and~ therefore, a hardahip would be creaCed if Raid variance was not granted; sui,j~ct 'a conditions. (See Resolution Book) ~n roll cal.l, the f~zr.egoing L~solution was pas~ed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIO~IERS: FAb!~1N0, GAUER, JUHNSON, KING, MORLr.Y, TOI.AR~ HERBST NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NUP~I: ABSENT: COMMISSl:UN~RS: NON.' VARIANCE N0. 2620 - PUBLIC HEARINC. NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCN., 3753 North Troy Street, Chicago, -" Illinoia 60618, Owner; EDWIN C. SACKFTT, 928 South Webster, Anah.eim, Ca. 93804, Age-k; requesting WA.IVER OF MAXIMUM FENCB HEIrHT TO COIvSTRUCT A CHAINLINK FENC~ on prrporty dec~cc!hed as: A rectanguJ.arly-ehaped parcei of land c~•nsisting of approximately Q.5 acxe having a froi~.^v,e of approximatelv 95 feet on the aouth side of Orangewoa~ rlvenue, having a maximum depth of approximately ~45 feet, and being located a~preximately 50 feet east of the centerline of Jetty llrive, Proparty presently classified ~ -A (AGRICllLTURAL) ZOP'~'. ~Zo one indlcated their presence in oppoaition to sub~ect petition. Althougl- the Staff. Report to the Flanning Commission dated August 5, 197a, wag not xe~.d at tt~z public '~earing, it ia rcferred to and made a purt of the minutes. Tt~e Itevsrend Williar: Raff, Sab DiR~r.iet Lesder cf tt~e New Itp.~stalic ~hurct-~ and resid~!nr ~f L-p~ i4ngekee;.:appea~re~ before !'}:a C~~ission representing the petitiun~r, and atated the pro- posed fer.ce was c~e~ded Nince the chur.ch Y.ad been burglarized three tiaeg and tlic fence would seYVe un a deterreiit; and that they had found liquor contatnere on th premises and graffi~ti on [:re walls. THE PUBLIC H~ARINC WtS C[ASEJ, • ~ ~ MtNUTF.S~ CTTY YT.~NNING ^..UA4~tISSION, Auguet 5~ 197~i VAR:ANCF. NQ. 2f l0 (Continuad) 74-389 Chairman Herbet noted thut tha eub,iact church as a very nice laokinq building nnd thr~t constr~icCing a chainl.lnk fonce in Che prol~oeed J.ocaCion wae not, in his upinion~ the bcet thing to do; ttiat to der.er ihe preepaesera, l~ie would auggest thn~ th•~ petil•ioner cone.lder 1Raving the t.•ont of ttie churcti landxceiped and exposed, and cloelnR off tha back of Che chur.ch so tl~+~t tl~o ~.~nwunce.d cera could not get in; and that in th'c~ manner the coet of pro- viding the ~rotectiuii r~ould be much les~ ai~~i, furChdr~ that it w~~~.~d be ~, eh~me to closy off tho frone of a b~+~utifu.t hut.lding. Tl~e K«v~:ren<i Rafi discuesed thc~ fuck that youngatera would ~ump over the fence anyway nnd, aC on~ tim~, Che burglere had walked to tliN rear af the property. DiacueKl.on pur6ued regarding an approp=latF fence and gate, dur.inq which Chair.man Nerbet ~uggested that the gate ehoul.d probably he 6-fnet high and the [unce moved 25 feet back from the or.zeet, And Commi.aetaner FuranoeugFeated that the church ml.ghr want to consider inetAlling a t~urglar nlarm syatew. 'iherc~ipon, the petitioner sCipulated to withdrawal oi the subject FeL•ition and termination thereof. on lhe haHis tltut a more desirable fence plan wae diecuseed with the PYanning Commie~ion which woul~~ cort~ply with the C,ode requirementa, Commisaioner Gauer ~.ferad a motion, secoetition for~Variance Notg26208be andjhcrebyRare~ Chat all proceedi ys in connection with terminRted, ae :queate~t by the petitioner. REPORT.S ANll - IT6M PIU_1 RECOMMENDAT ~NS PROPOSED AMENDMF,NTS TO TITLE t8, RESIDF.NTIAL PLANNED UNIT DF•V'ELOPM~NZ'S The Staff ~teport to the Pianning Commi.asian daCEd August 5, 1974, wse presenCed and it wae noted th.t the ~xisting provisions in Title 18 (Zonang Code) pertaining to KPUD's eho+~1% be considerad for amandment to prev~~~r, conflict with provisious of the newly-ad~pted RA:••..JO 'Lc+ne; a,nd that it would be in ord~~ to aet e~id am~:ndmPnt for public hearing date. Comr~iasioner Farano offered ~ motion, seconded by Commiasioner Merley, and MOTTOH CARRISD, to set sub;Ject Zoning Code amEndmenta for public hearing on AiigusC 19, ?974. ITEM N0. 2 SCENIG HIGHWA.Y ELEMENT - ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN The Staff Report tu the Planning Commias9.on dated Au;;ust 5, 1974 wab presented and it w~ae noted that tr~e proposed Scenic High~~ay Element of the Anaheim General Plan ~~as being finalized and could be scheduled for public hearing date. Cotamissioner Farano offered a morion, aeconded by ''ommissioner. Marley, and MUTION CARTt'ED, to set the sub~ect Element for public hearing on August ].9, ~974. ITEM N0. 3 CONAITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1432 - Requeat for kermi.nation - Praperty consisting of 1.04 acres, lor.ated on the south eide of Katella Avenue. approximgtely G45 feet weat of the centerline of State Co11egE Boulevard, and zoned M-1. It wa~ nuted that on November 12, 1973, the PlanntnF Commisaioa granted Conditional L'se Permit No. 1432 in Resolution No. PC73-244 to construct a 73-ro^m additi~n to an existing motel with waiver of thc: .equ:Lred number of parking spaces, on the sL~b~ect propecty; thst the propoaal. was never cox~.structed and r.he property was atill vacant; 'chee Variance No, 2618 to pez'mi.t the conatructir.i of a comaasrcial offi~ce bui].ding on the sub~ect ptoperty wae subaequenLly approved b~' tt.e Planning ::ommisei~n on ,Tuly 22, 1974, with tl-~e condition tha~ Conditional Use Permit No. 1432 be termina*.ad; and that the prnperty ownQr had submittad a letter reque~ting cermireation of a.l.l proceedinga in co-lnection with Conditional Us~ Permit No. 1432. Commisaioner Morley ^fferPd Reaolution No. PC74-?72 and moved f.or its paeeage ar.d adoptiun, that all. pxocpe3inga in connection writh Conditional ilse Permit N~. lw3't Lr. and hereby are terminated, at; requeeted by the property owner. (See R~solutio- Book) (?n roll call, the foregoing rea~lution was passed by th~: followi.ng voke: AYEE: COMMISSI~PiLRS: FARAN~~~ GAUER, JOHNSON, MORI~EY, TOLAR, HNR}3ST NOES: CODII~TSSIONEP.S: NONE ABSENT: CAI~tISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN = CO:rAlISS IONEltS : KING i ~ MINUTBS, CITY PT~ANNING COI~tISSION, AugUet ~, 1974 74-390 REPOR'YS ANp - ITEM N0. 4 RECOI~4T~NOATIONS CONDITIONAL US~, F'RRMIT N(1, 11.27 - Raquost for extenaion of time - ° Proparty :lochtud at the iu~r~:hwe~k cornor of Weet Stteet snd Carritoe Avenue~ and ~~~ned R-A (ACR1Cl'LTURAL) ZONB. . It wsa nuCed that on July 28, 196`~, the Pl.ani~ ~ig Commieaion grented Conditlonal l]ea Permit Nu. .11.27 to psrmit uutdot-r bnnquet facilities on eub~ec.t pr~>perty; that Candition No. 4 of thd reaolution of approval staCed "':hat a time limitation f~ e year eh+~ll be gxanted £or the use of ~-b1~'~t proper.Cy, subJect to an additi.~nar year baii-g granCed ~.ipan re,queet by tho petitioner ~~l~:er inveK~ig~tion and ap~roval by tha Planning C~tamisdion"; thet subse~anted~on the origtnal •~ppr.oval, four nxc.e~n~ione of time had been granted~ t~e latest boing ~ Jt~lv 2~~ 1973, to expire July 27, L974; and that no camplainte hnd been recei'ved ~qri[ioner uevelo~timent Eervicea llepurtmcnt ragarding the outdoor banque~~hHmeub~titeusadw herPCond.itional wae r~~questing an additional one-year extenrion of time Uae Permit No. )~27• CommiasJ.~»~er. Curano offered a motion. saconded by Commiasioner Tolar, mnd MOTION CARRIED, 1127~aasnrequested bygthe petitioner,~~aid~extansionKOf~Ciiu~~tc+Cen~ire~on J~ily 27,~1475 . ITEM N0. 5 G~NERA.L PLAl~1 AMFNDMENT N0. 133 - NOISE Et.EMENT The Staff Report to the Plaiming Commi~-eion daCgd Auguat 5, 1974 w~s prc+senteu an~ it was noted that the Noise E].ement of the Anaheim General P.Lan was being finalizad and :Qa].d be ecl~~duled ior public hearing date. Commiseione,r Farsno of£ered a motion, eeaoaden by Commiesioner Morlev, and :tOTION CARRIED~ t~ aet the sub,~ect Element for public hesring on A.uguat li, 197k. ADJOURNMENT There beir~g na further bueiness to ~'iecusa, Commissio~ -.Iohneon offered -- a motion, seconded by Commieaioner Morley and ~TION CAICctIED, to ad~ourn the meetin~. The meeCing ad~ourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~7 s..Ia.~/~. ~~~..~'L`~r`r ~ Patri~~a E. Scanlan, Secretary ~[~gYrl ~I1'y pLANNING COMMISSION _~ ~