The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/08/190 R C~: h11CROFlI_~IING SERVICE, 19~C. ~ • City ~'~ll Anahnlms Cal.if AugueC 19~ 19 RECULAR M~~TTNG OF THE A1~AHLIM CITY PI.M1NTNt:_COMt11.SS1UN S:EGUi.AR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Plax~ning Commiaeion wae called ta MEETING order by ~hairman Nerbat at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, a qu~ruw being preaent. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Herbet - COMMISSIONL'ltS: Gauer, :Iohneon~ King, Morley~ Tolar ABSENT - COhR~(ISSIONEI2S: Far~no nT,SO PItI:SEN'L' - Asbistunt D~velopment Servicea Airector; R~nald Thompean Ueputy CiCy ACtorney: Frank i.owry Of Fice Engin~Pr : ,Tay Ti.tue Planning SupErvisor: Don Mcllaniel Zoning Supervisor: Charle~ Roberts Aesiatant Zoning Supervisor: Annika ~antalahtl Aseistant Planner: Roberr KeJ.ley Assistan[ Planner: Bi1L Young Commiasion Secre[ary: Patricla Scanlan PLEDGE (3F - Commisaioner Julinson led in the Pledge of Aileaiance to ti~e Flag of the ALI.EGIANCE United S*ates of Americu. APFROVAL OF - Commissioner King affered ~'^~tion, seconded by Commieaianer Tolar and MINUTES MOTIUDI CARRIED ((:ommisaioner Farano beina absenC), to approve the m:t.nutes oE the meeting af July 22, 1974, as ~:~bmitted. EN`'IRONMENTAL IMPACT - C.ONT. iNU~D PUB'L1C H~A1tING. JGAN 3ERRY ~ ET ~-L, 10282 Wesley Circle REPORT N0. 99 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 (Ownars); WII,LIAM H. MILLER, 9732 ~ Nazard Avenue, ~anCa An~, Ca. 92703 (Agent); requesting that RECLAS~II~ICATION property described as: A rect~ngularly-shaped parcel of lc-nd NU. 74-75•-1 coneisting of approximately 4.3 acrea located at the southwest "- corner o~ Crescent and Magnolia Avenues,, havtng app~oximate fro,t:ag s of 620 feet on r.he so~ith side of Cic:~cent Avenue and 306 feet on the weat sid~ ofr Magnolla AvenuQ be :eclasaified from the K-A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE to the C-1 (GENEKAi. COrQ~tERCIAL) 7.ONE. Chairmar Herbek nated that th~~ sub~ect petition (a~so heard as ReclsesificRtion No. 73-74-20) had been heard during several meetings of the Planning Commiseion, and that at the meeting of July 22, 197~+, the Commission had requeated additional information to be ptovided by the petitioner. He d~clared that the PUBLIC H~t1fiLNG WAS CLOSED and tha* the Commiesion wuuld proceed to ask questions of the petitioner. Mr. William H. Miller, agent for the pet.itioner, ap~exred before the Co~u,asion and, upon questioning by Chairman Herbet, ata'~d he had obtxined let~ers from Alpha Beta Company and from two of the abutting prnnerty ownera, as requested by the i,ouanission on July 22, 1974. Mr. Miller further stated ~at he had lettera from some of the pi'aperty owners in the area in iavor of the pro;ect who were unUble to attend the meeting; and he preaented said lettera to the C~mmis.sion for examinr~tion. Upon request by Chairman Herbst, the ~ollowing letter from Alpha Aet~s Company w~s read inCo the minutes of the PZannin~ Commiseion: 74-391 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COI~P1ISSiUN, Au~tu~t 19, 1974 74-3'!2 ENVIRONMLNT_AL IMYACT REPORT I~O. 99 AND RECLASSIFICATION Nq. 7G-75-]. lCont.ini~ed) "Auguat 9. 1974 Dr. William 11. Miller 9732 Hazard Avenue Sanha Ana. California 92703 Dea~r Mr. Miller: Delivery X14~ Mngnolia anc~ Crescent~ Anahei.m Confirming our diacuasion on delivery nnd trnnaporKation, I w!11 try ko ouCline some of our plane tu oarvi.ce tt~e s~i: ,ect store. Maet of the prod~~cts we seYl come from our warehAUSe in I.a Habra. Company del~varies are mude in our tructor trailere. 'Ihe vast ma~or~ty of u21 deliveries are made between 6 a.m, and 8 p.m. ThiR includes direct deliveriea~ wany of which come in emnller vane, euch aR special~y breads, outaide meat deliveriea~ etc. In an effort to always pr~viue the freshest pos•,ible aroducte to our cu~tomers, some bakery and pxoduce del.iver~es will occur afCer haurs. I wi11 aktempt to h~vP our tranaportAtion echeduled ae much as poasible ~way frcm night houra. Th~ propoaed dock and fence nxrangement wlll sY~ield ~ur trailora from our neighbora' view. The trailera we operate are moxtly 13 feet liigh and the combined four foot well and ten foor_ fence will be taller. We ar~ loaki~g tnrward to ~etter aerving this arr_a of Anal~cim. Yoare very truly, (signed) A. Ter.ranc~ Dickena A. Terrance DlckenR Keal [:atate Manager" Assistant Zuning Sup~rvieor Annika Sari'.~luh[i read £orm letket:,~~igned by the property nwners at 2649 Stockt~n (Brogan rPeidence) Rnd 2648 S;.ockton (Winc'~st reaid.ance), 3aid pr~perties abutting the sut,~ect siCe, which read ae follows: "~he Pl.snning Commiasion, in the Ci`y of Anaheim, has instructed us to orepare this ].etter for your aignature, to demonstrate that you have been consulted by the developer, ann you are aware and understand that the proposed pro~ect east of your properCy linp will be a neighborhood ahop- ping .enter with a major A.lpha Beta M:.ricet that will haue x loading dcck to accommodate large dieael trucks that will be requir~d to climb a steep grade of lOX or more to exit fro~~~ the docking area. The docking area wi?1 be between your property line and the rear of the proposed market. Deliveries will be made pach da;~ to the market and servi.ce 3torea by aeveral types of large and small trucka. Une night deliver,y to Che maxket will be mnde by a dieael truck that will produce a noise le~rel af approxima~el~~ 75 dBA. The developer will build a de~oxative ~.all made of qi~ality llor_k ten feet high as recommendec; b~ Envirunmental Impact Report ~199 that hae been reviewed and certified by the City of Anahei.m. The purpoae of the wa].1 is to serve ae a~isual screen and to re9uce sound po1lLr.ion. The wall will not be ].OOX ~ffective, and a certain amount of saund will radiate from the shopping cQnter. The wall will be conaCrucCed on the property line. Ther.e wi3.1 be a twenty-•~~ot setback bEtween your property line and the docking area as recommended by the City Planning Commiesion. Thie nrea wi11 be landsc3Ped wi.th treea, ehruba and varioug planta." ~ ~ 74-393 MI.NUTE3~ CITY PI.ANNINC COIrQ'IISSION, AuBust 1.9~ L97k ~NViRQNMENI£~t~ IMPACT R~P1)R'C 0, 99 M'D ItEuLASSIFICA~IOt~ N0. 4_75~1 (Contf.nued) Mias 5antalni~Ci. alric~ r~sad short, eeparat.e lottars from thF pro~~erCy ownere at 2640 Stc~ckton and 2649 Sto~ktoii. und indicaeed Chat the legu]. natlce mailed Co 2648 Wc~st CceecenC (Rudica reeidence) t•nd been ra~Curnn_d marked "undeliverab.la ae addreASAd~ uneble to forwrard." r,~~mi.saioner King indicated the Cammieelon hnd been interesCed r.u have ].e*.terH Eram all thrse o,. the abutting ptoperCy ownera, and Mr. Miller etaled Chat only twa uf the property owners were able to ho reacl•~ed and Chat no one wKa l~omQ at the nodica residence, although ha Mnd tried to conCc~ct tham on eaveral oc~aeiond. Mr. tfil.ler turthar. ata~ed rhnC the Rodicas had eigned or.a of the petitiona £il~d earlier regurding ~pie p~~:~.~~Hg~•• Chnirman Herbat •{.~estionea Lhe aralewent ln Che farm lel•ter which had been prepared t,y the ~•etlcior~•~r foi Chc three abutting proprCty ownPra to sign, that the trucl:c+ would be operAC- ii-g nt 7ti db(A) at the properCy line. !~le further noted Chat he wa~ concerned about the ].U-foot wnll to proCect tt~e ad~acent reaidenti.al propartiea from noine, and that the .ii:..~l Cruck atACks were l2 fPet high eo th~ wn11 wuuld noe offer. khe protection that it appeared to be offering; and that trucks "rapping up" to pull Che grade at the loadin~ dock wauld be the grente~t noi.se. Mr. Mill~r then stated that the trucks w~uld be making a ehort run to get into the loadina we11 and then uut of it. Ghairman llerbet noted that he had r~ceived 69 letCera signed in opposiCion to suUject petition and upon a ohowing of hands~ approx~imotely 35 pereons indicated their presence ~t the meeti.ng in upposition und two indicated theg were in fuvor. of the aubJoct petition. Mr. M111.;, E~teted Chat upon campletion of hie aurvey, he had added 211 aignatureA to ~he map wh~~li Lndicated thoRQ areas aurveyed, and r.hat 82~X w~xe in favor, 1l3/~•~ wer~ appoaed, and 6~ `~ :d no opinioa. Commi~sioner Gauer reviewed the petiti~ns received :Lr.favor and ir- opposition, and noted that every street wss r.epresenCed in both instancea but that ie appcared the ma~ority were i.n favor of tt; that Alphs Beta Company had a good reputaClon and wiCh the subjec. property, they would perhaps ~'•y ~-arder Chan ever to caake a good busitiesa at that location. Chairman Nerbat noted thut, in his opi.nion, the people who were mosr.iy affected by tl~e proposal were not in fav~r of it ancl tnat there waa more to zoning the property than the as~~unption that the majority of the people wa»ted it. Chair~an Herbst f.urther n:.~ted thaC he had viewed the prorerty in the field from all directions, and the chi~dren would be up a~,d down the street in draves nt that particul.ar location. .hairman Herbst then q~iestianed the Office Engineer regarding the traffic count ta compnre :he proposal with development of the ptoperCy Wiroximatelyr~fivegto six tripsiper dayiper that for an apartment pro~ect there would be app unit and if figured at gix trips per day, using 110 units as a base, there would be approxi- mately 500 to 800 trips per day compared to the 4,000 to 5,000 trips per day £or the pro- posed comwercial. developm~nt. Chairman Herbet then noted that those figures wer~ considerably lower thsn th~ traffic volumes projected for the COILNPx'C~81 use; Lhat the sub~e Froperty was zoned for resi- dential use, although there wae commercial in the immediate area; that, in his apinion, there had not been a drastic change in the area since the prEVious public hearings on the subjecC property, aF to whether it ahcald be c~mQnercial or residentia.l; that approval of Che aub~ect petiCic.i would bp apot zoni.ng and would have a draet~c •Lmpact on the future of the arca; and that cven tt:~ugh the ~eople in ~.he srea appeared to be in favor, those who would have the most exposure were iwt. Mr. Kenneth Klotz, 1101 Dove 5treet, Newport Beach, appeared before the Com-aission and noted that a petition had been filed during Che prevfous public hearinositionhe subjnct property, said petition containiag approximately 700 aignaturee in opp Mr. Miller then diacussed that the Highway Divisior, had a plari to widen Creecent Avenue, and the people were concerned abouC making the dedication, and if th.: propoaed center ~aas c.onstiructed ~ney were afraid they would have to dedicate aooner; and that he had aecer- Cained that even thoiigh the shopuing center may not be constructed, the Etrqet would be widened anyway. L ~ ~ ~ MINUTCS, C:ITY PL~NNINC CUt~itISSION, Auguet 1°, 1.97k ~~'~394 E ~! ONMr',~31'fAi,_..,,IPIYAC'i REPUKT t~0, q9 A~,li RCC SSIFI ATIUN N0. 14-15-1 (Contiiiucsd) Comniiseioner Mor.lt;y q~c~etiuned the impart un tl~e achools of an aperCment pro~ect aC this l.ocuticin, und :.hairmar. Herbat natAd tha~ the echoole had known abouc 4he zoning un thc+ aub~ect prop_~~y Eor soia~ time and thnt there would be approximatel.y five tim~sa roora traffic if ~ne properCy wu~ develuped commercial ral:her then reeidc~nl•ia~. Wlch regard to th~a numbcr. uf rosider s i.n th~~ area who would walk to the propused ehupping c~riCCr, Chatrmr-n Herb~r. notnd that ~xcept for orily a few of the neighboring properti~e, the reQi.clenC~ would have to wnik completely around a cul.-de-enc ko gel lo Che center. Ctinfrman lierbet furChar noted thut thR aub~ect propexty wae quite euitable for apartmente~ howaver~ the proposed p1c+u being c~netdere~i wus far more ~c~opl•able than the previous psoposnl, but !t woul.d bring people inCo the area. Com~.~isaioner TorRr i.nqui.rQd if lhe re~idente in the area wuuld be nppoyed Co aii npartment pro~ect versus the ehopping center at tt~e subject locnkion, and ChairTnxn Hdrbat noCed that !f un apHrtment project was ~rupoeed in the propex- ~~ann~r it would not be necteear.y to have a publi~ heaYing. t.iacuaeion pureued regarding t}~e petitiona which hnd b~on aubmitted both in favor ar~d in oppoeitlon to Che aub~ect. propoeal. Commieaioner Jo}inson noCed that ';ie wae lmpresKed Uy the number of people w}~o were preeent in oppoattion and "ne was inclined Co agree with Chairman l~erbet; r.h~-t if t}ierF waA A 11C~t~ Eor a market i.n the area, therc would probably be more peaple present t~ represQnt f:hat vi.~wpoint; thAt usually AB a develupment was hec~rd over and ov~:r, ths opposi.ti.on dwindled and a devetoper got hle project tl~rough; and thRt the r titions in favor and in oppoeition wer~~. noe entir~ly cl.:ar, on ,at-ich to base a decision. The Ctiair~~an r.~cugn~.lzed Mc. Williani Reeci, Princip~sl at Dr. Peter Mnrshall Elembntary Sch~ol, wlio reyuear.ed h~ be ;~eaY•d concerning the sub,~ect petition, And thereupo•n Mx. Reed stat~d wir.h regard to an apar;:mc:nt pro,ject aC the subjec~ location that enrollmonC at the Or. :'eter Marahall Elementary School wab decliizing; that che smal.l. co~uercial center pr~sently .~ocated in the arEa wae already a pr.oblem with reRpect to the schr~l children spen~ing their lunch ~^nPy tt~ere~ etc.; und that he would quegtion the iieed for. the ahop- pi.ng ceiiter in a residential r,rea in view ~f the Craffic a-cl safaty liazard r_o t}~e childrer In rebuttal, Mr. Miller atated that the achool tiad a closed campus and the children cou:d nc+_ 'leave 1t without written permission from their parents; that to hia knowledge daclin- ing enrol.lment ac Dr. Per~~r Marat~all Element~ry School as not a probl~m and they were, in fac:t, bussing from that scl.ool. Commissioner Ga~cr noted that he wou].d tiot preas hard for tfie proposed project if the peo~~le did not war~t i'. but that he pernonally thought there would be just as many problems wfth R-3 developmenC on t.nis site. Regarding ~nvironmental TmpacC Repore No. g9, the Pl~nning Com~i~si.on generally concurred that no additional action w~s r,~ces~~sry to its sction taken on September 17, 197?, rt:om- mei~ding certificatian of said ~TR~ and na aet forth in Resolutiun No. PC7~-213. Commiasioner Mcrley offerect a reaolution and moved £or iCe passage and ad~ption ,.~~ recom- raend ro thp City Council approval of ~eCition for Re~lussificstion No. 74-75-1, eubj~?ct. to t:anditi.on3. On roll c~.ll~ lhe foregoing resoluCion failed by tt~e fo2lowing vote: A'LES: CUMriISSIONERS: GAIiBR, MORLEY NOES: COI~iISSIONERS: JO}(NSON, Kltd~, TOLAR. liERflST AASF.NT: COt~IISSIOHERS: FARANO Commisaioner Johnaon offpred Reaolvtion No. PC74-•173 and moved for tta pna~age and adap- tion to te~:o~•'.nd ~.o the Cfty Council. dis~ppruval of petiti.on for Reclaasificatioi~ No. 74-75-1 on che ~aeis that the reclasaification of e+ib~ect pr~perty a,~d its proposed i-se would create - health and eafety hazzr.d to the area, parttc~llarly to the children who would have to paes ~h:ls facility to and from achoo:; that the Traffic ~ngineer estimated r~n increase of from ~,U00 *_0 5,000 vehiclee per day at thia interaecti~a if the propoaed c~mmerciaZ use was e~tablfshed; zhat r.he noi.se generated h} the ~roposed use, includling ths use of the loading and unloading docks and in conjunctlon with the houre of opet'ation, ~ ~ ~ MYNUTES CIT'Y PLAN'.~T.N~ COMMISSTUN. Augu~+t 19~ 1.974 74-395 Bp'VIRUN~~ TA ~~MPA~:'T ::~'PQRT N0,_9i,. 11M: hE(_:1,.A'~„S, .F7 I4ATIO~V N(1, 7~;~.7~~1 (Continuod) would have an advereo F~ftect on the eurroundtng reaidential propertiEe end would ba doCri- mental l•~ the pNace~ healttti, s~foty and Ron~ral wel.fare oE Che citizena of the Gtty of Anaheim; th~t eignlficunt oppoeitiun wau pr~aented both by poreonal appearanc~+ +~nd by aigned peti.tions and correspandence ana eaid oppoeitioi~ weighod heavily ~n the de.libera- Clonn uf the Cowniseion. notwithKtnnd ing tl~e tact th+it the peti~~.oner ~ubmittnd eignect peCiticne and Chr.t correspondunce wae~ recaived in favoL' of the pxopoea].; and thut the Pl.anning CommlReJ.c~n i.n its dollb~irations ruc~gn.lzed that- Chc+ potitioner had mada c,fforte to weet the addLkiunnl criterin o£ th~ Commi.eKiou, nbove and buyond the CodP reyuir~monta. (Soe ReROlution Rouk) Oc- roll eall.~ the toxeguing xonolutioc~ pa8oed by t11e f.c,"Llowing vote: AYES: COMMTSSIONBRS: KINC, JOHNSON~ TOI.AR, lli:R$ST NOES: COMMISSIONCR3: GAUER, MORLEY ABSGNT: COt~ff'lISSIONERS: FAKANO Mra. Joan Aerry, tlia prcpsrty ownar, enlerad into discu3sion with the plannin~ Comaaissian regarding what would br~ a suiC~bl~ propo~al for the sub j ect propet ty, dur. ing wiiich it wao pointed out that the Maheim General Plan deaignated the property i•~r medium deneity; and that the R-A was a l~olding zone~ Mrs. Berry queationed wthy Che prop~ved development uf the property had t~een drawn out eu long, and Chairman Herbet noted tha`. the pr.ocPedinge had baen in accordance with ttie Fetitioner'd request for hearing and th~n reheari.ng. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARII~G. ANAHEIM IiILLS, INC. /'CL~XACU VENTURES. INC. , 380 PERFAI'T N0. 148fi Anaheim Hills Road. d.naheim, Ca. 92907 (~er); LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, 924 West Ninth StreeC, ~ipl~-nd, Ca. 9J.786 (Agent) ; requeating permission to B5TABLISH A 6-~t~IT MUDEL HOMF COMPI:EX WITH WAIVF.R OF (A) MAXIMUM NI;MBER OF SIGNS AND (B) MAXIMlJN1 SYGN ARL~A on property descri.bed ad: An Srregularly--ehaped parcel of lnnd con3leCinR ~~ approximetely 60 acres located north- ea[~t of the intsreectl.on of 3errano Avenu~ ..<<d Hidden Canyon Road, and having frontagea of approximately 2600 feot on bath sa~'~~~ uf Serrano Avenue. ProperCy {~resently c.las~+ifi~d R-A (AGRICULTUf:AL) ZONE. It wae noted thF~t the petitioner had submitted a letter requesting that Che aub~ect petition be terminated, since they were cancelling their eacrow t~ purchaee the properC,~. Cowniesioner Gaue•c offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Morley and MOTION ~ARKIEll (Commissioner Farano being abeent), that a11 pr~~ceedinga in connection with patition for Conditional UHC I'ermit No. 14B6 be and hereby are terminated, se reque~ted by ttie peti.tioner. (:QNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HGA1tING. ROBRRT P. DUPRE AND RICIIARD FARLEY, 341 Sayside Drive PERMIT N0. ~487 "A", Newport Be~ch, Ca. 92660 (Ownera); EVEREAIlY COLLISION SERVI.CE, Attz~: Burt Ruttman, 1535 West Elm Pl.ace, Anaheim, Ca, 92804 (Agent); requeating permiseion to ESTABLISH AI~' AUT.n PAINTIN~, BODY AND F~ND~R REPAIR FACILITI' on properCy described as: An irreguLarly-ohaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximately 1.4 acree haviag a frontage of agproximat~ly 75 feet on Che northweat side of Orangethorpe Park, riaving a c~aximuID depth of appruximately 378 feet, being .located approximutely 1100 feet norCh of the centerline of Orangekhurpe Avem~e, and Further described se 1835-A Orangethorpe Park. Property prer~ently classifiecl M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAI.) ZflNE. No one i.ndicated their preaence in oppoaition L•o subi?~t petitlon. Althougli the Staff Report to the Planning Commir~sion dat~d August 19, 1974 was not rpad at the public hearing, it ia referred to and mbde a part of the minutes. Mr. BurC Ruttaoan, repreaenting the agent for the propesCy owner, appeared ~efore the ComwisAion and atated that eince LheYe was already a diesel engine repair service adjacent to the aub~ect propEerty tha propase~. use would not bother anyone; and that all of Che work would be done inaidc~ their buildi.ng. TH~ PUPLZC fIEAR1Nl, 'riAS CLOSED. ~ ~ MINUTE:', CI'fY PLANNING COMMISSI01~1~ Augu»t 19, 1974 74•-396 ~OND'[TTONAL USE PEKMIT NO. 1487 (Continued) In rapons~ Co queat.ioning by Chnirman Harbnt~ Mr. RuCtman etated the prupoeal wae noC a t:owing Bervice nor an inaurnnca impound yard, but thnt orhere would be [owing or otherwisc~ bring~_ng the vehicles into Tha propoeed £ecillty for sexv~l.ce; and that approximnte.ly f i~•~+ to eeven •,ahicLes wuuld bc+etored on the outeid9 of the facility~ In radp~>nae to queskioning by C~mmisaioncsr Morlay~ Mr. Ruttman etaCed khaC the p~rCion of the buil.ding not to bP used for the propnned ude wae urileased at the pxesont tima but would c~-neie[ of othar ind~istrial tenanLe. In reapansa tu yu~stioning by Cowmiesioner King~ Mr. RutCman atipu]_ated that additional firo proi~ection devi.cr.s wauld ~e provided~ it determined to be neceaeary by Che I'i.re Deportment and Buildiiig Dlvisior~. Mr. Ruttman furCl~er staked that ~e bolievec! the Apray boothe were propoaed to be sprinklnred ~nd thiA would comF>ly wikli the requiroment in (~~1P.BL' LOIl. IC wae noted ~hat the Director cf Developme~nt Servicea had determitied Chat the pr.opoRed activity fell. within the dafiaition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City aE Anahc~ia Guide- linec~ to the Requirements for an Envirunmental Impack Report and was, therE:fore, c~tr.- gorically exempt from the r.equiiemenC to f.ilc nn Ellt. Commiseioner King offered Reaoluticn No. PC74-174 nnd moved for its paesaga and aduption eo grant petltion for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1487 sub,ject to the etipulati~n that additionnl fire prutectton devices elisll be provided~ if determined to be necessary by ths Fire. Department and Eui'.ding Uivi.sion, and ar1 repair work c+hall be conducted on Che inaide of the building and a minlmum number nf vehicles sha11 be srored on the outAide of the building; and sub~ecC to conditianE;. (See Reaolution Book) Chi roll call., the foregoing r.ee~lution passed by the following vote: AYGS: CO?iMTSSIQPIRRS: GAUGR, JOHIJSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ HP.RBST NO~5 : C(.`1~II~1IS.~IONERS : N~NE ABSENT. : CUr'MISS;.ONERS : FARANO RECLASSLFICA;IUN - PUBLIC HEARING. SAM HAM?LTON, L~STEL M. HAMILTQN AND DAISY KAYE, c/o N0. 7G-15-8 Roget' K. Patterson, P. 0. 3ox 4745. Whittier., Ca. 90607 (Ownero). -" Propert-y descri:bed ae: M irregular.ly-shaped ~arcel af land consist- CQNDITIONAL USE ing of 8r~^.YCx:iwately 0.45 acre located betweer.~ Manchester Avenue and YERMIT N0. 1488 Mouutr~i~i View Avenue, havir~g approximate frontagea of ].80 feet an the southwes~ Qide of Manchester Avenue •;rcl 62 feet on tt~e eaet aide of MounCain ~%iew Avenue, having a maximwn depth of apprc>ximately 250 feet, being located approximately 300 feeC southeask of the centerli.ne o.E KateT la Way, and further described as 1809 South Mancheater Avenue. Property presently cRaeaifted R--A (AGRICULTUItAL) ZON~. REQLIESTED C1.~ASSIFICATICIN: C- 1(GENERAL COMI4ERCIAL) ZONG REQUESTEll CONDITIONAI. USL: E`3TABLISH A MOTOR VEHiCLE LEASING AND SAY~ES AGFNCY WITH ?JAIVER Or (A) MAXIMUM EAVE PROJ3'sCTION ,(B) ME-X~~-MUl~ FENCE HEIGHT, (C) MAXIMUM BUILDING NEIGHT, (D) MIN1"_MUM Ff~RICING LAYOUT DIMENSIQNS, AND (I:) C~EQUIRED MAS(~NRY ~j~•L• No one indi~~ated their presence in opposition to subjECt petltione. A1Cho~gh ~'~e Staff Report to the Planning Commioelon dated August 19, 19i'4 was not resd at the public hea:ing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Roger K. Patterson, attorney fc~r the petitioner, app~eared ~~efore the Commisaian and aCated that the Staf f Re~~rt tu the F].anning Cotamiesion was subatant•ia11y correct. how- ever. ~ h.e would cake e~cception to certain items. Re stated that his clie~it was not prepared to stipulate to item (16)b ~n page 4c of the Staff Report eince there waulcl be occaAiuns when they woul.d want to take vehicles l.n trade, however, it would be on small ~rder but wou~d affect tbe proposed operation. Mr: Patteraon stated tt~at item 15(c) pointed out thE differance bet~~een the proposed operatian and that of SouthwesC i.easing; that Intercontinenta2 Leasing was a relatiwely emall operation w3tn principal offices in Erea; and that par[ieularly at the onect therr would ~robably bE vehiclea c;oming in f rom other locationa and they wnuld not want to be reatr•lct~d at that particular timn. ~ ~ MYNUTES , CI't1l I'i.ANNLNG CObPtISSI~N, August 19, 1974 7G-391 RL~(:LASS ZFTCATION NQ. 74-75-8 AND CONnITTONAL USE~ PF.RMI'f NO.. ] 488 (Cncttinued) Mr. Fi~t zarWOn furthec etnr.ed '~e did not fwel Chat item 16(d) ehould be impoeed an hie cl.ients einrr. thPy were not prnposing a ueQd car lot; itnd Chat if a eign wae to be placed un a vetiicl~, they would not want to b~ resl•ricted. Ne elated thnt hie client d.ld not wleh Cc dtipulc~te to 1G(f) of tne Steff Ftepott einee i.t wae noC anticipated that MounCain View wauld be the usual meane of. acceea. but nn emeraP•,~~y ecc~:ee only. Reptarding Condition Na. 1 on page 4c of the Staff Report, Mr. PaCterti~n atuted he wouid raquest that l~ie clienT bo notified when sucli a bond w~e acc:epted; chnt repardiag Cnndition No. 4~ n 6-f•oaX wall on the ncrCh pr.opert:y lintz would be of no particul.ar. use since a similar uee wae ad~acent to the r~ub~ect property aC ttiat boundary; thaC ti~egarding Condi.tion No. 7, there was no divi~ion af pxoperty i.nvolved i.n the prapoeal r~i.nr.e the twA parc~ls were ~Lndapend- ently acquired; thut ragarding Condition No. 1.0, he wauld request clarificaCion wi.th reepect to rY~e lightin~ ta be diracted ~way from Che prop~'r~Y li.tte. TH!s PUBLIC HEARTNC WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer noted that Commiesionar I~aranu had uxpr~~s~ed concern th~t uaed car lots not be permitted in the ~ub~ect areo. He furtlier noted thst alChougl- the petitioner had indic:ated they would nul be ~loing much busineab~ the name wao indicaGive of business across the U. S. and mnre ao; that signs on the windshields had not been permitL-ed £or the Hertz RenC-a-Cnr ugency and the Southweet Leasing Company a~zd if the petitioner wxnted to be in bueine3s at the anbject location, he would have to li~~e up to the s~undar.ds developed for tt-ie ather leasing ~~ompanies in th~ area. Mr. Pa tteryon then atated that usually he would c~n6ider a used c:ar lot as R large facility w1.th overhead 1lghting, etc., howev~r, ttie proposed operatio~~. would preclude thgt conditien; and tt-iat Southwear. Leasing was n much larger operation than ::ntercontinental, whom tie repres ented . Chairman Herbst i.ndicated thnt the Planning Commiesion had be~n very th~rough with respecr to granting slmilar uaes in the subject area and it would be. ;:heir intention not to grant any more or any less for lhe, ~ubject proposal. He further nor.pd that if trade-ina were allowed, there would be cowpetiCion with the automobile indusf ry, and the intent of t'~e ordi.nnnce was to allow the cara to be eold but that the automcUiZes could not be advertiaed since they ~aould be sold to the people who leased them; and thit if the sub~ect petition was granted as proposed, ~hen the other leasing c~,mpanieo wou13 be back before the Planning Commission for the eame condit:Coi~-s. Mr. Patterson stazed thxt he represented I:~terconti.nenCal Car l~easing only and a leasing compaay's inability to take a vehic:le in trade might preclude ntak.ing a lease; and L•hat the way ttle condition was preaented, ehc~ compun.y would be precluded from taking a vehic.le in trade at all. He then queati~ned FrY-et:her item 16(b) of the Staff Report was in connection with a propoaed :aale or a prapoaed lease, and Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry adviaed ttiat as he understood it, there wss no dif£erence; that t.he Planning Commission's intent w~ts that there would be no vehicles taken in Crade, however, th~ey were permi.tted to whole- aale out only L~nder wholesaler's permi.t when the vphicles came back from leases. Mr. Patterson explained that the conciition regarding trade-ina would interfere with their ability to le:ase on a fleet scale and Chainnan Herbat nated that~. if the petitioner wanted to conduct tliat kind of buaineas t.hey would need to go into a C••3 Zone where used carr~ were allowed. Mr. Patter~on then directed the Planning Cummiasion'A attention to Condition No. 4 in the Staf f Report and i.nquired i.f there really was a need for the 6-f oot wa~l, and Commissioner Morley r~~ted that the wall could probably be waived in view af the fact Chat the ad~acent property was developed wi*.h a similar uxe. Mr. Patterson queationed the need for a parcel map wliich would be a requirement of ~ondi- tio~. No. '1 in the Staff Report, and Office ~:ngineer Jay Titus advised that at some tim~ in the paet an il?egal lot. split had o~curred which involved the avb~ect property and a parcel map was never recorded, and it was tne City's policy in such cases to require th~t a aarcel map be recorded whenever it came ta their attention. CommiseiQner Tolar then questioned what the personal property wauld consiat of which would be lensed £rom the aub}ect property. and Mr. Pattersan aCated that hia cli~nt dealt in galf car ta, airplanes, afT-conditioning ~quipment~ etc.~ xhich would not necessarily be located at the sub~ect location, howev~r, they would procesa the paper tirork on the pzemiaes and, theseupon, Mr. Patterson stipulated tliat no boata, sirplanes, si.r-conditioning equipment, or cther personal propert~ for sale nr leaee would be aCored on the aub~er.t property, but ~~.. ~ .~.. ~ t47NUTE?S, CI'fY I'T.RNtN'LN(; COP4IISSIGN, Augunc 19~ 1.974 74-398 RECI~ASSIFICA'rIi~N NO,~ ~i S-H ANU COND'ITIONAL U5~ PERMIT NA., 1408 (Cantinued) tl~at iCema permittud to be etored wou].d con~sie[ cf automobilee~ panel trucks and pic'..~~ Crucka. Chairm+~n Herb9C indicuCed he wou'I.d have no ob~action to Che handling of the papor work rc+gardi~ig sule or leanp of itamH from the premises. auch ue L•hoee being discuseed. CommisAioner Morley noted, in tiie opinion, that the Commiesion wae behind Che Cimes wi.th tlic sub~ect typQ oE operation and it wou.id be difficult £or a mnn to be in the l~aeina buei-~~se nnd nnt ba able to te.kP tru~t~-!n vahicle8; that Ke Co the leased vehicleS, thQre could be reatr~ctions; and that h~ felt there would be i r_hangr. in rhe Cotmaioeian'e poaition la~er on; that th~ Commisei.an was CryinA to eJ.i~ainate UflP,f~ cnr loCK in the sub~ecC area and although the p~:tll.ion~~r's propos~l wRa not far e u~e~d car lot~ iC would look like one to anyone viewing the proFe~rty i.f thc+ ~igna were on t;ie vehicl~s, etc. ; and that he would oupport the pctitioner's b~eic prupoeal. Commieaionar Gauer revtewed the Hertz Rent-ii-Cat agency app.'.icaL•ion and noted that the Comwiaeion wanCed n clean operation ond consequently Fiertz h~id r~greed to the conditlona of approval in order to da bueiness in the subject area; tiiat H~rtz wns ~n1y ae.lling those carr~ which they wera bringing in fram lease; and that although Nert2 wae noC displaying "for. sale" aignv on any of th~ir cara~ they hRd the freedom to lndicute to an interested person w}iat L•he sulea price wna. Commi~eioner Johnson note.d that tha petitioner. was not naking for flaga or special light- ing;, but w~-s aeking for. aigns~ which he would agree aliould be eliminated; howevar~ ~.f the buainesa could r~ot take trade-ins, then the Commiseian was more or less indicating that the peti~ioner. cuuld noC do busineae in Anaheim. In i~eapnnae to yuestioniiig by Commiesioner. Morley, Mr. Patteraon i.ndicated that in eome ina9:ances thoae vehiclea taken i.n trude would never reach the aubject property. In Yeaponse to queationing by Commisaioner Tolar, Mr. Patteraot~ etipulated that no more than 25 vehicles for eale or lease would be stored on subject T~roperty at ary one time to allo~w the remaining 1Q parking epaces to be uaed for employeea and cuKtomera. Comm:lasioner ICing <~uestioned the difference between thE proposal and the Mazda and Volvo agenc:ies in the gi•ea, and Mr. I~owry adviaed that Che Code parmitted a new car deulership in certain zones and did not perwit a used car lot fn that sawe zone sinr_e a used car. lot would have to be located in another zone or be permitted througti a cond:tional use permiC procedure; and t.hat the new car dealership r.ould have uaed ~ar salea as an ancill.ary part of hi,s biieiness. Mr. S~~m Hamilton, one of the petitionere, appeared bef~re the Coimnisaion and statel tl~at Interr.ontinental Leasing was ten years old; that whenever thetr r.lients had cara to dis- poae of, they primarily assisted the lessee in finding buyeze for. the old automobiles; that up to the preaent time the,y had never had a used car lot anc'. prese:-tly they ha~d only one used car s~t their Wnittier. location; that they were pr.imarily fnvolved in billing, invoic.Lng~ collecl•ing, etc., and that the idea of buying and selling like a used car loC was not: the truth since all they would be doing would be diaposi.ng of automobilea that they ne~ceas~irily needed to in cor~nection with their operation. Chairman Herbst clarlfied that the intei-t of the Cammisston regarc;ing trade-ins was •;iok to permit thoae~ cars taken in trade to be atored on the subject propFrty nnci sold ~s used cars, arid with ai~na on them; however, the Commieai.on was not r.oncer.n::d wher~ the paper wor'k wai~ conducted. Commiasioner King ~ioted that the petitioner could pro~ably expose only two cars fram the front of the sub~ect property since that area would have Lo be left. open lor customers to enter the property, and the petitioner concurred by stating that tt~ere would be two drive- ways in rhat area for use by their customer~. ln respor~se to queationing by Com~issioner Marley, Mr. Hamilton ati~~ulated khat the proposed access gate to Mountain View Avenue was for P..mergency purposes only„ that no prices wuuld be poeted on the windahiel.ds or other par.ts of the vehicles being of`fered ~or eale, and khat they would terminate the sub~ect conditional use permit upon tex'mination of the primary u:se of the subiect property, being automobile leaeing and rental. Chairman l~erbat noted wiCh reapect to the condition regarding trade-ina ~hat he would not vote for e~nything that was denied to the other leasing facilitie~ in the area; and that the CommiE.aion did not want cara brought in for eale or e.~rage in the subject area. 1~J ~ ~ MINUTI:S, CTTY P1.ANMINC UOMMISSTON, Aug~iNl• 19, 1974 74-399 RF,CI,ASSIFICAT~,TON_NU,_ 74-75_8 AND GONDLTI.QNA1. US,~ PisItMTT N0. 14~8 (Cont,lnued) Commiseinner Max•1~~y suRgeptad revi»ed wording tor the•coudiCian regarding trade-ine beinR "That no veh!c.l~~s~a tnken in trndo Rhall be stored on tha Aub~ect pr.oT~ert}~," gnd following f~irthQr di.xcu~ei.~~n reqardi-tg the sale of aut~mobilQe by wholesale, nncl F~lacing a 30-day limitatic~n un dtorsge, Cha~rman Herbat notosl thnt the COl0fI1.LgR~OT1 hud ec+tabliehed etandarde for the H~rts ~iad SouthwoAt Leasing fpcil:ltiea xnd t1~4ea conditiune should be adherod to in the sub~ect Axe~-~ and tlint theru wexe C-3 Zon~e f~r uyed car iacilities. Thereupon, the utturitey for the peCitloner eCipulated to the candition as revlsed by CommiseloneT Mc~rley regarding trnde-ina. Mr. Lowry advi.p~.~d t:haC the petil•ioner'a nt[ori~ey was i.ndicating they cou~.d live with lh~a conditions. u~ outli.ned and as stipulated to and he tiad every cunfidence that the eCipula- tiona would be acr.ompliahed since Mr. P~tteraon was a very r~putable attc~rn~y. It was i~oted that the U1recCor. of DevelopmenC Services liud determined that Che proposed acCivity fell within the definition of Ser:tic,n 3.U1., Clas6 1 and 5 of ttie City of Anaheim Gu~delines to the Requiremente for an Fnvironment~l Impact Report and was, tlier.efare~ categorically exempt from the requlrement to fi~e r~n EIR. Commi.ssioner Mor'ley offered Reso].ution No. PC74-175 and moved for. ita pas~;age artd adoption tu recomm~:nd to the Clty Council approval of Recl~isstfication No. 74-75-8 sub~ect. to ehe deleti.on of the cundition r.equirin$ r.he 6-foat masonry wall and subject tci the stipulutiona of the peti.tioner; and eub~ect to conditions. (See ResUlution flook) On roll ca11~ the foregoing resoluCion wns passed by the following vote: AYES: COI~IISSIONERS: GAUER, .JOHNSQN, KINC:~ MORLEY~ TOLAR, HF.RBST NOFS: COI~U~iISSIONERS: MONE ABSENT: COMMISST.ONEKS: ~A.RANO Couunissioner Morley offered Resolution No. PC74-176 and moved for its paReage and $doption to grc~nt petition for Condltional Use Permit No. 1488, grantin~ waiver uf t:he maximum eave pro~pction on the basia that said waiver. applied to an exieting structure and did not create ~ t~azard; granting wAiver of the maximum fen~~-. height on the basis that an identical waiver wa~ gx'anted for the adjacent pruperty to ~he north, witli treea to be platzted within the 3-foot ].andscaped setback ad~acent ca M~untain View Aventie; gra-iting waiver of the maximum building height on the basia th;c eaid waiver appltes to an exfating atx'ucture and would not be detrimpntal t.o the areH; grAnting waiver of tl~,e minimum parking layout dimett- aions on the basis that the parking area aiole would not be ua~d by the general public bul- by persons employed or a£filiated wieh th~ businesr establishment; granting waiver o.f the required masonry wall ad~acent to a re~idei:tial zone on the basi.e that a determination was made that the wall was not nec:essary between uses of a s~milar nature, being that Che property to the south was developec' commerciall.y and commercial zoning is currently pend- ing on the properCy to the west; thzt the 3a].ea of vehiclea at the sub~ect location ahall be restricted to those veh:lclea or.iginaJ.ly aesigned to the Inter=ontinental Leasing facility located se 1R09 South Manchester Avenue; sub~ect to the aCipul.ations of the petitioner and aubject to conditi.ons. (See Resolution Book) On roll cali~ the foregoing resolution passed by the ~ollowing vote: AYES: CON4tISS'iONCRS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MQRLEY, TOLAR, HERIiST NOES: COMMIS5IONERS: NONL~ ASSENi: COI~TISS~ONERS: FARANO RECESS - At 3:40 p.m., Chairms~n Herbst declared a recesa. RECONVENE - At 3:55 p.m., Chairman Herbst :econvened the meeCing with Commibaioner ~ Fara:lo being absent. ~ ~ ~ MINUTL~S. CITY P[.,ANNINC COI~SISSION~ lluguat 19~ 1 74 '14-400 VARIANC~ N0. 2629 - PUBLIC F1ENtING. GEORGE PAItR:Sr', 11322 i~ewpart Avenue, 3nc~ta Anp, Cx. ~~ 92705 (Owner); JFRR: STANLB' , 37.9 North State Colle~e Butil~evard, Mat-eim. Ca. 9780E (Agent~ : rrluesting WAIV~R ~)F (A) MTNIt~ITM RUII,pINC SBTBACK ABUT7'ING AN ART~RIAL }iI!+HWAY, (D) MTNIMUM iI~TBACK AR~A :.ItNDS^,AiPiNG, ANA (f:) REQUIKk;D AItTER]'.AL ~~ICtiWAY pBUT.CATION, TO E3TARi.z9H A COMMERCIAL QFF7.CL HUIZ.AINC on prap~r. ty deeicribed ae: A recCan~ul+irly"NFIR~ISa pAt'C~+1 of l.and coneid:ing of approximut~ly 0.2 ~~cr.n loc:ated a~ thc~ nnrthweat corner of Bror+dwAy and 3t, tc~ Colles~,e H~ulevard~ tiaving approximnke frc~ntageg uf 103 r.aet on tt~o north s~da of Broc~dwey and u5 foat on thA we~vt eidc: oE .;tate Co7.l.ege Boulevard. and further described ae 'L27 So~ith SCate C~11Qg~ Eoulevard. Prapec~y prE~aentl.y claasified R~1 (ONE-FAMII.Y RESTAENTIAL) ZnNE. No oi~e indicated their prsaence in oproeikirn to t~ub~er.t patiCion; t~owevr_r, it w~e nateci th~-t one 1.eCter, si.gned by faur pereons in opposi*.ion~ wa~ received. Although Lhs Stxf£ Report tu tha Planning Cuma-ieeian d:~l•ed Auguet 7.9~ ].97G w~-a not x~ad at. tt~e. public IZearl.rig, ie !a refFrred to and mnde a part cf L•he minutee. Mr. G~orge Parrish, the pel•ltioner, appeared before the Commiseion and ~tn:ed he conc~.ix•red with the infarmxtion contained in tl~e StAff RQport and i:haC the euh1ect ~r:.aer*.y wa:~ an eyesare and he wanted to fix it up for the banefit o£ tl~e ~ity. Aseistant 7,oning Supervisor Anniks Santalahti reod the ;for~mentioiied letCer dated Auguc~l• ~.4, 1974 from Alma E. Keller to whi.ch was atkached a per.~tion signed by f.our af her tanants, all in oppositior-~ which read aa fo.l.~ owe : "Auguat ].4f 1974 Anaheim City Planning Connni.saion Anahei.m, California De~r Sire: I am writing yuu to oppoae Varian~:e No. ZG28, th3s •prop~rty ia ~djacent to my property at 204-'L25 S. SCate College Blvd. i oppnae Che variance oE R-1 property to be used ae C-1 pr.operty in a way t•hat will waive al.l aetbacks abuCting Arterial Highways, and dedicatio:~ of land on Ar.teri.al Highways and landscaping. I do not foel this is in thF best Lnt~rc.at to r.he sCrictly C-1 area that now exiats in the area. I further think that the waiving of the above i.ems in this var~Lancc ~a~+ld be detri- mental to my tenants and my property. It would impair the exYioauxe my tenants receive of the public, and als~ crea~e a traffic hazard, as the propezty neeking the Variance ia situated on a prom!.nent aorner. I am also forwardinF., to you a petition aigned by my tenanta. Very truly yours, (aigned) Alma E. Iieller" "We th~ undersigned, having a leasehold intereat ln the ~.d~oi.ning pxopexty at 209 to 225 S. State College Blvd., do her6by oppoae variance 11262$. (A) ~'aiving the minimua set back abutting an Arterial Highway, (B) Minimum Setback Area LandscAping, (C) Required Arterial HigYsway Dedication; on Che grounde thst Chia woulci be detr.imenta2. to our bueiness establishments, and would impa.tr ~ur exposur.e t~ 1:he traffic and public. A1sa we feel it would be a aafety and Craffi~ hazard ia the area. (signed) Jamea S. KferaCead - fiehing tackle Golden Weat (aigned) Dean Gardner - Color Vieion Service Conpany (signed) .Tames 0. Long - Antoni's Spring Creat (aigned) Mary Anderean - Cnlifornie Asaoc. Bruker~-Rea~tor~" [n rebuttal, Mr. Pnrrish atated tha Che adjaccnt property o•~ned by Alma Keller hxd many vacancies and it might be the Feeling that a newer prnject right next to it might cauee continued vacancies; and that the waiver of the required arter.ial highway dedication wad on Broadway 8nd nok on State College Soulevatd. ~ • MINUTES~ CITY PLANNI[v(: :OI~1T3Si0N~ Augut~C 14. 1974 74-40'1 y~8ie,~ N0, ~~, (Con- .inued) THE PUBLIC IIEAKING WAri ~I,OSEU. In reaponee to qu~etloi~.ing by Commi~ai.oncsr Morley~ Mr. Jerry Stanl.~y, agent for *.ha peti- ti.ano,~~ r-ppeer.ed befor.~s Che Cowmiyalon and a!ated he was surpriaec~ that Che ~ropet•ty own~r who would bene£it mon±• froar tF~c propo~od dNVplopment wne prol•esti•ng; and that they had originally undarstood thak ttie building wae to be set hack 5 feet: fram the proparty line. Dleeueaioct puraued re;urding ttie widening of Hrosdway~ and Off~.c:e Er.glneQX .Jay Titus ndvisect Chat additi.onil dedicaeion on tiror~dway at the sub~oct l.ocntion was unneceseary e~ince thF City had d~~cerwined ir. wae no~ needed. Chairmetn Herbst note3 that one of ChP concerne of l•he (7ammisRi.on was the exposure of the propased atructure c~n ~he corner which would block Che view for tha heavy tz'af.fic in ttie area, nnd Mr~ Stanlay et.ated Chat by giving u~' ~ few parking apilce~ on the front of khe property. thEy hud been able to confor.m 100X along Statc: College Boulevard; that thay werc~ requesting ta en~o~,~ thoae privileger~ granted for Che televlr-ion repair facility acroes the strect ~ii Broadway; ttiat the propo~nl was to move the exiating garage and tha additiona would preclude know:ing thot there e~~er wae a residential b~~ildi.ng flt Chis location; and he was sure tha Comu::Aaion was aware of rhe present poor coiiditi.on of r.he aub~c~ct property. Chairman Herb~t noted that the ad~ac~nt televieton r~pai.r fac:Lllty Was in exiaCc~nc~ wtten Braadway was widened and~ in his opinion, that wne not f- good arguraPnt tu all~w another building to be conatxucted witt~uut the proper setback. Cammiesioner 'Totar expreRSed cuncern regnrding Cha tra~fic aC State College and Broad~way wlth rc~apect to viaibility. Mies Santalahti claX;fied for ttie Commiesion that: ~he z~to ro one-foot aethac.k abutting an arterial highway wns based on dedication UeLng xakeii along Broadway, however, at certain pointa Che nddition would ntill be+ set back 5 feet wf.thoiit making dedicar.ion and the waiver would still be necessary. Mr. Stanley reviewed t.he a~cvss tr, the propert•y an~~ stated he fPlt it: the Pl~nning Commis- slon would check tlie :irea t:he,~ would find that. the obetrucCion would be very minor aince there ~ae no ~ray the vtaion to ttie west could be nbsCrucCed; and that, in hia opinton~ tha plari was acceptable. Cocamis3ioner 'folar then noced thaC etie view to the norCh leavinR Broadway would be obetruc:ted by thr~ propoved 1ev~lopuient, and Mr. Stnnley took ex.~ption etating that the requir.ed setbacks hac~ bezn provi.ded on State Crllege. Commiasionp.r .Tul~nbo•n noted that thera were a1~ ays problema when a large development ~as attempted on a emall 1ot. Cha~lrme-n Herbst noted tliat with the petiti.on:sr ~aining back the 5 feet for dedication on Broadway, there was still a probler~; that cc.iaideration should be given to r3xfeCy and if e hardahip was being crsated £or the petition~:r; thr~t, in h'ia opininn, the only hardsh~p was due to the proposed overdevel~g~e~r nf the property and, therefore, there wae no ~usti.fica- tion for the variances £rom the minimum se~:backa. It wae noted that the Director ef Developient Services had deter.mined that the proposed activity fell within tt~e defi.nition of Se.ction 3.01, Clasa 5 of the City of Anaheim Guide- lines to the Requirementa for an Environrnental Impact Report and was, therefor.e, caCegorl.- cally exempt from =he requirement to f•llp an EIR. Commisaioner Morley offered Reaolution ~o. PC74-177 ar.d soved for its passage and adoption to granL pettt~.on for Condit:lonal Use Permit No. 2628, in part, denying waiver af the minimum building setbACk abutCing an. arterial highway on the basis triat ler~s than a 10- foat s~tback from an arterial highway would obatruct the view for the traffic and partic--- larly at the subJect intersection and, further, that approval of esid waiver. would set a dan~erot-s precedent; denying wai~~er c~f the mini~num seCback area landscaping on the basis thtiC if waiver of the required arterial highway dedication ie granted, ~aid waiver of the minimum aeCback area landacr~ping would no lon~er be necEesary; gra:ititig waiuex af the required arterial highway dedication on :re basis that the Engineeri.ng Diviaion i.ndleated that e~3.d additional dedicatian on Broadway at the sub~ecl. loca*_ion was unneceseary; nu5~ect to conditions. (See Resotution Book) On roll cal:~ the foregoing resolution was paased by the following vole: AYES: COIyQ~iISSION~RS: GAUEP., JOHNSON. KING, MURLLY, TOLAR, HERBST NOSS: COrf~tISSIONERS: NONE ~~BSENT: COMMISSION~RS: FARANO LJ ~ • t4INUTCS, CITY PLANNINC CUtdM'LSSION~ AuguAt 1.9, 1974 74-402 YA.RIANCE N0. 2629 - PUDT.IC HFAR:NG , CP1RI.QUL PN" GU1~AL~1~`I? lfECF?t1tA, i77S Wret I.aurel r ~ P1aca, Ana'-eim, ~u. 92A01 (Ownera); re!~u~Ating ~IAIVER OF REQUIRNM~NT THI1T 'TW(~ PARKING SPAC~a BL+ PROVIDEIi ~N A CARACE un property c~~ecacr.ib~d ne: Ar~ f.rr~gul.nr.l.y-ehaped parcel of land coneistinR oL appruxi.maCely 7600 squar~i f:e~C hnv:n~t e front:nge uf apprnxlmately 36 tcc~e on the uorthoaHt eide of L~urel. P7.uc~. huvi.ng s a-axinu.~m dspkh ~~f° appr.oxi.mately 140 feet, ~.n.i being ~ocated app~c~ximntely 190 teet eaet of Gt~a epnlerllne oE WesCmont Drive~ and furtl~..' ~eecribed ~- t775 WeKt I.r~urol Place. Property present:ly c].a:~sl.lied R-1 (01VE-F~s1ILY R.G~Si.._.1iTIAi.j 20NB. Three pez'KOne indlr_ntecl th~>.ie prea~n~_e in oppoaiCior C~ ~ub;JceC p~~[ition. AseiaCant 7.oning Super.vioor Annilcn ~tantalahti read the Staff` Repcart to the i'lanni.ng Comrnisaion dated Auguet l~i, 1974~ ayia oaid Staff Rv:port is refer~e~d ~a as if. set f~rth in ful.l i~n the minut:ea. i~rs. Guadalupr~ U2cerrn, Che ti~Qti.k.toner~ appearad t~efore Che Ccrmmibs:lo:i and lndi.c~ated thxt ahe ~•~~o praasnt wi.th .+n lutnr.preCer a2nc~+ ahe d:id n~t Kp~alc ~Tiglieh f1~ie:ntly. She indt~~.ted she had p~.ircl~aaed the ~~roperty in its preeent condiCioie wherein *_he gnrage had been converterl into ~i ki.trhen anc; family room; tt~a~ she did not know when ehe woulcl be ahle to cc~nr~tr~ict fl gnraKe as Kequired; that the pr~vious owner did not i.nform rhem re- garding thF Code vio.l.~tion when tlisy werN purchr~~ai.r.g the property; and thal• the ::oning Enforcement Offlcer had s;~oken tu her rega~-ding the prohlem. t~irs. Mari~yn Lenard appeared before the Cowmisr~ion in oppooition to subJect p~t.ition and sCated ehe li.ved next door tu the sub~ect prop_~rty; thar. i~ wae her underatanding thc-t t;~e prevlous owners red~~c.ed the pxice ~f the house $2~000 so Chat the present awner would b~a able to conc~truct a c~ew garaqe; that ohe did ~iot underaCnnd why Che pxevtous own~rs wece nat for.ced to Uui.].rl the guc~gc~; that her obje~tion wae ~hat a11 of the liomea in rhe ar.ea hsd garagea and that m+xny }~~-d wanted to convert their garages and were not allowed t:o do ao by the City. Mre. Loiiise Nepor:adny, 1771 Wes[mont Drive, nppeared before the Commission in opp~sltion tn auh~ect ~etiti~n and str~ted she had been advieed by the previoue owner regarding the pr.ice r~duckiur ~n order thst the new cwner could construct a garage, and that Mro. Lenard'o statemPnts wn,• ~:rue; that the present owners o£ sub~ect property had juat in3talled central air- ~•ir.ion:ng in the home and hnd had uufficient funde for that eo, in her opi.nion, t~ t~uuld ~e able to afford to conatruct the garage; that she c~,uld get more rene from ~n~ ~~wned i~• the srea if she were to convert the garages into room additions, huwever, ~~c '~:~d to keep ttae neighborhood propcrty valuea up by keeping the homes up in the <~:-~ ~.J n,,: _unstructing raom additiona that were disallowed in the reaidenCial areas. ~n re~~, - " r~. 'Secerra atated tht-t they were .he aeeond owners of the subject property; that _.; ~~d been lesa Uecause the previous owner could not construct thP garage; that r ~~/1'-. °l:l'•ll delayed by the realty company in getting into the pr.operty which caused ~E~~^ ;,, .:~,~..~,~i] : problema, howaver, they had been foalish not to look at the papers bef~~r~ ~~~:ing the homP. TH~'. P''~- ' ~~i;At:tNG WAS CLOSED. Ic. w~- r:~-~ ch~t the Director of Developaren.t Servicea had determined that the proposed actl.v:_~ ~~~~' within the de£inition of Sectian 3.01, Claes 1 of thc City of Anaheim Guide- 1~Lnes : tie Requirement-a for an Environmental Impact Report and was, xherefore, categori- cally F,:~+mF: from the r~quirement to file an EIR. Comm~sei »r J~hnso~ ,,ffered e~esolution No. PC74-178 and maved for ite passage and adoption to gr:in ~etition i.~r Variqnce Na. 2b29 for a period of two yeara based on the testimony u: the =atitioner that prior to purchaeing the home, they had no prior knowledge that a Cc~c~~~ va~latiAn existed and~ Cherefore, immediate compliance with the Code requisement waalu ~-eate a hardshi.p; that the Planning Commission de~ermined that the aurrounding residcntiAl propertiea wzre entitled to the protection of the Code proviaion in L•his maCt~~c~ aince other property ownera had previously ind•icaCed desires to Yiave such a build- ing conversion; subjsct tc conditiona. (See Reeolution Bnok) An roll call~ the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AY'ES: C01~4lISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHN50N, KING, IIORLBY, TOLAR, HBRBST N~ES: COI~AtISSIONERS: NO~IE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F'ARAIZU ~ ~ M7NU'fi~;S~ CITY I'1.AMVING COMMI'SSION, Auguet 19, 197~i ~4'Gp•i ENV'[RUNMENTAI. TMPACT - ANAHBI.M NILI.S, INC./TEXACU VF.NTllRES~ 1NC., 380 Anaheim Hi11A Road, REP~RT N0. 110 Analieim, Ca. 92807 (Develo~?er); WILLDAN ASSOCIATF,a, 125 ;iouth - r ~ Claudina Street, Annheim~ Ca. 92805 (Rnqineer). Sub~~ct praperty~ TENTA'PTVE MAP OF con~isting ot appruxi~;atel~y b5 ncres i~avi.ng a frontage c~f sppru~.i- TRACT NO5. 8463, mstely 2k75 feec un the enutl~..ide of Cxnyon Rim Raad~ having a 846k~ 8465 maximuin dapth oF. ap~froximntely 1~OQ foet~ nnd heing locotad approxi- (REVISiONS N0. 1) mntely on~ mile ~~~~rtheaet ~~f Noti1 Ranch Road, io propoeed for s~~b- ANU SG66 divieion AP fullows: Tract No. ~46.f (Rouieion l.) -~-2 K-H-l0,f~00 lutA Tract No. 8464 (Revieion 1) - 47 R-}(-10~00a iots Tract No. 8465 (Revieion 1:1 - 38 R-H-lU,000 lotg Tr.act Nu. 8466 - 36 R-H-1A~Q00 lotb Na one indicated their predence in oppositiori to I:he sub,jec:t tentative tract mape~. Although the Staft Report to the Planni.ng Commiasion datod August 19, 1974 waA not read at the me~:ting, it ie referrad to r~nd ~nade a pact ~f Che minutes. It was noted that Che sub~ecl tent~tivc~ cacr. maps w~re origictally coneldered and racom- mended foe approvnl by Che Planninq Commission ~n t4arch 18, 1974 and the Clty Councii approved sai.d tracts on May 21~ 1974; L•hr~t revisions to three of the four mr~pa (Nos. 8463, 84G4 and 8465) were subnequently msds consisting of tract bo~~ndary changea between those three tracts; that a Cota.l uf twelve lota were relocated from one tr.act to another~ aeven of which were origi.nally a part of Trar_t No. 8465 would become a part of Tract No. 8463, an~d £tv~ of which were ori.gi.nall.y e part of Tracc Nc~. 8463 wo~ild become a part o£ Tract No. 84G4; and that no changes wer~ ff-ade to any of L•he lut dimena~.ons or etreat alignments whi.ch were ~~riginally approv~d. Deputy C:ity Attorney Frank Lowr.y advised that the revisiuna were auch that Staff could no~ certify r,hem a5 being in eubatantial conformance with thoep ruapa or~ginally approved and, therefore, said mnps wsre being presented for Plsnnini; Cummission and City Council review and appraval. Office Engineer Jay Titus adviaed that rhe developer wtis requesting a modification to Condition No. 11 on Tr~ct No. 8464, Co read as followa: "That a second access to Canyon Rim Road~ conai.sting of two travel lanes, ahall be conskructed through the proper.ty easterly of subject tract conc~arrently with the improvements for subject tract. Right-of- way for. this str~_et st-a11 be dedicated in accor.dance with the City of Anaheim standa:ds tor a Hillai.de ;,'ollector at the tlme of. recordi.~g of thit~ trazt." Mr. Titua further adviaed that tne City would be agreeable to the xequested modification. 7,oning Supervisor Charles Ruberts suggested new w~rding fc~r Condition No. 10 on lract N~s. 8463 and 8464, to reflect that the 6-foot high wa11 along Canyon Rim Road shnuld be a decorative openwork wall, etc., as followa: For Tract No. 8463: "That a 6-foot hi.gh, decorative, openwork ~aall shall be constructed at the top of the xlope adjacent to Canyon Rim Road on Lot Nos. 1, 5, 6, 11, 1?, 13 and i4, excepe that said wall may be reduced in heighC to 42 inchea in the front portions of these lots. Plans for said wall ahall be aubmitted to the P~anning Commiasion or City Council for approval prior to approval of the final tract map. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be inatalled witliin th~ slope areas of each lot ad~acent to the roadway and in the uncemented portion of the arter~lal highwny parkwAy the full diatance of said wF~.ll. Plana for said landacaping ehall b~~ auUmiC~,ed to and sub~ecC to the approval of the '~upNrintendent of Parkway Mintenance. F'ollowing installatlon and acceptance, the property owner(s) shalZ assume reaponaibility for maintenance of said landscaping to the lot lines, and the City of Anaheim shall asaume the responsibiliCy for maintenance of the land~acaping in the Canyon Rim Road parkway." ror Trace No. E464: "Thae a 6-f~ot high, decorative, openworlc well shall be construceed ar the top of the sl~pe adjacent to Canyon Rim Raad on Lot Nos. 1 through 8, except that said wall may be reduce~3 in height to 42 i.nches in ttie frant partians of these lote. Plans for said wa11. sha.ll be submittetl to the Planning Cc~m-iesion or City Council for approval prior to appro~~al of the final tract inap. Re.~aeonable landsc~-ping. i.ncludiug irrigation facilitiea, f~ha11 be installea ~••i:hin the sl~pe aread o£ each lot ad,jacent to the roadway and in the uncemented portion of the arter.ial highway parkway the full diAtancc: ~f eaid wall. Plana for said landecaping sf+:l be aubmitted to and sub~ect to the approvnl ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S, CITY PLANNIN(: COMM1.35ION, Au~uet 19, 1974 74-404 ENVIRONMENxAi. I.MPACT RF.POKT N0. .110 AND TEN'PATIVr MAP OF TRACT NOS. 84G3~ 84GG, SqbS ~[tLVISl'.0 S i~Q.:~_9N.~ 84~ib Cai ~i~~uea~ ~.~___ ___.~..`.~_._._ - uf ttie Superincendi+nl uf parkway Mnl.ntenanct. Fotlowing instnlleti.on and acceptance. Che propurCy ownar(e) eli~ll. aenumo responeib•lli.ty for mainten~ncc of said lande~.aping to the lot linwe, end tl-e City ~~f Anahaim eh+xl]. aesume the re~ponaibltity for mnintenance af th~ ]nndecr~pinq 1n th~ Cnnyon Rim Road parkwuy." It wea noted ehat f;nvironmenta]. Impflct Raport No. 110 wae accepted by the plannin~; Commiesion ~~n Jan~enry L~~ 1974 end adopted (aa an addendum r_o ~'LR No. $0) by Che City Council on Fut~ruary 12~ ].974; and L•hat a reheari.ng wae held on tha eubiec~ tracC maps, Varlancc~ No. 256~ and EIR No. 110 on May 21, 1974 and the City Counc~.1 took no ft~rther action et that Cima. Commissioner Kinb offerad a motion~ a4:on<iad by Commiseioner Johneon and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tecitative Map of Tracr. No. 8463. sub~ect t.o the foll.owing conditiona: (1) Thut the approval of Teutative Map of Tract No. 8463 (Revirs~on 1) ie graiited sub~ecC to the uppro~~al of Variance No. '1569. (2) That should r.hie aubdiviaion be developed as more than one oubdivision~ each subdiviHion thereof sha7.1 be submitCed in ten~ative form for approval. (3) That all ].ote within tliis kract ehall be served by underg~'ound +atili.ties. (4) 'rhat e finel tract map of sub,ject property ehal.l be submitted to and approved by the Ci[y Cauncil and then be recorded in the office of th~ Orange County Recurder. (5) That ntreet names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim pri~r. to approval of a final tract roap. (6) That the owner(s) of aub~ect properky ahall pay to the City af Anulieim the appropziate Uark nnd recreation ln-lieu feea se determined to be a~prapriat~: b.y the City Counci.l, said fees to be paid at the t:lme the building permit is ieaued. (7) That druinage of said property ehall be diaposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. Tf. in the preparation of the site sufficient grading is required [o necessitate a grading permity no work on grading will be permiCted beCween October. 15t•ti and April 15th unless a11 r.equired ofi-site drai~-age facila.tiea have been i.natalled and are operative. Poaitive assurance ahall be rrovided the Gity that such drainage facilitiea will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for ~ff-site drainage facilities Fhall be dedicated to the City~ or the Ci.ty Council shall have. initiaCed condemnation proceedings therefor (the coata of which shall be bornP by ttie developex) pri ~ Co the comumencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities sha12 ba o.` n aiz~ and type sufficient to carr.y runoff waters originatit~g ~rom higt~er propertiea through 9a:.d propertp to ultimate aieroe3i se approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facil~ties aha11 be the firet item of coiistr~iction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the trac[ and from the downatream boundury of the propert~ to the ultimate point of disposal prior to ehe isauance of any final building in~pectiuns or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbu~~s~~-ent agre2ments may be mude available to Che developera of said property u~,~~,i their reqiisst. (8) That grading, er.cavation, and all ~ther construction activities ehall he con- diicted in such a manner so se to minimize the poasi.bility of any ei.J.t originaC- ing from this pro~ect being carried into the Santa Ma River by storm water orlginating fram or flowing throught this pro,ject. (9) ThaC fire hydtan~a ahall be in~talled and charged as required and determined to be neceosary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of seructura2 framing. (10) That a 6-foot high, decorative, openwark wa11 ahall be constructed aC the top of the slope ad~acent to Canyon Rim Road on Lot Nos. 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14, except that sald wall may be reduced in height to 42 inchea in the front port:lone of these lota. Plana far said wall aha11 be submitted to the Planning Co~nniasion ~ ~ ~ MINUTF.S, CLZY PLANNING GOtMiISSION, Aug~At 1~7~ 1y74 74-405 BNVIRONMENTAI. IMPA(:T ftEPORT N0. 110 AND TEN'PATIVE MAP OF TRACT NAS. 8463, 646k, 8465 .([ILVISIANS NO_~, AND 84fi6 (Cun~tinuad~ _____. ~_ _._.__._._.._..-_ -- ar City Councll for approval priur to nppr.oval of the fin~l tract map. Reason-• uble litndscaping, includinq irrigaCi~n facLli.ties~ ehall be inet~lled wikhin the slope a:eae of each lot ad~acent to ttie roadway nnd in Llie uncemented port:i~ne of the a:'ter.ta.l highway parkw~y the I:~il.l diatanco of ssid wnll. Plane fox said lan@acnping ehall be eubmitted to and eub,~ecC to the approval of the Supei'- intendent of Purkway Mai.ntenance. Following irit3tullation and acceptanc~:, the propert,y owrer(B) eliull aseume respon~ibi.lity for maintenance of said landHCap- tng to the lot li.nea~ and the City of Anaheim eliall asaume the r~eponsibilit~~ for maintenar;ce of the landac~ping tn the Canyon Rim Road paz•kway• Commiesi~ner. King ofEared a motion. aeconded by Commission^.r Johnson and MOTION CARRIEU. to appxove Tentative Flap of Tract No. II464, aubject. to the f~lluwing ronditiona: (1) That. the approvul of Tex~tutive '.usp of TrncC Nn. $464 (Revieion 1) is granted subject to Che apFrovc~l ot l~a~iance No. 2569. (2) That ahould thi.s subdiviglon be develnped ae more than one eubdlvision, ee.ch aubdivision thereof sh~lt be submitted in tentative ~orm for approval.. (3) That all l~t~, wi~liin Cl~is tract shall be serv~ed by undergro~~nd utili.t~es. (4) That a fir.al rract map oi~ su~,ject propetrty sliall be eubmitted to and approved by Che City Council 2.nd tlien be recordecl in the office of the Orange County Recor.der. (5) That atreet names shall be approved by the CiCv of Anahefm ~riur to spprova? of a f inal Crac~ iL1&p , (6) That tt,e owner(:~) of. subject properCy ahall pay to Che C!ty of Anaheim the appropriaCr park and recreatioi~ ia~lieu fees aa dat~rmined to be nppropriate ~y the City Council, said feea to be paid xt the time the ~iil.ding permit i~ ieaued. (7) That drainage of. said pruperty shall be diapoaed of i.n a munner satiafactory to Che City 3:ngineer. 'Lf, iit the pregaraCion of thc aite eufficient grading is re.quired eo necessitate a grading pt~rmit~ no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless a'l1 required off~site drainage facilities t~ave bsen inatalled and arE~ operal-ive. Positive assurance shall be provi~pd tre City that such drainage f~~cillties will be compleCed p=1or to October 15th. Necessary rigtiC-of-way f~~r off-aite drainage facilitiea ahsll be dedicated to the City, or th.e City Councll ahAll ha~re initiated condsmnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which ~3ha11 be bornF by the developer) prior to the commencement of gradiag operations. The required draiuage facllities sha11 be of a size and type eufficier~t to carry runaff watere originating from higher properties through eaid prcperty to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facil.ities ahall be the fi.rst it~m of construction and shall be completed and be functional thr~ughout the tract and fr~m Che downsCream boundary uf the property to the ultlmate point of disposal prior to the isauance of any f!.nal building in~pections nr occupancy permita. Drainage di~trict reimbursement agreements may be mride avt~ilable to Che developers of said property upon their request. (8) That grading~ excavation, and all. ather conetruction activitiea shall be con- ducted in such a manner so a~ to min.imi.zc~ the possibl.lity of any silt originat- ing from this project bEing cnrried into the Santa An~; River by atorm water origi.nating from or flowing tt~rougl~ tY~ia project. (9a That fire hydrants shall be installyd and charged as required and determincc; to be necessary by the Chief of the F3.:e D~part~ent prior tu commencement of str.uctural framing. (10) That a 6-foot t~igh, decorative, openwork walt shall be canatructQd at the top of the slope adjacenC to Canyon Rim Road on Lot Nos. 1 through R, except that said ~all may be reduced in height to 42 inches ii~ the front porti~~ris of these lots. Plans for said wall ehgll be aubmi..tted to the Pl.anning Commieai.or~ or City Council ~ I~ MINUTF~3, CITY P1.MNING COI~IISSION. Auguot .19, ].97b 74-406 ~NVIRONMLNTAL IMPA~:T RGPOIt'T N0. 110 AND TENTATIVF MAP Or T1tACT NOS. 8463, 8~-64, 8465 ~EVIS'IONS N0._ 1 AND 8~6 ConCinue~._ ._._ _- -- -- for approval pri.or to approval at tho final tract map. Reaaoot~b~.~: landscaping, including irrigation facilities, ehal.l be install.ed wi[hin the Sl~~p~ areaA nf each loC ad~ac~nt to the rot~dway and in tt~e uncemented parti~nr~ o: the utterial highwav parkway the full dietanc:a of. eaid wa1:L. Plana for eaid landecnping ehal~ ba submttted to and eub~~c:t to the approval of Che Supe:intendarit of ~arkw~y Maintenau~~, Fol.lowing inatallation and acceptanco, the property owner(s) ettial.l naeume reepon~ibi].iCy for m~intenance of eaid .lnndncapin~ to the lot lines, a~d the ~tty of AnRi~aim ehal.l ns~eume the reep~ isibility for maintenance of Lhe landPCnping in the~ Canyon Kim Rc,ad parkway. (11) That a second ttccesa to Cun,yon R'.im Rot+d t~hall be construcGed through Che prope~rty Qaater~ly oi subject tract concurrently wiCh the improvementa for aubjecL• tract. Thi.s street yhall be conatr.ucted in accordanc.e with the City oF Anaheim dtandarde for a Hiilside Collector. Comuiisair.~ner King of:ered n motion, seconded by Commiseioner Johneon nnd MOTT.ON GARRI~D, to apprave Tentati.ve Map of Tract No, 84bS, aub~e~~ to the forlowi.ng conditione: (1) Tt~at tl~e appruval of Tent ~tive Ma~.p uE Tract No. 8!~65 (~teviyion 1) is granted subject to the ~pproval cf Vari~nce No. 2569. (2) ThaC ehoutd thi~- subdivisi,un be deve'lotied as more Gfian one subdivieion, esch subdiviR:lon t;hereof shall be c~ubmltted in tentalive farm for ~pproval. (3) That all ].ots within thia tract aF~a~l be served b~ underground utilikiets. (4) That a fl.nal tract mup of aub~ect property ah~.ll be aubmitted to and approvgd by tiie City Council and then be recar~ied in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (5) That atreet names slnall be appruved by the CiCy of Maheim prior to approval of a final tract map. (6) ThaC the owner(s) o£ sub~ect properl:,y ahall pFsy to the City of Anuheim the appropr~ate park and recreat:ton in-lieu fees ae determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said Yees to be paid ak the: time the bui.lding permit is issned. (7) 'fhat drainage of saia pronerty shall be dlspoaed of in a maxzner satiafactory to the City ~ngineer. If, in the prepaiation of the site sufficient grading is required to r.eces~itate a grading perniit, no work on grading wi11 be permi.tted between OcCober 15th and April 15th unlese all required aff-aite drainage faci.lities have been installed and arE~. operative. Positive aesurance shall be provided the City that auch drainage facilieiea will be ccmpleted prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way :Eor off-site drainage facilities r~hall be dedicated to the City, or the City Counc'il shall have initiated condetnnation proceedinga therefor (the coata of whfch ahall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities eha11 be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from higher praperties through eaid propart~r to ultimate diaposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drxinage faalli.tieo ahall be the f.irst item of conetruction and shal]. be completed and be function,al throughout the tract and from the dowmetream buundary of fihe property t~~ the ultimate point of disposal prior fio the isauance of any iinaJ. buildtng inspections or occupancy permits. Drai.r~age diatrict reimbursement agreementa ma~~ be made availab].e to the developera of said property upon their request. ($) ihat grading, excavation, and all o~ther cunstruction r~ctivities aha11 be con- dueted in such a manner eo as to mi.nimize the possibility of any silt originat- ing from this pro~ect ~eing carrieci into the Santa Ma Riv~r by storm water oxiginating from or flowing through th~.a pro~ecC. (9) That fire hydranta shall be inatatleci and .:harged as required and determir.ed to ba necessary by Che Chief of the Fir~ Department prior to commencement ~f struc~ural fremir.g. (10) Tl~at the alignment of the ~torm drai~t wiChin the golf course shall be +~pp' ~ed by the City of Anatiel.m. Conatruction of aaid etorm drain ahall be acc~~mpl~.shed with nu interference with play nr~ the golf course. ~ ~ HI~NTFS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISST.ON~ AugusC 19, 1974 7G-kQ'/ [sNVIRUNciENTAL IMF'ACT IIEFORT N0. 1].0 AND TENTATIVL~ MAP OF 9'RACT N05. 8463, ~464~ 8465 RKVI~TONS I~,Q~ 1Z.M1D 8466 (Cnrit'lquod,~ _.,___,_ - - c;ommiseioncir Ki.ng off.er~d c~ motion~ eecondad by Cammiseionor Johno:-n and MOTION CAR(tIBD~ to tipprove T~n;.ntive Map of 'fract No. 8466~ Aubjoct to the f<till:~w7.ng c~r,,.ltiotte: (1) That thQ epprava'1 oF Tantntive Map oE TracC Na. 8466 1e granted eub,iect Co tho upproval. of Var.iance No. 2569. (2) That ehould thie ~ubdivi~.ion be dovelo,ed et~ mnre t!~~u one xubdivision, each e~ubdivislon th~re~f ehR11 br3 eubml.ttc~d in centative furm !or appruval~ (3) ''~hat aLl lota within thie tract shelt be aerved by undergr.ound utilities. (4) 'I'hc~t n flnal rract mnp of eut~Ject property ehall he HUUiYl~CC3C1 to and approved by the Ci.ly Council. end Chen be recorded in tl~e of.fice or the Orange Counly Recorder. (5) 'thf-r. etreet namea etiall be approved by the C'_ty of AnahEi~n prior to approval ot a f.inal tract tnap. (6) 'Phnt the owner(s) of sub~eck prc~perky ehall pay l:o tha City af Anaheim the apprupxiate p~rk and rer.reation in-lieu fees ae determined to be uppropriata hy he City Council, said fees to be pai.d at the time the building permiC is iaeued. (7} That drainage of eaid property shall be disposed of in a manner eatiefact.~ry to Che City Engineer. If~ in tho prepazatiun o~ the eite sufficient grading ie requi.red to ncceseirute a grading permit, no work an grading will lse perm•ltted between October 15th and April 15th unleas all req~sired aff-aite drainaga facilities hav~ been in9ta.lled and nre operat'~-e. Poaitive assurance shall be provlde~ the City that euch drafnage facilities will be compl.eted prior to Ocl•ob~u 15th. Necessary right-of-way ~or off-eite drainage facillties ehall be dedicated to the Cl.ty, or the City Council ehall have ~nitiated condemnaYion proceedir~gs thetefor (the c~sr_s of wiiich ahsl.l be borne by the developer) pri.or to the covnnenc~ment of grading operatior~s. The requixed drsinage facilitiea shall be of. a aize anu type eufficient to carry runoff aatera originati.ng from higher ?roperr_ies thruugh said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City E.igineer. 5aid dralnage facillties ehall be the firat iCem of constructton and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract uad from the downstream boundary uf the property to the ultimate point of diaposal prior to Che lssuance or any final btiilding inepections or ~ccupancy permita. Drainage district rei~ubureement agreementa may be made available to the developers ~,: sai.d propert~~ upon th9ir request. (8) That fice hydrants aha11 be ineta].ied end cli~rg~d as required and determined to be nece~sa.r.y by the C1-ief of the Fire Dep~rtment prior to comm2ncement of structural framing. (9) Thst grading, excava~i~n~ and a11 ot:hex' con3truction activities ahall be con- ducted in suct~ a mar:.er so se to mfnlmize Che posaibility cf any si.lt originat- ing from this pra~ect being carried into the 5anta Ana River by srorm water originating from or flo*.aing t.hrough thi~ pro~ect. ~ • MINUTBS~CITY P[.ANNING CCI~tISBION~ August 19, 19N~ 74-408 F.NVTRQNMLNTAL I.Mf'ACT - JOIiN U. LUSK fv SON~ P, U, Uox 21.40. Npwpoct Beach, ~~. 92663 REPOR'* N0, l32 (Ucvnloper); kIOPEN~ I1h;DLUNU & DARBY, iNC., 3030 Wo;~ Main Strast~ '~ ~~~~+ ~ Alhambra, Ca. 91001 (~ngineer.). 9ubie.ct properr.y, consieting of Z'CNTA1'iVL MAP OF npproxim~tely Fi7 aar.od havinq a frontagES of approxirontely :}7.09 TItt1C'1 NUS, 8418 faet on tt~e north eide of. Nohl Raneti Ra~d, haviug a maximum depCh NVU 8647 af ,~Pproxi.mnt~ly 1800 Peet ~ and baing lacated approximxKely 1810 ~~~~ ~ feet eabt ~f the centerline of Rolil. Kanc.h Rond, le propoaed for suhdiviei.on as Tollowes 'Truct No. $h18 - 40.6 ncres - 104 R-N-10~000 lote; and Trnct No. 8(i47 - 4F Acres - 97 R-H-10,000 lote. Approx.iaiately 13 pereone indicatel theix prnsanr.e i.n ~pp~sition tu oubject petit~on~ and it wae no~c~d tliat one letter t~nd been rAC~ived in opposition. Aseietant ZoninR Supervieor Annik.a San tnlahti read the 9taff Reporl tr~ tlie Planning Commiesion dured August 19, 1974. and said 5tnff Report ie referred to ag if set Lorth in £ull 1n th~ mLnutes. Tt was noted thnC revise~ tracC maps ha~ been submitted to Staff. on Auguat 15~ 1974y and Staff had not had ample time to t~naly z e end ~-r.apar.e an ndequate St~ff R~p~rt; and that, additionally, LhEre were aPVeral prob lems which had nut been re.solved, th~refore, SCaff wae recommending that this item be continued. Chalrman Herbat noted thAt due to the notur.e of the proposal, tne Co~mniseion wauld like tu i~:~~e input aC th s meel•ing with the undersxanding that the mc~tter wovld be continued eo that the in£ormation obt~ined could b e an aid ro the Planning Commisaior- in their ob~ective t•eview of the eite in the field. Mr. W111iam D. I.usk~ Frasident, John D. Luak & Son, nppc:ared bef.ore the Coiamieeian and atipu'lated tha~ he would agree to a c.ontinuance for r.onai~!~~rtion of the aub~ect tracta; tl~at t~e would t:-ke c~xception to par.agraph 14 on page 8-c of the Staff Report, eince the developer was Froposi.ng to conatruct sto;m draine and the indication that thE 1'~:l slopea would cause a continual maintenance p roblem was not a true statement; that care had been taken in the planting of the banks ir. their other developm~nts in the Peralta Hill~ are~ and that said banks would definirely b~ maintained by a mandatory homeowners as~•-~ciatlon. Mr. Brian Bittke, 372 Peralta H111s Prive, Preaident of the PPra]•ta Hi?.ls Homeownere Aesociation, appeared before the Commiasion in opposition to su'a~ect tracta and stated they had su~mitted a].etter in oppos i tion end chat an on-site inspection of the area aad the proposed site would be inval.uabl e because of the magnitucie of the propoaed develop- ment and 4ince the sub~ect developer had a development underway at the pre.aent time to the west of the sub~ect property; that the homeowners had had fine and meaningful coapera- tion with the Luak Compuny; that the homeowners understood that the developer was FrO=°~fit ing a tr.act o£ thia eize in order to maximize the utiliuation of the land and l-heir P with the marketability of larger tracle; that the homeowners felt Chere were alternittves ta the proposal and ttie proposal, a s presented, was unanimously opposed by the l-omeowners group; ~nd that lt was ~inderstood that development would occur but iC f>hould be mors reasonable and shoul.d not infringe on the exieting homeownera. t4r. Aittke conti..ued by r.eviewing the environment~l impact that would take place, being the change in th~ wind and airflow f or th~ properti.e~ below the banks, ttie reduced smount of s~nahine in the mc:nings and even ings, the frost poc{:etg thttt would be created and whtch would ~ffcct the avocado and orange groves on the neighboring properties, destruc- tion of the natural bexutys tt~at presently existed and which ^.uuld n~t be replaced wi[h the propoaed landscapin~, and there would be an infringer..n:. on the privacy af the dowtt- atream properCies and some of the pr opertiee would have 'i~eaks on three ~ides ~f them. He stated that when the Parall•a Hills r eaidenta purchased their ho+nea they did aot feel they were buying in a fiahbowl, however, their privacy woul~ ~~ gone if the pr~posed develop- ~ment was allowed to be constructed; that there was ~.oncern f~~r the eafety, which should be a major conaideration, for the down stream properti~ during heavy rains or if someone left their wxter turned on for a long pe riod of time, cr~ating slide conditiona. Mr. Bittke conclud ' by atating the homeownzr s would be happy to accompany the Planning Cammission on their ~n-site inspection of the subj ect area and site and asaiet in any way poseible. Mt. Roland i:r~eger~ 561 Peralta Hills Brive, appeared before the Covnnission in opposition to the propoaed tracts, and state3 heliad appreciated the courtesy of the Luak Company and perticulaxly the fuct that Mr. Dun Stephenaon ~~~~ keeping the homeowners i.n the area in- formed; ~-nd that hie remarka regard ing the sub~ect. pruposal were not a reflection on the • ~ ~ MINl1'YES~ Ct'fY PI.ANNINC COMMISSION~ A~aguet 19, 1974 7k-409 ENVIRONMENTAI, ~A '~r a~rORT NQ~,~2 AND TEN'TATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS,_ 8418 Arrn 8647 (Cont'd.) develo~,er'8 81ncQrity but wora ei.mply a differancs of opinion. He reviewed thc eubJoct area noting thaC the axi~sting rolling hille wou'ld ba r~placed by rathet ete~p banke and al~,~ noting iadividual properti~e at the perimetere of the sub~oct eiCe which woul.d be affected by the praposc~l. }la etnted th~t t.ne e~~blACt propoga]. was the firet devQl.opment to dirHCrly +~EEecC his own propcsrty; Cl~at moet of the barrarici~e thaC had of.fered protec- tion to the px'uperty ownare would be f l::~d in and thare would be rsteep banks which would infringo on thelr prlvacy; thal the ob,jactive h~ hud for me~ving inCo the eub~ect area wauld have bean wiped out if tt~e proposed devQ~.opment wae canatructed; Chat for some of the exietin~, propartiea~ Cltere would be soine horrendouA eituatinne developad wiCh the pro- po~al and such pru~ecte were whaC was ep~wni.ng tlie anvirnnmenCal impact movemenk; [hat by destroying the i~utural flura and fauna, r.he nntural snvironment would be changed which would dixectl.y nffect rhe ~9nwnetxeam develapment. M-~. Kruega,r made n elide pressntatiori tn preview xom~ of the exieting conditions cuused by rec~nt devalopment, development ~~u,~~~r conaCruction und r~~ ~e of the changes thut would take place w iCh respact ta tlie ~llmnte and temper~ture~ for ti~e exieting devel~pmenC if th~ proporsal were ap~roved. He furt}~~~r noted that ttie downetr.anm propertiea coul~l no"_ ascape the danger. of a s1t~1e wiCh th~ steep gr~.der~ sincc in many cuec~s s~id gradea would be within 40 t~ 50 fest of tl~e nr:,~erty ].ineR of the existing I~omea and Chie would be n real source of worry for the prop~rcy owners; that regrirdi.nq droinage, it wae quite Crue that a great der~l o+ ~.aatsr would be drained away througli the p.lpes~ how~ver, Aa it presently e[ood, th~ bnnks directly surrounding any property would contribute more water onto a propert,y ~han it px~aently was getting; that at preaent ma~t of ttie exieting homea were on a l~ill and th~ wuter drain~d inta Che U~rrar-r.ae; thnt l•he toe of the proposed bank~ would have no control and hlb own property would have considerably Nore wuter; hat the impact of some of the fac tors heing di~cussed cou].d probably be leasened thro~.gh good engineering and by tak.i.ng advantage of the natural ter- rain; and that it was not Coo late te reoolve i:he development problems in the Hill and Canyon area. 'Phereupon, rir. KruPder r.:ad City Council Policy No. 4506 regarding open spacE~. in rebuttal. Mr. Luak stnted that ~he presentations msde by Mr. Bittke and Mr. Ktueger were vet:y poaitive and they had spoken as individuals ancl about thtir. personal cor-c.erns, and the devel~per would l.ike tc wor.k with Choae reaidenta in the ^re,a to try to resolve the problema, as in the past; a~.d, thereupcn, Mr. Lusk requested a four-week r_onCinuance far conai3eration of aub~ect tract~ ~o Che September 1~, 19 74 Planni.ng ComQaission meeCing. Chairman Harbat noted that he was concerned regarding :.he 1,300,000 cubic yards of dirC that would be graded ar~d moved as part of the propoeal; tha t it was hie understr~nding ~hat the intent of the City Council and Planning Camm-ission was tc retuin som.e of the ~~~aion envir.onment in the aubject area sitd not complsCely change i t; thxt the PlanninQ would require further study with reapect to the environmen tal impacta of the pr~,~ct and especially to try to resolve Lhe situation so that the grading could be reduced. Mr. Luak referred to thei.r Marywood development in Orange and stated they wuuld li:~e to ahow Che Commission ~ome af the pluaes and minucses of ueing the natural hillside setting compared to natural grading. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry auggested that the developer review the new ~illside Grading Ordinanr.e 1.n relattonahip to the proposal. Mre. William Anderson, 212 Peralta Hills Drive, a~peared o efore the Commiss•lon. in uppoai- tion to subject trs~_ts and stated her property was situated 3lreatly belnw the develonment which tha Lusk Company was ~ust completing and ahe reques ted thae the Planning Commiasion field review begin in front of her property looking sc .:h and to end their review there for maximum evaluation. She atated that she wou2d try to find some pictures of the before and a~te:r aince atie would like the neighbors t.o benefit from tha aad happening that happaned to her property. The Planning Coauaiesion entered int~ diacussion with Mr. Luek regarding a con'tinuance date~ following which Commisei.oner Johnson offered a motion, asconded by Commiasioner Morley and MOTIOt1 CARRIID (Com~iasioner Farann being a~~aen t), to contlnue conalderation of Envi.ronmental Impact Report Na. 132 and ~entarive Map of 'Tract Nus. 8418 and 8647 t~ the meeting of September 30~ 1974. ~ ~ MI.NUTES, C1TY PLANNING C0r9~tISSTON, Auguac 19, 1974 7~-410 AMENDMA.NT TO TITi.N L8, - INT.TIATBP BY THF. ANAHEI:M CITY PLANNT.NG GOI~R4ISSTON, 204 Eaet ANAHEIM MUNICIPAI. CODE Lincoln Avenua, Anahoim~ Ca. 92805; to cnneide~r r~mendmente to tha ~ Maheim Municipal Coda partaS.ning to def iniCione af , and l.ocati.on r~~yiiir~m~+nt~ Ear, Plannad Rc~eldenti8l DevelopmQnce (PItD'e). t'].anning 3uparvieor pon McDnniel read the StnfE l~~i~orr. to the Planning Commiosion dnted AuIIuet 19~ 1974, and eaid Senff Report ia referred to as if ont forth in fu11 in th~, iai.nutes. Ho noCc~d t}iat tl~e City Attorney's Offic:e wae r~commending their prefe~recice thnl R.P.U.D.'e be phrmlkted uecse in the R-2 and R-~3 Zonee. oubject to a11 regulattona and rcatrlctione oF thP RM-4000 2onc-~ and nor. to be permikted by can~iitional ue~ permit. There being no oppoeitiur~ to the subject Code Aiuondment, TI~E I'lIB'.IC kiEARINC WAS CT.OSI:D. Chnirman Herbst noted that he would like to seP the Planning Commisaion go forward on Che baais ~f. permitting R.P.U.D.' a by right ruther than by C,L~,P. with thc~ requeat that the Commiesion have liie opportunity Co rev~.ew the naw procedura to see. if it wae w~rking; Chat~ i.n hi~ oplnion, thie would reduce the number of public h~nringe before the Cammis- s~ion, unleas th~ ftM-4000 wae too z.;-trictive and varisnces reeuited. Thereup~n, Mr. Mc~aniel noted that the pr~~poeals could Ue submi.tted to the Planning Commiesion under the "Reporte and Racoaunendations" section uE thei.r asenda if Che Commis- sion desired to review the pro~ecta; however, the infl.uence of th~ f,ommiaeion uncler thie procedure would be limited eince it would eimPly be a review, unleae the ordinance was amended ngain; and that the Comm-laeion would not have the opportuniCy to revise nny of the plans beicig raviewed in rli~.s manner. 2oning Supervieor Charles Roberta nAted for Che Commiseion thuC it was ~nmetimes difficult to r.egain a procedure once it was given up; that there nppeared Co be some concern that if thc: new RM-4000 7,one was not effecCi.~e, the Commi~seion would want to retain somF~ hind of review powera for the Ci.me being. He offered a suggeation Chat pertiaps l•he Comniaeton would want to require a C.U.P. for a period of ti.me to have eufficient time to a`e ~!f ttie new zone wan effective and r_hen the Cummiadion could give up the C,U.P. requirement at that time. DepuCy City ACtorney Frank Lowry conc~trred in Mr. Roberte' suggestion to the Coamnission. Aasiatant Cavelopment Services Director Ronald Thompaon noted for the Commiasion thi~t an;, new projects requcating RM-4000 zoning would be ~reviewEd by thc Commiasion; tha~ there were very few projects in trie City that would neet th~ RM-4000 standarda and the Ccrnantsaion could therefore ant~icipate very few converslnns of existing apartments; that the conve:.atu•,.~ would have such a drastic effecl because or the parking, open space, etc.y that those exieting unito would probably have to be removed or the developer would have to req~esL• a variRnca; that aince there was no property zoned RM-4000 aC the present tim~, the (:~mmi4eion would have an ~pportunity ta review plans, if past practices were followed and, thecef. :e, the Commission would not be gaining anythin$ by retainin• ti~c ~.U.Y. praceas; and that permit~ing the R.P.U.U. by right would cut down on red t,.~, ir~ his opinion, Chairroan HerbAt reiterated that he wouJ.d 'J lke to `. ~ ~tile to revi.:w thce pro~ecte until. he was eure thaC the new ordinance ~:~:.d e: ~~~t!ve, and Mr. Thompson tti~n noted that the CoL~m9.sei.on would be able to moni tor th~ ..•onveraion ~ thrott~h the procedure recummended by Mr . McD~aniel. tn response to queationi;~g by (:ommisaione~~• Morley, (:`~:~irman HerbsC noted that, in his opinion, under [he C.U.P, the Commiasion woLld [~3've some control and laCer on the proceclure could be changed if things were going properly. Mr. Roberts clarif ied for the Commisaion that hia ear.lier at~tements witii respect to the sub~ect matter were not meanC to be contradictive or a circumvention of Mr. McDaniel's reco~mend.~tion, but that he was pro~ecting aome ideas which the Commisaion cou].d consider as poasi.bilities, Mr. McDaniel explained Chat the purpose of the new RM-40U0 Zone wae to pxeclude the neces- sity for P.U.A.'s caming to the Flanning Commiaeion routinely, therefore, lightening the laad of that body; however, he was not opposed to retaining the C.U.P. pro~~dure for awhile to see if the ordinance wns functionfng, if that waa th~: desire of the Commisal.on. ~ ~ ~ MTNUTB9. f:'[TY I'LANiJINC CQMMISSION, Augu~C 19, 1974 74-417. AMRN!)MENT TO TITLE 18 - PLANNED ItES1DENTIAI. DEVEt.OP11LN'fS (Continued) Mr. T!iompeai~ nuted Eor tha Comcnir~aion Chat a devalop~r r~queating a C.U.P. might feol tt~eC he mi.ght nR well. reqi.~eal• a faw waiyace, whnreae otharwieP n devcsloper would havQ t:o request a varienca. '1'hereupon~ Commlesi.onar 'folar atated that tho propoend :.ode Am~ndment, as recomm~i-ded by StnPf~ appoared to be adanuately t ied down and that the (;ommiedion shauld tecommand i.ts adoption t~ the Ciky Counci.l~ incZuding xhat R.P.U.D.'e be n permitted uee in the R-?. nnd R-3 Dletricte. Conauiseioner Tular a£fered Reoolut i~n No. PC74-179 and raoved for ita paHS~ge and adoption to adopt and recommend to the Cl:y Council adoption of gmendmenCe to Anah~alm Municipa~ Code, Til•le 18, Zani.ng, partaining to Residential Plnnn~sd Unit llevelopmants~ and that the Plunning Commi.Haion recommendo ~h$t CiCy ~ouncil Resolution No. 64R-861~ perCaining to ~ritc~ria f.or the developmanl• of P lanned Residential Developments, be repealed aince more contempernry proviraons for tt-e development of same are contained in the tiewly-•adopted RM-40U0 Zone, aaid amPndmenCa b~ing ae f.ollaws: (SeF R~solution Book) 1. ThaC the exi.c~tl.ng defin ~tlon of "P1Anned P.asi3antial Development" (Section 18. 08. 605) be deleted f rom the Zoning Code in its entiret,y ~nd a new general definiti.on for Planned Unit Devel.opments ~P.U.D.'s), applying to not only reeident.ial, buC cammercial and industrial P.U.D.'s aA well, be added to Chapter 18.08 (D~.finitions) as follows: "18.08.605 "Planned Lisiit Development (P.U.D.)": A iarge acule devE~lopment of. a parcel or of a combi.nation of related par~cels to be developad by a ei.ngle owner or group of owners acting ~ointly, in:vol.ving a related group of uses. planned as un entiCy and having a pr.edominant develop:aental feature which serves to unify ~r organize development and is~ therefore, ausceptible ro development and regulati.on as one unified land unit rather Chan as a mere aggregation of indi.vidital. buildinga and structures located on separate lots~ In the cAae of Residentiai Planned llnit Developments (R.P.U.D.'s), such def initi~n ehall include cluster subdivieions, town- housea, rowhouses, cond ominiume, communit,y aparCments, stock cooperatives ~nd a1Z large ocale developmente of attached or aerai-ar.r.ached one-family dwelli~ngs. " 2, Tha~ Section 18.04.162 "Conver.aion of Existinq Structures" (condomfniums and community apartmente) be amended to read as follows: "18.04.162 Converaion af Exiating Structures. Any pPrson, t-1rm, part- nership, corporution, aesoc.iation or other entity propoaing to convert an existing multiple-fami ly structure to a condominium or community apartment shall firat apply for and obtain Erom the Zoning Diviaion of the 'Develop- ment Services Departme~t a Condominium Conversion Permit. Sucti permit shall be iseued only a fter it has been deter.mined that the existing atructure conforme to the site development standards for R.P.U.D.'s as provided in Chapter. 18.31 (RM-4000 Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, except as may otherwi s e be permltted by variance in accnrdance with the procedurea and finding ~ as prescribed ~herefor, and in compliance with the Uniform Building Code, aa adopted by che City of. Anahei.m." 3. That Chapter 18~64 (Conditional Uses) be amended by deleCing Su~section 18. 64 . 020 (1) (e) perta i.ning to Plar:ned Residenti.al Developmenta. "(e) Planned Residen L-ial Devel.opments subject to the proviaions of thp resolution governing planned reaidential developments adopted b3 the City Council." 4. That the following s ectiona ef the Code be amenc~ed to replace the existing provislons pertainirr.g to Planned Residential Devel.opments in all auch sections with Che pr~visions noted below: 18.13.020.C.3 Condi t iorial Use (pertaining ta R-H-10,000 Zone) 18.18.025(1) Conc's~ •~,~nal Uae (gertsining to R-E Zotte) 18.2fl.015(1) Conc~::' ~~:nal Use (pertaining to R-0 Zone) 18.24.015(1) Cond~ t~i.onai Use ~pertaining to R-1 Zone) 18.26.040(1) ~ondi t ional Use (~ertaining to RS-5000 Zoae) ~ ~ M[NUTGS, C?TY PLANNING COt1MIS3IUN. Auguet 19, 1974 74-G12 AM$NDM~NT TO ;~I7'l,.F. 19 - P1,ANN~U 1t~~f.D~ TI DEV I~AP`MI~T_S (Cor~tinued) "Residantial Planned Unit Qevelopmenrs (R F.U.D.'s) aub~ect to t.he aita devolopmant standarde ~f Chaptrr ] A. 31 1tM-4000 Zond, except3.iig tlii+t dwelling unit daneit~les ehell nat ~>xcc,ea Che limitatione preecxibed in tliia zona.'' 5. That thQ provieionx in Loth Multipls-Fnmily Reaidential (M.F.R.) Zone Dietricta ba amanded to provide far. khe locnti0n of R.P.l1.D.'s. The appropriar.e amendments to peL7nit Ft.P.U.D.'e ad a petcmi*_ted uKe ~n both th~ R-2 and R-3 Uiatricte being ae fullowa: (a) lUnend Sectiun 18.28.02011) (Parmitt~d BuildingN~ Structures anci lJeea) to delete the uuderec.ored por.tion of said saction partaining ta P.K.D.'s ae follow~: "(1) Sub;yect to thg provisiona of thie zone~ the following build- inge~ atructure~ and uees, clther eingly or in cowbination, ara per.mitted; Erovl3ed that where three or mora main build- ings for rQeidential uae are located on a buildin~ Aite, Ghc proviaione of the resolution qoverning planned Residential ilnvalnnmwnta_ AdoUted bV ~.110 C~CY C.OUl1C~.~~ _8t18~.1 8pply. said section r.o then read as follows: "Sub~ect to the provisions of this aone, tha following build- ings~ structures end uaea, either Aingly or in combinaCion, ar~ per.mitted:" (b) Add a new subsection to Section 18.28.~20(1), as followa: "(e} Reai.dentia]. Planned Unit Developments (R.P.U.D.'s), subject to all restrictions and regu7.atione of Chapter 18.31 1tM-G000 Zone." (c) Amend Section 18.28.040 (Conditional Uaea), by deleting the follow3ng aubaection: "(1) Planned residenCial developrnent~ aub~ect to the pxovisions of the resolution governing planned reside.~tial developments adopted by the City Council." On roll call, the foregoing resoZution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COM' '>';I.ONERS: GAUER, JQHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOE~: COi~4N,....:~Qi7EItS: NONE ABSEN'~: COl~II~1.LtiSIONERS: FARANO CODQ1iSSI0NER JOHNSON LEFT THE COU~IGIL CHAMBER AT 5:45 P.M. GENERAL }?'..!-.N :~MF•NDMENT IN?TIATED BY 'PHE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COI~IISSInt~, 204 Z;asC N0. 133 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; to coneider the adoption ~ of the Noise Element of the Anaheim GeneraL Plan purauant to California Code Section 65302(g). Mr. Jim iJebb, represent~ing the City-~~unty Gdvernment Committee of ~::: Anaheim Chamber of Com:nerce, appeared befote Y.he Comn~~ .~n to advise that his .:ommittee would be reprer~ented at the Planni.n~ Commission meeting~ c.u provide effective input an auch msCtere as General Plan Amendments~ etc.; and that regarding General Plan Ame~.~dment No. 133, he was plaased and proud to atate that the buainess cowanunity had found r'% ~roblema with it. Ghairman Herbet acknowledged rir. Tdebb's presence and atnted the Planning Commission needed and appreciated input from the Chrimber of Commerce and the ccmmunity. ~ ~ DILNUTL~S~ CITY PLMII~TNG CUMMISSION~ Auc~uat 19, 1974 GENkML i?I.AN RIMENDDIENT NU. 133 (Contlnued) 74-41.3 Aesietant Planner Rob~r.l: Kallay prasented the proposed t~oise ~lement of the Anaheim Genexal 1'lnn and notQd tt~at n~ide. lev~l ~ontoure for rt~ilroeda were not av'ailable for incluelon ln aald Blement eince the rnilroad companids hnd failod to furnieh the contoure ae royuired by the GovernmenC Code, and that matter I~ad been raferred to lho SL•ate Attorney Genernl for resolution; nnd th~t tlie S~nta of Callfornia l~nd provided l.arge-ecele mape indicati.ng tho noise cuntours asaocialed wfth freeways, and ea.id mape w~re on displc~y in t;i~~ Council Chamber for viewing. ThPre bei~g no one preeent in oppoaition to the propoeed Goneral Plati- Amendment, THF, PUSi,IC FiEARING WAS CLOSED. Cauowiesioner King o~fered a motiou, aecondad by Commiasioner Morley and MOTION CARRIEll (Commissionere Farano nnd Johnson b~ing abe-~nt), Ct~at the Maheim C:tty Planning Commiaeion recoa~ends to the City Council Chaz the sub~eat document be exempt from the requiremen[ to prepnre an Environmental ImpacC Report purauant tu the provisione of the California 8nviconmental Quc~lity Act. Commise~oner King offered Resolution No. PC74-180 and m~~ed for i.te paesuge and adoption to adopt and recommend to the: City Council adoption of Anaheim General Plan Amendment No. 133 ae tlie tJoiae Elament of tt~e Anaheim Gener.r~l Plan~ in acc,ordance with Exhibit "A". (See IteEOlution Book) On roll cnll~ lhe foregoin~ reaolution was paeaed by the following vute: AY~S: COMMISSIONEFS; GAUER. NOES: COhII~tI•iSIONERS: NONE ABS~,NT: COt~4tISSIQNF.RS: FARANO~ KING, MORL,EY, TOLAR, HER9~T JUI~NSON COMMISSIONER JOE~VSON RE-ENTEItED THE COUNCIL C}WMBER AT S:SO P.M. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEIvT -INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COhII~tISSION, 204 East N0. 134 Lic-coln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; to conaider th~ arloption o£ the Scenic Highways ~lement of the Anaheim General Plsn pureuant to California Code Section 65302(h). Plan~~ing Supervisor pon McDaniel presex~Ced General Plan Amendment No. 134 Scen3c ifignways ElemEmt and noted that said Element provided tha basis for the preparation of apeci.fic Scen~ic Corr.idor plans and, although said Element wae not a Scenic Corridor study, iC would provide for auch sruui;.a ~~;~ rhe City of Anaheim; that the City's adopted Scenic Cosridoi Overlay Zone had b~~en consiue:ed in the proposed Llement relative to any future corri.dore; and that various im~.lementatic~>> techniques, ae weJ.l as the City's ob~ectivea and policiea on scenic routea, wer~: listed as guides for any f.uture acenic route conaideration. 'Phere being no o.~e ~resent in oppogition to the proposed Ger~eral Plan l+mendment, TH1: PUBLIC HEARING tvAS CLOSED. Commiaaioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Comanisaioner King and MOTION CARR.IEb (Commiasioner FarEno being absent), that tt~e Pl~nnin.g Connuiaaion recommends to the Ci~ty Conncil that the sub~ect document be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Envlron- menkal Impact Report pursuant to the oroviaiono of the California ~nvironmen*.al Quali.ty Act. Commisaioner Murley offered Resolution No. P(:74-191 and moved for its passage ai~d adoption to adopt and recommend to the City .:ouncil adoption of AnahQim Geaeral Plan Ame.ndment NQ. 13G as tl:: Scenic Highways Element of the Meheim General Plan, in accordance with Fxhib~it "A". (See Resolution Bookj On ro11 call, thE foregoing rQSOlution ~ras passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: C~AIIrlISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSION~RS: FARANO ~ ~ i11NUTT:5, l;I'tY P1.ANNIVG COMMI5S7l?N, At-quel 1.9, 1974 74-414 It~QUF~f FOR f"sIlt NF.GAT'[VG GECGAItATION FOk CONSTRUCTION OF STORPt llRA7N ON LIAA L~ANB AND ORANCF._W~~U AVI:I~IUi~~______r~,~~ _,._ IL wnc~ nUted thut tha Rngi.nearing Di.vieion wnh pxopoHin~, to cunetruct a,torm drain on i~icia~ Lacie i-iid on c)rangewood Avenue, b~tween Lidn Lane and Euclid SCreet, in order ta improve ~itainage in the area; tha[ the propo~ed work would be done wichin the ex.leting p~ixkwe~y ,area; nnd Chat thcara woulct be no adver.ae environmenr.al impaat, other than the tnmporery inconvunlf:».e cauesd by conet~ructlon actlvity. (:om,.-~i~ei.oner King ofE~ r•ed a motioii, eecon~led by f:ommieeioner Morley nnd MOTiON CARRIBD (Coimnt~:~ioncr Fttrano b~~ing abs~~nt), ~hat lhe Planning Cvwmiesion tecommendx to tha City Council. '.hat the Aubje<<~ pr.aJe:t be exompt frum the requirement to prepare an Environ- menCr~l Lm~c+ct Iteport T~~~zeur~nl to the proviaionr~ of the CaliEornia Environwental <Zunlity Acr. RG llEST rOR islR NRCATTV^DECLARATION FOR INSTALLr1TTON OF SF.1vER ON VIA DURTON Tt ws~a n~ated tt c tht~ f:ngineer.i.ng Di.vi.eion was propoeing to install A s~ewer on Vin Burton f.rom Dur~on Pl.ace to 259 te~t caeC c~f I~ur.ton P1ace; that said sewer wae required to provide si~r.vice to u new industxial development; and [hat there would be nu adverse environmental impr~ct other thi~n temp~raxy inconveniences during the install.ation. (.;ommissianer Jofmaon ufierE~d u motlon, aeconded Uy Commiasioner King and MOTION CARRIF.D (Comoniec-ione~ Fc~rn~c~ be:t~i~ ~bsenC), thut the Pla~ning Cotmniesion recommends to the City Cauncil. ttiat L._~: Hub~ci:c pro,jecC he sxempt £~~,° the requirement tu prepare an k.nvironmental xmpact Report pur.suant tu thE~ provisions of th~: Cul~lfornia l:nvir.onmental Qual.ity Act. RLPORTS AND - ITEM NQ. 1 RGCONt4ENDA'lIONa CONUITIUNAL IiSE PF.RMIT NOS. 1311 AND 1329 - Request to amend hours ~~~~~~~~ ~ c~f operati.on - ProperCy locaCed at the eouthweat corner of T~incoln Avenue und State Co17.ege Boulevard and further deacribed as 201 South StAr,e Cullege Boulevard, zoned C-1 and C-3 and develoFed with a carwash and auComobile service etation. Alrhough Che Staff Report to the ?lanning Commiasion dated Auguat 19, 1974, was not re~.d at the meeting~ it is :eferred to and made a part of thP minutes. Mr. J~ff Ho]lauc; represenCi.ng Shell 011 Co:apany, 1136 North Brookhur~t, Maheim, appeared befor~~ tbe Planni.ng Cammiaeion and indicated that the uae of the s~lb~ect property was appr.oved i.n June, 1972 with reatricted houro of operation; that construction of th~ car- war~ll and service stcetion were comple~ed approximate.ly one year ago and for the past yeax tliey had had no compl~inCs whatsoever un the type of operaCion at r.his location; that anproximatety four mouths ago Chey made a random aurvey iti tYie neighborhaod behind the sub;ject praperty, said survey being to dete~'mine i.f the reAidenta had any recommendatton toc improvi.ng the ~~peratinn; that there were no reGODUnendattons with respect to improve- ment, however, there were aome Eavorable commien'te as far as improvement ot~er ehe previoua Eacility at this locati.on; that comparing tt~P sub~ect operation to others in the area, th~ naise level wa~ much lower; ttiat the au~iect operation was professional; that since tt~e open3ng th~y had received many inqt~iries Ard suggestiona <11ong the lines of extended huure of operation, to remain op~n later for the carwash and open earlier for dispensing gae, Ptc., gnd those inyuiries had prompted the survey. Chairman lierbst noted that the Commi.ssi~n w~:s concerned about the people in the area and i.t was c:onct~.ivable that thsre would be aome complainte later on, if the extended houra wPre appro~~ed. Cc~uuu1681on.^.?' King noted that Comaisaioner Morley gnd he had viewed the sub,~ ect facility in t]~e field; th+at the Cit~ had no c~mplaints on recozd concerning the subject facility; that tt~~y had atood i.n ct~e alley to listen to the noiae from the carwash, snd eaid naise was about equal to a car passing hy; and chat the fac111ty wae cerCainl,y i.nsulated, an 'the west side, from t}~e reeiaential tract. Chairman Herbsc thr~n noted that at the public hearing the houce of operation were agreed upon b,y bo.*.h the peCitioner and the rettidenta in 1:he area, and thet some contr~~l of the hoiirs should be retained by the Commi~teion in the rasiuenta' behalf. He auggested that the extended hours be approved for a period of aiy montha ~o aee if there were any com- plai.nta from the neighbort-ood~ aince the property ac.mera wanted ro be sure tliey had the protection c~itti respect to the operAting hours. ~ ~ • MINUTI's5, CiTY PLANNINC CUMMIS3ION. AugueC 19, 1974 I1~M NU. (ConCinued) 7G-415 Commiaeioner Morlny affered Raeolutior~ No. PC74-182 and awved P.or ite paesagra and adoption to amend Condition Nu. 11 as coiil:ainod ln RQ$olutian Nos. YC72-124 and PC72~-180 approving Condltional Usc~ T'ermit Nos. 1311 and 1329. reepectivPly, to road ae follows: "(11.) That r.he hours of operation af the ~arwaeh ghall be limited from 7:00 a.m, Co 9:OQ p.m. provided, however, that if the decibel reading exceede the level acceptnble to tho residanCe in the areu, Che cloeing h~ur ehall Le 6:30 p.m.; Chat the hour.s of oporation of the e~qr.vice sCation ehall be from fi:00 n.m. to 12:00 midnight; nnd that eaid oparations ahnll be reviewed at the end of eix (6) monthe t~ determine whether ehere are any detrimenral effocre to ad~acent reeidential usea and to further determine if the houXS of aperation ehall be nmended; provided. however, if there are no compleints and no avidence thar. the aubject uee ie not compatible with the ad~acent reaidentinl uaee, ~iien thc Develapment 5ervlces Department ehul.l adeainieCratively approve the coritinuance of the operation Eor Che houre set fortli in thia ~undiCion." On ro11 cell~ the £oregoing reaolut'on was paseAd by the following vote: AYSS: COI~IISSTONERS: GAUGR, JOtiNSON, KING, MORLEY~ TOLAEt, HERBST NOFS: COI~IISSIONERS; NONE ABSENT: COl~tISSIONERS: FARANO ITEM t10. 2 CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1414 Requeat far extenaion af time Property coneisting of approxianate~y 18 acrer~ having a frontage of upproximately 90 feet on the east s•ide of Lemon Street, having 1 maximum depth of approximately 1300 feeC und being located approxi- mately 900 feut south ~f the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue (Anaheim Drive-In Theater). It was ~.~oted that Condieional Use Permit No. 1~~14 wae gxanted by the Planning Commission on Augu~t 20~ 1973, approving expanoi.on of an existing drive-in theater with waiver of the requirpd encloeure of. outdoor uses; that approval wae gr.anCed sub~ect to compliance with certain conditions within a one~year i~eriod of time; and that the petitioner was rec~uesting b one-year tlme extenaion in order to redesign the pronerty into either a twin thearer, as originally propoaed, or a trlple theater. In reaponse to questioni.ng by Commisaloner King, 'Loning Supervieor Charles Roberts noted that Staff coul.d only asaume that the petitioner waa unable to proceed with the proposed development sy quickly As originally projected; and although none of the conditions o£ approvax had been met, an extension of time could be grant~d to do so. Commissioner King offered s motion, seconded by C.ommissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED (Commis~ioner Faranu being ahaent), that a one-year extenalc~n of time be and hereby is grunted for Conditional Uas Permlt No. 1414, as requeated by th.e petiY.ioner, said exten- eian of kime tn expire Auguet 20, 1975. ITEM N0. 3 VARIAN~E N0. 2592 - Requeat for clarification - Property con~isting of approximately 4 acres and located eouChwesterly of the inter- ae~tion of Ba21 Rcud and Magnotia Avenue. It was uoted that Variance No. ?.592 was 8~'anted by the Plsnning Comruiasion on April 29, 1974, i;~ con~unction with Reclaegification N~. 73-74-51, said variar.ce being waiver of the requirement that carports be enclosed on three sides, etc.; and that the. petitioner was now requesting clarification o£ that waiver in order to conseruct a 24-apace carport without a zear wall and located adjacent to an 8-foot high ~sonry wall exiating on property ko the east, Zoning Supervisor. Charles Roberte noted for Che Commission that the architect for Che project was proceeding with the coneCruction plans and found that there waa an existing 8- foot high masonry wa11 along tha west boundary of the utility substation which wa~: located to the easx of subject property; that thev were propoain~ that said carpart would have no rear wall; tl~bt the Building Code require~ that the roof of said carport be located no cloaer than 3 feet frotn the property J.ine; and that aince the existing masonry wall was located appr~ximately 8 inches easterly of the subject property li.ne, there would be a 2-foot., 8-inch dietance between the masonry wall and the carport roof. ~ ~ t1T.NUTES~ CITY PI.ANt~ING G~tM1ISSI0N~ AuguaC 19, 1974 74-G16 I'fEM N0. 3 (Conhinuad) Diacuseiun pureued cn~icerning thc dietance between thQ wa11 and the prapoAp.d coaf, during which Mr, Ruberte pointcd out theC unleae there was a dietanr.e of 3 fcet, tha carpark roof would have to be conetrucCed of fire-resietant matprinl. In re~p~nee to q~iesti.oning by Chairman Herbet, Aseistent Zoning Suporvieur Mnika Santalahti noted that the 3-foot dietance rsquirement wo~al.d nec~seitate a minar udjuetment to the proposed plon. Chnirmon Kerbet n~ted Chat if Che petiCioner conetructad his own fira wa11~ the pxopoead structure could be right to the pr~perty line, oth~rwise, hR would have ro be Lack 3 feet. He furCher nuted thnt there would be whec~l etope next to the wa1~. Mr. Gared Smith. architect for Che t~ecl.tioner~ appeared before the Planning Cocami.asion and stated the existing wnil wae approximately 8 inches onto the Ci[y property to the easC, and i.f an additional wall wes conetructed, :1t would leavE a void and creAte n hazard f.or trash~ animnle and perhaps even children. Mr. Roberts furthe.r noCed th$C the requi•red atotage wiCl~in tha carportR would he~ve to be loc:ated elsewhare. Coatmiesioner Mor.l~y of£ered a motloxi~ secondad by Conuatssiotter. Tolar and MOTION CARRIED (Comneiaeioner Faruno being abeent), that the requeac to const-ruct a carport with no rear wall, and located ad~acent to an 8-foot high uiaeonry wal.l exieting on groperty to the eaet~ is in conformanae witt~ t:tie Planning Commisaion'e original approval of Variance Nc. 2592~ inaemuch as Che atructure would be located a diatsnce from the property line in conformance wi[h the Building Code, and the required storage within the carports would be re tr..ar ed . ITEM N0. 4 CpNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N~. 922 - Revised pl~sna in r~ubstuntial confurmance - Property conaisting of approximatety 15.41 acrea~ having a frontage of ap~,roximately 634 feet on thP sauth aide of La Palma Avenue, having a maxlmum depth of approximately 1006 feet, and being locsted apprflximately 555 feet west of the centerline of Onandaga Avenne, and developed with a private high school. It was noted that Condltional Use Permit No. 922 wss granted by the Plannin~ Commission on March 9, 1967, Co permit the construction of r~ new gymnasium buildi.ng and remodeli.ng ~f the ahower and locker room facility; and that on September 5, 1973, the Commiesion npproved reviaed plans for the construction of a 440-yard circular track around a football field with Iights, relocating the foatbal.l field and a future pool, and the aecond move-on of a quonaet hut for storage of athZatic equipment; thaC the petitioner was aubmitting reviaed plans at thia time indicating a proposal to construct a cwo-story strticture to be located between the propoaed pool si~d approximately 47 feet from the existing gymnasium; that the prop~sed two-st~ry atructure, cansisCing o£ appr~~ximately 4000 square feet, would contain locke:s, t~ilets, storage, office and mechanical equipment on the firat floor and mainly office and atorege apace on the second floor; that the architect indicated the building would bs approxima~ely 30 x 90 feet in ai.ze, contained covered outdoor corridors at the firsC and second flour levels along the south side of the building, and be approximately 24 feeC high; aud that there would be no reduction from the exieting 255 parking epaces. Chairman HerbAt noted that he could see no problema with respect to parking. Commissioner. King affered a motion, seconded by Commis»ioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano being abaent), to approve the revi.aed plane as being in substantial conformance with the Pl~nning Commisaion's or.iginal approvr~l of Conditional Uae Permit No. 922. ~ i MINIiTE.`',~ CITY P1.ANNING COI~IIS,~,ION, Aug~~et 19, 1974 ~~~''417 RE~'ORT5 AND - TTL~M N0. 5 RECOMMEI3DATInN~ RI:QUCST FOR aUILDING EXPAN3IQN - PACIFIC TELEPHONE CONIPANY 2oning Supervieor Charlae Roberts raviswad the memorandum from the (:o~aunity RedavQl~pment Commi.seion (CRC) relative eo hhe eub,~ect requ~et, end furch~r noted that~ in eccordonce with the precedures adopted in the RedevelopmenC Plnn~ ehP plane for thc~ eub~eci: building e;tpansion were requitad to be roviewad by the Plsnni.ng Commioaion prior to review by Che Redavelopment Agency for u determ~nation wt~ether the pro~ect cauld pcocc~ed; Chat the Pucific Te]ephone~ Company wae propaeing to congtruct an addikion on th~ n~rth eidp of their exieting atructurc~; that eaid propoaQd Additlon was primarily one-etory wic.ti a aecond atury at the eaet end which woul.d bo devot~d to of£ice HpACO~ tl~at Staff underetood t}ier the f.ounJatione and baef.c conetruction uf the onc~-etory portion would nccommodute an addiCi.onal nine etories at eome future d~te and Cha apPlicant's plar-e were ttiat the etructure might uventually becomo u ten-atory townr; that the CRC hud reviowsd tho plane and recommended approval of the proposed expansion~ with the reques~C that any furthar modifications or additians to the etructure nhould be aubtni.tted Co the CRC for roview and conformttnce to the setbac:k and l~ndycapi.ng requi.rements of the Redevelopment P1an; that alkhough Che CRC was not oppoaed to the addiCiort~ ther~ wsa same cuncein expt'eeaed regard- ing the landacaping and aesthatice of tho pro~ect, however~ the ma;joris.y af the CRC Commiesionere Eelt i.t would be appropriate t~ allow Che appllcunt to proceed; thac during the CRC revlew, the appllcant t~ad indicated rhe eubmitted plane :i.nadvertently omttCed a l0~foot high block wAll; thaz said wall preaenCly exist.ed on the wesr aide of. ClewenCine Street and would remsin, and int~teAd of haWing the proposed 91-foot wide driveway, wiiich woilld expoae tile loading dork to aingle-famiJ.y reHidences~ and a portion of the ad~acenC City pHYk~ etc., there would be two emaller driv~ways at eittzer end of the 10-foat wall; that the 1Q-foot wall would screen the londing d~ak between the two drives; and that the propoaed addttion would eliminate the existing parking on the north side of the buildin~Z. Commiasioner Gauer entered into discuasion with Mr. B:L11 Mitchell, representative of ttia Pacific Telpehone Company~ during which Mr. Mitchell indicaCed there were presently 127 parking spaces; that there would be a temporary loc~a of appr.oximately 27 parking spa.cea during the cunstructi.on p~riod; that the addi.tional nine atories were not anticipated until. about the year 2050, if ever, arid that the nine atoriea wauld not be off.icea but for equipment; and that they were in tha procees of obtaining permanent par~tng to take the place of the spaces currently being rented from the City. Chairman Herbat noted that, in his opinion, there was nothing wrong with the proposal; t~owever, it appeared rhat any other applicant woLld be required to apply for ~ variance from the Code for the proposal which could prob~b].y be granted subject to certain condi- Cions; Chat, looking into Che future, a~metimes buildings reverted to other type uaes; that although it had been the City's policy to help the Telephone Company with parking for their emplayees~ the situation appsared to be perpetuar.ing itaelf and he had reser- vatio:-s regarding the manner in wl~ich the pa'oposal was bei.n~ handl.ed since a variance shauld be required. Mr. Roberta noted for the Commiasion that the Code did require that a certain number of r:iKing apaces be provided, either on the aite or within a reasonable dista•~ce from the site, and that the Te~ephone Gom~+any hmd entered into an agreement to con'.Ysct for rental af parking space for a three-year period. In reaponse to questioning by C~mmisaion~r Gauer, Deputy City Attorney Fran'c Lowry adviaed thnt the zeport from the Cit} Mauuger's office indicated that the spaces fo~ the rer~tal indicated by Mr. Roberts were lightly used and the loss of 100 municipal parking spaces would have very little effect on th~t baeis. In reaponse to queationing by Chairman He st, Mr. Roberts advised that no consideration had been given to parking for the potenttal nine addi*onal atories; but SCaff wanted to make the Planning Commisaion aware of the poCential expaneion. Mr. Mitchel.l ti-en stated that they did not foresee thst the 10 st~ries would ever be at the subject location; that thA;~ had taken thoae precautions with reepect to the founda- tiona because they had been ~aught a few times with seiemic pioblems; that they did not want thF. potential expanaion to concern the Commiasion aince if that expansion at-ould occur in the futuxe, a proposal for it would have to stand nn its own merit; and that the parkin~ agreement with the City was on an interi~ basis. ~ ~ MINUmES, CITY PLANNING COI~tIS3TON~ A~.~guet 19. 1974 74-418 IT&M N0~ 5 (Continued) In respon0e to qusetioning by Cotoaaissioner Jahnpon. Mr. R~berC~ advieed thgC the kh opssee that thg Telephone Campany had baan renti.nE; Eor Beveral yaars wae ~uet eask o! Lemon Streat; and ttiat the 100 epacea co ba rented were on tt~e eouth eide of Lincoln. In r~epot~ee to quc+stioning by Commission~x Ki.ng. Mr. Mitchell indicgted that wf-en thd propoas~ addition was crnnploted, there wc~uld be a deticit of approximstely 77 pe-rki.n~ apecee. Commiesionsr Cauer expresead concarn thnt ehe empl.oyees of the uub~ect facility would be parlcing on the reaidentiaY etreeta in the area, including his own etreet~ oinae the park- ing nreas deaignated fur the facility would bu farthar away~ and Coa~niseioner King noCed that if ehe employues wera inetrucCad Co parl~ in daeignated spacee, thuy would pxobably do so. Mr. RobexCa noted that thu P1IInnin~ ~ommieai.an should cor.aider (1) whether the propoead improvemenCs would be compatibla wiCh the etai-darda and other requircamonts ^.at iorth in the Redevelopment Plan, (2) what cnudificationo, if an,y, in tha propoaed improvemente would be nesceesary in order ta meet the requirsment~ uC the Plan. and (3) whether the applicant had antetad into an agraemenC with the Ag~ncy for. tl~e, development oE eaid improvemants and submitt~d developmant plane to the Agency. He furCher noted ~f thd Planning Commieoion coneidered ttie foregoing iteme favorab?y and dexerm~ned the ptoject was compatiUle, un apprapriute recommondation dhould be forwarded ko Che Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Morley offer.ed a motion, eeconded by ComwiASioner Tolar, and MOTIAN CARRIED (Commi~sioner Farano being absant) thax the foregoing pro~ect, reing propoaed in the Pro~ect Area Alpha, was considered by the Planni.ng Commiiegi~~n in compliance with the procQdures aet forth in the Redevelopment Plan, said pro~ect having been previously rev:le~~d and recommended for approval by the C~mmunity Red~velopment Con~iseion; and thaC the Ptanning Commiseton hereby recommende to the Redevel~pment Agency that t•he plans, as submitted by the Pacific. Telephone Cocupany and to include the revisions diacueaed, be appreved. ADJOUItNML~NT -'LnEre being no fuz~th9x bueireeas to discusa, ~ommissioner Tolar offered a motion~ encondesi by Commiseioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasi.onar Farmna being abaEnt), tc~ ad~ourn the meeting. T~-e meeting adjourned at 6:3Q p.m. Respectfully submitted, /~''~~~~,~5 ~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commiseion PBS:hm