The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/10/140 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. p ~ ~ ~ C:ICy Hall Ana;~etm, (?ulif.ornia October :L4, 197G Rl~.CUL.\R M~F.INC OF TIiC ANAHELM CITY PLANNZNC, CUhIMISSIUN RLC,ULAFt - A re~ular meeCi~~g cif the AneYielm (;~ty Pl.aiv~ing Comu~isaion wn:~ call.ed to MF.ETINC ordar by Chai.r.mAn HerbRr ut 2:00 o m. in -.he Cauncil Chamber, a quorum being present. PRE~NNT - CHAIRMAN: NerbNt - COMMISSIONI:RS: Gnuee, Johnson, KJ.iig~ Morley, Tolar ADSI:NT - COP'~tISSI0NCR5 ~ ~'arano A1,50 PRES~N1' - DepuCy CiCy Atturney: F:ank I,o+ary As9ociate Bngineer: Bob Jonea 'Lor~ing ~upervieor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Annika Santa.l~-hti Asaoci+ate Plannex: Ail.l Young Commission Secretary: Patricia Scanlan PLEDGE OF - Commisaiot~er Tolar led in the P].edge of Allegiance to the F1nA of the ALLEGIANCG United States of America. APPROVAL OF ~ Commiss'.,ner Tol.ar offered a motion, Aeconded by Commiseioner Johneon 7'HL~ MI:NUTES and MO'T10N CARRLF.D (Commissi~ner Farano being absent), to approvc the minutes ~~f r.he meekinga of September 16 and 30, 1974, as submitted. El'tVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - JOF~J D. LUSK b SON, P. U. Box 2140, Newport Beacl~, Ca. 92663 3030 West Main Skteet, INC & DARBY I]N RL'~PORT N0. 132 ., , ll (Developer); H~PRN, HEDL consiAting af rt `-'- y, Alh~-mbru, Ca. 91801 (Engineer). Sub~ect prope TENTATIVG MAP OF approximately $7 acres havirg a fronCage of a~proximately 3209 having a maximum dept.h ad h R R TFL4CT NOS. 8418 [ , o anc feet on tt~e north ei.de of Nohl of apFroximately 1800 feet, and be'_ng located approxi.mately 1810 p~~~ 86 ~7 ~ feet east of the centerl.ine of Nohl Ranch Road, is proposed for aubdivision as fol.lowa : Tract No. 8418 -- 40.6 acres - IU4 R-H•-10,000 lots; and Tracr_ No. 8647 - 46 acres - 97 R-H-10,000 lots. The aub~ect matters were co~.~inued from the meetings of August 19 and September 30, 1974, at ~:he request of the pPtitioner. It was noted that tihe petitioner was requeaCing to furt5er coneinue consideration of the subject matters to the meeting of Nuvember 11, 1474, for submiasion of reviaed plans tollowing meetinIIs wi th appropriate homeowners associati.ona. ~omm:[seiorier Tolar of fer.ed a m~tion, seconcted t~y Commisaioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED vironmental f F (Coma-issioner Farano .~i being absenC), to furt.her continue conaideration o 8418 and 8647 to the meeting af N Impact Repor.t No. 132 os. and Tentati.ve Map of Tract November 11, 1974, as requeated by ttie petitioner. COi~1If~SIONER FARANO F.NTER~D THE MEETING A1' 2:05 P.M. ENVIROt1MEIVTt1L IMPACT - CONTINUFD PUBLIC HEARiNG. BRIGHAI~I YOUNG UNV~T~YEKSHOMESt INCth REPORT NUS. 134 AND Temple, Salk Lake City, Utah 84111 (Owner); 136 P. 0. Box 711, Upland, Ca. 91786 (Agen~). Property descrlbed as: ` An irregularly-shaped par.cel of land consisting of approximate].y VARIANCE N0. 2635 137 acres lor_ated northwesterly of the intersection of La Palma READ~/ERTISED;_ Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 510 feet on the kest s~de of Euclid 5r.reet and 2000 feet on the north Aide TENTATIVE MA.p OF of La Palma Avenue, and being located approximately 1660 feeC north TRACT NGS. 8775, and west of the centerlinea of La Palma Avenue and Eucl~d Street. 8~qg~ g7g5 AND Property preeent].y claasified R-A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE (Resolution $796 of Intent to R-2). 74-465 ~ ~ DIINUTCS, CI'PY PLIU~NINC COMMTSSION, Oc.toher 14. 1974 7~i-466 1:NVT.RONMEN'CAI. IMPAC'P Rli3'Olt: NO5. 134 ANll 136, VARIANCE N0. 'Zh35, ANll TENTA'PIVIs MAP OF 'PRACT NC~S,_ 8775L 8793~_ 8195 AND 8796 ConCinu~d~~_~_, ~__~..~~ ----- v ttF.QUlsSTEU VAkIANCR: WA:VER Or (A) M"iNIMIiM LO'f FRONTAGG, (Ai MAXIMUM STRUCTURh.L HN:IGHT, (C) MAXIMUM SIGId ARr.A, AND (D) PROHIBITGD SICNS, 1'Q ES1'AIILTSH A 326-UNI'Pti 24-LOT, R-2 SUBDIV'IST~,N AND 'PO CONSTKUGT A TNF.ME TUWEFt AND T'WO FI~EE-STANllING SIGNS. 'I'ENTATIVE TItA(:'T EtI;QULS'fS: h:NGINGGR: WTI.LUAN ASSOCIAT~S, .12~~ South Claudlnu Screet, An~helm, Cii. 92805. Sub~ect properCy ie proposed f.or oubdivirsi. on ae foll owa: 'Pr.uct No. A775 - 5 R-2 lotH (78 unitH) 'fract No. 8793 - 8 R-2 lots (K9 unita) 'Prnct No. 8795 - 6 R-2 lot~ (84 unit.s) TracC lvo. 8796 - 5 R-2 lota {75 units) Sub~ect petitir~n~ were conCinued froin the meetings of September 4 and Septen-ber 16, 1974, fc,r further. atudy. Unc~ person lndicuted l~ii.s ~~resence in opposition ro aubjecl petitions. A98~81:8I1C 7.~ning Su{,erviso: Annika S~ntalahti read tlie Staff Re~~ort to the Pl.anning Commisai.on cial-ed Octobpr 14, 1974~ and sni.d 5t~sff Report is referred to as if sa*. forth in full in the minutes. Mr. ,~im ~'hriatLansen, repre~enCinq the petitioner~ appeared before the Commi~sion and ex- plai.ned the necessity for waiver of the requ9.red frontage on u public etreet, being that wiCh mosr.ly prlvate streets in tt~e pro~ac: it was difffcult t~ meet the Code requirement for e~rti lot; tt~ae four of the effectecl lota would be uaed for recreational. purposes und the x'~mainder for residential uaes consisting of 108 condominlum units. That regarding waiver o: the structural lieight, he atated tests had been made to determine the necessary t~eigtit for the masker television ancenna, which was s part of the thenie tower nnd which would 9E:ve Che entire plr~nned coamiunity, including the mobilehome perk which would be can9tructed xubsequenl to the subject four tracty, and i:he proposal was now to have the antennn 61 fe~t high. Mr. Christiansen displayed a sample aign showing the dimensiona of same, and stated th~t the signs wottld be mounted on a cube which would add a border ko said direr_tional sign whicYi he fe1C were in cnmpliance with Lhe Code requirements. He r.hen slated that tiiey were withdrawing Che requested waiver o~oposedbbanners~n~Hesthen the themc tower had been redeslgned to eliminate the origina~ly-p_ p deacribed the master Lelevi.sion antenna structure and stated a ladd.er wou.ld be consc:ructed on the insi.de. He further sta~ed that the tower would be finished with acrylics which would inhiUit fading and chl.pping. Mr. Chrietiansen took exr.eption to the use of the exist.ing Sign Code which allowed the ~ame sign arPa for the proposed dev~lopment as it would for a four-unit apartment pro~ect, and atated th~e that Code was probably in need of some atudy by th~ P~anning Commisaion. Mr. IIen Bay, 2148 West Grayson Avense, Anaheim, appeared before the Commisaion and stated thgt the people who lived to the west of the proposed project were interested in the ettfety of the proposed lake; that he had reviewed Che plan and the ~'IR, an~l believed the lake wou.ld be ohallo~est at 3 feet and deepeat aC 2~ feeC; that according tu the Code regarding poc~ls and pond~~ any areao of water over 18 inches in depth were required to be pratected by a five-foo[ fence and £ive-foot gate latches and in some case~ 42~-inch fencea wich five-foot gate latches for the protection of emall children; that the John Mxrshall EleL~entary School was located between 300 and 400 feet irom the proposed lake and the citi:ens were still interested in the safety precautions, as they were at Che original publi; hear•!ng on the matter; that also he h~d reviewed the drai.nage plans for the project and was not sure eaid plans would be effective although they were sub~e~t to approval by the Cir_y Engineer; thae the Cit~+ Staff would have to show proof that the drainage from ti~e subjecl property would not go onto the ratreeta in the ad;Jacent tracts; that normally there was warer curb-high at the northwest corner of his tracC during zainy weather; that at t~he origi.nal ~sublic hearing, the citizena had tried to make it very clear that if the City Engineer accepted the drainage praposal~ it would ooen the City for a lawsuit; and that prior to thc~ construction of the pro~ect, the drainage plan should be to *_he complete satisfACtion of the Ci.ty Engineer since preaently the citLzenr~ envisioned many probleme. Mr. Bay contlnried by atating that the traffic signal at the intersection of I~a Pa1ma Avenue und Romneya Drive should be inatalled ac. the beginning of the project constrtiction and the devel~per had agreed to pay one-half the cusC of same; that the ciCizens felt tliat with the dedicatc~l atreets being conatructed during Phaee I of the prcject, Falmouth and Coronet Avenuec~ would be opened up and potentially uc~ed by the deve~oper to bring in the ~ ~ MINUTI:S. CI'CY I'LANN-NG COP4~IISSION~ Octaber 14~ 1974 74-4fi7 ~;NVIRUNMENTAL IMPAL'P REPOR't NUS. 134 ANP 136, VARIANCL', N0. 2635, AND 'I'ENTATIVE MAP UF 'l'ItAC'1' NOS, 8775, 8793, Fl195 /+ND 8796 (~:ontinue~ .~______, ^ heavy equi.pm~nt, and thf~r eitur~tion would be ~ppoeed by the citi.zen~. Mr. Hay then etated that the citizene were nuC opposed to the propc~sed theme tower nnd signe. In r~buCtul. Mr. Ch~~iatians~n :~tatad the dr~innge would Ue provlded in acr.ordnnce wi.f.h tne requiremente of the City and enforced by thc City G~gineer; that th~ drainage pla~d would be appraved pri.or to CI1l'. grading; that it wae not the intent of ~lie developer to put any wat~r onto the ndjacent atreelo to the weet; ~har. presently wc~ters £rom the MarCi,i I.uthet H~~apital property hnd been able to flow freely onto the adjucent truct to the weat, liow- ever~ ~~he auU~ect ~rop~rty wauld provide draine to collect the water; th;~t: they had been requeyted not to put wnter inr.o the proposed lnke until ufter April. 15, 1975, ttnd f~t Chat lime they wou.ld hegin working on the channel. to the north to complete *_he drai.nage; xhat the water preRC~ntly guinf; onto the property to the wesC would go itito the lal~e. Regatding Che lake, hP stated there would be a one-fooC depth ar. tbc Hhoreline and a slape to n depth of three feet at ~ ~istance of 12 f.eet from the ahoreline; that th~:re wouYd be 24- houx Hecurity guard protection; und ChRC there had been no ~nntance of u drowning !n a similar lake in Orange County nnd a fence around the lake wuuld be guing n lir.tle too f.ar. Regurding the CrnEfic signul at [~a Pnlma Avenue and Romneya Drive, he stated that he was confident thttt Che Nlanning Commisalon und Ci.ty Council agreed o~_d eignal shoul.d be inat~lled~ and the developer would like to do his part to hnve it installed; tha~ the City had i~iitially wanted ta huld back on ~he inatallation of the signal until ehere was A need eatahl.ibhed at a later date, und that he fe.lt ik should be installed First and not later. He s~taCed that the etreQLa into the neighboring areas would bc fenced off ~intil the proJect~ was nccepted by the Cit:y and, therefore, no i~eavy trucks ~:ould be usl.ng the adjacent residential atreeta. Mr. Bay reiteraCed that he understood irom reading tlie EIR, thaC the lake would be tr~m ttiree feec to 25 feet deep and not a slope of one Loct to three feet at a 12-foot distanr.e from shore, Mr. John H1aCt of Indio appear.ed before: the Commission and c~tated a lake prufile tiad not yet been prepared but the depth w~s discussed in ttie EIR, and the siopa would be not more tl~an 4:t. DepuCy City Attorney Frank Lo~.n y noted for the Commisaion that Mr. Bay had re[erenced the Code correctly, however, if a guard wue on duty, a fence would nor. be required, and the developer was proposing to have gu~rds. In response tu questioning by Cownias~ioner Johnson, Mr. Lowry sr.ar.ea that there was no connection between the depth of Che lake and a fence requirement. Mr. Christ~Lansen l-hen stated there would be more than ~~ne guard on duty and that there would be tt regular aecurity force; and Mr. Eay stared that a 4.3-acre ].ake would requixe a lot of guarda. TNE PUBLIC HEAF.ING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Karl Knvish of Southwest C~~mmunicntions, Yorba I~inda, appeare3 before the Commission in response to qusstioning by Ghairman HerbaC, and atated the antPnna was require~l to be 35 to 40 feet higti in order to get the maximum signal and to be over the interference cauaed by the freeway, and Mr. Christiansen Added that the tower structure would be higher than the antenna so r.hat it would lrok guod. Comn-isaioner Farano questioned why it was thaC ordin~Xy si.ngle-family residencea could liave indoor and/or ehorter televiyion antannas and ati11 get goo6 reception, to which Mr. Kaviah expluined that the proposed height was to facilitate quality television reception whict~ would sexvice the entire planned co~nmunity. In responae to questianing by Commissioner Farano~ Mr. Ct:riatianaen stated the designers of the antenna aystem hau been inatructed to plan it to FAA atandards so that it would heve the potential of handling cablc tel.evision at a future date. Commieaio~ier Faran~ then explained that there were special c.ircumatances surrounding tlie use of cable television in e City of Anaheim and if the 40-f.oot antenna was for the main purpose of the cable Y.elevis~.on, then he would queslion tlie need for the tower at ail. Mr. Ctirietianser. Chen atated that it appeared the ac[ual inatallation of cable televiaion in tne City of Mai~eim might be aomewhat aloft and there was always t}~e poasibility that the system would not meet the stand~rds f.or cable televi.sion anyway; however, they were in need of the tower to houae the master television sydtem rigtit away with the development of ~he pro~ect. ~r ~1 e MINUT(?S, C1'I'Y Pi,ANNING COMt~tI5SlON, Uctober 14~ 1'~74 74-468 ENVLRONMCNTAL IMFACT ItLPORT NO5. 134 ~WD 13h, VARIANCC N0. 2635, ANU 'TG~JTATT.VG MAP OF TRA(TP NOS. 8'175;_ 879:j, 8795 ANU 8796 .~Continued _____ ~. ~_ ___^_._. _ --- ln rcApune~c to queetlr~ning hy Chriirmt~n 1lcrbet~ Mius Snntalahti n~tad th~t the b.luck or cube tt~at Che proposr.d Nlgne wuuld b~~ mc~unC~d on would hnvo u equaxe•-foot +~ren ot approxi- mnrely 35 ieet; und thr~t similar Higrn had b~en urproved in tlie paet dependc:nt an how ].arge the aurraundi.ng ar~~a w+ie. ~tr. ChrisC lansen int~:r. Jt~cGed that 1 f n Hign wae monnted on a fenc~, ChPn it wne r_onceivable thnt oaid elgn woul.d b~: considered to be thH l.~ength ~ !h~~t fen~~e. CommisHio ..~r. King noted thc~t Mr. Christinn~eri had ~ne~wex~d all of tlic~ yuc~rioc~~: to hie sati~fareion, inciuding those yueations ruised by Mc. Bay. In rer~~onse to questioning b,y CartunisHioner Juhnaon, Mr.. ChriHtitinNen ~tC~tteJ thut the lttke would b~ conetructed ua indic:t~ced in the EIR. Commiesioncr Tr~lar noted t~.ha~ many uf: the reservoira in Indio hni plaet ic 1 inera and over n period o[ ~ ime would build up alitn~ nnd become slippery, tmking it diEf iculk fox ri pereon to get out of th~ lake. He quesCtoned what type t~urface woulci be underfoot, nnd if it would bc memUrane~ etc. Mr. Blatt deacr.ibed the surfuce of. the lake being thal a tti:in~ tlexible membrane was placed on top of u layc+r of native earth and then a layer ot soil cement wo~ld be p~it over the membrane for i.te pr~tection; tliaC r.tie aurface w~ul.d be firm and a perann would not ulip on it: but it wuuld give eupport by ita rough surf.ace; Chmt it wou11 be e~ssy to walk in and out on a 4:l.c~lope which wc~a a ver•y gentle slupe; thut hie cnmr~ny had lnstalle' over 650 eimi.lar lukeo over che Untted State~ nr~d Y.he Micidle Eust, and they did naC want to have stiy probleme on their cunscience. Commissioner Jotinaon questiuned the a1g~a and moequito abat 'nent that would be exercised, an~i Mr. Blatt stated that the lake would incorporate all oi .he design f~atures pos~ible for water quality and that the lakc should be clear. Commissioner Tolar quentioned tl~e pump slructure and functioiiing, and Mr. Blatt e~tated that tlie entire pump station woul.d be utic'.erground; that the water w~u7.d go ~ver a water~ fall; l•hat the skimmer would be parCially vieible but that khere would be no danger of anything lurger than a fish going into it; that there would bE some noise f.rom the pump but a person wou.ld have to be right n4ar it to heur it since low ItPM motors woul.d bc uaed unlike thoac uaed in swiauning pools. C~mnissioner King called attention to page 2-b, paragraph 7 of the Staff Report indicaring that good management of ~he lake wus necessary on a continuing basie to prevent proble.ws wLth pullution and insects, nnd Mr. Christianeen stated that the CC&R's would more than adequately provide that the as:~ciation and its members would meet that requirement, and that until al.l of the homes werF~ constructed there wo~ild be a partnership with Matreyek Home4, Inc. and the association would gradually accept the management. Mr. Christiansen further ~tated that the 13ke would be part of the drainage system, however, the lake would atay at the s~me water level since a safet~ measure would be built into it for that p~•rpoae. Iii r.esponae to quesCioning by Chairman Elerbsk, Mr. Chr.istiansen stated the lake wnuld serve to provide some recreaCional activitiea, depending upon r.he desirpe of the l~ume- owners associaCion; that there might be some eigtit-foot sailboats or flat-hottam skiffe, ~r something of that nature, where the association would own and operate tl-em similar ~u tlie Lske Forest Community; and that there woul~ be fieh in the wAter to help with the algae, howPVer, they had no~t envi3ioned fiahing. I~r. gay appeared again before the i:ommission and reiterateci hia concerns regarding the dt~pth of tlie lake und. stated th~re was nothing in ehe FIR document which stated the lake would be one `.oot deep at any poinL- ai l, furthermore, ttiat the Orang.: Courity Mosquitn Abatement Distriat waa recommending thaC ttie lake not have any areas as st~allow as ane foct; that he did not understand how the Planning Commisaion ce~ild accept the EIR for the proroaed lake witho~it a profile of same; and that the EIR docilment was a very general piece of paper at best. Mr. Aay fureher atated that there would be much need for very prufeseional maintenance of the lake; that the drainage lnto the take would ~~..se very serious algae and moaquito poblems, and tnere woul~ : a very slippery hottom; and l•hat he did not have a great deal of faith in the developer ond a detail plan o° the lake should be an ese..°tial part of the consideraeion by the Planning Commission. ~ ~ MINUTL:S, CITY l'1.ANNINC COMM].:.SIUN~ Uctober 1G, 1974 74-469 CNVIRONMF:'~'fAl. TMl'AC'C ft~:YURT NOS. 134 AND 136, VARIANCE, N0. 2635~ AM) TLNTATIVf: MAI' OF TRAC'~ NUS. 877r,~ _87'~~, 8795 AND 8796 ~ConCinuad) __ _ _-._----- .- In rebutC~1~ Mr. Chriatlanse~n eCated [hat the uctual uutllne uf the lake could e° ~nder the coneider.ud ~,nCi.l L•he grading war~ completed; und [urthermore, the l~-Ice would juriadiction of the Building Utvia 3on~ Commieeioner l~areno noted Ctint the LIR for tt~e lake Gc~nt+~i.ned oome. crosq-section diagrame wtiich he ~aeumed were iepreyentat:Lva of the mMnner in which the 'ake would be construceed, and Mr. Chrietiuns~n lndicated t~-e y oiere not. Mr. Blntt explnined that the eketch on page 'll of the EIR ehowed a 2:]. Hlope anJ tlisl• the reneon th~ lake prof~le engineering wae not avallabla ~t tl~le time wuu that Chav were un+3l~le to proceed ~intll final gr.:~ling plane waro ready. Commiaei~ner Fut•ano then tnquired if Mr, Christiunsen could atipulnte thAC ahould the »~~b~ect matter be app~'oved r.hnt, pr.ior to the time co-~axrucCinn was undertaken Eor the lake, plune would be submitted for rr.view and approval by the Plnnning Coauniesion, and Mr~ Cnri~tianaen su c~tt{~ul.ated, ecfl~:ing that he did not want lo go tt-rough any further publ.i.c hearing processes Chan ne~~ese~ary, h~~wever ~ he w~~uld do whatever was required by the City uf Anaheim. Mr.. ChriyCi.~inaen further sCated that Matreyek Homea, In~~. hud done mure Chan anyone else to cuoperate with Che CiCy und there came a time whsn~he was saying 'wh~ should the pro~cct have to wiiit ~rint much longer to be develuped. 'fhereupon, Commiseioner Far~no no sed that the Planning ~ommieaion had ~nc~uraged devel.- opere to huve i.maginrstion znd he wnr~ oppoaed to Che r,posed development when it was firet preaentp~ for consiclerAtion and iz~ was not sure tF~at h~ was in favor of it ~~resently from a denaity standpoint; however, ehe proposal was shaping up and sliow~~~ Eome lmagiiiation, although some of the exposurea and uther features w~iuld carry eume degree ot riak; that }~e was intere3Ced in health control, i.ncluding mosquito abatement and oChez' aspecte, as wa.l1 us safety; that if the controls b roke down, the City would t~e saddled with the lake and it eould eventually have Co have u f ence nround it; and that tlie Ylanning Commisaion needed to review the plana of rhe lake in its f inal form. Chairman Herbst noted tt~at the Planning Commission was entil•lr:d tu seP what the lake and ita cunfiguration w~~uld b~, however, the plans could be revie~a~d ar~d considered under "Reports and Recomw~ndaCione" ar.d not fla a public hearing i.tem. Commissioner Farano noted that he was not propoeing that th~~ furtherance of the sub~ect development be held up pending recefpt of the l~ke plans, but that the submiasion of said planr~ be made prior to conatruct3on of the lake. Mr. Christiansen then stated tliat the actual specific ?.~ans for tt-e lake ~vould n~t be fiuiahed until the dev~~loper was ready to proceed with said lake. Commiasioner Farano offered a mo tion, aeconded by Comm'.ssioner Kinq and MUTIUN CARRIED, that Environmental Ir„pact Report No. 134, supplementin~ maeCer EIR No. 113, having been conaidered this date by the Planning Commission and evidence, both written and oral, having been presErited to s~ipplement draft EIR No, i34, the City Planning Commission believes that said drafr_ EIR No. 134 does conform to the City and SCate Guidelinea and the State of Cali£ornia F.nvironmenta'1 Quality Act and. based upon such lnformation, does hereby recommend to thc City Council Chut they r.ertify said EIR No. 134 io in compliance wich said Environmenta~ Quality Act. , rommissioner Farano of~ered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Tol~r and MOTION CARRIED, ~hat Environmental Impact Repor t ~o. 136~ supplementi.ng master EIR No. 1t3, having been considered this d.te by the Planning Commiasion and evidence, U~~th ~.oritten and oraL, liaving been preeen~ed Co supplea~ent said draft EIR No. 136, the City Planning Commission believes that said draft EIR No . 135 does r_onform to the City and State Guidelines and the State of California Gnvironment al Quality Act and, buaed upon such Lnformation, does heteby recomm~nd zo thti City Co:,-ncil that th~y certify said EIR No. 136 is in compliance with said Environmentel Qualit y Act; provided, however, Chat paragraph 4 on page 7 of EIR No. 136 shall reflect that the depth of the lake Rhall L•e no more than one foot at th~ ahoreline and ahalt slope to a maximum of three feet ar a distance of 12 feet £rom ahore, being a 4:1 alope~ as st~ipulated to by the pe~ itioner. Commissioner Faranu offered 2esolution No. PC74-20L8n~dnmowa1v~~roftthegrequireddlotoption to grunt petition for Variance No. 2635 in part, g S fronta$e on a public street. on the basis that four of said lots would he used for recrea- tional pur?~~ses and the remainder for reaidential u:~es consieting of 108 condominium units~ bnd that aimilar waiver s have been previous?y approved by the Commiasion to allow ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, October .lG, 1974 ~~~-47~ H;NVIRUNMLNTAG IMPA(:T RisPOKT NOS. 13k AND 13fi ~ VARIANCR N0. 1635 ~ AND 'tEN1'ATIVL MAP OF 'l'ItACT NU3. 8775, 8793, 8795 ANU 0796.,~Continudd~~_~, r-- ._-_. for devalupment of the small-lot cc~nd~minium concept; granting wc~iver of. the moximum eCr.ucC~~r~l helght on tha baei~ thc-t tlie prupoeed heiRl~t is 61 fee.t +nnd woul~l hour~e s mnater ta.le~vlaion nntenna syexem for tt~~ ontire plann~d comrnunity, eciid height be i.ng necaseary to provide qiirili.ty l•~levi.elon rQCe~tion and cli.minating any ne~d for tl1CIlV~dl1A1 television antennnR Ghrc~ughout the plannod 4Qq1TR1ITL~CY~ and that w~ivera of l•ha maximum ~lgn aroo nnd prohlbited signa werc~ climinnted by tlie euhmittal of ravised plr~n~ and, therafore, withdrr~wn by Che petirionar; thnt thla vcrlnnce in granted subjecr. to tl~e complet lon af Reclnepiticstion No. 73-7G-36~ now pendl.ng; nnd that eubject property ahall be d~velop~d subet~ntl.ally in nccardanr,e wltli plnna und s~>ecifice~tions on file wlth Che Ciky of Anntiolm rtwrked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 And 3(Revision 1) ~nd nlno }:xhlbit Non. 4 through 14, being final epoclfic p~.AY18 for 'frf~~ r Now. 8775, 8','93, 8795 and 8796. (See lte,~oluti.~n Book) On roll call, th~: forsgr Lng xe~olur. i on passed by Che followi.ng vate : AYRS; ~~)Mt~tISSIUNERS: FAItANO, GAU~R, ,JOk1NSON, KING, MORL~:Y, TOLAR~ FlERB5'T NUES: COI~4IISSION`.RS: NONC ABS[:N'i': C01~4~1ISSIONERS: NONE rollowing revlew of the f.'iniil. speriEic plano for the sul~iect tructa, as preae.nted by t.he developer, the PlAnning Commission enter.ecl into diecusaion ~cegarding appropriate condi.tlans of ep~~~~uval~ cluring whir_h rir. Roberte ~uggeatecl an additional condition for 'rract No. 8775 being "Thak the wesr.erly boundary of eubject tract, abuttirig 'i'race No. 8795, at~a11 be movec: easterly to exclude the entire 4~idth of the private atreet at said boundar. y." He further suggested tt-at Tract No. 8795 inc:Lude a condiCion "That. the ~aeterly bo~xnd+~ry af suU~ect tract, abutting T'ract No 8775, sh~ll be moved easterly to include the ent~-re widtl~ of ~he private street at said buundary"; that Tract Nos. 8775, 8793 and 8795 includc a conditlan "Thae Romneya Dr:ive bhall be. construc[ed with two 12-f~ot wide parkw~ys and kwo 26-foot wid~ roadways~ separated by a 12-foot wide plattCed median str.lp"; that Tract Nos. 8775, 8793, 8'195 and 8796 include a condition "That ~ll. public stre~et improveme~.te in these trac:s and the lake within Tract No. 8793 dha11 bP developed with L-he first pha:se of conetruction on said trar.ts and st-all be completed prior to fir.-ul building and zoninf; inepection of ttie fl.rst phase; and Chat a bond in an amount and form satisfactory t,~ the Cit,y Engineer ehall Ue pasteci to guarantee the ultimate improvement of said publi~: s:reets and of L•he l.ake"; and that since the final apecific pland for the tract had been aubi.~icted at thia meeting, Condit+~ n No. 12 ac set £or.th in the Staff Report for each of tlie su-~~ect tracts could be d^?.etF~ Commleaioner Gauer inquired if the tracta fronting on La Palma Aven~e would have walls or open ynrds along that frontuge, and Mr. Roberts advised that open yards would be provided along the right-of-way 'l~ne. Mr. Lowry advised tt~at along the eseterly boundary of Tract Nos. 8793 and 8796, a s:Lx-foot tnaeunry wal.l was proposed; that said wall was included in a condi.tion of approval for the Marrin Luther liospital property (Condit:ional Use Permit Nc. 1130) ~ however, Matreyelc Homes, Inc. was volunteering to construct that portion of the wall abutting the east:erly bc~undnry of said tracts ar,d at a future date the Planning Commission should probably consider deletion of. that requireinent from Conditional Use Permit No. 1130. In response to questioning by Co~missioner Johnson, Mr. Blatt stated that although the lake would be dug for a period of. time prior to it.s actual construction ana the runuff watera would enter the lake area, without a liner thoae waters would ~eep i.nto the ground and caur~e no problem from a safety viewpoint. Mr. Christianxen reiterated that the entire property was presenrly £enced and would remain f~nced ~:atil completion of the whole project. Mr. Lowry noted for the Cocmniseion that an easement covering the lake would be granted to tlie City since the lake was necessary for the drainaRe of the area. Commiasioner Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED, to approve Tentative Map and Final Specific rlans of Tract N~. 8775, sub~ect to the follo~a- ing conditions; and, fureher, to strongly recommend to the City Council [hat the traffic aignal propoaed by the developer at the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Romneya Drive be inatalled at the beginning of construction of the Anaheim Shores Plant~ed Community on the basis ehat the develnper and the Planning Commis~sion F.eel strongly that a need wi11 exist immediate~y upon construction of eaid pro~ect and~ additionally, that the developer has committed to pay oaie-half the coat of said installation : ~ ~ MItiUTL~S ~ c:ITY PLANNING c:UMMISSIUN ~ October l.G, 1.974 74-~~~~ ENVIR~NN[~N'CAi. IMYACI' REPOR"f NOS. 134 ANU 136, VAtt7.ANCr N0. 2635, ANi) TNNTA'TIVG MN' UF TRACT NQS. 8775, 8793, f3795 MID 87y6 Continuec~,!)_~ .~~. _- ------ ----- (L) 'I'I~nt the nppruval oL 'Tentstiv~ Mup of TracC No, 87a5 :lg grzinted oubject to tt~e completion of Recluseif.icaC!oz~ No. 73-7~r36 und approval ot' VnriRnce No. 2G35. (2) Thnt ehould thiA subd.lvi.eion t,a develuped ae more than one subdivisian~ each oubdlv.leion thereof sha17. he aubmitCed in tent~tive form fur i~pprovnl. (3) 'I'hnt all lota within thie trucC ehal~. be served by undetground uttliti.ea. (~i) rh~t ~ F.inal tract map of sub~ect ptoperty shnll. be submitted to and approved by [he C1Ly Council and Chen be recorded in the o~fice of the ~?xange County Recorder. (5) 'Thnt tl~e cond~•~minium covenanta, conditione and real•rictione, :Including but nnt llmitc:d to provielons f.or trasl~ co~lection, shal.l be aubmltted to ~nd appraved by the City Attorney's Of f ice prior to Ciky Counci.l approval of the f ina.'_ Cract map; and, further, tt~at the approved covenants, condition~ and reatrictians shall be recorded concurrently with the flnal [rc~ct map. (6) 'fhat prior to filiiig the final trnct cnap. the applicant ehall suUwil• to the CiGy Att~rney for. upprova]. ur deni.al. a complete synopela of the prnposed functionina of [he operating corporaCion including, but not 1lmitad to, khe articlea af incorporaki.on, bylaws, proposecl metliode~ of management, bondin~ to insure main- tenance of comman property and buildixigs and ~tuah other infortnatien se the City Attorney may desire to pr.otect the City, ita citizene, aiid the purchasere ~f Che pr.o~ecl. (7) Th~l- atreet nam~:~ ~n~ll be approved by the Clty ef Anaheim pr~.~~r to approval of a fin~l LrACt map. (8) That drainage of aub~ect. prop~r.Cy Ahn11 be diepoeed of ir. a manner that ia Hetisf~ctory to thN City Engineer. (9) That ail privat~~ ratreete ahall ba deveJ.oped in accordance with the C;il•y of Anaheim's standards for privale etreeta. (10) That thc: ownerCe) o~ sub~c~ct property :shall pay to the City of Anal~eim the apprupriate park and recreacion in-lieu feP~ as determined to be a~~propriate b, the City Counc~.l, ~iaid f~~es to be F aid at the titr.e the 1~~~i.lding ~.it is issued. (11) That vahicular :~c^_aeas rtghts~ ex .~t. at sr.reet and/ ' alley upei. Romneya Drive sh~ll be dedicatr:~ to the City ~f l..~aheim. (12) That fire hydranCa shall be instal' an~i cl:arged as requi.red and determined to be neceasary by ih~ Chiet oi the F..re DeF~r.~ment prior ta commencement of ,~tructural framing. (13) The full ultiaate right-of-way for Ror,~reya Orive fronting Tract No. 8775 eha11 be included in the tracG. (14) 'That Romneya Urive shall be constructPd with [wo 12-ioot wide parkwa~s and two 26-foot wide roadways~ :;eparated by a 12-foot wide glai:ted median strtp. (15) That ali publlc street improvements within this tract and 7:act Nos. $793, 8795, and 8196 and the lake within Tract No. 8793 shall be develope~ :+ith the first phase of construction of said tructs and shall be completed peior t. final building and zoning inspection of the £irat phase; and that a bond in a.. amount and form satisfactory Co th~• City EnginEer shall be posted [o guaran ~ the ultimaee improvement ~f said public atreets and of the lake. (16) That Che westerly boundary of subject tract, abutting Tra~t No. 8795, si-all be moved easterly to exclude the entire wldth of the private atreet at ~sid 'oouiulary. ~ ~ ~ MINIJTGS~ CITY PL.ANNINC CUMMTSSlC~N~ Oct~ber 14~ L974 74-472 ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPA('T RF:POItT NOS. l.3re At~U 1'.:6, VARIANCf: N0. 2635, AND TENTATIVB MAP OF TRAC'f NOS. 8775. 8793, 8795 AND $796 __ t,rmxinued ~__.___._ ___ . ------- Commisaionar Faranu o££ered ~ moti.un, yeconded hy Commiesionar J~~hneon and MOTIUN CARRIf~.U~ to apprave Tentati.ve Mnp and F.ln~l 5pccific Plctn~ o£ Trnct No. 8'193, ei~b~ect to the fall.ow- i.ng condit~i.on~; and~ furCher, t:ci etr.ougly rucommend to the Ci.ty Council thar. the traffic eignul proposed by the devulop~sr to be located at Che '_ntersection of 1.1 Palma Aver~ue c~nd Romnaya Drive be inetnlled ut the be~:lnning of conetri~ctlon of tlie Muheim Shorea Plnnned Community on Che bnsis tYiak nc~~ cleveloper and Che Plunning Commiarsi.or. feel etronA,ly [hat a need will exist :tmmediately upc~n conetruction of said pro~ect and, ndditionally, that the dev~'loper h~s committed to pay oiie-hnlf the coet of eald installation: (1) That the approval of TentaCi~~e Map of Tract No. 8793 te gre~nted eub~ect: Co the compl.etioc- of Reclaesifi.cation No. 73-74-36 a~id approval of Variance No. 2635. (2) That ohould tliia scibdivision be developed ae more ttian one aubdivision, each subdivision khereof shall be aubmitted i.n tentative £oxm for. approval. (3) That all lota within thia truct shal.l be gerved by underground utilities. (4) That a final tract map of aubject property aha11 be aubmitted to and approved by the City Council and then be i'ecorded in the office of rhe Orange County Recor.der. (5) Thet tlie condominium covenants, conditions and rsstr.ictions, tncludt.ng but not Ii.mited [o provieions for erash collecti.on and 24-hnur security guard at the lake site (1.ot No. 1), ehall be eubmitted to and approved by the City Attorney's O£fice prior to City Council approval u~ the final tract mup; anc:, further, that the approved covennnts, conditiona and reatrictiona et~all be recorded concur- rently ~alth the final tract raap. (6) That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant c~htil'_ si~bmit to the Cit.y Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the j~r~;int3ed functioning c~f the operattn~ corporation including. but not limited. to, Che Articles of :Lncorporation, bylawa, proposed method~s of. management, bonding to insuze main- tenance of common property and buildinga and such other information as t1i~ City ~\ttorney may desire +to protect Che City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the ~pro;Ject. (7) Ttiut street names shall Ue approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval o£ a final tract map. (8) Tha~ drainuEe of sub,ject propert~ shall be disposed of in a manner th~t is satisfactory to the City Engineer. (9) That all private atreeta sha11 be developed in accordancP wi.th the City of Anaheim's standarda £or private atreets. (10) That the owner(aj of subject property eha~.l pay to the City of Anaheim the approprtate park and recreation in-].ieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid ai the time the building permit is is~ued. (11) That vehicular access rights, except at atreet and/or a11ey openings, to Romneya Drive and La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (12) That fire hydrants shall bu installed and charged as required and det +~: to be c.ec:essary by the Chief of the Fire Dep. ^tment prior L-o co~encement ~:~ structural framing. (13) That Romneya Drive shall be :onstructed wil•h two 12-faot wide parkways and two ?.6-foot wide roadways, separated by a 12-fook wide planCed median strip. (14) That a11 public street improvementa within this tracC and Tract Nos. 8775, 8795, and 8796 and the lake wi.thin thia tract. shal.l be developed with the firat phase of conatruction of said tracts and shall be compleced prior to final. building and zoning inapection oi t.he first phase; and thr,t a bond in an amount and form satfafactory to the City Engineer sha11 be posted to guarantee the ultimaxe improvement of said public streets and of the lake. (15) That prior to tite issuance o~ the building permit on the first phase of con- structi.on, apectfic plana for the development of the lake auet be aubmitted to and approved by the Planning Commission and City Counci.l. e 0 MI~il17'G5, CITY PLANNING l'.QP41'LS5LON. October 14, 197k 74-473 L',NVIRONMI?N'PAL IMPACT KI'sPOKT NOS. 134 MlU 136, VARIAN(:F N0. 26:~5. ANU 1'GNTATI:V1's MAl' UF TRACT NUS. 8775~ 8793, 879 ~ AND 8796 (Cuntlnued ____ _._.__~___.___..^ --- - Comm.leaioner Farnnr~ offered u motion, aeconded by Commieei.vner, Juhneon and MOTLON CAIZRIEb~ ta approve 'Pent~ti.ve Map nnd Final Speclflc Ylane of Tra~t No. 8795, Hubiect to tli~ follow- i.ng condirione; nnd~ furthar~ Co etrongJ.y rc.cotmnend to the City Council th+~t the tzriffic signal proposed by the developer to bo l.ocnt~~d nt the int~reection of La Palmu Avenue nnd Romneya llrive be installed a~ tha beginninq of conr~trur.tlon c~f the elnat~eim ~hores Planned Community en r.he basis tFint khP developor and the Plauning CommiRai~~n feol. atrc~ngly thst ~ need wi.11 exlat immed~utely upcn coneCruct.lon of sr~id pro~ect nnd, additional.Ly~ thaC the develc~p~r hae cammikted to pny unF-h+~lf thF co~t of sRid inetalla~ion: (].) That the approvul of "•ntative Mop of Tracl' No. $795 ie granted aub~ect to tha completion of 1tecleKeiflcatin:i Na. 73-74-36 nnd c+pproval of. Vari.ance No. 2635. (~) 'Phat stiauld this aubdivision be ~levetoped a~ morc than one eubdivlsion~ each subdivislon thereof ahc~11 Ue submiC~ed in tentatfve furm for ~pproval. (3) That a.ll ].ots within this tract ah111 be eer.ved by underground uti.lities. (4) That a Ci.nal truct map of auUject property ahall be eubmil•ted to Ar.d upproved by Che City (:ouncil. ~nd thc~n be recordecl in the of fice of ttie Orange Gounty Reccrder. (5) Tliat ttie ~~ondomitiium covenante, condiCiona and restric[iona, includin~ but not li.miCed to provisions f.or trast~ collecti.on, ahall be aubmitted Lo and approved by thP C.Lty Attorne)~'s Off.ice priar to City Council approval of the final trect mup; r~nd, furkher, ttiat the approved covenanCe. r_onditiona and reetrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. (6) That prior to Ci.li.ng Che final tract map, the appYic~nt ehall r~ubmit to the CiCy Attorney for spproval or der..ia1 a complete synopsis of the proposed f.unctioning af the operating c~rporation including, but not limited to~ the articles of incorpo•cation, byl.a~s, proposcd methods of managemenr., bonding to insure main- tenancE of common property and buildinga and such othex• informatian as the City Attorney may desire Co protect the City, ito citizens, and the purchasers of the pro~ect. (7) That street names shall be approved by the City of Anahe'•,i prior to appr.oval of a final tract map. (8) That drainage of ai~b~ect property gt-all be dispoaed of in ~~ manner tl-at is Eatisf.actory to ~he City Engineer.. (9) That all private atreets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets. (10) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recrestion i:~-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate b~ the City Councit, said fees to be paid at the tim~ the building permit is iss~led. (11) That vehicular access rights, except at ~treet and/or alley openings, to Romneya Drive shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. (12) That fire hydrants shall he installed and charged xs required and determined to be ner~esear.y by the Chie: nf Che Fire Department pzior to commencement of q~:rc.:tural framing. (13) 'fhat Romneya Drive shu11 be conatructed with two 12-foot wide parkways and two 26-foot wid~ roadways, separated by a 12-foot wide planted median s*_rip. (14) T;~at all public stteet improvements within this tract and Tract Nos. 8775, 8793, and 8796 and the lake within Tract No. 8793 ahall be developed with the first phase of constructlon of said tracta and ahall be comP?.eted prior to final bui.ldiiig and zoning inapection of the first phase; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Rngineer shall be posted Lo guarantee the u?timate improvement of said public streeta and of the lake. (15) That the ea~terly boundary of. aubject tract, abutting Tract No. 8775, ahall be moved easteriy Co include the entire w'.dth of Che private atreet at said boundary. ; .,. , ~ ~.~;,; ~ ~ MINUTE,S. CI'I'Y Y1.ANNINC ~OMMT.SSION. Or.tobe.r :1.4, 1'~74 74--474 E:NViRONMENTAL IMPACT Rl:I'UFtT NOS. ].34 ANU 136, VARIANCIs N0. 76~5, AND 7'l:"1'CA7'IVF. M.~AP ()r TEtAC'!' NOS. 8775. 8793, 8795 AND 8796 (~:onCinueJ~ _____.__._..__ .------....~-----.- .--.~----_--- CommiseJ.oneY Farano offered a motion, c~econded ~~y Commle;aion~~r John~en ~nd MOTION CARKT.EU~ to c:pprove Teutxtive Mnp und Final Specific Flaru~ of Tr~ct No. $796~ Aub,~ect to th~ £ol.low- Lng conditione; nnd~ furthex'. to e~trong~.y r~c~~mmE+nc1 to tt-e Glty Cauncl.l. ChsC the tr.affic signal propos~:d by khN developsr. Co be l.ocui.~d i~C Che int~:rs~~ctlon of. La Palma A•~enue nnd Romneya Drive be inr~tallad at the beginning of confiCruction of th4 AnnhAim Shorr:e Plenncscl Community on khr, bneie thHt the deve.~o1.~er ~nd the i'lnnni.og ~ommisel.on feel srrongly t1iaC a need will exiet immediate.ly upon construction c~i' Aa1.d pro~~.ct end, additionall.y, ChAt the developer hae committed to pay one-t~nlf. ehe cor~t of r.oaid i.na~tal?ntion~ (1) '.l'hat the approvul of Tentative Mnp of 'Pract No. 8796 tfl grunted ~ubj~cC to Chu completion of N.ocl+xKS:ificnti.on N~. 73-74-Sti ancl uppr.oval of Vrsrt~nce No. 2635. (2) That ehould this aubdivieion be dev~lopnd as mor.e than one subdi.vieon, en:.h subdlvi.sion thereof shal.l be submitt.ed in tc~nt:ntiv~• form ~or uPpr~WUl. (3) Thut al.l. lots within this r_a~~ct ehall be aervecl by under.ground uti1L[ier~. (4) That n fin~l tract map of subjact property +hall be submirr.ed r.o and appraved hy the City Counci.l and then bc rec+~rded .lri tli4 oEEi.-:e ~~i lhe Ort~nRe C~unty Recoxder. (5) 7'hnt Lhe conc~ominium c~venant'f~~ c~nditiu~~a an:l r•eatrict~.nns~ inr_].uding but~ not limi.ted to provic~iona foY t.r.ash collection, sha11 h~ submicte~i to and upproved by t:he City Attorney's Offic~ p~'1.C~r to ~i.ty Council np[~rovnl of C.he fina.l t., t map; anJ~ f~irttier, tF~~t the appr.oved covNnf-nY.s, conditions xnd reetricti.ons ~h~:ll be recorded concur.rently wit.h the final tract m~r• (6) That prior to filing the fin+il tra~.t map, the appli.caut shall aubmi~ to r.he GiCy Attorney for approva.t or d~~ni:.j3. ~s :~mplete synopeis of. the prupor~cd £un~tianin~, of the operati.ng corpozation J.nc.lud:-~P, buk not li.mit.ed to,, the axticles of inr.orporatlon. by].uws, pzoposc~~l inetk~~ds of mnnage~nen~, bo~~din~ to in`•~re maln-• teriance of common properCy and bui.! d L7ig:3 and such othcr iniorm:ition as the Cicy Att:orney may desire to prale_.t thc: Cit~•, its ci.tizer,s, an~i the purchasers of the pru~ect. (7) 'Phat street namea shall. be aporoved by the CiCy of Anat-cim prior lo approval of a f. inal tra~ c Lk.~. ($) Tl-~at drainage of sub~ect property r>ha11 be disposed +~£ i~i a manner that is s<<tl.sfactory t.o the C:tCy Engineer. (9) That all private atreets sha].1 bE~ developed in xccordance ti~ir.h the City of Aixaheim's atandards fo-' pr:ivnte stxeets. (10) That the owner~s) oF c~ub~ect 1?r:operty shall pr~y to tre Cl.ty uf ,Anaheim Che appropriate parlc ancl r.ecLedtiau in-lieu fee~ as del'er~ined l.o be appr.c~prtake Uy ttie City Council, saict tr~~s Co be paid a* the time the bul.l.din~ pern~it is lssued. fll) Tiiat vehicu~ar access rigltts. except at stree~t xnd/~:r al].ey openings, to La Palma Avenue sh<il.l be iedi~ated tu the C'i.ty of Anahelm. (12) That fire iiydrznta :vhall oe installed nnd charged a~ required and determ~.ned ro be necessary b~~ the Chie£ ef the I'tre D~partme-~t prior tc~ cammenr.ement of structural fz:.~ming. (].3) That all piib.lic at:rc.et improvements wx~hin thi.~ tracC riad TraGt No3. 877:~, 8793~ and 8795 and the lake witt~in Tract No. 8793 ahal.l be d~velopP~1 with the first phase ~f construction of said trac.ts ax~d ah~11 be cCmgleted priot to fittai buildir~~ and zaning inspection of the first phase; ~nd rhat a bond la nu amount ~nd form satisfactoxy to the City Engin~:er ah~ll ae p~eted to guaranlee the uitimate improvement of said pub:lic streete nnd of the lake. e ~ ~ MtNUT~S, CITY PI,ANNING COD4IISSION, Oceobet 14~ 1974 74-475 CONllI'PIONAL USH: - PUBLIC HEARING. TNUMPSON-I.l:f: LNGIN'EERTNG CONTitACTORS, AtCn: Jarry Fi. P!'sP.MIT N0. 1495 l,ee~ ~'. G, Box 6378, Mat~eim~ Cn. 928U6 ((hmer); requeeting permi.asion '~ '~ to F.STABLZSI! M-2 USES (CONTMCTOR~S UFFTCE~ RF.PAIR SHOP AND S'l'O1tAGE YAItD) IN THC M-1 'I,ONE on proE~erty deACribed aR: A r~ctanAularl.y- ahnped parcel of le~nd canaisting of approximately 0.5 acee hnving a frontaga of: npproxi- mntelY 114 feet on the eouth eide of Coronado Strost, t~aving a maximum dapkh of approxi- mately 192 fr.et und be:ing loc.c+t~d npproximc~tely 43]. feet ~uat of klie centerllne of Iil.ue G~n~ Street. Property pr~sently claseified M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRLAL) ZOD1F:. No one indicated tt~air presence in oppoeition to ~ubject petitJ.~n. Al.thougt~ Che Staf: Repart to the Ylanning Commiesion daCed October 14, 1~7a, was uot reacl at the public heuring, it ie referrcd C~~ and made a part of th~ minutes. Mr. Jerry Lpe~ representing the petitioner, appe~red bofure the Cormnisalon and atipulated that traeh ar.orage ar.eae would be provided in accur~l~~uce ~,~ch the requirements of the City and tliat he questionad the need to pay street ligl-ting ~.eea since there wae pre~ently a etreet .light on the aub~ecC ~~roperty~ Asdisl•ant Zoning Supervlsor Annika Sentalahti natpd for the petitioner that if the atre~t light Lng for the propert~y had not previously been paid ~ t.t~en the Ci.ty woul.d bill the present property owner for it. Mr. Lee then atated thAt they had purchased the property as an l.mproved lot~ and ol•her than the conditian regardin the lighti.n~y £ee, he would have no further ob~ection to ~he conditions se outlined in the Staff Report. TIiG PIiflLIC HENtING WAS CLOSED. lJpon questioninA by Chuirman Herbst.~ Mr. Lee explained ttie uae, heing thn.t Chey were an engineering a~anufACturer of underground conduit. He st:ited that neither the machinery nor the product was very large in size and additionally they were a small manufacturer. In r.eaponse Co queationing by Commissioner King, Mr. ;.ee atipulaCed tt-at interwovzn r.ed- wc~od or cedar ~lats would be provided in Ctie proposed sliding gate, and indi.cated that that ~~ae an oversight on the part of the engineerin~ designer. Zoni.ng Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Planning Commisai.on thaC questione had been raiaed at the InCerdepartmental Committee review of, the propanal. regarding whether the second-floor office space would be uaed solely by the petitioner or uu~de avai.lable for tent, etc. Mx'. T~ee sCated that the second floor was desi.gned as a large room and, since their operation was presently very small, they were anticipating that e~entually they would need it all. Mr. Lee further stated that pr~sently they would 11ke to be able Lo rent excegs office apace on a temporary basis, and Mr. Ruberts tt~en explained tliat onl.y certain t,ype uses would be p~rr.iitted I.n the aub~ecC zc~ne c~.^.d the petittoner. shauld check with the City regarding any prospective tenants prior to making commitments. Commissioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner 'Tolar and MOTION CARRLI;D, Cl1at the Planning Commission recotimnenda eo the City Council that the sub~ect proJect be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Gnvironmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Morley offered Resolution No. PC74-203 and moved for its passa~e and adoption to grant petition for Condit:ional Use Permit No. 1495 aub~ect co the stipulation of the petitiotier and sub~ect to conditions. (~ee Resolution Book) Qn roll call, the foregoin~ resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COI~[ISSION~RS: FARANO, GAUER, .IOHN30N, KING, MORLEY, TOLE.R, HERDST NOES: COI~IISSIOIVERS: NONE ASSENT: COI`Il~SISSIONERS: NONE ~ ~ ~ MINIf'fLS, CITY Pi.ANNINC COM1dISSION~ O~toUer 1G, 1.974 7<<-476 CONDITIONAL USB - PUBI.IC FIEARING, JAMES AND ANCBI.A M. YLOU~ 214 Nc~rCh Cr,ind qveauQ, PL'.RMIT N0, 14y6 Anuheim~ Ca, 928U1 AND J. A. M;~~ FRANCCS HUNTSMAN, 709 South Waeco RouJ, Anaheim~ Ca. 92801 (Owners); requesting per.mi.esi.on Co h.Xl'AND AN Es?{1STIN~ MUBILFHOME PARK WITH WA]'VERS OF (A) MAXIMUM WALI. dGIGHT AND (B) MINIMUM FRONT YI~RD S~TBACK on property described ne: An irregulnrly-nhapnd parcel of lund conaieting of Appruximately 11 acr.es having fronl•ages of u{>proximntely f.70 teeC ~n the euet eide of Crand Avenue and approximately 373 feet on thc ~1nrCh eide of Lincoln Avenue~ hnving c- maxiwum dept}~ of approximately 822 fQet und bel~ng locaCed north and eaet of tt~e intersectiun nf Lincol.n Avenucs and Grand Avem~e. Prop~rty ;~rr~pently r.la~aifird C-3 (HGAVY COMMGRCIAL) AND R-A (AGRTCULTURAI.) ZONES. No one indicnted their preRence in oppoaitlun to subject pet.iti~n• Altholg}i the Str~ff Repurt Co the Planning Commiesion ited Octaber 14~ 1974, waR nat read at the public liearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. James Fluntsman, one of rhe properCy ownere, appear.ed before the Commiasion and indi- caCed uppositlon Cu the criter.ia used by Che 1'lanning Comaais~,ton in their consideration of mohilehome parks~ although he would have no problem complying wi[h much of said criteria. Mr. tiuntc~man cited aever3l addressea al.ang Littcoln Avenue where the structures were located withln tha 35-foo~ ser.back, being McUonnld'a Reataurant at 3210 4)esl• I~incol.n Avenue wiCh a zer.o aetback; c:altempo Apartments rit 2900 West Lin~~oln Avenue with a 25-fooC setback; I.inr.oln Recreation~l Velricle Park at 2651 Weat L•lnccln Avenue with a 20-foot actback; and Wilyun's House of Suede at Lincoln and Brooktiurat with a~-foot setback. Ne contlnued by atat:ing they were propoaing that the closest building setback wou].d bP 30 feet. THE PURLIC HEARING l~7AS CLOS~U. In response to qucstioning by Commiasioner King, Mr. Huntaman etated the propused six-fout block wall was for yecurity purposes. Upon questioning by Chair-nrsn He•bst, Mr. Huntsmsn atated that from a design and ~ecurity standpoint, they were propcaing only onr_ access. Chairman Herbst theo not~d Che conar- qu~nces if a clisaster happened at rhe subject mobilehome park, and Mr. Huntsman indi_cated a crash gate would not be objectiona~le and would provide protection as well ae security to the residents. Mr. Huntsman took exceptiun to the criteria or guidelines apecifying recreational space and sCated the preaent recreational space was adequate for their present development; that their experience was that approxi.mately 25% of their Cenants used the recreational facil~•• tiea; that the recreational ha21 would seat 90 people; that their propoeal would probably add 40 residents and that by uaing the 7.5°6 factor they would ba addi.ng 10 wl~o would probabl~~ use the recreational facilittea; that they presently had ~s 20-foot by 40-foot awimmi.ng pool and only about 10 people in r_he park uaed it; and that everyone had different tastes and desires and many of the residents had never been iaside the recreational facility. Chairman Herbst nuted thar. by cumplying with the established guidelines, the density wauld be reduced, and thar because of the densiCy, parking and landscaping, i~e was not in favor of granting the subject petiti~r~. He continued by stating that he had no ob~ection to the expr~nsion of the mobilehom~ park, but ;:hal- it ahould be done within the realm of the guidelinea which represented the City's thinking. Mr. Huntsman then atated there would be no problem adding the required parking spaces; and in response to questioning by Chairman Flerbst, he atated he would request a continuance on the basis that he would be able to deviate from the recreational facility guidelinee. Chairman Herbat then indicated that the petitioner woul.d have to show proof that the present recreaCional facilities were adequate to aerve exiating and propased tenanta. The Planning Commisaion entered intn discussion with the petitioner regatding the recrea- ti~nal facilitiea~ during which t:r. Huntaman stated he was vitally interested in the La Belle Fontaine aince t:he property had been in his wife's f~nily for sixty years and the bueiriess was neither tranaient nor an inveatment type; and thax they had had only four vacancies since the park was built in 1966. In reaponae to questioning by G.~manissioner Tola", Mr. Huntsman indicated he would be hnppy to have the 35-foot setbbck and to comply wlkh the trash area requirement, but that he did not feel there wus any way he couZd expand his recreational facili*_ies. ~ o MIMUTLS, CITY PLANNING COt~1ISS]ON~ October 1.4~ 1974 ~4"4~~ CONUITIONAL USls PGItMIT Nb. 1.496 (Contin~ied) Commiaei~nar Cauer euggeAted that thr.Qes pod areae he eliminated on Lincoln to hol.p reduce the deneit:y. Commiss~ioner Morley indicaked thar. if a continuance wad grunted for the sub~oc:t paCitlon~ u atudy ehoul~ Ue made to find aut whaC the sizc+e of recrentional fucilities for other eimilar developmente were in the City. In respot~se to questioning by CommisalonQr. Cauer, Mr. Huntsman etated he di.d nut bolieve there hud been one inetunce whec~ the locntion uf ~he recreational faciliti.os, distancp- wise, had tiindered any of L-he r.c~nAnta from ueing tliem. Chairman Hurbst noCed for the pati.tioner thnt Che Plaiining ~ommiseion need~d more detai.led information rege~rding how Che pro~ecC would camply with the 35-foot se[back whicti wae Councit policy, c:he craeh gate for emergency access~ and th~ circulation element~ etc. Mr. Jumen Plou, une r~f the property ownera, appeared before the Commi~eion and qu~~tioned the 35-f:oot building aetbuck re~ui.rement which, in hie opinion. was for the public safety of. commercial bui.ldingA i.n the area und did not ap~ly ko the eubject proposgl. Thereupon~ Commisaioner Johnr~on iiidicxted that the Commiseion would like Staff to check out the addresse3 on Lincoln Avenue which were rendered by the petitioner earlier in thiu public t-earing. In responAe to quesCioning bY Mr. Plou, Aaelat~nt Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalr~hti. noted thaC aome of ttze pad areaA were rroposed in thE 35-foot building setback. Mr. Huntaman then stated ehal• it would ba financially infeaeible to have seven units per acre because of the pr.ice of land and suggeated that there ahou7.d be some collr~boration with ~wners o~ other mobilehome parks. Commis3i.oner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Johnaon and M0~'ION CARRIED, to reapen the public hearing and continue consideratior_ of petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1/i96 to the meeting of Ur_tober 30, 1974, as requested by the petitioner. RECESS - At 4:07 p.m., Chairman Herbst declared a recess. RECONVENE At 4:15 p.m,, Chairmmn Herbst reconvened the meeting with a11 Commis: ' ~nex•s b~.Lng preaent. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. JOSEPH A. MARTINEZ, 8~.5 East Barkley Avenue, Orange, N0. 74-75-15 Ca. 92667 (Ownerj. Property deacribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.86 acr.e hav~.ug a frontage VARIANCE H0. 26G0 of approximately 82 feet on the n~rth side of Ball Road, ~~aving a maxi- mum depth of approximately 482 feet and being locate:; appro lmately 1060 feet west of the centerline nf Knott Avenue, aad further deacribed as 3629 West Ball Road. Property preaently classifiec3 C-1 (GENERAL COMMBRCIAL) ZQNE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3 (MUL'PIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALj ZONE REQUESTED VAFtIANCE: WAIVER OE (A) MAXIMUM BUILllING HEIGHT, (S) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, (C) MIN7:MLfM SIDE YARD SETBACK, (l)) MINIMUM ~1TDTH OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS- W~~Y, (E) REQUIItED SOLI~ MASONRY WALL AL~JACENT TO R-A OR ~INGLE-FAMILY ZONE AND (F) REQUIR~D RECREATION-LEISURE AREA, TU CONSTRUCT A 20-•UNIT, 'PF10-STORY APARTMENT COMPLER. 'lt~o pereone indicuted their presence in oppoeition. Assistant 7.oning Supervisor Annika Santalahti read the Staff Reporc to the Planning Cammission c'.~ted ~~cober 14~ 1974, and said Staff Report is refe:red tc as if set ;orth in £ull in the minutea. Mr. Jo~eph Mar~inez, the petftioner, appeared before the Com~ission to answer queations regarding the proposal. ~ ~ MINUTI:S~ CI'rY PLANNING COMMiSSiON~ OcCober 14, 1974 Et~Cl.A5SIF1CAT10N_NU._74-75-15 ANU VAkT.ANCE N0. 2640 (Cantinuod) 74-~~7a Ct~alrman Herbot suKges[ed thut any remarks hy the pet3ti.oner el-ould bc diracted toward the wc+ys in wtiich eome of the requested wniverR could be elim'.nated~ and Fo1low.i.ng disc:uesion of eaid waiver~ by the Flnnning Comm.iseion, th~ Chnirmnn euggeotad that tha petitioner migt~t wieh to x•equeat a poatponemeri'_ oE t.he public hearing to revise th~_~ plane~ for tt~P propo9ad project. Thereupon~ the pNtitianur requceted n aix-week continuance to tlie mes~iiig of November 25, 1974~ in c~rder to revisQ tt~e plane. Commi~eio~~cr Morley offercd n motion~ seconded by Commlesioner King and MU'fTON CARRI6D~ to poetpune the public hvacing und conxideratior of petitione fnr Reclasalfication No. 74-75-15 and Varinnce No. 2640 to the Navember 25, 197G Planniag Cocimieaion meeting~ as requesCed Uy the peti.tioner. VARtANCE N0. 26~9 - PUBI.IC HI:ARINC. WIL~.IAM F, bARLIN, i25 North West Street, Anghei.my Ca. 92f301 (Owner); requesting WA2VER OF PERMITTED SIGNS TO CUNSTRUCT A FRB~- STANDiNG SIr,N IN THE C-0 '/.ON~ on propert,y desaribed a~: A reclangula~~l.y- shaped parcel of land consieting of approximately 6208 equare feet, having a frontags of approximately 64 feet on the eaet eide of Eucl.id Street, having a maximum depth of approxi- malely 97 £ee.t and being located npproximately 290 feeC north of the center.lina uf Alomnr Avenue. Pr4perty presently clc-ssi.fied C-0 ;COhIIYtERCIAL OFrICE) ZONE. No one indicated their pre~ence in oppositi.on C~ aub~ect petition. Although Che Staff Report to the Ylanning Commi.ssion dated October 14, 1974, wae not read at the public tiearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. William F, Darlin, the peticioner~ appeared before the Commiss-lon to an~wer questi.ons regarding the proposal and Cook excepti ~ to Intexdepartmenta7. Commi~tee recommendationa concerning ntreet lt,t~ting and tree planting fees along Euclid Street, statir.g he believed thuse fees had alrc~:idy been paid and questloned whether they would have to bp paid again. In reply, Assistant toni.ng _~upervisor Annika Santalahti advised that i.f the recorda showed Che fees had been paid, they would not have to be paid again. THE PUBLI:C HEARING WAS CLOSED. In reaponse to queationing by Commiasioner Morley, the peCitioner atipulsted to removing the existing free-standing sign at th~~ ~~ubject location. It was noted that the Airector o~ Development Services had determined that the proposed activity fell within the definition ~f Section 3.01, C~ass il of Che City of Anaheim Guidelines to tlie RP.~uiremenl-s for an ~nvironmental Impact Report and was, there£ore, categorically exec~pr from the requireaent to file an EIR. Commissioner Morle~ offered Resolution No. PC74-204 and m~ved for i.ts passage and adoption to grant petition f~~r Variance No. 2639 sub~ecC to removal of the exiating free-stunding si.gn at the sub~ect ,ocation~ as stipulated to by the petiki.oner; and sub~ect to conditious. (See Resolution Book) On roll call., the foregoing reaolution was passed by tt;e following vote: AYES: COA41ISuI0NE1tS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSONf KING, MORLEY, TULAR, HE1tBST NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ~ ~ M~PIUTF.S ~(:ITY PT.ANNING COtMti55IUN, Uctober 14, 1974 ~"-479 VARIANC[: N0. 2642 - YUI3LLC Hf:ARLNG. RICHARU DGNTLCY, 1425 fnet Littc~lzi Avenue, Anaheim. Cu, 92805 (Owner) ; COUNTY OF OftANG~ DEYAR'J'MEN'T Or REAL PRUPER'tY S[:RVICES~ 4U0 Civic Center Drive Waat~ Snntn Ana, Ca. 92701 (Ag~nt); r. equeat ing WAIV[:N UF OPF-STRGGT. PARKING TO ES'PAIiLISN A METHMONN: MAINTENANCF: 'TRLATM~NT PRUCRAM t1EQICAI. CLINIC on prop~rCy deecribed Ae: An irrt~gular]y-ehuped parcel of lend conei~tir~g af npproximately 0.~1 acre located at the northeaet corner of Lincoln Avenus and I.n Ylnzn~ hi-vlnq i~pproxim~le frontngQe of 135 feer. un rho north ~ide of Lincoln Avenuc nnd 201 fo~t on the enst aide of Lu Plazu, ~nd t~n~l~ig R maximum depth of approxi-• mately 201 feet. Property presenr..Ly clasaified C-1 (GENEFtAI. COt~tEKCIAL) ?.ONE. Approximxtely 12 perNOna indicated their prPSence in oppositian tci yubjecr petition. Aseietanl' 7.oning 5upervlraor Mnika Sanl•nluhti read the 5caf[ Repork to the P1.nnnlnK Commiaei.on dateJ Oc:toher 1.4, 1974, and said ataff RoporC is ref~rred to r~5 1E set forth in full in ttie min~ites. Mr, Larry Diack~ r.epresenting the County of. Orange Depnckmerit uf Real Property Service~, xppear~d beforF: the Commiasion and commended the City Staf.f fer the nreparation of the Staff Report. He c~mcinued by stating r.hat the existing parking, alehou;~h it ciid not mePt the Code requir.ements' exceeded tt-e nee~is ~f the exi.sting tenantR; thut ~he proposed clinir.. would be closed between Che houre of 17.:G0 noun to 1:OQ p.m. An~l 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Chat the hulk ot the putients would be coming t~ the c.linic between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 u.m, w}ien noue c~f the othe~.r usea in the complex would F~e open and un thac basis, the parking would bc adequate Co handli~ the existing uaes ue we11 as r.he proposed use at lhe sub~ecC location. Mrs. Sue Winters, ].242 East Adele Street, appe8red before t:he. Commia5ton r.epresenting the P':A at Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, r~nd indicated ahe had aubmit~ed 3 Letter in oppoeition to the aubjec.t petitiuii and also a letter had been sent i~y Mr. Brier, Super- intendent of t!~e Anaheim City School Distr.icl• Bosrd of EducAtion. She atuted that if Che sub~ect parking waiver was granteci, the citizene wuuld be apprehensive about r.he schooi chi.l.dren going to achool; that mar~y of the school children would be gotng to r~chool at tha same time the patienCs were cominR to the proposed clinic; that the children deserved some consideration with respect to tl~e type of people that would be coming to the clinic:; th~st if thie was a County program~ the~• should be able to use tlie Health Aepartment Mnex on ^ast Strec~t in the City; that the Lincoln 5chool PTA did not believe the atmosphere i.ntro- duced by t-ie clinic would be conducive to what the chlldren had been taught ttirougltout the year~; that although the Methadone Clini.c was a fine program, it was not a good idea to have it so ciose to a school; that the school pa.rk would be uaed on Sar•.~rdays and Sundays by chS.ldren in the area, and the neChadone program probably was avail~l,le to the patients on thoae days a1so. She then pre~ented petiti~ns eigned by ~pproximately 139 residents in tlie area, all in opposition. Miss Santalahti then re~d the letters of opposition receiven from Mrs. Winters and Mr. Bri~r. Mr. David Eienun, reprP~^~~i.ng his mother who resided at ?.16 North La Plaza, appeared before the Commission and stated hls mother lived dirpctly ad~~cenC to the sub~ect property and was ob~ecting because of the type people the clinic would bring into the neighborhood ancl ttie effect cf the clinic on the nearby pro~erty. Mrs. Flora E. SCahton, 1498 East Birch StreeC, appeared before the Comir~ission and atated she had li.v~d At her presenC address for approxtmately 22 years and was 30 feel- from thQ sub~ect parking lot. Mrs. Stanton pre3ented petittons signed by appr~xicuately 11 residents in the ar~a, all in orposition, and read the sCatement on the petition being "We, the undersignYd, PRO'1'EST the waiver of off-street parking, also PROTEST the establiahment of a Methadone maintenance treaCment pr.ogram medical clinic, becau~e as it is now, private drivew~.ys in area and priva~e cemetery r~ad (so poated) are often blocked by vehicles (cars and/or trucks) belongin~ to people patroning one or more of the establishments in this block running fron Cemetery Raud to La Plaza. If granted, it would create a hazard, more cars in the area, making it i.mpossible to park close to school to Calce or pick up children. It will be worse ~ahen raining, too, for chi.ldrEn do~ging r_ars when streets and guttera are flooded. The danger of driveways and CemeterY road being blocked is that GMERGENCY EQUIPMEr1T COULD N07' GET THROUGH. Reaidences durround this building. Thi~ building is directly across from Lincoln Elementary Schoal and Lincoln publi.c pla~+ground. A Methadone maintenance treatment program medical clinic is not compatible with achool, playground and aurrounding residences. Mar.y residentH have lived in their homes twenty years, There is danger of accidents and +~r in~uries and or more cnrs and noise. My Lncreased traffic in Cha area would increase noies. Parking ahould be in the park'ng Iot behind Chis building. Ae to Methadone Clinic, ~.t should be in a tiaepitaY or in a building located in an i.ndustrial area." ~ ~ MINUII:S, CTTY PI.AtdNiNC~ COMMI55ION, Uctobar. 14, 1974 7G-480 VAItIANCB N0~ 2f,42 ~,Cuc-tlnued) Mre. 5tantun continued by senting thnt several of the pereong who nigned the putittonA lived within 300 feet of the sub,~ec.t rroperCy but had :ndtcAtecf Chey did not receJ.ve legal notices and, tl~er4upon. StnEf verifiec! that nokiceo I~nd been eent to the addresa4s in queat!on. Mrs. SCanton then etuted that accordin~ Co an ex~.ating ordinniicc there ahould not be inqress ur egr~~R an Cemetery ltoad and there hnd been n eign poet.ed on that rond for severnl yeare !r-dicuting "'fhe cemeeery roada are private prop~rty not to he ueed as pubtir. thoro~ghfnrer."; thnt th~ parking aituat.lun in the immedinte area was r~cute Kinc~ uu raany OCCAH~0113 shc hnd aot been ab.le to antc:r thc nlley from her properl} becuuse of cai~r:~ parkesf everykhere~ Ulocking gtttes~ drivewaye, etr., ~~ven on Lincoln Avenu~. Thar. one of her nelRl~bora ti~d cn11eJ the Police D~p~rtmenC on many occneions because someone wae p~rked r.tcrua~ eheir drivewny, but thc~ Yolice Department wa~ relucCant to r~w the cr~ra AWAy; tha-t shc woulrl ask lhe Planning CummiReion if th~y wou;.d aw~ar if. they could no~ ger. out of their dr.iveway to take a member of their family to the ductor or to a hoapital; th:~t 1n Addict's bFhavior wua irratinnal. on occueions; ttiat t-ccording to 24r. Mack, if the residenta did nat wlnt to hav~ the Methadone Clinic in t}-e c-eighborhood, they not wunt to cram it: down ttieir throu~s and wauld look elsewl~ere Eor a ait~; that the resldente in the area had ~ pt~rkinE problem presently which was unEair to thase rE:sid~nts who had lived ln the nre:i Eor so long and wtio dc~served pence and quie~t and security~ and al.s~ deserveci to be nble to get in und out of their property. In :ehuttal, Mr. Mack Rlnted that he had discusaed the proposal wi.th Mrs. Stanton and that he liad atated they did not intend to cram the propor~al down the re3ldents' Chroat; and that he had enGOUr~ged t~er to attend Che put'lic hearing. Mr. Saul StolzberR~ i)irecCur of the Oran~e Coilnty Methadone Maintc~nance Program, wiCh offlce:a aC 2215 Nortti Broadway, Santa Ana, appeared before the Cotmnission and ataCed there were three exier,ing mettiadone clinice in Orange County, t~~o uf which were located in resi.d~n~ial arena and on~ being apptoximately 25 feet ~rom u convnlescent hospita.l; that they were intereated in aesuring that there would be '.-o problem~ with the location and could flp~reciate ttie concern about the hours of operatton; that th~ ma~ority of the patients were employed fu11 time and would come to the clinic priar to 8:00 a.m. and l•he remainder of ttie program wae devoted primarily to coun~Lling; thaC there were ap~.roximaCel.y 330 persons on the program in Orange County, approximately SOX of whom were employed full time tind only about 30 were getting any kind of public asaiatance; that tt~e program ~perated unde* very rigid State and Federal guidelines and was nat open to everyonP; Chat G.l of the patients in Orange County lived in the City of Anaheim, some of whom or their. children went to the City's schools; that if the program was approved f.or l.ocation in tt~e City of Anaheim~ there aould be a redisCribution so that the Anaheim clinic would serve those patienCs who lived there and the program would be able to add 150 patienta; that rhe average heroin habi.t cost $30 to $50 a day und the pro~ram was uble to make those persons an asset to the community ra[her than having them on the atreeta loaking for. illega]. means to acquire the money to pay for their habit. Chairman Herbat notad Chat it would take only one incident involv~.ng a school child to create a problem, nl.though it was realized that nothing wes 100X; and that he was inter- ested to know why the cJ.inic wns not being proposed at the County facilit:y on ~ast Str.Pet. In reply, Mr. Stolzberg atuted they had not had a single insCance where a problem wae created by the patient~ in the ar.ea ad~acent to a clinic; thnC the County had looked at their present facil.ities Yor a possible location, however, their prea~nt space was utiliz~d to the utmoaC and the County wae looking elsewhere for an c:xisting building that wau13 have the deaired square footage. Chai.rman Flerbst then noted that one of his major concerns wae Chat it wae typical for the County pr~grama to grow and, thereupon, Mr, Stolzberg stated each of the existing clinics had not been known to 1~~ve more than 150 patients since theYe was nu way to erpand to more: than that due to ~.ne State and Federal regulatinns. In responae to queat~oning by Chairu-an Herbst, Mr. SColzberg elated that the program's schedule was baeically counseli.r~g to deal with rhe long-standing mental and psychologica'L problems; that the reason they had chogen the sub~ect site f.or the ctinic was that the second largeat nu~.5er of pntienta lived in Anaheim and the subje%~t aite, in hip8spthan~~ was more than adeq~.iate to serve tT~e prograw t~ince they needed no more and ~ 3500 squar.e f.eet of epace. ~ ~ ~ MINUT[:S~ ^ITY PLAI~NirIG COl~P1ISSI0N. Occob~r 1/+, 1974 VARIANCE N0. 2642 (Contfnued) 74-481 In responAe to quoationing by (:ommiaeioncr Johnaon~ Mr. StolzbQrg cxplained thak "walk-in" ii~ relc~tion~~hf.n to the mathadone program~ meaat thaC undcr tho rigid 5tate and I~'ederal guidc~llnes~ puti.enCa would not Ue able to wal.k in nnd eay et~ey wanted to be on the pcogram und th~r.i~ get methudoRa. Commis«ioner KinQ noted that the industri.al a~ea might be appr,oprinCe~ for the propoAed use, as eugge~t~~ by Mra. Stanton. Commieei.oner JuhnAOn nutad Chut tha Plunning Comn-isAion appaared to be in favor ~~f the progr~m but nol i.n fsvor of. ite locati.on being right ac.ross thA etrc~~C from an e.lc:menlary school. Commiaeianer Cnuer nuted that he felt tl~P:e eho•.~ld be somc kind of recommandatiun regard- ing the e.xisting parking aituation iTi Che arQa. It was noted that th~ Director o£ Aevelopment Servicos had detezmined Chc-t the proposed activity fell wlrhin tlie definil•ion of Section 3.01, Claks 1 of. the City of Maheiru GuidelinPa to the Rcsquiremente for an Environmental Iropact Report and wae, kherefore, categoricaily Pxempt fracu ~he requlrement to f.iie an EIR. CommiP,aioner Johnsan off~:red ResoZutinn No. PC74205 and moved for. it~ passage and adoption to deny petition for Vaciance Na. 264?. on the basie that evidence was presented that sub- stantiuted a current parking shortage at the eub~act locatian for the exieting usad~ and the proposal wo•~ld further compound that eituation; and tbat the Planning C~artniesion supporta the locatinn af the Methadone Mxin~enance Treatment Program Medical Clinic in the City of Anuhei.m bu! recommended that it stiould be located further from a publ~c achool than propused in c~ub~ect petitton, since the veh~c~~'lar traffic generated by sub~ect use is not conducive to the ea£eCy and welfare of achool chi.ldren. (See Re9olutian Bauk) (1n roll call. the for.egoing resolut.ton was passed by the following vote: AYES: CaMMTSSIONERS: FAkANO, GAU~R, .JOHP1u01v, KIIJG, MORLEY, TULAR, HERBS'T NOES : C0.•iMISSICNERS : NONE AASENT: CU1~4~i1SS.T.ONt~RS: NONE C~mmissioner 'Iolar notec! for ~he Planaing Cowmisaion that he was intending to turn the propo~~d uae in to the Board of Realtora in an effort to asaiat the .:ounty i.n ].ocating a fi~itnble building and area in the City. EIvVIRONMEN'TAL IMPACT - FUBLIC NEARING. MARTINA Y. PELANCOrII, c/o ~arl Newt~n, 649 South REPORT N0. '135 Olive, 3uite 1000, Los Angeles, Ca. 90014 (Owner); CARL NEWTON, 649 South Olive, Sui.e 1000~ Loa Angelea, Ca. 90014 (Agent). VARIANCE N0. 2644 Froperty describ~d as: An irregularl;~-shnped parcel of land ^ conaisting of approximately 52 acres located southeaet of the TENTATIVE MAP OF intersection of San*.a Ana Canyon Road and Royal Oak Road, having TRACT N0. ~3783 approximate frontages of 4S0 feet on the souCh side of ~anta Ana Can~~on Road and 110() £eet on the eaet side of Royal Oak Roady nnd ha•~in~ a maximum depth of approxiaately 1700 feet. Property pr~~sently classif ied R-A (AGRICULTURAL) 7.ONE. REQUESTED VAEtIANC~: WAIVER OF REQUIREMEN7' THAT SINGLF-FAMILY RESIDENCES REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS, TU CQNSTRUCT A 14U-LOT, R-H-l0,OQ0 SUBDIVISION. 'rENTATIVE TRACT REQU EST: DEVELO°ER: PRESLEY 4F SOUTHE[tN CALIFORNIA~ 4600 Cam~us Drive, Newport Beach, Ca. 9~564. ENGINEFR: VTN CONSOLIDATED, II~C., 2301 Cfsmpua Drive, i.twine, Ca. 92b64. Sub~ect property ia pr~posed to be aubdividPd intu 140 R-H-10~000 lots. Two persona indicated their pre3ence in oppoaition to subject petition. Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Mnika Santalahti read the Staff Report to the ~l.anning Corumisaion dated dctober tk, 1974, and eaid S~aff Report is referred to as ~f s~t forth in full in the minutcs. ~ ~~ M1N11T~5, CI'fY PLANNINC COMMTSSION. Octob«r 14~ 1974 74-G82 L~NVIKONMF.N'CAL IMPACT RF.POKT N0. 135. VARIANC~, N0. 26G4, AND TEN'l'ATIVK MAP OI~' 'CRAC'f N0. 8783 _Continuecl) --•--- ---- _______~._~..r-..--..__.,_ -. Commiaeioner Fnrnno noted that it wae his und~,rstanding nccording to the predent ruquire- monCe uf tho City~ -.hat an EIR wne requlred when gradi.ng ox~ved~d a cortaln nmc~unt end. ln view of that~ tie did not fe~]. that ttie: }':nn~itng Commiaeion end par.CiculArly litmi~elt aould ba in a positlon to pase upon or tu moke ~ racocmnendution f~r or A~81119C tt~o auh~oct NIR unloer~ they could re~vlew the t~pplicable grAding plan. Commi.~~ecianer Facuno khen rc,~~om- mendc~d thnt eince the yub~ect vr~ri3nce nnd tentc+ctv-~ tract mnp could ~ot be ected upoiy ~rior to cflnaider.atlon ~~E the EIR~ thut thc mntte r bc~ poetp~nad unCi1 auch tlme ae n gracfing plan was eubmil•ted with thP uppro~,rinte 1's1K. Chnir.man Hwrbst noted Lhut the EIR No. 13~ indic~t~.•d Chero would be 500~000 ~~uUl~ ynrclx of earth movud. Com~;~ls~ioner Tolnr. indicaced it would be imposaible fnr V~im t~ cnake a deciaion on the sub~ect mntter baeed upon the infarmatiun provid ed thue [E~r. Commissioner Farnnc then augg~~t~ed that xather than hold~ng rhe public hearing et this meeting~ tt~at infnrmul diacussion be hel~d wikh the pQtitioner and that a conCinuance bc granted until ehe gr.ading pl~nF+ were submitted~ said diecueglon Geing to give the ~ati- k~.oner eame idea us eo what aome of Che Planr.ing Coauaiseiun's questiona would be on the subject pro~ect, Chairmaci Herbet Chen noted that four of the current Plunning Commieaic~ner~ ~~ere not aware of the prior projecta prop~aed on the sub~ect praperty; that tna pnrcel haJ to be deal[ with nnd he reyueated tYi~ petitioner to cu~muent w ith respecC to what they were going ta do about changing the slopea from 2:1.5 to 2:1, looking ~t the pro~ect for what would be allowed in the future. Mr. Robert Hukee, representing the developer., appear~~d before the Commisaion r~nd staled the implicntion he got from Commiesioner Far~no's cn~nmenty was thut he wbnted n piun eo deeailed th~t it could be used to build upon; and that he questioned whethex Commiesioner. Farano really was asking for preliminsry grading plane, etc. Commisaioner F~srano reiternt~d that the Commias ion needed to make a recommendation to tli.~ City Couilcil regardin~ the impact on the area and the orciinance, to hie~ kn~wledge, required at leas[ rough grading plans. Mr. Huk.ee explained that they operated in approximately 24 citiee in Southe•.n California; that in the County of Orange, a rough gr+~ding p lan was something you could gcsC a building permit on; that in order to develop a rough grad ing plnn~ they would hav~e to do substan- tially all of their der~ign work ard all oP the design buclget wauld be ~xpended to come up wi.th a grading plsn wi.th no guarancee hat the p roject would be approved, and that p*esently they did not know what the height of t_ alopea would Ue. Chairman iierbet noted for the petition~r r.hac T.he Plannii~g Commiesion was vitally concerned with the de~!elopment i~,i the Hill and Canyon Area primarily because 60 r.o 9~-foot high mounds were part of an exieti:ig deveLopment and the P~anning Commissio•~z was n4t desirous of co~apo~in6ing that situation, and r~ghtfull; ~o. Commisaioner Farano inquired if what the petit ioner had eubmitted to date waa sufficfent Co obtain a grading permit, dnd e+sdociatP Engineer Bub Jones adviaed that it wae not; thereupon, Commissioner Farano indicated that the petitioner. would eventually have to brir.g grading plans for revi_ew. Mr. Hukee then 3tated that ths proposal wus pr esently in the tentatlve map aCage; that the County of Orange required ptofiles whi.ch were 1 ese expensi~-e thHn grading plans; and that th~~y did not wish to spend thousand3 of doZlar s developing a grading plan at thia point. COMMISSION~R GAUER LEFT THE MEETING AT 5:30 P.M. Commisaioncr rarano further iioted that the Plannir-g Comwission n~eded a general iden what the developer would be doing to the surrounding property owxie~s, however, he did not want to mislaad the developer by indica[~ing that if those thinge were accomplished, that r~ pro1ect would be approved. He suR~e3t•ed that perhape the devel~per needed co cansult more witt- tlie Cit~ Staf f. ~ ~ ~ MINUTRS, CITY YI.ANNINC COt~tI53I0N, Or.tobcr 14, 1974 74-483 i:NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RKPURT NU. 135, VARiASVCF N0, 2644~ AND TCNTATIVI: MA.[' OI~' TRACT N0. 8785 iCnr~tinued ~,__„__~_,..,._,_ -- - - - _"__' Mr. Hukea etatQd the developer wae w11Ltg to Kpond some time end mnney, nnd thut he woul.d requasr. a ~~ntlnuance. In resp-•~~i~3~~ tu auestioning by Mc, Huk~+t~ Doputy Clty Attornoy Frank L~wry advised Chat since ~'~~hr~+ ry .15~ 1474, thc3 I:nvlronmenCnl Qual.ity Act wne requiring the additionnl intor~ mntio~ regu~Jing grnding of 10A cublc ynrde pdr. dwelling unit in the SC 'Lone, however, the new G~it c;~~id~~linc~e ~uHt rec:elved w~ld c.hnngc th~ roquirement to apply tu 25 cubic yarde p~:r dwe l llng unit. Co~~l~+r.ioner• Furano noted that it wn~ un[ortunate thnC the eub,ject project wae :~no of the tirst co be afl'ected by the new rQqulrement. howevar~ the Flanning Commiseion he~d been working very dillgently on ths new grading ordtnanca, conaietent with th~ Cnviromenta]. Qunlity Act and su~ge~tione bain6 offerad i-t th~o meeting were the beat Chey could dc, under the clrcumatances; and thaC pnrt~apd Staff coulci adviee Mr. Hukee of ltie mini.muw re~.~uir.eme~it that would be coneidered. Mr. Hukee stated the subjecC pzoperty wNa eurroundad on thr~e ~ide~ by grading and Chey were baeically nsking permiasion to da som~~thing very eimilar and in accordance with the Anaheim Genaral Plan. Mr. Hukee requested u continuance to the meeting of Or_tober 30~ 1974, to work out so-ne of the prol,le,ua uf the snb~ec t developmecit. and Coamiseioner F~rann noted that at thaC time ttie petitioner ehould be prepared to dlsc~~es the gnlly to ttie easl• of the subj~ct property aince conditions were impoeed upon the multiple-family developmenC to the GII3C in that regard nlso. Commisaioner PHrano offered a motion, seconded by Cottanissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Comnisaioner ~;aiier being ~~busnt), to poatpone the rublic hearing t-nd considerai:ion of L'nvironmental LmpacC Rel~ort No. 135, Variance Na. 2644, ~nd Tentntive Map uf Tract No. 878~ to nc~ meeting ~~i October 30, 1974, ae requested by Che petitioner. REQUE5T FOR EIR NEGA'f.I~'E DECLARATION FOR GttADING PE[tMIT FOR RESZDENTIAL SITE AT 13616 CkE:SCENT DR'LVE - - It ~J89 noted ttiat the applicant had applied for a grading permit for a single-family hc~meaite at tha subjc~ct location; Chat the project was ~•0roximate1th119ccubicCoards°of cut that the gradinE would be minimal and woulc~ :~mc~unt to app y Y and fill, that an evalilat ion of the envirunmental impact waR required because pro~ects iocated withir the Scenic Cortidor could not bp granted categorical exemption from the reqt;irement to file an F.IR; and that it would appear that there would be no significant environmrnt impact. Commiseioner Farano offered a motion, ~seconded by Commiseioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commi.ssiuner Gauer being absent), that the Plgnning Commisaion recommends to the City Councll that the sub~ect pro~ect be exempt from the requirement to prepare aa Gnv•lron- menCal Impact Report pursciar-t to the provioions of the California Ln•~ironmental Quality Act. ENVTRONMENfAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ANAHETM CIVIC CENTER The Planning Commission entered Lnto discussion with Dr~ 13uxCon Milburn representing En>>ironmental Impact Prof iles~ during which Commieaioner rarano inquired if thete was any char.r_e that ar,me of the old trees and the Schuster House could be saved and/or pre- ser1~ d, and ~r. Milburn Ir.dicated that apparently the :lietozical SocieCy did not 1-ave the resources to do anything and no o•ne had indicated an intereat in saving them; that the ~.ss of the treea and the old hor~se were part of xhe Ruggested impact of the proposed redevelopment; that they were i~o: including any special suggestions for the huuse an~.i n~ one had come forth; that the co~~tract for the sub~ect ~IR did not include an econoo:ic analyeis of the impact c auaed by the number of years taken for consCruction; and that Lhe subject EIR was being pr eaented on the baeie that the project would be constructe3 within ~ reasonable '~ngth of ~ ime. ~ ~ ~ ~tINUTL:S, (;ITY PLANNINC COP4IISSION, OctabQr. 14, ].974 74-48G ENVIRONMF.NTAL IMPACT_RI:FURT FUR ANAHLIM CIVTC C~N'1~ER (Contitiu~d) Cammiseioner KJ.ng noted thal item 12 on pa~e 79 ~f t.he eub~ecC EIR ehould be corrected to right thQ epalZing of Mr~. ~Ctaurlce Peareon'y name. Commise~~onor .lohneon uEfdr~d a raution, seconded by Commiasioner Kin~ 8nd MOTION CARRIED (Commiesianar Cauer being aUe~nt), tli~l the ~nvirenmental Tmpact RQport for the Anaheim C1vic Centar, having t~~4n conAldered thie date by the C1Cy Flanning Commie~r+ion and evidence both written nnd or,~7. having been pres~nted tu aupplem~nt said Gllt, the City Planning (:ommiseian belleve~~ thut sai.d draft Lllt do~a conform to thce City and 9tate Guidelines ai+d the 5tat~ of Cal ~.torni~ Gnvlronmental Qur~l.it,y Act and, based upon auch information, doc, hereby r~~c:ommend tu tli~~ Gity Council that they certi.fy said F~:LR is i.n compl.innce wilh eaid 6nvironmentAl Q~.~nlity Act. Ri:PORTS AND - ITGM N0. 1 RGCOI~tENDATIONS REPEAL UF CHAPTF.R 18.8U - FLOOR SYl~C~ REQUIRF,MEN'1S r ~ (ONF.-FAMTLY DWELLINGS) IN 5PL~.IrTC AREAS. Aseor_inte Planner B.ill Yuung preser~ted the Staff Report to l•he Flanning Comm.iseion dut:ed Oc~oUer 14, 1.974, and sc~id Seaff. [teport ie referred to a.: if set fortll in full in Clie minutes. Commissioner Farano offered ~ moCion~ seconded by Commisai.oner ICing and MOTION CARk.[F.D (Commiesianer Gau~r beinp~ absent), to set the sub~ect An~heim Municipal (:ode Amendment for publ~lc hearing on November 11, 1974. ITEM N0. 2 CONDITIUN~.L 'JSr PERMIT N0. 1311 •- RCQUEST fOR TT:RMIhATION - Property located at 201 South State Coll.ege Boulevard. It was noLed that the Planning Commission on June 1~, 1972, granted Conditonal Use PermiC No. 1311 to re-estab2i.sh a carwash und service Ktation at 2~1 South State College BoulevaYd and~ aubaequently, on Auguet 7, 1972, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1329 tc re- establish a carwaeh and service station at the same location; that Conditionai Uae Permit No. 1311 wa~ similar to Condi.tional llse Permit No. 1329, hawever, it was determined that there were sufficient di£ferences in the ~ite development plans to require tne fi.ling of the latter; that the conditions and approval of CondiCional Use Pethnit Ho. 1329 were ximilar to thoae of Conditional Uae Permit No. I311, however, development of the site was coneis*_enC with the plans filed under Condittc~nal Use Permit No. 1329, and therefore Conditional llae Permit No. 131]. was unnecessary and the petitiuner had submitted a letter requesl•ing terminat2on of same. Commiasioner Faranu of.fered Re~olution No. PC74-206 and moved for its passage and adoption to terminate all proceedings of Condi[ional Use Permit No. 1311, as requested by the petitioner. (See Resolution Tsook) Ott roll call, ths forego~ng resulutlon was passed by the foll.owing vote: AYES: COMMZSSIONERS: FARANO, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERRST NOES: COI~AtISSIONERS: r10NE ABSEI7T: COI~4~fISSIONERS: GAUER COI~II~IISSIONER JOHNSON LEFT THE MEETING AT 6:52 P.M. ITEM N0. 3 FtiJISHIGE AGRICUL'LURAL PRESE1tVE REQUEST - Property consisting of 58 acres and located at 185G SotiCh I~arbor Boulevard. Deputy City ACtorney Frank Lowry read the Staff Report to the Planning Commieaion dated October 14~ 1974, ar~d said Staff Report is referred to as if ~et forth in full in the minutPa. • ~ MINUTBS. CITY PLANNING COt~tIS3I~N, OcCober 14~ 1~174 74-405 lTAM N0. :~ (CnnCinued) Ftr. Lowry noCed that a prop~sa]. I~ad buen recetved to estublieli a 58-acre egricul.tural preeerve on the Fu~iet-igo property; thaC the petitionere had eeutc~d thcsir intont in requeeting tha c.ontrc~ct agreement would be to pregervo ~lie land for fukur.e puUlic eale and eontfnue tha axiati.ng agricultural enterpride on th~ praperty; th~t a£Cer conaideration ~f tt~e petitionere' reyueet and Staff Report from the Devolopment Se,rvices Dc~partment and City Attorney'a 0£fic~, th~ CiCy Council expressed favoreble intereet in Che setabllr~hmAnt of a prQServe on thF~ Fujiehi.ge properCy and in view of th~ apparent need for £urther sCudy o£ the pruposal and appropriate Stata requiremAnte for. net.abliehing A3ricu7.tural preservee in the City~ Che (:o~~~iril dire~ted Staff Co take neceaeary action ai~d refer the matker to the Yl~nning Commieaion for ravie~• and recommendation. Cummiseioner hing uffered a motion~ seconded by Commiesioner Farano and MUTION CARRTGD (Commio~ionerA Gau~r a~nd Johne~on being absenel, thnt u General Plan F+mendmenl• be inil•lated to add ttie following specif.ic language: "The City of Anal~eim hc+a a r.eeidentlal agrlcultural zone whicli pruvid~s for agricultur.al and open epace uaES until propartiee ai•e develo~ed for m~re urbbni~ed or inteneive usea, It ie intended that thi.a usagc be allowed c.o lmpl.e- mene ngricultural ~reeervea in the City." In response to queationing by Chairman Herbst, Mr, Lowry advised chat other zoning on the property had probcsbly expi:ed and the petitioner would pxobably requeat ter.mination of eame at the ti.m~ of publi.c hearing concerning the agricaltural preaerve. COt~4IISSIONGR ,JOHNSON RETURNRU 'PO THE ME~TIN~ AT 6:56 P.M. ITLM N0, 4 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - Gbrage Setbacke and Parking Standarda in One-rami.ly Residentia~ Zunes. it. wa~ noted t:hat the sub~ect proposed Municipal Code Amendment was referred back to the Planning Commiaeion by the City Council, aitice the ordinance Eail.ed to pasa aecoud read- ing at Che City Council meeting of October 8, 1974. The Planning Cou~misaion entered into discuaeion regarding a Work Session, following which they generally concurred that a Work Sesaion be held on Monday, October 21, 1974 at 7:30 p.m, in Che Council Chamber, to diacu~s the sub~ect matter, ae well as the proposed grading ordinance. ITEM N0. 5 1tEQL~EST FOR EXPANSION OF ACCESSORY USES AT SERVICE STATIONS, AND INTERPRETATION OF CODE REQUtREMENTS. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that the ~ub~ect matter was reviewed by the Plgnning Commiselun on SepCember 30, 1974, upon request from the Atlantic ~tichf i.eld Company (AitCO) f.or an interpretation on tlie permisoibility of the use of an existing service atation building for the retail sales of automotive accessories in con- ~~r,ction with a self-service type aervice atation operetion; that the Planning Commiasion subsequently directed Staff to examine existing piovisluna regardin~ the oparation of sutomobile aervice atationa to determine the extent of permissibility of retail sales of merchandis~ other than ~notor fuel and lubricants from such premises; and that the Commiseion indi~ated that it was their intettt that in the event Staff determineu exieting provisions would permit the sale of products wh~n not accessory to the servlce nature of the businesa, that the ordinances be amended to prohibi'c auch operations. He further noted that the sub~ect tequest Was he~d over from September 30 in order that A~CO could prepare x aite plan for the speciflc prcposed location at tihe southwest corner of Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue; that said plana had been submitted which appeared to provide the required number oY parking spaces on the site £or the gross fo~tage for the buildin„ that was intendEd for the sale of acceseories; that *h~ plan indicated nne of the pump islanda and canopy would be removed l.eaving one pum, adjacent to Euclid Street and one ad~acent to I.a Palma Avenue; that in placP of the ~land thatc was to be removed tt~ere would be a.landscaped planCer and park~ng to sati~~ •~~ requirements for retail uar ai the actual building portiun of the service station. ~ ~ • MINU'fCS, CITY PT,MININC GOt~tIS510N~ Octabor 1G~ 19'4 ITLrM N0. 5 (Continuad) 74-486 Chairman Harbet queAtion~d whoCher rhe propused bu1lJf.ng eetback wafl ir~ +iccurduucc with rl~o C-1 Zoiie c~r.her than fur ttie canopy~ and Mr. Rob~rte indicated in ct~e aftl.rmntive~ atating nll of tt~e erructur~ complied and that tha canopiec~ probab~y ~aer~ a~pproximatoly ona ar two feot Khor~ of whut wauld be raquired for the etruct~~r~; hawever, thl~~ wae a aervico etution otructurQ nnd wae permltCed to do things that others w~re not permi.tted to do f.n the aommexclal ancl induAtrial zunea. Aseoclate Pl~nner Hill You~tg read Ch~ Staff Report Co the Planning Commieaiun (~IICPf~ October 14~ 19'14~ und said Stnff Report iH rcferred xo ae if eQt forth in full in tlie minutes. Mr. Young not~ed that the question wue whether the propoaed use wne clenrly incidantal to the r~c-le of motor i.~el~ ~nd ].ubricanCe and if the Plunni.ng Cr~mmiseion should so determine then the propoKt~d u~{e should be ti~ermitted; thAt the request was very sub~ect~ve as tu whut conatituted a primnry use eince thers wae no hard, valid criteria of dollar volume eales fram one s-.ution or ~nother; Chut Stnff. had Caken the technical approach to wh~tlier. [hia wa~ of a~: incidental n~ture or wheCher it wad a bubiness that could stnnd oa ita own~ nnd it was tlie upinion of. the Staff and City Attarney's Of£l.ce that [he uae would appear r.o conelitute a primar.y us~ ~n thQ premiaes by reasoning of tne exteneive remudeling of t:he facility to accommoduCe th~ specinlty g~oda and ti~e sign on the properCy to identify and advertise the ctiange in thu nature of Che ~peration. Mr. YounE continued by etating the eatabliahment oL a second pritaary use on the premises, especi.ally one o€ a"walk-up" nature bA oppoaed to the drivein, drive-through nature of service etation operatlonu~ inkeusified potentia7. pedeatric~n/vehicular tz'affic on a eite unintended and ill-deaigned for such mixes, i.e., slze and ehape of Che parcel, s~tbacke, landacaptng, parking deficita. etc.; thnt, additionalty, it was the c>pinion of the City AtCorney's Office that to permit a ae~-tce atation to eng~ge in a retail parta operation would constitute reverae discrimination -- pecmitting a huainese to en~oy righte not en~oyed by oCh~r businesses of a like nature in the same zone due to the far_t that service stattons were noC developed in compliance with the xite development standards of the zone in whi.ch loc~ted; thgt, therefore~ to permit auch use could result an the declarntion of commercial zone standards to be unco--stitutional as they would, in effect~ require one grc,up of commercial ator.es to confarm to atrir_ter standards thun rPquired for servire stations conducting the game type of business; thal lt would apper~r that the existing language af the Code was adequate to express the intent that any use of a aervice atation other than the sale of motor fuels and lubricants muat be shown to be purely incidental or aubordinate to that of the primary uae; Chat if the Commission should find tttiat the pro- poaed us~ could stand on ite own, i.e., function ir~dependently of serrir_e statton opera- ri.ons, the request should be denied as constituting the establishment of a second primary use on the premises in violation of Che ordinances. Commiasioner Farano made an observation tt~at the apglica~.nt had also arr.ived at the con- cl.uaion that the proposal. wae a conversion of an existi.ng building to a"auto supply store," as indicated on the plot plan. Commissiuner Murle}• cortanerded Staff for Che effort put into the Staff l2eport to the Commission and stated he would agree that the proposal would be ano*her principal use; and, further, ti~at he would recommend that the addltlonal wording aek forth in the Staff Report be added to the Cnde to strenR~her~ the ordinance as foll~wa: "In no cc~se shall auch an ~cceasory use dominate, in areu, extent, or purpose, the principal iawful use or building." Mr. lton Eisenberg, attorneY for ARCO, appeared before the Commisaion and atated the proposal was not to do any~hing of such ma~or proportion as was being implied; that be- cause of. the tremendou:3 increases in gas pri.ces, ARCO was mak~ng every effor.t to keep the number of stationa to a minimum and a5 a result, in Che subject locaticn some very expen- sive pumps would be installed which neceaeitated a reduction in the number of pump:: aince they could not afiord to put in three such pumps; that the pwnps would be very aophisti- cated and would not need to be attended, making it possible for one man to run the eutir.e operation; and that the pumpe would be operated by a computer aystem and the customers would operate r.he pumpe r.hemaelves. ~ ~ ~ MINUTRS~ (:iTY PLANNING C:OMtdISSION, OcCober 14~ 197b J.TEM N0. 5 (Cnntinued) 74-487 In reapo~ise Co yuesti~ni.ng by the P]Anni.ng Commiaei~~n. Mr. 'fe~l Car;.ton app~+~red bafnr~ ~ho CommiReion and emphaeized thut the pump eqiaipmenC wxN best deecri.bed ae sophisticated~ eince Che pump diepenend the gaH and t~lea collected paymenc fc~r it. He t~'.ated that eimilar equipment had been indt+~llad at BrookhureC Street und Crescent Avenue and hed bacn approved by the tre M~trehnl~ e~tc.; that the pump would coet approximatcly $40,000 and woul.d allow the cuetomer to ~crvp himselE~ utilizing a cradi.t c~.rd, caeh cnrd or dollar bill; that Chn pump approva:d cr.edil eales at tha pump location, a:.d in the fuCure tt would be nble to take 5 and 10 dollar bills; and thal Cha equipmant wne very expeneivE nnd wae eophiei:i.cntea becauee of ite abilitiea and whe reduction of overhrad. In responeo to further questioning by thP Planning Commisalon, Mr. Eieei~ber.g etateci t:tiu[ Che•!r sale of xutomobile accessuriQS would be no different from any other service station, aince they were nat aeking to be nble to do anything that other Acsrvlce stutione were un~- uble Co do; and lhey were walving Cheir ri.ghts to inatell these acceaeories. Comn-issioner Faruno noted thnt the applicant wae proposing to t~ave eight parking spaces right in th~ middle of: the aubjecC property and he had never, seen Chie aituation at r service stetion; that tt~F grease xnd oil service bays ~aith tool availabil.i.ty were t~eing remave~i; that there wne not a place on the praposed layout where a c.ustomer could get the ofl in hie car changed and nu place Co drain the oi1. Ttiereupon, Mr. Eisenberg stat~d th~t ARCO would be waiving their righta to have the servicea enumerated by CommiaeionPr F~'urano, He axplained thr+t they would be aelling accesaoriee such ae f:anbelts, etc., which could normally be pur.chased At any aetvice s~atlon; that rhey were not wi'111ng to take out the gas pumps since they wpre priarnrily in the gas buaineae and not in an accesaory businegs; and that the etructtire used for. tre retail busi.ne~ss waa located ko the back af the property, being the only structure. Commi~ai~ner Farano then inquired if the applicant had drawn a raCio of the property area ttiat would be devoted to the sale of autoRObile supplies oppoaed tQ the area devoted to t}~e sale of gasollne~ and i.ndicated that hia computationa indicated appr~xi~ately 50X to 60% of the area would be devoted str.ictly to the retail sal.e of acceasoriea; and that thie proposal was different from a aormal service station. Mr. Eiaenberg then atated that ti~ey expected to have fewer sales frum acceseories than frum the gas operation; that the one man oper~.ting the atore wauld handle the paymerit far the accessory-type merchandise; that the proposal wae noC to have a mini Pep Boys; and Chat the City Code required Che eight parking spaces. Chairman Herbst made an obseYVation thaC the propoaed type of buaineao was predicated on the drive-in, off-the-3ereet type business and that the retail acceseoriea would be on ahelvea~ generally, and i.he cuetomers would walk around in the atore to make tl~eir aelec- ti.ons; and that the uae :oo~il.d not be a aervice station, bur. a ga.s ststi~n. Mr. Eisenberg then atated that the use would be a gas station that sold accessories in- gtead of selling and inatalling the acceasoriea. Commisaioner Tolar noted that he would probably disagr.ee with l•he trend of th~ diecusaion of the Planning Commisaionere; that he did agree `.::aff had c.'one x good ~ob in making thei.r report and preaentation~ however, he tended tn agree with th~e applicant; rhat liP did nut bel.ieve any of the Planning Commisaioners had gone into a service KCAtion that did not provide the r~ame items being requested Uy the ~pplicanr~ that hia argument for the ~ppli- cant would be *_hat even though ~e agreed that Chey were cha:~ging to Aome extent the uae of the service stations~ they were uti.lizirig carnere possibly thar at Chia paint in time were being closed and boarded up, creating unsightly propertiea within t!~e City; thaC if the proposal was a source or a way to posaibly i.mprove the environment, conditions, or avail- ability of thoae samp supplies that cou.td be purchased at any service sr_ation and have installed~ then he would be willing to at least see how it worked; that he had revi~wed the City Attorney's opinion on the ma~ter, however, the Planning Commiesion wae decigned to be creative. Commiasioner Farano wondered in Commisaioner Tolar'e opinion what would be tiie percentage o£ carry-out, ready-to-inatall merchandise at the proposed establiahment compared tq that of an ordinary service station. ~ommissioner Farano further indicated that the anewer to Chat qu~ation was indicative of what was happening•. He continued by stating thaC the ~ ~ ~ MINU'i'GS, CITY PLANNTNG C~MMISSION~ Qctober 1.4~ 1974 I'CGM N0. 5 (Continued) 7G-488 apptiaant }~ad previoualy indic:ated the xcco8eorieA would inc:lude between 15U and 2Q0 di('farent itema nnd lf the PJ.anning Commiesion wae serlously consi.dering that the ~~ropoeal he npPro~~ed~ he woul.d euggcsst that a survey be conductad to deCermine how mxny aervic.e s~utions in ttie City provided ae many a~caenory itemE•. Mr. Cnrl.ton Atnted that sume c~erv~ce ~tationa only diepensed gas and motor oil and oChQr.e ici the City cliapensed Che gAS end motor oll ae well a8 providing tha service etati.er~ aApect; that ec,mu uf the aervir.e atetlone providPd trailera for rent and did minor rapair work; thnt otlier r~ervi.r,e staCione run tha gamut and the typical service etAtion reforred to, while still very much in existen~:~~ wn~ var;~ing aomewt~at; r.hat he would enrourage the Flanning Commiesiun to check the aervice eCa[ione from ttie standpoint of n~~t tho ~-umber of itema cnrried but rhe typea of iteme whic}i migt-t depend upou the financial ability of ti~o operntor, Commieaioner Pnrano then clarifi.ed that h~ wae refer.ring Co 1.50 to 200 different products ranging from conciensera to sparkpluge~ otc.; that if he went to a service e~ation in the City u£ Ar.~heim f.~r n new rear-view mirror~ the operatur would probahly go to an automobile aupply etore to purchase it and Chen c:ome b+uck ta the service stati.o~ Co install it. Mr. Curlton then etated that if a dealer purchaaed an item and had it in stock for a day or two~ it would otill be in stock. Commiasionryr Farano then etated Cl~:~t there was n differentiation between the two aervice stations being diacusaed, and tl~r pxoposal wcts for a merchandising operation wt-ich would appeal to a completely differc•nt claes of cuAtomer. Mr. Carlton then indicated That the propoeal would appesl to the cuatomer that would do his own inetallation, And that many aervice atations conducked the type of businesa previously referred to with the trnilars, heavy mechanical. work, etc., however, they did not like t~-at type operation because they weae interested in the beautif.i~aCion of the City and would be providing their producC in rs cleaner~ neater, mc+rP profesaiona] monner and without ti~u necesaity for having ali of the uneightly mercl~andise to make the service statfon economically aucceasful; that on this basis, the proposal would be an aeset to the cummunity and not he a slip-ehod opera- tion with mechanicnl itema all over the aite; and that they telt that the City wou~d have lesa trouble with the proposed type ope.ration than the othera meiitioned. Commissioner Farano stated he felt r~trongly that if the applir_ant ~.,nted to operate, he would have that privilege provided a conditional use permit was applied for and the devel- opment standards for the zone were met; and Chat he did nok feel that any company shouid be able to emuac:ulate the ordinances of the City by running an auto aupply atore under the guise of it being a service station. Commissioner King then read for the applicant Che porti.on of the Staff Repart indicating the opiTiion of the City Attorney's Office regarding the canslituticnallty of appro~ring the proposal, and Mr. Carlton stated that preaently the service etation was self-service and could not have retail sale of acceasaries and in thar. respect they were being discriminated against also. Ct~airman H~rbst nuted that the ob;ject was to aerve. the needs of the motoring public; thAt the proposal would be essenti~lly going into compeCition ui[h tae Pen Boy atores, etc., and therefore the proposed use would be en~oying the privilege of aelling gas und acces- sories whereby the Pep Boys were unable to aell gas. Mr. C~rlton stated that he contended the propusal was for a aecondary use and wea not cloae to a primary use of the fscility; that the primary revenue of f.he proposed atore would be 70X aut.omotive, g~~ and lu5ricants, and that 30Xy at t'-. h•ighesk, would be der.ived from the sale of the a;.~rsaory ite~s; [hat preaently they were selling 500,000 gallonA of gas anually or $250,000; that the~• were projecting that the auton~otlve acceeaory iles would total $75,000 a,nually; that although the accessories would be a amall portiun of the busineas~ oil companies had ber:~ looking for ways to make a corner as expensiv2 and valuable as the corner hb3 paid off; that $250,000 would not be ~utlandish as the valua- tion for the sub~ect property; tf~a[ $75,000 total groso revenue would not be enough, however~ he woald venture Co eay that a service station comparable in size to the ~ub,ject service stntion would probably have $75,000 in ret~il salea of accr gnries. Mr. Carlt~n then inqu.ired if labar was considered an accesaory use. Chairman Herbat re~plied thgt Zabor from installation of parts was an income privilege for the aervice station operator and Mr. Carlton rPHponded that the ratio for ]abor would ba very heavy on parts. e ~ ~ MINU.GS, CI'PY PLANNINC GOMI~tISSION, Octobcsr 1G~ 1974 ITCM N0. 5 (Continued) 74-489 In responae tr. questioning by Mt. Cerlton~ DepuCy City Attorney Crank Lowry advined that if. thc l.abor f.or :LnatnllaCion work became tho a-eJor ec~ur.ce of revenue for u servlc~± c~r.etion, tlien lt would become tt~e pri.mary uee, nnJ ttie diecueeion at i~an~l wae whetlier or not Cherc+ wuuld be two prianury u~ce nt the sul~~,~ect location; that~ Additionnl].y, the pub,~ect service station was probahl.y not bu~l.[ ~o c.ommercial etandarde under the Building CndP~ meaniug thnt ther~s would be much cunvicerking on the inside ot tha stx,~cture to meet the dtandarde of tha C-1 Zone; tind that there may ba eome deficlencioe in the landscaping requiremente of the Code also. Mr. (:urlton t~en etated tt~~ question was not whether thay complird with the C-1 zoning but whethcr they complicd w~ith Ch~ service stntion regulntions, as erelled out on page 11-e(3) of the Str~ff Report. 'I'hertupon, Chairmnn ~lerbaC clarifi~d that the applicant would tiave to npply Ear a veriance or cundiCi_onul use penuit in order tu quulify for Che eubject uae and, tt~ereby, protect the community. Mr. ~iser,berg then inquired 1f the quQati.on wne actually whether the sale of acceASOrles waR un incident.al use, and Chairman HerbAt noted that e servi.ce Rtation had tt-a right to ~c~ll c~eceseoriea, however, the method used to do so whereby ehe building wa~ Ueing converted to be uaed r~s a srore, taking oLt the setvi.ce bays whicti the ser~ica station had a special i,rivilege of having nnd enjoying, etc:.; that the service station als~ enjoyed epecial prlvileges regar.ding setback~, etc., and now the Clty was being requeated to allow r.hose pzivileges en~oyed Uy ret~il stores. Chr~irman Herbst emphasized that a aervice etation was to serve the motoring public and not for wall.-in type Crade. Mr. EisenUerg then stated that the Zoning Code epecifically allowed the eale of accessories including batCeries, etc., whir_h they were preaentl.y doing, and that acaordin~ to the Code the sale of accessories was allowed as long as it waa Lncidental to ChP nale of petroleum proclucta, etc.; and that a point had been made in the Staff Report thut the sale of acces- sories could hypothetically stand somewhat independently of tt;e petroleum products, which aeemed to distinguish the proposal from ordinary ser~rice stations. Ther~upon~ Mr. Young responde~l that the connotation of Lhe dtaff Report in ttie reapecr. r3laed by Mr. Eiaenberg wus Chat th~ building was to be expanded, remodeled, and a:lditional signing woutd be uaed to call out the difference in nature, being the discount operation proposed, and that in this resper_t the applicant would be caterin~ to two different types of tr.ade; that even though the size of the store was somewhat smaller Chan a normal discoLnt house, the seYV ice sCation building itself would be used for other purposes than a service station building with the closurE of the overhead doors~ etc.; thaC there was a necessarily vague srea of wtiat constituted an i_ncidental uae; that ha could n~t vouch that a do3lar volume way a valid criteria to be uaed :.n a determination of an incidental use; that the separat~on was the different types of ttaffic on the service 3tation site and~ if there was to be no special advertising und no t~m~~deling was taking place for the purpose of fully selling acceaeories from it~ then the sa~e of accessories could be conatrued as being accesaory and n~~t primary. In response to fiirther questioning by Mr. Eisenberg, Mr. Young noted that the normal back- room oper.ation of a service station waa conaidered incidental, and Mr.. Eisenber.g then stated that many service stationa had a very sizable backroom with volume being sometimes much Erea~er than their backroom salear that sometimes the larger. profit center was the bar_kroom and gasoline was sold basically to pay the rent and have the use or the service station site from the oil company; that they were proposing that rather than have the back- room type operation involving the aprviciTig of automobilea and the installation af acces- sories, that they would be eliminating the installation and labor and would hava_ only the sale of accesaoriea. Mr. Young then noted that Mr. Eisenberg's proposal woald destroy the connotation of incid~ntal since they would no longer be servicing the people who would be caming to the service ~taCion for the dispensing cf motor fuel and lubricanzs, and that aavertising wauld take place off the premiaes for customers to frequent the .facility as a diacount or TBA atore, and that there ~ras very little Craffic normally for the bar_kroom of Che service station operatlon aince the pricea were at retail in conjunction with the ease and coavenience nf the motorist; that it was a i~eceagary aperation to service the cuetomer'~ car with new windstiield wipers~ etc.; thst without the service connotation and the advertiaing off the prewises for retail cuatomers, there would 'oe a compl~tely separate type nf bv~inese for the service atation operation. w ~ ~~ ~ MINUTCS, CITX PLANNING COP4lISSION~ October 14~ 1974 74-~49U I'r~rt ~o. S (Continued) Mr. Lioanberg etakad tl~ere aeemed to bQ a diftorenc~s bptwaen the snle uf. acceeeoriee and th~ sorvicing oi' n.:c~seories und it wae not clear what th~ differance wae. Th@reupon. Mr, Young not~d thst Che primnry purpose waa tho eale ~f motor fuel and lubricante and incidantal servicefi including repnix of motor vehicled, vending machinea, salc of acces- ~ory parL•s~ all for the convanience of the moCoriet on the pre.mi.ae.s. Mr. f:ietnl>erg etated kh+~t the labor wxe incidentaZ and appeared to be more consietent with the idea of a service atation Chan the aale of ucceeeories, anJ Mr. Youn~ n~ted tl~at it would be up to the Planning Commiselon to interpret wheCher tne applicant wne requeati.ng a primary use or a socunuary use. In reaponse to questioning by Commisaioner King~ Mr. l.uwry advised that the sale of acces- sorles~ whether ~r retail pricee ur oC diacount priceo, wou]d eti11 constitute u variai~cN eince only ~ne prlmary uae would be allowed aC one time; thdt the ~ccesaory uea would be in competition wi.tt- retail parts liousea which were built to comcaercial ox C-1 s~andarde and were not allow,~d to sell gae i.n the mi.ddle of a black; that rhe propoeal would be more c~tenaive thun the LLH~`A~ service station where a person could buy n batCery cr windahield wiper, etc.; and thtt the applicant wax proposing u retail parka atore rather than ealos •ln con~unctioii witl~ tlie sule of gae; und that o~•' y one primary use could be considered on a piece of property. Coimniasioner 7'olar. noted that his poaition had not changed and thal• if a person could purchaee the same items us propoaed aC a normal service station and take thEm home and install them themselves if they so desirsd, th~n the proposal was nv di.£ferent. Commisaioner l~arano nat~d that whi'le it was true that c- peraun c~~uld purchase parta at a service atation. tl~e servic~: station's prima•ry buaineas was the servicing aitd sale of lubricanta and petroleum pr~~ducta; that ff that were Che case, r~nd a proposal was approved as a conversion to tt diacount oil supp.ly store, there would be a situation where the sale of fanbelts, and aome other 150 to 250 itema would become tlie primary purpose. Commissinner Tolar noted that with other exieting servic~ atations and the~r primary use, there w2s nothir.g [o stop them from displaying a sign indi~ating they had discouc~t parte, and Commisai.oner rarano indicated rhat it was hoped that the Zoning Enforcement Officer would notice such an eventuality. Chairman Herbat inquired how many people would purchase a battery at a service station and nor have it inetalled Chere, and stated the percentage would be very, very low; and that if the atore concept was appruved, then xhe custamers would be required to install their owr~ accessories. CommiKaioner King mude an obaervation that if the proposal was disapproved, then trade would be reatrained; however, if it wae approved, it would be unlawful. Commiasioner Johnson noted that he would concur with Cammiasioner 'To1ar's opinior~ regard- ing the propoaal since the Code did not stipulate in what manner the accesaories could be sold. Chairwan Herbat then noted that the Code implied "service" ar.d the proposa~ was for a gasoline station and s store; thaC perhaps it was necessary to clarify what canatikuted a service station, a gae statlon, etc.; that this was not the first time khe City had been requested Co be allowed to sell the subject type merchandise; Lhat requesta had been receivad to sell panty/hoaiery, liquor. milk, etc., all of which was in competicion with other busineases in town; and that if the proposal wxa approved and was not succensful, then the applicant would want to sell something elae. Commissioner Farano noted that the applicant had previously stipulated to beliing 12 to 1S generic items. hawever. the Commiasion had not reviewed the liaC; that they would probably sell aeatcovers, radi~s~ mirrore, anti-freeze, etc., and everything similar to a Pep Boy~s atore; gnd that in order to be in the accesr~ory buaineas, the applicant would have to meet the development standards for a C-1 uae. Mr. ~,owry then advised that if it was the deaire Qf the Planning Commiasion to allow a retail store in a service station building, it could be done by variance, however, by doing so the aervice aCation should compete on ~I~.~ vrime standards and accordiag to the same code and rulea that oCher commercial eatal~I .;hmenCs do, i.e., the same dedication, landscapin~, parkinR requirementa, Building Code requiremctts, etc.; and that m+~ny service station buildinga were metc+l and would not confurm to the fiuildin ~ode. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CI'fY i'I.ANIVING COI~IlYII5SION. Uctnber l4, 1974 74-491 ITEM N0. 5 (Continued) Gommiseionar Farxno Chen noted that if the su~ject atte and etructure could meet the developmant atandards of thn C-1 2ona ~nd if appropriate pet~.tiune were f U~~~l, th~n he would have no ob~ect:ian to it b~ing turned I.nto a diecount auto repalr etore. Mr. F.isenberg etnt.ed that they were propoeing to ndd anothar cutegory line to cliei.r ~~xiet- !ng ea1.E-eQrvice ,:~e etatione which primuey ob~er_tive wae to sell motur Fuel; that they were propoeing tc, Hell ucceseories ae an incidt~ntal alternativc~; rhat the ten~r of the diecuseion was that service wus autumatica.lly approved buC the eale of acc:eesories, ul- though leseer in vnlume~ wa~ not approved and he quoati.oned the dietiriction aince bueh wero incidental and involv~d with it~me purr.hased Uy automoUila conp~~m~~ra. Commiseioncr Fnrano noted that Che queatiuns being raieecl by Mr. Ciaenberg could not be anewered eince key uDSiunptiuna were nec:eseary which we~e beyond the c:ape~bility of anyone present at this mceting; l•haC approximatply one-half of tt-e ~ub~ect propert•y woul.d be primari.ly dedic:nted to the sale of parta und accesaoriFa a~1d not for tlie sale uf gus; Chat in comparison~ if the serving station was ustng one.-half of its land for ~ervicinp, nuto- mobilea~ the bu~inesa would b~ Appealing to entirely diffei-ent cuatomera than the propoeal.; that tlie sales of accesaor.ies was not exactly incid~ntnl according to the Code; tliat i.. ordez to anawer the quc~ttions, the Commiasion would huve to presum~ that the salea from this piece of properCy and the acceasory etore would produce more or ].eae in ~erme of salea und only history would prave that; thal tl~e wholer~ale ncCivity was analogous to a aerv~.ce aupply hou~e, off-lhe-etreet. walk-in type customers, and a rPCall sales outlet, :~~ oppofled to a service station which was thougl~t about and looked up~n in the normal courae of the business in ti~e apirit of the Code of the City of Anaheim; and that, tt~ere- forE~ he would say thst the proposal should U~: considered as a retail eaies outlet and if the applfcant was so desirous, then a variance should be applied for; +ind that he would nok go along wir.h the proposal as part of a service station. Chairmrsn Herbst noted tl~nt there were ~pproximately 200 Rervice stations in the City and from past exp~~i•ience, anything thaC was aPProve:l for one ail company would be requeated by the others; and that the City did not want to see parts storea on every carnsr. Commieaio~er Morley offered a motion, aeconcled by Commleaioner Farano and MOTION CARFtIED (Commiasioner Gauer being absent) that the Plunning Commission hereby declares ehat the sub~ect request wuuld be conetituting the establiahmeiit of a aecond pri.mssry use on the premi~,es in violation of tlie ordinances and is, therefare, dena.ed. Coaunissioner King noted that he voted against. the r~~quest on the b:~~~is of the City Attorney's report. ITEM N0. 6 CONDITIONAL TJSE PERMIT NU. 1342 - Request for extenFion of tlme - Property consisting ~~f approximately 0.41 acre, having ~ frontage of approximatel~ lI2 feet on the south side of South Stre~t, ar.~i beinR lacated approximately 270 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard. It was noted that the subject conditlonal use permit was granted by the I'lanni.ng Cotamission an September ].8, 1972, to permit the eatabllahmenC of a child nursery witl~ waivers of the minimum fr~nt yard depth and mtnimum off-atreet parking; that one previous one-year exCen- sion of time had b.:en granted which expired on October 10, 1974; that one of the conditiona of approval, bei.ng payment of atreet tree £ees, had been satisfied; and that ehe petitioner was requesting an addiCional one-year extension of time in order to meet the remaining condi~ions uf Ppproval. CommissionEr King offered a moticn, aecondpd by Commiaeioner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner l'.auer being abaent), that a one-year extensi~n o€ time be and hereby is granted for Conditional Use Permit No. 1342, as requested by the petitioner, said ext.en- sion of time to expire October 1~, 1975. ADJOURNMENT - Tliere being no further businesa to discuea, Commisaioner Ring offerPd ~ a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED (Comnissioner Gauer being absent), to ad~ourn the meetiug to 7:30 p.m., October 21, 1974, Eor a Work Sesaior-. The meeting ad~ourned at 7:07 p.m. R ectfully submitted, n ~ L. CC-~~-C~<~~~• ~ !~~-v~~-~~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary Anahelm City Planning Cc.~mmaesion PBS:hm