The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1975/01/06~ ~ ~ ~ f; i t y Nu ]. ]. An~-heim, Cnl ifor . ta Ju-YUnry 6, .t975 IZI:CULAR M1:ETINC 0[' THI: ANANF.IM CITY PLANNING CON~IISSI.QN RGGULAR - A reg~ .~L meeting ~f the Anreheim CI.Cy Ylnnning Comml.sr.i.on was cIIl.l.ed eo MEC'i'ING order by C}inicmai~ klarbst at 2:00 p.m. in the Counc.tl Chnmber, a quorum beinQ preser.t. PRES~,NT - CHAIRMAN: Iler.bRt~ -(:UIY44ISS1UNERS: I'arnno, Gau~r~, .io~meon (ar.rived nt 7.:05 p.tn.), KinK, Morlcy, To1ar ALSO PRBSI:NT - Deputy CJ.ty Attorney: ~rnnk Lowry Traf. f i.c Isng l.neer : r aul S inger Of f i.ce Engineer : Jay Titt:s Civil Englneering As~istant: Jack Judd Planning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Z~ning Sun~rviso:: Charles Roberts Aasistnnt Zonin ; Supervisar: Annika S~ntulHhti AsaistanC P13nner: John Andereun Aasi.stunt Ylanner• A1 Daum Commiaston Secret ~ry: Patrici3 Scanlan PL~DGE OF - Commissioner Gauer led in the 1'ledgN of Allegiance I:o the rlag of the ALLGGIANCE U-iite~ Stakes of Americ~. ANNOUNCE~tF.NT - NEW MGE'f[.NG 'PIM~ FOR ANAHEIM ~ITY PT.ANNING C01~4y[ISSION Ch~irman Herbst anr.ounced in behalP of the Anaheim c:i_ty Planninv Cummiasion that the I'lanning l;ormni~aion Meetings would hegln a~ 1:30 p.m. beginning with the meeCing of January 20, 1975; and that the change was being braught about to expediCe the businesa of th~ meetings and would be beneficial to the gener:al public, as well as to the Com.n~~i~:aioners. CONDITIONAL !S~E - CON'I INUGD PU".'_.1.; HEARING, JOSR SAUCEBO, l; 50 Weat Lincoln Avenue, PGRMIT N0. 1505 Anan~~im, Ca. 52801 (Owner); requeating permiasion to have ON-SALE - LIQUC~R I13 P.N E:{ISTING RES.T.AURAN~ WITH WAIV~R OF (A1 MINIMUM iCITCHEN ARI:A, (8) REQUIRED TREE SCREEN, (C) MINIMLJM PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING, (~t~ (p) T.r:QiIiRED MASONRY WALL on praperty describad se: A rectangularly-araped parcel of land coneistfng of npproYimately 0.6 acre having a Erontage of approxim~tely 140 feet on the south side oE Li~~coln Avenue, having a maximua~ depth of approximatel;~ 185 fePt, and bei.rig lccated app~oximacely 663 feet weat of. the centerline of ~uc1J.d Street. Property presently cla3siried C-1 (GENsR1~.L COMt~RCIAL) ZONE. Subject petition was coniinue3 fr~m the meeting of Decev~ber 23, 1974 for the petitioner to be present. Nu one indicated their pr~sence in opposir.ion to r~ub~E:~.t pet.iticm, .,...__.._~. ..~.,, c...FF ~.,nnrr r„ rt,~ ptannin¢ Commission dated Janua_y 6, 1975, w~- ~ not read at ~.~~.~~~u~~. ..,~~ .,...._. ..r_-- -• ---- - ~ t~e public hearing, it is referred t.o ~.~d made a part of the minuees. Mr. Jose Saucedo~ the petitioner, aFpeared before the Commissi.on aad ctated the only problem they were experiencing war3 due t~> ti-e requirement that the ~itchen be 25~ of. the total floor r.rea for the propoaed restaurant; that if they adhered to the 25X requirement, physical changes to the building woc'd he necessary and he requeate3 to be able to have the kitchen as proposed. COI~iISSIQNER JOHNSON ENTERED THE MEETING A; 2:05 P.M. '1HE PUBLIC HE~.nING WAS CLOSED. 75-1 ~ ~ ~ Ml'NUTI~,S ~ C ZTY P,.ANNING f:014~f1:S9.lON ,•Junu~iry G y 1975 75"'1 CONDITIONAI, 11:,6 PLRMII' N~~ 1505 (ConGinucd) Comniisetoner ~,auar queeti.oned tti~ propuyal to }~avo the r.ucktalL bar and rQ~tnurant Go~etliar withour sepnrntion, nnd Mr. SHUCedo stated th~y were not planning to c+erve msa ,s in the bnr acea. Commiseinner Cau~r then nnted thnt: havi.ng the two BL'Cfld runniiig Cegakher would be having doubl~ Ntnndurds; that cltiiough chlldren nnd othc~re unde~ 21 yearo of age wc~r.e not permittrd in c.ocktAil bers. 1f. mer~l~+ weYe aerved they would b« p~.~mitted in them. Mr. Saucedo stnted lht~t Chat would depend on the type busin~se that waA heing conducted; and khat the p~opuNed bar wuu~.d not ve very large with only f ive or. eix stoola und thc~ mfiin dining ar~sr- would be aepnr~te from the bar. Gommissiociec Gnuer noted khnC i.f ineule ~rould be ~ierved in the bar ar.ea~ then he would vote ugain~k the aub~c~ct petition since it would setting the daublp etan:aru. CI78~t11=3t1 Herbet lnquired ~.oncerning the proposed landec_aping and Mr. Snucedo stipulated to withdrawing the request for w~iver of ct~e required tree Kcreen a~~acent tc~ the residenti~l zone nnd to providing the ucidikional 1.05 Hquare feet uf pc~rking area ]andscnping Ga comp~y wlth the Code requireacenC. Mr. Ssuc:edo further sl•r~t'ed tt~ak the exiattng 6-foot wood L•ence wna Rlr.uuted Bd~ACL'RL to ~in ~xisting motel to the west and r.hat eaid Fence was r~ppscently co~istructeJ when the apartments to the south were built. He further at:l ~lcatcsd ChaC landscaping would be provlded in the entir.e parkway nd~acent t~ Lincoln nv~nue. In response to queeti~nin~ by Chairman Heruet, Mr.. Sauced~ stated it was dif.ficulr. to sr~y exactly t~ow much faod would be served in ttie bar ~rea, howev~r~ they did not anticipate any problems; and that Che cocktall lounge wae not yeC open but they pr.esently were only having banyucte, Tc- reaponse to furCh~r questioning hy Chairmati Herbt~t, Deput.y City Att~rney k'rank Lowry advi.sed thnt banquet rooms were not normally counte.i in computing the kitchen area. Mr, Saucedo then etated tha ~proposll was 100% a f.amily resteurnnt with higii stan~lards. The Planning Cummiesi~n entered inr~ ulscu~sion with Mr. Saucedo regarding the requi~:ed screening between the bar ar.: ~i~e restaurant to meet the requirement3, during which it was determined that npProxim~tely 2250 aquare fee~ of the total floor spa~e was designated as a dance floor and ttie remaining floor epace, if uaed ~o c~mpute the minimum kitchen Area, would be 1n compllance with the Cod~ requirements, and Mr. Saucedo atipulated that a scrsening wall would be provided to viaually gcreen Che cocktail bar. ~rom the dining area, said wall to he aolid from the floor up to a height of 6 feet wi~h the remaining or top portion oC said wall to be of an ornamental or decorative natur.e. It was noted that the Dir.ector of Deve~opment Servicea had determined that the pr4posed activity fell. within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City of Maheim Guidelines to Che R~quirements for an Fnvironmental T.mpnct Report and was, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an ~IR. Commissioner Murley offered Reaolution No. PC75-]. and moved for. irs passage~ and adoption that Petitio:~ for Conditional Uae Permit No. 1505 be and hereby is granted, in part~ granting waivere of the mini~-um kitchen area and the required mgsonry wall adjacent to residen t•lal zone; that waivers of the required tree screen ad~ACent to residential zone and minimuw parking area landacaping were withdrawn by the petitioner; aub~ect to the s~ipula tions by the petitioner; and eubject to condir.ions. (See Resoiution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed Uy the following vo~e: AYES: COP4IISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, KING, MORLEY, TOLAK, H~Kri~t' NOES : COIMlISSIONERS : r10NE ABSENT s C01~4~tISSIONERS; NONE AIiSTAIN : CCMMISSIONERS : JOHNSON Commissioner Johnson noted for the P].anning Commisaion that he had abstai.ned from voting since he was absent for a portion of the public hearing. ,~ s • MINUTE ~. CI.TX P1.ANNIt3C COFQ~tI35:ON, .Jnnuary ~~i, 1975 ~5~3 GNVIKUNMENTAI~ IMl'ACT - CONTINUED P1181.1(: IiEARING. ANNiE.[M tiI1.LS~ INC., ANU TEXACO ANN{E'[Fl AEP~RT NO 85 HILLS ~ TNC. , 380 Anahei.n~ Ni.1N :;oad, Anuheim, C:a. 9280? (Ownex s) ; r~V~~~~ ~~~~ ,IAMES 1.,. RARISIC, 3H0 Mahc~.m Hille Rond, AnHheim, Cr~. Q2807 (A~ent); CONI)T'fIONAL U5~ requesCing pormiesion to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOF~ZL~ SERVICE STATIUIV PERMII' N0. 15U8 WIT;f WAIVER OF (A) PGRMTTTEU WAI,L STGNING MiD (8) l~M1DSCAI'INC ~REAf,VER'ftSEOj AAJAC~NT TO IDJ'1LRIOR llOUNUARY LINI:S on pro>>er.ty dEr~cribed as: A r~ctangulRrl.y-ehaped P~rcel of land consi.Htin6 of. approximately G.'7 acrr~ having a fronr.age of approximate.ly 187 f~~c~t on the eant yide of Ar-aheim Hil.le Road, hnving a maxlmum depth of upproximate].y 164 feet~ and being lacated app-oximately 440 feet nurth af the centerline of. Nohl. Ranch Roac1. Pruper.ty presently clASei.f'_~d C-1 (GENERAL CO;iMERCT.AL) 7..ONE. Subject petition wris continued frum the meeting uf December 2:1, 1N74~ in order to ad~-c~r.tis~~ for :~n udditionul wnlver. Two peraons indicated their preaence in oppoeition to ~ub~ect pet~tion And, subsequently, wxived the f.ull reuding of the S[aff Report. A.lthougti ttie Staff Report Co [he Planning Conuniesion dated January b~ 1975~ wae noC read u~ the public hearing. it i.s referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. JameA 13nrislc, Vice Presl~en~ of Anaheim Hi11R, Tnc., L•he petiti.oner, oppear.ed before the rommiasion and Ktated thut in the aummer of 1973 a plot plnn f~,r the entire Annl~eim Nills pro~cct was presented to the City, and A aervice stntion eite wae to occupy plightly -nor.e than one-h~lf acre uf the total site; that they presenrly had a purchaAer for the service station 4ite, which was the Texaco 0;.1 Compsny; that rhe Stn€f Repor.t to the Planning Comaiiasion appearel to be clear~ preciae and coaiplete; an1 that the service statiori site wus rev~rsecl from ita origina~ly-proposed location and the prapoaed aign wus to be on the side af the pump islandc~ which were not located ad~a~enC C4 Anaheim Hills Road but r:ownrd Che intei•ior uf the shopping center. He discussed the landscnping for the service star.ion si.te and atated the petitiun~r. was concer-+.ed with the boundary of the eseterly properCy line requiring trees un 2U-foot centera and witti 6-inch high cancrete aurbs for prutectio;~, vi~ce the p*operCy was an ~ld ~range grove wi~ich was Aurrounded by some palm trees, nnd khat after the site was aeveloped some or the orange and palm trees would remain to previde a natural buffer to the ei.te; and that abouk three yeara from the present Cime when tre remaining portiona of the shopping center were deve.loped, they would pu~ in the decorative planters required. He conkinued by stating L-here would be an approxi- mately 20-foot vertical slope aeparation or differentiation for the ultimate use of the propprty to the north, and said slope would also aer.ve as a buf~er; and that he was not sure that ttie property to the norrt~ would develop with a residential ~iaa eince it might be suitable for a church or some othe'. use of tliat nature. In addition, he atated regar.ding the question as to the need f~r addi:tonal service etation sites, that the iclea of rhe proposed center was to provlde a commer.cial hub for r_he area whic.h would have appr.oximate].y 9,OQ0 residents; that the nearesC service station was lacatPd about one and one-half miles away f.rom the proposed s:te, and they fe1L that a aervi.ce 3tatiua ahould be pr~vided a~ the suU~ect location. Mra. Mary Dinndarf, 131 South La 1?az, Pres~dent of the Santa Ana Canyon iu~provement Aseociation, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the sub~ect petition and stated that alt:hough ahe might b~ misi+iterpreting the proposal, she woe~ld like the tree=~ to be provided in conEormance with thF: Bcenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone beca~se of the mn~or interaF•ction and the petitic~ne: could probably work out something to maintain said tree requirement; and that she was •.iot prepnred to commpnt ragarding the lzgality or illegality of the proposed signs~ r~lthough [he signs would probably be fine. '1'he.reupon, Mr. Bariaic indicated there was no r.ebuttal to the oppoaition. THF PUBLIC IiEARING ,.'AS CLOSED. The Planning Commissian entered into discuasion with Mr. Bari:~ic regarding the circulat:lon for the center and specifically regarding diepoeition of tt~e trees, during which Mr. Barisic stated the propoaed center wa~ compriaed of approximately 15 acres of land; that when the rest of the centei was developed, there would be cut and fill and all of tre txe~s would not remain; that t?~ere were clooe to 5fl trees on the service etHtion site and they could probably leave 15 to 20 of them for a ti.me. Asaistant Zcning Supervisor Annika Santalahtt noted that the Code required one tree per 20 feet of interior boundary line and that clustered treea would not satiafy l-he Code. ~ • ~ MINUTES, C['tY i'LANNINC CC~IrL,tiSSI0t7. .T~nuury 6~ 1975 75-<< BNVIRONMENZ'AL IMPAf,T RFPORT N0. 8S AND CONDITIJNAL USE PERMIT NU. 1.508_~lt~;ADV~RTIS~.D) Cheirm~-n Herbe:. noced tF~at the iiitent of the Code requirements could be met by having 25 trceK located enmewliere on ltie aite but iint nece~aenrily loc:ated along Che inknr.ior boiind- i~rles. Commiseloner Farnno added thar the chnnces of nut havinK anough ;:=..c° ~o meet the r~~quirement wae remote nnd thu[ :tY the reyuiYement that they Ue on 20-foot centera was wnived, th~~n i~ Rho~.ild be suh,ject to fur.ther review by the Planni.ng Commi.ssion and Staff Lf there were not enou~Ch. Mr. Barlaic stated chak if the treee were not required to be on 20-foot centers, then there might be enuugh treea. Com:niesf.oner. Farano Chen not:ed that the peri.tioner mu~t underr~t+lnd that tl~E required number of trses wao not being ~raived and Lhat tree.~ would have to be provid~d one wuy or another ~ al~hough if some of the exiati.-~ trees could be eaved, it would ulr.o save khe pet it ianex mot~c~y. In responae to questioning by Comm:isaioner King~ Mr. Ruriei.c stlpulaCed that 25 treea would he provided on the aFrvice st~tlon site b~at not necesear.ily on 2Q-foot centera adjacent to the interior buundary lines, as specifi:.ally r.equired by thc: Codc+. Commisaion,~r Farnnu inquired concerning the uae of the monument aign, noting that t.he submittecl planA indlcatpd n Texaco sign as part nf said monument aigci; howeve,', the monument sign Hhould not zdvertise the service sl•ation. Mr. Bariaic stated that the p~.ans were in error aince the monuroent sign was not intc~nded to have a Texaco eign on it ~znc y thereupon, }ie stl.pulat~d th~t the monument siEn indlca~e.~t on Exhibit 1 of the submiCted ~:lans and locate~l at rhe soukhwest corner of the aervict br.ation siCe would not ~.dvertis~:~ the service gtatAUn but would identify the shopping center only. Ttie Flanni»g Commiasion generally concurred thnC since Environmental Impact ReF~c~rt No. A5 wras certified by the City Council on January 30, I973, and conRidered i.n connection with ~ grading plan fur the shopping center which included a service station, the Planning COlffi1~.R8~OI~ believes that said draft CIR No. 85 is sti.ll in conf.ormflnce with the City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Q~sality Acr_ and, bas~~d upon such infarmation doe~ ilerel~y recommend to the City Council that they reaffirm ti~eir original. cer tif. icaCion Chat said E1.R No. 85 is in compllance with said Environment~-1 Qua3 iry Act. Commiesioner King offered Resolution No. YC75-2 and moved for tta ~assage and 3doption that Petition for Conditiona7. Use Permit No. 150R be and iiereb~ ia granted, in p.~rt, granting waiver of the permitted wall signing on the baeis that t'~.e pum~: islands of the propoaed service station are not located adjacent to Anaheim Hi11s Road, bux ratlier are located t~wards the interior of the shopping center; granting w~i.ver of the landeocaping adjacent t~ interi.or boundary lines based on the stipulation by the petitioner tt.~at 25 trees would be located on the service aCation aite, said zrees to be located sub~ect to approval by the Development Servicea Department; that the aervice ntation at the proposed location was determined to be iiot unreasonable; sub~ect to th~ stipulltions bp the petitioner and subject to conditions. (See Feaolution Book) On ro11 ~:al.l, ~he foregoing resolution was paesed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOlII9SON, KING, MORI~EY, TOLAR. HERHST NOES: CONI~i'ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COI~II5SIONERS: NUNE ENVIRONMGNTAL Ir~ACT - CONTINUED. ,JOHN D. LUSK & SON, P.O. Dox 2140, Newport Beac:h, Ca. 132 REPORT N0 92663 (Developer); HOPEN, NEDLUNL & DARBY, INC., 3030 41esC Main . StreeC~ Alhambra~ Ca. 918Q1 (Engineer). Sub~ect property, consist- TENTATIVE MAP QF ing of. agproximately 87 acres havir.3 ~ frontage of approxirtiately 8418 TRACT NOS 3209 feet on the north side of Nohl Rnnch Road, having a ms.ximum . AND 8647 depth of approximately 1800 feet, and being located appraxi.mately 1810 feet eaet o£ the centerline of Nohl Ranch Ror~d, is prc.posed for subdivision as follows: Tract No. 8418 - 40.6 acres - 10~- R-H-l0,OQ0 lota; and Tract No. 8647 - 46 acres - 97 R~H-10,000 lots. Subjece matters were conttnued from the meetinga of Auguat 19. Sep~ember ~0, October 14, November 11 and 25~ and Decemoer 9~ 1974, at the request oi the petitionex. One persoti lndicated his presence in oppositlon to the -~~~a~ect matter ~nd, euLseqt~enCly, waived the full read ing of the Staff ~ epurt. • ~ ~ MINUTFS, CITY PT.ANNING (:UMMT.SSI:ON~ JaT~u::-ry 6, 1975 75-5 GNV'iRONMENTN_IMPACT REPORT NO., 132 A1VD 1ENTATIVB MAP OF TItACT NOS. $41.8 AND 8647 (ConCinued) Although tiie Stnff Report Co the Ylrsnning Commiselun dated 3anuary 6. 1975, wc~e not rend at Che piiblic heari.ng, it ia referred to anc' made n p+~rt nf tl~e minuCeo. Chuirmnn Nerbet t~oCed for. the developer ttin!~ n l.~tter dated January 5~ 1975, had been rpcei.ved from the Pcralta H111B Improvemc~nt Aseociation requeAt~nq ~- continuance ~or Yl~nning Commisaion consic9eratiori of. the eubject mntter to allow more time £or the Pernlta H111e h~meownere Co pureue acquieition of the pr~perty r+d~.3cent to their property~ etc. Mr, litll. ~,~ok~ represent~ng the developer, appeared before the Coaaniesion nnd indlcated he had not rcad the letter referred te by Chairm~n lierbet~ and th~-t he would respectfully reque~t thal the Planning Commisf-ion coneid~r the next item on tho agenda at thi.~ pc~inC in the me~ting t~l a11.ow him time to re~d ~aid letl•er end formulate a r.esponae to it. The Planning Commi~sH tor~ granted Mr. l,usk' a request. ('Che Planning Commlasion conaidered Ttem 4 on the aget-da~ being Fltt No. 138~ Cenernl Plan elmendment No. 137, und Aren Dev~lopment Pl.an No. 116 at thio polnt in tl~e meeting.) At 3:35 p.m., consideration uf: Envi.ronmental Ympact Report Nu, ].32 and 'fenCative Maps oi Tract Nos. f3418 and 86/i7 wns resumed, and Mr. Lusk i.ndicated to Ctie Pl.annin~ Commiaaion that he had diacusaed the issues rai~ed in zhe refer.enced lette.r with Mr. Roland Krueger.~ a Perr~lt•A Nills homeower~ and ie appenred appropriate to appr~~ach each owner regurding the acquieition. Mr. Lusk stated that che succe~ss of the proposeci eale o£ the property immediately ad,~acent to the Peraltr~ Hills homes could probably b~^ messured within a week or ten days ancl ttiat through that exercise the develnper would hope to have aome paasi.ve ~pproval. ~f Plan C which had been prepared und was ready for c~nsideration; and thnt he and Mr. Krueger had verbally agreed xo some varia~cione to I'lan C and those changes would also be f.irmed up within the nexC tk~o weeks. Cha:trman Herbst noted that it wae imperative that the Planning (:ou~miasian have a S~aff Report regarding Plan C for cansideration especially with rerpect to the buffer zo:~e; and that the proposed Pla~ C appeared to meet the realm of possibillty more than anything lhat had been submitted for the subject property to date. Mr. Luek stated that within tt-e next two wEeke they wuuld be able to obtain an accuruCe measurement uf the property owners' interest in acquiring the property; and C.hat a five-• year putchase plan had been offered, at ttie. developer's cosr, making iC easier for the property owners to proceed. Zn response to queationi.ng by Chairman Herbat, Mr. Iuak stated the lower slopes were pro- posed to be 2:1 and the interiar elopes at 1'~:1; that about SQX of the alopes would be natural, however, next to Roland Krueger's property thPy were agreeing to some mitigations; that slope planting, if required on the natural slopea, would have to be a decision of the soils engineer and xhe landscape arct~itect; and that t1:e PeralCa Hills homeownerr~ aere agreeing to u two-week cor-tinuance. Chairman Herbst noCed for the develoger that in order to consider Plan C at ttie next Planning Co~nmisai.on mseting, it would have to be in the handa uf the City StAff by 7'hursday, January 9, 1975, fo~- their review and preparation of a report. Mr. Don Steffensen~ the counsel for the developer, appeared before the Commisaion and indicated the tentativ~e map w~s abouc ready and could Ue submitted to the Staff on January 7~ 19'15; that he had auggested the Cwo-weak continuance to Mr, Luek on the basis that on January 7tt~ letters would be sent to ~ach of the 11 Peralta Hills property owners that were backing up to the subJect property and an indication of the genera2 interest in purchasing Che property ahould be apparent within a two-week period; that the parceling or the properties could be worked out with the City Staff lbter on if the property wae to be sold; and that if they were able to work out the sale of that porCion of the property immediately ad~acenC to Peralta Hills, then the developer would like Rorue indication from the organization as to whether or not the concerne of the property ownera were mitigated and if they would withdrew their ~thpr ob~ections. Diecussion pursued regarding the time spent on rhe eubJect tentative tract ~aps by Che Planning Commission. the developer, and the Peralta Hills hameowners, during which Commis- aioner Farano indicated that it was becoming unfair to some or all of the parties and the next time the mattere came beforc the Planning Commission action might be taken r~gardless of whether all parties agreed or not. Commisai.oner ~a~er concurred. • ~ ~ MINU'C1:S, CITY 1'LANr11NG CUhQ~tISS10N~ January 6~ 1.975 75-u ENVIRONMLNTAL IMPAC'f REPORT N0. 132 ANU TENTATIVE MAl' Or 't'(tAC'~ NUS~E~4.1?.i_ANll $fi47. (Conl•lnuedl Commiseioner Farano inquir~d how the application would etand follnw•1.nY, the two-week periad~ aud Mt. Luek etnted khut i.n CIIN@ tho property owr~ere wet~e not intai'~astQd in Acquirf.ng Ctie properCy r~forred Ca~ then Plen C would be uuC and they would requeQt. the Plenning Commiseion tu ccmeider thcir original proposal or Plr~n B. Mr. Krueger etnted tfie Perulta Hill.e property ownere Y-ad been awniting eume c~new~rs to sort~e very aevere mutCers and Che developera hnd been nsked to prvvide aome potesttial ttansiCion zones and t~ad not: done so until Plc~n C was prepared. Commission~r Furuno notod th~l- his impreaei-,n of the Perelt~z Hillc~ Impruvemeat Associati<~a wue thue they would nut agree to anythiug :~~ye than ane-acr.e estates, and tie waA encourag- ing ull parties to get on with khe plans nnd rerlch an nmicable deciainn. Mr. Krueger then etAted that the records wuuld probebly bear out that the Aesoclation tincl never. insiated on one-acre esCaCes in the sub~ect area~ however~ they would hfive liked n buffer zone of ane-acre ear_~~ea if it coul.d heve heen managed, yet they had not been r~damFnt; und thaC aince they were looking at. R-H-•10,000, wi[h a lot af. R~1 homee naxt to one-ucre zones, 1t did not look ].ike there was very much conaiderution for providing n buffer ~one. Mr. Krueger f.urther atated tliat Mr. Steffensen should not be, expecting the property ownc:rs to be tn escrow within two weeks. Mr. Morley clarified thaC Mr. Steffenaen had indicated that within two wteeks they wo~ild know if ttie property ownera would be going into e~cruw. Commiseloner Farnno offered a motion, Reconded by Commisai.oner M~rley and MOTION CARF.TGD chat conside~~ation of ~nvironmental Jmpnct Report No. 132 and Tentative Map~ o£ Tr.act Nos. 8418 and $647 be f~~rther continued to the meeting of Janusry 20, 1975, f.or a report under Reports and Recomm:ndations, und tliat the aiibje~t matters be listed as a regular agenda itcm for rebruary 3, 1975. FNI/IRONMENTAL IMI'ACT - INITIATED BX THE ANAIiEIM CITY COUNCIL, 204 East L:lncoln Avenue, REPORT N0. 138 Anaheim, Ca. 928i:S. EIR No. 138 in con~unction with General - '~ Plan Amendment No. 137. General Platl Amendment No. 1.37 to nmend GF.NERAI. PLAN the Anaheim General Plan Map in the vicini.ty southeast of Broadway f+MENDM~NT N0. 137 anci Loara Street from r~ junior high c;chool site to low, 1:..,-medium snd/or medium density residenti.al. Area Development Plan No. 116 A~tEA IIEVGLOP;iENT to determine the proper veha.cul:~r circulation for the area. P'L~~N N0. 116 Four persona indicated their pxesence in the audience rpgarding the s~lbject marters. Assistznt Ylanner .Iohn Anderson reacl the Staff Report to the Planning CAmmissi.on dated January 6, 1975~ and said Staff Report is ref.erred to as if aet forth in fu11 in tl~e minutes. He noted that regarding the southerl~ porti.on of the aub~ect properky i.ncluded in the study, lhat the General Plan Amendment was initiated upon the understanding that the Anaheim Union High Sctiool Diatrict found the junior high school site at that l.ocation to be aurplus and~ as such, was to be sold assuming an acceptabl.e. bid was received. Regarding the northerly portion of the property included in the study area, Mr, Anderson atated Reclassificatioc: Na. 71-72-18 for rezoning from the R-A (R~-A-43,OOU) Zone to the R-3 (RM-1200) 7oaa and Area Deve.l.opment Ylan Na. 107, Exhibit A, wcre apnroved un December 7, 1971, in con~unction wi.th a concepr, plan fa- a 5U0-unit apartment developmenC; and EnrironmenCal Impact c~eport No, 137, filed in conjunction with a request for an exten- sion of Ci~ne for Reclasaification No, i1-72-18 and P. new concept plan for a 420-unit apartment development were approved by ~he Planning Comnniseion on December ~, 1974, with reservations alnce the land use suitability was questionable with implicationa on the additionul adjacent landa that were being made availabl.e by the achool distric: £or the developmetit. He f•urther noted regarding Area Development Plan No. 116 Chat three different plans or exhibits numbered as "Exhibit i~o. 1," "Exhi.bit No. 2," and "Exhibi~ No. 3" were being presented for conaideration by the Plannin~ Commieaion as well as proposed s~reet section exhibits. He further preaented Exbibits A, B, ~, nnd D for consideratton by the Planning Commisslon in connec.tion with General Plan Amendment Na. 137 for land use alternates. Mrs. Raymond CampbelJ., 620 Gilbuck Drive~ appeared before the Planning Commiesion and etated ahe was interested in the safety of the children walki.ng ~nd riding their bicycle~ to and from Loara Elementary Schoo~ ..'nce Loara was a very dan~eroue, narrow etreet. ~ ~ ~ MINUTFS~ CI'1'Y I'I,ANPII.NC CUMMI5SION~ J~'.:~'.~hl'y 6~ 1975 15'~ ENVIRONMGNTAL IMPACT R1:PORT N0. 138, GENGFiAL PI.AN AMENDMENT NU. 137 ANU AEtEA 1)EVLI.GPMI.NT Y1.AN NG. .1.1.6 ~ot~Ci.nue~, ~_~.___._..~_..__. .---~._..._... ._.__..____._. TraEfic Engi.neer P~lul Singcr notc:~! thnl bike ruutee w~re not yst esteUliehc~d in the City r.f MuheJm, however~ an exteneivr. study ~aas pr~sen~.ly heing canducted Uy consultfintA on a tederal grant rhr.ough the Ci.ty'n Ynrkn and Recreati.on f)epnrtment. He fur.ther noted that sldewnik» would Ue instal.led alon~ Lonru. In rcap~~uae to questioning by Commiesion~r (:auer, Mr. Singer noted thaC the ~~ltlmate width of Loara Street would be 40 feet~ curU-to•-curb, excepC Eor those pur[ione d.lrectly odjHr_~nt Co Chc pr~posed developmenC. In responae to questiuning by Mra. Campbell. Chairmnn llerbet noced that ii portiun of Laaru SCreet wae proposr.d to be wlder thun it pre:aently wAS. Mrg. Campbell tE~~n suggeatpd keeping the density around her neighborhood at low density. Mr. L'lbert Shannur~, 632 South Wi.lde Place, appeared before Ch~ Planning Commir~sion and stated he was concerned that the vacxnt 3'~-acre aection o£ pr.operty next t~ him would b~ developed with two-RCOry condominiuma oz• aparCments and~ in that event, hia property wouJ.d suffer financially because lendere were more reluctant to losn on property when it wae adjncenC to r.nat type develapment; ehat all along the adjc~cent streets in the ar.ea there wae single-family development; that ].i.ving ad~acent to aparl•ments would be noisy r-nd since he moved from an aparr_ment pro~eck~ he did ~ot want to live in one i~gain; und that with high densi.ty, there would be more neighborhood problema. (;ommissioner Tolur ixoted ttiat, ic- his opinion, Mr. Shannon's concerns appear.ed to be premature. Mr. Shanr-on r.heri stated he would like to have somP kind of buffer bet.ween hi~ home and any higher dznsity development and if Xhere was to be two-story development. Mr. Anderson clar•lf ied that zoning did not precltsde ~wo-stc~ry develc,pmenC although for apartment deve.lopment two-story cunetr~zr.ti.on was not pei7uitted wi.thin 15U fe~~ a single-famlly zone. Mr. Cal Queyrel of Anacal. Engineering appeared bef.ore the Pl.anni.cig Couunission representing Che owner of the property to the north of the school property and stated that the City Counci.l, on December 31, 1974, approved the e:ccension of ki.me f.or Reclassification No. 71-72-18 ~or RM-4000 zoning; that ~i:= c1lenCs w~uld definir:ely not be happy with ~xhibit No. 3 of Area Development Plan No. 116 ain~:e it wovld sp'it their R-3 development and ~aauld be detrimental to the olan they were presenti;• ~:onsideri.ng with planned ].akr~s, eec. , and any kind of a split would creaCe prcb'lems wiCh tne coutin~xity of the plan, the recrea- tional facility, and the security ~or the project its~lf; tha~: they would support zoning ad~acent to their property that wo~.~ld t~llow them to have l-wo-;3tory construction wiehin 150 feet of the ad,jacent property; and, in thetr opinion, en appr~~priate step-down in zoning would include FS-5000 with t7M-400U nex-: to Che RL~I-1200. Commisaioner Gauer noted that a rot~ of RM-7200 would be appzopriate next to the existing RS-7200 development. Mr. Queyrel tt~en etaY.ed regardin~ Area Dev~lopment Plan "Exhibit No. 1" that 80% of the traffic from the RM-1200 development ~.~oLld go c~u~ Cu Loara Street and vEry ].itt].e would go south. In response to questioriing by Commissi.oner Tolar, Mr. Anderson explained other alternatives cahereby circulat.ion for the uortherl.y and 5~»therly portions of the study area could bP combined, and Commisqiuner Morley took exceptio,~ noting that, in his oplnion, it wus not appropriate to combina the traffic for RS-•72Ut~ with multiple-famiiy developmenta and C.hat "Exhibit No. 1" was preferred. Commiseioner King ::nqaired if the street running nortt- and south abutting the railroad tracks on the east~~rly edge of the atudy area would pravide s~ buffer for the existing development, and Mr. A.~derson noted that SCaff had taken that. into considerati.on although it war~ not shown in all of the eachibits aince for a particul~.r type of land use Staff desired to minimize the amount of dedicated str~.et footage tt-at would be talcen awa~ from the usable, developable plan recognizing the possibi.lity that: using such A street as a buffer, an alternative to that type of b+lffer would be the positioning of carporte, for lnatance, along the railroad frontAge; that auot}ier consider;;t{on was that Staff did not ~~ ~. ~ ~ MINUTGS, C1'fX PLANNIl7f; CUP4~;ISSION, ,1.~n~inxy 6~ 1975 75-8 F,NVIRONMLNTAI. IMF'ACT RI?P(1R1' N0. ].3A, GRNRltAJ. PLAN AML~NDMr;NT N0. 137 AF~U AR}:A U~;VrLUPMCNT F'LAN NU._116 ~Continu~cl~_._______.__..._..._.__._.__.------ ---- ---------.-_~-...__.._.____ nec•e»AUrily want to pr.ovida foz~ r~ Chr.AUgh dodicr~tc~d publ.ic eCre~Uf. g~ing nurkh end south elnce tY~c~t ~aould 111ow for gr~~iitpr c.lrcu~ati.nn into tt~e ~:xieting ainF le-family d~vclopment to Che south. rlr, Quc~,yrel tl-en ~itntc~d xhef.r plnny wero tu niive carportH bucking uF to the railroad trHCkf~ wi.th c~ p~rapet wall. [c~ ehield r.he sound tiro~a the [ruckr~ i~leo, nnd thett rhey weze in fnvor o'_` Arsn Ueve.lopuient Pl.an "[.xhlbit No. 1" to provid~ for pzoper and ucSequate circula- ti.on and wlilch would not cut thrnugh hia c~tent's pxoperty. Mr.. Md~raon n~~~d that Area ~evt~lr.~pmsnt Plun No. ].07, which wae eci.ll in effect, called for an cust••west streFt extendii~~ generally along the souCherly pr~rr.ion of the northor.ly pr.operty nnd w<~uld~ i.n f.ac*, FxC~*.n.i i~orthcrly ~o connech. with Bror.dway. and which wae con- sidere~9 when the schoc~l propt,r•~.y w~s aCil:. propostd fat r~ school aiCe for circuYntion in z•elati.onehip tc L'he scbaol. THG PUI3LIC NEARING WAS CLl)~L'D. Commieaioner Gauer nothc! thnt khc~ etep-down zuning from FtM-120d Hhould ineliide R5-5000 e~nd u row o£ RS-%2Q0 bel-.ig pr.ovide.d c-exC Lo the exieting sitigle-fa-.ily dev~:].opment. Chairman HerbsC noCcd that h:: favored C.ecieral Plar- Amendment "fxlilbit A" and that his main concern wan the'transition f~rc:ns which w~re welZ considered in that exhtbit. Commiseioner Farano noted that tie did nut favur any mulCipl~-family zoning sUuttir~g the single•-famil.y although ir mi.ght: Ue Tt5-SU00. He qsest ioned the fACt Chat in~r~ss and egress circulati.on far the RM-4Q(10 portlon of "L'xhibit A" ~e'ing ~~nly frow Loara, and Mr. Si.nger clarified tt~at: Staff wae hoF~i-1g to maintain a better circulation plan. with more th~in one F1CC~.99 to I,ati~~a and to the r~~~r of the ~rea. 1'he Planning Commissi~n entered i.nCO ~~:scuf~aion regarding the circul~-t~ion for tt+e ar~r~ designated in "Exh2btt A" fur R*~-4Ul)0, uncl Mr. RoberCS cl.nrified that ary ciraular.ion system propoaed .or the RM-~~OUO wou].d ~:ndo~~btedl.y be privatn atresta and it •ould he pasaible to meander thoae st:reets r:xtk:.+x L-han having east-wesC streeta intu the 340•-f.oot fronta~;~. In respoiise to questiontn~ by the P7.arcni.ng Cortm!iasion, Mr.. Qu~yrei indicated that the traffic puttern shown for "C:~hibit A." would create no problc~ms for the c:eveloper and, Cherefore, he favored thut plan. In responae to questi.oning Gy Commi.~aioner 'Colar, Mr. Singer aCate2 that if future ~lanning war~ to be based on "Exhibic A," 360 P.llT would be pro~ected aC Gilhuck, with 180 car~ being generated from the northerly porefon ia addition to the 180 cArs thac were presently coming from the so~ith; th~t rhe "Fx1-i.;,f.t No. 1" would rrovide circiilation both ways and 360 ADT on Gi.lbuck would bo tia~d.ly <<r:y traffic at al.l. In response to quest~ioning by the Plannin~ Commis~ion, Mr. RubNr.ts noted r.hat General Pl~,n Amendment "~xhlbit A" was broad enough that at the time a building rsquest Fas made for RS-5000 on the northerly r~ide of the street, sucb a~ievelopment could be accomplished. Cammisaioner Dior].ey ~ffered a motlou, seconded by Conunissioner Kiag and MflTION CARRIED, thnt Fnvfronmental impact Report No. 138, h~vin~ been considered this date by the Plar,ning Commisei~n and e~•idence. bor.h writtc;n and oral having been presented to supplement saLd drnf~ F.IR~ the Planning C~mmisaion ~~lievee that sai~ draft F.IR doea ;onform to *.he f,ity and State Guidelinea and the State of i;alifc~raia Enviror,mental Quality Act and, based upon such informar.ion, does hereby recamtaend to the CiCy Council that they cercify said EIR is in compliance with said Envir~nmental Quality Act. Commiasioner. Gauer offered Reaolution No. PC75-3 and moved for its passag~ ancl adoptior~ that the Planning Cotmniasion recommends to ti~e City Counci.l Chat General Flan P.mendment No. 137, "F:thi~it A," be ~pproved. (See Re~solution Book) Un roll. call~ the f~regoing reaolut±.on wr+s passed by the following vote: AYES: COFII~IISSION~RS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON~ KING, FIORLEY, TOLAR, H~RBST NOES: COMI~ISSIONERS: NONF. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ~ ~ ~ tdYNU'I'[:S, CI'PY YLANNINC COt~tISSTON, .le,iuary 6, 1975 7 `i-9 ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT RF.PQRT NQ, 13A, GENL~RAI. PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 137 ANll AItEA DLVL~I,OPMT:NT PLAIC NU._ 116 Co~iCinuod) ___,___ -•--- -------- CommiASioner Gauer. offc~rud Reeolution No. PC74-4 a~~l moved fur itt~ po~~e~ge and adoption tt~ot thc: ['lanning l:ommiee.ion r~commends to the City Coun~:il. adopti~~n of Aroa pevalopma~ut Plan No. 11.6~ "Exhibit 1~" nnd SCxeet Sectione "AA" :~long th~~ apprux'Lmately 7.46-foot fronCage+ oE the eoutherly portion i~long Loarn Street, "13n" ~long thc~ ~pproxlmetely b20- f~~ot frcnl•age of tho northnrly portion along Loara Street, an~ "~'C." a1on~ Broudway. (See Resolution buok7 On r.o1.1. cNl]., the £oregoing x~e~soluCinn wuN paseed by Che f.ol.lowinE vot~: AYES: COt~tISSTONERS: FARA~;O~ CAUEIt, JOHNSON~ KING, MORLF.Y, TOI.AR, Nl'sRBS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: N~NE A13.`'iENT : CUMMISS I QN~RS ; NONE ItGCLSS - At 4:00 p.m., Chairmun HerbsC d~clared a recee~s. RECONVCNF; - A~. 4:07 p.m. , Chairmr~n Herbsr. reconvered Che meetit~g with f~ll r~ Com+ni~aianers present. RECLASSIFICA'TiON - PUBI.IC HE:~RING. LAWRGrE~~E A. MUCKENT1iALGR, ET Ai., 153U Avolenc:ix Drive, N0. 74-:5-1.9 Fullerl•on' ~a, g2632 ((lwner); GREAT OAdC ICi;STFRN CORPO~tAT'[.~N, P,ttn: ~ RoUerC Atidersor., 912 Park Circle, Anaheim~ Ca. y2H04 rind STEPHSN VARIANCG N0~2665 GALLAGHERq 106 North Claud~tna Stree:t, 11".%O5, ,:'~r..ul:eim, ':a. 92$05 (AgeaCe)• - ~ Property described as: An irregul.arly-sha[~ed parce:l ~f tar.d conc+iqting of a~proximately 5.3 acxe~ locuted north ond west of the in[erser.tion of Creacent Avenue ar-d Laar.a SrreQt, having appr.oximat-e fruntage~, of 475 ''ee[ on the narkh side of Crescenl• Avenue and 250 f.eet on the weyr ai~ic: ~f Loc-r~ f;:reet. i'ropertr~ presently cl.aseifieu CL (COI~IERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. REQUL;STED CLASSIrtC~1TI0N: RM--1200 (RESIDENTI.AL, rYULTIPI,E-F1•" ~') ZONL REQUESTED VAKIA1vCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINZMUI~ F],UOR AREA ANP ~~AXIMUM BUIL•AING HEIGHT, TO CONSTRUCT A 130-UNI.T AI'AltTMF.fIT C~•' . No one indt.caCed Cheir presenc~ .ln oppoeition to si~h3ec t~~» Although the StafP yeF~ort to the Planning Commisaiou ~.~~~ ~1• E, 1975, was not read at the public hearing, it ia referrec~ to and. made 8 E)ST •~~ `• .[lutHS. Mr. Robert Anderson, the agent for the petitioner, +~^;~ :r•-.~ ~.:f ~re the Coznmiasion and ex- plained the requested reclassification of the sub3~~~: ~~•~E~~ :.y and th~ requested variances. TIiE PUBi.J.C HEARING WP.S CLOSED. Chairman Hert,st inquired regarding the weaterly driv;~.:,u ~:eich wae deadend and aCa~ed Chere appeared to be abo~~t 6 p~rking spacea which sh;~u':~ n~ conaidered for relocation to create thra~i};h cir~ulati>n for the praposed projecc; t~U+. ~hers should be aome sort of wa11 or planter conRtrucced al.ong Ctie enti.re ~reste~:1~~ ~~:~onezty line • 1 alang thP property line abutting the westerly and nortliprly boundar.ies oc ~ra adjacen~ .~ervice c~tation s:.te locaCed at the southeas*_ corner of the subject pr.pC:-r ~ince tiio::~ ad~acEnt proper.ties were. already developed. Mr. Anderson stat~d they deairEd to have a cerYai~~ am~ant of securi.ty for Che development and that was why the accesa was not made at the weste~rly border of the suh~ect property and if an access was placed at that locatton, then - security gate would be necessary. In response to queationing by Commiseione~. Morley, Mz. A,nderaon stated they wexe [rying to eliminate the poaeibility :r any unauthorized persone entering the property via vehicle, thereby eliminating theft ehat if ~omeone came in through th~ al~ey to the poat o£rice, with no br.eak at Loar.a. tfiey could go in an~ leave withouC being noticed. Regarding the post office traffic, Mr. ~~ndar~mn stuted not too much traffic uaed the alleyway, however, if someone had something 11~ega1 in mind, they could enter the subject property that way. In response to quer~tiuning by Coamais~+ioner King, Mr. An~dersori stipulated to conatructing a ~all along thE entire w~sterly boundary of the sub~ect property and along the bounda•ry line abutting the weaterly and northerly boundaries of the ad~acent service ataCion site located a~ th~ southe~set corner of the aub~ect property. ~ ~ ~ D[1Nl1TES~ ~.1.TY PLANNING COP4113SI~)N~ ,:anuary 6~ 1~75 75-10 CtECL~ASS']FIGATION N0._i~-75-19 AND VNtIANG~ N0~2665 (Caritinued) Chntctnan HerUet inqulred rep,arding tl~e reyuept f.or vurinn:.~ trom xhe miniraum floor nrea fOf l'FlE! b+~chclor unlta und r~oted thnt thu Planni~ig C~mmieeion hud previouely nlluwad 25X o£ units in r~ compLex to b~.~ bachelor uniPe but r~ot. bolow 42S equAre feet i:: eize; Chat tl-e~ propoaed bc~icoriies for th~s Uact~elor unita appeared ~at to be included in the squara foot- uge nnd if thc wa12.a werr. maved r~u[ to increaee thQ Aize of the uniCe t:o 425 Rquere f~et. tl~~~ wuiver would be allewed~ and that euch un aar.err~eion ko the pl.an would juet decraa~Ke the size af che parioe tor the biichnlor unikn, Thereupon~ Mr. Ander.s m sCipulatea tht-C tt~u bachalo-° unlts wauld not be smaller then 425 aquure feet i.n eize :~nd not exceeding 2`,x uf. the tutal numLer of. r~partment units proposed. Chairman Herbst pur:~ued c.he circul.atinn element oE the propoeal during which Mr. Mciereon ~taterl Ltie pro~ecr ahould ~e shifted tawnr<i the eervice otatior_ aite, and [hat thQ parking epaces could be reloc+ited if. the thruugii circulation wAa required by the Planning CommieKi~n. 'I'hetettpon, CoQUnisoioner Jo}•naon noted that times had changed and perhape t.he etandnrde needed to be changed a].ittl~ since, !f t:~e circulc~tion would presen[ haxards L•o the pro~ect, then che Plrsnning Commiesi~n Rtu~uld be inclined to lisCen to the whye and wherErforss. Mr. Mderson then etated they felt the b:LgEext danger to the pro~ecC wae the peopre who could bring a vehic:le into tha property and load up with etolen ganda wi.thout beinq notice<l. Mr. Ruuert: M:.i.ler, G746 MFtgnolia, Riverside, I:he architect fur the clevel.opment, r~ppeared before t!~e Planning Commiasion end stated chey had inadvertently failed to place a fence bc*_ween thP kwo parking ar.eae; and thnt a£er-ce wae needed to separ.r~r.e the ir~ternal park- ing for re.sident~ only; that the trend was more tu t~ave ~ecurity far thia type prcje~t; thaC their experience in tite pnet was that for deve].opmenta of thia type, they had goiie back und redeaigned Che projecta to have a secuti[y gate whereby r~ key wae ueed by the reFidents ancl emer~;ancy vehicles~ that Che fence could be chatnlink or block to prevent a crsr fram entering the proiect to move out a tenant wher.e no one would know that tie did not belottg in the pro~ect; that legitimate tenanta would be parked in ttie reaidenC parking area; and that the out:side weaterlymoat parking would be extrA parking for gueste, etc. He further st.ated *.hat all of th~ gaCea would be operated by key or card. Cltairman Kerbat inquired regarding security for Che garr~p,es that would be exp~sed to the outside, und Mr. Millc.r indi.cated they were mostly concerned about access to thP apartments rliemAelves. Commiasioner King questioned the 6-foot hign concrete t~lock wall blocktng off the eaaement from the post office, and Mr. Miller 4tn::Nd the plana werP apparentJ.y in error. Mr. Miilel' further etat2d that the ea:~ement was on the periphe~y of the pro,jec.t area and was not parC of ~- securi.ty area. 7.oning Supervisor c'harles Roberts noted that he underatood ttiere was a chainlink fence tha~ would sep~ra`~ the twa tiers nf packi.ng spacea cloaest tn the westerly boundary of the oroper~y and ic was not clesr how Lhe pedestriana wuuld get from the3t au4~omobiles into ~he ~partmene: pro,1ect; and he questiuned whether the pedestrian~ would have to aalk all the way around the pro;}ect t~ Cre~cent Aveaue and enter either througli the front door of tt~e apartment project or come Uack up the ir.terior drivew~y; that if security was a concern and if the Ylanning Conmtisaion was cont;emplating requiring a bl~ck wa11 along Che westerly side of t:ie 2S-foot wi~1e aasement, wouldn't it be possible that the s~curity gates could be placed buth al- tt~e easement entrance, as well as the driveway entrance to Che east o£ it and also the parking Rpacea ref.E~rred to earlier being elimi.nat~d to provide tlie circulatton Ueinp, discussed. Ch~irman Herbet noted that perwiasion woul.d be neces~ary from the poat office to close off the easement and to give acce3s to the post office through the gate. Mr. Miller stated tt~at perlodically they could install locked gates f.~r the e~ase of the tenunts ta partc and get Co their un.ita. In reply to questioni.ng by Commiseioner Johnson, Mr. Itoberts advised that s F~aiver of tl~e uiaxim~:m Unilding heig:-t within J.50 feet of nn agri.cultural zone was not rNquired, since the ad.jacenC K-A zoned proFerty wa; developed w1~;h a public use, beit-g a public achool. Commi.sa•:~~ner Johnaon offered a motfono seconded by Coam-iasioner Morley and MUTION CneZRIED, Chat the Planning Commisainr. racommenda to Che Gity Council that the sub~sct ~rojpct bz exempt from the requirement to prepare ~n Envir~nmental Impact Report purauan: to the proviaione of the California Environaental Quality Act. ~ ~ ~ MTNl1T~S~ GI'i'Y Y1.MiNINC COMMTSSION~ .~nnuary 6~ 1975 R_P,CLASSIFICATIUN N0. 74-75-19 AND VARIANCE N0. 2665 (Conti~ued) 75~-11 Commishioirer J~hneun ~Efared Resolution Na. PC75-5 and moverS for il•e pae~agge e»d edoptiun ta recomaand to thc City Council Chat Petition For Rbclaveification No. 74-75-19 be npprovQd eut~,~~~ct to tha etipulationa by tha p~+titionor a+-.d dub~ect to cunditione. (Suo [teeolution 9nok) Oci r^11 cal.l~ Chcs foregoing re:~olution was paesed by tho following vota: AYES: COMMIS3IONERS: FARANO~ CAUER. JQHNSON~ KINC, MORLF.Xo TOLAR~ HFR135T NOF.S : COi•1I~IiSS iUNEKS : NONE ABSFNT: CAP4dISSI0NER5: NONE Commir~eioner Johnaon offere.d Reeolution No. PC75-6 r~nd moved for its pasRage and aduption thaC Petirion for Variance No. 2665 be and hereby la grant~d in part~ since wniver of the maximum building height within 150 feet o£ an agrlcultural zune was determ.ined to be un- neceseary eince the ad~acent R-A zoned properCy ia developed wiCh a pub11:. schoal; granting wai.ver of r..}~e minimum floor area tu permit 4?5 square feeX~ ae otipulated to by the peti•• tioner on tt~e busia that the Pl~nning Commiesion had previously granted said waiver f.or bachelor units not eutialler zhun 425 equare feet a~ncl not exceeding 25X of the total number oF npartment units; subject to stipulatione of the petitioner and eubJect to conditione. (See Reaolution Book) o~, roii call, thA forego~c-g resolution was paesed by the followin~ ~-o: e: AYES: COP4IISSIONCRS: FARANU, GAUL~R, JO~ISON, KING~ 90RLGY~ TOLAR~ HERBST NOES: COFAtISSIONERS: NONE ABS~,NT: COI~fISSIONERS: NCNE CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. STERLING BUSINESS ~OMPLRX, P. 0. Box 500, Los Alamitos. PERMI'f N0. 1509 Ca. 90720 (~wner); JERRY WILKc~S, 114 North Bradford, Placentia, Ca. 92670 AND ROII~R'P S. SHELTON, Aahwill-Burke 6 Company, 1833 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca. 92670 (Agents); requesting permission to F.STABLISH SAI~~S AN'il DISTRIaUTION OF OFFICE SUPPLIES IN AN GXISTING INDUSTRIAL CON~LEX an property deacribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist.ing of approximately 5.2 acres having a fruntage of approxtmately 154 feeC on the aouth aide of La Palma Avenue, having a maximuce depth of approximAtely 1044 feet, and being lucated approximately~ 725 feet east of the centerl.ine of Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently cl~r~sified ML (I~IMIT.ED INDUSTRIAL) ZONE. No one indlcated their presence in opposltion to aub~ect petition. A1Chough Chc~ Staff Report to tlte Planning Conuuisaion dated January 6, 1975, was not read at the public hearing, it ie ~referred t6 and made a parC of the minutes. Mr. Jerry Wilkes, the agent for the petiCioner, xppeared before the Planning Commisaion and staCed there would be no greeting card salea or dales of statio11ery or schoul supplies at che subjpct l~cation; that 90y of the bueineas wouYd be to industri~l or commercial cuscomrra and they di:i nat encourage walk-in trade; and that 75~ uf their trade would be on a delivery basi•. THG PUBL'IC HEARING WAS CI,OSED. Zn xesponan to queationing by Commisaioner Morley, Mr. Wilkes atated that presently there was adequate parking since usucslly they only had four ~r. five customera in the store at one time; that they had previously requested and were granted permiseion to operate Chree-- tentha of a mile away at Miraloma and Kraem~r and the only reason they did not build on *.hat site was because of the money situarion being Coo tighL. In reaponae to quesCioning by Commissioner King~ Mr. Wilkea atifiula~ed that they encouraged thei: cuatomers co come into the stor~ for the firet time only, to aee what merchandiae was avail.able; that he had never seen about 60X of hia cuetomers; that mostly t!ie walk-in Crade was ;o purchade afZice furniture; and that they were not caneidered to have whol~salQ aales aince they charped ~ales tax. Thereupon, Commiesioner King noted th.at the proposcd lacation in an incustrial complex for the sub~ect uae appeared to be senaible since it was Co serve industry and. on the uasis of the petitioner's statements, the parking appeared to be adequate. In reaponse to queetioi~ing by ('ommiaeioner Farano~ Mr. ':;ilkes aCated thcy had etipulated in their pxevinu~ application to have •no free-standing aigne and that condition could ~ ~ ~ MTNi1T~5 ~(:ITY Pi.ANNINC COMMISSION~ Januury C~ ~ 1~175 CONDITiONN. USC P[:EiMIT N0. 1509 (Conti-iued) 75-12 dtil..l hold einccs tl~ey were not looki.ng for wnik-in trade and did naC want thet type slgn; that they epant a Lot of money in ~advertief.ng wiCh csCnlogues; end thet the previoue application would have worked aut f.or them. Ther~upon~ Mr. Wilkee etipulnted that no free-etanding eigno would be ut.ilizcd nnd thnC Che or.ly eign to iclontify the uee wo~i].d be u watl 91gn locnteci on tl~p building. It wne noted khAt the Uirector oE Dc~velopment Servi.ces had ciekermined thut the proposed activity fell within the dcsfiniCion of Section 3.01~ Clase 1 of the City of Maheim GuidgllnQS to thQ Requir.ements for an rnvironmenr.al Impact ~e?ort and waa~ therefare, categorically exempt f.rom the TQC1lA~1'(.'ZIlQl1C to prepare an LtR. CommiAeion~r King offered Resolution Na. PC%5-7 and moved for ita pAHRB~Q und a3option, Chat Petition for Conclitional Use Permit No. 15Q9 be and hereby iA grented, suU~ect Co c:he stipu.latiunH hy the ~,etiti~oner and aubje~t to conditiono. (See ResoluCion Hook) On ro11 call, thc~ foregoin~ resoluti.on wae passed by the following vote: AYL',S: CO~SMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHI~S~N, KING* MORLEY, TOLAR, BERAST NOGS: CGP41ISS1UNERS: NONE ABSGNT: C~~P4lISS10NERS; NONE CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIG HEAItING. OTTIS E, PITTMAN, 1f,21 Nurtii Lindendale Avenue, PERMIT N0. 1510 Fu.llerton, Ca. 92631 (Owner); requeating per.miseion to ESTABLISH A HEAVY-DUTY I;QUIPMENT YAFtL WITH WAIV~:R OP' (I+) PERMITTED STRUCTIJR~S, ~A) PEItMITTED rENCE LOCATION, (C) MINIMUM FRONT SETBAC;K A~1D (D) FNCLO5UR~ OF OUTDOOR USES on praperty described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land canaiuting of apUroximately S acres having a fronCage of ~~~p'roximately 256 feet on tt~e weat side of Jefferaon Street, having a maximum depCh o~ approximaCely 850 f~et, an~' being lor;~ted approxi.mately 690 feet Nouth of the centerline of Oranget;eorpe hvenue. kraperty preaenCly clas~sif i~d COUNTY A1 (GENERAL AGRICUI.TUkAL) DISTRICT AND M1 (1,IGNT INDUSTRT~:L) DISTRIC'T. CUNDITI~NAL USE - PUBLIC I~EAFING. OTTIS E. PITTMAN, 1621 P]orth Lindendale Av:~nue, PE1tMIT N0. 1511 Fullerton, Ca. 92631 (Owner); requeating permisaion to ESTAAI,ISH A ~ PRIVATE CAT KGNNEL WITH WAIVER OF PERMITTED S'1RUCTURES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximaCely 5 acrea having a fronCage of approxtmately 256 feet on the w~st Ride of Jefferson SCreet, having a maximum depth of approxim~tely 850 feet, and being located approximately 690 feet south af the centerJ.ine of Orangethorpe Avenue. Property preaenCly classified COUNTX A1 (GENF.RAL AGRICULTURAL,) DIS'?'RICT AND M1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT. No one lndicated their ~~~esence in oppoeition to sub~ect petitions. Although the Staff Reporta to the Planning Commission dated January 6, 1975, were not rcad at the public hearing, they are referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Walter Chaffee, the agent for the petitioner, appeared befnre the Planning Commiseion and stated the proposed mai.nCenance and storage yard was to aervice the oil fielda and bia trucks th~t had apil.lage; that they were on etand-by for emergencies in case of apills on the freeways~ and the only other close facility of l-hia type was in Nunttngton Beach; thc~;: their preaent facility was located on Daotanchur,y Road in Fullerton, and thPre had been no problems at tha[ locaCion except that the Union 011 Company had changed their mind about the lor_aCion; that they were requestinR to annex to the City of Anahei.m; that, in their opinion, they really did not need all the waivers aet forth in the Staf.f Reporta since thie was a proper use providing a conditional use permit was gran.:ed; that the aurrounding properCy included an oil rield on the eas~, a Mobil ail tank :arm and cruck stazion i.u ti~~e north and eouth, ~nd agriculture to the we3t at a distance away; that they need~d a temporary waiver to allow the use of the mobi.lehomes in tYie industrial zone, and did not expecC to have the waiver granted for permanent use; that they needed to locate on t~e sub~ect prop- erty fairly soon and, in fact, the mobilehome was already in place on the propetty although it wafl not hookad up; and that they would c~tipulate that the installation of the mobilehome ~ould be in ac~~~rdance with the Stgte atandards. Chairman Herbst noted that the Planning Commisaio;~ had ~ranted previoua requeate fcr use of mobilehomes for office space but onl;~ on a year-tn-yeax basie. ~ ~ o MINUTF9 ~ C l'fY PI.ANNINC C~F41IS310N ~ Jan~~a ry 6~ 197 5 CONDI'PIONAL USF. PEItMIT N05. ].5~0 AND 1511 (Continued) ~~-13 Mr. Chaffee requesred ta ba allowed ta r~tain the chainlink fenc:o th~: ~~°a e~cisking in tho raquired front setUuak area until the xrreet w~~~ widened. He statad they intendsd tu inetall the reqvlrad landacaping; and ttiat ttiey did not know wh~n tho etreeC improvamen~ta wc,uld be rc~qulreJ, alChough they i.ntended to bond far thmm und wo~cld inetall them whenevur the Ca.~y wae ready. Ctegarding Conditional Uso Permit No. 1511, Mr. Chaffee etatQd the cnttery wae propoeed to Us lacated behind the mobilehome unlt and weeterry of Je!!ferAUn. a+nd they would accept en approval af the waiver to ullow che uee of the mobilehome unit on a ane-year besie, also. In reaponse ~o queatloning by Commiseioner King. Mr. Chaff~e ateted tw~ mobilehame uniCe ~:ere requeeted ior use hy the cattery oper.ation. TH~ PUBLIC FIEAI2ING WAS CI.OSED. In response tu ~ueationing by Commissioner Nerbat, Mr~ Chaffee s[ipular.ed Co wi.thdr.awal of the requeot for waiver oi the required encloeure of outdoor uses and ro pxoviding redwuod or cedar alato in the existing 6-foat. chainlink fence on all. four aidea ~f the subjec~ properCy, Co pro}~erly acreen the prupoaed ua~E from vie~r. In respor..se to questioning by Chairman Herbst~ Aseistant Zoning Supervisor Mnika Santalahti noted that if the exisCing fence was permiCted on a temporery bast.s, tlie petitianer wou].d have ~:o obl:ain an snc•.ruachmenC permlt from tl~e City for eaid fence~ even though it would be only until the sCreet wae widened; and thaC the trucka and equlpment should be atored 50 feet back from I:he property line. Mr. Ct,affee s~:~ted there was am~le property involyed so tha:. keeping the equipmecit back from the property li.ue would not be a problEem. Misa Santalanti. then nc~ted thAt if Che r~.quired "enclosure of outdoor usea" was complied with, theci the~ waivers ut the "permitted fenr_e locaCion" and "minimum front setback" would nor. be requi~ed. Tn resporse to questioning by Chairman Herbc~t, Office Cngineer Jay Titus advised that a rec1as51fication was pending cn the subject property and a condition of that approval was the dedicati.on and impro~~ement uf the street, and he questioaed how that condition could be wnived. MisA Santalahti clarified that the reclaesification was aubject to dedication witt~ the streeC improvemente to be made at• the time nf development. Mr. Chaffee staCed that the waiver would be temporary and if the street improvementR were required within a year ur so, then th~y would make them. Commissioner King complimented the petitioner on the ~~leanliness of the subject oper.atlon. Commissioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Comtui~-sioner King and MOTION CARRIED, r_hat the Planning Couvniasion recommends to the City Council that the project proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 1510 be exempt from Che requirement to preparp an Environ- menCal Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the Callfornia Environmental Quality Act. Commisaioner Morley offered Resolution No. YC75-8 and moved for ies passage and adoption, thal• Petition for Conditi.onal Use Permit No. 151n be and hereby ia granted, in part, gt~anti.ng waiver of permitted structures ;;o sllow the use of mobile unita for a period of one~ year~ following which ti.II-e said waiver sha11 be sub~ect to raview and consideration for extenaion of time, upon request by the petitioner and said mohilA unita ahall be in•- stalled in conforman~e wiCh SCatQ requirements sA etipulated to by the pexitioner; grant- in,g w~xivez of the permitted fe!nce location for a pariod o£ one year, follc~wing which *_ime and upon requeat by the petitioner conbideration may be given as to whether the waiver should ~e extended, sub~PCt to the petitioner posting a bs~nd to guar.antee the removal of Che exisr.ing fence in the fr:~nt aetback and public right-of-way, and gubject to the petitioner obtaining an encroachment permit for said fence; granting waiver of the miniQUm fronc setback iti part~ permitting the existing fence in tt~e front 9etback, sub~ect to the condition that no trucka or other heavy equipment ahall be etored in the front aetback, for a period of one year, following which ti.me and upon request by the petitioner, con~id- eration may be given as to whether the waiver ehould b~ extended; thac wai.ver of the enclosure of outd~or uaes wae wichJrawn by thc petitioner wi.cn the stipulation rhat redwood or cedar slats will be inst~lled in tha exieting 6-foot cha~inlink fence on all four sides, to properly scre~en rhe propoeed use Eron~ vir~W; thet the propoc+ed us~e ie hereby granted for a period of one ;-ear, after which Cime and upon request by the petitioner, an additional pericd of time ma:~ be ~ranted. aub~ect t~ conditione. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ ~ I~itNUTKS~ CITY PLANNINC CON':MISSTUN, Jariuary 6, 1975 75-14 CONDITIONAI. U9F. PERMIT NC3. J.510 .AND 1511. (Go~ti.nued} On rol~ ca~l~ tt~e f~~reguing rasolution was pagsed by the following vot~: AYLS: CCIMMISSIONNRS: FARANO~ GAUER, JOHNSON~ KING. MORLEY, TOLAIt~ IiER11ST N0~3s C1~13SI0NER~i: NONE ABS~NT- COMMI5SI(nJERS: NONE • It var notad that tt~e Diractur of DNV~lopment Servicea had determined that the ncl:ivity propoeed in Cnnditional Use Permit No. 1511 fsll. witl~in the definitlo:~ of Section 3.01~ C1A~e 3 of thu Cit,y of Annheiu~ Guidelines to thc Req+liremente for an F,nvixonmental Impect R~port end wns~ thateforc. categoxically exempt from the requirement to file an E'[R. (:ommieeioner MorJ.ey offered Resolution No. PC75-9 and mav~:d f~r ite paeyrsge and adoption ta gxa~t Petitio~n for Conditional Use Permit No. 1511., grenting waiver oi Che permiCted etructuree to n~low the ude of mobile units for a period of one yeur, e~ib~ect to review and coneidceration for an extenaian of tir~e, upoci requesr. by the petitianer, eaid mobile unite ehall be inatallEd in conformance wfCh StaYe requir.emente as eCipulnted Co by the petitioner; eub~ect to the c.ondition that the ~roperty ownerA shal.l poet a bond immediately to guaranCee 'cemoval af the exiating f.ancing in tl~e front aetback and publlc right-of-way alnng JefferEOn Street; Chat the owner of eub~ect property ehall obtain an et~croachment permit for the exieting fence located in the public right^of-way along ~effe~son, Street; that redwoo~ or cedar s1Ate st-all be inCerw~ven in Che existing 6-foot hi(~h chainlink £ence which encloaes Che subjFCt property on fot-r aidea; and su~~ect to candition9. (Sae Resolut~on Hook) On rotl cnll~ the £oregoing reyolution waa passed by the following vote: AYES: COI~tISSI0NER5: FARANO, GAU~R, JOHNSON~ K7NG, MQRLEY, TOLe11t, H~RBST NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSL~NT: COI~tISSIONERS: NONE VA1tIANCE N0. 2658 ~ PUBLIC NEARING. R. G. MOORE, MAUR~R DEVELOPMENT COMPANX, 1G51 Quai1 Y Streety Suite 202, Ne,wport Beach, Ca. 92660 (Owner). Propetty deacribed TENTATIVE MAP OF as: An irregularly-•ahaped parcel o£ land conaieting u£ approximately TRAC'r I~O. 7$76 7 acres loc~ted at the cornera of Kellogg Drive, Orangethorpe Avenue ~ilISION N0. 3 and Post Lane, having approxi.mate £rontages of 490 fPet un the eaet side of Kellogg Drive, 570 Feet on the north si3e of Osangett~orpe Avenue, and S?.0 feet on the west side of Post Lane. Property presently classified RM-1200 (RESID'ENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUEST~D VARIANCE: WAIVER UF REQUIREMENT THAT VFH7.CULAR ACCESS TO GARAGES BE FROM THE AI,LEY ONLY . TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: llEVELOFER: MAURER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 1451 Quail SCreeC, Newport Beach, Ca. 92650. ENGINEER: HALL b EOREMAN, INC., 25~4 North Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, Ca. 92701. Sub~ect property is propo~sed for subdivision into 21 R'~f-1200 zoned 'lots (98 unita). Na one indicated Cheir presence in opposition ~u subier.t petition. Althougt~ the Staff ReporC to the Planning Commtsaion dated Janua•ry 6, 1975, was not read at the public hearing, it ia referred to and made a p3rt of ehe minutea. Mr. Bob Maurer, repreaenting the developer, appeared beforE the Planning Cunuaisaion and s~ated the requeated waiver fx'om the requirement that vehicular acceas to garagea be fron the alley only would allow for beLter circulation in. the proposed [ract. TFiF PUBI.IC HEARING WAS CLQSED. Diecuseian pureued regarding the sound-attenuation measures which would be taken tc r~duce the noiae level generated from the ad~acent railroad tracks, during which Mr. Maurer atated that those measures normally included insulation and glass; that ehe development was an .,__~ investor-owned type fourplex and was nui: requL.~.. ta a~ct Fti~- or HUD requirements; an that they would s_ipulate to con mance with the Cfty requirements. ~ ~ ~ MINUTF.S~ GI'CY PIANNINC COMMI85ION, January 6~ 1y75 75-15 Vr1ltl_ANCE NC~, 1658 ANU 'fFNTATI'J[: 1~IAP' OF TRACT Na. 7A76 _ RFVISION N0. 3Z (Gontinued) Ghairmxn Herbat notucl t11at Cl~e roquir.emente inclu<led that tF~e noieQ l~val be r~d~~cAd to :S dbA ineida the homes wiCh tha winJowe and daore cloaed and t:o 65 dhA in the rear ~ardn of thQ lots ad~acent to tlie railroad~ and that pluns certi.fled by an acoueCir_al experC etipu- lat:ng tlint t~.lia propoxod aou-td-attenua~J.on meneurFS would achieve Chuee levolo~ would be requirad. Cotn~ni.seioner. '":~lar oFierc~d a m~xlon~ 8econded by ~onaaieeionar King and MOTION CARRIFD~ that the Ylannin~q Commiaeion reccu.mc~ndo to the City Council rhnt Che eub~ect pr~a~ect be ~xempt fr.um the requirement to prepxre an Envi.ro:vnen~al Imp~r.C Report~ >>~~rsuant Co th9 provisiona of the Cnl.lfornia ~nvironmental Qua11:y l~ct. Commid~ioner '~ol~r offered ResoluCi~u Nu. PC15-lU ~-nd moved for its paesagQ and adoption that Petition for Variance No. 265f~ be and hereby ie granteJ since the waiver of the requirement tlint veliicular access to garages be fram the alloy only does not seem un- rea9~i~atili: for the pYOposal; aubject to the atipulnti.ona of the pekltioner and subjact t~~ con~itiona. (5~e Reeolution Rook) (h- roll cr~ll, the for~goin.g reaolutiou was pn~sed by the fol.lowing vote: py~g: C(l(~4dISSI0NLR5: FARAIVO, GAUER~ JOHNSON, KING~ MORL6Y. TOI.AR. HERBST NnES : CUI~Il~tIS S IONrRS : NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONT:ItS: NONE ~ommiseiotier To'lar offered u mot!~r~~ seconded by Co~moiseioner Parano and MOTION CAItRIED, t~ approve Tentativo Map of '['r•act No. 7876 (Revieion No, 3) sub~ect to the following conditiona: (].) Tl~at ~the ~pproval of TenCative Map of Tract No, 7876 (Revieion Nc,. 3? is grnnted subiect to the approval oE Variance No. 2658. ~2) Thfle ahould this subdivielon be developad ae more than one eubdivieion, each subdiviaion thereof shal~ be submitted in tentative form f.or approval. (31 Thet a7.1 lots within tt~is tract ehall be Aerved by underground uti.litiea. (~;) That a f.tnal tract map ef nub~ect property sl~all be submitted to and approved bY tl~e City Council and then be recorded in the affice of the OranEe CounCy Recorder. (5) `fhat any pr.oposed covenanta, < ~nditinr.a and restrictiona shal.l be submitted Co and apprnved by the City Attorney's Oifice prior to City Council approval ef the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions and reatrictions shall be recorded concurrently r•'th the final tract map. (6) Thut streek names et~all be approved by the City ut Anaheim prior to approval of a final t~~act map. (7) That the owner(s) of sub~ect propert,y sl~sll pay Co the City of Maheim the appropriale par.k and recreatlon in-liet- fQea as determined tc be nppropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the builCing permit is issued. ($) That druinage of sub~ect property ahall he dieposed of in a manner that ia aetisfactory to the City Engineer. (9) That prior to filing tl~e final tratt map, Che applicant shall submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a cos~~lete synopsis af the propoaed functfoning oE the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the articlea of lncorvoration, byl~ws. proposed methode of m~nagement. bonding to insure main- tenance of common prooerty and buildings and such other information a~ the C3ty Attvrney mny deaire co protect the City, its cit'zei,s, and the purchasera of the prn j ect. (10) 1'hat traah storage areas ehall be provided in accordance with approved plan3 ~n file with thc Office of the Direc.tor o° Pub11c Worka. (11) 1'hat a 6-foot masonry wall ahall be conetruct~d along the north property line. (12) Ti~at priur. to Gity Council approval of the final tract map, the owner(e) of subjec: property e,liall aubmit plans for r~ty r,~unril. review and apFroval ahowing the stepe taken by the developer to reduce the noise level ge.Prated by railroad traff ic to 65 dbA in the rear yacds of the lote ad~acent to ~.he r: ilroad and to G5 dbA inside the homea (with windowe nnd doors closed~ on tl~ese lote~ These pl~na ehall be certiF:ed hy a recogniaed ucouetical expert stipulating that the propoaed sound-attenuation meaeureE~ wili uchieve the levels etA*.ed above. ~~~11~ ` ~ ~ MINUIFS, (:I'TY PLANNING COM-KISSIQN, Januery 6, 19%5 75'~h VARiANCI~ N0. 2662 •- E'UBLTC HCARINC. IAWGN Ca.~iEY AND FRF.p R. BECK}IAM, ].~08 Beverly urive~ ~ Anuheim~ Ce. 92801 (Own~xo); (:ARL 3. WELSN~ 272 Sout:h "1" S~ •eot~ Snn Bernar.dino, Co. 92410 (AgQnt); rEquesCing WAIVIrT: OF (Ai MINZMUM DISTMIC@; nFTWELN SICNS~ (B) MAXIMUM S~GN HEIGHT AND (C) MAXIMUM 3IGN ARI:A~ TU CUNSTiIUC'x 1'HKEL ~REE-S'PANQ'LNG SIGNS on property duecrit aat An irre~uJ.acly-ehaped parcol of Land conaistinb of approximatoly 1.9 acree lacuted r+e the cornere of 5uu[h 9t:ree~~ Anah~sim Boulevard nnd MacArthur Mnnor, tsnving approxi~e~-Ce frontagee of 301 feQt on Che sauth sida o£ South Strcet~ 365 feet on the ar_~t eida uf Anaheim Boul~vnrd, nnd 52 feat on the north side of MacAr~hur Manor.. Property preeontly cl.aseified CH (COMMERCIAL, NNAVY) ZQI~B AND PD-C (1'ARKING DISTRICT-COI~iL~RCIAL) ZONF. Two parsone ~~~cii.caCed their preaonce in oppoeilion to Aub~ect peGition. Aesietan[ 7.oniug Supcrvieor Annika Santalahti raad the Staff ReporC to tt~e Plannin~ Commieaion da[ed January 6, ].975, and enid Sr.aff Report is •:eferr~:d tn as if eet forth in full in the minuCes. Mr. Cn.r.l Welah~ thc: ugent for ttia petiCioner, appeared before tha P1ann:Lng Commiasion nnd explained their pruposal. to upgrude the existing signa at the sub;~ecC l~~cntion. He stated the pa.lm tr.ees would obetruct ti~e vision of u shorter eign from Che north and eoutt~ and he presented piiotogruphe for review by the Planning CommiasiA~. He furl-her stated that they propoaed the main aip,n to be 36 Eeet in I~eight. Mrs~ Mary Oliver~ 111 West MacArthur Mnnor, appeared before the Planning Commiseion and stxted that she was c~pPosad to the sub,~c+ct potition because of khe unkepC condition of the eite; ~~:~t a few yc~ar. ago the properr.yownere had atated they would clean up the prapertq, however, no effoxt wus mfsd~~ to do sa and there were lenves and ehrubb as hi~h as a foreat nn the corner loC; that it appeqred thaC the property owners made promises and did noC keep them; and that her property bRCke~ up xo the corner lot. Miss Suntalahti rers~ a letter from Mre, Rosario Kaesler, r07 M:~~Arthur Manor, in opposiCion tu siibject p~tition, ~nd said let[er ia r.eferred ta r~~ if set forth in full :Ln tt~e minutea. Mr. Charles R. Ki.neman, 115 W~st 1~acArthur Manor, appeared before the Planning Commission and questioned the location of the proposed signs, nnd Chairman Herbyt revi.ewed said locationa. Tn rebuttal, Mr. White, the operator uf ttie car dealership aC the sub~ect location, appexre9 before the Planning Commisaion and stated the property had been vacant for approx3mately aix months prior to his becoming the operator; Chat he had not peraonally looked at the property for the laFt month or so; that he was faced with the problem of superseding a business with an undesirable reputation and the Planuing Commission wss probably familiar with the m~sleading advertisi_ng finding by thE Attorney General; thae the propoxed aigns would be lesa in eize than the existing sign; that h~ did not feel he needed identificatton that could be seen from both sides; that the dealerahip wu~ tne must import$nt thing tha~~ ha~. happened to him and he wa~ trying to create a new image for the operation that would be differecit from his predecessor; that they were cleaning up the property and the eigns were a mess; and thflt he would rather tiave no aigns xhar~ to be assaciated with what was there before. TNE PUItLIC HEARING [aAS CLOSED . ChairmFxn Herbst noted that th~ trend for ~igns was to be lower rather than higt-er do that people cuuld see them and if the aigns were below the palm tree line, then the cuatomers could see and reod them. Cowmiesi.oner. King noted that the foliage on the palm trees waE quite high and tir. ~~leh star_ed he agreed; that they needed vieibility; and that to the south of the lot wl~ere there were no obstructions, tt~ey were propoaing the aign t~ :.~ 25 feet high. ~ommiasioner Tolar indicated he did not favar the used c sign being 147 aquare feet in size. 1he Planni.ng Commissian entered into di~scusafan with the petitioner regarding the eize and height of the propoaed signe and the applicable zo;~ea, during which Mias Santalahti. noted that ti.e waivex of the maximum sign area pertained to the PD-C (Packing Dietrict, C~~~"~i=?1 Zone and not coIDmercial . otherwi.ae the proposal wauld meet Code. • ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNTNI,' CONQ~IIS3ION~ Jn;iuary G~ 1975 75-17 VARIANCR N0. 2662 (Cont lnumd) Commisef.onar Tular natad that cho P.lunning Commi.aeion wae aot c~nde~-varing to hurt che sub~ect buAine~se but wae Cryi.ng to hel.p. Mra. .^•iivor appeared again bofore the Pl.anning Com^ridelon and etatad ehe appreciaced tfint the nYw ownera were kryi.n$ to clean up the properCy, I~owavnr~ she livad clo~e and th~ property hud been an eyneora for a very long tima. Commiaqioner Farano queaCion~sd conenlldation of the eigne tu I1AVH only onQ eign. and Mr. Wl~it~ stnted tY-ey dld ciot have identification f.or tl~eir usod car section and 9ome af their cuatomern had indicated thnC they did not even know he hnndled used cnre. Thexeupon, Chairman Il~rUat i~oted that a poater eign wae preaently painted on the wall in back of the lot rsnd tia d id noC feel there wne prasently a prohl~m of not having the used cara advPrtised to Che puUl i.c. Mr. Wtiite then stated hes could re ~,ve the poeCer eign irom the wall. c:hairuu~n Herbst nc~ted tliar. he di.d not agree that huge si.gne were needed and, Chcr~unon, hc and Cammie~:ioner King indtcated th~~ sooner the poeter eign wae removed Che Uetler. Commisaioner Farnno made an obaervaCion that thia was the first opportuniCy rh~ Commiasion h~~~ to do something witti the aign situ~tion on Anaheim Bou.levard; that the decision on the subject varianceR wou~J tend to aek the trend for an)~ fut:~~r.e rehabil~- tation of the area and if the yigns cou].J be kept wikhin the ordinAnce it would a~ean that any otV~erA would have to atay within the ordinance ancl have equal footage. Chairme-t Nerbst noted that he did not d. _~ where a hardehip exisred for the waivers and Commiseioner Farano further nuCed that r~3.thaugh he waa aware tnat Mr. WhiCe wae trying to outlive a rFputation~ if the Pl.annirg Coar.nir~sior. n~ci Co 11ve with the proFosed aigning, that wauld be fc~r a long time. Cammiseioner Tolar noted that he would rather see the eign remain on the building than to a11ow the additional 14"1-square foot sign, an~i Mr. White then stated that many pPo~:~:le idF:nt~.fie~' with that sign which was ver.y off.eniive, and h~a was trying to upgr.ade tl-.e dealerehip and proposing beautiful eigns. Corunieaioner Faratio then rioted that he might be willing to vote for a].47-s~uare foot sign, but three signa were too many; and that a customer entrance sign might be of benefit to the ~peration but ic perhapa should be located with khe main sign. Mr. Wh:te explained that the uaed car sign was smaller tlinn the wain sign and they ~eze not marufactured as one sign; that the uaed car sign wo~ld be the iir.at sign cuatomers would aee and he was trying to catch people going aouth and north with identification and that was all; and that he was Crying to add besuty to the area and the signs would be better '_aoking than anything pr.eaently up and down Anaheim Boulevard. Cammieaioner Farano noCed that the Commfsaion was attempting to keep from creaCing a. dif fer.ent kind of problem for the City of AnAhei.m on Anaheim Bc~ulevard and h~pefully there wou? d be ~ipgrading of the area, one prope'rty at a time, but presently the signing was undesirable in that area. In responae tn questioning by the Pl~nning Cammisaion, Mr. White stated it was impossible to cum~ine the 'General Motors aign with the used car eign; ~hat the F{ gne were m~nufactured in Tennessee in different sizes and if a largar sir.e was not appz•opriate for a city, then they would get a amaller aize; that aeveral agencias in the area had pt'actically the same signa they we:e requesting; and that, aesthetically, the aigns were good lookin~ and were cl~aned and maintained regularly. The Planning CommisAion entered into discugalon with the petitioner regardi.ng the locatiun of the pz'opoaed signs on the PD-C portion of the properCy, dnd Chairman Herbst clarified that the adjacent property was R-l. and the zoning principle was a major coneideration. Commisaioner Farano noted for the petitioner that approximately 265 feet of the proper:} frontage was zoned C-1 and, with that amount of frontage~ they cauld Cechnicglly conaL•ruct abc~ut 350 s~uare feet of eigning it' it was or. one .ign; t.iat Code w~uld not allow two si one to be with:n 300 £eet of ea~h other, howevei, if waiver of the .minimum distance between free-otanding eigns wae granted £or the entrance sign in the CH xoned portion of the property, thP,y could have all three aigns, if the sign areae were in conforc~~n~e to thA Code . ~ ~ ~ MINU'I'(?'.. CITY PL~ANNING COMMI38ION~ .larwnry 6~ 1975 75-1li VAItIANCL~ N0~,26fi2 (C:ontiaue~) In r~epo~isa to queAtionirg by Commiepianer Cauer. Mr. White indi.cntod they could liva ~ith ~t 25-Eoat high mnin eign and hava vieib.illty Prom boeh directione. Ile further indicated regard.~.ng C~ndi.tion No. 3 requiring the deeding of a strip of land 10 fac-t in wl.dth Fr.om the conterline of the alley fnr alley-widening pnrPoaex, that he could not epeak far the own~r of :he pruperty in that T6SATd, Ir. was noted thaC the Diri~etor of Aevelopment 5ervlcec+ had detertninecl ttiut tf~o prupoead .ictivity fe11 within the d.efinition of Section 3.~1, Clans 1.1 of the City of Niaheim Gui.de.lines Co the Requirecuetite for an Bnvirui~mr.ntal Impact Raport and w~s~ th4refore, ~:ategorically exeuap~ Frum the requi.remant to file an EIR, Cotnmiesioner Faranu offered REeolution No. FC75-11 and moved for ite paseage ar~d adoptiun tllat l~~tition for Varlance Nu. 2662 be and hereby ia granted, in pazt, gr.anting waiver of. the minimum diatance betwaen eigns for CWp free-etandi.ng e~gns Co be located on Cho C-H zoned partiun of sub~act pr.operty; denyi.ng wuiver of t:lie mnximum ai.gn hetght within 300 feet of a res~dential ~tructure on the basis that said w.ver would crer-te an undeeirnbl.e precedent for future ~imilar requests; denying waiver of the maximum sign area in th~: ~'D-C 'Lane ~n the baeie that the uae 4£ the PU-C zoned portion of. e~ub~ect property ie re~tricted to the o~pen air Cemporary par.king of new care ancl for transient a;~Comobilea only, aub~ect to the condition thar, all aigning sl~all be fn conformanae with tha Anaheim Municipal Code r.equirementa wi.th the exr_eptlon r_hat two free-stundii~g eigna may be located leas ~hun the required 300 feet minimum distAnce aparl-; and aub~ect to conditione. (See lieaolution Book) On roll ca11, the foregoing resolution ~•~as passed by the following vo[e: AYE5: COAIl~IIS3"iONERS: FARANO, GAUER, .JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOL11R, HETtBST NOE6: COr4IISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COA4IISSIO~ERS: NONE COMMISSIONER GAUER LEFT TI-tE NIEETING A'f 5:30 P.M. t~AR1ANCL' N0. 2664 - POBLIC HFP.RING. THE GSTATE OF LILLIAN A. HINRICHS, c/o Richard J. - ~~~ 7.laket, F.xe~ utor, 1666 Nortt~ Main Street, Santa Ana, Ca. 92701, CI'iY OF ANAH~IM, c/o M. E. Slaughter, Deput,y City Attorney, P. 0. Box 3222. Anaheim, Ca. ~}2803, AN1' STATE OF CALIFO1tNIA, c/o John M. Cutler. Right-of-Way Agent, DQpartmenC ~P 'Pranaportation, Dietrict No. 7, P. 0. Box 23U4, Los Angeles, Ca. 90054 (Owners); ROBERT N. MOADEY AND JUSTUS C. GILFiLLAN, 430Q Campua Drive, Suite 200, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 (Agent); requesting WAIVF.R OF PERMITTED USES 'f.0 ESTAI3LISH RETAIL SAL~S IN AN INllUSTRIAL COMPLEX on property deacribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.0 acres located at the suuthweat corner of Katella Avenue and Douglas SCreet, and huving approximate fruntages cf 21G feet on the a~uth side of Katella Avenue'r~nd '145 feet on the west side of Douglas Street. Property presently claasified I~Q. (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZON~. t;o one indicated their presence in oppo~ition to subjzct petitio-i. Although the Staf f Report to the Planning Coe~mission dar;4 ?::,:~~~y 6, 1975, was not read at the public hearing, ~Lt ia referred to and made +. part of t.~e. minu~es. Mr. Justus Gilfi.llan, the agent £or the petiti;,nar, appeared be"'ore the Fl:+na~ing Commisaion and stated that sinr.e merchandiaing or retail salea in con~unctic,i wlth warehouaing was impos~ib].e to place in existing commercial zones, they were proposln~ r.o establish the operation in the ML Zone. Mr. Gilfillan i~~dicated that a representative af Coldwell Banke;. was present to answer questions regardir~g the need for the propoaed use~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D. In reaponse to quec~tt.oning b3~ the Planning Comiaission, Mr. Gilfillan stated the proposal waa to huy raw materials which would 'oe assembled and sold at the same location. Commiasioner Farano made an observation that it appeared the petitianer was requeating to have retail sales on a broad basis, with no suecific lesaees or co~aitted tenants~ a;id if they were not able ta get a Wickes or Levitz type operation. it would probably be :ome other operation ~£ that type but for retail salea excluaively, which would be creating a retail sales .~rea in a manufacturing zone. ~ ~ M~NUTi:9~ CI'TY PI.Atr'NINC CUMFIISSCUM. .)nnuary 6~ 1.975 VARIANCF. N0. 2G64 (ConCinued) ~ ~ 75-19 Mr. Gilf 111nn then sLated that lf the,y did not hevc tl~A '~cnowledge tl~ut r.hey ~c:il.d t~ave the uea~ thai- they cou.lc~ not hava diecuenio~ie with a pol:ontinl ueer. and Coa~miesioner Tolar took excc~ptl~n eind ~Catad diecueeiona co~~ld kake plnr.e on a"eubject t~" bu ,1e. Mr. Gilflllnn concluded by etxt~ing the proposal wge a unique concept and the~ opportuni.ty w~e not provided for eo far in thp City of Anaheim, howevez, tl~e City would eCand to beneff.t from it; and tho propaned location wan thc logical locatinn for thQ cnncepx. Chnirmnn Herbet nated tt~at he had vieweJ Che eub,~ect property in the fi.eld and disagreed that it was n loglcal location for the eubject use; that the traffic pnttern for ingreea and egreae to KatPlla Avenue would create a great pr.oblem and an aven greaCer problem kould be created on Douglns Street; and that Che propoeal would not he compfttible wikh the area. Mr. Cilfillan lnquired what would Le a logicaL uae of the sut,,~ect properCy~ and Chairman Nc~rbat made un obaervation that the usee propoeed Uy the petitioner ar-d ~e liated en page 11--a of the Staff Report, were probably all C-1 uees; and t.tiat a11 of the usea proposed woul.d bring cuqtoro~ra into the areA and would not be retail buainesca servicing an induatrial area. Mr. Gilfillun etated the dubJect lucstion had some unique chHracterieCice being that it wns un the eastern edge of ti-e City'e Southeaot InduKtriul Diatrict; thaC tha access in and out of the eite was good becau~~e it was acl~acent to the on and ofi-rampe Co the free- way; und that the timing w.+s good. In response ~o a comme~zt by Chalrman.tierbat, Mr. Gilfillan stated there was a user across the atreet from the sub,~~:cC property in the M-1 7.one that was doing some of the thinga they were prc~posing to do, and Commiseioner Morley noted that th~ uses acrose the dtrEet were not on a broad acope. Cocn~issioner King inquired if the petitioner had contacted the Cliamber of Commerce for u tiuit,able Location for the proposed uaes, and in reply Mr. Buck Jones of Coldwell IIanker otaCed there was no zone in the Ciky that qual3Eied for the type u~e proposed, either i~n a commercial or an in~~~strial zoue and~ in fact, there was no zone for it in the entire caunty; that they w'u~lld have tn take a se~ondary location SIId the renson they had teken ~:he subject locaCion was Chat it was on the perimeter of the in~uKtrial zone and next t~ the freeway; that they wPre loolcing for ~ lot af identity and abouC 20,OOU square feet; thar they were co~^{derin aia factory which woul.d have ].arge vulume s:~les to pad the inf lationary opira.. b~~ ~ ~ting the middleman. Crairman Herr then notec. .: Commiesion was Crying t~ protect the integrity of the ii-c:~~trial. zo thr~uglT tra~fic patterns and, if the sub~ect proposal wae grsnted, it would s•. a t~~_cedent and r9_ght away there would be a1Z kinds of similar applications. Zor.i.ng Supervisor Charles Roberta noted that there were two zones in the Ciky whereby the pr~por~ed type of activity could probably be condacted; that permitted usea in the C-2 Zone ~~rere primarily retail with incidental 3*_orage, manufscturing and processing as long ae i~here were no more than five people involved in the assembly work; und that in the C-2 zone there c~uld be approximately ten people involved in ttie assembly work. Commissioner Farano then noted that if there were s~me apeci£ic uses propoaed, the Commieaipn could conaider th~ application more intelligently; and that wlth a specific proposal, con- aideration c:ould be tied to r.ompatibility with the zone. Cownissioner Johnaon no,•.e4 that he di.d not like to eee retail usee coming into the ir-dus- tri.al zone, however, if there ~~as no zone for the proposed use, then the Connnission might have to listen to the propoeal mor. cloaely, and Chairman Herbet noted that i£ the uaes were primarily commercial, the ~e wouid be more in favor of allowing the use 3n a commer- cial zone and waiving tt~e number of people involved in assembly work. Commi$aioner Johnann stated that during the time he had b~en F~ith the Culdwell Comgany, there had never been a time whea they had been able to place th2 sub~2ct type proposal in a quaai-cummercial area because of the iow prices of their products. • ~ ~ MINU'f~3~ CITY Pi..ANNING CUMMI5S10N. .lncwary ~,i. 1975 VARIANCB N0. 2664 (Conti.nuad) 75-2U Further diecuselon puraucd regarding the propoeal~ during which the Radio Shack operaCion waa diRCUeBCd wt~ich Mr. G1lfillan ekated wae a service-type operati.on wit.li a rAtail. we~re- houeing und dietribvtion center. Mr. ~ilfillnn further stated that ~he Commie~iion wae rS.ght !n the respect thxt ehey were not preaenking a epecific propaaal. howaver~ they waatod to f ir-d ouC what the feelingA af the Y1an~ing Commioei.on ware; li~ereupnn~ t~e rQqueet- ad a continunnce in order to re-etructure the application e-nd oetablieh the M-•t ur~ea in ralt-Cionehip to the c.o-nmerci.al useA and any approval could be tied to cnnditione. COflIlI1~HNLOII.f'.C Furanu -~otad l•hnt wil•hout a epecific cZient~ it would be difficult ta attach tlie npproprinte conditione. Commieeioner Tolar of.fered a motion, seconded by Commiaeiuner Morley ~nd MO'fION CARRIEA (Commiesioner Gauer being abaent)~ to reopen the public hearing and conCinue conaideratiQn of Petition for Vnrlance No. 2fi64 to the meeting oE Murch 17~ 19T5, ac~ requeated by the petitioner. RF.QUEST FOR EIk NEGATIVE D~CLARATION FOFt G1tADINC PERMIT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE A'f 6508 COUNTRY HILI. ROAD ,_ - It wae noted tha[ the rspplicant had applied for a grading permit for a single-£amily home at 6508 Country Hill Road in the Mohler Dr.ive Annexation Area; that sinr.e the proposed alope af the land wou1J be greater than ].0 percent~ an evaluation of the environn~ental impact of ga'adi.ng wAS requi.red; that the mature trees on the property would be retained; and that the Gngineering Divieion determined that the propoaed p,rading would have no eignificnnt en~ironmental impact, Commieaioner Farano offered a m~ti.on, seconded by Commiaeioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner Gauer heing absent), tbat the k'lanning Commiaeion recommendo Co tllE City Council thuC the aubject proJN4t ;~e exempt fram the requirement to prepare an Envi:on- menCal Impact Report purauant to tl~e provis:l.ons of the Cali.fornia Gnvirerunentnl Quelity Act. REQUEST FUIt EIR NEGATIVE ll~,CLARATION FOR A GRADING PERMIT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1260 POSSUM HOLLOW - 7t was noted that the applicart had appl.fad for a gracting permit for a single-family residence at 126G Possum Hu~low; that iat~uance o.f a grading permit for Chia type of project would usually be catEgorir.a].ly exampt frem the requirement to file an Environ- mental ImpacC Report, however, the pro~ect ~ra~ ~^^ated within the Scenic Corridor and, therefore, could not be granted categorical e. c:,3~ton; that the applicant submitted a letter stating that the row of e~cal,ptus trc"~'. J'.: the north boundary of the property would be r,etained; and that the Engineering Division detsrmined that the proposed grading would havQ no significant environmental impact. Commiasioner Johnaon offered a motion, seconded by Comomisaioner Morley ar.d MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Ga~ier being abaent), thaC tne Planning Commiseion rer.ommends to thc City Council that the sub~ect pro~ect be exempt f:om the requi.rement to file an E~~iro±imeiital Impact Report pursuant to the provisions ~`. *ha ^.alifornia Environ-nental Quality Act. REQUEST FOR FIR NEGATIVE DECLAFtATION FOR .: .:~..+AING PERMIT FOR A SINGLE-FAMII~Y HONl~ST..TE AT 1038 COOK:, CORNER It wxa noted that the applicant had applied for a gradi.ng per.mit in iection with construction of a aingle-family residence at 1038 Coflks Corner. in t;~.-.dohler D:ive Mnexation Area; that since the proposed slope of the site would be greater than 10 pcrcent. nn evaluation of Che environmental impact of grading was required; and that the En~ineeri.~g Division '•termined thaC thr propoaed grading would have no eignificant en~vironment~l impact. Commiseioner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Coiamissionex Farano and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner Gauez being absent), that the Planning Co~mieeion recommenda to the City Council that the sub~ect project be exempt from the raquirement tu prepare an Environ- mental Impact Report pursuant to the provieio*+A of rhe California Environmental. Quality Act. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES ~ GITY P1./~NNING CUMMTSSION ~•iuiwary ti~ 1975 75 21 REPORTS AND - TTEhI N0, _1 RCCOt~41ENllATI0N3 AML:NnMF.N'T 'f0 TITLi: 18 - 5CL~yI:. COItRIPOR (SC) OVFRI.AY ZQNE - Proposing Cree pYeAervation in th~ Scenic Corr~.dor (SC) Overlny ?.one. The Staff RQport ta the T:~r~nning Gommiesion deted Jan,ue~ry 6~ 1975. was pruacsnted and mada s parC of Clie minutae. Ik woe r~otad that. p~ireu~nt Co Ca-iyon Area Ga~neral Ylt~nning Taek Forcd LAC~~°~iateithat the regarding tree presc+rvation in thQ Santa Ma Canyon itrea~ it appearec~ app p City ehould estf~bliah e~pecific regulations in kh~ Seenic Corridor (SC) Qverlay 7.one to restrict the r~smoval or desCructiot~ of ei.gnificant stand~ of specified trees; and that a proposed ordinance hnd been drawn for consideration ~iL a nublic hearing Uefore Che i'lanning Comm~.saion. Chairman Nerbet noted that he would like tu sPe h.he propoaed ardinance raf~.~ct Chat the specified epecimen trees, basical.ly the oak~ pe~pe~r iind Rycamore, be preaerved ar protected on the basi.s that Chey are laiatoric trees, rather th~in being preserved or protected i.f th~y comprise a"stand" (f.ive or more on any one parr.el). Commiaeloner Johnean offer.ed a motion, seconded by C~~m~uiseion~r Morley and MOTION C:ARRIED (CoQim:Lssianer. G~-uer bPin~ abecnt), Chat the ptoposed amendmenk to Section 18.R4 of the An~heim Muriicipnl Gode, propeeing tree preservAtion in the Sc~nic Curridor (SC1 Overlay Zone, be aet for public hearing on February 3, 1975. IT~NI N0. 2 VARIANCE N0. 1751 - Request for termination - Property conaieting of approximately 0.7 acre having a fr~«tage of approximatel.y 111 feet on the east side of Weaterc- Avenue and located npprnximat~l~~ ~,::il '~~~r ;~orth of the centerrine of Eall Road. The Staf~ Report to the Planni.ng Commisaion dat::d JFinuary 6, 1975, was preaented anc; made a part of the minutes. It was noted l•hat on January 3, ~`~F,~, the Planning Commiasion granted Variance No. 1751 in Resolution No. 1890, Series 1965-~~ti, to permit deve:LopmenC of three reaidencea having accesa on ~ private dri.ve on the aub~ect property; khat the applicunts had submLttPd a written requeat to termi~ate sa.id variance since the propPrty was being eold and the new owners were planning one single-Family dwellir~g on said property. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC75-12 and moved iuL ary ,^.nssa8e and ~doption, that all proceedinga in connection witti Variance No. 1751 ue and here~~y are kerminated, as requeated by the applicant. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pa~ased by ti•e foll~wing vote: AYES: CONIl~IISSIONERS: FARANO, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES : COt~Q4'ISSIONERS : NONE A~}S~NT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER ITEM N0. 3 CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. i~i613 - Kequeat for extension of time - Property conaisttng of +~pproximately 6 acres, having a frontage of approxi~ately 762 feet on the north eide of Romneya Drive~ having a maximwu depth of. approximately 334 £eel and being located appro.lmately 228 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street. It was noted that on June 10, 1974, the Planning Commiaeion approved Conditional Use Permit Nfl. 1468 to convert an existing medical-dental office comp].ex into a planned unit commercial development with certain waivera; that approval wae granted aub~ect to a number of conditiona to be camplied with within a pari.ud of 90 days; that a3though the xpplicant ie in the procesa of cAmplying witl-~ said conditione, additional time has been requested in order to fully complete all conditians; and that one previnue exteneion of time for 120 days waR grantad which will expire ,Jan~iary 10, 1975. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ C'ITY PLANNLN(~ CO1~tISSION, .Ianuaxy 6~ ~y7`'~ 75-~2 ITF:M N0._3 (ConcinuQd) Commixeionc+r Farana oPf.~r~ed a moCion, oeco;~dacl by Commi aeioner Tolar. iind MA'fION CRItRILU (Coromise.toner Caur~r being nbsanL•), tt~at. n 40~rlay extonaion ~f Cia~e bc~ and hnroby ie grantAd for the completion of candiCi.onEi of n~~provnl af Cc~ndt[ional lle« Permit No. 146A~ eaid e.xteneian of Cima to uxpix~~ April ~0~ 1975. IT.E~M N0. 4 AGRICULT.Uit~\I. PRF~SERVN: RLQUI3ST - Property coneiei ing of 58 ncr~H l.ocated at 1$5/i South ~:~rb~r Roulevard. The Stnff Repor.t ta tlia Planning Commieaion datcd J~nuary 6, 1.975, wci, preoent~d and made a part of. thE~ minutna, It was noted Lhat tl;e c.wner. (I~ujiehig~~) of Che sub~ect ~i~~3erCy w~s requeat~.ng eaid parcel to be estab'li.ahed +~A nn ~gk.icul.t:ur 1 preRerve .I.n orde~ to presPrvP the lund f.or future publ.ic salF ~~nd coc-[inue thE: exieting agriculturnl ent~rpri.se on the property; thuC ~n November 11~ 197G, the Plannf.ng Conunlasion rec:~.~mm~nded approvr" of General Plan l~menQment No. 136, proponing to acld ~pecif Lc J.anguage ku the A~ aheim General Plc:~n praviding Eor the establiahn~enC of agr.icu.ltut~l preeervPS ir the Ci.Cy, whir_h was subee~uently ndoptr.d by the Cil•y CaunMi on Decembe:r 24, ].97~: ~:~d that under. the Wi111ameon Act (Califurnia Lgnd Conservation Act of 1965), whic;h 1~ the St~Ce leE~.islat~.on c~nal,ling contrnctunl agreemente f.or agri.eu.lt+lr+l.l p~eservea, AIl <igr.icul.tur.ixl pre~erve of ]esz~ than 100 ACYE?A may he esCab- lished provideci, in part, that the Ylanning Coaomi~aiun And ciey Council. of the city i.n whi.ch the pr.nperty ie ~~+~uuGe finde that r~urh a proponal ie ~nai.stent: wi.ch the ci.ty's general plan and that c~-c~pe on the proper ty ~re uPriculturz~lly uiii.~,uc~. Commisaioner i?~iran~ oEter~~d kt~aolutioa No. PC75-13 and moved f.or its pussm~e and adoption, th~t tne Ci.ty 1'lar•ntug Cocaaui~aion d~ee hereby find and recommEnd to Ch~ G1ky CUUnril thmt t}~E r.rn••-~•~~ ~o ettaUli~h ~ S8-acre agricultural pre:~::.Tve at l~54 5outh Harbor Bo~~!evar;~ is consietent: wi ~'~~ :.:it An~heim General Ptan, that. ~'~~• crops on ~i+~i~1 pruperty arc. agricul- r~.rally uniquc ~-nd, tlierPfore, sai.d agricultural ~~re ~:rve ahc~uld be off3.c~.ally eatr~b].ished. (See Resc?ution Buc~}:.) On roll c,~ll, the Eoregc~tng resolution ~ir-• ;=+~icd by Che foilowing vo[e: AYES: GO?~R4ISSICRERS: 'FARl1N0, ,TQHNSON. KING~ MORLEY~ 7.'OLAR, HF.RdST NOES: CUMI~ISSIONFRS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONIikS: GAUEIt ITr:M N~ : 5 ORANG~: ~~)UN'PY USF. PERM:T N~. 35°1 •• proposal te e:~tablish a rental yard buaines~ :ox equi~ment, w~chinery and vehicles Property caY-~isting of a,~prox~lmately 1.76 ~-cres, having a frontag~ of apprexi±nr~tely 188 feet on the Nouth aide ot• La Palma Avenue and beix-S located approximntely 110 feet weae ux the centerlinc. of Lakeview Avenue. xhe S•af.f Renort to the Planning Commias:~an dated January 6, ~975, was presented and made a part of *.he minutes. Tt wad nor.ed chat publtc notice liaJ been given Chat the Or~nge Caunty Planning Commiesion wo~ild ho].3 pubiic hearl.ng on r.h~ sub~ect Ltae PermiC on January 21, 1975; that the eubject property wae uninc~rporiited and zoned Cou~[y M'1 (Light ln~lustrial); that the subject property was presentl.y ba~ing uat~d aH a contractcrs storage yard, r~nd unpaved and fenced with a seven-foot h3gh chainlink eecurity fence wiCh th.ree atrands of barbed wire at the top; that the proposul would be dpv~loped ir_ :.nree phases and ultim~tely would consist of a paved rerital yard, 39 off-street parking spac~s, and a t:ao-ar,ory, 400Q-square foQt rental o.ffice building~ ar~d the entire site would be encloaed by a six-foot high chalnlink fence; that the first phase of develc•pment would include a 480-aqunre foot "relucatable" office which wou'.d be replaced by the p~rmanent twa~srory building during the second phase of development •.nd~ additionally, Che chainlink fence facing La Palmx Avenue wotild be replaced by a twelve-foot high frame and stucco wall~ and that the third phase of develop- ment would involve paving the remgfnder ut the eita. ~ • ~ MINUTES, C1TY PLANNTIJG CONQtISSION~ Januery 6, ].975 ITEM N0. 5 (C~nticiued) 7~i-23 ~urther~ it wc-e noL~d Chat lhe prapaecd rontal of large eyuipment in an lndue~trial cane would raquire approvnl, of a conditional use petmit~ iC locaCad in the City of. Anah~im ML Zone. nnd ~:he proposed dr_velopment would n].so roquire sc~varal wc~ivern oE the sitc? davel- opmQnC etandards if a petitior- were Co be ti.led wlth the City, auid wni.vere b~ing "permitted structures i~ the ML 7.one" and "required enclosurp of ouedoor usee to conoiat of a six- ~ooC chninl.l.nk fence entirely interwoven wit:~ redwood Ur c~dar elate." Raeolutiane ~f. intent to RS-A-43.000 (formerly R-A) and ML (formerly M-1) zoning were ap~rov~d by Che Anah~im City Council under Reclaesif:t.cation Nos. 70-7.1-46 and 70-•77.-G7 for the subject proper.ty. Coc-nniselonPra King and Morley noted ttiat [hey hud viewed the sub~ect eite in the fiel.d and the exlating fence wne in dierepair and the weed growth an the property was unaigliCly. Commiaeioner King off.ered a moUu,i, y~~~~unded by Comn~-issi.unar Faranu and MOTIUN CARRIED (Cummieoioner Cauer being absent), chat the Pl+~nning Ccmmission recommenda ta tha City Cauncit that comment be forwarded to the Orxnge County Planning Commiesion Chat~ if Uae Permit No. 3591 ie approved, development of aub~ect property hc~ in accordnnce wiCh Ct-~ ~i~y of Anahieim ML 'l.one site davelopment stanJardc~, and thac II C~A1P. limit be eatablished for the use of the proposed "relocatable" office. ITEM N0. 6 BUENe~ PARIC VARIANCE N0. V-714 - Proposal to construct a 24-unit apartment compl.ex - Proper.ty being a triangularly- shaped parcel of land conaisting of approximately 0.9 acre located at t11e westerly term9.nus of Savanna Street, approxi- imat~l.y 1330 feet west of the centerline of Knott Avenue, T'l~e Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 6, 1975, was presented and made a part of. tihe min~~ea. It was noted that notice hud been received Chat the Buena Park Planning Commission would hold a gublic hearing on January 8, 1975, on the aubject var!ance ~rnposinv. City ~f. Buena Park R-2 Znne (High Density Multipie-Family Res.idential) site deve~opment waivers for. development of a 24-unit two-atory apartment complex. It was fur.ther not~d that access to the sub~ect prc,Ferty would be 9o1~iy through Che City cf Anaheim since the property was bounded by the Carbon Crepk Channel on the northweat and the Pacif.ic Electric Kailway on the aouthweat; and that aince the ad,jacent pr~perties in the City of Anaheim were desiEnated for medium-density rsaidential uses and si.nce the RM- 1200 Zone was aimilar to the Buena Park R-2 Zone, the proposal was analyzed as follows: approxiwately 33 dwel.ling units per net acr~ ~sruposed (maximum 36 DU/NA permiCted, approxi- mately 44Y. lot coverage propoaed (S5Y permitted). and entire complex to be two-bedroom ur.its with floor areas of 850 square feet (minimum 825 aquare feet permitted). Several waiver$ would be required if the propoaal was developed in Anaheim, being waivers of the maximum buiiding height, minimum side yard, minimum distance between bui.ldings, and minimun~ off-atree[ parking. Additionally, the proposed trash sCor.age area did not conforn to the City of Anaheim standards and no considerarion was given in the proposal for suitahle modification to the current stub-ending terminus of Savanna ~treet inta th2 aub~ect pr4perty. Commisaioner Farano offered a motiony secoc..ied by Commiseioner Morl~,y and MOTIUN CARRIED {Conuniseioner Gauer be•ing absent), that since the City of Anaheim will ultimately ~rovide utilities to subject property, i.t ia recommended that Buena Park Variance 130. V-714 be terminated and that annexation proceedinga be initiated w~ith the :;ity of Anaheim; and, furChermore, that appropriate petitiona be filed witf. the City of Anaheim; however, if. the Buena Park Planning CommisAion approvea Variance No. V-714, it is recommend~d that a more suitable cul-de-sac arra:~gement for Savanna Street be provided, sub~ect to the approval of the Maheim Traffic Engineer, and that trash storage areas ehall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the ~ffice of tre Anaheim Director of Pub?ic Worka. ~ ~ ~ • MINUTGS, CITY PLANNINC COP4IIStiION, January b, 1975 75-•24 ITF~t N0. 7 HILLSIDE GRAUING G'.DINANCE Tho SCaff Report to the I'lanning Comtaiesiot~ dnted Jr~nuary 6, 1975, wae presented and made u part of the miuutee. Mr. John Millick~ Vice President of Anahnim Hilla~ Inc.~ indicated he had no commenta to offer concerTiing the propoaed revisad Nillstde Grading Ordinance; and Mr. Horet Schor in~.dicated concurrencQ with the proposed revie~lonA. Chairman Herbet noted Chat wnrding to reflsct Lhe City Policy with respecC to transition areae should be included in the Ordina~nce in order that: '...e develop~rre woul.d be aware of Aaid poli.cy; and tl~at a recommendation fro~n the P].anning Coiarniseion to the City Council regarding the propoeed revieione was in , der to enable the CiCy Cuuncil to coneider eaid revieione at tlieir meeting on January 14, 1975~ DepuCy City Attornay Frank Lowr.y indicated thaC Staff aas including informatloii in the propoAed Ordinance rega:ding the golir_y applicable to tranAition arene which would be considered by the City Council. Office ~ngineer Jay Titas n~~Ced for the Planning Courmieai.on thaC 5taff. wae reco~~:nding Chat in that portion nf. the propoaed Ordinance requiring all J.ota to be gradcd ~o ~ public ~r private atreet, that additiunal wording be included as follows: "...uc~].ess priar approval has been received from Che Cit~+ Engineer to do otherwi.r~e." It was nuCed that the Planning Commission had determined that the matter of Che 1~:1 va. 2:1 alopes wuuld ba resolved at u Joint Pl.anning Corimission/Canyon Area General Plai~ning Task Furce Meeting to l~e 1-eld on January 1.5, 1975, ar 7:00 p.m Commir~aioner Morley offer.ed a moti~n~ aec~nded by Commisaio-;er Farano and MOTION CAR1tIED (Cammissianer Gauer being abaent), that tY~e following revisiona to the propoaed I~il].aide Grading Ordinance ho forwarded to the C~ty Council for consider.ation: (1) T}-at the portior. of the pzopoaeil Gradit-g Ordinarice requiring all lots to be graded ro a public or private sl:reeC be expanded to include the following: "...unless prior approval has b~aen received from L•he City Engineer to do otherwlse." (2) 'Phat the following section is recommended for adoption in the proposad Ordlnance: Section 17.U6.141 Eroaion Control Measures. Prior to final inspection of gra~tng operations as provided in ~ect.ion 17.06.180(B)_, annual rys or approved blade grasg shall be planted oi.i all cut or fi11 slopea which require planting, unlesa final landscapir_g plans have been eubmitted and approved. (3) Thal "r~~~i~sir.io~~al areas" are hereby recommended to be adminiaCered khrough a Cl.ty Policy and that the Hillaide Grading Ordinance reflect such a reference for t!:e infnrmation of developera. ,,,• ^t. . the Ylanning Commisaion re:comr~ends thaz ~n eighteen-foot (18' ) wide terrace ne required at each fifty-foot (50') interval, unless prior approval is obtained from the City Engineer. (5) That the matter of the 1'~:1 v3„ 2:t alopes be considered by the City Cour.cil fullowing the Joint Planning Comm~ssion/Canyon Area General Planning Tflak Force Meeting scheduled January 15, 1975. ~ ~ ~ MINUTL~3, CITY PI,ANNT.NG C01~4~lISSION, .laauary 6~ 1975 75-25 1TLM N0. S R~CLASSIFICATIAN N0. 71-72-21 A1VD VARIANCE N0. 2310 (Imperial Propertiee) - Conkinued roview of raqueA~ for approvnl of ~ite plane <<nd alevakione - Pruperty coneieti.ng of approx~- mately 870 feet an the north aide of Santa Ann Canyon Road and 'locatad epprox.imatdly 36S feak eaot of the centc~rllne of Imperia~ Hi&liway~ and zoned C-1(SC). Aesistant Planner John Mderson reviewed the 3tnff Keport co tlie Planning Commlesion datad January 6~ 1975~ and said Staff R9port le roferred to end made a part of t.he minutes. 1le noted tiwt Staff had researched publi.ehed dc~ta concerning ehopping center deeign and wc+re preeonti~~g eevexal cunceptual accaes~circulation eketc}u•e for the I'lanni.ng Commieaion'e informRtion; thnt the reaearched materi.al included several examples of sh~pping c:enCe~re consioting of contlguoue parcele under separate ownerstiip and developed ~ointly; that enid ehopping centers wer~ auccessfully tied together by a harmony of. deeign, material and circulation~ a11 achieved by cooperative development; and that in thoae casee the result- ant hartnony overcame the manifold probleme resulting fr.om en inadvertent fragwentation oE a auitable eite. rurther, that relative to the two properties pxesently under discus-~ion the Staff liad deve].oped conceptuul aketches ohowing one main and one ~econdary (right turn only) access pui:~t on Santa Ana Canyun Road (on tl~e eaeterly properCy frontage); khat the aketchea showeri a varler.y of generalized exteri.or or !nterior loop-type vehicular circula- tion patterne comprised of public atreeto and private dr.ivea which would •lnkerconr-act both the eaeterly and weaterly parcels~ And the potentially surplus freeway parcel.e tu the north. Chairman Herbst reque~ted thae the letter dated December 24, '1974, from the State af California Deparicment of Transpottation r.egarding the access points being discussed, to be read at this meeCi.ng and, ther.eupon, Asetstant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti reacl sa•id letter which la referred to as if set forth in full in r_he minutes. Sai.d lctter indicated thnt the State preferred no additional acceas poi.nts in the sub~ect area. Mr. Robert S. Lewin, Attorney representi.ng Freeway Properties, appeared before thE Planning (:ommisaion and stated r.hey had a letter daked January 6, 19759 from the Stnte of Califor- nia Department of Transportation i~ whi.ch, £ollowing the State's review of Freeway Proper- tiea' proposed plan, thetr opiriion was aubetantially changed. Chair.man Herbat noted that the City Traffic Engin~er had responded negatively r.egarding any addition3l access points and that the State had indicated they did not "prefer" addi- tional acceas pointe. Mr. Lewin then statea ~he emergency aervicen factor shoul~l be considered, since on any one o£ the propoaed plans for circulation, the only accese for the entire two parcels was to Santa Ana Canyan Road and consisted of only ~ne access. Mr. ZJes Pringle of Placentia, trafftc conaultanC for Freeway Properties, appeared before the Pl~nning Commiasion and reviewed the surrounding develop~ent, atating that there would be directional traffic peaks; thaC during the morning t~ours there would b~ practically no traff.ic. in and out of their proposed development; that in the afternoon ttiere would be some traffic in and out of their development, but at that time the heavy traffic movement would be to the soLth. He further detailed the Craffic loads in their opinion, and stated based on their analysis, they felt. the propoaed driveway on Imperial could be provided without creating a serious hazard in the srea. Kegarding acceas for em~argency or safety vehicles. lie atated one entrance for an approxlmar.el.~~ 2U-acre development was n~t a good plan. Mr. Lewin then er.ated LhF~^ ~'~:c ~wr Lire pluga located on pither side of their proposed driveway on Imperial Highway, wnir.;i were there to aetve the property. Ct~ainttan Herbst noted that perh~pa the Freeway Properties' parcel was not euitable for a ahopping center, baeed on the opiniona of Che City Traffic Engineer and the State. Mr. Lewin stated that the problema mentioned in the December 24, 1974, 1Qtte~ from the Stata i~~d 1-zen ovarcome by a realignment inc?uded in the Freeway PropertiPs' y~roposal reviewed by the State and the State was aow indicating that the proposed dr.iveway on Imperial Highway would b~~ safe. Chairman Herbet took exception to Mr. Lewin's inter- pretation of the State's opinian. ~ ~ • MIWUT~S~ ~:iTY PLANNING COI~tISSION~ January 6, 1975 75-26 I'CBM N0. 8 (Continuod) Mr. Hnrry Rinker~ P. 0. 8ox 2480~ N~wport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commiseion nnd etated thoy t~ad tried to ~aork ouC an amicable solutioc~ between [hemeulves atid the I~roeway Propertic~s repr'esantatives; ~.:hat he took no poaiti.on r.egarding ~:ho developmont pxuposal o£ FrPeway Propertias; ttip~ in or~er for Impc+rial Properties to have Che4r pro- poee~d market~ they could not beAr all of the traffic From the ad~ar,ent pnrcol coming out the suuthwoet driveway, eince it would not be safe end the murket udvieed L•hat thay would not pror_ced ~+ith the leas~ if tlie plcn pr~~poeed by rreeway Propectiee wae agreed to; thut Imperial Propertiae was sti.ll propoeing ~he use of the eaeement along the northerly hound~r.y and had ugrced not tu purchne~ any of thg addltional lands to the ncrthwest of their own parcel so that• all uf thQ parcAte to the northwest could be dcsve'loped togeCher, 3A~CI agreement ueing an asai.gnment of their r1Rht to purchac+e the properCy, with the right tu pur.chaRe going to the ad~oi.ning property to the weat; Chat the propoeed market roquired a deed ree~triction that a theatre would noC be loceted near the ahopping center chae ~~ould urilize a great deal of. the parking apacen~ however, thie poseibility could be handled through addiCionc~l easements and/or hol.d herml~ss agreements; and that their original proposal, fte presented in N~vember, 1974, with no egrese on Santa Ar~a Canyon Roed fur the parcel to Che west was the plan lhey would like to develop. Mr. Lewi.s staCed tiiat agrees nnd ingress fr.om Imperial Highway was an integral part of ltieir. o;an development and if eaid accesa wIIS not granCed, a viable ahopping center wauld be destroyed, Discusaion puraued regarding the ncceos points~ during whlch Chairmun 1~~rbc~t indicated that he would be ir~c~ined to vot~ against any addiL•innal c-cceas pointa being graured on Santa Ana Canyon Road or. 1.mp~rial Highway i.n the sub~ect area since that was a dangerous area and the City of Anaheim would most likely have some liabi.litiea i£ e~aid acceas pci.nte were approved. RECESS - At 7:05 p.m., Chairman Herbst declared a recess. RECOI~VENE - At 7~0 p.m., Chairman Herbet reconvened the meeting with Coromiseioner Caucr being absenr. ~hairman Nerbst noted that it appeared the aub~e.ct matter had not be~n able to progreas Coward agreeable solutions for both parties; hawever, at the Flanning Coffiniasion Meeting oi' L~ecember 9, 1974, Imperial Properties offered a pos~aible oolution that, at the southweaC accesa point, a pub].ic atreet Ue develope~ giving access to the par.cel to L•he west tlirough the parcel t;o tt~e east, and that appeared r.o be a fair eolutian according to the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Rinker then stated that a public street would r.ender ~dditional problems, sin~e cirive- way cuCs would have to be made in several locationa for proper access to their proposed buildings; t1iaC he did not lu~ow how Chey could li.ve out that solution, but possibly they could enter into an agreement r.hat the traffic from the westerly parcel would not and could not $o througi~ the parking area of thP eaeterly development; and that if this solutian was to ba worked out, it would tak~: a little time. In response to qusstiuning by Cummisaioner King, Mr. R•Lnker i.ndicated that they wou~.d not be inCerested in attracting customets for their s?iopping r_enter fram the weaterly parcel. Chairman Herbst noted that he would like to aee the public stre~t solution set down on paper for tl~e Coma.ission's review. Mr. Warren C. Lefebvre~ representing Imperial Properties, appeared before the Comanisaion and state3 if a public atreet was found to be the proper solution t~ the acceas proLl^-~ns, then he would request to grant an easement for ingregs and egreae ret~.ining the right ta preclude the eastbound traffic from making a lefr~ha~~d turn into the Imperial. Properties ahopping center. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer noted for the Planning Commiasiun and Imperi.al Proper.ties that the median cut on Santa Ana Canyon Road ahauld not be ahown on the eubmitted p.lans. In response to queationing by Commieaioner Farano, Zoriing Supervisor Charles :::bertE notcd that some modif~.catiorie to the plans submi.tted by Imperial Properties would be nec:essary to reflect the appropriate atructural setbacks from Santa Ana Canyon Road, in conformance ~ • ~ MINUTF.S~ CITY FI.ANNINC CO1~tISSTON, Jam~~t'y 6~ ].975 ~~'27 ITG~M N0. S (Continued) to the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overl~i,y Zune rsquiremente. Mr. Kinker etipulaCed thaC h~ clearl.y u~~~deretood regarding the aetbncke and they WOtI.La either comply or ap~ly f'or a varlance at a later date; however. Chey did nor feel tl~at a variance would become necue- eary. Mr. Ltobarte diecuased eom~s of ehe racifi~atione relat.ing to landacaping which would involv~ the eubjec[ propcrc:y whgn tha praperty to tba norCh wae sold by the Stote. Mr. Le~~bvre addHd r.hnt they were nwere of eome other omiseione in the eubmitted plane. Commissioner Farar~u noCed thaC ther~ wnA not preeenk].y a plan be~ore r.he Planning Commle- sion thaC was in compliance wlth ehe original approval; that it might ba poseible to adopt a circulation c~lemenc and requ:re thnt the peti.tionar eubmit a plan for. final appravn.l or otherwise procc!ed i£ thn plans aomplied, l~e £urth~sr noted theC if tha plnn which wad submitted in Novembdr~ ].974. Uy the petiCioner were approvedy it would be with the under- stending that the setbacks would be in conformance with the req-iiremente; that landacaping would b~ insta].led along the i~orthdrly and easrerly boundaries; a~a thnt ingresd a~id egrees wauld be provided ^.t t~~e eouCiiwesCerly accese point, with right-hand turns it~ and out of that accesA~ provided there wer.e no ft-rther problems being created. Mr. Singer noted thnt Lhe aervice atation exit on Via Cortez wae also in errc~r :~:i ehown on rhe submitted plane, and Mr. Rinker etipulated thn~ if ~he plans for the Hervice etation site had been changed f.rom thelr original approval~ then they would change it back. !.n response to questiuning by Mr. Roberta, Mr. Lefebvre atipulaCed thAt the plan ~would be amectded to conform to the cledicat-ed right-of-way alsa. M:c. Roberta auggeated that a11 of the stipulationa being e-ade ehould be incoxporated into a new set of plana for conaideration by the Planni.ng Commisaion at their meet.ing on January :0, 1975. Commissioner Farano offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Johnsan and MOTION CAItRTED (Commissioner Gauer being abr~ent), to fiirther continue conaideration of xeyuest for approval of site plan and elevaCiona for Reclaeoific.ation No. 71-72-21. and Variance No. 2310 to the meeting of January 20, 1975, in order Lhat tiie petitioner might submit revised piana to include the eripulations re~resented at thia meeting, said plans ta includc tt-e public street uccess eolution for Che east and west parcels. ITEM N0. 9 EIR NGGATIVE DECLARATION REQUEST - For General Plan Amendment No. I35. The Staff Report to tt~e Planning Cc•mtaieaton da~ed Jan~iary 6, 1975, was preaented and made a par[ of the minutes. It was noted that on December 23, 1974, the Ylanning Commissinn adopted Reaolution No. PC14~243 recommending approvat of u,.neral Pian Amendment No. 135, however, no action was taken regarding the EnvironmenCal Impact Report atatus. There£ore, it was appropriate at this meeting to reacind Resalution No. PC74-243, take action regarding the Environmental Impact Reporti aCatus, and adopt a new resolution recommending approval of General Plac~ Amendment No. 135. Cammiosioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC75-lt~ and moved for its paesage and adoption, that Resolution t~o. PC74-2~i3 be and tiereby i.a rescinded, ba»ed on thP foregoing findings. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was pass~d by the following vote: AYES: C01~41ISSIDNERS: FARAI~O, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: C01~4IISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COrIl~1ISSI0NERS: GAUER Commiasioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioni:r ~auer being abaemt), that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the ~ubject pro~ect bP exempt from the requirement to prepa~e an ~nviron- mental Impact Report pursusnt to the provisions o~ the California EnvironmenCal Quality Act. ~ ns^ ~ ?1INU'PBS. CITY PLANNINC COl~4lISSIUN ~ Januury 6, 1975 IT~M N0. 9 (ConCinuad) w ~ 75-2A Coam-iseioner Farano oifered Raeolution No. PC7S-1S and maved fox ite pe-o~d~~ xnd Rdoption~ that che Planning Cnmmiseion racomm~nd~ te the City Cou~~cil ehat Genersl Plan Av~~ndm~nt No. 135 'be approve~d amondi.ng tho Circulatian Rlemant of the General Pla-1 th~roto. (Sea Reeolution Book) On roll cnll~ the £oregoing resc+lution waa paased by tha fo~lowing votet AYL~5: CONII~IISSIONERS : FAItANO ~ JOHNSOIV ~ KING. MORLEY ~ TOLA1t. H~RB3T NOEB: COt~II~tl$SIOIdERS: NONE AB9ENT: r,O1~R~lI3Si0r1ERS: GAUER AUJOURNMENT - There being no further busineae to discusa, l.ommias3oner Kin~ '~ ~ offered a mot~on~ ueconded by Comaaiesioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED (Commldsfoner Gauer be•ing abesnt), to ad~ourn the meeting Ca January 15, 1975, at 7:00 p.m. for. a Joint Work Seenion of tlie Flannin~ Com~aie~aiae~ end the Canyon Area General Planning Taek Force. The meeting ad~ourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . , ~ ~ ~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secret¢ry Anaheim City Planning Commiaeion PBS:hm