Loading...
Minutes-PC 1975/01/20O R C~ MICROF1lMING SERVICE, ~nC ~ .... ~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim. Californin January 20. ].475 REGULAR MEETING c)F Tttl: ANAHEIM CYTY PLANNINC COMMI33ION R~GULAR - A ragulur mQeting of the Anut~eim City i•lnnning Counmiesaion wne call.ed to NIEETING ordor by Cheirman Hc~rbet. at 1:3C1 p.m, in tho Council ChAmbur, u quorum being p:esent. PRESEtdT - CHAIRb~AN: Herbst - COI~4~tIS5IUNI:RS: Fnrano~ Guuet (whc entered lhe meating at 2:00 p.m,). King~ Morley, T~lar ABSENT •- COI~(ISSIONERS; Johnaon ALSO PRESIsNT - Uepucy Clty Attorney: Frank I.owry Office Enginec~r: Jay Titus '/.oning Supervisor: Charles Robez~tg Aasistant Zoning SuUervisor: Annika Sanr_a lahti Aasociate Planr~er: Bill Yuung Commiasiun Secretary: Patricia Sc.anlan PLGDGE UF - Commiseioner Morley :.ed in [he Pledge of Allegiance to the l~lag of the ALL.EGIANCE United States of Aruericu. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Commigsioner Morley and THE MINUTES MOTION CAr.RIFD (Commissioners Gauer and Jahnbon being absent), to approve the minutes of rhe meeting of December. 23. 1974. as aubmitted. ItECLASSIFICATION - CONTI:NUED PUBLLC HEARINC. ILLUMINATED PRODUCT S, INC., 207 South N0. 74-?5-17 Helena StLeet, Ar.aheim, Cu. 92803 ANA ADRIAN J_ LENAIN, CT AL, +r 5908 Ar.no Crescent, Anaheim, Ca. 92A07 (Ownerc~~; PACIFIC SOUTtiWEST RLALTY COMPANY, c/o I.. D. P~ffenber~er, 333 South Hop~ Street, Los Angeles, Ca. 900x7 (Agent); requesting !:hat property deacribed as: A rectangular.ly- stiaoed parcel of land consiatf-~g or approximeitely 33;000 squar~. feEt located at the corners of Oak Stteet, Helena Street and Chestnut Streer~ having approxims te frontages of 22(1 feet on the south side of Oak Street, 150 feet on the west s3de :,f He~Pna Sereet and 22G feet ~,n the north side of Cheattiut Street, and further described as 207 Southl'.el~na Street and 421 West Cheatnut Stzeet, be reclassified from the P-1 (AUTOMOBLLE PARKINf) ZONE ta the C-2 (GENERAL COI~At~RCIAL) ?.GNI:. Sub~ect petition was conCinued from the meetin~,s of December 9 and 1.3, ].9'4, in o~:d~ *' to receive inpuC. from the Community Redevelopment Commission and st tl~e request cf the petitioner, reapectively. It was noted that the petiti.oner had reque~ted that the aub~ect p e titi~n be further con- tinued to March 31, 1975, in order that the develonment proposal c uuld be reviewe~ in connection with a redevelopment plan for the general area, includ ing sub~ect property. Commisaioner King offered a motion, aeccnded by Commi&sioner Morl ey and MOTTOi~ "ARRIED (Commiasionera Gau~r and Johnaon being abaent), to further poatpone the public hearing nnd conaideratioa of Reclassification No. 74-75-17 tu the meeting of March 3:1, 1975, as reRueated by the petitioner. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARI'_VG. INITIATED ~Y' THE AIJAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMP4ISSION, ANAHELM MUNIC'IPAL CODE 204 Ecst Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; to consider amend- ments to Chapter 18.05, Outdoor Advert 3eing-General and Chapter 18.84, Scenic Corridnr (SC) Zone. Asaociate Planner B121 Young presented the Staf£ Re.port to the P lanning Commission daCed Janusry 20~ 1975, and said Staff Reparc ia referred to and made a part of the minutes. He noted that the Planning Commisaion previously considered ti~e subj ec~ Code amendments ak their m~eting or~ December 23, 197k, and adopted a reaoluCion making certaiu recommenda- t~ons to the City Council; however, following that meeting, Staff diacovered they had 75-29 L.1 • MII~UTCS~ CT'fY PI.ANNIN(: c;OMMISSION, January 20~ 1975 AMI:NUMGNT TU TITI.~F, 18L ANAHFTM MUNICIPAL CODE (Continued) ~ • 7 5.. 30 inr+dvertontly fail.ed .o xdvQrtise the a~atter in the locxl newepaper in compliance with thc legel reyuir9mente for public hearinga ; that tlia Code an-end~-eenCe were bc ing rosubmittod to tt~e Pl.anning Conaniseiun f.or rAr.onsideraCiun, and rxtilbit "n' attached to the Staff ReporL sc~t forth thoee amendmr.ntR recummended £or approval by the 1'l~nntng Camm!lneion on Uacemb~:r 23~ 1974~ and, in uddition, Staff had tnken the oppartunltv ~~- add ~urtr~~~r amcndments for c_uneiderat~~~n i.n koeping with recummendati.ons ~f thu Plann ~ng ~:omrntseion. and tha Task rorce ~t previoue meeCings~ perCnining tu certal.n definicl~~ns f Hi~ne nnd also pertaining Co Council Yolicy reqnrding fees nnd deposita, not aa t~ ' he x~uounta, b~~t ne to where they wera set out; sa~ in uddition to the matlers previuusly ~~~~nr.~ldered by the Plnnning C~ ,te- eic~n eaveral proposals wer~ b:ing presenCed ~t thie Cim~~: 1) to amend Che deacriptiu« and purpoae of Che SC 7.one Kince the pre:~ent Code section provide4 only for the Santa Ana Cany~n Area ~ts beitlg approprlate f~r tho SC Zone cla~air i~~ntion and~ nl.eho~gh there were no other ureas propoged fc~r inelueion ~n the SC Zone, tlie propooed amendment wuuld provide fur Cheir. i.r-cluaion when appropriat~, 2) to amead r.h~ youtherly boundary of the 3C Zone from "a line lying one-halt mile goutii of tlie 5nnt:~ Aiin Ca~,yon Road" to "Che presonC or future eouth city iimits af ths City of Anaheim" as wa;~ previously suggested by the Planning Commieai~n, 3) to amend exiating definiCiona and add ncw def.lnitions relating to tr.acC and other temporary real estate yigns~ for c.larification of the i.ntent nnd purpose of those regulatione, and 4) ~o amend the fee requirpmenl• provi.sions fur "tract" and "future estsb- liehment" aigne to dclete ttie spect~ic nmoun[ of fees, depoaits and refiir,ds for said signs frum ~he ordinances, said omounts to be esCabl:lst~ed by Counc.iL reaulution rather than ordinance~ to provide for ftexibil.ity of amending any of the umouneB th+~t• muy be charged. Chairm~n l~erbst noted regardi.ng off-site aigning that reRi~enta in the Scenlc Corridor were of the feeling that heighr. and size should be kept the same for the whole City rather tl~Kn having two different oxdinancea; that the tracts outeide of Che Scenic Corr.idor would otherwise have a privilege that CrACts ineide the Scenic Corridor did not have; that he would make a suggesti:m that whatever size nnd determinalion the P?annin~ Commiasion madc~ regarding uff-•si.te tract signay that those requiremente or provisi~>na apply to areas inside And outside the Scenic Corr.idor. hir. John Millick, Vice Presldent of Anaht:im H11Ls, Inc.. appeared beforc the Ylannin~ Commi~sion and elated thnt he was aware the Sign Ordinan~•c had been gone over many times, not only ut the Planning Commieaion level but before t:liat at the Task Force level; that at the Planning Co+nmission meeting of D~cember 23, 1974, the Tad!c For^_e recommendation was proposed [o *he Planning Coawi.saion but was amended by Commissioner Fzrano in his motion to ~ake a re~ ~ a~tion [o the City Council. on the matter; l•hat he would like to sddrea~ himself to said . .~~aent and speci~ficully regarding the size o£ Che signs; that cl~.ffererit sulutions and pro~ects with restrictive ~ff-site .~igntng had been diacusoed and, thereupon, he pr~senCed photographa taken at thP D..am~nd Bar project to 111uatrate hio opinion that the aigns real.ly did not look as bad ~s it seemed to the Commisaion, being that standard lumber slzes, S by 25-foot modules, o r 128 square feet, was being utilized allowing for a lot of directional/locational information on the signs and for consolidation on one off- site sign for more than one builde:; that their signs were not ~unky anc: ,iid not advertis e prices, but did give the neceasary information in a clear kind of way~; that the height limitation was to ~void vandallsm and the aign company needed a minimum af 8 feet from the ground up for that purpose; that ano ther prerequiaite for the height was to be able to s e e the sign clear~ly from some distance away traveling at a certain opeed, i.e., at 55 miles pen c~ur on an arterial highway, the aign would leed to be Keen w~ll under tt~os~ circumatances. Commisaioner King inquired if the at andard. Mr. Millick it~dicated in the negative and kioak signing Allowing for a pergon to be sioners Ki.ng and Tolar commented tha t the practice was to ligiit stated that a good job in the bottom to hand kioek signs were very part of the signs, and had been done on the out information. Commis- attractive. Mr. Millick continued by stati~ . he had spol:en with oth~~r developers regarding the public hear:Lng thia date, however, he did not let them know th, t the~ maeting began ~t 1:3~ rather than 2:00 p.m., and prooably they would be coming to the meeting later on. He dtacur~aed a "new homeowner opinion and survey compilation" pre~a.ad by the TitZe Insurance an~ Trust Cumpany which surveyad one of the L.u sk Homes developments and sampled 114 buyess wit.h an indication as to the publications o r metho~s used to help them find their new home; tha t approximately 24X had indi.cated the Loe Angelea Tiapo, apTroxi~aately 40X ea.w the signs after learning of ehe development and approximately 259~ saw the aigns first, and appraxi- mately 26X indicated that gigning wa s the moet helpf.ul advertisin, source tn geteing in to visit the develcpment. ?~e continusd by stating aigr~s really did help the people get to • ~ ~ MLNUTI;S, CITY YL.P.NNINC CQI~Il~1l.S9I0N~ Jcinuary 20~ 1975 AMENllMF,NT TO TITL~ 1~ANANETN. MUNICIPAL CODE (Conti.nued) 75-31 tl~e product~ howevor, t.l-e model. co~npl4xe8 and sal.eemen eold Cha product; thul• rhey would l.ike tn see. t.h~ o~dinance for on•-yite eignittg remain as it presently rer.~! and as rec~om- mended by Che Task ['orca; thnt the an-site tracC siBne usualJ~y faced the ineida of th~ model complex nnd not khe arteri.nl hf.gt~wayA~ and adverktsed the pricea eince if the homee were $40,000 r.^3 tlic pcoepecti~ve buy~re were look.ing Eor a$60~000 homa, they might not wunC ~o waetN their time~ and vicc~ verea; end tliat the on-site e~igne wore temporary. Chairman H~rlyse suggeeted that Che reat of the public riearf.ng on thip m~tter be continued ko 1al•ar un iu the meeti.ng in order that additioaal Lnput from tha othcr i~i~flr.~sted pnrt:ias who wexe not yat present could be obtained for the benefit of thP ~lanning Cammie- ~aion i.n making their recominendations~ nnd the Planning Commiasio~ gener~lly concurred to so cantinue the mntter, (AL• thia point i~r the meering~ the Ylnnning Cummiseion considered ItemA 3~ 4, 5, 6~ 7~ 8~ 9 and 10 of. the printed agend~ Lor thie mec~ting. ) At ~:45 p.m., the P].anning Cuwr~(asion resumed the publlc hearing and consid~ration of the sub~ect Code amendmenCe. Mr. Bi.~.l MiCahell, repr.eKent:ing the firm of Market Profiler+, Ir~c., uppeared befure the P1r~~inLng Commis~ion ~nd etated his firm worked with the de~elopera in Southern Ca].ifornia uc~d tiad worked with the Task Force to provlde inaigt~t to help reao.lve the prob?.ema regnrd- ing eigning ir. the Hill and Csnyon Area; that he hud etresaed that the size and shape of tne signe were not necessarily wh~t made them unattractive or offen.sive; that f.rom A marketing al•andpoint, Chey tried to maintain a reaeonable level of cost incurred in build- ing a home an?. marketing it; that the cost of getting people t~ the nites wae probably usually uver.looked; lhat not quite a full page black and white ad in the Los Angeles Times uns it4 excess of $5,000 fur a Sunday afternoon; that their firm was invalved ln maintain- ing buyer profi.lea wliich wss the compilatiot- of data f~rme filled out by people when they purchased their new home and the forms were to determine demographics, motivations, what they did or did not :.ike about the community and how they happeued C~ fi.nd the prajecC; that in excess of 45~a of the people indica~:ed sigciing was the way t-~ey fo~ind the particular project; that with the continuing ~ecreas^ tn terme of utilization and exposure of signs, the cosr of marketing homea was rieing; tnaC i11s firm was :LnvestigaCing the use of tele- vision for advert.iaing homes, however, the cos[ was hozrendous and would be ref lected in the price of Che IlOlI1P.8~ that during the past week they had intervlewed people in Orange County coming to projects and aver 50.X f.ound t.hem b;~ aigna; that signs and their v3.aibility was extremely imporCant and he w~uld not l~e ~~ery hanest with hlmself or preaent a ve:ry credible wiCness on behal.f of the housing industry if he did not confer~e that there w~re many abuser~ in the use of. signs with slatted typea of billboard.s, add-ons, plant-ons and others devised to generate traffic, and there was a need for some housekeeping; that the 'fask Force had been able to initiate some ~.nterest with the developers within the Hit] and Canyon Area to offset ar.d help overcome some of the problems through sin~ere intereat; that he realized the vested i:~terest of the people that were presently in the Hill and Canyon Area, however, tliere. w~re many peaple within the :..arket place that should not have to pay an undue burden becauae of an ugly sign; that a sign did not have to be small to make it attractive and being small did noe necessarily make it attractive. M:-. Edward H~ ~ce, HB ~nterpriass (an outdoor advertising company) , 120 South Center Street ~ Santa Ana, appeaced befnre the Planning Co~niesion and presented the "new homeowner opinion service and compllatio,t" which wns reterred to earl{er in the meeting by Mr, Millick, and stated aigns surpassed ali other adverCi:~ing media for effectiveness; that in comparison to a Los Angeles Timea ad costing about $5,000 for a one-time ad, a normal o£f-site adver- tisi.ng sign would coat the de~~eloper abuul- $2,000 a year, and signs were mor.e effectlve and less expensive. He continued by stating he had submitted a letter daCed December 26, 1974. which suggesCed an excellent temporary ai.gn code for outdoor advertiaing for aubdi-' viaions; th~ t they woulci suggeat a miniw~m distance of 6 feet from the bottom of the eigns to the groux~d and, in ueing that theory ~che total height f~r any sign would be 14 feet with the 6 ieet below the aign being to minimize vandalism; r.hat 14 foot totai height by 10 feet, ar an 80-eq~are foot sign was adequate for directin~ traffic to a subdiviaion; that regarding the aize of the copy, by requiring the develo2er to p~it atrictly the product name, logos and direction to the subdivisiun on the signa, inf~rmation such as deacriptive details and pr ices would be eliminated; CRBL hie company worked quite s bit i~ Or+~nge County and the Cnunty allowed 10-foot by 10-foot or 100-aquare foot signs and 80 square feet would do the jab just as we11; that the height xequirement was absolutely neceasary to allow the 6 feet below the aign to help prevent vandaliam problea~s that stgn companies ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CI'I'Y PI.ANNINC C~~MMI98ION, Jai:uary 20, 1975 75'" AMF.NDML~NT TO TITLG 18LA,NANFIM D1l~NICIPAL conE (C~nt~nuad) wera incurrizig and whict~ wero very expanKiv~; that the raquiremant that eigns be 30U feet apaxt wae quita drastic and i'cr a algn coinprsny to find end rent property on which to plnce n eign wae diEficulC enough elnce too n~eny peop;e did not want Rigne on their praperCy to sCart with; and in moet cwsES lOQ feet apart was enougt~ distance Co separate tho eigne and ke~+p them vieible, lagible ~tnd eCil ]. not daetroy the l~ndacfipo. (~hai.Xa-an NerbHt interJec:ted that it two parcels slde-by-eide ench wanted digns and eaid elgne would be withi.n ]UO fnat of ench other Chen thay would etill ba allowad under the requirc~monG that giane ,~ 300 feet apart elnce t:he signe wo~ld Ue on two eeparate pleces of property; Ghat on lnclividuul parcels, tlle Planning Commi.asioii had xec:ormnended 450 feet apart; th~t the PlanninE; Commieeion would b~ consideri.ng bringing signe together on a c~,rnor Co allow one canf;l.omeration of ai.gns as a poesibility, but of pr.imary concern wAs what had alran~ly happ~nE:d at the corner of Imperial And Snnta Ana Canyon Rcad wtth too many aigns; and that if the signe were allowed witl~in 100 fee[ apart on a piece of property, there probahly would noi_ be nny integrated signe. Mr. HokQ continued by ataCing the ebility to place signe 100 feet apArt would reuuce the numbers problem; thn~ if the requi.rement was to have signs over 100 fc:et apart~ tha clevc~~.- opere' hands would be tied and furced to loak for be~ter and more visible locatiuns, Ne di.etingui.ahed between aliopping center signs nnd tra~t eigns, and stated ehoppi.ng center signs advertiaed pro~ucta that were sold or--Eiite and trnct aign~ advexr.iaed producte that were sold off-aite. In reaponse to questioning by Commlasioner King, Mr. Millick ii-dicated Lhat the "new home- o~oner opinion and survey compilutian" was mscle during the year 1974. Mrs. Mary Dinndor£, 131 La Pnz, President of. the Santa Ana Canyon in~•ruvement Aaeociation and Secreta.ry of the Coalition oE Anaheim I.eaders (COAL), appeared b~~~=ore the Planning Commiesion and preaented photographa of exi~Cing signs in the Hill and Canyon Area. $IlE stated it wae their poaition tliut maintaining Che inCegrity of the Scenic Corridor was of primary importance; that on Novemher 19, 1971, the Ananeim City Council adopted the ScFnic Corridor Overlay Zone under OrdinancP No. 2929; that the ordinance ae written wae satis-• factory, however, theit opinion diffexed as Co the enforcement, evidenced eaper_ially as Hpplied to "off-site" tract eigite; that tli~ Sign Qrdinance allowed for thr.ee Cract signs per development, two being "aff-91te" and one being "on-aite"; that no minimum aize waA defined nor was a specific type of sign 1lated in that or.dinance and, therefore, the Sign Ordinance was ambiguuus and needed clarification; that she had personally made a survey of the area and it was obviaus thPre were many violations und she aighted the Westridge development with three monumenC signs and four lU by 'L~+-foot aigne in the Hill and Canyon Area; that at the November 19, 1974 City Cuuncil meeting when permiasion was granted for extension of ti.me for "off-site" tract signs, the requeat was gro.nted with the condition Chat a firm polic,y regarding s~ich signs would be forthcoming by January 7, 1975; and that ahe had compiled a list of signs that had expired and the date of expiration, being: Cal-Prop - S/E corner Imperial/Santa Ana Canyon Road •• expired ~eptember 20, 1972 Anah~~im Hills - N/E corner Imperial/Santa Ana Canyon koad - expired June 4. 1973 Anaheim Hills/Oak Knoll/Weatridge - 13/F1 corner Imperial/Santa Ana Canyon Road - expired September 13, 1973 Grant Company and Parkview ° 5/E corne~c 5olomon/Sanea Ana Canyon Roa.~ - expired August 23, 1973 Mark ITI - S/C corner Solomon/Santa Ana Canyon Road - expi.red September 6, 1973 Galler~e - S/E corner Solomon/SanCa Ana Canyon Road - expired August 22, 1973 Westfield and Woodcrest - S/E r.orncr Solomor./Santa Ma Canyon Road - expired June 21, 1973 Canyon Acres IZ - 5/E corner Solomon/SanCa Ana Canyon Road - no riate for expiration Canyon Oaka - N/E ~orner Solomon/Santa Ana Canyon Road - expired August 23, 1973 Oak Park - N/W corner Solomon/Santa Ana Canyon Road - expired May 1, '1973 Mrs. Dinndorf further stated that the Sign OrJinance had not been too zes~lously puraued. Commiseioner Tolar noted for clarification regarding the Westridge project aign at the northwest corner of Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road that there appeared to be eight or nine different tracts involved in. the signing at that ].ocation, and Mrs. Dinndorf atated that several tracta were lieted on the -nor.,~ment signs on Id~hl Ranch Road and in her opinion thaC was "off-aite" advertisin~ no matter how many trac:s were named on one sign, or if it was an integrated sign~ since a minimum sign size was not cited in the ordinance. ~ ~ ~ Ml.tdUT~5, CITY I'I.ANNINt; CUMM'L3Si0N, Janunry 2(), 1975 75-33 AMENDMCNT TO TI'l'~~E l~iy ANA}{EIM MUNLCI~'AL CO~~[: (Continuad) Mre. DinndorE c.ontlnued l~y atating Chat the Planning Coinnieui~n on Docember 23~ 1974 madQ a recommendntion ttiat tht~ maximum e~ign ar~a be 72 squsr~ Feet, that a dietance of 45U feet be requirfld between signe nnd thac no eigne be permitted•an late with leds rhan n 65(1-faot iront.ngc~; that the recommcndn~ton of the group Hl~e repreBCSnCed wa~ to have 6 by 10-fuut yigne +~ minimum ~istnnce of 250 feet from a residentinl zonn; that the Planning Commiseton recommendnl•ton cegar.ding ttie diatance of 45(? Ee~:t beCween eigne~ until the eign iseue waa r.eaulve~i, ehould consider. two alternakives 1) iaeuence of no aign permite i.n l•he Scen.tc Corridor or 2) requlr.G that all c~pplic~tiorrs for new permiCa he appzoved by the Cil•y Council; thac if Che Plann.ing C~mm:lseion should a~t favornbly ~n the Nropoeed ordinance they ehould do ao only on the haeia of the Eacta that were presented; and that ahe did nut want to be labelad ad repreaenting preseurc~ groupe that were nnti-development since ahe ~~epreeenked the reeidenta of sppr.oximately 20 Crecte who truly cared about making the City ane of the iinest places in whi.ch to .live. In re:+ponea ro comment by Commieaioner Gautr,, Deputy Ci.ty AtCorney Frank I~owry edv~sed ttiat there was onlv one ?.onicig Enforcement Officer to cite violations in the City; that many of Che Kigns were legal becanat of the fact tha~ they tiad received extensions ox, in the case of n~imber.R~ there were two "off-aite" tract aigna permitted per [ract and if. there were four tracts there wuul.d be eight aigns~ etc. Commiasioner Gauer then requested Lhat the 11t~t of eigns in violation as preaenced by Mra. Dinndorf ehould be given to tt~e Zoning Enforcement Officer to be checked uut. Mr. Young n~~ted that on January 14, 1975 the sub~ect af exl•enaiona of time for six tract sig~s came before the City Cout~cil and at that tlme the City Council direct.ed ~hat spproval for any new tract aigns in the Scenic Corridor Area could only be for the period ending March 11, 1975, and the Buildic-g Division had been s~ I.nformed; and that the March 11 date had been selected in view of the proposed amendment~+ to the Code that were presently before the Planning Commiaeion. Zoning Supetvisor Charles Roberts commented regarding the enforcement of Che "off-site" tr.act signA that al~hough they h~d not bcen too v~gorously enfo:ced, eince based on the current language of the ox~dinance, if zhe City wus to go uut rsn~l enforce it and tell certain developers to take thzir ~a.gns down, Chere was nothing to prevent a developer from coming in the very next day nnd taking out a aeparate application and then installing the same signe again, making enf~rcement an academic exercise; that based upon the concerns expressed by the citizens who resided in the Canyon Area and the obvious concern of the Planning Commissi~n and C~ty Council, the issue had taken a"front burner" position and great sCeps had been taken because of action on the part of all partiea to Cxy to eliminate an undesirable aituation. Commission~r F~rano inquired if the proposed ordinance had enough enforcement teeth so that the circumstancea being outlined would not occur again, and Mr. Young noted Chat the enforcement provisiona included tn Che proposed ardinance were about the same as were presenCly on the books, however, the regulation of the eigns was something that w~s not in the Code previou:+ly; that the 1lmitation of the size, the distance between signs, etc., should sati;;fy the obj~ctions to the signs, and that if aigns were installed legally according to the Code, then the enforcement provisions woul.d be identical Co the c~lrrent Code. Commisaioner '~arano further inquired if the Si.gn Ordinance was violated, would the propo~ed ordinance provide for enforr.ement whereby the City ceuld L•ake such a sign down. In reply, Mr. Roberts not•ed that the applicability of the regulations would play an important role in enswering the enforcement question; that if a sign ha1 been up for a year unde~ the new regulations and expired~ then aomeone could come in and tak~ out a new permi~t and put the same sign back, however~ there would not be the same proliferation of signa under the new regulationa that presently exieted; that there would still be one sign for "x" number of feet of frontage; thaC if there were illegal aigns, the homeowners groupa would probably adviae the City regarding same; and that a person could come into the City for a atgn permit and get it in one day. Commisa3oner Farano then noted that he could not see enacting an ordinance if it permitted the same situation that presently existed, being there was no incentive to take down a sign when the permit ran out. ~ ~ ~ MINUTE3, CITY PLANNiNG Cpt~fISSIUN, January 20~ 1975 N~:NDMF.NT' TO 1^ITLE 18. ANAH~IM MiJNICiPAL COD~, (Conti.nued) 75-34 Mc. Roberte t}~~+r~ noeed chnc +i Parcel wae antitled to a certain number uf eigna depending upon the fronCage o~i a etreot; tlint presanCly the reguratione did not prohibit a property from huving uc-y numbt~r ~E e1E;ns; and that the proposed ordinance would permit only or~c~ eign with a frc~nkagts of 6S0 feet. Mr, Lowry adviaed that the proposed ordinance would eot etandarde to control the eiz~~ heighC, bnd numbcr of eigne ~nd if there were •violntions of thoae standarda the ownere o~ the signe and/or lancl could be prasacutFd; and Chat presentily the ardinnnca had no etancl- ards to be control'led. Coromissioner ~arrsno xeiter.at~d hie cancern that the propoeed ordinance ehould include an inceneivc for rha developare to be hones-t wi.th themselves and witk~ the City. Commiseioner King noted ttiaC tha ~iCy ehould have the right t~ act on a bond, nnd Mr. Roberta advised that the City could r~nove a sign and chnrRe it against ~~he bond or cash deposit. Chairman Herbet lnquired re.garding the time limit for a sign permit, and Mr. Robarte adviaed that the current l~nguuge of the ordinance allowed a permit to be ieaued for up to or-e year and eny renewul of the aign permit had to be approved by the City Council. Commissioner Farano na:ed that the City had not been r.emoving any o£ the eigno and he wauld lik~ Che nea~ ordinance to provide the incentlve whereby the illegal ei~ne would be eliminxted to star.t wJ.th and an incenti.ve provided for the removal uf legal aigna at the end of the permitted time. Mr. Young clarified that the propoae~l regutations and tt~e metliodology for enforcement should resolve the eigtting problema. Mr. William B. "Eill" ~hrle appeared before the Planning Commisaion and stated he was representing the Coalition of Anaheim Leaders (CUAL); that his orgunizution was made up of several homeowners groupa~ not ,just in the Canyon Area, and some civic organizations; that on January 19~ 1975, COAL had held their bi-monthly meeting with an extremely good turnou~ and one of the iasuea brough[ up wae the eigns; that he was Asked to present a letter dated Janusry 20, 1475 from th~ 5anCa Ma Canyon Proper[y Owner~ A~sociation ofxering auggeations for the new Sign Ordinance and, thereupon, Mr. ~hrle read eaid letter for the record as follows: "Honorable Commi.esionera: Thie letter ia i.n regard t~ the conaiderations of amendments to Title 18. Consideration of thia snatter !s long overdue. Chapter 1~.05 1. AeleCion of specific emounts to be charged fox permiC fEes and degosits for tract signs. SuggesCion: Use a s].iding scale for fee charges, in accordance tu eize. (Per square feet cost for. signs) Charge also a"renewal" fee for any extension given. 2. Add defi.nition and clarify ragulations ~,er'taining to temporary real eatate aigns. SuggPation: Kore rigid enforcement of ttie time limit, size, numLera and height of signa. Chapter 1.8.84 1. Expand aouCherly boundaries to s~uth city limits. 2. Extend the Scenic CorridAr to other are~s. We endorse thi~ wholeheartedly. The Scenic Corridor ahould be extended to protect and preserve all areas which provide ua with natural flc~nic assets. 3, 5pecial regulaCions for aigns wittiin the Scenic Corridor Zone. ~ ~ ~ MINUTf3S~ CITY PLANNING CODIMISSION~ January 20~ 1975 "5-35 AMENbMGN7' 'PO TTTLE 18~ANN1'EIM MUNICIPAL COU~ (Cott[inued) Suggn~tion: Ma~cimum ei.xo of signe should be na greeter than 6x10 feet~ eigne ehould be BpACP.CI such khat the ecenic view i.e not blocked nut, msximum heighte of such eigns shu~ild be no ar~ater than 12 feet so that ehe roll.ing hille are not blocked 'oy euc~i signs. Rigid enforcemenr. of. eign removal after time expiratlon. Tt~e Scenic Corridor Ov~rlay Zone hae been iqnored for msny yeare. IC .ls her.rtening to kn~w that atepa ar~ being tak~n to pr.otect and proanr~~~ the c-reu. Orie of the wor~t offenses cummitted in the area is blatanC ignoring oF th~ veYy existence ot the Scenic Corridor ordinancc. We apprr..ciat~ the Planning Commiasion's awareneas of the need for atronger ar~d more apecific regulations in the Scenic Corridor Area. Thank you. Sincerely youra~ s/llirck IIedford, President s/Mitzy Ozakl, Secretary" In can~lusion, Mr. Ehrle atated that they re~pected that the developera hr-d the right and were obli.gated to se11 their homesy however, the purchnsera had bought in good faith and wanted to keep tt:e scenic beauty of the area and wanted consolidation r~nd elimi.nati.on of many signs through regu~atione and enf.orcement methods. Commiaetoner Fsrano noted that it appeared the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Aasoci.ation recommendatione preaented by Mr. Ehrle and those recommendatioua made by Mrs. Dinndorf in behalf of COAL and the SanCa Ana Canyon T.mprovement Asaociation were essentially in accord with the previous recommendaCions of the Planning Commisaion, with the exception thaC the sign area would be 60 square feet and a minimum diatance of 250 feet from a residence. Mr. Mitchell stuted it wa.s evident Chat there was a lack of folluw-up and enforcement regarding aigns; and it was ~~viour; there waa need for some kind of additional enf~rcement provisions, however, a 11)0-aquare ioot sign would be about the smallest sign to accomplish the advertising needed; ti~at if a i0U-square foot sign conformed Co the other criteria, then Clie residential environment would not be proatir.uted, since there would be a great deal more open space; that also of concern was the cornera and the kiosk sign which should be utilized so that competitive advantagea would not be allowed to accrue to anyone in partic~lar or to work to Che detriment of ottiers. Chairman He.rbst noted that when Mr. Yorba madc his presentation for the corner of Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road, the Planning Commission did imply that a variance on that pazticular corner would be conaidered to see what could be accomplished, Mr. MitcY~~ll staCed although he was sympathetic with the homeowners groups, the aize of a sign was impnrtanr to be functional anJ he would want to know whet'her the size s9.gn they were suggesting was realistic. In reply to questioning by Commiesioner Farano, Mr. Mitchell aCated they could not take a sign lesa than 10 foat by 10 foot for a pro~ect, or 100 square feet; and that ideal.ly they would like 125 square feet. Mr. Millick indicated thIIt he liked the signs at Diamond Bar which were 1?5 aq,uare feet in size. In response Co further questioning by Commissioner Farano, -ir. Mitchell stated that the aize of thc aigns at Diamond Bar and thetr placement did not do a good ~ob of directing traffic aff the freeway and back into the pro~ect; and he atil]. contended that r~ize was not Che cri•-eria as lc+ng as the signs were readable for the traffic going by and all of hia consult,.nta had indicated 10 by 10 or 1~ by 25-foot signs; and that regarding height, 6 feet off the gr.ound allowing 14-foot overatl height was pretty much etandar~ w~~:, all siga compantes. ~ ~ ~ MINU'lES ~ CITY PLANNING CUt~1IS810N ~ January ?.0, 1975 7~-36 AMENDM~N'T TO '~ITLE .i8, Af1AHEIM MIJNTCIPAL CODG (Continued) Mr. Millick stated tic liked Cha Dixmond Bnr eigne f.ur two reasone baing that they t~ad controllad th~ print materiaZ sa thut the eign did no~ lndicete pricee~ percc+ntagoe, etc~; that thcy were+ purc~ty dirPCtionul in nature Pnd tiie name of the project wae liRtod with tl~a logo n~akinq n coneolidaCed aign and the si.gne wc~re ot a oize that was rendable and were apart and not bunched togetliec; and that a 60-equare f.oot oign could not ba a ~un- solidaked eign. C~mmiseioner ~arano not~d that if the devel.opexe ware willing to Y~r~ve ccinHn11~1~1ked algns with ~c~veral dev~lopers ueing one aigi: and ~BCFI [~roject not being advertised on more lhan Cwo eigne~ then he wou1Q be willing to go along with the oign dize of 8 by 16 feet. Mr. Millick atat~d t}~at the propoac~d wordic~g of the ordinanc~~ would aubetantially decr.ease the numUer af eigns becauae of the plac:ement; that there was a proUlem in the Nill and Cunyon Are1 aince thei'e were so many waye to geC to x project, being frum Riverside~ f.rom Lincoln Avenue in Tustin, and fr~am Imperlal flighway, r1r. Millick f~irther etated that the 6 by 10-foot Aigna ~nly workad if the care were going v~ry. very slow. Comm~.ssion~r Farano then noted that the Planning Commission appearr:d to bp agrePtng with Chelr previous recommendation of 72 r~quare feet and he would eubmi.C thst if khe d~:velopera ~~er.e wllling to have 8 by 16-foot digns for use by more tIlR11 one dsvelopment, then a 72- sqL~are Eoot aign was ndequate; Chat a£urthPr altern~tive might be advisable allowing either a 60-aq.uare fooC sign or an 8 by 16-foot si.gn if more than one development wa~+ listed on the aign with eacP- development being lieted on a maximum of two signs. Ghairman Herbat noted that l~aving at leasr two developments in~luded on c~ne sign that was S by 16 feet had merit. Mr. ?.4111ick stated that the Pl.nnning Comaiisai.on should look at the YM.CA sign and Commisatoner Farano noted that h~ had looked +~t saic~ sign and it waa indeed a besutiful eign. Mr.. Millick ~tated that he had a feeling that a 72-square f~ot si.gn would be so restrictive that it would create vase problems. Chairmr;n Herbst reviewed the different suggestions Chat h~~~ h~~en made for conaideration by the Planning Commission and nc~ted that looking at Che practicality of the aiCuation from the atandpoint of s~zes of. w~~d and the vandaliam paint of view, he would f~vor the 8 by 12 aign whi.ch seemed to be a practical compromise. Mr. Mitchell caiictirred in Chairman ~Ierbst's suggestion to have a 96-square foot maximum sign area; and stated that by reducing the number of signs, the problem was bei~-g reduced; and that ttie 96 square f.eet would provide the fool-age needed Co create the necessary impact and maintain the nec~saity for some consideration of the environment. Commis~ioner Tarano offered another suggestion that a developer be g:Lven a choice of either two "off-site" signs, 72 square feet in aize, or be 1lsted with other developers on 8 by 16-foot ~igns with no limitation as ta how many eigns he could bE listed on; and that the 8 by i6-foot sign could serve in the natiire of a lciosk at a key location. Commissioner Tolar noted that a 96-square foot sign was not too large, in his opinion. Chairman Herbst then noted that if the de'velopers could market their producCs wirh a 96- aquare fooz sign then he would be happy to use it in the new ardinance and, thereupon, Mr. Millick stated he wou].d go along with Mr. Mitchell since he was the coneultanc. THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CL ~ED. Commisaioner Morley noted that the size de~ ded upon for the sign ahould be for the entire City of Anaheim and not ~ust for the Scenlc Corridor area, and Chairman Herbst made an observation that since approximately 90% of the aigns in tha City were in the Scenlc Corridor, the balance should te able to live with the ordinance. In resp~nse to Ruestioning r• Commisaioner Tolar, Mr. Young noCed that if a developer uaed a kioak, which was not to be . of the two signs allowed, then he would l~ave to apply fcr a variance for that aign. Commisaioner. Tolar emphasized that he did not want to discourage the kioak-type aign. ~ ~ ~ MINUTi:S ~ CTTY PI~ANNINC CUN41ISS10~, JanuF~ry 20, 1975 75-3~ AMENDM~NT TO TITLG 1H, ANAHEIM MUNICIF'AL~ CODC (Continued) Chuirman Herbet noted l•hat the si.ze of tha "on•-eite" nnd "off~-site" tr~ct sign~ wne suggested to be 96 aquare Peut maximum aize and Mr. MitchPl:l. indi~~++Ced that 96 equarH f.eet would be adequnte to convey tha mesouges. Comtaioaioner Morley offered Resolution No. PC75-16 ond mov~:d for ite puesage and adopti.on, to adopt an~l r~c~mmend to th~ Cl.t•y Council. aduption of amendmente Lo the AnAheim Municlpal Code, 1'itle 18~ Chapter 1$.05, Outduor Advertieing Signs and Rillboarde, and Chupter 18.84, "(SC)" Scenic Corridor Zone-Overluy, and a further ~mandment pertnlning tn apecific am~unts of parmit fees and caeh dcspueite for certnin temporary signe; sai.d rimPndmenCe aeing to deleCe references to epecifia amounts to be cht~rged for petmlt fe~Fi and urpoHite for tract aigns and fu~ure estahliehment signe; to add defi.nitiona and clarity r.egulations pertaining to temporary renJ. estate aigns; to provide for tt~e apec.tal ceg~iletion of ~ract aigna including that the maxlmum sign area shall bo 96 aquare feet, the maximum oig~ l~eight sha11 be 14 feet, and the minimum dielance between eigns on tt~e eaR,e parcFl ahall be noc less than 450 feet; to expand ttie so~ttherly boundariee of the Scenic Corcidor Zone to thQ south city li.mi.ts; and to revi.se the Dascription an~ Purpoae section of the Scenic Corridor Zone to provide for the lnclusion of areas other than the Santa Ana Car.~~r, area to eaid zone; nnid amendmenta being aet iorth in F:xhibit "A" att~ch::d to and made a p~rt of Che re~ol.ution. (See Kes~lution Book) On roli cull, Che~ foregoing rea~•~.ution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COA4IISS]:ON~QS: FARANO~ GAUER, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HEItAST NOES: COI~AtISS]:ON~;RS: NONE ABSENT: COt41ISS1.ONERS: JOtIlVSON Commiseioner I'ar+ino clarified that hia "yea" vote on the foregoing resolutiun wea with the exception of. tl~e size of the off-site signs which he felt should be a maxiuwm of 72 square f.eet. AMENDM~NT 'TO TITLE 18, - PllBLIC HEARING. INtTIATED BY THE ANAHCIM CITY PI,APINING COA4~SISSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL GODL' 204 E~st Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805, to con~ider the repeal of exiating SPCtion 18.06.060, Minimum Number and Type of Parking SpacFa - General, and the Addition of a new Section 18.06.060. No one in the audience indicated th~ir presence to speak for or againRt the aub~ect Code Amendment. Althatigt- Che Staff Report to the Planning Commi.ssion dated January 20, 1975. was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Asaoca.ate Planner IIill Young noted that after January 1, 1975, the Environmental Protec~ion Agenc~~ regulations required the review of all proposed non-x'eaidential projects requiring 1~000 ~r more automobile parking spaces, ai-d effective June 30, 1975, review would be re- quired for all non-residential pro~ecta requiring 250 or more parking 3p8ces, and the air quality impact of these facilities would normAlly be evaluated in the Environme~tal Impact Report for the pr~~ect; and that under exiating CiCy ordinances there were no provi~iona Pither requiring ox permitti.ng City Council review or the preparation of an Er_vironmental Impact Report for any proposed non-residential development accommodating 250 or more auto- mobile parking apar_es, if said deveJ.opu~ent was in cumpliance with the Zoning Code and .~c~^°°ification was not requi.red. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC75-17 and moved for its passage and ,sdoption to adopt and recommend to the City Council adoption of Amendment to Title 18, Zoning, Section 18.06.060 as followa (undersc:ored portions are amended): (See Resolution Book) "1$.06.OE~ MINIMUM NU1~ER AND TYPE OF PARKING SPACES. The minimum number of parking spaces pemitted for any land use ahall not be less than the followinq numbera given for the subject uRe~(s), provided that ar,.y non- reaidential facility which requires parking space for 250 or more vehicles shall be subject to the review and approval of the Ctty Council prior to issuance of a Gradin Permit or BuildinB Permit, whichever is required for rhe constructi.on of sur.h facillty. ~ur~her provided that wYiere a combina- tion oE uses ie proposed, the minimum number of spaces provided shall be not less than the aua total of the requirements for each indivtdual type of uae to be eatablished, except ae may otherwise be approved by the City Council." o ~ s MINU'fLB, CITY P]~IINNTNG COMMYSS'ION, JAnunry 20~ 1975 75-39 AI~NUMENT 'lU TiTI.I:_18~ ANAl1EIM MliN1f:IPAI. CODF. (Continuod) On roll ca11~ the torego.ing resolutiun wae paeeed by the following vat9: AYES: C(3MMISSI.ONIsRS: FAM,NO, KING~ MURLEY, TO1.AFt, }iERBST N01'sS: C()1~1ISSTUNI'sRS: NONL ABSNN'f: COhQ1I5S'LONIsttS: cnur:x, JUHNS()N R~CLASSIFZCATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INiTIATE[) UY THE ANNIGIM CITY YLANNING COP4~tISSION. N0. 74-75-20 ?.0~+ Bast Lincoln Avanue~ Annhoim~ Ca. y2805; propoeing ~hnt property -~"`~ r de~-cribed as: An irregularly-ehepvd parcel of land r,onKi.ating of npE,roximately 150 acres l.ocnted on the north eide of Cerritos Avenue, liaving Lrun~ages of approYimatel.y 1400 feeC U~ bukh eidee of Wasser Road, and bei.ng located ~pproxlmtttely 1.92U fee~. ea~t of the cenr~rline of Stato College Boulevard be re~l~esified irom the COUNTY A1 (CCNGItAL AGttiCUL1URAT.) DISTRICT to the RS-A-43~000 (RESI~F.NTIAL/ AGRICULTURAL) 7.~NE. No one indicaCed th~ir prcac.:zcc '_:: ~r~~~ii.i.un co eubjocC petition. Although the Stnf£ Report to Che Planning Commiseion dated .3anuary 2Q~ 1975, was nat raad at the public hearing, it is referred to and made n part of Che minutes. It waK noted th~C the ~~c~poaed r.eclaseif.ication would esCnblish the City of Anal~etm holding z~ne on the subject property pending nppr.oval of a development zone; that the pruposal was in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan; and that the eub~ect property wae currenCly pending annexation to the CiCy of: Araheim under the "Cerritos•-~:asser Annexation." THE PUBI.IC H~ARING WAS CLOSF.D. It wae noted thaC the Director of Development Servicea had determined that the proposed ac~ivtty fell withln the definition of Section 3.01~ Clasa 1 of the City of. Anaheim Guidelines to the RequiremenCs for an Envi.r.anmental Impact ReporC and was. therefore, categorically exempt from the reaulrement to file an EIR. Commiseioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC75-1$ and moved for ita puesage and adopt'on to recommend to T.he C..ty Council approval of Petition for RE~Lassi.ficat~ion No. 74-75-20, sub~ecC Co conditions. (See Reaolution Rook) On roll call, the foregoing resoiution was pasaed by the following vote: AY~S: COhIItISSIONIsRS: FAkANO, 1'~NG, MORLEY, TOLA.R, HERBST NOES: COMMLSSIONERS: NUNE AitSENT: COhII~1ISSI0IvERS: GAUrR, JOHNSON RECLASSIFICAT70N - PUBLIC H~ARING. INI.TIATED BY TH~ ANAHEIM CITY PLE,NNTNG COh41ISSI0ti, N0. 74-75-21 204 Easr. Ltncoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92805; proposing that pioperty ~ described as: An irregularly-shaped purcel of land c~~~aisCi.ng of approximately 150 acres ].ocated on the north side ot Cerr:[tos Avenuc, having frontages of approximately 1400 teet on both sides ef Wasaer Road, and being located approximately 1920 feet east of the centerline of State Co?lege Boulevar.d bc reclassified from the COUNTY A'1 (GENERAL AGRICULTURAL) DISTRI(:T to the hil. (INDIJSTRIAL, LZMIT~D) ZONG. No one indicated their preaence in oppoeition to sub~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Pl.anning Commission daCed January 20, 1975, wa~; not read at the Fublic hearing, it ia referred to and made a part of Che minutes. It was noted that th~ propoaed reclasslfication was in conforcaance wiCh the land use designation of the Anaheim General P1an; and that the sub~ect property was currently pending anr-exation to the City of Annheim under the "Cerritos-Wasser Annexation"; and L•t~at Condition No. 9 as set forth in the Staff Report ahould reflect that "prior ~o the intro- duction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition ~1os. 1, 2 and 8, above- mentioned, shall be compleCed." Commisaioner Tolar offered & motion, aeconded by Gommiseioner K•ing and MOTION CAR1tIED (Commisaioners Gauer and Johnaon being abaent), that the Planning Commission recomraQnde to the City Council that the subject pro~ect be exampt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental lmpact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Envi:enmental Quali.ty Act. Commiseioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC75-19 au3 moved for its paseag~ and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of YeCition for Reclasaification No. 74-75-21~ sub~ect to conditinns. (See Reaolution Book) ~ • ~ MINIJ'['E3. CITY PLANNING COh4lISSION~ Januaxy 20, 1975 1S'39 RECLAS3IhiCATIUN NA. 7G-75-21. (Cunkinued) On rol.l. call~ tha for~going resolukion wne paAeed Ly [iiu f~~llowing v~tu: AYES: CQMMISSIONEFtS: C~ARANO~ KING~ MOKL~Y. TOLAK~ NERB~'l' NOES: COMMISSIONERS. NONF. A13Sk:NT: COlR~fISSION~RS: (:AUER, JOIiNSUN ENVIRONMENI'AI. zMPAC'I' - DEVF.LOPER: MARK IIL HOMRS, 202 Faehion Lane~ Sui.te 102, 'fustin~ RGPORT N0~ 139 Ce. 92680. EsIJGIN~ER: ANACAL ~NGINEL~RING COMPANY, P. 0. Box 3666~ ~` ~ Anu}ieim, Ca. 92803. Sub~ect prGperty, ~oneieting of approximately TENTATIVE MAPS GF 22 ncres locai;ed bekween F,epnYaqz~a Road und Lr~ Pnlmn Aven~.+E, T[2AC'f NdS. 8831. extending approximakely 3400 feet eaeterly of I~'ainoont Boulevard, AND 8832 ia proposed for suUdi.vieion ue follows; ' ~ Tract No. 8831 - 76 RS-5000 lote Tract No. 8837. - 37 RS-S000 lote No oue indicated their presenae in on~oeition to the subject matters. Although the Staff Report Co the Planning C~mmiesion dated January 20~ 1975~ was not r.ead at the meeting~ it is referred to and made a part uf tl;e n.inutes. Mr. Cal Queyrnl of Anacal Engineering Company, appeared befare the Pla-ir~ing Commi.~eion r~presenCing the developer and stated the develuper was in ugreement with ChE recommenda- tions outlined in the Sraff Rep~rt, and that the lo: area requiremente of the RS-5000 Zone would be complied with throughout the develepment. Regarding the eauc-d-~ttenuation wall required adjac:ent to Ct~a rai.lroa~l Crack~, he atated a berm was a better device and they were hoping to abtain an encroachment permi.t frou- the railroad to locate a porCion af the eart}~en berm in the railroad right-of-way. C01~1ISSIONER GAUGR ~NTERED THT hLEETING AT 2:~0 P.M. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Planning Commission entered into discussion regarding the proposed berm and 6-foot high block wall, duriiig which Mr. Queyrel C18'_'{ F~ ~3 tha~ i.i~e railroad required a t.otal dedication of 50 feet for right-of-way; that khe propo~ed wall would Ue located 50 feet from the railr~acl track; that the railroad ahould be reE3ponsible to maintain the property on Che right-o£-way aide of tl-.~ proposed wall, and the property owners in the tract sh• ~1d maintain khe other side; that the berm would n~C crer~te slide conditiona; and that since the dEVeloper woul.d be dedicating 50 feet to Che raiiroad, the railroad should be willing to give an eiicroachment permit fnr one-hstf of the berm. Zaning Supervisor Charles Roberts inquired if when the berm, ao pr~~poaed, was in place, would the net flat area of the loes etil~ comply wity the minimum 5000-equare foot require- ment, and Mr. Queyrel indicated in tiie affirmative. Commisaioner Morley off~red a motlon, seconded by Commiesioner KinB ~11d MOTI.ON CARRIGD (Commiesioner Johneon being absent), that Environmental Impact Report No. 139, having been conaidered th{s date by the City Planning Commiasion and evidence, both wr.iCten and oral (including a letter dated January 15, 1975 from the Santa Ana River/Sankiago Creek Green- 5e1C ~ommission), having been presented to supplement esid draft EIR No. 139, the City Planning Commisaion believea that said draft of EIR No. 139 does conform to the City and Stal-e Guidelines and the ~tate of Calif.ornia Environmental Quality Act, and based upon such information does hereby recommend to the City Council that they certify naid EIR is in cumpliance with said Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Itoberta roted that a condition tor b~th tracts was inadvertently omitted from the Staff Report as follows: "That pzior Co approval of the final Cract map, the petitionec shall submit final aite plana, flaor plans and elevatious to the City Council fer approval; said plana to indicate khe sound-attenuaCian devicea proposed to reduce the noiae level generated by railroad traffic to 65 dbA in the resr yards of Che lota ad~acent to the railroad and to 45 dbA inai~ie the hrnnes (with windows and doors cloaed) on theae lots; and said plana ahall be certified by a recognized acoustical expert atipulating that the propoaed sound-atCenuation measures wiii achieve the levels stated above." Commissioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commiaeioner King and M~TION CARRIED (Commiasioner Johnson being absent), that Tentative Mn~ of Tract No. 8831 be and hereby is approved~ subject to thc £ollowing condition~: . ~ ~ MINllTE5~ CITY PIANNING CUMMT5SION, January 20~ 1975 75-40 LNVIItOiJMENTAL LMPACT R1:YORT NC~,l3Q ANU TGNTATIVG MAP OF' 'PRACT NOS._883] ANA 88_32 (Continued) (1) 1'hat Aliou.lcl thie subdlvieion be developed ae morN Chan nne subdiviaion, euch Aubdivieion tlti~~reof aha11 be eubmitted in tet~Cative furm for approval. (2) That nll l.ote within th1.a tract ehall be aerved by --nderground utillties. (3) Thnt prior to approvnl. uf the final trnct mnp~ the petil•ioner ehall Nubmit final aite pl~ne, floor plnne und elevattone to Ch~ City Councll. for approvnl; eaia plane tu indicxte Che sound-attenuation devices proposed to ceduce tl~e noiae leve2. gener,~ted by rrtilroad traftic to 65 dbA in lhe rear ynrde o° the lots ad~a^ent to thc railroad nnd to k5 dbA in~ide the h~mes (with windowe And doore c:loAed) on thef,e l~ts; end 3aid plana ahall be certified by a recAgnized acouati- cal c~xpert atipulating tt~at ttie propo9ed bound-attenuntlon meaeures will a~:hieve the levels stuled above. (1~) Thzt n fi.nel. trAct map of hub~ect property shall be submitted to Kr~d approved hy the Cit,y Council ~nd th~n be recorded ln the office of. tlie Orange County Recorder. (5) Tltat any proposed covensnCe, conditiona and restrictione ~hall be uubmitted to and approved by the City AttorneY's Office prior to CiCy Council appr.~val oF the final tract mup, urid, furCher, that t.lie approved covenanks, conditiona and reatricti.~na ahall be recorded concurrently with ttie final trnct a~ap. (6) Tt~at prior to filing the finnl tract map, the npplicant shall submic Co ths Gity Attorney for approval or dettial a complete synopsis uf the nroposed funcCioning of the operating corporati~~n including, but not Limited to, Che ~rticles of in~orporation, Uylaws, pruposed methuda of manAgement, bonding to icieure main- tenance of comrron property und buildinge and auch oCher informatian as the City Attorney may deaire to nrotect the City, ite c~.tizena, and the purchasers o£ tbe project. (7) That the owner(s) of sub~ect property shall pay Co the City of Anal~elm the appr.opriatP park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropri.ate by the City Councll, said fees ro be paid aC the time the buil.dir~g permi.C is iesued. (S) ThaC in accordance with CiCy Council policy, a eix-foot maRnnry wall shall Se cunstruc~ed on the aouth property line aepararing Lot Nos. 1 through 11 and La Palma Avenue. Reueonable landscaping, including irrigation facili.ties, ahall Ue iuaealled in the uncemanted po'rtion of the arterial highway parktaay the full dlstar~ce of said wall~ plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and suS~ect ro the a~proval of the Superintendant of Park.way Maintenance; and following inetallation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim ehall asnume the responaibility for maintenance of saici landscaping. (9j That etrEet names sha11 be approved by the City of Anaheim prior. to approval of a flnal tract map. (10) Thflt drainage of said property at-all be disposed of in a manner satis£actory to the City Engineer, If, in the pieparation of. the cite sufficient gra3i.ng is required to necessitate a grading permit, uo work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required otf-site drainage facili- ti.es have been installed and are operative. Poaitiv~ assurance shall be provided the. C{..ty that sucti drainage faci"lities will be c~mpleted pri.or to October 15th. Necessary right-of-kay for uff-site drsinage f.acilitiea ahall be dedicated to the City, or the City Gouac~l ahall have initiaCed condemnation proceedings therefor (the co~ts of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operaCions. The r°qui.red drainage facilitiea .hall be of a aize and type suffl.cient to carry runoPf waters ori~inating from higher propE~rties through said propErty to ultimate disposal as approved by the City ~ngineer. Said draina3e fac~lities shall be the first iCem of construction and shall be compleCed and be fu~tctiunal throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of t~~e Property to the ultimate point of diaposal prior to the issuance of any final building insper_~iuns or occupancy p~rmits. Drainage distt:et reimbursement agreements may be made a~ailable to the develnpera of esid proper.Cy upon thEir requeat. (11) Thgt gradii~g, excavatiun and all other constriiction activitiea shall be conduc~ed in such a manner ao as to mini~-~ze the possibility of any silt origlnating frnm thia pro~ect being carried into Lhe Santa Ana River. by storm water originating from or flowing througt~ thia project. (12) That the developer ahall obt8in from t:~e Orange Countv Flood Control District a favorable flood hazard letter. acceptable to t:~e City of Anaheim. ~ o • MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIN(: COMMISSION, January 20~ 1975 75-4] ENVIR~)NMGNTAl. IMPACT R~PGRT NG~,139 AND TENTATIV~ MAY OF 'PRAC'C_NOB. 8A31 ANl) 8832 (Conti.nuadl V (13) 'Thnt tlio Ali.gnme:nt nnd ter~ninal pU~.l1C of storm draine ehown or~ l•hia tentutlve trnct map ehall noC h~ coneide:ed final. Thec~e draine 3ha1'1 be sub~ect to precise design considere~ti.one and approval af: khe City Lr-ginaer. (14) If permunent eCreet nnmc~ aigne have not been inetallNd~ tempornry etreet iiau-e signs ahull be lnetalled prior to uny occu~nncy. (15) 'Th+it exieting water wellr~ Fnall be ubundoned in accocdance with ~he City ok Aiiaheim Municipul Code. (].6) Th~t the sCr~rm druin easemente ehown on Lot Nas. 1. 10 and 11 sha.~~ eH~:h Le entirely within one loc. Commia~+tun~~r Dtorley offered a mokion, secondud by Commissloner King and MOTION CARRICb (Coannisaioner .:fohnsun being absen[), that Tentative Map o£ Traci. No. 8832 be and hereby is approved, subJect tu t'ne followiug conditione: (1) That should tYiis subdivieion be developed a& more than one subdtvie~on. each subdivieion thereof shall be a~~1~miCted in tentarive form for approval. (2) Ttiat all lots within thie tract ahall be served by undergruund uCillties. (3) That prior Co upproval of the `inal tr.a~t map, the oetitiuner ehall submit ~inal eite plano, floor p.irsna nnd el.~ vatinna to the Citv Cout~cil £or approval; eaid ~LII~18 to indicate the AOUil(1-3tC~nuation devicea proposed to reduce the noise level generated by r.ailroad tr2'~i.c to 65 dbA in the rear yards of the lota adJacent to the railroaa and to 45 dbA inside the homes (with windowe And doors closedj on these lots; and said ~lai-s shaL]. be certified by n recagnized 8CUU9t~^ cal eapert etipulating that. the ~r~posed sound-att~nuation measures will acliieve the levels o-~~'ated above. (4) That a final tract mnp of ~ub~ect property ahall be aubmitted to and apFrnved t+y tlie City Councfi and then be recordeJ in the office of r_he Orange C~unCy RPCOrder. (5) That any propoaed covenanta, conditions and restrictionr~ ~hall. be sub~itted to and approved by the City Attorney's Ofiice prior to City Council approvaL of . the £i.nal tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions and restrletions sha11 be recorded concurrently with the final tract map• (6~ That prior to filing the final Cract map. the applic::nt shall submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a camplete syucpsis of the proposed funct.fonl.ng of the operating corporation including, but n~~r limited to, the articles of i.ncorpor3tion, bylaws, proposed methoda of. managewenk, banding to ineure mainC- enance of common property and buildings and ;~uch othEr inf~rmxtion as the City Attorney may de~i~~e *.o protect the Cityy itc~ citizens, axld Che purchasers of rhe pro,j ect. (7) That the ownPr(s) of sub~ect property ahalJ. pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation iri-lieu fees as determir.ed to be appropriat~.`~y the City Council, said fePs to be paid at th~ time the building permit is ibsu?d. (8) Thr~t in accor.dance with City Council policy, a six-foot ma~anry wall shall be constructed on the south property line aeparating Lot Nos. 31 through 37 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, inr.luding irr.igation facilieies, shall be installed in the uncemented oortton oi the arter~al highway parkway the full dietance of said wa11, plans for said landscapj.ng to be aubmitted to and aubjece to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance; and following installation and acceptance, the City of nnaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of eald landscaping• (9) That strPet names ,~hall be approved by the City of Anahe{m prior ~o approval of a final tract map. (J.0) 'That dx'ainage of said praperty shall be disposed of in a manner satiafactory to the City Engineer. Lf, ici the preparatian of the site sufficient gtnding ie required to neceasitate P. grading permit, no work on grading will be p~rmitted betweNn October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site Irainage :acili- Ciea have been inatalled and are operative. Yositive aeaurance shall be provided tl:p City thaC auch drainan~ faciliCies will be completed prior Co OctuUer ].5th. Necesaary ri.ght-of-way fox off-site drainage facilitiea ahall be dedicaCed to the City, or Ch~ City ;ouncil ahall have initiated condemnaCion proceedings therefor (the coats of whir.h shall be botne by the devel!rper) prior to the commencemenC of gYading oper~tione. The required drainage facilitiea shall be o~ a a~ze an1 type aufficient to carry runoff watere originatinK from higher ~ ~ ~ ~ MINU7'LS, L'['fY PI..ANNINC CQAC1iS~I0N, Jnnunry 2U~ 1975 75-42 i~;NV[RUNMANTAL IMl'AC1 RI3PUR'C NU. 139.ANU 'fF.NTA'fiVE MAP OF 'I'[tAC'I' NO5. E3fi31 ANU 8832 (Continued; propu.tiee thr~.iugh ea+.d property to ult.imate dlapoeal as approved hy the Ci.ty ?nglneer. 5raid dr.ainage fncLlitiea etiull be the fi~c+~ itam of conetrucClon end ;~uil be complated nnd be funcCional throu~houl r!~e tract +ind from the downetream .~oundary of Che prorc+rr.y ~o thu ultimutr~ point ~f aior~~:+A1 prior to tha Lseuance of uny f4nn1 building inspectior~a or occupanry per:nite. Drainage. distrLct reimbursement agreemenCe may bu mdde avaitaUle to the developare of enid property upon thelr requ.:gr.. (11, 'fl~ut gr~ding, excilvation nnd all ot`~,.: ~:oneCr~~cti.on activitle~i shull be conducCed in nuch f. ~~nne~ sa as to minimi.ze tt~e r~oeaibi.lity of c-ny eilt orlginating from thie project. b~~i.ng car~~ied into tbe Snn~n Anu River b,y stc>rm water oi~ginating ir.om or [lowing lhrough ~~iia pro~ect. (12) ThaC the developer ahu11 obtain fram the Orange County F~ood Control Dietrict a favorablc fJ.ood hr~zard letter, acceptable to the c~.ty of Anaheim. (i3) TliuC the al.ignmer-t nnd Cerminnl point of storm drains 9hown on thte tentative tc~cC m~-p shall not be C(11RH~(j.^.red final. These draiii~ ah~il be subject ta pr~c:ise ctesign coneiderar.ione and approvsl uf ttie City Cc~giticcr. (14) iE permanent etr.eeC name eigns have not been installed~ tempor,iry Rtreet name aigns shal:l. be inslzlLect F~riar to uny occupancy. (15) Thn~ the ~torm drain easement Qhu on Lot 37 ehall be all. within one lot. CONDITI.O,IAL USE - pUBLIC HEARING. WILLIMt S. AND CAR01~ P. HARVEY~ 26385 Maccome Dri.ve, PERt4IT N~. 1512 Missi~n Vie~o~ Ca. 92G75 (Owners) ; LOU' S G. KEI.LY, Ace Firaworke Company, Inr.,, 2025 Ceder Avanue, 1i2, Long Deach, Ca. 9080b (Agent); req«esting permiRSi~n for the STURAGE OF FIREWORKS on property described ae; An irregularly-enaped parcel of lend consieting of a~~proxima*ely U.3~ acr.e having n frontage uf nppro;~imately 84 fe~t on Che northweat side of Fountain Wa,~, havi.ng a maximuui depth of approximate.ly 175 feet, and being located npproximately 1180 feet i~orth of the centerline of: La ?alma Avencc. Ptoperty presently class!fied I+II. (INDUSTRTAL, LIMIT1sD) ZO1VG. It was nuCed th~t the petitlone: wue requesting a conCinuance to the meeting of February 3, 1975 in order to reaolve Froblewe in connec*ton with hie petiCion. Mr. Herbert M,yers, 11.81 Nnrth Fount.lin Way~ Maheim~ appeared before the ~'lanning Co-nmission in opposi~ion and stated he owned property adjacent to the subject property and that Che property owners in the area had been given only a week'r~ tlm~ to build their opposition, whereas the peCitioner. had ~ue~ given a•~onth to prepare his case; and khat Che opposition had worked feverishly to try ..~ prevent thp subject propet•ty from Ue~ng uaed ae a warehouse for f ireworks. ~hair.msn Nerbst noted for the opposition that when a coiitinuance ~~as requested by a petitioner in order Co resolve problems wlth the various City departments, ~he Ptanning Commission ustzally tionored thac req~~est; that the petitioner wa3 not ~rF3ent an.d, therefore, ttie pub: ic hearing c~uld not be '~ d; t~owever, if there were persons present who llved a long di.atance away, the Plannin~ (;o+nmisaion would hear. them ae this meeting. In response, Mr. Myera stated he had gathered petitions signed by approximatelv 61 persona in oppoaition, and he requested that aaid petiiions oe considered at the public hearing. Mx. Myera then presenr_ed suic' getitions to the Planning CommiASion Secretary. Commf~sioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner hfnrley and MOTION CARRIL'D {Commiesioners Gauer an.d Johnson being abaent), to postpone the public hear9ng aud consid- eration of Petltion for Conditional Uoe Permit No. 1512 Co the meeting uf February 3, 1975, as requesCed by the petitionar. (This item was considered at the beginning of the meeting. ) ~ ~ ~ ~ MTNUTI:S, CL'CY PI.ANNING COMMISSION. .Janunry 20, 1.975 75-43 VARIANCE N0. 26G~ - PUB(.IC HF.ARING. MARTUN c:ART1,R, 337 Calle EQlicidud, Snn C1emQnto, Ca. ~~ 92b7'l (Cwner) ; Al. WEINt~R, Hu6 South Hnrbor Boa~l.evard ~ Anaheim, Cn. Q2f305 (Agunt); ruquQeting WAt.VGR UF (A) PGItMI'l'7'ED SICNINC /WD (B) PERMITTGD 1-SNS, 'f0 BSTAl31.ISH A MODELING ACI:NCY on property deecribed nd: A rectangularly-Hhnped pArCel af land cc~neieti.ng nf npproximc~teJ.y 5800 Aquare feet hoving r~ frontoge nf apprr,x!.maCnly 62 fcet on tl~e eaHt elde c~f Hnrbor Boulc~v~.rd, having a mar.imum depch of approxlmatoly 93 feer_, niid being locdtc~d appcuxlmately 150 teet north of thQ cwnterli.ne ot HampRhire Avenua. F'roperty proeentl.y cleE~eified CC (C04Q~tERCIAL, OFFICE ANA PROI~ESSTONAL) 7.ONF.. No orie indicnted thcir prneQn~e in apposition to eub~e~t petition. Although the Stnff. R~~ort to tho Pl.anning Commi.esion dnted ,tanuury 20~ 1975~ wae noC rc~ad at [h~ publlc he~ring, it is referred tu and made ~ part of tti~ minutee. Mre. Mariun Cartnr, ~he propsrty ~~wnar. appeured before lhe Planning CommisAiun ;lnd noted chnt stie was nor uwnre of the zoning on the sub~ect pr~per~y; thAt the property woa reAi- denti.al wlien ahe purcl~neecl it 1n 1y66; and tha~ she was r.equeHti.ng th~t the acceao rights from Narbor Boulevard be renew~d. AaeleCnnt Zoning Superv~ls~r Mniku Santalat~ri noted f.or the Plnnning Commieaion Chnt ReclaeHif.ication No, 65-66-63(2) was appruved with n conditio~i Chat v~hictilar access ri.gtite from Nar.bor Baulevard be declicated t~~ the Cf.ty; however, temporary accesa woN granl•ed and expired May 24, 1972, +~nd the Commieeion may wish to recommend to the City Council that ~ c~~ntinuation of the temporury accesa z.ghts to Harbor Boulevnrd be granted until such time as adjncEnt parcelo were zoned CO and an alternaCe method of accesa eeta.b- lish~d to eerve ull. of the luta on the east eide of Harbor Boulevard. 7.oning Supervisor Chr+t~lea Roberts noted that the Area Development Plan cons~.dered for tY~e sub,iece rsren indic~ted that if the adjucent pro~,ert~les developed c.ommercially there shuuld be +~n alley system or somf~ typc of secr~ndnry tiCC08A eolution; that realizing all of the propertiex would proUably not develop ut the snme tlme, the CiCy Council had rel.ieved tY~e accesa problem for the aub~ect property on a temporary basis anc' it would be up to the City Council to grant conti.nued vehicular accesa from Harbor Boule~ard. He further nottd that the proposed modeling studio use was not a permi.tCed uae to be made of a converted te3idence in the CO 7.onp. T.n respons~e to quesCioning by Chnirman Herbat. Mrs. Carter stated tY~e modeling agency had been in operation at the sub~ect location since August 1974 and ehe ha~l been L•hare occasion- ally. Tliereupon, Cl~airman HerbsC read from a c~ewspaper advertisement for lhe sub~ec:t establishment iiidicating that the ~ztudl.o ofPer.ed free R-rated moviea with every session and made home and office cnlls. In respor~se, Mr. A.l Weiner, the operntor ~it the 3ubject establiahment, appeared beforc l:a Commiasion and atated they speciali.z~d in nude and figure modeling tor the benefit af amateur photographers; that ~hey were one of a number of modeling agencies in the Cit~; that when they applied for a businesa license ~t wgs tu operate a modeling agency; thAt the license was iasued and they rhought they were wiehin the zoning laws of the City; that at t~ie tlme he applied for. Che bus:iness license he received the zonii~g clearance and began the operation in August 19i4; tha: the bulk of the buainess was atudio work; that regarding the X-rated moviea they had talked wirh the Anaheim Police Departm~nt who indicated it was perfectly legal; that tbey wanted to co- operar.e with the Police Department; and that they did co~n~:rcial modeling, the butk of wt~ich was figure modelin~. Ir. response to quesrinning by Co~missioner Morley, Mr. Weiner stated th~ tranaportatio~i they o.ffered wa~ to de].iver the models. In response to quentioning by Comraissi.on~r 'Po1ar, Mr. Weiner atated that accordin~ to his attorne~, they were s modeling agency. Mr. Weiner furkher stated thar Lhe subject location was thei.r only loc~tion, howev~r, they were anticipating a l~cation in the Valley; that everything they did was related to modeling and the X-rated movies were a promotional. ~immick that aFpeared to be working for them. In response ~o questioning by Commiseioner Kin~, Mr. Weiner atated they had Cwo parking spaces in £ront of the huild~ng and about six spaces in thE back, and that thPy had not had more thnn eight customers at ~ne time. In responae to queationin~a by the Plannin~ Commisaion, Mr. Roberte noted that the Anaheim Municipal Code did not have a defini.tion for a modeling agency; that the Code enumerated agencies and such other oEfice-type uaes as permitted in the CO 7.one end thoee usea were ~ ~ s MINUTES. CITY PLANNINC COIM1IStiI0N, Jemiary 20, 1975 75••G•'~ VARI_ANCG NU. 2663 (Cont.i.nued) diatinguished frun etudi~r~ whic:h were permitted !n the CL 7vnP, that u ekudio on the premises w~uld nok be conaidared an oifice-type use; thut it modole wore trained on the preml~es, they would not be coneidared un office-type aYOe buC would be a modoling echool; and khat the proposel wuuld piobably Eoll wikhi•a the "eCc," area of parmitted ueeA in Chcs CL Zone. Mr. Weiner tlien etated they had coneiderabl~ cAtle for modele ~ and SOX oE their Lu~inosR wae aCudio nnd 50X wae agency; nnd r.haC hls licenee etated modeJ.ing etudi.o. Commis::i.oner rarano nuted t~nC the Licenea did not give the appropriate coning for tha applicution; ttiat ho quoeti:,n::d whether the license was actually cleare;d for Che purpoae betn~ repreoented; and Lh+~t c~ccording kc~ Staff the 1i~tenC of the license was for a mudel- ing ~xgency. In response to questioning by Commiesioner King~ Mrs. Cnrter st&r9d ahe hnd not eeen snything wronA +~l the aub~ect eslabliahment and ehe hnd been the~e man,y limos; l•hat Mr. ~~iner. rented severnl roome and ahe wanted him ae a tennnt; tt-at the business meant a great deal to Mr. Weiner and to her, end Mr. Weiner would eurely co;~perate in any wuy. Mr. Roberts nnted from Chp buainese license ~spplication pteviously filed by Mr. Weiner that there apparently were aome mlaunderstandinge ae to exactly w' at the npp.licant wae propoaing ae Che usa but~ neverthelese. Che uae wae in violation of rhe Zoning Code; and that the matter was brougliC to the atCentlan of ttie Zoning 111vision upon a cAmplaint from a neighbur as to the legitimacy of the use. Mr. We iner stated he hnd never indic~-ted to anvone thaL he would Ue operal•ing auything other tt~an a modeling etudio and tt~at tie had buil~ up a valiiable businesa and removing iC from the subject locarion would Ue very costly to him. Mis~ Santalal~tl not~~d thut Staf f had checked witti the zoning representati.ve who signe~ off. the zoning cle~trance for the bueiness l.icense and the zoning representati.ve zecnlled the application and tt~at the uae was to be an tigency and offir.e-type function. THE PUELTC HEAkING WAS CLOSL'D. It wae noted that lhe Directur of Development Services had determined that the proposed activity fell within the definition of Section 3.01., Clasa 1 of the City of Anaheim Gulde- linea to the RpquiremenCS for an ~nvironmental Impac t Report and waa, thereFOre, c:ategori- ca11y exempt frAm the requirement t~ file an EIR. Commissioner Morley offere.d Regolution No. PC7S-20 and moved for its paseage and aduption to deny Petition fur Vari.ar~ce No. 2663 on the basis that the peti.tioner indicated the e:xisting uae was for u madeling agency and atudio, and aaid use is not permitted ln the CO Zone. (See nasolution Book) On roll call, chP lureg~ing res~lution was passed by Che following voCe: AYES: CUA'Q~IISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUcFt, KIIvG, MORLFY , TOLAR, HEREST NOES: COt~ASISSi0NFR5: c~UNE ABSEI3'^ ; CONQSISSIONERS: JOHNSON Commiasioner Morley offered a motion~ aec~nded by Comniasioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioner Jehneon being absent), to recommend to the City Council that an additional period af ~ime be granted for Cemporary accesa to Harbor Boulevard for the oubject property ,~,~~il such time as ad~acenL parcels aze zoned CO and an alternate method of access estab- 1lshed tc aerve all the lots on the eaet aide of Harbor Boulevard, said extenaioc~ to be ra,:roac:ive to May 24, 1972 and to expire May 24, 1978. U ~ ~ ~ MINUTES ~ CITY PL.ANNINC COFQIISSION ~ Januar~ 20. 1975 75~45 VARIANCE N0, 2666 - PUBLIC IIEAIiING, TNOMA5 ANU ltL~RMINUA K, CA3TR0. 1202 pevonehire Road~ ~ A~nhaim~ Cn, a18Q1 (Ownera); requar~ting WAIV~R UF MAXTMUM F'BNCE liL~ICHT 10 PERMT.T AN ~XISTING FENCE on properky described as: A rectengulerly~ et-apeJ parcul o£ ls-id coneieting of approxi.:.ately 640U nquere fe.et located at tha eouthwoet carner of UovanHhire Road and GilburC SCre~et, havin~ approximaCe frontagoe of 61 feel on the soueh aide of llevonehira Road and 105 feet on tne wQet si.de of GiLbert Street. ProperCy ~reaently r_lasaii• iQd RS-7200 (RES"iD[~NTI.AL, SING1.E-kAMILY) ZONE. (Thie ltem wae considered folluwing th~ 4:00 p.m. receea.) Nu one indi.cated their preaenca in oppoeiCivn. Although the ~taff Repor~t Co the Ylanning ~:ommi~sion dated .lanuary 20, 19%5, was r~oC read nt tt-e public t~earing~ it ia raterred to ~nd ~nude a part ot l•he minu:es. It was noted that the paCitioner was nut pre~ent~ and Commissioner King requ~!cted that tt~e sub~ect petiti.on bc coneidered on 4he baeis thak hP actd Comwissionere Morloy end Tolar had viewed the sub~ect property in the f.leld and Che fance, ae constructed, added beauty and value to the aub.j ect pro~~erty~ that lhe property ehowed pride of o~~nership, and th~t the proporty ownera immeciiately ~d~acent to Che sub~ect propexty hed andorsed the suujeck petition i.n £avor ~f it. THE PI)BLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEA. It was noted thut the Director of Development Services hud deCermined that the proposed acCivity fell within the deflnition of Section 3.Q1, Claoa 3 of the City of Maheim Guidelines to the R~qulremPnts for an Fnvironmental Impact Report and was, therefore, c8tegorically exP~-pr £rom the requirement to file an EIR. Commisaioner King of fered Resolutiun No. PC75-2t and moved for ita passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2666 on the basie of th~ f~x~g~ii~g findings. aubJect to the condition that tl~e sub3ect prtoperty ahall be dPVelopsd subatantia~ly in accordance with plana and apecifications on file with tbe. City of Maheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1~ 2 and 3~ and that tha exi:3ti.ng alumpstone and wrought iron fence shall be b.~~ught up to the minimwn atr~ndards of the Ci.ty of Anaheim Uniform Building Code, ae adapted by the City of Anaheim, prior to final building and zoning inapectiona or withfn a period of 90 deys from date hereof, whichever occura firat, (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing rea~lution was passed by che fol~owing vote: AYES: CONQdISSION~RS: FARANQ, GAUER, 1CING~ MORLEY, TOI~AR, HE[tBST NOES: COI~tISSION~RS: NONE ABSEN'?' : COMMI SS IONERS : JOHNSON VAI:IANCE N0. 2667 - Pl1BLIC HEARING. CARL N. KARCHER~ TRUSTEE, P. 0. Box 4349, Anaheim, Ca. 92803 (Owner); requesting WAIVER OF ItEQUIREMENT THAT ALL, LOTS r+AUT A PUBLIC STREET, TO ESTABLISH A LO'f WITHOUT FRONTAGE OtI A PUBI.IC STREET on property describad as: M irregularly-shaned parcel of land consistir.g of approxi.mately 2~3 acrea having a frontage of apptoxi~ately 231 fept un the norr.h eide of Romneya llrive, having a maximum depth of uFproximef.ely 470 feet, and bein,; located approxim~tely 280 feet east of the centerli.ne of Harbor Boulevard. ProperCy prea~antly claesified ML (:NDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. No one indicated their presence in opposition to sub~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Pl,.nning Commisaion dated January 20, 1975, was noC read at the public hesring, it is ref~rred to and made a part of the minur_es. Mr. Dav~ Garrison. 1200 North Harbor Boulevard~ representing the property owner. appEared bafore the Planniilg Cot~anisei.un and stated, in hia opinion, that the variance requested wae technical; that the sub~ect prc~pecty was proposed for divieion into *.wo parcele wlth Parcel No. 2 b~ing s reaidual pnrcel which would have acceas to Romneyu Drive through a proposed 12-foot eaaement; that no development was presently propo~ed for ParceZ No. 2 and :.hat narcel wou13 eventually bc~come a portion of a~nothec development that would be eerved through e private accese road either ~r~m Lemon Street or Harbor Boulevard, however~ any ~lans far development of Parcel No. 2 wese not being made public ~st the presenC time, ~ ~J MtNLITLS~ CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSIUN~ January 20, 1975 VARIMICF. N0. 266~ (Conti~luad) 'CHE PUIiL~(: HEARIN(; WAS CLOSED. w ~ 75-4G Ch4lrman Herb~C mAd~ an ~heerv+ition t1~ut the proporty owner would be ueinq ull of Pnrcel No. 1 for I~te new offlco fnc.Llltiee for Kgrcher Cnterprisea and that the roquest wac~ tc make tl~~ emUllar par~~el. legul by huvl.nR eccues Chrough khe propoeed 12-foot saeament. In rseponc~e to queationing by Commis~ioner Morley, Mr. Garrison etn•~~d approval of the sub~ect petitlun was needed at the pra~ent l•ime for title clearance. Chu:rmcir. Nesl~st t~hen noted lhat n 12-foot easement to a par.cel of induetrial peaperty was not adequate Eor RCCQ88~ and Mr. Garrir ~n etated there ware nu plane presently for devel- opmenC. of P~rcel No. 2 that wauld requiro th r!t be served by the 12-fout Pasement, however, the eaeement would provi.de evldence that Che propecty wae not landlocked. in re~ponse to questioning by Chairmen Herbet~ OfFice Engineer Jay Tltus aduised that normel acceHe hnci been conaider~:d to bs a m'lnimum of 20 faet to pxovide for two-way traffic and 20 feot would be sinimum for trash trucks also. Mr. Garrieon then etip-ilated that a 24-fooC acceae would be tuken along Parcel No. 2 and :l2 feeC along Percel. No. 1, and that C~ provide for the full. 20-foot minimwe accesR would req«!re snother property owner to give the additior.al 8 feet. Tt~e Planning Commiseion entered into diACU~aion regarding Che appropriate mannar in which to condition appraval o.f the sub~ecC variance and Deputy City Attorney Fraiik Lowry adviaed th~t an easement agreemen t~ approved by thc~ Ci.ty Attorney's Office, could be entered into and recorded curicurrently with the aubject parcel map ao that the mal•ter would be reflected on ~he title for the sub~ ect property and whun Pr~rcel No. 2 wn~ developed, a total of 20 feet would have to be pruvided for ingresa anc~ egreas to said parcel fo~- a p~.~lic atreat, and Mr. Garrison ao eCipu lated. It was noted that Che Dir ec•tor. of Development Services had determined that Che propoeed activity fell within the d~Finition of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the hequirewenta for an Envircnme~~ral Impact Repnrt and was, therefore, categoric~lly exempr. from the requirsment to fi.le an E1R. Commissioner Morley offered Resolution No. PC7S-22 and moved for ite paysage and adoption, that Petition for Variance No. 2667 be and hereb.y ia granted, waiving Ctie requiremeiit that ali lota abut a public street sub~ect to recordaCion of a document stipulating that when parcel t~o. 2 is developed, a 20-foot wide access easement or [he equivalEnt shall be ~,rovided to Parcel No. 2 acrosa ad~acent proper,.iea to a public aCreet, ae stipulated to by the petitioner; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call. the forego ing reaolution was paesed by the foll~wing voCe: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, KIN~, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: COt~1ISSI0NERS: NONE ABSENT: COt~fISSIONERS: JOHNSON RECESS - Chairman Harbst declar~d a r~ecesa at 4:00 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Herbet reconvened the meeting at 4:10 p.m., Commissioner Johnaon ~ being ab sent. RE~'OR'rS AND - ITEM I~O. 1 REC01~'II+(GNDATICNS V?,RIANCE N0. 2593 - Requeet for exteneion of time - Pro perty locaced on *' : north aide of Romneya Drive, app roximately 265 feel• eaet of the centerlin~ of Dresden place~ snd fu:ther described as 1507 Weat Romneya Drive. The S:aff ReporC to the Planning Commis~ion dated January 2Q, 1975, was presented and made a part of the oinutes. It wae noted _nat on April 29, 1974, the Planning Commiasian granted Variance No. 2593 to convert a two-car garage lnko additional living area~ fnr a period ui five ,yeara eub~ect to review and Foseible extension, an8 aubject ta the condittun that within 180 days the ~ ~ ~ MINU'1'~:5~ CITY PI,ANN[NC i:OMMISSION, J+~nuary 20, 1975 75-47 I'PEM N0. 1 (Cuntlnued) "exiating etruaturc~ sha11 bc~ brouql~t up to the minimum standardp of tho Ciky of An~haim ~ncluding the Unif.orm Building, Plumbing~ Electricnl~ Houeing, Mechani.ciil~ and Flre Codes ae adoptc~d by lhe Ci.ty of Anaheim"; and that l•he applicant wne requesting a]80-dny extenalon of r.im~ fo: compl.i~nce wiCh the con3ltione of apprav~l~ eince the prop~rty wae rucently pl~ceci an eala end~ during t'~~e interim, the garage conversion would be eiChar reatored to ttie orlglnal condition or Che condiCions of the variunce would bs eatiefl.ed. Commieaioner Ki~ig offered a motion. aecpnded by Cummisaioner Morl.ezy and MOTIUN CAItRILD (CommiH~ioner Johnaon being a'~eznt), that an exteneion of time be and hAr~by ie granted for Variance No. 2593. eaid exteneic~n af time Lo be retroactive to Uctobar ?4, 1974, and to expire on October 'l9~ 1!'75. tor completion of the conditione of approva'l. I'f. EM NO . 2 l)RI~NGE COUtI'TY USE PERMIT N0. 3580 - P*_'oposed expaneion of a commercia.t etable - Property coneieting of. approximutaly 10.6 acrea located approximately 1600 feet aouth of Aall [tond, ad,~acent to the Orange H'ceewuy on the west, the Orange County Flood ::ontrol levee to the east~ and the Southern Pacific Railroad ta the south. 7.oning Supervisor Charles Roberts rend the Staff Report Co the Flanning Commission dated January 20~ :19i5, and said Staff Report ic~ referred to ao if Net forth in full in the minute~. Mr. Roberta noted thxt public notice had br_en received regarding n public hearing to be held by L•f~e Ur~nge Cou~ity Plnnning Commisaion on .January 27, ].915, to consider Use Permit No. 3580 to permit tlie expunsion of an exieting commercial. stable to accommod~,te a maximum of 250 horses; tY~at the existing stable was eakabliehed under auth~rity of Orange County Use Permit No. 1~94 to permit 40 horses and eubseqaent actions included Use Permit No. 3093 to increase the maximum number of horses an~' to permit a caretaker's reaidenc.e in a mobilc:home~ an~ Uae Peru~it No. 3265 to increase the maximum nuniber of horoe~ to 100; that the propoaed expanaion was for addii.ional rir.gs, 8?'P_!?A; ar_alls and a"western center" (to include a ieed and tack room~ enack bar, and resident veCerinarian of.fice)~ increa~ing the area of rhe facility from approximaCely 4 acrea to almost 11 acres; and that eince the aubject property was located !n [he Santa Ana River Gr•enbelt Corridor, the Orange County ''•-eenbelt Commissi.on reviewed the proposal and indicated its concurrence wi.th the propoaed expansion. Mr. Roberte continued by noting that the sub~ect property was within the Anaheim Sourheast Industrial. Area~ as defined on the General. Plan; and that since the propoaed equeatrian facility incl.sded the continued uAe of a mobilehome for ehe caretakei's residence, the Planning C~~mmisaion might wish to coneider recommei;ding a tim~ limiC of one year, with provisi~~na for renewal~ be establiahod for the uae of the mohile unit. Ut~;:cy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted for the Planning Commiasion that adequate health controls would be exerGised by the County with respect to any flies, odora, etc. CommiRaioner Ktng noled that ~ommisaioner Mor.ley and himc~elf had viewed the sub~ect prop- erty in the field and foun~l that Che p].ace of businesa was isolated, the private road leading into the premis~s was kept clean, tche buildings were cZean, there wrte no obnoxious signa, and Lhe businesa could not harm anyone since, if tt~ere were any fli~~s, etc., the Orange County Iiaalth Department would e~:ercise appropriate controls. He further reviewed the surrounding uses, which appeared t~~ be compatible. Chairmsn HerbsC noted for Che applicant~ Mr. Richard Tozer~ that the Anaheim City Council policy was to allow the uae o~ a mobilehome unit, a~ proposed, for a year at a time, subject to review and renewal. Mr. Richarc'1 Tozer appeared before the Planning Commission and stated the use of the mobile- t~ome was on a temporary basis and that he intended to conatruct a permanent building eventually for the caretaker's us~; and thaC, although '.:e may not. be able to build Che atructure within a year, he did not ob~ecC to the policy. In response to queotioning by CommiASioner Tolar, Mr. Tozer stated that the County ha.d advised him that he could not d~velop a sizable restaurant aC ~he aub~ect location, even if. he wiehed to do so, and that he understood the eating faciliCy would hava to remain a enack etand. ~ ~ MINUTE5. CITY PI.ANN1cVG CUA4lISSION, Jan~nry 20. 1975 ITEM N0. 2 (Contlnuc~d) ~ ~ 7 5-~~ff Coa-mieeioncr King of[ered a motiun. secanded by Co~niseioner Fareno And MOT~iuN CAltR1Ell (Commiesionc!r Johnson being ab~ont), Chat thp n~~nheim City Planning Commissioi~ rer,ommende to the Anah~im City Council thet a recowmandation be forwarded to ~he Orc-nge Counr.y Planning Commir~eion indicAting concurrence with Orangc CounCy UE~e Yermit No. 35$0, and racommending that a time lim~C of ~n~~ year~ with prUVieione for renewal~ be esCabllehed for kti~ use of the mobile unit for r_he cureCaker's reeidence at the eub~ecl locAtion. ITEM N0. 3 RGCLASSIFI~'ATION N0. 71-7?.-21 AND VARTANCF N0. 2310 (Imper.ial Properties) - Gonkinued review ~f reque~t for. ep~~rovnl of eite plan and elevaCions - Proper[y con~lating of ap~-,~ximately 870 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Koad und located Approximately 365 feeC eaRt of the centerlitie of Imperial Highway; and zoned C-1(SC). 'Loning Supervieor Charles Raberts preaented the Stuff Report ta the P.lanning Commiesion dated January 20~ 1975, and eaid Staff Report ie referred to and made ~ parC of Ct~ minuCes. Mr. Roberte noted that the sub~ect mutter had boen continued from several YJ.anning Co»ie- sion meetings in order ro .reaolve circulation problems and other concerna, and was continue~' froca the meeting of January 6~ 1975 in order that the petikioners might aubmit reviaed pl.ans ahowing conformance with buildi.ng setbacks and l.andecaping requirements, and also public etreet or other access solutions for both the east an~i wc~st parcel~; and that the petitioners, us well as the owners of the paicel to Che aast, were requeating an additional two-wtek cot~tinuunce in an ef.fort to resolve the acceas probleme involving rhe two parcets. Commiesioner Morley offered a motion, aeconded by Co~•~~iseioner Tol.ar end MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner Jot~nson being absent), to f.urther conti~ ~ consider~tion of the subject requeat to the Ylnnning Commi:< lon Meet.ing of February ., 1975, a~ requested. ITEM N0. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 132 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N~7S. 8418 AND 8647 (Jotin D. Luak & Son) - Status report - Property consisting of approximately 8% acres having a frontage of appro.cimately 3209 feet on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road, having a maximum depth of Approximately 1800 feet, rtnd being located approximately 1810 feet east• of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road, proposed for subdivision as follc+wfl: Tract Na. 8418 - 40.6 acres - 104 RS-HS-10,000 lots; and Tract No. 8647 - 46 acres - 97 RS-HS-10,000 lota. Zoning Superviscr Charles Roberta noted for the Planning Commission that puzsuanC to the Planning Commieaion diacussion on January 6, 1975, representatives af the Luak Compan~ were pr~sent to give a status report concerning their negoCiaCions with the Peralta Hi11A reaidents with relationahip to the a31e of the property immediata].y ad~acent to Peralta }itlls residencea. Mr. Don Ste£fensen, representing the Lusk Company, appeared and atated they had hand- delivered lettern to the ad,jacent Yeralta Hills property ownero reg~rding an offer to sell the property in question; that Lusk :~ad requested a written reply to the offer by 10:00 a.m. on January 2J, 1975, in orc~er for a:eport to t~e made to the Planning Commi.aeion at this meet•17g; that they received only one reply and that two property owners had indicated substantial interest in pur.chasing the ptoperty offered for sale; that they had met with Mr. Roland Krueger on this date and reviewed the possibility of elim•lnating the portion of propericy iumnediately ad~acent to the Peralta Hills homeowners, however, it was not a viable approach to the prablem; and that they were requesting that the tentative maps originally aubtnitted be couaidered at the next meeti~ng of the Planning Commiasion whereby the northexly row of lote would have contour grading to provide relief•, and the plana would reflect changea in that respec:; that from a aubdiviaion standpoint, circulation should not be affected; and that they had reviewed with City Staff the conditiona set forth in the previo~is Staff Report and they did not find any of the conditions impoasible to reaolve. ~ ~ M:NU'fLS~ CITX PLANNING COMMISSION~ Je~1uary 2n~ 1975 iTLM N0. k (Continued) 75-49 ~hairman Herbet ~trnoeed that the tracts should be analyzed in cnn~unctlon writh the new Grading Ordi.nance eep~cially eincu whatever wae approved would aot a pYecedant throughout the Canyon Area; thut it wae a Lusk tract r.hat brought out the n~ad~ in relationehip to the Ccnding Ordinenaa. i.a.~ 90-foot elopee bahind e~iating rericlencee; and l•hat he would caukion that. eCepe ehould be taken to incorporat~ the requiremetite of tha new Grading Ordinance eepeclally for Che Cransltiori nrea between Yeraltg Hill~ and the propoeed tract regsrdlQMe af what 1~ took to sakis~y suid ordinance~ unleeB Che Paralta Nills property ownors purchaded the property Chat was offered for eu~le. Mr. Steffeneea lhan ctated that going to the 2:1 slope avnrage miqht preec., cobleme for the enginearing of the pro~c,cC. Mr. ttoland Krueger, 561 Pernlta Hil].a Drive, appeared before the Planning Comcnieaion and stated regarding the offer for eale that several meetinge had been held wlth the Peralta HilJ.~ homeownere und tho onl.y property ownera intereeted were Mr. Kraemer. ~nd himself. Mr. Krueger reviawed tt~e aeveraY pl.ans that had been coneidered and discusa~d by the dev~lopex~ khe homeownere~ and Ch~ Planning Commiesion, gnd he etaCed that a~any conceseione had been made by the developer but that tl:e two plane aubmitted by the devel.uper buth had potential probldms; t~iet if the prableme wich Plnn "A" Modified wera not resolved, then the residente in tha br~a would probably want Plan "B" approved; an~ that eome direcCion wae neaded from the Planr~ing Cflrmnisaion with respect Co a stakement xs to whether their requeet for a compromise to 100-foot loCs wcn~ld be a reaeonable approach to a transi.tion zune. Thareupon, Deputy City ACtorney rrank Lowry advised that the Planning Commission should not te~ndt~r such a atatement sl.nce it would preiudge the proposaa.. It was noted +t~nt the sub~ect Environmentul ImpacC Report and tt~e tentative Cract maps were to be s~~~edulod on Che Planning Commission agenda for February 3, 1975. MJOURNt+[ENT -'Phere being no further buainese to discuse, Commiseioner Morley offer.ed a motion. seconded by Cotamie~aioner King and MOTION C.ARRIED (Co~nisaion~r Johnson being absent), to adjourii the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted~ ~ • I +' / ~~/~'~~V~.r~ Fatrici.a B. Scanlan, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission PSS:hm