The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1975/03/310 R C 0 MICftOFIIMING SERVICE, INC ,~~ ~ ~ ~ City Nu.il Maheim, C~lifurnta March 31~ 1975 REGUI.AR ME~TING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSZON REGULAR - A regular meeCi.cig of t:he Mnheim City Plnnning Coaunis~ion w~y cal.led to MECTING order by (:hairman li~rbAt aC 1; 30 p.m. in the Council C}-amber. ~ a quor~.un being pre~ent. PRLSEt~T - CHAIRMAN: Herbst - COY~IM:[SSIONER.S; kRrano~ Cauer, Johneon, King, Morley, 'lolar ADSENT - COFII~tISSIONERS: None ALSU PRESF.NT - Redev~lopment Agency Uirector; Knowlton Fern~ld uevelopment Servir_es Uirector: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Frank Lowry Traffic F.ngineer: Paul Singer Office Englneer: Jay T1tus Zoning Supervisor: Charles Roberts Redevelopment Agency Assistant Di.rector: Chris Hogenbirk Assistant Zcning SuPervieor: Annika Santalahti AasociuCe Planner: Bi.ll Young Asso~iate Planner: Ror~ Contrerae Commissi.on Secretary: Patriciu Scac-lan PLEDGE UF' - Commlas:Loner King led in the Pledge of A1legiance to the Flag of the AI.LEGIANCC United Statas of America. APPROVAL OF - Comwissioner Tolar offered a motion, seeonded by ~ommiasioner Morley and THE MIPIUTES MOTION CARRIED, to approve the minutea of the me~ting of March 3, 1975, as auhmitted. C~wmiQsioner Tuiar uffered a motiun, second:d by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CAl2RIED (Chairman Herbet absCatritng, sinr_e he was absent f.rom ehe meeting c~vered by the m3nutes), eo approvF. the minutes of the IIf~CCltl$ of March 17, 1975, as submitted. ENVIRONMEt~TAL IA~ACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC t::t1RING. OCCIDENW~TLANUSD~RC.1691 Kettering REPORT N0. 1~7 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 { ger); ~ ~ g- T T T~~ ,~RL:VISION Nr~. 1 L_ Street, Irvtne, Ca. 92705 (A ent); re~uest~n WA_VBR OF (A) M_N ~ FLOUR ARHA, (B) .tINIMUM WIDTH Or PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY, (C) REQUIRED VARIANCE N0. 2669 ENCI,OSIJ'RE OF CARPORTS AND (D) VEHICLE ACCEST ~Q~I aMEcribed as: CONSTRUCT A 316-UNIT APAR'~I~NT COMPLEX on p p Y An ir.regularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .l2 acres located northerly of the Riveraide Freeway nnd Miraloma ~•Iay, l~aving a frontage of approximately 610 f.eet, being .located appXOximately 375 feet weat of. the r.enterline of Lawrence Avenue. Property presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED; ZONE. Subject peCition was ~ont3.nued fx'om the meetings of February 3 and 19 and NiPr: 3, 1975, £or the pet3tiuner to submit an acceptable ~nvironmenta~ Impact Report. Three persc+na indicated their presence in opposition to subject petition. Aasistant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti read the Staff Reuort tn *_h~ P1°_^^ina Commiasion dated March 31, i975, and said Staff Report is referred to as if set forth in full in the minu~es. Mr. Walt Keusder oi Butler and Keusder Builders, 1691 Kettering S~reet, I:vine, the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Planaing Commiission and stated there were no ob~ections to the recommendations as Aet forth in r.he Staff Rep~rt, however, there were a few minor questions. 75-157 ~ • ~ MINUTL'S, CiTSf PLANNINC COP4diSSION, M~rch 31., 1.975 75-•1S8 ENVINONMENTAL J.MPACT RFPORT NO., 1~+7 RI~.VISION N0~1 AND VARIANCr N0. 2669 lConCinued) Mr.~ Rtchard Monke~ 4462 Paloma Lano, Yorba Linda~ appe~xred before th~* Planning Conm~laelun repreaenting tt~e liom~owner.~ and Cenunte uf ad,~ecent properties~ and ACnted ttiey had gatherPd approximat~ly 35 eignatures in oppoeitiun to eub~ect petiti.on and hnd SJ.`~O been pteaent t~t snvernl previoue Pl.anning Conm~iesion mee[inge when Ct~e eub~ect mat[ex wne :~cheduled for public iiearing; that the residenta and property owticrs hoped the Planning Gommiesion wauld stay witliin the req~iiremenCe of the zoning designated far tt~e aub;ect property; that thay liad cunducted a study of the traffic eituation in tbc area which esgreed to the l.ast car with the study conducted by Che City; that traffic congesCion and poesible accidente were the main concern of. the ad~acent neighbore; iind that the petition in opposition etr~~Aed etrenuoue ob~ecti.ona t.o granting any of the requeated waivera. Mr. Mc,nte fur~_her stnted tht~t the res~identa and owt~ers af Fashi~~n Garden Apartmenr.e would also ~oin in oppoain6 the aub,~ect proposal for the reasons staCed. Mr. Keued~r then atated they reco~nizc:d tr.Affic was a problem for the development uf the sub~ecC property; that a 77-uni.t projFCt had recently been approved in t'~e area whic'n would also contribute Co Che use of the traffic aignal o~hich was recotmnended by the Traffic P:nginecr to be installed at Miraloma Way nnd 5unehine Way; that he concurr.ed thut tlle traffic aignal ~aould impcove the traffic situation that preaenely e3cisted in the area; that regardi.rig drainage, the pruposal w~uld eliminate the pond on the property; and CheC he asaumed they could bond for the street li.ghting recommended under the conditions of approval. T}iE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ln response to questioning by Comm:tsaioner Gauer, Mr. Keuscler etated the pro~~ct wae programmed u~ an adult-only comm~inity; that L•hey were propoc~ing 1 volleybal.l court, two poo~ areas, etc., and aside from p~salUly praviding a tennis ~uurt, they felt the recrea- t,ional faciLities were more than adequate; and Chat a tennls court would not Pacii.itate children, even if provided. Cumtuissioner Gauer tl~en noted that the proje~t would not necessar~ly hold to adults only in years to come. In reaponse to que.stioning by Commissioner King, Mr. Keusder titated that although they were not anxious to part~cipate i.n. the installation of the traffic aignal on Miralom~ and Sunshine Way, they were willing r.n share in the cost. CommiseionPr. To1ar inquired regardir.g the posaibl.e extenaion of Wallgreen Street for ingres~z and egrea~ to the sub~ect prope~ty, whereuFon, Mr. Keusder etated thIIt they had ~orres onded with the Cit of Placentia who concurr.ed with the outline propoaed by the P y developer, however, it was not ~or a through street; that the developer`s original idea was not to have Wallgreen as a through atreet since the neighborhood to thE nortti was not up r.o thP standards they were propoaing; that they could possibly control the use of the access ur extension of Wallgrcen Street by the use of. a card or key activated gate to aeparate the two communities; and th~t the proposal. was tn have emergency access to Wallgreen Street only. Commissioner Tolar then noted that he was concerned with the n~imber of cars that would be comin); out of the pro~ect at Sunehine Way and, additionally, that hr was not satisfied wiCh the sound-attenuatiun pr.ovided. Mr. K~usder stated that although a traffic signal would improve the existing situation prior to *_he construction of the pro~osed project which woull generate an add~.tional 2,500 cars per day, '~e questioned whether the signal would creute a bettez situation after the proposal was conatructed. Thereupon, Tratfic Engineer Yaul Singer. adviaed that a traffic signal was neceasary to be installed with the pxopoaed pro~ect. In response to further questioning by Commisai.oner Tolar, Mr. Singer advised that in relation~hip to prior.ily listing, tt~ere were mcre serious areas, however, the sub;ject ~signal was nee3ed presently; that a traffia signal could be installed which would handle the existing traffic and traffic which would be generated from the proposed pro~ect, provided there were FLe-warning devices installed since the area was a high-speed area with two freeway overpasses. Chairman Herbst noted thak Miraloma was the mai.n artery for the industrial area and there was concern that the traffic lnterjacte@ from the proposed pro~ect may not be compatible with the indu~Crial traffic. Mr. Singer theu noted that undoubtedly the reaidential traffic would in~errupt the t~affic flo~o for the induRtrial trafffc on Miralama; and that it was poasible that there would be even more traffic off riiraloma onto Sunshine Way, adding to the problem on Sunshine Way. In reaponse to questioning by Ct~airman Herbst, Mr. Keus3er stated the idea for the card contral gate at Wallgreen Street had been diecarded becuuae of thp expenae involved anc., additionally, because said gaCe would a°crashp ate ~tithatnlucationeforiemergQncyfuaee projact; and that they were propoaing $ only. ~ ~ • MI.NUTI:S, CI'PY Pi.A,~1NINC COMMISSION, Mnrch 31. 1975 75-i59 E,~~VIRONM~N'tAl. IMF'AC7_REFURT NU. 147 (REVISION NOT~ AND VARIANCE NC~. 2669 (Continu~d) Regarding tlis requ~eted waiver oE the mini.mwa floor area to a~low "113X of the uni.ts to ba less than 700 eyuare feet grose £loor area. Chairman Her.hst noCed tl.~nt ~aid we~iver hnd been previour~ly gronted for bncl~elor-type ur~its; howevE+r, tho cttier. three waivere re- yueyted et-oul.d proUably b~s eliminated. Nr. Kaueder Chen atated t}~ot Che waiver of Che minimum w1.dCh of pedestrian acceasways wae a mltignting meaeure ici connection wiCh eouna barriere f.or the pro~ect, and they were propoeing to F-r+ve G-fuot duorwttys rnther than 8-foot aoorwayr~. Regarding the reque~sted wai.ver of lhe requlr~d enclosure of carporte, Mr. Keuorler ar.uted the architect preferr~d to huve two slde walls ~~nly for some of the carporte, f.or aesthe~ic regaone~ aince those c4rti~or.te were locnteci clase to the recrea- t:ional area. c:ommieatoner Farano tl~en noted that the PlanninR Commi.asion had consietently requi.red drawings or renderings to ehow w}iat the carparro would look l.lke wh~cl~ did not comply wlth the Code rec;uirPmenl• . Regbrding the requested waiver of the vehicular access reyiiiremenLs~ Mr. Keusder atated that to eliminate the need for suid waivp*-; it wo~?.d be necesdary to eliminate the eight affected dwelling unita which hud car~,ortd f.urth~r t~~an 200 feet away. Whereupon, Com[uis- eioner Johnson noCe~l tl~at, ~.n his opinion, eight units that would not comply out of the 316 units proposed was not a draetic amount. Chai.rman lierbat noted that Che di.fference wae bskween having ~omeone carry a bag of groceries 200 feet or 230 feet; that the projtct seemed Co be well packed using l•he minimum requirementa of tt~e zone in relationehip to the recr~ational areas; Chat the pro~ect was isolatecl from any park and, althaugh the devel- o~.er wae r~pt•esenhi.n~ that this would be an adult-only pro~ectr it could very well have 3 1ot of ct~il.ciren; that inasmuch as the project wa» isolated, mnre open space by the elimina- tion of a few of the units woald probably make a more viable project, eapecially since there was freeway expo~ure and huge soui-d barriers wauld have Co be cunstructed. Mr. Keur~der then atated that the aub~ece proper.ty had Ueen designed aimilarly to a~ exisk- ing and succeasful pro~ect i.n Or.ange County which was ~uat off a freeway and which was probably more dense but was very attractive and appealed to the developer; and that they underatood the Planning ~ommiseioners' feeli.nga, but were trying to stay within economic~ to be able to keep the rent doFn. Chairn-un HerUsl noted Lliat becauae of the accessibility ~f the property, the project did not warrant the density propo~ed. Commisaioner Tolar inquired if the developer h~u considered RM-4000 development versus the proposal and Mr. Keusder stated they had consi.uered fourplexes and condominiuma, but from a cost analysis of the land and conatruction the a40,000 to $45,000 sales price ~ange of the units would not be feasible in the sub~ect neighborhood. Commis~ioner. Tolar then noked that the price of the laii3 musC have bepn pretty high; and Mz. Keusder stated the land was $SU,000 per acre for 12 acres in addition to th~ subdivision costs~, the tra~fic_ signa_l, the storm drain, etc., and if a monthly maintenance charge waa ~dded to zhe pay- men~.: for the purc.hasers of the condominium pro~ect on this properCy, it would be diff~cult to sell the project. Chairman Herbst reiterated the~t, in his opinion, the developer did not have a hardahip to juetify the requeated wa3vers, other than for tne bachelor-type unite; howev,r, if the Planniag Commission could review a renderl.ng of the carports, tl:at waiver might be agree- able; that if the 4-foot doorways could he double-swii~ging doors, that waiver r~ight be agreeable in relationship to the so~md barrier s~it~.iati~n; and that the waiver to have the required parking spaces no further than 200 feet from a unit ahould not be allowed. Mr. Keu~der then indicated thaC by eliminating the eight units for which parking spaces were further than 200 feet from said units, the pro,ject would have less deneity; and that t:~e~ were willing Co provide a rendering to show the design of the carporta proposed. Discussion pursued regarding the posaible axtension of Wallgreen Street, during which Chairman Herbst suggested that said extension be analyzed to give some access to the sub!ect property, since if bottled-up traffxc occt~rrad after the project was constructed, it would be too late t~ consider that alternative; that more accesaibil~ty would probably make the pro~ect more salable; and that nince Wallgreen Street wae s dedicated street, it was pr~bably intended that it would go through at aome point in time. Mr. Keusder then stated that the C•Lty of Placentia would just as soon 4iallgreen Street did not go through; and that if the access to Wallgreen StrQet was an emergenc; access only, any traffia from the pro~ect would not diaturb the PdjACent property in the C{ty of Placentia. ~ ~ ~ MINUTL~S, CI'I'Y Pl.ANNING COMMISSION, t4~rch 31~ 15~75 75-1G0 ENVIRUNMENTAL 'LMPACT RFPOkT N0. 147 (RF.VISION N0. ~ AND VARIANCF. P~0_,,,2669 (Continued) In raeponee to queseionl.ng Uy Chnirmnn lir.r.bt+t rbgarding eound buffc:r.ing~ Mx'. Kauedar etated the dc~Rlgn of thr. bnffle wull would b~ contfnuoue with no windawe; and th+~t Lherc: would hu double-panad glass in Che eld~s of tlie ~~uil.dinge where kt~ere would only he reElected eound. in reeponse to furCher quuAtioning regarding rhe propoyed 4-fuot pedestric~n ncceaR~.ny.~, Mr, K~usdex etated tlie onl.y acces~ways propoeed to be G feet w~.:1a were AZ.~ng the f rciew.~y side of the property and C.hnt the other ucr_ot~awAye would be in coniormance t~ the Code requiremants. In response to questi.onl~~q by CommisALoner I~arono~ Mr. Keuader ~r.aCe~ thc~ develope:r would own und operate tl-e sub~ect project for nt leaet five ,years and he clid nor_ pereonall.y think the proj~~ck would ever be praposed fc~r convex~oion to a cundominium develupment. Mx, Keusder skated they h~d conver.ted ane acean-fronC property in Rc~dondo Beach to condo- miniume, which sold buC wna not a great euccese. CommioAioner Johnson noted that the propoeal wae dense und he would lik~ to aee the requested waivere from the Code eliminated, itxcluding that e.liminaCion of. thz requested waiver of the min~mum floor area would ulso help the proJecG. Commisaioner King noted that he concurred [hat samething ahoul.d be dOTlE'. to have 8CCe8A from Wallgreen Street to the north. Ctiairman Hezbst inqufre.d if ttie developer cuuld eubmlt revised plans to interject better accese~ and Mr. Keusder atated that if t.he Planning Commisaion felt ft was necessary to use Wallgreen Street for addiUionnl acces~, then they would propose the limited acc.ess approach and they would prefer to so atipulate rather than to havP the Planning Cummiesion continue the petition and thereby delay the praject. Mr. Si.nger then advised thnt a card- contro.lled Hcce3s at Wallgreen Street would pxovide a clPgree of reli.eE to tihe traf'f'c problem. Commissionex Tolar questi.oned the value of the land and noted tliat he was not aware thuC property in the aub~~::cC area was selling fo~ anywhere neur $50,000 an acre; that i.n the reviaed plans. he would like to see more dPfinite evidence that condoraiums an the prop~rty would hr.ve to aell in the $40~000 ~~rice range. tir. Keusder then atated the original asking price of tlie property was $610,U00, huwever, they had negotiated Co $450,C00 pro- vided they paid for certain items in tha escrow; that they had been pr~viously intere3r.ed in the property, but had withdrawn their interesC whpn the intereat rate on monay i.ncreased• and that since the interest rates were nresently down, now was the critical time Co make the ~.•roject go. Cummiasioner Farano ~-ade aa obaervation that from ttie comments Ueing made, perhapz~ this waa u marginal project and i.f unexpected costs were tncurred~ he ques*_ioned r.he k:Lnd ~f maint_enance and upkeep Lhat the project wou'!.~ have; and that thP deUeloper was giving some reasona that perhaps the pro~ect shculd not be oilowed from ~ land use standpoint. Mr. Keueder then stated they would be praviding things for the area ChnC did not preset~tly e.xiat, including Chat they would allevia~e the dr.ainage problem in the area and provide a traffic signal to benefit the area. In rer~ponse to questioniag by Commisaioner Farai~o, Mr. Keusder st~ted thaC since they had already had one extension on their e~tcrcw, rather thnn conttnue the matter, he wou.ld atipulate to providing the 8-foot acceasways, as requir~d, and also tu eliminating the eight units in the pro~ect which we~'e not within 200 feet af the required parking space. The ilanning Commisaion genezally concurred that the requested waivers from the Code wexe not viable ~nd that in order to more favorably consider the proposal, the Commission would require that the revisions diacuased be incorporated inCo revised pl~ns. Thereupon, Mr. Keuader requested that Lhe sub~ect matter be continued f.or two weeks. Commiasioner Gauer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farano and MOTION CARRIED, to reopen t}.e public hearing and continue consideration of Environmental Impact ReporC No. 147 (Revi•~on No. 1) and Variance No. 2669, to the meeting of April l~i, 1975, for teviaed ~,lana. ~ ~ ~ MINU'TF:S, CITY PI.ANNLi~G C(!AII~tISSYON, Mnrcli 3J., 1`!75 7~-161 RECLASSIFTCATI.QN - CONTINUGU PUI'.I.tC HFARINC. L1.LUMINAI'RD PRUDUCTS, INC. , 207 South N0. 74-75-17 Neel~na Streel, Anatieim~ Cn. 92803 MfD MRiAtd J. LEN~AIN~ ET AL. ~~ 59U8 Arno Cr~escent, Anaheim. Ca. 928Q7 (Oort~c+rs); PACIFIC SOUTNWL'ST RCAL'CY COMI'ANY, r./u L. Q. Poffenberger~ :l:13 Soutl~ tlope SCreeC, Los A~igalE~a. Cn. 9a017 (ugent); re~,~-ceCl.ng that property daec~~lbed ne: A rectangu.lerly- ~huped purc~l. of latzd con4iAting of appr.oxi.mately 33~000 equece feet locntf~d at the r_ornere of Oqk Strr.et, H~lena Street nnd Cheatnut: Street, having nppr~~xlwar.e frontagea of 220 FQec on the soutt~ elda of Oak Screet~ 150 faat on th~ weet eida of Helenn Strec:t and 22U fQat on the ciorth Aide of Chaetout Strcaet. and furthex described a~ 207 South 1~lel.e~nR Str~et nnd 427. WneC ChQetnut Street, he recl~i~.eif..ed Erom thr. 1'D-C (PARKING DI3TRICT-COMMERCIAI.) ZONR to the CC (COt~lERCIAL, GENF;RAl.) 'LONE. Sub~~cr. petitiun wan continued fram th~ meeCinga of Decembcr 9 and 23, 1974~ c~n~l,f~snu~ry 20, 1975, in order to receipt inp~~t from the Community Redevelopmen[ Commiasion~ aC t:he requee[ uf the pecitioner nnd for. revica~jd plans respectively. Although the 5raft Report to the Plenaing Commiselon dated Me~rch 31.~ 1975, wAS noC r.cad ot the public hcaring, it ia r~ferred t~ r~nd made n par.t of the ml.ceu:e~, It wae~ further i~oted that the PeLtLioncr was x'Pquesting A fui•ther continuance of Ctie sub,jecC public hcaring. Commiesioner FRTII110 offered a motion, saconded by Cum-nisaioner. Mor.ley and MOTT.ON CARR'i~A, that Petition for Recl~seificntion No. 74-•75-.17 be and hereby is removed from ttie xgenda. R~CLASSIEICAT.I0~1 - R~ADVERTISCD PUBLIC 1~EARII3G. ORANGE SAVINGS ~ LG~B~RTQGARCIAN~1435 h0. 65-66-59 East Chapmari Avenue, Orange, Ca. 92666 (Owner); ~ Ai18CApII Street, Santa Barbara, (:a. 9310~. (Agent); requeating AM~NDMENT O'r' INTF.RDEPARTM~NTAL. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED CONDITION P;Q. S, REQUIRING DET'ICATION OF VEHICLULAR ACC~SS RIGHTS T.0 HARBOR BOl1I.E,VARD of property deacribed as: A recr.n~~;;ularly-5haped ~srcel of land consisting of approximately 0.45 acre locar.ed at the suu •est cor~ of Santa Ana SCree~ and Harbor Bouleverd. having approxim:~te frontages of 153 ce~t on ~ ~cuth side uf Santa Ana ~treet and 129 feet on the WPRC side of Hmrbor Boulevard. Property preaently classified CO (COt~IF.RCIAL, GFFICE AND PROFL'SSIONAL) ZONF. No one icidicated their presence !n oppoaiCxon to sub~er.t petition. Although the Staff Report to the 1'lanning Commiasioci dated March 31, 1975, wus not r~ad at the publi.c hearing~ ~G is referred to and made x part of the minutea. Mr. Gil~_rt Garcia, the :lgent for the proFerty owner, appeared before the Planniiio Commis- sioci and stated ite hfld read the Staff Report and wiahed to clarify that tt-ey were proposing u 3500-square foot facility; Chat the intent and desire was to have Santa Ana SCreet as the principal acc~ss to the sub~ect property; that *_he accesa on HaYbor Boulevard would be for ingresa only for the drive-~ip window service, since they would like to keep the dri.ve- up c.ustomers out of the Farking lot area; that, ;ram past experience, they anCicip~ted that a maxlmum of 20 to 30 customers per day would urilize the drive-up window service and they recognized that some of the other cusCumere would tand ta utilize the Harbor Boulevard egress and control oi tbe use uf said egrese wo~~.ld be diffic~ilt; that the c~nfiguration far the access on Harbor Boulevard would be rs forced right-turn to :~i~p~t~e~~tconcernedc onto I~arbor Baulevard; thax thp Staf.f Report pointed ouC, and they, that the viaibility for ente~•ing Harbor Boulevaid would be restricted and the drivers would have to look buck over their shoulders to aee approaching southbound traffic, how- ever, parallel parki.ng an the west side of Harbor Boulever9 wns presently +~llowed and those driver~ also had to look over their sho~lders tu check southhound tra£fic; that they we.re also concerned about the northbound traffic thaC would kry to enter the sub,ject proFerty from Harbor Boulevard and for that reason they were propos~ing to have signing to di.scourage auch turns and possibly a raiaed median at that point in the atreet; and that regsrding the aetC~.n~ o* a ptecedent, this was a special use and approval far the accesa on Harbor Boulevard could be tied to Conditional Use Permit No. 1476 which was g'canted by the Planning Commission on July 8, 1974, for the subject property. THE PUBLYC HFARLNG WAS CLOSED. ' Commiaeiuner Cauer made an observation that anotlnerthenstreethwaitiug~theirVturn toienter windows aud usually there were cars lined up a g the property, and he questioned what would hrppen on Karbor Boulevard if ~he same situati.cn occurred. In reeponc+e, Mr. Garcia stated the intended egresa would be from Santa Ana Street and Chere would be ample room on the propetey for s~acking ~ars. ~ ~ ~ MINU'f1~.S, C1TY PLANNINC COI~L"1TSSLON~ Mnrch 31. 1975 IiFCLASSIFICA'P'ION N0. 65-66-59 (Cont.ln~iEd) 75-.162 Commi.9eiu~ er .lohneon reyue~+tad clarlficati.on wherlier 20 to 30 cnr.e was all Chat would be expecCed to utiliz~ the drlv~-up wlndow oervice and, in reply~ Mr. Carcia stated thaC from their axperi.cncA with other bruncli uEfic~s oi' the Orange B~vinge and Loan Asyociatiun, 3A cars would Ua the higheet ueF per day; and that. t}ieir branc:h office in Santa Rarbara liud [wo drive-up lanee but only generated 20 care per duy. Commiediuner 1'oler rec~tlled thnt wl~c~n Condittonal Us~: Permlt No, 14'~'6 w~e grnntad for the tunporary facility and tampc~rary r~ccess on Herbor Boulavard, thu Flanning Conuni~elou cl1.s- cuesed that nrrowa ahould he pal~nted, it necaosary, ir~ tt~~ pnrking lot so tP~at thc lretfic would be ~i irected in und out o'f the r~ub~ect property at rhe Santa M~ Street nccese. Commiseioner Morley added that the Planning Commisaion did not intend khat accese Ue u7.lowed to Harbr>r Bvul~~er~ tor thc pex~asnent f acility and. EurCher. that r.he Planning Commission had been leery about granting even a te~ttporary uccese for the t~mporary faci.ilty. Ctiairman H~rbat notad thnt approval. of the requested nccess on llar.bor Boulevard would Het ~n undec~irabl.e precedent eince Cho c~ther par~eta which are a par~ of ReclaNSi.fication No. 65-66-59 may request Himi]r+r accese ahich, in turn, wou~d tend to dieregard land nssembly for deveJ.opment of. tlie area; nnd thr~t by al.lowing tlie propooed ecceRS„ i.t wt~A concei.vnble tt~n:. there would be a curb cut for every property invotved in Che eub~ec:t reclaselEicution. Commiseloner King noted that the sub~ect property had an nlternat4 meana of vehicular accese on 5ants Ma St"eec and on the proposed alley to ttie weekerly side of the sub~ect property; and thAt, adc'itionally~ Che sub3e.ct pruperky hucl more advantage than the oChet pa~cels in the aub~ect reclaasification, aince it was a corner parcel. Commiesioner Tolnr noted thar all of the cflrs enteritig the parking lot might choose to exit on Harbor ~ioulevard, wher.eupon, Mr. Garcis atated most of Che car.a would help to bypusa tihe a11ey and the exit on Santa Ana Streek to use khe Harbor Boulevard egXesa and, in hiR o~ini~n, aaid cars would uae ti~e Sar.Ca Ana Street egxese, however, they would attempt to c~.ntral the use of the l[arbor. Boulev~rd egress ue much as possible. Tt was noted thut the Director of Development Secvicea had detettninpd thar. the propoyed acti.vity fell within tl:e definiti.on of Section 3.Q1, Cla~R 5 of the City of Aneheim Gutdelines to tk~e Requirewenta £or an Environmental Impact Report and was, therefore, categor tcally exempC f rom the requirement to € ile an EIR. Commissioner Morley ofiored Reaol.ution No. PC75-64 and moved f.ui its passage and adopti.on, to r~~commcnd Co the ~ity Council that the subj zct request for umendment to conditions of npproval f.or Recl.aseification No. 656659, to del.ete the condition requiring ctedicatian of vehicular accesc r~.ghta to Harbor Boulevard, to pet~nit conatr.uction of a"forced right- turn egress only" to Harbor Boulev~rd~ be cl.enied on the basis of• the follcwing flnding~ (Spe ResoluC~Lon Book): 1. That although the statPd reasan for egYPSS to Harbor Boulevard is to accoimnodate the cusl•omers wiahing to utilize the proposed drive•-~p window~ the patitioner Acknowledged that conCrol of the use of the proposed acces s would be difr'icult Rince the other customers may tend to utilize said acc~:ss also, thereby compoundin~; [':e traf f ic }~ zard along Harber Boulevard. 2. That the petitioner indicated a max imwn of twenty (20) to thirty (30) cuat~mers per day are anticipated to utilize the drive-up windaw servics and, therr.:fore~ the Planning Commiasion deteL~cnined that the anticipated and intended use of the drive-up windo~a does not constitute sufficient justificaCion for an Pcces3 ~n Harbor Boulevard. 3. T~-~t approval of khe requested acce s s would create Severe traffic hazarde along Harbar Boulevard, eapecially since. there woul.d be r~stri~ted viaibility when un 4xiting driver must turi- in order to check the southbound traffic ~n 1•Iarbur Boulevard snd, further; because of the po~aibility that northbound t r affic on Haxbor Boulevard may attN~mpt to make left turr.s onto subject pruperty into a drive cut inter,ded for exit.ing vehi.cl.es ~nly. lf. That approval of the requested 4~c e ss on Harbor Bouleva:d would set an unde~irable precedent since the other parcels which are a par~ of Reclaseif:lca tion Nu. 65-•66-59 may request similar access which~ in turn, would tend to disregnrd land asaembly for develop- ment of the area as .-mcouragea by tltie City Plan•:zing Commisaion and City Coun^_il; and, further, since Che subject property does hav e alternate meana of vehicular access an Santa Ana S~reet and on the propoeted alley to khe westerly side of subject property. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was pa~sed by the folluwing vote: AyE3; CO1~IIiISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUEi:, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY~ TOLAR, HERBST NOES: C01~4fISSIONERS: NOhB ABSr.N'f : COMMIS5IONERS : NONE ~ ~ ~ MINUTF.S, CITY PLANNINC COhIDtISSION~ M~rch 31~ ].975 ~~-~'~'~ RfCLA3SII~ICA'PION - I'Ut~I,IC HF.ARINC. ~U1Y C. AND ALI(:!: E. STMPSON, 15414 Conl Vulluy Foed, N0. ?4-75-29 V811ey CenCdr~ Sar~ p1e$U~ C&. 92082 (OwnrY); DBL PROYRRTIES/FRF.D -'r ~~^~ WALTFRS~ 730 Sout~ Cypre~s Street, I,n NaUra, Ca. 90631 (Agent). CONUITI.ONAL USi: Propecty ~lescribed oH: An irreg~ilarly-sliaped parcol nt tand conela[ing PCRMI'P N0. 1526 of approxim:~tely ~i,2 acree having u froi~tuge of approxtmatc!l.y 295 faet oii the northeaeC aide oi Annh~lm B~~ulovard~ liaving a m+iximum depth of VARIMf~k N0. 2G89 nppr.ox.im~tely 510 feet~ and }~ing l~~cated approximntely 140 ie~t north -`"~~ -~~' ~ of thc centerllne of KKtet lf~ ~.venue. Properl•y preeently clnseified Cli (COPQ~IERCLAL, K~A~Y) Z~NE. RBQU°STI;ll CLASSII~ICATION: 1~II. (INDUSTF,TAL~ i ~.MTT(:111 'LUNE. REQU~STLD CONDI'TIONAI. U:~E: PEItMIT A Ii1LLBuAItI~ W]Ttl WA1V~k OF (A) rrttt~t'1"iN:A LOCATION AND (B~ MINLMIJNt l'I<(1N'f SETBACK. F2EQUESTED V~:RLANCF.: WA1VL'F. Or (p) MZNIMIJM NUMB~R QF PARKING SPACES ti(B) MZNIMUM FRONT aI:TBAGK ANU l:') PIAXIMUM FENC.Is HGICiI'P, TO CONSTRUCT A ~iiNl-IJARENOU SE . Two pereuny indtcated their presenc~ in opposition to sub~ect per.itions. Assistan[ Zonin~ Supervisor Mnika Santalahti read tl~e Staff Report to the Planni.ng Coawiaeion duted Merch 31, 1975, an3 pR~d Staff Report is referred tc~ ay if seC forth in full in the minutes. Mr. Fred Walters~ representing the agent for tlie property o~mer, appeared bEfore the PLanning C~mmiesion and stated the ~uh~ecl• property wae locuted behind tt~e Katella Avenue uverpa~s of. t}~e Santa Anu rreeway arzd, from a•visibility etandpo:Cn~, they were hldden from the tra£ftc an the freeway and nny other traffic [raveling north and that waA one of the reasons r.hey ha1 lald out Che proieck ae proposed and, additlonally, that was what created *.he need for some of the requ~ated waivers; ttiat the uxisting Ct1 zoning on ttie sub~ect properCy would a12.ow a 10-fo~t fron t setback; that if ~hey wcre required to p.lace the billboard behind a S~-fo~t setback, tlien a hardship would b~ crtated for them; that the Planning Divlaion Staff l~<«1 determiried that it wus appr.opria~e to requeat rezoning of Ci~e property to conform Ca the overall uaster piIInnittg; thet regarding the trash cotttainers, genera:lly speaking one large container wav SLfficient and would be accessible for p•lckup by the Sanitation Div:.sion; that smaller c~ntginera would be collected by the manager and dumped into the large enclosure ares; snd Chat he did not feel anything wot~ld be gaine~ by •+Tig an additi.onal trash enclosur e area on Che propetty since there would be no real g~ ~ '.on of trash. Mr. Donald Baggett, I700 S uCr. Anatieim lioulevard, Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Commission and presentcd petikions c~ntRining qpproximately 10 signatureo j.n op~~~sitio~i tc~ aubject petition~. He stated he owned property in the immecllaCe area; that he was informed that part of the buildit-g would be meCal, however, ne wae 1ed to believe that it woulc~ be galvani.zed i.ron and since tk~ey alreau') had a buil.ding in the area constructed of Ral~•anized iron, which was none tuo attractive, he would be opposed on that basis, although the type metal proposed may be more attract ive; that the Hawmond property at one time had a 50-foot front setback, however, the State oi Cslif~°nia took 3G feet, making it nonconforming; that the propooed 13-fo~t front s~ tbaek seemed too close, especia3ly s~nce in long-xange plans~ the Stale of California and.~or the City ~f An~heim in concert may be widening Anahei.m Boulevard at some time; r.hat~ additionally, tie was led to believ~ that the State hRd someChing in mind Eor the nor t t~b~und Santa Ana Freeway on-ramp at iCtttell.a Avenue, inasmuch as all of Che :.andscaping for thosedetaathegencroachmentyintocth~ Cl~r7.~netofnmor~. ramp; and that specifically tney were opp ligh± manufacturing. Mr. F. Ha~mond, 1730 South An~heim Boulevnrd, Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Comm:s- s•lon and stated h~ owned prope~ty imwediately ad~acent to the aub~ect propexty et~d had paid taxPS and k. ~t the property up for 3~' years, t-owever, the sub~ect property wae allowed to become a weed patch; that the adjncent aroperty o~rnera t~ad been Cold that anything would be preferable to the unsigh tlin~as of that property, however, he did noC feel that was a proper reason to change a zone for en outatanding prime prcpe~.'~y in the Cfl 2one~ which the other surrounding prope rtie6 were required to hold to for i~P.ny yeara; that just as h~ wa~t about to develop his pr operty i~gaedn neVatingerhe~chances~ofenicerndevelopments aub~ect property was p':opoaed to oe downg - R & occurring; thaC, in his opinion. a~ini-wareh~uses were being overbuilt and there were a great many VIICS11Ct08~ that the pr aposal would not e.~hance the aub~ect property or the ~ ` ~ MINU~rrS, CITY PLANNING CONQIT.SSION ~ Mnrch 31 ~ 1975 '75-1fi4 RECLASSLPICATION N0. ?4-75-29L CONUITZONAT~l1SE Pi:MItT N0. 1.52ti AND VARIANC~ N0. 2689 (C~nt~ ) ad~ac~nt pcoparties; that all of Ctie nd~ncont property ownere were app~aed to tho eub,~act developmenl•; that there would be addltional dr.ainage problemy~ ~lnce with every ltght r.:::. there wse a].aka formed on An~hefm Boulevard in thn aren; that to add to tho drainage prublem would ba unCenable for. C.he ad~HCent prupertiQS; that tlie traf fic wae very heavy in the are~, also~ end th~ curve 1.n th~ bou.levhrd made a v~r~• har.ardoue siGuation; that all oE the roqunste~! waivorR wer~ unreasonabl.s; tt~el tl~ere wexc eoma beautiful. orthancina, and worthwhil.e pro~ecte iuet cump].eted ln the area~ includi.ng thc~ law achool, and Chere wera othere about to be stnrted; and tha[ hR could not envieion haw the sub~ect proposul could be c~erviced by Lhe f. irQ trucke. 'fhereupon, Miea SAi1CRltlIlCS. read the lettere und petitiuns r~~_.eived in oppoaitioci. In rehuttnl~ Mr. Wul.ters stttt~d the Anaheim General Plan liidicated tho sub~ect pro~erty fur ML zoning; that maet of the traftiic aeemed to be on Che frsewny; Chat he failed to Ree how the proposed mini-wurel~vuse facil.ity next door to the Nt{mmond property would change r.he environment or statua of the Hammond property; thut the pzopased type development waH gsnerally built to ehc property line, however~ the Hemmonci property was more or less enclased; khat bv having a LQ-fQOt ac~[bnck~ they would have a much nicer foregrot~nd since the parking, etc., would not be exposed; thek they preferrad to have a nicer appearance from the et:eet; c.hat deve.loped pr~perly the propor~ul would not 2cok any ~ifferent from commercial development in the area; that he did not wiat~ the prnpoeal C~ be detrimental to the area and would welcome suggesCi•one from the Planning Commieaion; thIIt there would be one two-story atructure near the rear of the sub~ect property, and eaid structure would be adjacent to an exiaCing large manufacturing huilding; that the atairwell for the two-etory otructtire would be elaborately landscaped; that the sub~ect property was an odd-ehaped parcel, and would not be Coo conducive for m~ny other type devElc,pmertts; ~t~d that the subiect development poaed no real ineurmountablP nroblems. THE PUBLIC NEA1tING WAS CI.USED. In response to queationing by Commisxioner Gauer, Mr. Wglte?-s stated they preaently {~ad no vacancy facCor in their other aimilar pr.ojects; however, it would talce from six ~.~ eight months t:o reach total occupancy for a new facility. Chairma^ HerUat noted chat ~e submitted plans were the worsr thE~ ~v~nmiasion had seen for a mini-warehoiise development; that the proposed 12-foot aisl.ex were used to load and unloud vehicles and the Commissior. hAd nc~t appro~~ed snytl~ing under ZO feet. Mr. Walters r~piied that the 12-foot air~les had been used succE,ti::lul].y in the cities of Fullerton, Long Beach~ atc. , and wit.h no resultAnt problema. Cammissioner Tolar then inquired how could two 8-foot wide atitomobiies pass each other in the aisles and Mr. WaLters replipd tY~a~ seldam there would ~e more than two cars in the development at one Cime and it would be d rare occasion if there were two cars in the same aisle wanting to pasc each other; and that f.or the very sm~.'_1 uniCs which were for the purpose of. ntoring boxes or other small i.temg, the i.enants would be in and out in a matter of a few min+ste~. Mr. Walters continued by atating that if ~;~e Planning Commission was not agreeable to the proposed plan, the,y had other design~ which would eli.minate 12-foot aislAs a~d they could a.lso have larger raoma snd corridors. ChaltZnan Herbst thea c~oted that the sub~ect area may not be suitable for mini-warEhouses ~nd, additionally, that type of development was probably being overbuilC; that if the markeC aas overbuilt, there would be conversiona arid, in this particular instance, it would be difficult to convert; that the fir~ trucks could not get i;~ and ~:~st of the project; and thnt the project ~~as poorly deaigned from a circulation and traffic standpoint. Mr. Waltera reaponded that Ch~y had worked with the Fire Department and had nesigned the corner cutoff for the emergency vehicles accordingly. He furthe~r sCated that a parcel further to the north of the sub~ect property hAd previouslg been granted o 28-foot front setback by the City Council for a mini-warehouse development which was never conetructed, and that the subjeet proposal cuuld t~e considered to take r.he place of that development to fulfill ti-e nAed in the area. Chairman Herbat noted that he would not vote for the proposed proj ec* tY~e way it was presenCly designed and thet he w~uld probably not vote for it even if it was redesigned for this location; howev~:t, if the majoriCy of Che Planning Commission would like t~ coiitinue the petition for revised plana, that would be their prcrogati.ve. ~ ~ • MiNUTES~ CITY PI.MINING COMMI3SION~ March 31~ '19'S 75-165 REC A3~LF'LCATIqN N0.~74-75-29, CONDI'PIONAI. USB PFItMIT N0.~152h AND VARIANCE N0.~26891Cont.~ Ln reeponse to queetioning by ~hc: Planning Corcrn~teolun, Mr. Wnlt~t.i eknted the f{.rst floor of tlia buildinge would be conetructod of maeonYy block und lhe secoud floor would be c.: tt~e eam~ type stoel ueed in servicc+ statione; a~nd Chat approximaCely every 40 to 60 feyt the p7.un NaR to hnve wond or. aimulaCed wood kre~Alment to give nn npnrtment appearnnce. Cemmi~aioner. Narano indicated thet he wae in bueic agreament with Chairmnn Herbst regerd- ing tha pYOpoeal c+nd~ uddirionnl].y~ Lhat he dii~agrc~ed with tl~a aecond-floor aepecC. Thereupc+n, Mr. Waltere strated Chat they did noe have to have the second floor or they could cona~~ruct thc~ entirN otructure with masoi~ry block~ eliminating tha use of eteel. Commiselun~.:c~ Farano thon noted tliat eince he was nnt in invor u.`. any of the r.~~queeted wa•lvere~ thQ b111board, or the mini-warohouee use at the aub~ect location, i.t might be difficult for the devoloper to xevise the plans to his approv~l. M=. Waltera requsrted a two-week cuiitinuance t~~ the meQti.ng oP April. lA, 1975, to revise Che plans for Che miui-warehouse p~opoeal. Ther~upon~ Commissioner Morley offered ~ motion, seconded by Commieaioner Farano and MOTION ~ARRIED (Ch~irman Herbst voting "no"), to reopen the public hearing and continue considerution of Pet•ltiona for Reclasaificatian No. 74-75-29, Conditional Use PermiC No. 1526 and Variance No. 2689, to tha m~eting of A,pril 1.4, 1975~ as requested by the petitioner. Chairmnn Herbat noted tha t he hr~d voted "r~o" on Che motion oince in hia opinion the locaCion wae not auixahle for a mini-warebouse and a continuanc~ on thal• basis would be a waste of time nn the pArt of the peCitioner and the Pliinning Commieaion. CONllITIUNAL US~ - PUALIC H~ARING. CARL .J. tIEINZ, 5?5 ~:~rth Pine Sr.rr_et, Anahelm, Cc,. PERM7T N0. 1523 92805 (Uwner); ~ARI. KARCHf:R ENTERP:":.~GS, INC.. 120Q Norr.h Harbor Boulevard, AnaYiei.m, CR. 52801 (Agent}; requeating permission Co ESTABLISH A ARIVE-7'NROUGH RESiAURANT WITk: WAIVGR 0? MINIMUDi NUMIiER OF PARKING SPACES on property described se: A rzctangularly-ahuped parcel of land coneist- ing of approxi~eatel.y 0.6 acre havin~ a fronta~;e of approximatel.y 150 feet on the ~est nide of State College Aoulevsrd, having a mx:cimum depth of approximately 15Q fe~t and being located approximately 203 feet aorth of the renterline of Ball Road, and further described as 1189 South Stnte CoJ.lege Boulevard. Property pr.eaently clasaified.NII. ('tNDUSTRIAL~ LIMITEll) ZONE. Na one indicated their pxesence in oppoeition to sut~iect petit3.on. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 31, 1975, was not read at the public hersring, it is referred to and mad~a a part of the minuT.es. Mr. Dave Garrison, Chief Project Coordinator for Carl Karcher L~nterprises, Inc., Che agent for the petirioner, appear~d before the Planning Commiasion to anawer questions reg:.rding the progosal. THE PllBI,IC HEARING WAS CLQSED. In reaponse ta que~tioning by Commissioner King~ Nr. Garrison stipulated that the trash atorage areas would Ue provided in accordance with the requirements of the Director of Public W~rks, althougtz in so ~^ing the parking apaces may be reduced by one space, leaving a total of 33 parking spacpe. Mr. Garr.ison further stated the~ liked to provide the alternative to their customera, to either drive through and leave the premiaes to eat or to drive through and ~hen park to eat o~ the premiaes; and that the resultant number of customPra who would park to eat on the premises depended on the particular location, and there would be no control of that use of the psrking area. It wae noted that the Director of Development Servicea had determined that the propoaed actfvity fell within the definiCion of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the Ctty o£ Anaheim Guidel.ines to the Requirements for gn ~nuironmental Impact Report and wa~s, therefore, categoricglly axe~pt from the requirement to file an EIIt. Co~miasianer King offered Reaoluti.on No. PC75-65 and moved fox ite paseage and ad~ption, that Petition for ^.onditional U8~ Yermit No. 1523 be c-nd hereby iR granted, granting waiver of the mini~uum number of parking spaces to allo~a 33 parking 8pe~o~ on the baeis L•haC the proposal ie rPasonable for the propoaed use which coneista of a restaurxnt with n • ~ MINUTE3~ CIT1f FLANNING COMMISSIC)N, Mnrclt 31~ 1975 CONDITtONAL.UBE PERMIT N0._ 1523 (Con~inued) 75-1.G6 both eit-down and drive-throiigh foc111tiaH; sub~ect: to tha conditlon tlti~t trneh etocagc areua ehAll ba provided in accordance wi*.h approved pland on fil.e wlr:h tha officc+ of Che lliroctor of Publi.c Worke. as atipulated ko by the pel.ltluner and. furY.her, t}iat a mintmum of 33 markud parking apncae ahull be }~rovidad on [he subje~:t ptupexty at nll timse; and sub,~c~ct to Interdepnrtmental Commlttea r.er.~mmendat~onA. (See ReeoluCion 9ook) On roll call~ tlie foregoing re~oluc:lon was passed by the fallowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONLRS: F'ARt,NO~ GAUER, JOHNSON~ KT.NG, MORLCY~ TOI.AR, HERBST NOL~S : COh4tI~SI011~RS : NONE ABSBNT: COI~4IISSIONER5: NONE CONDITIONAL USE - PU9Lf.C HEAR~NG. RiCHARD E. OSTRWT, 506 Elizabeth, Orange~ Co. 92b67 PERMIT N0. 1525 (Owner); THE CHURCH TN LOS ANGELES, 32$ West Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim, Cu. 92805 (Agent); requesting permission to ES'TABLISH A CHURCH WITH WAIVFR OF REQUIRRD TR.BE SCREEN on pruparty described Rs: A rectangularly- shaped pnrcel of l.and coneisting of appruxlmately 2.5 acres havinq n fro•.-tage of approximately 479 feet on the north side of. B~~.t Road, having a maxim~im depth of apr~oximate].y 2~9 feet and be•ing located r~pproximately 182 feet ea:+~t of. the centerline of Nutwcod Srreet. Property pr.eaently clasaified CL (L'OMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. No one indicated their presence in opnoaition to subJcct petition. A1Ctiough the Staff Report to the Planning Cc~mmisaion dated March 31, 19T~, was not read at the public heari.ng, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Jim Caldwell, 125U Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, appeared before ttie Planning Commieaion to answer question.3 regarding the proposal. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS GLOSED. In r.eaponse to questi~ning by Chairman Herhst, Mr. Caldwell atated a 6-foot masonry block wall was propoaed around the property and gates would be provide~l for the people living C.o the back of the church so tt~ey could have conveni~nt access for walking [o church. Mr. Caldwell further etated thEt since the wall was so high, t.hey did not feel it wae necessary to provide a tree scr.een. Chafrman Herbst then noted that a tree srreen was required to besutify the property as aeen f.rom the street and also for Che benefit of the adjacent propert~~ owners, whereupon~ Mr. Caldwell 4tipulated to complying with the land- scaping requirements of the CL Zone. Cummi.ssioner Y.ing offered a m~tion, seconded by Commisainner Tarano and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Cowmission recommends to Che City C:ouncil that the sub,ject pro~ect be exempt from the requiremenC to prepare an I;nvirocimental Impact Report, pursuant to the provi.aions of the California Environment~l. Quality Act. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC?5-66 and moved for its passage and adoption, that Petition fur Conditional Use Permi*_ No. 1525 be and hereby is granted, in part, denying the request for waiver of tt~e required ~ree screen on the Uasis that a~id waiver ia unreasonable and that the peCitloner did noC clemonstrate that a hardahip wauld be created ~f said waiver were not granted; sub~ect to the condition that the la~ndscaping shall comply with the requir.Psnents of the CL Zon~, including an effective tree screen at the norCh and east property lines, and landacaping in the parking area to consist of not lese than 2% of said parking area, as stipulated to uy the pe.titioner; and sub,ject to Interdepartmental Committee recommend~.*.ions. (S~e Resolution Book) On roll call, the £aregoing resolution was passed by the fullowing vote: AYES: COA4fISSIONBRS: I'ARANO~ GAUER~ JOHNSON, KING, MO1tLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ~ ~ ~ MINUTL~5, CI'TY P1.ANNING COIYII~ITSSION~ March 31, 1975 75--167 CONDITIONAL U8~ - PUBT.IC IihARINC~ MEt. AND MRS. GENF. A. ALBIN~ SR. ~ 354 Ec~eC Orangewo~d PERMIT N0. 1527 Av~nue~ Anahoim, Ca. 92802 (Ownerx); raquesting pt~rmi3sion ta EXPAND AN EXIS1'1NG BOARD AND CAKFs FACII.i'rY WTTN WAIV~R OF MINIMUM NUMI~Gk nF YARKINC 5PAC~S IN A GARAGE on pruperty deecribe~ as: A x~ctaiigularly- ehapnd parcol of lnnd conai.eting of approximately 0.4 ncre having a frontage af npproxi- mat.ely 157 f.aet on the sot~th eide of Orangewoad AvenuQ~ hsving a taaxtmum depth of nppt'or.i- aotely 130 fe~t u~id hein~ located approximately 336 feel• eaet of the centerlinEe of ~tuuntain View Avenuc, and furthsr describe3 as 354 F.aet Orxngc~wood Avenue, Property r"esently c.laseitied RS--A-43~000 (R~:SIDEr1TIAI./AGRICIJLTURAL) ZONE. No one indlcatad thei.r preeence in oppoaiti.oi- Co sub~ect petlCion. A'lthaugt~ Che Scaff Ruport r,o the Planning CommlAeion dated Merch ~1~ 1975, wa~ not read at the publi.c hearing, it i.a referred to and ande a part of thn minutes. Mr. Gene A. Albin, Sr., the petitionor, appeared before the Pl.anning Coaunisai.on And atated he did not object ta making the required dedication for otreet widening; that if l-hey were r.equired to make the improvementa al.ong Urz~ngewood Avenue, a financ:ial hard~hip would be created, since they had planned to use the reven~le from the additional hedroom board and care to pay for said atreet improvem~nts, Uut not eight away; und that he had invested approximately $20,000 on i.mprovpmenCe an the pr.dp~rty to dare. TFIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D. Office Engineer Jay Titus adviaed that the Interdepartmental Committee recommendation requiring inetal].ation of the street improvemenCa waa standard procedure wt~enever n use changed or expanded. and the intentian of the condltiun, as set forth in the Staff Repork, wae that said improvemente be inetalled at thie time. In reply to c~uestioning by Chairm~.n Herbst~ Mr. Titus further Rdvi~ed thut there were other ad,iacent properties which were not fully improved; that the City did not install Che improvements for isolated parcels and also did nAt have a street improvement project involving the ~ubject property; however, it may be poseible for the petitioner to post a bond for said improvementa and the City to defer the instal.lation for a period of time, if the situation warranted. In responae to questioning by Commisaioner Morley, Mr. Albin stipulated they would p~st a bond and insCall the a~'reet impxavementa within 12 montha, which was their original intenCion. It was noted tl~at the Director of Development Servi.ces had determined that the proposed activity fell wiChin Che definition of Section 3.01, Class r of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirementa £or an Environmental Impact Report and wae, therefore, categorically exempt from Che requirement to file an EIR. Commisaioner Morley offered Resolution No. FC75-67 and moved for its pasasge and adoption, that Petir.ion for Conditional llse Permit No, 1527 be and hereby is granted, grant~.ng waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces in a garag~ to allow one parking space in a garage on the basis that the request is reasonable for Che proposed uae and since five additional parking spacea are provided on the sul~~ect property; subje~t to the condition that a bond in an amount and form sati.afactory l•o the City of Maheim ahall be poated to guarantee the inatalJ.ation of the atreet improvementa along Orangewood Avenue, eatd bond to be poaced prior to commencement of the activity suthorized under thie resotution or prior to the tiwe that a building permit ia iasued, or within a period of one year, which- ever oc~crs first, provided however that. thc bonding privilegea ahall be granted ior one year to exuire dn March 31, 1976, at which time s31d improvements shall be completed, as atipulated to by the petitioner; and sub~ect Co the Interdepartmental Committee recom- mendations. (Sc~A Reaolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSLONERS: T'AltANO~ GAUER, JOHNSON, RING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ HERBST NOES: COrC1ISSI0NERS: NONE ABSENT: COI~4~lISSIONERS: NONE ~ ~ ~ MINISTFS~ CI'fY PLANNING COhQdI3SI0N~ Mr+rch 31. 197~ 75-164 VARIANCN N0. 268b - PUI~I.IC NEARINC. GEORGF. WOt~t~R, 1817 East Clifpark Wap~ Anaheim, Ca. !~ 92805 (Owner); roquesti.nq WAIVEh OF P~RMITTED POULTRY TO AL1,OW A PFT ROOSTER on ~roperty d~saribad ae; A rRCtangularly-ehnped par.ccl of ;.and coneleting ~f approximately 6100 eyuacc~ f.c~et having a frontege of approximataly 5l. feet on Ch~ north Aide oE Clifpark Way. having a maximum depth of approximately 100 foet and hQl.ng locatad approxim~[ely 530 feet wedt aC tlie centerline. of State College Bc~uiAVard, and furthcr daecribed Ae 1817 East Clifpark Way. F'ruper=y pre~~ently claeeified R5~7200 (ItESIDEN'fIAY~, SIN(;LE~FMiI].Y) 20NE. No one indicc-~ed their presence~ in oppostCl.on to eab;J~~ct petition. Although the 5taft Rep~rl• to the 1'lanning Comcuiaeion dated March 31~ 1975~ was n~t read at thc public hear±ng, it is referred to r~nd made u part of the minutea. Mr.. George Waimner, tt~e peCitioner~ appeared before the Ylanning Ccmimisaion to Anawer queations ragarding ths pruposal. THE POTiLIC HLARING WAS CLOSEU. In response to quesCion~ng by the Planning Commiseion, Mr, Wommer stated the rooster !n queation t~ad been a family pet for approximately six year:; that the life expectancy ot a rooster was approximately seven yeurs and Ctiey did not intend to replare the rooeter upor~ hia de.mise; and that the rooster would be '.cept inslde Che residence and/or garage and in a cage the ma~ority of the time, and eapec~ally aC night and until 9:00 a.m. It wae noted thAt the Director of Developme~nt S~rvicea had determi.ned that the prnposed activity fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of Che City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requiremante for an h,nvironmentgl Impacx Report and was, therefore, cnCegorically axewpt from the requirPmenC r.o f•11~ an EIR. Commissloner Tolax offered Resolutio-i No. PC75-68 and moved for its pasya~e and adoptlon, Chat Petition for Variance No. 2686 be and hereby is granted for a time limi.tation of two years and, upon request by the petitioner, an additional peria~ o£ Cime may be graneed upoii approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Counci2; and sub~ect to lnterdepart- menLa~ uommittee recommendationa, (See Reaolution Bo~k) On roll call, the foregoing resolution wae passed by the following vote: AYES: COIQIISSIONERS: FARANO~ GAUER~ JOHNSCN, KING, MORLEY, TOT.AR, HERI3ST NOES: COMM'3SIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COr41IS5I0NERS: NONE RECESS - At 3:4U p.m., Chairman Herbat declAred a recess. P.ECONVENE - At 3:45 p.m., Chairman I'_erbst reconvened the meeting with all Commiasioners being presenC. VARIANCE N0. 26$8 •• PUIILTC HEARING. THEODCIRE AND DEANNA TODOROFF, 925 Norti~ An.aheim Boulevard, Anahaim, Ca. 92805 (Owner); requesting WAIVER OF PERMITT~D USES TO ESTABLZSH TRANSMISSION AND AUTOMOBILE REPAIR WORK. AT A SERVICE STATION SITE on property described as: An irregul~rly-ehaped parcel of land consisting uf approximately 7200 square feet Yocated at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Bou.le~ard, having approsimate frontages of 34 feet on the south aide of La Palma Avenue and 129 feat on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, and further desaribed as 929 North M zheim Boulevard. Property presently classified CG (COI~4(ERCIAL, GENERAL) ZOhE. No one indicated their presence in opposltion to subj~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commissian dated March 31, 1975~ was nQt read at the publi.c hearing, it ia referred to snd made a part of the minutes. Mra. Ai-n T. Madison, 600 South Harbor Soulevard, Anaheim, *_he agent for the petitioner, appeared b~fore the Planning Commission and atated the proposed use would be compatible with exiating usea in the ar~a; that the propoeal would give new lire to an old service atation aite~ however, the use s`~ould be ~udged on ita own mexit and not on the ability of the pekitioner to comply with th~ recommended conditions of approval9 as set £ort:~ in the ~ ~ • MINU1'G5, CI'I~ PLANNING COD41I9910N, Mnrch ~1, 1975 VARIANCE N0. 2688 (Conti.nued) 75-1G9 Staf.f KeporC; that, regarding tlie req«i.rad dedication for el•reek wtrlening, ekc.~ the petltionnr was prepared to d~di.catn £or L-he alley widening and for thu ekreet wideni.ng along Anahelm Houlevard~ h~wev+:r, additionnl dedication along La Palma Avenue would cruate a severe hardehip f~r. ttie property sinco Chora woul.d thar, nat Ue et~ough ro~m on the prap- erty E~r purking and acceae to tha bullding; tl~at no n~w etructures wer.e proposed to be built; that the Gi.Cy presently t~r-~1 no Lmmediatu plane for the wid~ning of LA Palma Avenue; that the removul or recongtruction of the drivc~wdye alonq La Palma Aven~e would be a greal• expenee and ltiardehip to the petit:io~ter and~ £urther, when Clte etreet waH wicl~ned th~ curbe aud drives would probabl,y have to be removed ur reconstructed r~Rain at that time; that the drivEways were not i.n bad elir~pe pr9eently; that. regarding the requirement for feea for tree p~anCing purposes, there werc~ preaently no pHrkways ud~acent to the ~ub1eat proparty and. Cher~fore, the fa~~s whict~ would amounC to arproxlmately $97.A0 sesmed unreasonable nnd innp~ropri~ate~ und ahould be watved. 'fHls PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSEQ. In responae~ to questioning by Commiesioner Farano~ Mr. Toduroff also appeared before the Pranning Couuniseion and etated the extent of remodeling would include Che pninting ut the exiating str.ur_ture, Che separation and remodeling to c:ode rsquiremente of an office inside the atr.ucture; tha cloeing off of ane dour and replacing two doora wiCh aolid roller doore~ r.he inst.allal•lon of lifte~ and the repair or replacement of damaged met~l panels on the building. Comtuiesi.oner Farano than noted that in the Planning Crnnmission's coneideration o': other prapoded uses of abandoned service stntiona ~n thP City~ emphasis had been placed on appearance; thaC he was not inclined to favor the proposecl uae if the atructure was only goi.ng to be painted, since the City was trying lo upE ade the site; thaC eome uses of aervice atation siCes iucluded upgrading at suh~tanti,il expanse sa thst the new u~e did not have the appearance of a aervice station and~ additionally, ttie uaeA were made to comply •ith the CL site development skandarda; and that since he wao not inclined to favor the contlnued exietence of an abandoned servi.c:. etation in ito present form, detailed plane showing how i.l~e propert,y would be improved should be required in this particular instance. Mrs. Madieun stated the propoaed use was probd~ly a nonconforming uae, and Chairman Herbst clarified tt~a~ usr~ of the property for other than a service stati.on would not be a non- conforming use. In response to queationing by Commi.aeioner Kfn~, Office Engineer Jay Titus advised that dedi.cnti~n on I~a Palma Avenue could be a conditional dedication, effective at suth time aa ~the City dekermined it was necessary to tuke the dedication, being an irrevocable of£er of dedication effective at the time Che atreet was widened. He further advised regarding the rerooval or reconetruction of the drivewaya on La Yalma Avenue that he had not viewed the property in thP f.ield, however, if. said driveways wet•e in bad repair and were unsafe for pedestrians~ then the removal or reconstruction should be done presently; however, if Che driveways were nut unsafe, tn~ r~quiremene to remove or reconatruct would be at the dis- ~reCiun of Che City. Mr. Todoroff, tt~e petitioner, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated it would probably be easy to jusC rear the building down; however, he was trying to get into business at t~ie sub~ect location and then, in a few yeare when La Pfilma Avenue was widened requiring that the building would have to be moved back, a new structure would probably be built that would iaaet with tne appr.oval of the community. In response to quesCioning by Commis- sioner King, Mr. Todorof.f stated that all of r.he transmisaion wo.rk would be conducted within the bui'~ding, since the hydraulic lifta would ?~e located inside. Commissioner Farano questioned whether the existing building would meet the requirements of the Unifurm Butlding, Plumbi^g~ Electrical, Houaing~ Mechanical, and Fire Codes, since tt-e City did not have the auth~~ity to wa~ve said requirdnenta, and noted that although the building might meet the Code requirements from the atandpoint of a service station, there might be subatantial question as to whether it would meet the Code requirements for the use that was being propoaed. Thereupan, Mr. Todoroff stated they would only be conductiag tranf ~isoion work on the premi.aes and the building met his requiremente for that uee. ~ O MINUTES, CI:"Y P1.ANNtNC CObiMISSION, March 31~ 1975 ~ ~ 75-170 VARIANCF. N0. 26gA (t~oi~tinued) Commiseloner F'axano tlien indicnted that parhupe tho euA~ect petitioii ehould be contlnu~J for input frc~m the Bui.ldi.ng Uivieion. Mr. Todoroff then etaCed tt~at C-ie gneoli.ne pumpe und tanks liad already bean removed from tt~e eita~ and he describecl the prupoeal in morc+ detail~ stuting Chat one wall af the buil,ding wauld b9 cl.uu~d oft usi~g pAne:a to mntcti lhe rest of the huilding; that there would be a two-car roller door on the front of thv building~ r~ one-car rollor door on the no~cth eido facing Lfl Palma Avenue. and n i.ollc~r door on the soutli side; that there. wuuld be a pnrtition built ineide the r~lri-cturA Co separate the office portion~ which would cost. approximately $6,000 ~o builcl to C~de requiremenks, In reapunae to quesCioning by Commi~gioner i~it~g. Mc. Tador~aff. et;ated the surface of the sita wae blacktoppNd ancl all of the chuckholes~ etc., had bean repaired; and rhac the clented walla oc panela on the building would be repaired ~x replaced. Mr Todoro£f added that he had lived i.n [he City of A:iaheim for approximately five yeare nn~ ll• wae a i-ic~ cammunir.y and 1ie Qid not wiah Co change Chat image. Cunw-tysioner King nor.~~rl that the propoaed use appeared Co be compatibl.e with the exi::Cing uses in the area; whereupon, Commisaionera Johnson and Tolu: ^~:icurred. In response to questioning by Chairman Hc~rbst~ 1)eputy City AtCorney Prank Lawry advised that 1f dedicatiun w~s required as a conciition f.or granting a condi.tional uae permit~ variance or recl~ssi~ication, no aeveranr.e aonsiderationa wQre necesaary; however, if aa R resulr of dedication, the property became unuRable. then the CiCy might wiah to condeu-n the property and possi_Lly pay severance dt~mages. He further adviaed that if the proposed ~iae was grantPd without a reyuirement concecning dediration, then when dedication wd~ Caken, the City would probably be in a poeition requiiing paymen` for sevzrance damages. Thereupon~ Chairman Herbat noted that fr.om the proporCionate dedicatiox- along La Palma Avenue compared ta the size of the proper.ty, it appeared that some compensatiun for. the dedicnted land might be uppropriute. In reeponse tr questioning by Commiasioner Farano, Mr. Todor.nff stated he t-~ad ownea the sub~ect property for approximatel.y ehree and one-half years. Mr. Todoroff further atxted that there had been a druinage problcm in the adjACent alley with water up to the hubcaps of automobilea, and they were taking care af that aituation. Thereupon, the Ptanning Commiesion entared into diecussian regarding an ~pp'ropriate manner of approving tt-e proposed use, during which Commissioner Gauer noted that the requirement to dedicate for the widening of La Palma Avenue would teke a aubstantial portion of• the sub~ect parcel and that t~e tended to agree with a previous Planning Commiesi.oner who would r~ever approve taking property without compensating the property owner; and, f.urr_her, that if a larger parc:el was invol.ved, he would be inclined to require the dedication. Of€ice Engineer Jay Titus reviewed the hiator~~ concerning the widening of La 'Palma Avenue and noted that i~ was designated as a pr~mary highway to be ~06 feet wide, however, a preciae alignment for the sCreet was not decided uPon to date, whether the dedication ~hould be taken solely from the north ur from the aouth, etc.; therefore, i~ was Staff's poaition that, since the street was a deaignated primary highway, dedicati.on ahould be required at this time. Coinmissioner Farano then noted Chat he would favox the proposal for a two-year period only, subject to review in relationship to the matters of dedication, provided that find- ings were made to support such an action in view of the manner in which other aimilar »Res of abandoned service station sites were granted by the Planniag Commission. He further noted that the proposal, even though it tnay be grant~d by the Planning Commissl.on, may never be able to meet the requirements of the Building Code. Mr. Todoroff then stated that if the building wac~ torn down, what could be built on the property, t~ which Commis- aioner Farano indicated that was a aubstantial reason to Erant ttie request for a limited time. In response to questioning by Mr. Lowty, Mr. Todoroff stated that he had checked with thz Buildiiig Division and was advised ttiat building permiCS were not r~quired for the lifts which would be inaCalled in the buildfng. It was noted that Che Director o Development Services tiad determined that the proposed activity fell within thP definition of Section 3.01, Clasa 1 of the City of Ananeim Guidelines to the Requixements for an Environmental Imp~ct R,:port and was, therefore, categorically exempt irom the requiro_ment to file an BIR. • a ~ MINU'1 i;8 ~ CITY PLAI3NING COMh9ISSI0N, March 31, 1975 VARIANCE N0. 2b88 (Continuarl) 7~-1~1 (:ommioeioner JohnHOn offored Reeolution No. PC75-69 nnd movod f~r ite pnesage ~nd adoption. that Potilion eac Veriance No. 2688 ba and hereby ia grant~d far a Cime limieation of two yeare~ Nub~ect to revlew and conAiderntion for exteneion ~f time~ upon raqucc~t by the pekitioner~ eaid propoNal being an lrit~rim use to nllow the petitinner to have use of the sub,~eat pruporty and an exteneion o~ time ehall be predicate~d on the etutua of the Cit~~ o.f Anaheim's noed for ndditi.onal dedieeti.on for the widening of La Pulmn Avenue and Ai~aheim Boulevard~ f.n which event the property may ba r.equired to be developed in confc rn~an.:e with the site development etandarda of the CC Zon~ And the eize and ehApe of the property way thon nol i~c auttable tor the propuded unn; ~ub~ect to the conclltion Chet che owiier(s) oF aub~ect property ehall d~ed to Che City af Anaheim a strip of land 10 feet in width f~•om the centerli.ne of thr_ ulley along the wesC property line for alley-widening pur.p~des, an etipulated to by the petitioner.; thar upon the establlshment oE the ultimate aligiument of La Palma Avenue by the City of Anaheim and when additional dedicatiun ia reqUired, the property ownar(n) ahul!. dedicate a atrip of land 40 feet in widr,h from the centerline of th~ street along Andhein: Raulpvard and a etrip of land 53 f.Pet in width from the center- line of the erreel- ~+long Ln Pul.mc~ Avenue~ for etreet-widening purp~oes; Cha.r_ upon the Pe~abliehment of the ultima[e alignment of Ln Ya~ma Avenue by the Ci.ty of Atiaheim, the property owner(s) eFiall remove and/or reccnetrur.t the driveways nlong La Yn1mr~ Avenue and remove and/or reconeCxuct the curbs al~ng Anaheir.~ Boulavard~ as required uy the City Eng{.neeT~ and in accordance with tihe A[.nndard plans and specificatione on file in the Offtce of the City Engi.neer; that Che exiating building stiall be brought up to the minimum atandards o£ t.he City of Anaheim, includi.ng the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Houging, Elechunical And Fire GodeR~ as adopCed by the City of Anaheim; and eub~ect to 'Interdepartmeatal Committee recommendatlona. (See ltesolution Book) On xoll call, the foreguing resoYution wsa pabsed by the following vote: AYGS: COMMISSION~Ri: FA~ANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HFRB5T NOES: COI~iISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE PROJECT BETA - To consider an expansion of the redpvelopment area ~ro~ect Algha. Subject item was conti.naed from the meeting of March 17, 1915, for further study. The Planning Commiasion acknowledged recelpt of rhe report known aa the "Draft Yreliminary Plan for Actaheim Redevelopment Project Area I3eta" which was prepared pursuant to the Cal.ifornia Communlty Redevelopment I.c+w and presented to the Planning Commi~sion with a rer_ommendation of approva.t from the Gommunity Redevelopment Commission. Redavelopment Agency Director Knowlton Fernald presented exhibits and charts and di.scussed the program for Project Alpha, the schedule of programs, or~anization, fi~•.ancitig, market- in~, citizen participation, relocation~ housing, planning, and implementation, etc. He noted that the Redevelopment Program had accompliahed a great deal ko get underwa~• and that each step in the processing was progr.essing on a very tight schedule; that much time had been 3pent in making the vs~rious trade-offs necassary to bE able Co recommend the new boundaries for Fro~ect B~ta; that following Planning Commission action on the *ecommenda- tions uf the Community Redevelopment Commiasion, a pr.o.ject area committee would be formed, basic documenCs would be processed, and a publie heati~.g held before the Redevelopment Agency. ~le continued by noting that adding corri.dors, including Anaheim Bou?.evard, Broadway and Lincoln Avenue, to the project area would increase the supporting capacity; that being included in the project area would not handicap or re~trict the development or improvement of properties, however, a].arger pro~ject area would enable the City to more easily work i'or key pro~ects; that it was not expected that the entire pro,ject area would be redeveloped, however, assistance would be offered with reApect to land a~sembly, etc.; that the redevelopment p.rogram would probably develop neighborhood parks, install landscap- ing, close off certain atreets wlth cul--de-sacs, etc., and attempt to providF continuity in the City; that existing pro,jects would "oe rehabilitated and new development would be brought to the area; that all redevelopment pro~ects must be locnted within the adopted pro~ect area boundariea or serve a particular pro~ect area under certain circumatances; and that the larger projecC area would create greater flexibility. Atr. Fernald further noted that Cran~portation syatems woiild be incorporated into tl~e pro~ect area and the et.cy would aork with the State to provide easy-fl~wing traffic, si.nce circulation for the Southern California area, including Los Angeles and San Biego, were very important to consider. ~ o • MINUTES, CITY FLANNINC COMMI~SION~ Marcl~ 3l~ 1975 '15- 17? 1'ROJECT. BE'PA (Cc.~ntinuedl T.n rQaponse Co qt-estioning by Commiselont~r 1'olar. Mr. Fernald noted that the Cit.y could pr.oceed under Pro~ect Alphn and hnve whatev~~c 9uccese coul.d be acht~,ved~ nnd then two or th~ee yenr~ lnter prace~d undex Prolect Detn~ which wou.l.d be nn exphneion of the originnl ar~u~ howevar~ by combining the two pro~t~ct ii~~as nt th'le point in time would enable the City k~ combine khe planning And cxpei~di.tures ar+d no~ have r.o duplicnte planning anct expendit.ures at a later dntc; thah the c.ombinntion of the areae would make R mur.h mnr.e marketable progrum; that pre~ently the Planning wue at a point whera Pro~ect Beta cc~uld begin to be incorporoted; thnk altern~tive~ had been studied c~nd 9eCu could be ~~i.ther add~d ur l~ft out with the hop~ thnr Alphc- woul.d be nucceaeful; nnd thnt more prc~blema woul.d be tak~n iti thun the income fram it would repay, however~ by adding Beta, tiie City would be in a bettt~r poaitiun to make A1phe succe~aful. Commisefoner Fnrano euggeated Chat if atreets or corridora wer~~ the vit~1 e.lemPnte cen- tained in U~ta, then juat the streeCa ur r_orridors ahould posc~ibly be included, whereupun, Mr. Ferna'd notecl tliat if the pro~ect area wufl in bits and piecea, then the incume Erom the pro~ect would have r,o be kpent in those amall area~ Mr. Fornalcl further noted khar the City needed n larger area Co bring about a biggex and better plan tor r.he City. Chairman Herbat noted Chat it wAS questionable juat tiow much ~ddittonal highriae office space Orange Covnty could ttbeorb and the City woiild need ta know how much tiiey could sell; and he questioned what the effects of the larger. pro~ect area would be on the tax b3se for tt~e aurrouc-ding area. He tioted Chat it appeared the tIIx iiicrement was geared to help downetreFUn ab~ut 30 yeurs and he questioned what wou].d happen half-way down the line when money was going out and nothing was coi~~ing in; and th~~ t~e was concerned about the tax rate Eor properties o~it of projer_t areF~s, since the County would have to bP able r~ tnx for the required wervicea. Mr. Fernald advised that certc?in type taxes, i.e., th2 bed tax, etc., would proUahly be increased to help make ~ip the difference needed for Che services. Thereupon, the P3.artning Cammission entered into discuasion with Mr. Fernald regarding the overall effects of the tax increment financing and the Planning Commission indicated they were interested iit seeing a plan for redevelopment and perhaps a markettng survey; and, generally, it wa~ recognized that if there was highrise developmsnt downstream, adequnte ci.rculati~n would be required, however, if the circ.ulation was provided, then L-he Plannins Commissioii would be interested to k~iow if the pro~ect would aell. Mr. Clyde H. Pomeroy, 456 North Mari.posa Place, AnaheTU'rampwhich hefstatedewasaablegto Commission and reviewed the tax increment financinp, p 8 etabili.ze the tax Uase for cities. He indicated t~e did not favor Pro~ect i3e~a aince it did not give access to Freeway 51 and, additionall.y, he disagre~d with the i:ranflit tPrmina].s; and that W}7CI1 the c;ity had accomplished Pro~ect Alpha, creating a performance record, newer and hi~her levels of development wuuld bec~c~e interestecl in [he City's additional project areas. The Plantiin~ Commiesion entered into discussion with Mr. Fernald regarding alternatives to expa~ding Pro~ect Area A1phr~, duri~tg which nevelopment Services Directur Ronald Th~mpson noted that, originally, :lt was felt by those workii~g ~n the redevelopment glan that r.he area covered 3n Beta was necessar.y if the redevelopment of the downtown ar~a was to be viable; however, Alpha was pursued, knowin& Chat Beta was ~ust arosnd the corner. Mr. Thompson further noted Chat through Project Bata, the City may see mor.e money from taxes actually spent to benefi~ the City and the downtown area. Commissioner ~'arano indir.ated that the Planning Commissi~n wanted to know why corridors could not be considered wiChout taking large chunks of the City and that alternatives in that respect would be helpful in the Commission's consider~tion ef the matter. Chairman Herbst then noted thak from one of the exhibits being displayed it appeared money was being spent in the industrial area when the purpose was to spend it downtown, and private enterprisP ahould be doing some of thoae things; and that it appeared the incentive was being taken sway from the progcrty ownera to develop their pro~,erl•y and make the street and drainage improvements~ e+:c., which were being requited of developers outaide the project areas. The Planning Commisaion~ thereupon, generally concurred that a work ~ession be echeduled for April 9, 1975, at 7:OU p.m., in the Redevelopment Dep~srtmenr, c~nference room, to further discuas tl~e preposal for expar-sion of the redevelop-nent pro~ect area and to develop al*_e~'natives for consideration at the regular Planning Commiestar. meetiiig to be held April 14, 1975. ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S~ CtTY YI.AIVNING CUMMi53I0N~ Mercl~ 31, 1975 75-1.73 REQUF:ST FOR EIR NECATIVE DCCl~AMTION FOR A CRM~NG PBRMIT ~OR FOUK SINGLE-F!~t1tLY 1!(1Mis5 AT 4771-4791 LAKEVI~W AVENUE. _, ..~__._.._.._-. __r_._._.__._- It wes iiokad Ck~at un appllcaCion had been filea f4r a grading p~rmit J.n connectian urith the conatrucCian of four singlF-~nmily hames on four one-acre lota loca~ed at 4771-47~1 l,akeview Avenue; tl~ut ur evaluatioa of the environmenCal iropect of }~rading at tlite location aae required under the i~rovieions of ~he California Environmental. Q~iality Act and the State N.IR G~iicielines because the pro~ect wns located in the Scenic Corridor; that l•he site wae preACntly a producing orange grove; that ~iae of the proparty for conetruction of C~pidPncer~ wo~~ld result in the r.emoval of a lar~~ numher ot orange tre~s. althoi~gh many woul.d bfl te~mined for Che futura reaidente; that the canvereion uf land from agric:ulturel proc'uction to urban usea wae o frequenk occurrence withi.n the City of Maheim and a netural consequence ~! development nnd~ tlierefore, it did not appsar to come under thp definiCion of "si~c+i.ficant lmpact" according lo the State EIR GuldelinEa, eincp it wae not in conflict w1.Ch the ~nvironmenkal plans and goals that iiad been adopted by the communi[y; ur~d that n etudv of Che propased grnding by the Engineering DiviAion and the Develapmenl• ServiceR UepertmenC indicated thc~t it would have no aignificant environmental .Lmpect. Comtuisaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Comm~lseioner Morley and MOTION CARRIFD, that the Pla~ining Commiseion recomraends to the City Council Chat th4 sub~ecr, project be exempC from the requiremenk to pr.epare an Environmental Impact Report, purRUank ta the ~>rovisiona of the CAliforniu I:nvirocu~iantul Quality Act. RF. U~ST FOR EIR NEGATIVE :)ECLA.Rt1TIJN FOR CONVENTION ~ENTER PARKING STRUCTURE. It was noted that the Community Center AuthoriCy was proposing to construct a concrete parking strucLure ln the weat parking lot of the Anah~im Convention Center; that the proposed atr~ct~ire would be approximat~l.y 207 b; 409 feet and 15 feet h3.gh, and pr.oviding 357 parking sp~ces; ~hat said parki~-g lot wuuld also be re~krtped tu provide smxller apaces for compact cars to add 254 apaces, Eor a totnl increase of 611 parking apaces; that the initial study of the em~ironmental impact conducted by the Pix~l.ic W~rk3 and De~~el.opment Services DeparCment indicated th~re wauld b~ no significant environmenta? impact resulting from the pro~ect, if an adequate traffic aigna].ing ayatem was provic:~d consisting of a new traffic signal aC West Street und Convention Way, a new t~affic controller at WesC SCreet and Kstella Avenue, and a telenhone interconnect between the Weat Street signals, said si~naling ~ystem eliminaCing any traffic hazard 3nd any aignifl- cant congestion wt-ich could result from the added parki~ig. Commissioner King offere~ a motion, seconded by Commiseioner Morley and MO'TIUN CARRIED, tnat the Planning Commission recommends to the City Coun~il tiat the sub~ect pr.o~ect be exempt ~rom tre requirement to prepare ar. Envi.ronmental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the Callfornia Enviro~:.::uC.1 Qu~lity Act. REPORTS AND - ITCM N0~1 RECOMMENllATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1142 - Request for termination - Property consisting of approximately 8.9 acres, located at the norCh~est corner of Blue Gim- and Coronadu Streeta, and zoned ML. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Couunisaion dated March 31, 19i5, wus not read ar. the meeting, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. It was noted that a letter had been received from Mr. Dick Taormina reouesting that Condi- tiorial Use PermiC No, 2142 be terminated, said letter indicating that Mr. Taormina had "no use for the permit at this time; the Cenanta that wanted this permit ~ancelled Che lease on July 1, 1970." - It was furthcr noted that the sub~ect matter was conaidered by the Planning Comani.esion on February 19, 1475, howev~r~ no actio~. was taken aince the propPrty owner was not available to answer questions. 7.oning Supervisor Charles ltoberts reviewed rhe Staff Report for the Plann±ng Canm~ieeion and noted that tt number ~£ complainta had be~n received by the C:Lty regarding the oiitdoor activities at th~ sub~ect location, including Che dumping of oil, ato~age of unueable automotive parts, temparary landscapir.g, etc.; Cnat t'he propezty owner was requesting that ~ a ~ MIIJUrES~ CIT1 PLANN'LNC COMMl.S5Y0N, March 3.1, 1975 75-174 ITEM NU. 1 (Continued) r.he eub,~ect c~ndiCional usa pa~:mlt he terminated and City Staff'e recommendntion wae l-hat i.f usld per.ml.l: were to be terminrtr.ed tha[ Lr be conditloned upon all improvem~nta which war~ i~.~talled on the enutherly hnlf of the property Aub~oquent to annc+netlon~ beinp, removed na~1 the uKe of che proparty Ueing rEVerCe~ ta the sume atnte nA exiseed aC cho Cime uf annc~:a,_ ion. Mr. Dick 'Cuormina~ the property owner, nppeHxed before the P1.Anninq Commiselau and ac~cnowl,- edged Chat the et~CQmente as presonted by City Staff and s~t fortl~ in the Stnff Repurt were t~~ue. He etnted thnt the ~~rwaeh structur.e could be removc~ci. Chairm&.n He*bst not~d that he had viewed Ctie prop~rty on aeveral occaei.one nnJ otes a Planning Com~nisei~mer when the conditiun~ti u~e permi.C was grantNd for thcs use of aub~ect prnperty; that it appeared the condieiana of appruvul of said conditioTial use permit were totally ignored; thaC, whether or not Che properCy owncr. was present when the conditiona]. use wae granted~ wu~ lrrelevant eince the property wa~ then and atitl wns in Mr. Taormina's nams, and Lhe permLt wua alao isaued in Mr. Taot~niina's name; and thut the truckin~ facility wa~ consldered to be a good uAe of the sub~ect Property, however, it had bsen allowed to downgrade the ~ren by I~ecoming sumewhnC o£ a~unk y~rd. Mr. 'Taormina then etated that ~r.ucke would epill or leak oil to a cerCain degree and that the aame cunditiona T~ould be found in an~ truck stop; und thar the property was not a junk yard. Chairman Herbet noted Ctint when I•~ was at thE ~ub3ACt sit~, he t~aw parts of. trucks, atc., on the property and, in response, Mr. Taorm~na stated the tenant~ left items on their plcts when they wanted to. Chaircuan Herbet then nc~teci that wae a reasun for the property requir- Lng n proper screening wall. Mr. Taorminu then stated that he had improved the area by installing curbs and guClera and then he le~sed some of the prope.rty fur the CYUCk wash; that, subsequently, new buildingg Were constructed xo the weat of lifs property and at ttiat Cime he wanted to ~,ay half for the block wall. He queati.oned why the property owners to tlie west were not required to construct :s block wall since they also had ~~LCdoor storage, whereupoti, Chairman Herbst noted thut the conditional use permit for Mr. Taormina's property h~d been grarted wlth the c~tipullCion for eiCher a block wall or ~he chai.nlink fencing with landscaping. There- upon, Mr. Taormina stated the Planning Gommission wou13 be doing him A favor to close t~i.m down sinc:e he had done everything he could L~ make the proper:.y look qood and that he had plowe~i some of the property to kill khe weeds, but thc neighoors then complained about th~ dust. In response to que~ ioning by Commissioner K1ng, Mr. Taormina atated he had approximately two acres of plain land. Mr. '~au<<uAnu iur.ther stated in:it he orould just ar~ 300R take out 50 x 7Q0 feet of blacktop and revert t'~:e ].~.nd to grass, and also remove the one structure. Commissioner Farano reviewed the matters which wer.~ ~f concer.n to the Plannit ; Commissi.on and the ad~acent pronerty owner.s and, in response to specific iCems, Mr. Taormina stipulated that he would contact each tenant of the trucl; etop to remove the iindeslrahle items being atored on their plot at once; that t~he one truck which was considered to be dumping a su~- atantir~l amount of oil on the property hIId already ceased to do Ao; and that he would stipulate to whatever the Zoning Diviainn felt *aas necessary to comply. Thereupon, Mr. ltoberts advised that the best way to handle the siLuation !•ias to provide the acreening of khe property and allow the uae to continue since there was a need for a trucking facility in Anaheim; that Che t~roperty shau2d be brought up to Code, including that landacaping be providad for tt-e full distance of the wast and north property lines and iuclud.° 5-gallon acacia latifolia planted on 10-foot centers and 15-ggl~on Can~zy Island pines pl.antPd teCwe~n the c-cacia shrubs on 3U-foot centsra; and that since there was outdoor s::arage~ the wall had been origlnally requir.ed to screen the property. Mr. Taormina then si~pulated to constructi.ng a cha~nlink fence along tha aouth property line whtch would be interwoven with redwood o: cedar slats. Reg.lydi.ng tt~e existing fence on the north praperty line, Mr. Taormina atated that fence ahould b~ allowed to rea,ain; nnd that since the property was below the grade of the adiacent freeway and there was abouC 15 acres of vgcant land, there s~ould be no problem. He stipulated tY~at w}-en the property Co the north developed, the f~:nce to the north could be ~ ~ i MLNUTC3. CITY P1.ANNiNG COMMiBS~ON~ Mnr~~h 31~ 1~175 ITEM N0. 1 (Cantlnued) 75-175 replnced nt ttiaC timu. N,r. Robertr clarif lad thnt if t:he proporty ro the nortt~ did not devalop with nn uutduac uee. lhen tha entlro coat of tl~e [ence r.o Che u~rth would ~tlll bo the reaponaihtli.ty of Mc. 'Cnormina. Mr. Robnrte fur~l~er udvia ~ thul clie Inndecapinq woul.d need to be i.netallcAd naxt [a Cti~ ahainlii~k fence, Mr. 'Caormina ttien Ntipuiel.r.d to conatructing a fence on the n~rch prnpPrry line. Mr. Karl Sator~ y~t~l 1{nz~l Cf.rcle~ Vi'ls Park, app~ered before the Planning Commieetan e~nd etalEd lie uwned pr~perty ad~ecenC to tl~e eub~eck property ai•~d had a eubstan:ial. invesC~ent~ that tt~ere w~•~ m~re than one sCruct:~rc~ on Che eubject proper.ty~ tlie addi.t:ionel eCructurc~ being u eheok met.al bul.lding which wAe on the property prlar to nnnexatinn; that ovar thF yc~are r.here had beeii euch activitiea ae paper etornge £rom the diepoeal plont~ truck ~~ins, eandhlaeting, etc.; and tha~~ in hie ~pinion. the property owner should be requ+_r~d ko upgrade the prap~~rty wltli no exc~,~tiona. Mr. 'faormina indic:ated tt-at paper had not been stored on Che sub~ect property for the laAt four yeary. In roeponee to quFetioning by Commiseio~~~_r Farano, Mr. Taormina stipulated tt~ut the fence a1~nK Che so~,r.h properCy line would be constr.ucted within 90 days, Mr. Roberte clarlfi~.. that if Clie opert:y to the west of the sat~jc~ct property Yixd outduor acorage. thcn the two propertiea could shat•e ttie reaponsibility for the outaide screening, Alld that the City would contr~ct thp oth~r property owner. if that was the case, to advise Chnt the 'wo property ownera were both requf.red to ttiave the £ence. Mr. Taormina atipulated that tha inkent wes to construct a f~nce on the nortt~, east an~1 south property lines. Mr. S~toY ecured that the landscap.Lng did not appear to be permanent, sinc~ CIlP. Crees were t~~ere Oll(: duy and gone the next d~;~ or au. Cutvmi :eioner l~arano c1ar.9.Pi.ed that the Planning Commiasion wa3 interpreting that tl.e sl-~pulatiand oE the property owner wo~sld bring the properCy i.ito c.onformance with the requiremente ea_.iblished under Conditi.onal Uae Permic No. 1142, and that Eollowing the 90- day period stipul.ated to Uy the prop~rt:y owner to make the necessary imprevementa to ehe subject property, the 2onii~g Enforcemenc Officer cf the City wuuJ.d be instructed and directed to issue citations for any nonconform~±nq condtl-ions. Mr. 'Taormir~a stated that approxlmatel.y three-fourths of the requirEd front landscaping waR in, however, the other one-fourth of the property li.ne was being utilized by a landscaper• to tempor•irily st~re plants until he was ready to use them elaewhPre. Mr. Pete Fletct-et, lly3 Blue Gtim Stree-., Maheim, appeared before tt~e Planning Commiasion and r:rated tiiat Mr. Sator had file~ complaints about hta pr~perty also and for khat reason he wa:; forced to make ce:tain imptovEments tu his property which he did not feel he would have otherwi4e ha~i to make. He further stated that as far as he was concerned the sub~ect property owner cou~.d do wha~ hA wished with his own prnperty. Commissloner Farano oftern~i a motion, seconded by Car~~~iasioner Morley and MOTION CAR~Ik.D, that the sub~ect request to terminate Condilional lise Permit No. 1142 ae and hereby is denied; provided, however, that the property owner stipulate~' to bringing the sub~ect property into cunfarmance with the conditions of approval of saiu conditional use permit within 90 days, including thnt an acceptable screen wall sliall be provided along the north, so~~th, eael and weg~ prop~rty l.~lnes; that the required landscaping shall be in- stalled permanently; that items considered to be "junk" shall not be atured on ttie subjec~ property either by the property owner or Che tenanta, ai~ stipulated to by the petitioner; and tt~aC Y.he Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Ci.ty shall be instr~-cted and directed to issue citlti~ns fur any noncoaforming conditions on the subject property after Tune 29, 1975. REPORT~ :4ND - ITEM Nl'~ , 2 RECOI~NDAI'IUNS AM~NllMENT TO TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - Site screening requirementa in multiple-family residential and cammercinl zonea, to provide far requiring walls in excess uf 6 feet in height in cnsea where such additaonal heighta are deemed necessary to protect ad~oining pxoperties. Commiaaioner Johnson uf: ~ a motion, seconded by Commissioner Farana and MOTION CARRIED, to eet the aubjact propoaed 3mendment to litle 18 of the Anat~eim Municipal Code for public hearing on April 28, 1975. o • • MINUTE9~ CiTY Pi.ANNrNG COMMi98I0N~ March 31~ 1975 rg'1•7~ RLPORTS AND - ['~EM NU~3 RBCOt~IfiLNI)A'fIONS TRACT NU. ~8455 - Reque~t for approvnl uf final epec:ific floor plan~~ elevetion~ and ten~a plan~ - Property conei.eting ut appruximaCely 15. h nare~ on tlte eouth eide ot Cunyon Rim Road, eppro~la-et~ly 1200 feet eabt of Nohl Ranch Road. Zoni.n~ Suparvieor Cherles Roherta peeeonted tha 9tsi'f Roport co the Planni.ng Commieeion dated Mut ch 31, 1975. and oald 9taf P kapnrt ie : e~`~rrsd to and au~de a part of th~o minutas. !lo m~tod that the petitionor (Westfiplci Develo{rment C~pxnyS wne requesting appcovnl of final flnor Q1Ans and e].evntians, and fonca plnns al.ong Canyon Rim Road, to eatiefy candl- tions og Approval of 'TracC No. R455; tl~ut on Ju1y 16~ 1974~ khe City Council appcovod tha 'Cantativo Map of Tra~ t No. 8455 oub~ect to cotopl~tian of Roclaeeifi.catiaa No. 71-72-44(11) for PC(R3-5000) zonin g nnd Varinnc.~ No. 2610 t~ permit a~7-lot aubdivieion with waivec af the requirement thar all lots rear onto Cenyon Aim Koed; rhot wrough~ iron £encieg~ from 42 inchee to 72 inche a ir~ height~ with A-inch b~ 8-ir.ch pyl.ons an 35-€oot canters, along the top of the el~pe adjacent to Canyon Rim Koad waA proposed. sai.d fencing being identical to that upprovc+d for Truct Nos. 8215 and 8220; that the propoeed subdiviaion conformgd to all of Che RS-50(10 2one requiremente nnd included Four model plane ranging from throe- bodroom, one-etary to fo»r-bedroom, two-~Cor.y; tl~at s11 af the propoo~d homeo would have o modium r.edar shake r.a of and attractive front architectura~. feature+s; and it appeared that all uf tha homes and tl~e fanci.ng would be comparable with Xhe reaidential er.r.~ictures and exisCing fancint in the area. Coromiseioner King off ~red i mokion~ seconded by CommiAelon~r Johneon end MOTIO'N CARItIED, that the finai spec•lf ic floor plane, elevatiane aad fence~ plans for Tract No. 8~i55 be and hsreby are aPproved f ox development nf a 37-lot, RS-5000 subdivision. AD,fOURNt~NT - T nere. baing no further buslnees to discues~ Comsniasioner Far~no ~~ffered ~. motion~ seconded by Commiseioner K•ing and MOTION CARRI~D~ to adjourn the aieating to April 9~ 1975~ at 7:00 p.m. in the Itedevelopment Department conference room f.or o W~rk Sesei~n regard- i.n~ Redevelopment Fra~ect Area Beta. The meeting xdjo~r.ned at 6:15 p.m. Reapectfully submitted, ) ~ % ~E.,l .~ ~..~~~ ~~ CL sc~~/'C~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary Maheim City Planning Commiseion PBS:hm