Loading...
Minutes-PC 1975/04/280 R r. 0 MIC~OFILMING S~RVICE, IMC ~ ~ ~ City Nn].1 Annheim, CalifurnAn April 28, 19~5 RI:GUI.AR MI~,h:PING UF Ti{I: ANnHr:IM CITY ,P1.ANNING COMMIS:iIUN RE;CUI,AR - A regular meeting of the An.Ahe.tm City Planning Commic~Rfon wnN cnU~d t:u MLETINC orr'er by Chairmun He~rbet at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamher, a yu~~rum I~eing presenl•. 1'fiES~;N7' - (:HATRI•IAN: Nerl•et - CUMMISSIUNI:RS: Gn~ier. .lc~hnson~ King, Morlcy, Tolar ARSGNT - COAII~IIS3ION~RS: Farano ALSQ PRGSisNT - Ronald Thompson Knowlton Fernald rrank Lowry .iay TiCus Chlrles Roharts Annika Santalahti 13i11 Young Fatri.cia Scenlan 11evc1opmenC. Servicc~s Dlrector Redevelopment Age~lcy DirecLor Deputy City Aktor~iey Office Engineer 'l.oning Supervisor Aseistant 'Lon.ing Supervisor Aasociate Planner Commi.syion Secretary l'LEDGE OF - Commissioner Morley led in the Pledge of Atlegiance to the F1ag of the ALLGGIr1NCE UniCed States of America. ENVIRONMENTAL IhII'ACT - CONTINUED PllBLIC HEARING. MICHAF.L J. CIBELLIS, GT AL, %].S South 149 RGPORT N0 Iirookhurst S~reet, Anaheim, Ca. 92~04 (Owner); GALRY CONSTRUCTION . CORPORATIQN, Attn: Harry CaCes, P. O. Aox 147, 'Pustin, Ca. 92680 VARIANCL N0. 2674 (Agenk) . ProperCy described as : A 1 irregulArly-ehaped paY~cel of ~ lund consiating of approximaCely S.i ,,,__.. acr;~ ..~..u~r~ d~ Cne souC - TENTATIVE MAP OF east cor.ner oP Santa Ana Canyon Roa~l and Quintana Drive, hnving 8873 'fRACT N0 approximute frantuges uf 488 feec. oci the soutli side of Santa Ana . Canyon Rottd and 290 feet on the east side of Quintana Drive, and having a maximum depth of ~pproximately 691 f.eet. 1'roperty presently classified RS-A-!~3,000(SC) (It~SIDENTIAL/AGRICULTUItAL- (SCGNIC CURRIDOR OVERLAY) 20NE, wi.th a ree~olution of intent to RS-7200. VARIANCG REQUEST: WAIVER Or (A) MINIMUM LOT WIGTH, (13) M.INIM~JM P'RONT SETI3ACK AND (C) r1INIMUM REAR YARD, TO CONSTRUCT A 21-LOT, SINGI.I:-FAMII~Y SUBDIVISION. TGN'PATTVE TRACT REQ1IGST: GNGINF.ER: ANACAL BNGINEERING COMPAAIY, P. 0. I3ox 3668~ Anaheim, Ca. 92803. SubjecC tract i~ propose~d to be a~bdivided into 21 RS-7200(SC) lots. The sub,ject. petitionE were continued from the meeting of April 14, Z975, for the pet~tioner to aubmit revised plans. No one ind icated their presence in oppo siCion r.o aub~ect petitions. Although the Staff Report ~:o the Planning C~mmission dated April 28, 1975, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to snd made a part o£ the minutes. Mr. Harry Gatea, representing Che agent for the prc+perty owner, r~ppeared before the Planning Commisaian Co anawer queations regarding the proposal. THE FUBLI C HEARItvG WAS CLOS~D. Commissioner Tolar clarifi.~d that three-car garages were r.equired when 6 to 10-faot setbacks were employed, whereupon, Mr. Gates etrited that the revisea plane met the minimum fr.ont setback requirements. 75-204 ~ ~ ~ M1NU'CGS, C1'I'Y PI.ANNINC CQMMISSIUN~ April .^.8, 1975 ~5-2~~ ENVI.KONMEN'fA1. IN1'AC'I' Rr;PpR'L' N0. 1.49~V,ARIAN(:E N0. _2b7G~N1U TEN7'A'IIVi: MAY, OF TKACT N0. 8873 Commieeionar 1'olnr noted thut the revined planr+ did nnt qhow r~ berm to be c.~nstr.ucted along Snntn Ann C~~~yon Roud. Mr. Gat.ea explai.ned thnt tlie developer woul.d like c~o~ne flexibility conc~~tning the bern- an3 wall recomnended for eound ~ttenu~tloa, aince if Chey could ingtnll ~ hlgher wnl.l and ~~o herm or a lown: borm~ ecc., they would like to he aole to do eo. Cammlysioner 7bl.ar. notec: that he would be insiaL•Emt that there be a wall with u berm~ and chut h~ did nut want to r~ee a 10-foat w~ll. Chuirmcin Herbet noCed the~ it the wal.l wne~ hlgtier Chnn 6 feet~ then Che Atructurnl requlxements w~uld be greater, m~king th~ wall mox4 expenei.ve; ~liaC there was preAently r~ome uni£urmity with trncts in the c.nnyon urea wikh r~epect to che berm ntid wall requlremenCe and it louked nlce and created A gc~od living environrn~nt f.'or r.he peop].e. Mr. Cates stated thxt ~~ast a F-fout wall would be hie preference~ and Chairman Herbst noted that would not be ncceptaUlca. Mr. Gnlea the^ stated that he would l.ike aome ki.me to explore the posaibi.lieiea. since Che property next doar to the suU~ect property did not F1AVC the 6-£oot berm and 6-foot wall and thc eub;~ect proposnl could conform to uhataver existed on thut ad~ccent pr.operty. CummiselonG~' Tolar noted tl•~r~t nt thc~ Cime the ~inrk III Cra.:t waK conslructed, the present Code requir.ements did not exit~C. Mr. Cates stuCed he was aware of the pr.oblems related to Relling liomes along t:he freeways~ buC lie felt there were other ways of attenunting th~ sound. In reaponae to q~estioning hy CY,airman Herbsk. Zoning Supervisor Charles Rot~erts nuted thnt~ .in the past, typicully the ~nvironmental Impact Report discuas~d and recommended certuin typea of yound. r~ttenuation that needed to be employed L•o mit'gate sound from ndjacenk freeways ar-d arterir~l high~rays; that if ~~he Planning Commiaeion deslred to take fnvorable action regardin~ the ~ub~ect petitiona, certain condiC.iona miqht be imposed, i.e., that apprc~val be granted aiib,ject to a report bei.ng prepared indicating whak shoul.d be installed for eound nttanuation, and thut sai.d report Ue approved by the Planning CommLsaior~ or (:ity Council prior to commencement of conetruckion on tlie subject properCy. Chairman Herbst nuted that although it was poesivl.e to soundproof the houses without a wul.l and berm~ it was no[ possible f.or tl~e sound ~.evel in the yards to mec~t th~ requ'_re- mente witt~out same. Commiasi.o~er Tolar noted that there appeured to be u problem in relationship to the Tree Preoetvation Ordinance in developing the aubjecC property, since 9 tr.ees would be remove@ from one parcel. Mr.. Gates stated that he interpreted the ordinance to mean a cl~~~:ter of 5 or more trees and, theref.ore, Yie did ~iot antic.iFate a pt'oblew; however, :tf there wae A problem~ he would replace the trees thaC were removed. Commis~sioner 'Tolar. noted thnt ti~ere appeared to be a legitimate danger in leavinR the trees in question wnere they were. In response to questioning by Commiesioner Morley, Mr. Gates sCated there wer.e 9 trees scattered over the properCy that would hr~ve to be removed; and that it appea:ed they would be able to ~ave the clusCer thaC served ae a windbreak. Ir~ reaponse to questioning by Chairman Fierbst, Mr. Roberts r.aviewed the pro~•isions of the Tree Yreservatian Ordinance and the criteria to be aatiafied in tlie reu~oval of treea~ nnd noCed thaC a proposal to remove the i:rees would have to be suhmitted by the developsr for a deCerminal•ion as to wheCtiet the proposal was appropriate. He further noted that there nppeared to be 5 tree~ on each of Chree par.cela in the subject development that wer~ propo~ed to be removed. Chairmc~n tlerbs[ noted that if the trees en~nngered the founda- ttons, that would be sufficient reason Co remove rhe treea, in hi.s opinion; and that a proposal fur r.eplacement ot the treea to satiafy the criteria of the ordinance would be neceseary. Tt~ereupon, Mr. Gstes atlpulxted to replacing any tr.eea of the varieties apecifled in the Tree Preservation Ordinunce, an~ to working with the Development Services Department in complying with said ordi.nance. 'fhe Planning Commiasion entered into discuaeion wiCh Staff regarding 'r'.m lronmen~al ]:mpact Report No. 149 and deficiencies in the sound attenuation at the property linea, during which Chaira-an ~ierbst noted that appr~~val of the a~ibject EIR ahould include a proviaion Chat adciitional inE~rnation ahall be provided as a eupplement pertaining to alternative mitigation measures for the sound frum Santa A.~a Canyon Road, to be aubmitted prior to City Council revi.ew ot the subject petitiune. • ~ ~ ~ 91INUTES~ C1.TY PI.ANNING COMMISSIUN, Apx'll 2A, 1975 'l5-206 ~NVIRONMFN'fAl. TMf'ACT_ KEYORT N0. 149, VARIANCE NG._ ~67G ANI) fLNTATLVI: MAY OF TRACT M0. 8873 Chnirmnn liorbNt furth~r nuted thc~t Hound at~.Aiuut:ior~ meaeures along Sunra Ann CAnyon Ruad eh4~.~ld lnclude u 6-fooC high e~rthen herm topped by n 6-f.oot high masonry wnll a~d~acent to the oxpreeaw»y~ how~ver. he wc>ul.d he willl~~g to lieten l-o any nl.ternuti~:::. undex the Reporta nnd Hecommendutione portlon of the ugenda c~t a lu~er dat:e, 1£ the devel.opcc was nble Co suUmit n plan Ch:~t wuulcl bc us ~oud or bet:ter chan khe wa7.1 cind b~rni ~o reduce the noiRe level Co fr5 dhA in the rcar ;~arde ~f the loCa. Mr. Roberte+ noted f~~r th~ I~l.anning ComuileNion thaC two a[ rhe recommended condi~ion~~ ~f approvi~l (NoA. 3~nct lb) as ~et fortt~ in the St~fE lteport for Tract No. AfS73 were nc~t uppropriate nnd~ if fav~~rnbl.e action waH taken en said tr~ct at this ms~ting, S~aff. would amend Chose condltlonr+ ~~rior to forwarding to thc Ci.ty Council. Commiaeiunesr Morley af~~.red a moCion, seconded by Commteaioner K£ng an~ l40TION CARR7GD ((;ommiasioner tnrano being abaent), tha~ Environmental Impc~ct Report Nc~. 149, huvi.ng been cundidered tl~tA datc by the Anaheim City Ylanning Commiesi~n end evidence, boCh written and orul, tiaving been preaented to suppl~ment s~id draft of F.IR No. 149, rl~e Planntn,g (.omm:aeion believex Chat ~aid dri.if.t FIR No. 149 does conform to the City and SCate Gaiide- lines and [he 5tr~te of Cal~.fornia F.nvirunmental Qua].i.ty Act and, hused upon such inf~~i7na- tion. does hereby reccaunend tn the Ci.ty Council of khe Gity of AnAheim ll~nt they cert:ify s~id EIR Na. 149 i.s .in complt.ance with said lsnvironmental Qual.ity Act; provided, how~~ver, that additi.o~al information atiall be provided as a supplsment tc~ k;IR No. 149 pertalni.ng to alternative miCigation measures for the sound from S~snCa Ana Cnnyon Road, snid suppl.e~ment to be ~ubmitted prior to CiCy Council r.eview of F:TR No. 149, Varianc:e No. 2674 and Te~nta- tive Map of Tract No. 8873. Commisaioner Morley uf.fered ~esolution No. PC75-86 and moved for iCS paesage and adoption, that Petition for. Vari~nce No. 2674 be und hereby is granted, in part, grantin~ wafver of [he minimum ].ot wldth on the ba3is that said request is minimal since two of the three affecCed lots nre 57 feet wide and one is 20 feet wide, being a fl~g ].ot; that waiver of the minimum front setback wac~ e7.iminnted by the resubmittal of plans and, therefore, withdrawn by the petitioner; granting waiver of t}ie mi.nimum rear. yar.d an hhe basis ChFit said waiver pertains tu only one lot in the proposed subdivis.[on and equal usable open area i.s pr~vlded elaewhere on Che lot; aubject to the condition Cti~t the petitioner ma.y suUmit alternative sound attenuati.on mEasurea or plans, certifir_d hy a recognized acousti- cal exper~, to the Gity Counci]. for approval; subject to tl~e condt~i.on thnt the remova]. of any trees which are of the ~~arieties specified in the Tree Pre3ervation Ord.inance shall be in accordanc.e with said Tree Preservatl.on UrdinAnce and shall be replaced in a n~anr~r satisfactory to ttie Developmen~ Servicea Department, as e~tipulated to by the peti.tioner; and sub~ect tu conditions. (See Itesol~ition Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolutiun was passed by the followin~ vute: AYES: COI~tISSI0NER5: GAUER, JOHNSON, KYNG, MORLF:Y, TULAR, HERBST NOES : COP4~1T.SSION~RS : NONE ABSENT: COb41ISSI0NERS: FARANO Commisaioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Johnaon and MOTION CAItRIFll (Commisaion~r Faran~ being s~baent), that Tentative Map of Tract No. 8873 be and hereby is approved, aubJecC Co the following conditiona: (1) That ths approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5873 is granted sub,ject to the npproval uf Varisnce No. 2b74 and ttie completion of Reclassifie~tion No. 72--73-48. (2) That ahould thia subdivision be developed as mor~ [han one subdivision, each subdivieion thereoF ahall be aubmitted in tentative £orm f.ar approv~sl. (3) That al] loCA within this tract shall bc: served by underground utilities. (4) Thsk a final tract m:ap of eubject property shAll be submiCted to and upp;.oved by Che City Coucicil and ~hen be recotded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. (5) That any proposed covenants, coaditi.ons and r~sCrictiona ehall be submitted to und approved by the C~ty Attorney's Office prior Co City Cauncil oppraval of the finsl tract map, and, further, that tl~e approved coven~nta, conditiona and rc~strir.tlons ~hall be recorded ccncurrently wiCh Che final tract map. (6) That etreet namFS eha11 be approved by the Cicy of Anai~eim prior to upproval of a final tract map. ~~ . ~ ~ MiNU1'GS, :•I'fY PL.AKNING COMMISSION~ Apr:ll 28~ 1975 75'2~~ ENVIRONMGIJTAT. IM}'ACT R~PORT N0. 149~V.AltZpNCE N0~2674 AND 'TENT'ATYVL` r~1P CF T'RAC'L' N0. 8873 (7) Thut th.: ownar(s) of. dub,ject proper.ty ehxll pay to thr_ Cf.ty ~ f Anaheim Clie a~pr~,priaCe park and r~crec~ti.on f.n-lieu feee xH detE~rminnd t.~ ue appr~ptiate l~y the CiCy Council~ eaid fe~s to he paid nc the time the build,~g permlt ie lssued. (A) That dre~iaage uf eaid property ah~.i'1 be disposed of Ln n manner sutieilctory Co the CiCy Giiginc~er. If~ in th~ preparakion of Che eite sufffci•nt gradinK ts reyuirecl to necesal.tate a gracling {~ermiC, no wark on grading will Y,e pr:rmitCed b~etw^en Octobet• 15th and April 15th unJ.e6a all require9 off-site drni.nage facili- t_leR have been inatalled r~nd ar~s opc~rAtivc~. Positive ur~aurance ehal.l. UP provided ~he City that: e~uch dtainnge fr~ciliCirs will be completed prior *o Octabc~r 15th. Necesenry righG-of-wc~y f.or off--site dr.ainage facilities shnll be dpdicared tn the City~ or the L'ity Cauncil ahall hIIVe ini[iated aondcnnnation pruceedings ~harefor (,Che <:oflts of wtlich sha1Z b~: burne by the devPloper) ~rior to the r.ocmnencement o1: gradi.ng operati~~is. The r.equired drainage facillti~ .s ehn11 bc. of H size and type sufficient co c~rry runoff wa[er.s originaCing irom higher prorierties through said preperty to ul~imate di.aposa:l as approved by the City Enginer.r. Sai.d drr~inage facilitiey ehall be the fixet item of conetruction ~nd shall be comPlet~d aad be fuucttone? thr.ougt:~ut the tracC and from the downstre~m boundary of the property to the ult:imate point of diapoeal prior to the iaeuance af any final huildtng inspectione or occupuncy permits, llraLnage diatrict reimbursement c~greements mxy Ue m~de availabl.e to the developerc~ of r~a.td propPrry upon their r~equest. (9) :hat grading, ex~avation And all ~~tner ~.onetruction activitlea alir~ll be conducted in auch a manner so n~ to minim:lze Che possibi.lir.y of sny silt or.iginating fr.om thts pro~ect being carried into the Santa Ana River Uy storm wnter originating from or. £lowing through thi.s pro~ect. (10) That reusonable landscaping, incl.udinR irrigntion facilitiea, ehall be instnll.eci in the unpaved portiott of the south aide of ltie Santa Ana Caayon Road righC-of- way a:-d ;.he median island in accurd~nce with the requiremer~ts of the Superlntend- ent of Parkway Maintenance. Followin~ insta].lation And BCCepta[l~e~ the City of Anaheim shall aesume the responsibllity for mAintenance of said laT;dar_aping. (11) That the Ci~y Council reaerves t.he right to delete or aa-end tl.ie aasumption of landscape n~sintenance i.n the eve:nt Council policy changes. (12) If permanenk street name aigne liave not been i.nstalled, temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to an~ OCCl1j~Ai1CV. (13) That Lot "P." on the easC sid~ of Quintana Drive ahall be purchased by the devPloper of Tr.act No. 8873. znd l•he remainder of Quintana Drive shall be dedicated and improved. (14) That the extenaion of Rio Gran~ie Drive and ~he intersection of Rio Gr~-nde Drive and Street "A" sliall be design~~d to the satiafaction of the City Enginee.r. (~5) That prior to City (:ouncil approval of the final tract map, thE owner(s) of aubject properLy ahall aubmit plan~ for. City Counc:il review and approval showin~ the stej~s taken by the developer to reduce the noise level generated by arterial traffic t.o 65 dbA in Che resr yards of the lots adjacent to the arter.ia.l highway and to G'i dbA inside tl-e homes (with windows and doors closed} on thea~ lots. The sound-atCeiiuation devices ;ahall include as a minimum a 6-fout fiigh earthen berm topped by a 6-foot hi~h d~~corative masonry wall with aatea for u-sir~tenance a::cesa on eaah lot along the rc~ar of the iots abuk*.ing the urCerial highway, plus whatever aaditlonal measu~~es are necessary to achieve the levels atated above; except thai: alternative aound-aCtenuation meaeures or plans, certi.f.ied b~• a recognized acou~~tical expert, tnay be aubmi[ted to the City Council for upproval. These plans sliall be certtfied by a recognized acousticel expert stipulating that the proposed sound-attenuation~:neasur.es wi11 achieve the levela atnted above. (16) That the daveloper(s) of aub~ect property shall compl.y with the newly-r,d~pted Tree PreeNrvucion Ordinance and any treea of the varietiea apecified in xa~id Tree Pre~e:vetion Ordinance which are rem~ved stial~ be replaced i.n a mnnner suti.gfactory to the DevelopmenC Servicea Department. ~ ~ MLNUTf?:;, CITY k'I.e+IvNCNC CUPf~tIS~IUN, April 2fl~ 1975 ~ ~ 75--208 VAItI:1NCE's NO, 26H7 -(:(3N'I'IN!!LD 1'UBI,IC NF.ARI[~G, U, I~AN PP.UNA, 2.135 Ws~l ilc~~l Ro~d~ IIC. -'~ ~' An~heim, Ca. 92804 (Ownar); reyuesl.ing WAIVER Or (Al PEftMtTTEU US~S AND (I3) MI;~IMUM NUMifEsR (lF YAIICI~IG 91'ACFS ~ TO GXPANll IJNLAWFULI.Y- ESTAIIL].SIIGD AYAKTh1ENTS AND COA4dF:tCIAL OI~FICES un praperty deacri.b~d u~: A cectangulurly- eh+~ped parcel n! land coneis~ing of uppruximetelY O.t acre lzaving a fxontaqe ~f approxl- mat:e~y 118 fNC:t ~n Che narth yide of BAll Ro~~d~ navin.q n maximum depth uf ,~pproximately 122 [H~t.~ and beinq luca~ed nppror.Jmately 685 f~~et eAe~C of tf•~e centerlt~ie of [~rookhurat Strket. Prnperty pre~,ently r_le~ssified CL (COt~tirRCiAL, L1MITr:n) 70NE. S~ib;jer.r: petl~..lon ~+rae cc~ntf.nued Lruro Che meetinf; af Apr11 14, 1975, for. khe petitioner to be presertt. No one ind•icaCe~d their. preHer.c.e in oppoaf.tion to ~iub.~4ct reriti~~~. Al.though Che Staff Repu:t f.o the Pl~inai.ng Commisyion d~ted April 18, 1975, was noC reac~ al- ehe public hearing, ~t .ls refe.rred Cu and macla a part of the minutes. Mr. nan Pauna, the petltloner~ appet~red befrr.e the Planning Commisaion ~nd atated hc pur.cha:,ed the subject propexty approximatel~i ~ year up,o and the conversiun of the parki.ng epaces lirad oc.curred approxl.maCely J.5 yeurs prior to that time; that the eecrow papers f.'or the purchaH:a ot l•he propcrty lndir_a~ed the conver~ion wa~ ].egul; that the Zoning En!`orce- ment Of£lc.er had visited him to serve A~:i:ati.un r~gflrJing the illegnl uae of the propc~rty an~1 when he was rssked to sign the pet~ti~~n, he refuRed on l-he UA3~.6 that he wae no~: fami.l iar a~iCh tt~e langua~e of the ciCtition~ however, he did not wisti to be arrested ei.ther; ths~t he d~.d noc intencl to reconverC the gurages to parking apr~ce~ aince the previous owne'c used t'ne praperty in its present utate and he shou.ld he: entitled to do the same; that thie was the only pr.operty he had purchr-eed in his lifeti~ne ~nd he was happy to buy it wlth ].Ox down; r~nd that the tenants had low r.enCa and were rptirzd people. THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSEJ. In response to que~r.iuning by Commissioner King, Mr. P~unH staCed there were yresently 4 garage parkLng spaces which were empty stnd ha was using a Sth garage parkirg space himself; that th~.re 41Ere 10 add3tionfll. open parlcing 9P3CZ3 aC C~lf! rear of tha properCy; and that the t~~i.iants were elderly and di.d not owr. autom~'.,11es. In response to questi.oning by Cnmmissioner Johnson, Mr, Paunn ae~it~d he hai~ puL~chased the property through a renl estate t,roker. Chai:man Herbst noted that it appeared the per.i- tioner had become a vl.ctim o£ circun-stances, and t.ie propPrl-.} was not intended to be used for cc~mmercial pu:poses buC therc. wa~s presently a mi.xt~ir.~ of residentinl and cocmnarcin~ uses on the property, t4r. Pauna then al•a[ed tha*_ r.':~c dockor who had offLces on the pre~r'ses wouid probably retire this year since he wa~ elderly and did not have tc,a many patients. Chairman Herbat noted ttia~ approvai of the sub~ect requesC would be set•.ing an undesirr~ble precedent, and would hava a long-range effect, particulerly if the pro~~~rty was aold and was no lon~er occupied by elderly tenants. Ch~inna~i Herbar. questioned whr_ther the garage parking spaces could bE reconverted, and Mr. Pauna atated he did not i:ave the finances Co reconvert the apace.. Chairman NerbsC then clariPied that the pres~nt uses coutd not be legalized~ except for the present owner; thAt the exiating 5 parkinE, epacea, comnared to tlie 23 required par;:~.ng spac~s were out of propor.t'_on; and khat the Pl.anning Commisaion was also concerned abr~ut the land uae~ in the event additional parkiag :~{~aces were needed in the future. In res~onse to c,ueationing by Commiesioner To1ar, Mr. Puuna preae~.lted the real er~tare liating under which he purcha~ed the sub~ect property and said li.sting was reviewed by tt~e Planning Commission. Commissioner Gauer noted that the existing uses of the property did nat conform to the zoning and ir appeared that c- kime limit could be granted for the ase for apnior. citizena so tt~at tt~ere would not be a parking problem. Chairmrin Herbst noted that senior citizene would not have cars~ general.ly, and Mr. Pauna atated all of tt~e present tenante were 60 years of age or ulder~ c~ith the excepCion of one tenant who w.as crippled; and th~t l~e preferred khe older people. 'Phe planning Commiesion entered into diecuaei~n regarding approval of the sub~ect variance fox a~ime period and te~tri.cting the rentals t~ aenior citizens, whereupon, Deputy CiT.y At'Corney Frank Lcary edvised that enforcemont of the tenante' ages would Ise difficult, ~ ~ ~ MINUTGS, CT'I'Y YI,ANNLNG COMtl1SSIUN~ April 28, 1975 VAFt~A~CF. NU. 2687 (t.outinued) 5-20'1 howavpr~ if the veri.ance wae granted 1n tbat mnnne~r, the CiCy wauld try to enforce it. Mr. Lowry furCher r.idvigecf lh~t the Galdan R~in court cc~He detecmined the Hge ~~f Neni.or cltize~ie to b~ 50 years or older. Commieeioner ~.~uer udde:d thet Lf tl~e variunce wa~ granCed f~r rental to ~enior citiz~~ne~ tii~~ petLC:loner wuuld hav~~ tu cuope.rate and u.bidc• Uy lh~ condttionN set LorCh by thp Planuing Cammier~.l.on. CommiseLoner Mor..lty noted that he and Commir~Hionrr Klt~g hr~d checked the property in khE fi.eld on Sunday und fuund no parking problE~me nt th+~t timc:; and aloo ther.e were TiJ r.,ars parkt~d in the front nr ±n the b~ck nt that klroe. It was clarified that in Fd(~'LC~OTI to e~purtment rentali~ fo+- restdc•uti~l purpoaes, t:herc were two buslness~s being conducted o n Che suh~ect property ar th~ preaenC ttme, It- respon~e to quc~Cionitig, by L•t~e Pl.anning (:ummi.exion, Mr. Paunn stipul.ated thr.l' Lhc~ corunc:rci.:l u~es on the premi.see wc ;td be periucinenCly r.erminated wnen the two e~cisein~r commerciul Cenante no longer occuFl.ed the prem~sea, since he preferced to movc out the buRiriesses and move in older people. Commtseiun~r Tolar questloned whether. fi change of r.he zonii~g would be approp~ iate+, nnd ?.~ning Supervfsor Ct~arles Roberts nokr_d t.hat mfln,y of the l.ols ln the sub~ect urea were zoned CL but were being uaed fcr reai.dentia'1. purposea and, therefore, it mig.ht bF~ appropri- ate t~ look at the property for rezoning. Commi~siuner Tolar then noted thr.t he wa:~ in favor of the subject variunce r3lnce the petitioner hud a hnrdshi.p which w~s not of ni.:~ own making; however, the zoning w1g not apprupr.iiite and ehould he re.~ommended for recla~c~ift~ation. IC wae noted that the U~rector of Developmen[ Servir.e~c h+~d det~rminad thr~t the proposed activity fell wikhiii the def.'.,~ition of 3ecti.~n ~.Ol, C1G;ss 1, of Che (:ity of Anahaim Guidelinea to the Requirem~nts tor an Gnvirc~nme•nr_al Z-n~<<cr ktepurC and was, r.hprefore, categorically exempC from t.he requJ.remenC to f:le an E11:. Commiesioner Gauer offered Reaolution N~. '.'~ ~-87 and moved for its passabe and adoption, thIIt PeCition for Variance !~o. 2687 be an~1 ~eby is grunted, granting waiver of. nermitted uses on the basirs that t`~e petitioner den ~-ated that a hsr.dship woul.c! be crcaCed if sai.d waiver was not granted, eince tha • ~~ be~~n in existc:nce fur. a period of time and the petitioner stipulated thar when th~ ~-i~zt ~ng r_ouv.~~rcial ten3nts ("Eugene L. Huwe, M.G." a*. 2135 WesC Ball Road and "Ecct~~~~~ +~~ _n,r>.: Sexvice" at 2139 Wedt Ball Road) cease to occupy the sub~ect pro~erty, then ~~~~ ~~= r. ~e of the property ~hall be permanently terminated; granting waiver of the mi :.~~ ~=~~~~t~« of parking spaces un tlie basfs thst the petitioner stipulal•ed that the res~~~~ ~~ ~ub~ect apartments ahall be lt.mited to senior citizens only; that a time '. ~~,~~• three years shall be granted far the uae of the subject properCy ancl, upon t~~. ~~uest b~ the petitioner, an additional period of time may be granted upon appro~~~a ~~~ "lar_ning Commission and/ur City Cuuncil; and sub~ect to the Interdepartm~;ntal '~~m~ rF.ommendal•ions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing res~~ lu ~ ~.1-~ ~,~~+gsed by the following vot:e: AYES: COIy41ISSI0NERS: GAUER, J~~lj~~•~'~ ~~iNG, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NAES: COMMISSIONERS: NON~ AHSENT: COMMISSION[;RS: FARANO Commis~ioner Tolur a£fered c~ mot~i~~i~, ~~~onded by (' ..nis~io~ier Johnson 3nd MOT'Tr;; rARRIED~ that the Planning Commission du~ ~~e~ ~y initiat~ 3n area development pl.~n and directs Staff tn etudy thc: aub~ect are~ (fr~ ~he lote ~.~ong the north aide of. ?uno Avenue to the r.orth aide c+f Ball Road and frcm ct~~ east side of the public alley separating Brookhurst and Empire Stre~ts to che west ,..de 1f F:mmpire Street) for rezoning from CL to appropriate multiple-resiclent.tal zoning. ~r a ~ MINU1'R~, CI'CY P1.~.NN1tJ~; Ct)MMISSION, Apr.il 28, 1975 75-210 ftECLASS~FICAT'IO',J - PUBLT.C H1:ARING. CUI?CI-TURt~ER ~OMPANY, 1'. 0. Box 1L57, Newport Ueach, N0. i ~5-30 Cu. 92563 (Gwnr:r); FItCI) ,J. IIAR~s00ti~ 1851 Clbu Circle~ Gor~ta Mesu, ~u, ~~`~ "`~' ~ 926?.6 (AgPnl); rcquestlnR recl~eHificut~on of property dear.ribed r~e: A rectangularl~-shnped parc~l ut lnn~1 caneieCing of approximntely 1.,0 a,:r.e havin~ ~ I'rontage of Mppr.oxi~u~tely lU1 feet an Che Routh eide of Cypreae SCreet, hflvii~g H ma~timum depth of rt~proximxtcly G10 feet, and bei.ng ].ocuL~~d ~pproximr~tely 165 fe~t wc~sC of [h ~ center.line c~f V{nf~ Streel [r~m tllc 1i5-7200 (RGSIUI:N'1'IAL, SIN~~Lfs-rAMI.LY) ZONIs to the ML, (1 NDUSTI2IA:, ~ LIMJ.T[:f)) 7.ONG. One perr•on indicntect t.kiNir pre~c:nce in opposi.tion to e~uU~e~t: petiti.~n. AsHiHtant 7.c~ning Super.visor Anni.ka Sfintulahti resd the Sr.aff lieport to the Pl~nning Commi3aion Jated Aprll. 28, .1975, and Kaid StaEF REporC ia referred r_~ As if set forr.h in full in the minutea. Mx. Fred J. Barbour~ the agent Eor. the property owner, ~PPeared before the Pl~nning Canunisslon and etuted Chat a portion of the subject properly w~R leased and th~ leesec had i.nstulled the chainlink f~~ce; thbt the Zoning isnforcemen~ Officer hnd i.ndi.cared that tt~c~ pz'operty yhould be petit.lon~~d for reclc-seificntion; thr~t the property cwner di.d not preKently have p.lane for developmcnT oE the remainder of Che property; tiiAt they could c:amply wit~~ the conditlon requiring dedication, and althouKh they would be gl.ad to improve l~e property when iC was pr.opos~d f~z~ devclopment, they did not wish to ~pend mnney for tht~ street improvements, etc., for Clie. amall. portion of Che properCy bcing used for the atorage lot, otherwise they would have more money inveated in the property thAn ir wRR woreh; tlierefore, they would r.equeat that the candition be waived or deferred. Misa Saritalahti. noted that Condi.tion No. 1, as yet forth i.n the Staff Report ~should be corrected Co indicate "...a aCrip of Land 30 feet i.n widkh from th~ centerline of the street along, Cypress ~treet..." In reaponse to questioning by Zoning ~upervtsor Charles Rober.ts, Mr. I~arbour st~-ted the property was preaei~tly in use as a contractor's storage yard and lhe storage was not incidental to another use, whereupon, rtr. Roberts indicACed Chul- it appeared that the use could only be allowed by a condittonal use permit application. Mra. Willia~- r. Snyder appeared before the Planni.ng Commission and stated she and her husband cwr.ed an apartment building at 315 NoLth Bush; that when Chey rFr_eived the notice rega*ding Che proposed rezvning, Chey envisioned that a factory or something of that nature would probably be consCructed un rhe subject p:operty; that ehey also envisi.oned truck traffic. etc., and that was why she came to the T.ubl~c hearing; that the proposal for a storage yard, as presented, did nut seem object:onable, however., she was concerned that the petittoner might c~ecide at a future date to have a factory zC the subject location. Chairman Herbst noied that if the zoning was changed, as requested, a factory could be c~aiiatructed on the sub~ect property; however~ th~e property was preaenCly zoned for resi- dential, single-family development. Mrs. Snyder then :.tel-e~ tl~ot sithaugh the proposed use was not presently bothering the neighborhoad, a factory wc~uld decrease the quality of the surroutiding residential devNlop- ment; that there were some very neatly kept homes in the immediake a.r.:a, as well as nice apsrtment building~; and that her own apartmenC buildiiig was kept clean and neat and they tr•led to keep te:nants who were interesC.ed in a nice surrounding area. Commissioner Gauer questioned if the area was an eyesore in Mr.s. Sn~,der's opinion, and she staked ahe did not feel the present condition of the prope.rty was ot~~ectlonable; however., if. even leisurely truck tzaffic was interjected into the resiclentia.l area, then the situa- t~on would be very unpleasant. Cummissioner Murley notad thut the Planning Commisaion waa cocisidering access ta the sub~ect property from an alley off Vine Street, which might bc the only ingress, ~ahere- upon, Mrs. Snyder atated that accer~s ehould be from Lincoln Avenue, if po~sible. In xebuttal~ Mr. IIarbour etated ~ince .he packing house and RF-7200 property to tY~e eouth also Lelonged to the sub~ect proprrt~ owner, they c~uld ask to have their gate moved ~o that the aub~ect ~ise could I~ave acc~~sa from Lincoln Avenue: ar~3 th~-t the proper.ty to the southweat was alsu owi~ed by Che aub~~ct property ~wner. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUT[:S, CITY PL.ANNIN(: COIy41ISSIQN~ April 28, 1975 75•-211 R~CI,A5S?HICATiUN NU. 74-75-30 (Continued) 'I'N~ YUliLIC HEARINC WAS ~:LUS~D In reyponse to queetioning by MrH. Snydcr, Mr. Barbour el•ated if l-he pr.operxy wes rezone,d~ they could develap in Fir_corctancn wi.th the ML 'Lune. Mrs. Snvder then et.ut:ad Chut as a naarby property ~wner, ahe had no objec:tiuns t~~ the preperty bein~ uaed foc the pr.opa~ed contractor's r3Cor.age yurd snd that perhaps th~+ petiCtoner could ju~sl• apply Cor a varlr~nce for that u~e und rAOt reque.at rezoning of Cho property. Ch~irman HerbsC noted tliat it sppeared Chat filing of nnother type ~pplication wae in order nnd~ therefore, the matCer ahould be readvertlsed~ whereupon, Mr. RubertA concurred. Tn responee to quest.i.oning by Cha~rroan He:rbat~ Mr. Barbour stated that the eub~er.k propsrt.y wuu.ld probably not davel~p with indiistriul ueza if eubstantial impravements wet: required. Commiasioner Gauec noted thnt he did not feel [hnC the indugtxial zoning was appropriate on the eubJect properCy. Commiesic~ner Tolar s~gge$ted that the petitioner wipht withdraw the petiti.on for reclnr~ei~ fication and stipulate to providing redwood or cedar slata in a chainl.i.nk fence Co have the prnposed use~ whereupony Mr, Rabertr, adviRed l•hat u petition far variance wnul.d then be in order, if the Planning ComanisKion did not feel that the ~iae was ob.3ecCionable and the vnriance would be for rhe proposed use only and i.n conformance witli the app~~opriare d~velopment standards. ChUi.rme~n Herbat ndded that such x vuriance could possibly Ue granted fur a two-year time :imit, aub~ecl- to revicw, until such time xa the pelitioner deteraiined what tl~e ultimate development on the property would be. Commiesioner Tolar noted that he was opposed to requiring the developer to make substan- tial improvement~ iti ~rder to taave the suU~ect uae, and khat the Planning Commission basically agreed t.hat the impravemerts would not be reaiiired. Mr. Roberta then noted that there was no legal means to avoid having an addi.tlonal public hearing on a variance to conoider the sub~ect use; that all of the public heuring fees paid by the petitioner had not been used up and that by withdrawin~ at this time, t-o additional fees would be required for. the filinq of the variance petition. Thereupon, Mr. Barbour requeated tu withdraw Petition for Rer_lassification No. 74-75-30 and to have 30 days in which to file a petition for variunce on the aubject property. Coaunissioner Tala: offere~i a motion, secoaded by Commissioc.er Johnson and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano being absent), tbat Petition £or. ReclaASificatlon No, 74-75-30 be and hereby is withdrawn, as requested by the petitioner; and that the petitioner be granted 30 days in which to file a petition for variance with no fpes being required for the filin~ of said variance, on the ba~sie of. the foregoing findings. RRCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC TIEARING. CLYDE C. AND MAGDAT.EN~ N. CARPEP]TER, 292 Wilshire N0. 74-75-31 Aven~ie, Anaheim, Ca. 92801 (Owner); LYNN E. THOMSEN, 710 North Eur_lid ~ Street, 11222, Anaheim, Ca. 9'1801 (Agenl•); requeatiiig reclassification ot propert,y described as: A rectanguZarly-shaped parcel of land con- si~ting of approximately 0.3 acx'e having a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the nocth side of Catalpa Drive, having a maximum depCh of approximately 124 feer, and being located approximately 223 feet east of the centerline of Euc~id Street, from the CL (COhQ1ERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE to the RM-2400 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. No one indicated their presence iz~ oppoaition to sub~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commisaion dated April 28, 1975, wae not read at the public hearing, it. is referred Co and m~de a part of. tlie minutea. Mr. :.ynn E. Thomsen, the agent for the property owner, appeared before the Planni.ng Cawuieai~n and stated the Staff P.eport accurately described the proposal and he war~ in agreeiuent with the findings pzeeented therein. THE: PUnLIC HEA1tYNG WAS CLOSED. • A ~ MIi~UTES~ CITY PLANNING COt~4lIS5.:ON, Aaril 28, 1975 75-21.2 ltLCLASSIFiCATIQN N0. 74-75,-,31 (Continued) It. was nuted that the AnAheim Ceneral P1An designated Che sub~t~ct pru{~erey for gnner.nl commerclal and/or medium-density r~eidential uees. Gummiae~ioner Tolar oEfered a moCionti ~econded by Comminsioner Mor.le,y end MOTION CARRIEU (Commies~oner FnrAno bQi.ng nhe~nt!, thaC the Planninq CommiHSion recommenda ta the City Councll Ct~aC the sub~sct proJect te ext.n~t from the xeqnirement Co prepnre nn isnvirun- menCal '[mpsct Report, purRCant to the provieione of the Californi.a )~:nviroiun~ntal Q~1~liCy Act. Commiseic~ner Tolar offered Resoluti.on No. PC75-88 and moved for ita paet3age and adoptian, to recommend to tt~e City Cuuncil approval of Petition for Iteclaasificatl.on No. 7~~-75-31, aub~ecC to conditions. (See Reso.lution Iiook) On ro11 call~ the foreooi.ng t~~oluCion was paesed by the following vote: AYCS; CUMMISSIONERS: GAIIER~ JUl~1SON, KING, MORL~,Y, TOLAR, H~RA.f NOES: COr4~tISSIONERS: NUNC ABSF.NT : GOMMI ~SIONEItS t FARANO CONniTIUNAI. USE - PUBLT.C HEARING. WII.LTAM KU~BL, 551 North Euclid Street, Anal~eim~ Ca. P~RMIT N0. 1531 92801 (Uwner.); LAIRD D. AND UOROTHY I. HOSKLNS, 1224 West Parl~. Avenue, Anaheivn. Ca. 92801 (Agenr.); requesting permiseior. for dh-SALE R~L'R IN A CARD ROOM ~n property described as: A rectangulsrly~shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatel.y 10.5 acres lor.ated at the northwest r_orner o£ Cresc:ent Avenue and F.uclid Street~ having approximate fr.onta~es of 740 feet on the norGh vide of Creacent Avenue nnd 520 feet on the west aide of F.uclid Street. Property presenCly classi-• fi.ecl CL (CQr4tERCIAL, LIMITED) MID CC (COMMFRCIAL, GENF,RAL) ZC~NES. No one i.ndicated their. ~~reyence in oppoeition to sub~ect petition. Although the StAff Report to ttie Planning Cottuniasion daCed April 28. 19/5, was not read at the public hearing, 1Y. is referred to and made a part of the miautes. Mr. Dean lioskins, the agent £or the properCy owner, appeared before the Plnnning Commission and atatPd the bu~lding at 108 North Anaheim Boulevard, where their card room was presently located, was not structurally safe snd did not cueet the approval of the Henlth Departmcr~t or the Fire Department~ etc., And they were requesting to move to 621 ard 6~3 North E;uclid Street in a shopping center; and that ~resently they sold as much as two cases of beer a day. THE PL.,I,IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In reaponse to queationing by tl~e Planning Commission, Mr. Hoskins at~ted they generally only sold beez to the card play~rs, howevc:r, thNy had sold six-packs to go; that he did not know whether the dance atudio next door to the proposed location was active or not; Chat beer would be c~nsumed either at the tablea or in the pool table a.rea, and he did noC intend to operate a bar-type situation; that the bar would not h4ve stools and would not ~xceed 12 feet in length, and the patrons wo~~1d carry their. be~r to wherever they were stiooting pool or playing cards; thaC the Paciating fixtur.es at the proposed location wouZd either be aold or otherwise removed from the premiaes; that there would be a kitchen where pre-packaged sandwichea would be warmed in ar~ electronic oven, and there w~uld also be two restrooma. Mr. Hoskins described the various sizes of the tables to be uCilized in the operation and stated that he had 35 patrnna at hia existing establlsYuner~t on this date; that he did not yet have a permit for card playing at the :~ew location and his lease was sub~ect to being issued that permi.t and the Al,coholic be~~erage Control licenaes; that preaentl,y he had t~p beer for sale but was plannin~; not Co have tap beer ut the new loca- tion, and would have bottles, cans and glasaeb; thIIt the sale o£ beer was not his primary busineas; Y~h~t they had been at thetr present locatic~n for approximately 14 years; that ~he Police Department had never been culled to the present location ove; any d:ePutes in ~onnection with the operation and he did not cater to any of the cuatomera; that the pinochle and bridge card gamea were played for money, and poker and lowball wexe nut played. The Plnnning Commission entered into discussion regarding the card playing aspect of the proposal~ and Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that whether the card room would be appropri~te at the eub~ect lacation would be for the City Council to decide, ~ v ~ ~ MTNUTES, CITY PI.ANNINC COP4~tISSiON, Aprll 7.8, 1975 7'.'i-213 ;;ONQITIQNAL US~G PFItMi'T N0. l S31 ((:ontinued) It was not~~d that the i)irector of Development ;~ervlcea hud determiiied thaC the proposed ncCivlty fell within the definit- n of Sectiun 3.01, Clnae 1, of the City of Anaheim Cuidellnee tu the Requiremcata fur an l.nvironmental Iropact Report nnd wae~ ther~~fore, c~tegorically exempt from the requirem~nr. to file un EIR. Commiesiorer King offered a reaolution tt~c~t Petitl~~n f.or Cona3.ti.onal UHe Permit No, 1531 be gronted, sub~ect to cond:ltionr~; provideJ, however, that approval be made contingent upon appsoval by the C~Cy Council of the card room at the~ pr.oposed location. 'Phe Planni.ng Commiesion entered inGo di~cugsion with Staf£ tegar.ding the reaolutiou, ae offereci, and gener.nlly concux'red that the petiti.oner ahould requear. ttie Ci.ty Council for npprovul of ttie card raom pY~tor to tt~s Planning Cummiesion meking u recommeadation regard-- ~ng the on-s~le beer application, in ordex ther. eaid requeat mighG not he prejudiced. Mr. Hoskir.a inquired if the Planning Commiseion would grant the on-eale beer npplicatlori it permisai.on wete granted by the City Counr_11 for the card room. fhe Plannl-:g CommieRion indicated thut unlesa they were voting on Che matt~r at th:is time, ttiey could no: provide an anewer to that queal:ion, however~ the;+ indicat~d they would have a beCter fec~l.:.ng about the matter i.f the card r.oom were approved, ~i.nce thc~t was the primary uae of the property. Thereupon, Commisaioner KinA withdrew the fore~,oing resolution to approve sub~ect petitiun. In reHponse to questioning by Mr. Hoskins, Zoning Supervisor Charl.es Roberts requested ~ few minutes l'o r.heck with City off:lces to deCermine wlien the card room reque~t wou~d be conaidered b} che City Council. RECESS - At 3;20 p.m., Chairman Herbst declared a receas. RECONVENG - At 3:30 p.n~., Chairman Herbat reconvened the meeL•ing with Comm~.asioner Farano being ahaent. Discussion continued regnrding the PetiCion for Conditional Use Permit No. 1531, and rlr. Roberts advised that if conaideration of the suh~ect petition was continued to the meetinp. of May 12, 1975, then the City Council would have considered the card room in connection therewith. Mx. Hoskins expl.sined £or the Planning Commission that certain car.d games as described by California Law, such as bridge, rummy, etc., were games of skill and, as sucli, could be played for money; however, poker xnd lowball were noL• legal, etc. Commissioner Morley ofte.~ed a moti.on, seconded hy Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commisgioner Farano being absent), to re~pen the pubYic hearing and continue con~idera- tion of Conditional Use Permit No. 1531 tu Che meettng of May 12, 1975, to awaiC City ~ouncil consideration of an application f~r a card room at the subject location. CCNDIT.IONPT `:5E - PUI3LIC HEARING. EDWARD L. AND PATRICIA B. SCANLAN, 1112 Wakefield PERMIT N0. 1532. Y1ace, An~heim, Ca. 92802 (lhaner); requesting permission to ESTARLI.SH A I30ARll AidD CARE FACILITY on property described as: A rectangularly- sliaped parcel uf land consisting of a•pproximate.ly .24 acre having a frontage of approximately 65 f~et an the~ e~st side of Vine Street, having a depth of approxi- mately 159 feet, and being located approximatply 350 feeC north of the centerline of Gypreas Street. Property presently clseslfied RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lnwry adviRed the Commisslon that since the applicant is a City of Anal-~eia employee, being the Planning Cammiasion Secretary, a substitute and SQCretary Pro i'et!~ would fulfill the requir.ements for ~his one item ~nly. Chereupon, Aletha Burgesa assumed Che duCies of Plan:~ing Commission Secretary ns Secreta.ry Pro Tem. No one appear.ed in oppoeition La au~jecC petition. Although the Staff. Report tu the Planning Commiasiun dated April 28, 1975, was not read at the public hearing, it ia referred to and made s part of the ~inutes. Mre. Patricia Scanlan, lllY Wakefield P1ace, Anahaim, the applicant, was avallable to ane~wer queatione of the Commissian. THE PUBLIC HEARING 4iAE CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ • MINUTF.S, C.~.TY 1'LANNTNC CUMMISSION, Aprll 28, 1975 75-214 CONpTTIONAL USG Pf1tMI'~' NU. 1537 (Continucd) Commissi~~ner K:ing inyuired of the uppllc'pnC whc~ther ten pereons wae the mnximum propoat~d nnd wl~ether nny increaye in ti~e n~unbec was e-nticipateci~ Go which Mra. Scr+nlan re{~liud tluit tlir. inkent of tl~e use. wrie a meximum ot Cen pereone, thnt li.cerse hud been epplted for from tfic State~ And the StaLe wnu.l.d a11aw only nlx pereone under ttie prepen[ fUril.itiee unleaci fire sprii~k.lere nre installed. Mre. Scanlan indlcnced the Qel:ition rcqueNr~d approval. for ten pereone, howevar, at tiiia tiine therc~ w.~uld probRbly t~e iio more khaa six plus huu~ekeep~~r (xi huaband and wi.fe couplF). The Coromisaion diRCUeRNd tlie probubility of rantnl of Che unita as apartmence, ehould a17. uni.ts nor be used for t1~e board an<1 r.ure facili~ty~ noti-ng this ~~~ould appear to be two 4eparate uaes - bonrd and caro f.acil.ity pluts restdenCial uses. Mra, Scanlan advi~ed lhe Cotamioaian khat in diecussiori with the Fire lleparcment, ehould one uf Che unita be renCed aut ad an apartment, a fire wa11 would probably liave to b~ inetalled, ancl to increase the number of rat~identa to more than s.lx, would require fire sprinkler inatnllation as requtred by Che State. Mr. Lowry adv.ised thak the buard t~nd cnre facility and ~he under].yin~ ue~ of the FlM~~20U (multiple-tamily residentinl) Zone could be granted undFr the RM°1:00 Code. Commi~sioner TolAr offered Reaoluti~n No. PC75-8~1 und moved for i.ts pasiaage and udopti.on, tfiat Petition fAr. Conditional Use Permit No. 153'1 be and hereby ia granted wiCh a lituits- Llon of six restdents plus one couple for iiousekeeping duties, and at such time as the peliri~>ner wislies Co -lncrease thc number to ten, she may retur:i to the Commi~sion with such requesl. (See Resolution Book) On ro11 cal.l, the foregning resolution wae pt~eaed by the following vcte: AYES: CONihITSS10NFRS: GAIJER, JOHNSUN, KINC, MORLEY, T~LA1Z, HGRI3ST IiOES: COhII~tISSIONERS: NONis ABSENT: COMMISSIONGRS: FAItANO VARIANCE N0. 2694 - PUSLTC HEARING. HUWARn FARRAND, 522 South Rose StreeC, Anaheim, Ca. 92$OS (Owner); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM FRONT SETBACiC AND (B~ RI:QllIRED ENCLOSURE OF OUTDOOR USI:S, TO PERMIT THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF SHIPPING CONTAINERS on praperty deacribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of. land consieting of approximatel;~ 0.5 r~cre having a frontage ~f approximatPly 133 feet nn the east side of Rose Street~ having a maximum depth of approximately 177 feet, auci being located approximately 255 feet south of the centerlfne of Santa Ana St~-eet. Property presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAL, T~IMITED) ZONF.. No one indicated tneir presence in opposition to subject petit'lon. Although tlie Staff Report to the I'lanning Commission dated April 'l8, 1975, w~.s not read at the public hearing, :Lt is referred to and made a part of the minutes, Mr. Howard Farrand, ehe property owner~ appeAred before the Plr~nning Commissio~ and ~t~ated they were using drop-off containery instead of. vans in the subject warehouse and sales office (for plastic fluwer pot~) operations. THE PUBI,IC HGARINC WAS CLOSED. Commiasioner Mor:ley noted that there appeared to be 6 containers involved -- 2 in front of the aub~ect pronert~ ar.d 4 across the street; whereupon, Mr. FErrand ~tated the manufacturing company acrosa the atreet would ulso be seeking a variance to have the cor.~ainers; that they had approximately 16 Co 18 containers, some of which were left with '.ne custo~a~rs; and that the conr_ern at thia public hear~ng was far the 2~onCainers in fronf.. c€ the aubject propert.y. Chairman Herbat noted that it appeared the aub~ect property and the property acrosa the street were invulved in the eame problem; that the petitioner was before the Planning Commisaion as a result o£ a complaiiit and, evidently, the use was creating a problem for some of the neighbors. ~ ~ ~ MINU'PfS, CITY P1.ANNT.NG COMMISSION~ April 2$, 1.975 7S-•215 VARIANCN. NU. 2694 (ConCinu~:dl Mr. Ferrnnd ekated r.hat when the'y hc~gan thoix buei.nc~r9 i-t the sutj~e:t location ~:hey uoed wtna wlii.ch etuck out 4 tu 5[es~t f'urth~r I:han chi~ ^ontainere; anu thnt il• Cook ci~proxi- mNtc~ly three houry to luud n van. Commixeionex King inauii ed i C the pet lciuner cuuld uti.l ize Che i~ll.~~y nt ene3t eidc of prup.~rty Cu Nlur~: lh~~ contuinc.re an~l Mr. Fc~rrand sCnt~d thnt al[hough the alley could probf-bly hold tha contuiners, the ~ituatl.on would be m~re awkwnrd in that mauner. In xeeponae to quc~iti.on:l-ig by Ghairmqit ilerbar., Mr. F'errand atated Chey hnd been at th~~ eubjec~t lucAtion for approximnk~ly three ,eare and were purchas.ing tl~e pr.uperty. ConimiHaloner .lohneon tiot~~d chat ordi.narlly he wns in favor of new ways ot doing bueinase~ eCc. y however~ he had to udmiC r.hat even aA gene['ous ae he usually waK he did not tavor using Che curbing to pnrk the containere, Mr. i'eri~nnd then etr~Cecl thlt his only alterna- tive wo~.id Ue to buy p S?.5~UU0 rig tilat held cc~ntainers and the rig wauld be out in the etri•.et a1so, but a rig would be legul.. Chnirmnn Herbet euggested that u l.oadinq dock be indented intu the buil.di.ng by some remod~~l- ing~ naid remodelin~ ta be done within a period of time to make the operation legal. Mr. rerrand e[ated t}iat auch a remedy to th~~ sltunti.on ~~~ould take away some. uf their wurehouse spacP. ChAlrman Herbet further noted that ttie oub.~ect operarion was creating congesl-ion in the urea by ueing the sCreeC i.n the present manner~ Mr. Ferrand 9CatP_C~ r_hat the LOAd~il$ ~p~raC.lon for a container took from two to three hour: and they sold und delivered about 20X of the orodur_t manufr~ctur~d acr.oss the street Erom them. Mr. Ferrand furthex stateS that Lhey uaed ~ forkllf`L• i.n the loadin~ operation. Chui.rman N•rbst made an ~~bservati~~n tl~at the petitioner wae using the public Rtrect se a work. are~, and Cununissioner Gauer noted that muny busi.nesse:. did the same, CommiB~ioner Morley nated that he hr~d no objec~- tions to a forklifr, cr~asing the street aeveral times; however, the containers were e problem. Commissioner Gauer suggested to the peCitioner Chat by parking th.e contuinera ao that tliey were within the pr~~perty linas and not out in the streeC, the problem could he solved, however, they would need to insure that this procedure was prRCticed ull the time. H~ ~:oatinued by noting th~t r.he •311ey wae not too well control.led, in hia opinion, and the trRffic was probably not proper, bu+t if the buei*~ese was conducted in an arderly fashion and wiChout accidents, it would b~ better. He further noted that he an3 the rest of the Planning Cummission had obser.ved that businessea in som...,f ehe older parts o£ the City were operati.ng ir- the manner be~ng ~iecuased, and were not hurting anyone; and that this was a bu~i.ne~s that shou].d be helped nlong. Commissioner Tolar noted that he wouldfavor a loading dock in:ented into the building about 3 or 4 feet to solve the pr4blem~ Commissioner Morley noted that the containere were neat and painted. Commissioner King added that the street was very wide and was Rufe. Chairman Herbst noted that at some poi.nt ir. time the cont~inery needed to be gotten out of the. s[reat in accordance with the Code~ Commissioner. King noted that he agreed that a time limit to remedy the situation might be in order and he inquired if the petitioner could r•~solve the problem if given two years in which to do so. Tn repl.y, Mr. Ferrand stated hc supposed he coul.d solve the problem and he might consider c~oving hiR b~!a_~.neoa to another l~cation; that he would probably considex purchasing another truck and parking it pexpendicularly to make [he operation legal, however, that would be a biggez hazard than the present situation; and that a vRriance was presenkly neaded to make the operation legal. In reaponse to fi-rr.her que~tioning by Chairmen Herbst, Mr. Ferrand stated if the aubject buainesa got any l~rger, they would have to move from tl~e eubject location. Cornmissioner 'Polar noted that he would not encourage more of a hazard, juot for the sake of making the operation legal. Chairman Herbet noted that he wovld go along with approving the +~ub~ecC request for a period af tlme to see if the petitioner ~ould solve the problem; that in approving the reyuest in thia manner~ the Ylanr~irg ~ommisaion would be h2.ipinR the bubi.neaeman; and that s ~ MINUTI:S~ (:ITY YLANNINC C:OMM(S310N~ Apri.1 18~ 1975 VAKIANCE N0. 2694 (Cdnl• i nuecl) ^~1~ ~ ~ ~-zi6 he woulu queetion granting e privi.lege to the per.i.t ~ icr when the muinrity of the bueic~aseeA hud Co live up to tho Code requirement~. Commiest~~nor Caucr noCed that th~ Aub~ect prop~~rty we~ located in un old iiidustriol Area, And Commieeioner Tol.nr. noted that 1E matters e,uch +3-~ Che QubJect uengc~ were nllowed, how could che City improv~e the old induetrial areaK. Cowmiesioner Morley noted tliat he would go along witl~ Clie two-yoar l•ime limit. Mr. Ferrend erdtea tliat ttie manufacturing company acroeA the etreet tir~d gr~wn c~nd wse deponde.nt upon tl» g~nj~~c uporaCion; that he thought the sub~e.ct operation waa in the top 20 uaers of elec tricaL Pnergy; ~nd that if they could havic eomo legal way of keeping che operation al- it praecntly wn~, they wo~~ld be inte~fering l~ee thon if they ha] anothet• mc~de o~ trnnRpurtatlon~ i.e., r~ rig whi.ch wauld Pncronch e~en further into the rigl~t-of- way. Thereupon, 'Loning Supervisoi• Charles Rc~berte acivis~d that the Police DepHrCment would probabl.y citc the pel•itioner if the trucka were encroactitng into t.he ri~l~,t-of-way, al.so. T.t was noted that the D•lrectc~r ot Development Servlces had determin~d that the proposed activi.ty fell witl~ln the definition of. SecGion 3.01, l:la~s S, oE the Ci.ty of Mahs~im Guide? ines to the Requirementa for an Environ~rental Impact Report and wae, therefore, caCegaricalYy exempt from tlie requiremenr. to f i.1e an EIR. Commi.saioner King offered Iteso'luti~n No, PC75-90 9nd movPd for ite paaeage and ndoption, tliat Petition for Variar_ce No. 2694 be and hereby ie granteJ~ grantin(, ttie waivers of the minimum front setbnck and Cha required enclosure of outdoor uses f.ar a time limitation of two years and, upon wri tten reyuest by tt~z petitioner~ an additional period of time may be granted upon approval by the Flannin~ Commission and/or City Council; provlded, howcvcr, ttiat tl~e per_il-ioner ehall make an ellort to elimir~ate the need f~~r t}~e requested watvera during the two-year period; a~id sub~ect t~ condltioud. (See Resolutior. Book) On roll call, the foregojng resolution wae pasaed by the following vote: AY~S: COMAIISSIONCRS: GAUER, JOI~VSON, KING, MORLEY, TO 1R, HGRBST NOES : COA'AtIS S IONEItS : NONL~ ABSENT: COI~itISSIONERS: FARANO Zn reapunae to queationing by the Plunning Commiasion, Mr . FErran~ atated it was possihle that the praperty owners across the street were waiting to see if the subject petition were granted before they ypent the application fee to npply for a va:iance; and that they wo~~ld pxobably proceed now, VARIANCE N0. 269 S- PUBLIC NEARINC. MR. ANll MRS . CHARLES J. KINN, 550 South Ohio Street, - Anaheim, Ca. 92805 (Owners); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MINIMiJM SID~ YARD SETBACK, (B) PERMITTBA ENCROACHMENTS iN'TO REQUIRED YARDS, AND (C) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING S'.'ACES, TO CQNSTRUCT A FOL~RPLEX on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parce.l uf land consisting of approximately 7800 square feet having a frontage of approxi.mately 70 feet on the nor~h aide of Glencres[ Aven~ie, having a maximum depth of approximatel~y 110 feet, and being located approximately 34U feet east of the ceciterline of Chippewa Avenue. Property presently classified itM-1200 (RESIDENTZAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY~ ZONE. No one ind3cated their presence i.n ~~rposltion ko subject petitiun. Althou~;h the Staff Rsport to the Pl~nning Commissien dated April. 28, 1975, was not read at the puoi:c hearing~ it is refe*red to ~nd made a part of Che minutes. Mr. Charlea Kinn, tlie propert uwner, appPared b~£ore the Planning Commi.asion and stated the requeated variance would not create a precedent whateoever, ainca thie was r.he Iast available parcel for development in the sub~ect area; that he had liked the design of a group of apartmente designed hy MT. John Swint and he deaired to place that design on the eubject pro~erty; and that he would like to have the fourplex building treated in the same manner as 1810 c:lencrest. Thereuponr Mr. Kinn offered to anawer questions regarding the pr~posal. ~ ~~ _--- ' • s • MLNU1'i~.S~ CITY PI.ANNING (:UMMISSJ.ONy ApC11 2A~ 1975 VARLANC~ N0. 2695 (Continucd) T1{E PURLIC FI~ARINC WAS CI,OS1'sU. 75-217 Commiesioncr M~~rley queeCianed whnt variances ware gr.anted for the adjecenc devcl~~pmente und Zoning Supervlaor ChArled Roberte advised he did not h~ve that informution preKentl.y avuileble nl thc meetf.ng; however~ those VATLATICCH wez~~ granted eome tlme Ago. Mr. Klnn str~ted that the requeAted variances w~re necesRary i.n ordcr f.or the plnn to fil on tt~c~ b~Ljcct pr~perty~ an:! thc p~.~::: would ktave to he redrnwn in order to fir. in COITI~LLATICE' with [he Code~ requtremc~nte. I.n reaponae to furthcr que~kionin$ by Comrai.saioner Morley, Mr. Kinn s.ated that they were proposl.ng [~ hnve u t~tal of 7 park~.ng apnces, 4 of which would be enclosed in q~rag~s; anJ that his propue~l would have more pnrking than aoine of the sixplexes in the nren. Tlie Planning Com~niasion entered int~ diNCUdelon with the petitioner regurdl~~~; th~~ number of bedr~~,~rna propoded~ t~ equate the parking epaces. durina wnich Mr. Kian cocitirmed that the proposal. was Ca have c~ne three-bedroom unit and three kwo-t~edroom u~i1C~, or a~~~tal. o° nine bedroomr~. uommiseiuner Tolc+r noted that h~ would speAk in favor of the requested ~raivert~ or lhe basie tt~at moar tenancs would not piit thelr cars in ~1~e garages anyway; that if the build- ing would be like thc une at 181Q Clencre~t, iC would compliment the ~rea; and that the waivers were ao minimal that it would not be worthwl~ile to change the plans. Commisai:~ner :~torl.ey added that the proposal wae ideal for tt~e aub;}~ct location. Mr. Gus Krueg , the builder, appe~red before the PXanninE Commisr~ion to anawer questi.ons regarding ttie ~~ioposal ~~nd reviewed some cf Chr_ projecta he had cnnatructed in Liie City. The Planning Cornmisei~.u entered inCo di.scussion regarding the layout of the parki.ng spaces, noting that ~~ne of the spacee waa tandem, and expreased some concern reL,arding the £act thaC the pedest.cian acc~saway from the parking spaces to the unit.s might not be. i-dequate unless the open parking space r~n the west side ~f the buildi.ng wne constructed in su~h a way as to prevenC ~he vehicle from intruding in~o aaid acceasway. In response to questioni.ng by Chairman Herbst, Mr. Ki.nn Rti.pulated to installin~ a cement bumper strip ~r some other auitabl.e m~~ans to insur.e that th~ vehicle usireg the open parki.ng space on Che west side of the building wo~tild t~e ~traight and would intr.t~de only minimal.ly into the pedesCrian passageway adjacent to the we~terly property llne. In response to questioning by Commisefoner King, r,r. Kinn stated the ~~tation pickup would be in front of the laundry room near the alley, enclosed, and ~. of the building proper; and ttiat a spri.nkler system woi~ld ba install.ed overhead. He ~urther stated that Mr. Swint, the architect, had discuased the traah enclosure areas with the Sanitation Division and i.t was agreed that eaid areas would be in compliancP 4~i.th requirements ef the CiCy. It was noted th::t the D±rector nf DPVelopment Services had det.ermined that the proposed acttvity fell within the definition of Section 3.02, Class 3, of the City of Anahei.m Guideiines to L•he Requirements for an GnvironmenCal Impact Report and was, therefore, categori.cally exempt fro~ the req4irement to file an EIR. Commisr~ione~ Johnson offered Resolutiur: No. PC75 ~1 and moved for its passage and adoption, that Petitic+n for Vaziance No. 2695 be and hereby is granted, un the basis that sdid waivers are minimal for the proposed use; s~ject to the conditic+n that a cer~ent bumper sr.rip or other suitable meana shall be installed to i.nsure that the vetiicle using the open parking epace on the west side of the bui.lding intrudea only minimally into the pedestrian accessway ad~acent to the wes[erly property 1ine, a~ atipulated ta by t;~e petitioner; ~nd ~ubject to condltionR. (Se.e Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was nassed by the following vote: AYES: COMMJSSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: COI~AIISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COt~'IISSIONERS: FAR/'.NO • ~ • M1NUT1:5, CL'I'Y P1..ANNING COMMISS1qN~ April 2A, 1975 75-21H VARLANCL RIO, 2696 •• PUALI.C H~ARiNG. MAItION K~ [iURKHP:IM~ Z]13 Etiviern Drive~ Snntu An4~ ~`~`~~ ~" Ci~. 9270~ (Owner); JE~STE CAROLINI: MASON, Cnra-Von Su~'plue l;uilding Materlals. G91 Sixth Street, Norco, Ca. 9176U (Agentj: ceyu~sti.nq WAIVL'It Of (A) PEItMT'('TLU U3ES, (H) MINiMUM F~tON'l' SETI3ACK LANDSCAPTNC:, ANU (C) M1NIMl1M NUMB~R Ol~ YARKING SPACBS~ TU BS1'AUI.ISH THG liETAiL SALE MJD OU'1'UOQR STUWICE U!~ EiUILUltIC MAT[:RIALS on proper~y deecrihed us: An irregularly-ehaped pnrcel oE lancl co~~eiRting ~~f approximat~ly 1.4H acr~~i~ having a Erontag~~ of tipproximr~eely 275 feet on r.hc north eide of Kr~tel]A Avnnu~~, hnvi.nQ n maxi~aum det~th ~f aPpTOximAtelV 265 fc~pt•; !!n~~ h"~n~- ~^~HC~~ approximntely 300 feet ee~t of the centc~rline of Cl.audinu Wny. Proper.ty presently ciaeei- f ied ML (1NUUSTRIAL, i.LMI i ED) ZONG. Ma. JeBeie Caroline Mason~ the ngenk for khe property owner, aapenred before the Pl.anning Coromiesion nnd st~ted the proposal wxR noC ~ uet ro have ~aies mnd ntoraqe of building mr~terials~ but als~ to hnve reluked items incluc;ing bui.ldin~ suppltea. floor cov~ringe, ~rt aupplies una other items that would be useful ArounJ tt~e home; that the owner ciid ob~ect to tlie recommNnded couditiuna of approval requiring Ridewalke and ntreet 1LKhting fee~, aince there were no sidewalks in tl~e are~e; ~nd thnt tl•~e property owner als~ owY~ed ad~acent property~ She furtl~ ~r stated that the Strste had iisked thr_ bueineas na a "general etore" and they would pur.chpHe items for resale as tl~ey could ob[~in goud buya and nol ,~uHt lumbcr. TH~ PUBLIC 1{[:ARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Gary lluncan, repre~enting the Aehwill-Burke Compan,y, appeared before the Planniog Commission and stuted khe adjacent Sioux tioney proper[•J had been rented ta Wal.[ Taylor L~unber arid the high stacks of lumber thut were seen cn :ie subject property belonged to Wnlt Tayl~r; that Ws+lt TayloY had indlc~ted they would petitioning tn encroach onto the aub~ecC prope:ty; nnd that. thp fence woul.d be r_on~3Cructed on the ~.~rtherly proper.ty 11ne. In reRponst: to questioning by the P1Annfng Commission, Ms. Mason stated chac the atoruge would be both inside arid outside lhe building on Che sub;Ject property; tha;: l•h~y would hvld to a height restriction of 10 ft:et c~n the ouCSide and that lhe ch~sinlin'.• f~_nce would be slatted; that she had obtained mekal 818C9 and later found out tl~at redwaod or cedc-r were :equired, and she was willing to obtain the woodan slats as required; t:hat retail oal.•s was the primary uae, hr_wever, they ~lid wholeaale occ~sionally to other stor.es; kt~: t rega °ding parking, they were presently operatin$ in the City of rullerton +~nd did not requ~re a greaC dea1. of parking spaces; that the proposal wo~ld not be si:n:il<~r to J..in-Brook Hr~rdw:..re and, therefore, they did not ttnticipate more than about ].2 customera at any one time. Chairman Herbst noted that if the propc~sed use became a big attraction in [he f~stur:, there might be a shortage of parking spaces. Ther~upon, Ms. Mason stated that tnr 5ioux Honey property was devNloped with a huge parking lot that was not being use~' az~.d Chey could probably negotiate to u~e that lot, if needed. Chairman Her.bst then noted :r~aC a time limi[ on the use might be appropriate to give the Planning Comrsission an cpportunixy [o revieto it wlth respect to the parking, elc. Commiss~•..~ner Morley noted that tlie t~~+rl;ir• ; availability usually controlled the bmount of business at a given locar.ion. Ms. Mason yuestiored rhe ef.fects of .~ ti;~~: limitatior., and 7eputy CiL•y Attorney Frank Lowry advised tl~at by 2^p~oving thc~ appl: cation rith a cin.e limit, the Planning Coanniasion would be assured that the use could be ree iewe.~. a'~th respect to ~arkii-g, etc., and if. tl~e use and the p~rking. ^Le.. were satisfactory nc ~'r~e time of the r.eview, then the prCi.tlu~~sY would stai~.d a big chance that [he usa would be abi~ to ~ontinue, however, there was no guarantee. Ms. Mason then queationed wher?-er they could obtaan additional parkinp from adjacent properCy, if needed; whereupon, Mr, Lowry advised that procedure had been permitted in the past. Comcniasioner Tolar clarif ied that i.f the petitioner did not tnink there would be a prublem witi~ the parking and wanted to proceed with expenditures to set up the business, ohe could do sa but there was no guarantee that th~ busineas could continue if a parkin~ prohlem wae evident when the time limit expired. Commiesioner Tolar further noted that Staff ahoul.d be directed to ciCe the Wa1C Taylor Lumber Company with regard to the excessive height of the material Atored outside. In reaponae zo questloning by Cammiseioner King, Ms. Masc~n stated they would be placing their lwaber on the north aide of the building next tc: the ch~inlink fence, which would be interwoven with the redwood or cedar slats. • ~ MTNUTRS, CI't'Y PI.ANNTNC Cl)MMISSIUN~ April 2A~ 1975 VARIANCF: N0. 2696 (Continusd) ~ • 15-'l l.9 Tha t'lAnning i:ommiHKion enl•ered into diecuKeion with the petitianer r~egr+rding landscaping, no~ing Chnt som~ lnndacaping ad,~ucent to the etreet frontage was ver.y desirablc~. Mr. Duncan etAted t}inc hy providing landacepinR, ne req~~ircc:, oome pnrking epacae wc~ul.d bo lost~ Upon furCheT' diacueslun, Cliairm..n Nc~rbst noted Chet he woulct ra~tter give a EurCtt~*r• variance tur parking and Fiuve eome lundecnping, hawcsvex, if the exieting 5-foot Planter caula be replant~d with eomc~ «~cc-loaking plants nnd maintained, that might be eufflcient. to ful.fill th~ landc~cnping requirement aC thie tim~s. Me, 1)unca~ ~~uestioned th~ ne~sd for the condiCion requl.ring eidewa.lka, bince he did not feul thera woul~ be anyone to use them, wfiexeupon, ~ffice Engineer Jay Titus adviaed that Lf the CiCy EngineFC• determined therc wns no ~uetificakion for the saidewalke, then thar.. office could gront a revucabl.e waiver from said requirement~ and when sidewalkH were deCer.tuined t~ Ue required in the future~ eaid walver could be revoked. Mr. Uuncati Chen qu~acloned thc~ need f~r the atreeC lighting condition, whereupon, AselAtn~it Zonirzg Supervieor Annika SnntAlnhti advlsed ttyuC there was no record on fi.le wiCh the City indicaking th~e street lighting £ees had been paid, and that when the property wne originally devr.loped, fees were nok required c~t that time. It wae noted thAt tlie Ulrector of Develop~nent Services ha~' deterroined that the propoaed t~cCivity fell within the dc1 i.t~f.tioti of Section 3.d1, Clasa 1, of the City of. Anaheim Guidelines ta the Re~~.iirPm~~nt~ for nn Gnvironmental Impact Keport and WA9~ therefere, cAtegori~_ally exempC fron~ Clie requir.emenC to file an E'IR. Commissiuner Morley offere~l Resalution No. PC75-92 and moved for its passage and adoption, that Petition for Vari.ance No, 2696 be and herPby is granted, grAnting the waiver.s for a [ime limitation of thr.eE yeare, subject r.o review and conr~ideration for exteneion of time, upon written request by the petitioner; sub~ect to ~he conditian that tlie er,i.ating 5-foot plenCer in the front oetback ehall be replanted an~i mafntained; and, further~ that the proposed chainYink fence sl;all be interwoven with redwood or cedar s7.ats to screen the oiitdoor use of Che property, as stipt~lated to by Che petitianer; and subject lo c.onditions. (See Resolution 13ook) ~n ro11 call, the foregoing resolutiun was paesed b} the followi.ng vote: AYES: COr4tISSIONERS: GAiJGK, JOHNSON, I~ING, MORLEY, TOLAIt, HEI'.BS7' NUES : COMP'TSSZONER~ : NONE ""'[.NT: COP411SSIONERS: Ft1RAN0 e Planning Commission gen erally concurred thaC Staff be directed tn contact the Walt ^ Lumber Company and bring action regarding the Code violatiuna on ~bat property. AMENI)MP:NT TO 'fITL~ 18, - Propused amendments pertaining to site screening requirements in ANAHEIM MUNICL?AL C~DE mu lti.p?.e-family residential and cocmnercial zones, to prov ide for requiring wa11s in exceas of 6 feet in height in cases where such additional heights are deemed necessary to protect adjoining proparties. No one indicated their presence in the audience concerning the suh~ecC Code amendment. Aasociate Planner Bil.l ~~ung presented the Staff Report to the Planning Commiasion dated April 28~ 1975, and said Staff Rpport is referred to as if set forth in full in the minute~. Mr. Young noted for the Planning Commission that at the meeting of April 29, 1974, the City Council had directed Staff to explore the wall height requirements in all zones for ~onsideration of $mending the Zoriing i.ode to provide for requiring peripheral walls in excese of 6 feet in height, without the necesaity of variance approvals in cases where the Cir•- Cou-:;il deemed such addieional height necessar~ to prevent intrusions on ldjaini.ng prc.,~rties; ti~at ehe existing proviaiona ap~eared to permit City Council to require walis or fencea in excess of 6 f eet in height adjacent to reaidential zone boundar.iea in all multiple-family residential and industrial zonea, and in the CO Zone, with wa11s 6 fQet in I~eight being required in all other commercial zones and in the CL-HS Zone only when there wae u gtade diffeXentiai of 2 or more feet between ~butting properCies; that in order to insure that walls in excess of 6 feet may be required without variances in inatances where auch additiunal helghC was d~•c~r,~d necesaary to protect ad~oining reaidential uses, it was ~ ~ MINU'f[SS, C1't'Y PLANNINC COtM1iSSi0N, April 28~ 1975 AMrNUMENI.,TO 1'I'1'LF lA,~._ANAtIl:IM MUNICIYAL_~~OUE (Continued) ^~ ~ 75-22U nece~+eary tu +.~mend the Hite sceeening rrquiren~ent,a af c~ll. commercifll zones (excepi•ing th~ CU 'I.on~) to require l.hnt wa11R oP not less rhan 6 feet in heiqht be provided odjucent to rec~idenClal zanes 1.n lieu of. the 6-foot hetght limit presently apecified; th~t, further, to rQCtJ.fy certain i.nequitiee and emhiguitiee in exier.ing r.equiremunts ar~d to inaure ur.lform atAndn:dr~ f~~x r.he protectior~ of ud~oining land uoeA, Che ful.lowing additional. ~mendmen-:s wexr. neceeeary: (a) That in u11 xones where walls or fenc~s art~ reyuired, that the optlon of providing a la~dscapYd earChc:n bertn in lieu of, or in combinaCion with. such wnll be included in order ~o provid~~ for a more uesChetically pleaeing barrier. thnn n wnll ~lone providE:s. (b) Thr~t c- wnll be requLred on any CL-~HS zoned eite ndiacenL• ta any reai.denCir~l zone boundary regnrdlear~ uf whether there is a grade differenl•ia1 of 2 or more feeC in height between eucli properties.• (c) ThAt ad~acent to any residenlial-agricultural zoned property which i~ under Kesolution of Intent for r.eclas~ification co nny zone other than reaidential, no wnll or berm need be required. (d) Thel• where an a.lley is propoaed t~ provide joint access with any othec land use. thut wall requirementa may he modified or wa:ved U~~ the Developmenr. Servicea I)epartment in inatances where lt may be shown that any truck lva~ing and tra::h colle~tlon araas ar.e view-~creened from tha ad~oining residential are~. and thai no major tr.nffir. probltyne wil.l be cre~ted by the Joint use (existing proviyions in t1~e CL~ CG and CH Zones). (e) That ao wall be required across any IIpproved vehicle or pedeatrian acc~asway. (f) 'T~iat the Commission or Council may modify or weive wall requiremenCS in instances •*here the e.recti.on af such wall would not be prr~ettcal in the exercise of sound z~.~tneering practices. (g) ThaC Che hei~ht of any wa11 or herm be reduced i.n uny required street setback area (presently sE~ecifieci in some zones, not sper_ifled in othera). t4r. Young further noted thut approl>r~ate amendments to pro•:ide for the untform applicatioci of the at~ggesCed reviaions were cont~-ined in F.Khihlt A of the Staff Report for review and consideration by the Planning CommiH~ion. In :esponse to questioning by [he Planning Cemn-ieaion, Mr. Young noted that in compliance wiCh the CiCy Council°s direction, Staff was only proposing those amendments presented in the Staff. Report, an.1 ~hat there was no lmplication that the wall and fence requirements of the industri.al zon•. be changed. He furL•her notec~ that normally 6-foot titgh wulls and fences were permitt~. Axcept in the case of. arterial front-ons where the height cauld be raised to d feet t~~ E~t'eserve the residential environment. Commi.ssioner Gauer noted that the telephone company and the Ebe~.l Club facilitie3 in Anaheim had been permitted to have ~~ire fences ~round their purking ].ota and he did nar feel that wae proper when those facilities 4rere adjacent to residential developmpnt. Deputy City Atto:ney Frank Lo4r~y advised Chat the propoaed Code amendments would bring about more uni~c.~~^fty concerning wa11 and fence requirer~e~ts in the mul.tiple-family residential. arr ~,arcial zones and would also provide for more leeway. Comnissiancr ., • . n~r.~d that in future Code amendments, he would ?ike to see the amount of wor~s reduced. Mr. Young advised that unless the Code waR very explicit, there were usually problems of interpretation. TH~ PIIBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner ToZar offered Resolution No. PC75-93 and moved ~or i~:s passage and adoption, to adopt and recommend t~ the City Council adoption of amendmen~ '_~ the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 1R-Zoning, pertainin~ to site screening requirements •~ multipl^_-fau~i.ly residen- tial and commercial zones, as set forth in Fxhibit A on file in tl:e office o~ the Develop- ment Servicea Dep~rtment. (See ~tesolution Book) On ro?_1 call~ the foregoir-g resolution was passed by the following ~•ote: AYES: CONQ~IISSIONERS: GAllER, JOHNfiON, KING, MOl2LEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOCS: COFQ~tISSIONEF.S: NONE A3S~:NT: COMMISSIONCItS: FARANO ~ ~ ~ M'[NUTLS, CI'fY E'LANNLNG C()I~IISSION~ April 26~ 1y75 ~~°Z11 RI:FOR'I'S ~~NU - ITL;M N0. 1 {t[:CUMMF.NUA'CIUNS NATTONAL FLUOD INSUftANCE PROGiYAM - RequeeC to eet cor public ~~^~"~ henring to coneider praposed pnrticipcttion by the (Jity ol' Annhe im. Commiealoner 'Colar noted that the aub~ect mntter ehould receive wide publicity and ev4n be p~ibl.icired on the Mnh~~im Convention Center electr~.~nic eign. He raquteCed that the govax'n- mental ugenr.tes resporielble ~for khe flood inr~urence progresm be invited to nttend tt~e publi.c henxing to Anewer qu~etlonK. Development Services Uirector Ronal.d Thompeoc- noted f.or the Planni.ng (;ommi.selUn tllat Ctie engineera who drew the flood plain mqp Cor Anaheim were locsCed ln Penneyl.vania und did not take in[o considerati.on the ~cobl:+me Anahe:lm had, Deput,y City httorney rrc~nk Lowcy coticurred with Mr. Thompeon's coaimentd And further noted thet the anme engineering firm -aaH aworded the conlr~~ct For moet of r.he State of California nnd they had a-ade the error which was the baeis for th~ City of Anaheim's appenl. Commisaioner Gnuer noted that lie wae not in favor of ausC.aining an error, aN would b~ the case, in his opini.on. Mc. L~owry further advised that the City had uctil July 1, 1975, Co he in the prc,gram, ar FHA and VA flnancing in the City would be discnntinued. The Plnnning Commission questianed the extent ot the effect on flnanc.ing, and Mr. Thompaon adviaed that any lending inetitur.iun that war~ par.t of the Federal keaerve prograrn wvuls be obligi:S Co cca?~ to mAke new loan~+ in the City; howevsr, Staff r~nticipated that the flood maps pertainin~ to Anaheim would be revised subsCantially. Commiasioner T~lar noted that i:he City of Anaheim should b~ completely withdrawn from ehe tlood t-azard area. In responae Co questioning by Commiasi~ner Ki.ng~ COmmissioner T~~lar noted that he would be will.ing to take the gamble thaC if the City turned down the program, Chat the. government would back down. Chairman I~erbat nor..ed that if the luw went thro~.igh, it was pa~sible Chat tlie remainder of the City wou.l.d be constructed on stilts. Commisai~ner Tolar then noted that for over a year, the real estate transactionR i.n thi Cit;~ had been reRuired to have flood insurance f.or FHA and VA sales and the inaurance ca,..aani.es were rpaping the money. Commissionc~r Ca~ier suggested that Congreaeman ~harLes E. Wiggens be notified conc:ernirig the publi~ Viearing; and Chairman Herbst suggested that an open letter to th~ people ir. the community b~~ published, and that telegrams be sent to a1J of the political f.igures and agencies, as appropriute, and encouraged to ateend C~~c ~ubiic hearing. Chairman Herbst further noted that aJ.':hough there were tim~s when areas needed a little insurance of thie type, he did not bc~li~ve it should be crammed down their throats. Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, second~~ by Co~iasioner King and MUTION CAItRIED (Comnissioner Farano being absent), :hat th. p:oposed participation by the Ciky of Anahei.m in the Nation2l Flood Insurance Progrbm be set for public hearing on May 12, 1975, and that political figures and agen-les, r~s apprapriate, be notified and encoucaged to attend said publi.c hearing Co provide ac:~i~ional information and to answer queatiuua rngarding the proposal. ITEM N0. 2 PROPOSED AMEI~bMENT TO TITLE i8, ZONING CODG - Regulation oE business activities related to peraons 18 years of age or ~~lder. AasociatP Plar.ner. Bil.l Young preaented the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 28, 1975, and said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner King offered a motion, seconde:~ bv Commissioner I~orley and MOTIOtv CARRIED (CoaQaissioner Farano being absent), that the proposed amendment to Title 18, Zoning Code, for regulation of busineas activities related to persons 18 years of age or older, be set for public hearing on May 28~ 1975. , ~ ~ ~ ~ MINU'I.'I:S~ CITY }'I,ANNLNC C'1Mtf[S;1C~N. April 2E3, 1975 7y-2~2 TTF.M N~~ 3 CONUJ'P'IONN. IJSI: PRf2MTT NU. 7.116 - Request to e~t{~and uae to inel.ude t.he ~onetruction and ~paretion oF a retrii.L convenir.nce store in con:Junction with +i pnrk fc~c recrr~nt.lonnl vehicles - I'roperty con:~ieting of upproximutely 9.3 acreo, locaLed on the w~yt side of Wer~t Stre~r., upproxima[ely 660 tret south of 13c~.11 Road, r.~ud developed wir.h "Vr~cfationlund~" a recreationnl vehicle park. Aas1.9Cent: Zoni.ng S~~pcrvtKOr Annikn :ant:a.luhti presenCed tl~c 5tnff N~port to the 1.'lanning Comminyion ~luted Aprll 2.8, 1;~5, and said SL•at: ~ Report ly roEerre~l to and roade +~ p~rt of the minuteK. Mr. Doti~ld Rr~~wn, I'resi.dent of. Vac.Ntionl.and~ I.r~l., th~ pet~.Itionc+r., ctppeared bef.ore the Plantiin~ Commis~iion to answer queati~~y rE~gnr~!Lng tlie propostil. C:h~irmt+n Hertist no[r.d t;hi-C he w~~ld bt~ 3n [avor oC lhe propo:~al., if the petitioner could meet I:.he coudit.iona of appr.ov~l. for tha y..nil.ar use approved h.y the Planning Commi.asion on Decembc~r 2'3, 1974, under Cc~nditional Uar Fermi.t No. 1317 for. property acrosa the strt~et; wheraupoii, DSr. Brown so et:i-pultiCed. Gommi:~si.c~r~~~x' '"r,iar noted thaC h~a WOULCI l.ike. a ytipulation from the petftioner thnr. t:here woulcl b~~ no r~ta11 eal~~ co ouCeide tntereHte~ or p~trony who were not ukil.i~i.ng Che truvel tca.Ll.~~ h:~xk, whcrcupci~, Mr. (3rown ao ar.ipularecl. Mr. Bro~rn ~Cated th~~y wure propoRing *~ add approximaCel.y lOQO squc~re feek to the existing ~ ubhou~e ft~cil~ty to bc. operated as r• 't_tai.l store selling grocerles =:nd c~undriea to and for thc:~ park g;ue:;r.i; and thnt the stc~re would not be expo~ed to W~::t ~creet and Che pntrone would have to ~~c,me on Che premisi:s to v,et into eh~ :'atore. I.n z~e;;ponse to questlocitn}; by ~oni.ng Su~~erviiiot Charle~ Roberte, Mr, Brown stipulated to t:erminating a11 proce~dings in connectio~ w1.th Canditional ~.~e Yermi.C No. 1304, whi.ch was previu~~sly gzanted by the~ Pl~nnin~ Con~n~i~a.ton to permit the expansion of an existing rr•avel tra.~ler park., Ca esCahl~sh ~ self-service. store as an acceasory use, and to all~w pern-anent s~orrde areas for c,ampers, Uc~ate nnd trailers on tlie SUb~PL't property and an ~:l~ac~nt purc~l. Commissloner f:ing oLf.ered a mntior~~ se.canded by Commi.ssioner 'folar and MO'fI0:1 CARRIED (Commiesi~.~ner. I~arano bcing aUsent), tiiat the zubject request to exp~nd the use granted in Conditional Use Pe~rTnit No. Lll.o, to Lnclude the construction and operation of a retai.l convenience sr.o~_e in conjunct'on 'wi~ti a park for recreztional vehicles, be IInd hereby is determined to be in conEormance with the intenC ~~f the Planning Comi~ission'g originaundi- approval of: Condit:iona]. Usi~ Parmit No. 1116. provided, however, that the following tions ~hall ~pply, as sti.pulaCed t.o by tl~e petitioner: (.l) TI1Rt the ~ubject propert,y sh:all be developed substantially in accordance with plans and apec3 f icaka.pr~s u,t f il.e witii the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1. (2) That tl~ere be no sigi~s advertisin,g the markee ta the general public. (3) That. the markee: shall be Eor. the conv~nienct and use of the park occupants only. (4) '1'har. C{ie market shall nut be ~nlarged beyond its nreaently-prcposed size. (5) Tt~at there ~hall be no d~~ors from the market to West Street. ~~) endCofhthaC~p~riodef~r ~~determinationeay~to whecher itashou]dLt,ecpermittedeto~continue. C~mmi~si.oner King affeY~d Res~olu~.ion No. PC75-94 and moved f~r its pas~a~e and adoption, ;.hut ~11 prncee~ii.nga in cc:nnection wath Condiliongl Use PErtnit No. 13U4 be and hereby are term~inated, as stipul~ted to by the petitioner. (See Res~lution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution r:as passed by :he foZlowing vote: AYES: COI~Q~'1ISSIOt~ERS: GAUL''R, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, 7.'UI.AR, HERBST NOES: COr41ISSI0N~RS: NONE ABSE:NT: C:OMMISSTONERS: ~~N~ ~ ~ ~ MtNU'f['sS ~ CI'PY YLANNING COMMISST.ON, Aprll 28, 1975 75-223 T.'I'I;M N0. ~i CUNi)I'fIONAL USI: 1'1:}tMl'f Nc). 1215 - Requc~et to canatruct a gaz~~hu ut Camelot c;olf' F'ark -• Yro{~orl•y located in Chc Northeabt Induz~trinl Ar~n ~m the ~outh aide of Curpenter Stcec~t nd~acc~nt to the Riverelde FrcewHy, nnd zoned MI.. 7.oning Supervidc~r Charles RoUertk prer~ented the Stai'f Keport tu the Pl.anning Comml.esi~n dated April ?.E~ 1975~ nnd anid 5~nCf Keporl ia referred to ~nd made a pt-rt oE the minules. Mr. Kob~rtH noted that the peC:l.tt.oner wa~ requeating pei~miseion to conRCcuct a gazebo in :in octc~gonal s~~npc which would contain approximately 6SU squnre. fecC und houRe four hockey machine. game~; that the propused qtructure woul.d cnrry aut the "(:amelot" theme nnd rescmble an octagon~l tent-sh~ped strcct~re, with n conlcIIl, top, nnd would be situated approximately in the center of [he su~ject proper[y; Che~t Condition~l Uae Permit Nc~. 1215 was denied hy the Pl~nnl.ng f'~~mmisslun und wue subsequenCly ~ppeated l-o the City Council and granted. Chnirman Herb>.L noted tha[ although the Plunning Commi.Kaiun did not originally appi-~ve of the sub~e~~t use ~t this lacation, tl~e u9e was there and the propoye:d additi~n appeared to be within the scope oF tl~e origlnal proposrsl, Tn respunae to yuesti.oning by the Plunning Commission, Stuff advised that the sub~ect structure was propo~ed to be 25 feet~ 6 inc~hes in helght. ~1r. Ben Kenney, r.epCer~~tiCing the petitioner, indicated his presenc~ r~~ angw~r quer~tions r.egarding the pruposal. Connnissioner yorley offered a motion, se~onded by Commiasioner Ki.ng aud MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner P'arano being absent), that Che PZanning Cormnisoion does hcreby de.termine that Che propc~~;ed gazeL+o and games are within the scop~ of l-he miniAture golf course and related clubhouse a.ctivitie:~ grant:ed under Conditi.onal Use Permit No. 1215. ITEbI N0. 5 VARIANCF. N0. 2688 - Request for clarificar_ion of resolu[ion - Property consistang of approximatel.y 7200 square feet located ~t r.he southwest ::orner of La Pa1ma Avenue and Anahei.m Boulevard, and furt;~~.r described as 929 North l+naheim Boulevsrd. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented the Staff Repcrt Co the Ylanning Commission dal•ed April 28, 1975, und said Staff IteporC is referred to and made a part of tt~e minutes. He noted that the fina?. fona of the Resoluti.on No. PC75-69 granting Variance No. 26Rg was being questi.oned by the. peCitioner and a request had been made for. clariEication; thaC ttie petitioner was questioning inclusion of certain conditions in the res~tution which they felt dld not reflect the intent of the Plannin~ ~ommission at the public t~~~art.ng, with respect Co dedication for street widening and payment of tree fees. Comcnissioner f.:~uer notecl that he felt t~e intent of the Planning Commissian's action was not to require any dedication for street aidening by the property owner, since the property was already a very small parcel and wti~~n the streets were widened, there would be very little property left; and, further, r_hu~ wFieii the streets were widened the Froperty owner should be compensate~ for the dedlcation at that time. Mr. 'lodoroff, t}ie property owner, appeared before t'~e Planning Commission and stated the alley dedication had been made. In response r.o c~uestionir.g by Chairman HeYbr~t, Office Engineer Jay Titus advised that he had made a field inspection of the subject property since the puUlic hQaring and found that although the curbs and driveways were broken and old, th~y were no more hazardoua than othere existing ir- the area; and Chat when the ~treets were widened, the curbs and driveways would be replaced at that time. Discussion pursued wi~h Staff regarding the conditionr~ set £orth in Resolut'on No. PC75-69, during which tl~e Plannin~ Commiseion generally concurred that it was appropriate to deletc Condition Nos. 2 and 3, rQlating to dedication for stY•eet widening, snd 5, relating to payment of tree fee~, from said resolution; gr-d that Cozdition No. 10 be amended to delete any requirement concerning dedication of property. ~ • ~ MINl1TES~ ~.,1'f'Y PLANfJIN(; c:OMMISS[ON, Aprl.l 28, .1.975 ITF.M N0. 5 (Contlnued) 75-224 Commiseloner Johneon noted ChaC khe mr~nncr in which the YlanninR Commir+bian ~ne grnnting Vurtt~ncc No. ?.68H waea ~rotng n long w+~y to respond Co thc Qeticionc+r'e r.r~qucet and he hoped [he petltioner wou1J reclp~~ocute by improving the property; tl~r~t the Commilseion hud heen condiAkenc in the pner. in requiring upgrading of f~ervice atnCion ~ite~~ £or c~the~r uKes and the pctitioner Hhoul~l go r~ mile furth~r wlth be+~utifict~lio~t c~f Che bui.lding ~n the sub~~~ct property. 'Ci-,ereupon~ CummiEisl~ner Jahnson offerr_d Reyolul•iun No. PC75-9.5 Anc: moved for ite pxsenge and iidoption~ thr~t Reaolut.lon Na. PC75-69 be nnd hereby ie amended, nuric pro Lunc, delet- ing Condi~iun Nos. 2, 3 snd 5 und a~~~ending Cond~itian No. 10. (See ResoluCion liook) On ro]_1 cn11. Che f~ ~~gotng resolution w~s paesed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSIONF.RS: CAUER, JOHNSON~ KINC, MORLEY, TOLAR, HCRBST NOES : CU~~4IISSIONIsR.S : NONF. AKSENI' ; COMMISS IONGRS : I'ARAIJU ITEM N0. 6 RGCI,A5SIFICAfION N0. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCF. N0. 2310 - Requeat for. nppruval of revibed site plan (Revlsion No. 7) •- Proj~erty r_onsistin~ of approxl.mntely 11 acres, located on the norCh side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, approximately 320 feet ea:+l ~~f Imperial liighwAy. Zoning Supervisor Charle~ Roberrs presented r_he Staft Report. to the Ylanning Commiasion duted April 28, ].975, and said Si:aff Reporr ia r.eferrc~d to and made a part of. r.he minutes. Mr. Roberte noted i:hat the petitioner, Ptr. Harry Rink~r, had incticated a dc~sire to have flexibility From the aubject r.evisecl site pl.an to alter t}~e building configura~ion iE it would be advantageou:~ for him to do so; that the petitioner did not know precisely where the buildings would be laid out on the plans, eincE there mi.ght be a madification of the size and or:ientation af buildings located in the northeast'erly por.tion of. the subject propcrty; rhat the toCal square footage of the building area for the proposed shopp:ing center. would not exceed the amount o£ area alreaciy approvecl by t~e Planning Commission; and tha~ a11 other. site development atandar.ds would be complied with as required by Code or in accordance with relief granted under Variance No. 2310. The Pla-ining Commission entered inCO discussion with Staff regardi.ng the subject request, during wtiich Chai.rman Herbst noted that aince the petiti~ner was not submittin~ definite plarts for Che proposed de~~elopment at this time and needed flex'.biliCy, the Planning Commission should not_ talce an action on the revi.sed plans but sh~uld wait until the petitioner knew what thP builaing conf~.guratlon would be. Commiseioner Morley offered a motion, ser_onded by Commiasioner King and MO'fION CA~RIGD (Coaunisaioner Farano being absr.nt), that the Planning Commission take no action on the revised si.te plans (Revision No. 7) until the petitioc~er kuows wh3t the building configuration of the proposal wi1]. be. ITEM N0, 7 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BETA - Request for special meeting Co consider Preliminary Plan. Kedevelopment Director itnuwli:uu F~riiald noted for the Planning Conmiissinn that ~ special meeting of the Planning Commieaion was requested to consider the Preliminary Plan for Redevelopment ProjecC B~ta and that enid meeting could be held on May 5, 1975, at 7c00 p.m. ADJOU1tNMENT - There being no £urther busineas to discuss, Commiasioner Morley offered a motion, seconded Uy Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano being absenC), to adJourn the meeting to May 5, 1975, at 7:00 p.m. in the Cnuncil Chamber at City Hall. The meetitig adjourne~ at 5:50 p.m. Respectfully submltted~ , v ti~~c.c.c -~ ~~-Jc' ct- r-~.. C~ ~c...1 Patriciu B. Scanlan, Secretary !#nnheim City Planning Commixaiun PBS;hm