The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1975/06/090 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, IPIC. ~~ ~ ~ . City Hall Annlinim, Ca11£ornia June 9. 1975 ItLGULAR MEETING 0~ THE ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNII~G COA4_,1ISSION RKGUI.AR - A regu'l~.~r mfleCing of the Anaheim CiCy Planning Commieeion waa c~l.l.ed to t~ETINC order b~ Chairman HerbAt al• 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, a quorum being pt•eaont. PItESENT - CIiAIRMAN: Nerbet_ - COt~tISSIUNERS: Guuer, Faran~i, .Tohneon, King. Morley, Tolar (who entered the meeting at 1:37 p.m.) ABSENT - C~~P4~tISSI0NEi2:;: None AI.SO PRESENT - Malcolm Slr~ughter Jay Ti.tus Charlea Roberta Annika 5antalunti Patriciu Scanlan Depul•y City Attornay Office Fngineer 7.oning Supervieor As~ietant ":.:.ing Sug~r~~iQoi. ~:ommiesiun Secretary PLF:DGE OF ~ Commiasioner Farano le~' in Che Pledge of Allegiance to L•he Flug of the ALLEGIANC~ United Statea of Amerlct~.. COMMISSION~R TOI.AR ENTERED THE MEE'PING AT 1:37 P.M. VARIARCE N0. 2697 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARIN~. K& B CCNTER, 725 West Anat~eim Street, Lon~ Aeach, Ca. 90813 (Owner); GOOD LUCK Ml+RKFT, 1247. South KnotC SCreet, Anaheim, Ca. 92804 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM AGGR~GAT~ SIGN AR~A, (B) MAXIMUM NUA'~~:R OF SIGNS, (C) MINIMUM DISTANCE B~TiJEFN SIGNS~ AND (A) MINIMUM GROUND CLEARANC~ QF SIGN, TO FERMIT 15 EXISTING FFt~E-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: An irregular.ly-shaped parce]. o£ land coneisting of approximately 5 acred located at the southweat corner of Bal.l Ro:ed and k;nott Street, having appruxlmate frontages of 40 feet on th~ south side of Ball Raad and 390 feet on the weat side of Knutt Street, and £urther desc*i.bed as 1241 South Knott Street. 1'roperr.y presently classifiad CL (COiII'~RCIAL, I,IMITED) ZON~. The sub~ect petit~.on was continued from the meeting oi May 12, 1975, for the petitioner to aubmit reviaed plane, and from the meeting of May 28, 1975, at the requeat of the petitioner. No one indicated their presence in opposition to subject petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 1975, was not read at the public hearing, it is refsrre3 to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Harvey Catledge~ Executive Vic~-~ President of the Bechler Corporation, General Partner of K& B Center, the property owner, appeared befors the Plaunin.g Commissi.or to anawer questiona re~5ardinE the proposal. THE PUBLIC HEAP.ING WAS CLOSED. 7.t wao noted that t:~e reviaed plans~ as aubmitted, e1:lminated the ori,ginally-requested wdivera of the maximum aggregate sign area and the minimum grnund clearance of sign. Commissioner Morley noted tY~at by moving the proposed eign along the railroad right-of-wey further from ehe Aign located ak the northeast corner of the subject property~ the minimum distance between those signa could meet the Code reqcairementa, and Chair.man Herbat not~d thaC the propoaed location for the new ai.gn appeared Co bs based on a tiar.dahip due to the fact that the northeasterly boundary of the properey actually £ronted on the railroad right-of-way and not on a street. It was notcd that tne Director of the Development Services Ueparttaant had 'd'etermined thet the proposed acCivity £ell within the definiticn of SECtiun 3.01, Claae 11, of the City of Anaheim Guidel:nes to the Requirements for an Enviro~nmNUtal I~apact Report and wa.s, there- fore. catagorically exempt from the requlrement to file an 'r;tR. 75-274 ~ -.q. ~ MIl~UTF.9 ~ CITY PLANNING CUMhlISS10N ~ Juna 9, 1975 VARIANCE N0. 2G97 (Continued) w ~ 75-275 CortwlBeioner Moxley of.fer~d Resoluti.on No. PC75-11F and muved fur ite pae~sag~ a~id adoption, that Potition fox Vsriance No. 2697 be and her.eby i.e granted for threa free-stc+nding aigne, gt'anting waivera of the maximwn number of di.gne a~nd the minimum dlatnnce between eigne on thu benie r.hat the petitioner damonetrated thnt a har.dship ~,~ould be created !f eaid waivere war~ nc+t granted~ ainc~ a portion of the property frontage i.o immediately ad~acent Co a rai:lroad right-of-wa,y~ making iC difficulC tu adequ+~tely idnnt.ify e parti.on of the ehcppi:,g cenl•er; and~ further~ the two signo fronting on KnoCt 3treel: are exiating; thnt tt~e waiv~rs oE tha maximum ag~regate c~lgn area and tha minimum ground c'leara~ce of fiign were eliminated by the rest~bmittal of plane and are~ C}-arofore, wi~hdrawn by the petitior-er; eub~ect to conditione. (Sec ResoluCiot~ Book) On totl ca1J., Che fAregoitig reso'liition wae pasaed by the fo:Llowing vute: AYES: CQMMISSIONEtt~: x;~:AN~, GAUFR, JOHNSON, KING, MORI~L'Y. TOLAR, l1ERBS'P NOES: COMMISSJ.ONERS: NONL~ ADSENT: COMMiSSIONGRS: NONE CONDITTONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FREDERICK n. MOItLEY, 51.5 North East SCreet, Anahe:im, PERMIT N0. 1538 Ca. 92805 (Owner); SCOTT R. MORLEY, 1001. NorCh Grove 5treet, Anaheim, r Ca, 92806 AND GORDON M. M~JRL~Y, 125 Clerke StreeC* Bishop, Ca. 9:i51H (Agenta); requesting permiseion ro CONSTRUCT A SrLF-S~RVICG CARWASH WTTY WA.IVER OF (A) MAXIMUM BUILDINC HEIGIiT AND (B) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SIDEYARD SETBA~K on proptrty deacribed as: A rectnngularly--shaped parcel of land consieting of approximately 0.35 ~xcre located at ttie norttiwest corner uf Sycaniore Street nnd EPat SCreet, havi~~g appr.oximate frontages af. ].10 fe~:t on the norkt- cide of Sycamore Street and 140 feet on the west yida of East Street, and furthPr deacribed as 50' North East Street. Proper•cy presently clasaified CL (COhAiERCIe+-L~ LIMITED} ZONE. Cammisaicner Morley note3 for the Planning Com~uiaeion that he had a conflict of inxereat as defined by the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 1.1.400 and i3oveinment Code Section 3625, et seq., in thaC he wao related to the property owner, who wa:~ hia father; that: purauant to the proviaions of the referenced codea, he was hereby dec7.~:~ring to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from xhe haaring in connection with the sub~ect petitian and would nut Cake part in either the discusaion or the voting thereon; nnd that he had not discussed the matter with any meraber of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MORI~EY LBFT THE MEETING AT 1:45 P.M. No or~e indicated their presence in opposiCio~1 to subject petiCi~~n. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commiasion dated .Tune 9, 1975, was not read at the public hearing, it is rnferred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Gordon Morley and Mr. Scott MorYey, the agents for the petiti.oner, appeared before the Planning Commission tu answer qaestiona regarding the proposalo THF PUBLIC HEARTNG WAS CLOSEll. In response to question{.ng by Commiasioner King, ths agent stated slgnaturea had been ob*_ained from the ad~acen~, neighbors to the wesC in concurrence wi~:h the propoeal, and that the property owner owned and residsd on the property immediately to the north of the aub~ect property. Commisaioner Tolar inquired regardi.ng the easterlymost driveway on 5ycamore Street and noted since it appeared that a traffic hr~zard could be created fram its u~e, said driveway ahould be eliminated. Chairman iierbet and Office Engineer Jay Tit~ts concurred that eaid driveway ahould be eliminatedr whereupon, the agent atipuJ.ated to the elimination as suggested. The agent then atated that the weaterlymoat driveway on Sycamore SCreet was for exit only. In responee to queationing by Commieaioner Talar, the agent atipv.lated th~t the under- ground ga~o'line tanka would be removad and not £il.led. The Planning Commiaeion entered into discu~eic.n wir.h the agent regarding the additionnl required dedication along East Street~ during which the agent indicated they did not wi-,h to make the dedication at thls t•lme but would like to retain that property for uRe 1~~.,:il auch time ae the City was ready to widen the atreet, or when the other properties along East 3treet wQre zoned co~nercial, etc. • ~ ~ MINUTES~ CI'fY PLINNING COhQ(I~SION, June 9, ~.975 CONDITIUNAL USF PERMT ~N~~1538 (ContlnuQd) 75-276 It wue n.oCed Cliat the plans incticnted 3 fee~ oE futurF 1F-ndacaping would be provided adiacene to tha plennc+d ultimate right-of-way on East SCrec~t and [he agent etatad that if the additional lendRCaping wae required ok t:i~is t:imc,~ pri.or to the widening of the street, ~ liardehip would be crnated and, additionall.y, they w~uld and up with b feet of lrsnd~-caped setbnck ur.til. e~ci~ time xR the etreet wua w:ldenPd. Uepul•y City Attorney Malculm Slaughter adviiaed that. the Planninp, Commiseion could ei.ther require the addlr.ionul dedicaClon nt Chie Llma, prior to commencem~nt of tha activity being c~nsidered for the property~ in whi.ch case, the 3 feet af landqcaping adjacent Cu the planned ultimate right-of~way would AL80 Ue r~qulred at thla Cime; or tha P:Lunning Comu~iaeion cc,u].d r~quire Chat an lrrevoc~ble of.fer of dedi.:ation be made ot thi~ timc, candi.tioned upo~• tlie nead for eaid dedication, aH raqui.red and detbrmined t~ be neceasar7~ by the City~ sub~ect to a eCipulatinil by the petitioner thut tiie 3 feet of landacaping ad~ac~nt to the ultimate right-qf-wa,y woiild be inetalled at the time thc~ City accepted dedicaCion and Che ntr~et wue widened. The agent i.ndicf~ted that the irrevncable offar of dedication would be agre~ablN and that they wauld stip~i'late [o installing the 3 feet of landscaping when required by the City. The agent then att~Ced t;ie~ underetood that they ~aould not know when the City ~rould require Ctie dedication and :I.andncFiping, ae discussed. Aseiatant 'Loning Supervisor Annika SanCulaht.i noted for Ltie Plnnning Commissi~n Chat waiver of the requiremenr in connection witt; the landecaped setbacl~ was not advertised; wliereupon~ Mr. Slaughter advised thxt since the pit~ns i.ndicated the futiire landacaped aetback~ there would be no problem with the. Placining Commi.~aion proceeding witho~,~t adver- tising ~uch u waiver. 'fhe ngents then Al•rat:ed thc~y ulanned ro improve upon the landacaping that was already exiating. Chalrman Herbst n.itr:d that riie lands~aping shown on rhe plans should conCin~.e acxoss the eaeterly dri.ve~aay wliic;;~ w~~a to be removed on Sycamore Street~ and Che agent so stipulated. Regarding noiae, the agen: atated the use would probat~ly be very quiet to the west; Chat the mechanical e~uipment for L•he vacuum cl.esners would be located within the contr~l roum Away from ~he properey line. 'fhe agent then reviewed the conditlona of approval recom- ~;ended by thr. InCer.depart.~aental Commi*.tee and stipulal:ed they wotild comply with the require- ment cancerning relacation of trash atorage areas to t:~e south towarde Sycamore Street. The agant further atated regarding the requirement that the utllities be placed underground, that they would rather put ~sid uCilities overhead aince the utilities in the area were presently all overhead. Chairman HerUst nated ttiat any new de~velopment in L•he area would be requirrd to put t e utilities underground from the property line iaward; that under- ground utilities werc: becoming standard and if the CiCy w~nted to evenCua?ly get t~ where they wanted to be in that respect, they had ~to ic~pose the c~ndiCion fox every new building. Commiasioner Farano noted tha~ if the unlerground utilitiea wer.e requi.red a~ a later date, the expense would be much greater and, thereupon, the agent stipulated they would rather put the uCilities underground during the development of the property, ~f the expenseR would be greater lat~:r on. The agent cantinued by stnting the tree ~lanting fees had been paid and Crees had been planted, whereupan, ~ontng Super~visor Charles Roberts noted that if the trees were planted. then the condi.tion would have been sat•iefiea. Discussion puraued regardinR the requested wai.ver of the mini~um landacaped sideyard setback, and the agent stated the proposal as laid out on L•he plans, al.lowed f~r good traffic flow and, additionally, the proposed 15-foot high building ^h~itted the single- family residential property to the n~rCh, said property being owned ~~y the petitioner. The agent indica~ed he was stlll concerned abour the dedication requj.remenC, eince he did no+: want the portion of the atreet in front of the eub~ect property widened unlesa the rest of the streeC in th~ area was also widened. Mr. Titus advised that, undex the presant traffic conditions, he did not foresee that ttie atreet would be widened in Che very near future; however~ he could i~ot project when the traffir would build up to Che polnt where the City would r.equire that the street be widened. Discuasion puraued regardinE the noise level wl-~ich would be generated fr~m the pr~posed use, whereupon~ the agent stated that the property faced East Street~ and th~,y would atipulate that the no~.se level at the property line would not exceed 65 dbA. Regarding hours af operation. th~ aRr•it ata~ted the proposed carwash ~vould probably be open until about 11:00 p.m, but th~~ ~:~ura ~~ ^nPrar.ion were not definite snd he did not want to stipulate to h~ure of op~i~...~on at this time. Chairman Herbst noted that he would nut ob~ect to any operating ts~urb ~^ 1~-ng aH the r,eighbors h?d no objectione, in wh~.ch event the Planntng Commibsion wuuld expecC tnaC the ore• .<r s,;;~ !;.,ure w^~:? d be ar: iueted accordingly. Th~e agent indicated he would be agreeablP to the Planu~a;; ~,oa~i~st'•=T's expeccszione regar.d- ing the hours c~ operation. ~ ~ ~ MINU'PCS~ CI'fY PLANNTNG (:OMMI3SIUN, : un~ 9~ 1975 CUNDITIUNAL USC PERMIT NJ, 1538 (Ca~:~inued) 75-277 Ln reeponse to queslioning hy Comnioei~ner Cauar~ tllA agent ettpul.ated Ch1t the~ exter~or ligl~t•.s would ho diracted ciowmasrd and awny fram the propercy lir~ea abutting th~ roeiden- tinl properCies. IC waa noted th+it the Director of th~~ Development Servicoe Depactment hud deCermined Chat tho rrapos~:il acti~ity £ell wilhin tl~e clofinition of Section 3.01, Claee 3, of ~he City ~~f Anah4lm Guideline3 to Che Requireraenls for an Env'_ronmRn~al Impnc.t Roport and wae~ tfiero- fore~ categori.cal.:~y exempt _rum the raqutrement to file an EIR. Cammieaioner :ting oftered Reeolution No. YC75-117 and moved for ita paaRage and ~doption~ thnt Yetition for Cor-di[ional Uae P~rrmit No. .1538 ba and hereby is granted, gtc-nting waiver oF the a~aximum b~.~il.ding height within 150 feet of single-family residential zona on the baeie thut the 15-fuot higli buildinR ubuts only the single-famiJ.~~ residential ptopetty to ttie north~ eaid proparty bei.ng ow~csd by the petitioner; granting waiver of the mini~aua- laiidecaped sideyard eatback on the b~sie that l•he pruposed side y~rd abuts onty the single- family tesidenCiul properCy to the north, eaic' property being owned by the petitioner; and sub~ect to tlie following conditione (See R~seolution Aaok): 1. 1'hat the owner(s) of aub~ect property al~all malcc an irr.evocab.le o£fer to the City of Anahetm to deed x strip of land forty (GO) feet in width from the centerline of. the eCre~t olong East SCreeC~ including t~ f.ifteen (15) f~ot radius property line reCurn, for eCreet widenii-g purposes~ ^onditi.oned upon the. need for said dedicat~ot~ ae reyuired and determined to t,e neceasary by ttie CiCy of Anaheim~ and as atipulated Co by the petitioner. 2. ThuC the underground gae~ltne tunks sha11 be rernoved pr.inr to r~ny new construction, as aCipulnted to by the petitioner. 3. That trASh s4arage areas shal.l be relocated towards Sycamore StreeC and provided in accordanc.e with approved plane on file ~+~it1i the affice of the Director of Public Works, as atipulated en by the petitioner. 4. That r~ub~ec~ prnperty shall. be served by underground uti.:~ities. S. 'That sub~ect propexty sh~ll be leveloped subsCanC.ia].ly in accordance wlth plane and specif.i.cations ~n file with the City of Anaheim marked Gxhibit No. 1; prav~ded, how~ver, Chat the easterly driveway on Sycamore Street ahall. be remuved and replaced with otandard curb, gutter and sidewalk and~ addiCionally, Che proposed on-aite landscaping ahall be extended across said replaced dziveway. se atipulated *.o by the petitioner. 6. That any exterior lighting ahal'1 be directed downward and swa;~ from the properCy lines at~~~tting the residenr~lal propertiea, as atipulated to 'y the petitioner. 7. Tl~at Condition Nos. 1 and 2, Kbove-mentioned, at~all be compli.ed w.' `l~ prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to he time tt~at the bui.lding permit ie issued~ or within a period af one year frum date hezaof, whichever occurs first~ or such fvrttier Cime aa the Planning Comuiission may grant. 8, That Condition Nos. 3~ 4~ S and 6, above-mentioaed, ehall be camrlied with prior to final building and zoning inapectiona. 9. That t~.e sound level at the property linea abutting Che residential pr.operties ehall. not exceed G5 dbA and the mechanical equipment ahall be located within the control ro~oa and away from said property littea, a~ eti.pulated to by the petitioner. 10. That, ~r_ the time of atreet widening on Raot Street, the property owner(s) shall relocate :ne thrae (3) foot wide landec ped aetbc~ck from ad~acen:: to the exiating right~ o€~way to the ultimate right-of-way, as atipul.ted Cu by the peCitioner. On ro11 cnll, the forepoi.ng reaolution wae pabaed by Lhe following vote: AYFS: COMMISSIONERS; rAItANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, K~NG, TOL'R, RERBST NOkS : COA4IISSIJNERS : NONE ABS~uNT: COMMISSIONERS: MORLEY COPII~tISSIONER MORLEY ENTERED THE MEE'PING AT 2:15 P.M. • • ~ MINUTF.3, CI'TY PI.ANNING CUMMI:SSION~ lune 9~ 197~ 75-278 ENVTRONt~N'PAI. IMI'AGT ~- PUBI.T.C l{EARTN KRAIs'MER LANDOWNL~RS, AtC: Cilb~r.t U. Kradmer~ RSPOKT N0. 150 AN2 Alta Vi.aCa, Fl.act~ntia, Ca. 92670 (Owner); SANT CONSTRUCTION C~~MPANY~ 2545 HueC Chapmnn Avenuy, ~ulierton~ Ca. 92631 (Agent). CUNDITtONAI. i1SE Proparty daacri;,ed ae: An irregularly-ghappd parcel of land PBRMIT N0, i5~i3 coneinting of apNruximately 30.5 acrea located at thA northaeet corner. of La Yn1me Avenue ai~d 1~'atrmont BuulQVard~ hnving approxi- TENTATIVE MAPS OF inate frontnges of 1576 feaC oii Chu north aide of T.n I'a1mR Avonu~, TRACT N0. 7137 and 67Q feat on the east ai.dr, of Fai.rmant Boulc+vard. ProFer.Cy (RF.VISIAN N0. 6) presont.ly cl.aeaified RS-A-43,Q00(9C) (RESIDENTZAI./AGRICULTURAL- l+ND SCENIC CO1tRIDOR OVERI.AY) ZANE. TRA(:f N0. 7666 ttF.VISION N0. 1~ RCQUESTED CONDITTONAI. ~!SE: FOUR-UNIT MODEL HOME COMPL~X TRN'PA'PIVE TRACT Ri:QUF5TS: FNCT~:~?ER: MILLET-KING 6 ASSOCIATES, 1335 West Valencia Ur+ve~ Fu1lerCOn, Ca. 92633. Suh~ect tracte ~sr~ propneed for . ~bdivi.aion as Eullowa; Trr~:_~ Nu. 7137 (Reviaian No. 6) - 28 RS-5000 lotc~ 'Iract No. 7666 'R~vieion No, 1) - 7?. RS-5000 lota Nn one indi.cated t}ieir pre~enc~ in opposition to sub~ect peL•itiona. Although Che SCaff Report to the Planning Commioeion dated .June 9. t975, was not read at Che public hearing. it ia referr.ed to and made a part of Che mi.nutes. Mr. G. Richard Sant~ representing GanC Conatruction Compsny, ChP developer, appeared before the Planning Commiaeion to answer questiona regarding the proposAl. ~ THE PUBLLC HEARING WAS CI.OSEll. In reyponBe to questi~ning by Commisaioner Tolar, Mr.. Sant stated the homee wou].d be eited on the lots tn meet the setback requiremet~t, including on the cul-de-sacs. TY~ereupon, Zoning Supervi.aur Charles Roberte noted Chat ~11 the sel•backs on the cul-de-sacs muaC be a minimum of 25 feeC and the developet did not have the privilege of the 6 to 10-foot set- backe on the c.ul-de-sac aince there would nol• be enough curbside p~.rking availab'le. Mr, Je£f Millet, repreRenting the engineer for the developer, appEared before the Planning Commtesion and~ in reaponse to qu~dtioi~ing hy Chairman Herbst, ata~ed 3 feet of tlie pro- poaed berm along the adjacent railroad right-of-way would be located within said right-of- way and that they did not have documentation from the railroad company fo• ~ae of eaid right-o€-way yet; however, if they were not able to ~ise the railroad propertv, then they would need a 40-foot higY~ w~1I for the sounc! atCenuiition. Mr. Mlllet further atated that at one time they had a grading permit and tite tracte wer~ ready to record, but they had been unable to proceed at that time. Chairman Herbst n~ted thaC prior to the aub.ject maCtera bei.ng approved, the Planning Co9misaion should have something in wr'iti*~g to insure thaC the project would be built, as eubmiL•ted~ to include the berm and wall fur aound attet~uation. He further. noted that the liv~.ng conditions adjacent to the railroad Lracks were Uad at beat and, if the berm and wall were not conatructed, as indicated on the plans~ t}ien the Planning Com.ni~sior~ woald probttbly require a wide landacaped stri•~ to get the hones away from the tracks; that if the develooera had witnesaed the nt,.nber and speed, etc., oY ttie traine at the Green Kiver Golf Course, they would know the problems involved; and that the noise £rom Che ti•aing would rattle the homea. Mr, Millet offere<i to diaplay a map ahowing the ex~stiii~ devel- opment in Che area ad~acent to the railroad tracka; whereupon, Chairman Herbst noted that tha Planning Commisaion was aware of the existing deuelopment and he clarified thac rhe Commission had not approved said developmex~t und, further, that he did not ,ee how the people could live out there. Commiesioner Farana not~d that he woald fee!. better about the proposal if the t~er of lota adjacent to tt~e railroad was eliminated an~:. in response to a statement by Mr. Millet rhat thay would like to move ahead with the developmenC while the encroachment permit: from the railroad wac~ being obtai.ned, Commissioner Farano noted that he did underatand the deaire of. the develo~er to puah ahead xt tliia time, since the pro~ect had beer. in the process slnce approximately 1971; that the developer should be willing to wait until they knew for sure that they would be able to utilize a por tion of the rallroad right-of-way on a perma- nent baei~, aince if that did not happen, then the developer would '~e back before the Planntng Commission. In respnnse, Mr. Millet etated th~ previoue devel~per did not mave ahead fur ~economical reasona and the prop$rty ownere had farecl.osed; that they now were working with a new .:•.~el~per and thP trac~ mape were about to expire; and that before they coula p:oceed in +~r.y fashion, they nee:ed approval of the3r proposal from the City. ~+q ~ ~ ~ MINi1TE3~ CZ'CY PLANNTNC ~OMMIS9ION~ June 9, 1975 75-279 Et~ViRONMF.NTAL It~A.CT REPOItT N0. 150 ~ CONDITIONAL USE i'ERMIT N0. 1543, AND T6NTATIVB MAP QF TRACT NOS. 7137 RF.VI5IUN N0. 6 t+ND 7666 ~RCVI3ION N0. 1) (Conti.nuad) ____ Diacueeion pureued regarding ttaa etatua of the tr.ar.ts~ duxiag wfilch Mr, Mi.11et ata-ted tha tractr would ex~ire in Sepkember of 1975; and Conuniesioner Farano naCdd that if the tracts ehould expire~ tl~en the whole maCtar including the zoning could begin k'rom the bottum again. Deputy City Attorci~y Matcolm Slaughter ~dvieed that if the propoeal i~~ae approved, ne requested, then the C~ty miQht Find iteelf in a poatCion of having n tract withouC the ~encroacluaant permit to fulfill tha requiresmcsnta wliich the Planning Commiasion wae d~.airing for Che pro~ec:t; and that the railroad companips genar.ally grant.ed l~.cene~ e or eae~:men~s which wor.e ~ermir:able or revokable on 30 days' notic.e. Chairman Herbet ttien noted that tho licenee would liave to be on nn irr.evocahle baeie, and Commiseiuner Farano indicnted thut he would like C~ revl.aw the documentsti.on px'ior to Plunning CommiASion action and kn~w that it comnlied with thc~ intant of the Planning Commieaian for dc~ve.lopment of. the p•.^operty. Chairman Herbst inquired if tha projece would meeC tlie flood control requirementa since the praperty was l~cated in tlie flood-prone area; wher eupon, Mr, Mi11ek aCated the project would comply and inf~rmotior~ Chereon woul.d be included in the flood hazxr~ ]ettcr whi~h they were required to oblain from tha Orange County Flood Contr.o.l Dietrlct indicating favorable cnnditions accepCable to Che City. Mr. Mill et further sCaled khat La Palma Avenue was the levee and the Flood Control District wou.ld make sure, ln l•hetr exami.nation, that none of Che homes were bc~low that level. Chairmar~t~erbst inquired regnrding the noise level in th~ back ynrds o£ r;ie homey and Mr. Sant staCed that, realizing that the pri.mary conc ern would be noise, they had desi.gned the berm and wall which they fe1L would take care of ti~e i~uis~ within 600 feet of the rnilroud trac:k. Chairman Herbst thPn natied that he assumed tl~e developer would i.natall double~paned windaws, etc., however, he was inkerested t~ know i.f. Dr. hilliard, the bio- couetical engineer~ had concluded ot~ ihe sound level dbA that woald be achieved in the bock yardA, aince reference to same had been oma.tted in the F.nvi.ronmental Impnct Report. Commisaioner Tolar then noted th~~r although the Plann in$ Comr~iss•lon Rhuuld be concerned about Che noise 1e~~e1, the market ~or the pr~duct wou 1 d be governed by some of the problems being discusaed; and ttiat if the develupment wa~ not h ighly marketaUle, then the prices would have to be lowered accordizgly. Chait-man Herbs t noted Chat. complainta were on file with the City from tt~e hom~ownere ln the exiating s3ng le-family devslopment along the railroad track, ~lndicating that when they purchased. *_~e homes, they were advised that only a couple of trains would be going by every day, and thaC was why he wanted the developera to mp~:;. :~atements regarding the aound attenuation, an.d iE t!:ey could not provide a good 11~~ing environmenr, then the pro~ect would be questionable. Chsirman Herbst added that if tY.e projec.t was to be like Cae existin~ development a long the railroed, then he would not vc~te i.n favor. ~f it, and that was wh}• he was interested to know if Dr. Hilliard had made a s:atempnt regarding the noiae level in the bac'k yards. Thereupor.~ Mr. Sant stated that by con:~tructing a 6-f ooC waZ'1 on top of a 3-foot high be~~., and with rhe homea ..o closer than l0U feet from the centerline of the railroad track~ then the people could live inside or ouCnide their homes; and that the reason they would like to have Che tract maps approvQd prior Lo obtaining the railroad's en^r~achment agreement was based on the fact that everything took time. Ct~airman Herbat directly inquired if the 65 dbA n~ - level outeide the :~omes in the back yards could be achieved, and Mr. Sant indicated th.,t• according to Dr. Hilliard's letter dated May 23, 1975, the noioe 1eve1 r~quirements, bo tt~ inside and outside, would be met. Chairmait Herbet f.urther noted that due to the railrosd the Planning Commisaion had felt the properties along it ahould be developed very low deneity and, all of :3 sudden, there was medium d~neity and increxsed property values; and that, in hi~ opinion, if the devel- opere wished to build adjacent to the railroad, they ahoutd apend the money to make it livable~ since they would be making the profit. Commisaioner Farano concurred that the develapers ~hould be able to gfve up enough land to make ti-e pro~ect 1lvable; that he did not agree that aingle-familv homes should be constructcd adjacent to the railroad and thaC if there was any quEVtion ae to whether or not the railraad company would give an irrevoc- able license for tha 3 feeC of right-of-way, then any a~':ion on tha proposal ahauld wait. It wae n~ted that the Sanr.a Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Commisaion had submitted a letter dated June 6~ 1975, recommending that in appr oving the propoaed development a condition be included for landscaping andlor screening along that portion of tha pro~~_ct which was visible from Yorba Regional Park and tha p lanned Santa Ana Canyon trail ,y~stem; ~ ~ ~ MINUTE~~ CITY YLANNING CONII~(IaSION~ Jun~ 4~ 1975 75-280 ENVIRONMECITAI. Il1PACT R~PURT N0. 1SQ~ CONDITIONAI. USL YFRMI'f N0. 15G3~ AND TI:NTATIVC MAY OF TRACx NOS. 7137 (REVISI.ON N0. _6 AND 7666 REVTSIUN N0~_ Contin~wd ~~_~_ ,,, and~ further~~ to r~qui.ro linkageR to tho Santa Ma Cun;on Crail eyntem. Mr. Robertn noted that a normal pnrkway would Ue rlanted on th~ north side of La 1'alma Avenue; that ono could probably count on Che l~omeownere providing tr~ee an their proparty; and that Che Staff did not know i£ the CreenbnlC Commission wanted a denAe ecreen~ etr.. In response to quQeti~ninq by Chnit~naan Herbatt Mr. Sant e~etEd the grade level of tha lote would e•lthar ba level wiCh La Pal.a~a Avenue or a couple of feet lower. Staff. c.onfirmed tliaC the devalaper would pny eCreeC feee and the C.ity would pl.ant the treea in lhe adjacent etreet pnrkwuy. Chairman Nerbst queationed the vxxioua parlcway widthe along La Palma Avenue and Mr. M111eC explained h.hat the CiCy had be~n warlci.ng with Che County to meut~der the parkways ~o create pnxking baye. Mr. Sant took exception to Condition No. 12, ae aut furttc in ths Staff Report~ regarding elorm dra:[nage in connection wlth the model home camplex (Conditionul l)s~ Pennlt No. 1543). He etated that Cha reason for ~he conc~itional use perroit wao tu heqi.n Che model home complex prior to the recording of the tract mape; and thaC iC appear'ed the condition would requJ.re etorm drains be camplPted prior to final inspectian on tt~e model homc~g. Office ~ngineer Jay 'litua udvised Ltia~ tha grading t~euld bP s•eq~~ired prior to October 15 or r,he drainage cotidition would apply- Mr. Sant further atated their intent was co gr.ade for. the model homes and build them during July and Aug~ist and then, as soon us the tract mapa were recorded, the eCorm draine would b~ inaCalled and the balan~:e ~f tha properCy graded. Mr, Titus furCher advised th~t if t.he condition requiring atorm draine for the model home comple.x wcts removed~ then prior t~~ October 1S or prior to any grading on Che tractss the atorm draina would be required. Pursuanx to further diecuesion~ the Planning Commiasion determined that Condition No. 12 for Conditional liae Permit No. 1543 should. read: "Tha4: drainagQ of said property ehall be diapoRed c.f in a mauner satl~~dutory to the City Engineer." Upon request from the Plannir.g Commission for an additional condition Co be impoaed for Conditional Use Permit No. 15~f3 and for Tract No. 7137 (it~~~i.sion 6) and TracC No. 7666 (Revision 1), Mr. Slaughter offered a condition to read that the owner(s) ehall obtain an irrevacable l.icen~e or easement for use of tlie prop~~~y located within the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad right-of-~way tu permit a portion of tt~e required sounrl-attenuation berm to be located within said right-of-•oay; said license or easement to b~e aubmitted for review and approval b;, ttie c:ity Attorneti and to be reviewed by the Planning Commisslon and City Council prior t~ City Councll appr 1 0£ che final tract r~aps, or prior to Che commencement of the activity author.ized by the resr'uCion approving the con3itional use pern-ir or the is~uance of building permita for said activit~." The Planning Commiasion concurred in the suggested condition and Mr. Sant ~tipulated `c compliance therewith. Mr~ Sant took exceptior~ to Condii ;.:,ti No. 7 fo: Tract No. 71~' (~e.vision 6) and stated the homeowners would also own the slope of the lota. In response, Mr. Roberts advised that although the slopea within the tract boundaries being con~idered were probr~bly insignlflcant, it would be well to leave the condition in a: <iiis lime, rather than to have to require ie at a later date. Thereupon, the Planning Commi.safon conairred to leave the condition in at t'~is time. In reaponse to quastioning by Mr. Sant, Chairmati Herbst cl.arlfied that the condition ~ould apply to the echool aite also. Mr. Sarit took exception to Condition No. 2 for Tract Pio. 765G lRevision Z) ar.d s~tated thQy preferred to have zhe wall aC the top of the slope for pri+racy anu so~.,~~~ attez•.~ arion for the homeowners. rir. TiCus advised that maintenance of the slope ~~ erobankment ~n Fairn~onc Boulevard would be asaumed by the City~ fo~lowing ir,stallation ana acceptance ,:: the l.andscaping and irrigation facilities, and the wall at the roa of t'`1F alupt ~~•,ul.d m7ke the mriintenance more feasib2e; that placement of the wall. at the toe ~~~ the alope was d~.:•~ussed thoroughly when the rest of Faira~ont Boul^vard was developed and ttie inrenr waR tu prutec^. the integrity of the elope. Mr. Sant adde9 thrst people walking along Fairiuonr ulevard could look down directly into the homes in the tract. Mr. Titue then advi.aeci :~iat Gh;: proble~s encountered ~.rith :~::~:ing the maintenance over to the homeuwners were r~late~i to overwaterino ana neP~~ng the planre growing; and that aince this w~s a very t~igii siope And 3sid slo~.= support~.d the a:Ceri~~. highway, it was extremely important that it be r~aintained properlv. Mr. Slaughter further .~~:~ieed that the asb~ect a~opea were dedicaf~d to the City for slope puxpoaFS, as oppo;ie~~ to others which were private property. The Planning Commiasion exp~esaed the deaire Co have denae hedges or other denae landecap- ing along the top of the slope abutting Fairmunt Boulevard to give some protection to the homea below. Chairman Herbst noted £or the developer that since Fairmont Boulevard might not be constructed within the next five yeara~ the people purchasing the homes below the ~ • - -~ MINUTES~ CI'TY FI~ANNING COMMISSION~ Jun~~ 9. .1.975 75-28t BNVLRONMI;NTAL Il.N1~AC'f RRPqRT N0. ].50 ~ CONUI'TIONAL U3E PERAtIT N0. 15G3, M1p T~NTATIVF MAP UF 'CRACT N03. 7137 REVISIJN N0. 6 ANn 7666 (REVI3ION N0. 1~ Continued ~_ .~~ elopas in quer~tion al~o~.l.d ba made aware of the eituation. Mr. Sant replied Cliat the mod~l homao would be locatQd below Che slo;,~s in queeCion +~nd Che people woul.d be uware; and Chet he certainly underetood regar~ling the potential damage tu the aupport uf the artarial hlghway, Mr. Titus advised that conpideration would be given to thE dense landdceping euqqeeted by tlie Planning Commieeion. Commi~si.oner Tolar o£fered a motion, seconded by Commiesioner Johneon and MOTION CARTtIBD Ct~at Environmentnl ImpacC ReporC Nu. 150, having been coneidexed thia dnte by Che City P~$nning Commiseion and 9vidence~ bcth written and oral~ having been pxesented to eupple- ment oaicl draft. of CIK No. 150, the PYanning Commieslan bAlieves that s~-td drafC of EIR No. 150 does conform to the City and State Cuidelinee and the Srate of Cnllfor.niA Environ- mental Qual.ity Act and~ based upun such informati.on, does hereby rec~mmFnd Ca khe City C~unci], that they certify said EIR ie in compliancc wiCh aaicl Cnvironmentt-1 Quality Act. Commisei.oner To1ar off~red Reaolu~ion No. PC75-118 end moved for its pa~s~ga and adopti.on, that Petition for Conditional UAe Permit No. 1543 be and hereby is grant~3d, eub,~nct r.o tha foregoing conditior~a and BC~pLl1RC~OT18 of. the petitioner; and aubject k~ et~e Tnterdepart- menGel Commirree recom-nendations, (See Re~olution Dook) On rnll call, Che foreqoing reaoluti.on was passed by tlie following vote: AYES: COI•C:tSSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MURLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES : COI~AtISSIONERS : FAkANO ABSENT: C01~'ff~IISSIONERS: NONE Comc~iaeioner Fnrano noted that he was voting againat any motion to approve Che proposal 31nce he feZt the development of thi.s type houeing in the subject area was marginal and because of the marginal nature, the Planning Commiasion should have everything before them for review prior to any action; thAt everything needed to ma'~ce the homeo as pleasant aa possible stiould be provided; and tha't he did not feel the City Attorney should be burdened with the responaibiliCy for the acceptanc~ or rejection of Che railroad righx-of-way licenae or easement. Thereupon, Mr. Slaughter clarified that the intent would be to bring the referenced document before Che Planning Commieaion for review and/or interpretation prior to ac ceptance of same. Commissioner Farano then noted that he wh~ concerned that by the Planning Co~anission taking an action on the xab~ect matter at this Cime, the City Attori~ey might feel compelled to accept a ~ompromisa si[lce they coiild not arbitrarily reject the documenC, even if it deviated sowewhat from the Planning Commission's intent. Mr. Slaughter further aa~~.~~a that there we:e no oUjections from his paint of view to bringing the document to the Planning Commission for interpretation. Mr. Millet then stated they would be pursuing a docament for the per~manent uae of the railroad property in 4ueaCion. Commisaioner k'arano then noted Chat based on the furCher comment by the Deputy City Attorney and Mr. Miilet, he was morE in favor of taking uction at thie~ meeting and felt the P lanning Commiaeion's review of the referenceci document would be in the nature of an intPrpretation ~f intent~ and if said document was riot apprnpriate, as interpreted by the Planning L'ommisaion, Cheri the condition would nat be consi.dered to be f.ul£illed. The Planning Commission concurred, Chairman Herbat adde~i that if there were any Ioopholes in the documant~ th~n it would not meet the inteut of the Pl.anning Commi.asion. Commiaeioner Tular offered a motion, aeconded by Com~nissioner Cauer and MOTION CARRIED, Chat Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137 (Reviaion No. 6) be and hereby is approved for a 28- lot~ RS-5000 aubdivision, aiib~ect to the following cnaditions: ~1~ subdivision theraofbshallibe submittedpin tentative form~foruapprovaln, each (2) That in accordance w:lth Cit~ Council policy, a six-£oot masonry wall sha11 be constructed on the eouth property line separating Lot No~. 18 through 29 from La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigaeion facilities, ahall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distRnce of said wall~ plans for ~aid landscaping to be submitted to and aub~ect to the approval oF Che Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance; and following inatallation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim ahall aesums the resnonsibility for maintenance of satd landscaping. (3) That all lots within this tract sha11 be served by underground utilitiea. J ~ ~r o MINUTES, CITY PLANNINC COMMi3SI0N, .Juna 9, ].975 ~5'2~2 Et~1VIRONI~NTAL IMPACT REAORT N0. 150. COtv'DI'TIONAI, USE PERMIT N0. ].543~ AND TF:NTATTVC MAI' OF TRACT tJOS. 7137 (itEVISION Na. 6) AND 7666 REVISION N0. 1) ~Continued) , (4) T.t~aC vahiculr~r acceoe rlght6~ axcept nr etraeC ope~inge. to La Pulma Avenue ehall be d~dicated to Che CiGy of Antihuim, (5) That a final tract map of oub~ect prupc+rty at~a11 be eubmitted to and u~~pzoved by tha City Council and then be recoxded i~t Lhe office of the ~range County Recorder. (6) That thQ covenante~ conditi.one end regrri.ctioua ahnll be Aubmitted to and approved by the City Attorney'e Offi~n prior to City Council appr~val o£ the f.inal tract map~ and~ further, that the appr~ved covenants, condir.ione nnd reatrictione ahall be recordcsd concurrently wlth khe final r.ract map. (7) That prior Co filing tha flnal. tract raap, the app]•icant ehal.l eubmit Co tha City Attorney for approval or denial a complete aynopeis of the proposed functioning of the operacing corporar.ion i.ncluding, but not limited to~ tha articles uf incorporution~ bylawe, proposed methode of ine::~o~=cnt, L•cn:ling to ineure cuain- tenance of common property and buildings and euch other i~iformatioct RA Che City Attorney may desire to protect the City, ita citizens, and thQ purchasers of the pro,j ect , (8} That otreet namee 3ha11 be approved by the CiCy of Anaheim prior Cu approval of a fi.nal tract map. (9j That drainage of eaid praperty eha~l be disposed of in a mann~r satiQfactory to tt~e City Engineer. If, in the preparxtion of the aite sufflcient grading i~ required to neceasitate a gtading permit, no work on grading w~ll be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless a11 required off-aite drainage facilities have been inatalled and are operat~Lve. Poeitive sesurance ahall be provided t~ie City that such draina~e facilit•les will be completed prior tu October 15th. Neceosary right-of-way for off-aite drainage facilities aha11 be dedicaCed to the City, or the City Council sha].1 have initiated tondemnation pror_eedings Cllerefor (the coats of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operati.ona. The required drainage facilities ehall be of a aize and type sufficient to carr~• runoff weters originating from higher propereiea through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facili~iea ahall be the first item of conatruction and ahall be compieted and be functional throughout the tracC and from the downstream boundary of the property to the uZtimate point of disposal priAr to the isauance of any final buil.ding :inapection~- or oacupancy permita. Drainage distric.t reimbursement agreemen.~s may be made avaiYable to the 3evelopera of sAid properry upon thelr :-eque~t~ (10) That grading~ excavation and all other construcCion activities ahall be con- ducted in such a m~nner so as to minimi_ze the poasibility of any s,.lt origi- nating from this project being carried inCo Che Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through tt~is pro~ect. (11; Th~t the o~mer(s) of subjert property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate gark and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paia at the time khe building permit is iasued. ~12) ThaC the developer shall obtaia Fzom the Orange County Flood Control Diatrict a €avorable flood hazard lettar acceptable Co rhe Ci[y of Anaheim, to be aubmitted prtor to City Council approval of the final tract map. (13) That the City Council reserves the right Co delete or amend the assum~tion of landscape maintenance in the ev~nt Council policy changes. (14) If pex'nianent atreet name signs have nok been inetalled, tempurary street nams signa ehall be installed prior to any accupancy. (15) That prior to City Council approval of the final tracC map, the owner(s) of sub~act property shall submit plana for City Councir review and approv~l showing Che steps taken by the developer to reduce Che noise level generated by the railroad traffic to 65 dbA in the rear yards and to ~:5 dbA inside the tiames (with windows ar.r doore cloaed). These plana ehal? be certified by a recognized acoudtical exr~~ ;3tipulating that the r,,roposed sound-attenuation meaeures will achieva the J.~~~~.ia etated herein. J ~ * ~ MI.NUTES ~ CI'fY PLANNINC COr41I4SIUN ~ Juna 9~ 1975 75"1~•~ ~PiVIRANMFNTAL IMPAGT ItEPORT N0. 1.50~ CONLITIONAL USE PF.RMIT N0. 1543. AND Tf3NTATIV~ MAP QT' TRA,CT NOS, 71.37 ~EVISION NU. 6Z n[~n 7666 (RF.VISION N0~ 1L (Continued) _ (16) That prior to City Council approval of the final tracC map~ Ct~e owner(e) ~hall. obtain an irravocnble licenae ar nneemant for u~e of the proporCy loaat~d withln th~ Azchieon~ Topeka 6 SanCa Fe Railroad righk-uf-way to permft a portiun af tha raquired eo~ind-+~ttenuxkion barm to be located within eaid iighk-of-way; sai.d li.r.ense or easement to be eubmitted for review and approval by the City Attorn4y end to be raviewed by Cha Planning Camm:lesion and City ~ouncil. Comm-iseioner Tolar offered a motion, eeconded by Commiseioner Gauer. and MO'PION CARRIED~ tliat Tentati.ve Map of Tract No. 1666 (Reviaion No. 1~ be and he:reby ie, approved for a 72-1aC. RS-5000 subdivieion~ subiect to the following conditions: (1) ThaC should thiR eubdivisi~n be developad us more than one euhdivieion~ uach aubdiviaiori thereof ahall be eubmitted in tental•ive form for, approval. ('L) That in accordance s,ith City Council policy~ a six-foot masonry wall ehall be conetructed on the eouth proparty line seperating Lot Nos. 1 through 4 ancl 60 through 7?. from La Palma Avenue. and on the west pr.operty lir~e (at the Coe of slope) sep~raring Lot Nos. 4 ClYraugh 6 atld 10 through 14 from Fuirmont Bo~levard. Reasonable landscaping, incl.uding i.rrigation facillties, ahr~ll be installed in khe uncemented portion of tha arter~al highway parkway the full dietance of said wa1.1, plans for said landecaping to be eubmitted to and aub;fect t~ the approval of Che Superintendent of Parkway Mriintenance; and following ineLallaCion and acceptance~ the CiCy uf Anaheim shall aasume the responaibility f~,r maintenanr_e of said landocapin~. (3) That all lota within this tract at~all be served by underground utilities. (4) That a.final tract map of aubjecC properCy ahall be aubmltCed to and appravad by the City Council and Chan be recorded in the office of che. OrangE Cou:-ty Record~sr. (5) That the co~enanta, conditionA and restrictions aha:ll be aubmitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of th4 final trace map~ an3, further~ that the approved ao~venanta, conditiona and restricrions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. (6) That prior to filing the final tract map~ the applicant aha11 aubmit Co Che City Att_orney for approval or denial a complete synopsis o: the orapoaed functioning of the operaCing corporetion including, but not limtted to, the arti.cles of incorporation, bylawe~ proposed meth~de of manageme~nt, bonding to insure main- tenance of common prnperty and buildings and. such c,ther information as the Ciry Attorney may desire to protecC the City, itF itizE:na, and the purchasera of the projecC. (7) That stxeet naunes at~all be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval oE a f3na1 tract map. (8) That drainaga of Esid propF:rty shall be d3sposed of tn a manner ea:isfactory [o the City Er-gineer. If, ~~~ the preparation of the eite sufficient grading i.s requir.ed to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading wi.ll be Permi~_ted between October 15th and April 15Ch unleas nll required off-site drainag~ facil~~~~n t.Qve been inatalled and axe operative. Positive assurance ahall be provi~led the ~'_:y that such drainage facilitiert wi.ll be completed prior to Octobe: 15th. N~cessary right-of-way for off-sitf~ drainage facilitiea ehall be dedicatEd to the City, or the City Council ahall have initiated condemnaCton p~oceed:.ngs therefor (the caete of which Rhall be borne by the developer) pri<~x to ~b:.~ commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilitieu shPll. be of a size and type eufficient to carry runoff watera ariginating frora higher. proparties through esid property to ultimate disposal as approved by Che City Engineer. Said drainage facilitiea ahall be the first item o£ constructicn and shall be comp?.eted and be functional. ~hrou~hout the tract and fron the downstream boundary of the pruperty to the ultimate point of disposal pri.or to the 3eauance of any final building inspectiona or occup~ncy perm~.ta. Drainage diatrict reimbureement agreementa may be made available t~ the dev~lopc+re of said property upon thLir requeat. ~ ~ ~... ~ MINU'1'FS~ CITY 1'LfNNINC CDIYIlYtI3~IUN, .Tune 9~ 1975 1:; -2@4 ~NV1RONldLN'TAL T.MF'ACx REPORT N0. 15Q~ CONDITIONAL l1SE PERMIT N0. 15G3~ AND TEN'x.~r''.VF. MI~Y UF TRAL'T NOS,~7137 REVISION N0. 6~ AND 76(~6 (B.EVISION NG~. 1_ Cont~inuea~„____.^__,__. (~)) That gruding, axc+~vati.on and nl~ other conetructian acci.vitiea et~41]. be c~~n- ducted in Hucki a rmnner eo ae Co minimizc the paoAibt].ity af eny ai.lt orig•1- nati.ng f.rom this pra~ect baing carried into tha 3antA Anu River by atnrm waCer orig.inating from or f.lowing through thia pro,ject. (10) 'Chet vet~icular eccesa righta~ excapt. at etreek openinga, to Lo PAj,QIf. Avanue and Fnirn~onC Aoulevard~ shaJ.I be dedicated to the City of Anahaim. (il) That the own~r(e) of eubJact property eha11 pay to the ci.ty af Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu faes as det~rmir,ed ro ba appropriaCe by tt~a City Council, eaid fees to ba pa~d ut th~ time Che bui.lding permit is iesued. (12) That the dcveLopr_r shall obtain from the Urange CounCy Flood Control Dietrict a favoruble flood hazard letter acceptablP to the CiCy of Anaheim, ta be eubmitked prlor to City c uncil approvaX of the tinal tract mup. (1~) ThuC the City c.~unr.il reaerves ~ha rigr.t to c~ela[~ or amend the asctumption of ~andscape maintennnce in the event Council policy chanKes. (14) If ?ermanent etr~~et name Aigna have not been tnstalled, temporary atreeC name ~igns shall be ?.nsta].led prior ta any or.cupancy. (15) That px'ior to Citq Counr.il appraval of the final tracC map, the owner(s) of aui,~ect pr~nerty aha11 submit plana for City Council review and approval ahowing Che stepa t3ken by the devc~loper tu reduce the noise l~vel gener.ated by the rallrond ca£fir. to 65 dbA in the rear yflrds and to 45 dbA inside the hotnas (with winduws and dooro closed). Ttiese plans eha11 be certified by u recognized acoustical expe~rt etipulating that the pr.oposed sound-attenuAtlon measures will achieve the levels stated herein. (16) 7'hnt prior tu C1.ty Council approval uf the final tract map, the owner(s) ehall obtain ~ irr.evocable license ar easement for use of the properCy located within the Atcl._son, Topeka 6 Santa Fe R~ilroau right-of-way to permiC a portion of the r.equired sound-:~ttenuaCion Uerm to be loc:ated within said right-of-way; eaid licenGC or easemen[ Co ba submitted for xe'~iew anJ approval by the City Attorney and to l•e zeviewed by the Plnnning Coumtisaion and City Council. R~CFSS - At k~15 p.m., Chair.man Herbst declared a recess. R~CONVENE - At 4:25 p.m., Chairmau Herbst reconvened the meeti.ng with all ~ Cowmiiasioners present. CONDITIONAL USE: •- PUBLIC REARING. AMRRICAtd BA:'TIST CHU1tCN~S OF THE ?ACIFIC SOiJT.HWEST, PCRNIT N0. 5.t2 816 So~lrh Figueroa, Los Mgeles, Ca. 90017 (Owmer); ~VEREND P. MORENO, (READVERT~5E1) 1715 IJeat Crone Avenue, Ana~eim, Ca. 92804 (Agent); requesting oer- misr~iun to CONSTRUCT A CNURCH SANCTUARY AND CLASSROOMS WITH WAIVER OF (A) MINTMUM SIAEYARD SETBACK, (B) PERMITTED ENCROACHMF:NTS INTO FRONT fA~, (C) MA:~{IMUM BUTLDING HEIGAT~ AND (L) MAAIMUM SIGN AREA o~- property described as: A recCangtslarly-shaped parcel of land conaiating of approximetely 0•9 acre having a frontage of r~pproximately 98 Eeet an Che north aide of Orange Avenue, having a maximum depth of appX~xiwately !~13 feeC, being located approximately 660 fPet weat of the centerline of Eucl~d Street~ ~snd further described as 1749 We~t Orang~ Avenue. Property presently cl.aoaifiad :tS-A.-43,000 (RE5ID~NTIAL/AGRICOLTOF.AL) ZONE. App~oxl.mat~1~ 19 pereone indicated their pres2nce in oppoaition to aub~ect petition. Aseietant Zoni.ng Supervisor Annitca Santalahti read thc Staff Report to the planning Commi.ssion dated 3une 9, 1975, and said Staff Report ie referred Co as if set forth in full in the minutes. ' Mr. George "staope. the building designer, and Reverend P. Moreno, Pasr_or of the sub~ecr church, appeared before the Planning Comm~.ssic•~. Mr. SCoopA etated the waivers were being reqaeated duF. to the fact that th~~ c;tty acquired a portion of the church property by er+±:~ent domai:+ uroceedinge for ti~~~~-1~. purposes; and Chat they were propos~.ng to conetruct +- chutch e~ancluary and claseroom uf a size aimilar to what was proposed in 1964. ~~ r.~.. !~•' MINU1'~S, CI'1'Y PLANNING COt~!ISSION~ .June 9. 1975 CONCI'-IONAL USE PERMI'C N0, 612 (READVERTISF.I~ (Continued) ~ ~ 75-285 'Luning Supurvl.sor Ch~qrles [toberte clarifisci the previoue acLions ~f the City with raepecr. ta the por~lon of Che property ac.quirad by the city for pRrking purpoeee and for ingr~ea and egrosa to Chr~parral Park~ and i~oted thc-t th~ City had givan the church the rigtit to us~ the parking area f~r tlieir own purpoees. Chairman HorbeC questlonad the aize of the propoaed skruct~cas and~ foll.owiug discuesion and review ~f Cho previoue and current pJ.ans. Mr. 3L•oope conceded thaC the dtructurQs preaently propaeod weXe ernnewhat larger Chan the previouA propoeal. Mr. Willir~n C. Seelert~ 602 South Clara 5tre~C, Anaheim, appeared before the Yl.anning Commission ae epokeHmaa for the majoriCy uf the ~T~poslti~n presNnt, and atated l~e wa~ a reeidanC end pruperty owner in the area immediately ad,~acent to the eubject pro~erty; thaC ha hgd been active in the so-cr~lled opposition'o oppoeition and the Planning Commisaion might recall Chat approximately one yeax ago he had presentad a petition eigned by about 250 persons and~ if the currenC publlc hearing had baen scheduled in the cveninA, many of. thoea peoplt would have been preaent at thia t~me; and that the opposition we~e not l•o Che chur.ch~ per ae, 6ut to Che waivers being propoaed. Mr. Seel.ert referred to the Municipal Code Secti.on t8.03.030 wherein ChQ Planning Commiasion wae req~tired Co make certain find- inge being "'1'hat Che size and shape of the ntLc prapoa:.d for the use ie adequate to a11ow for the full dev~lopment of the propoaed use •ln a manner not deerim~ntal to the particular area, nor Co kh~ peace~ health~, eafety and genaral welfare" and "That the traffic genex'ated by the proposed uae will not impoae an undue burden upon the streete and highways designed and impraved to carry the traffic in the ar.ea." He continu~d by stating that l•he oppusi- tion feared that the ground area was i.nsufficient £~r. the propusal, :Lncluding for the atr.ucturea and the pgrking L'hat would be required. Mr. Bill ~hrle~ 3220 :~„~et Romneya Drive, Maheim, appeared before the Planning Cominiseion repres~nting the Coalitiot~ of 14 homeowners' groups banded togeCher for the. expresa purpose of prutecting the homeowners and their property; thaC the Coalition felt Chat the church h~d every right to be there and ther.e was no question about that; that there were already several churches in the area, a~so; that the prapor~ed new etiructur.ea did not meet the requirementa ~f the origlnal agreement, aince they were much larger and, therefore, the pxoposal was an in£ringement on the homeownere in the area; that from ti.me to time a reflection was required to see if the agreementa made severel yeara hence were still appropriate and, in t}:ia case, if the Flans wexe for a larger facility, that was not good; that if Che church planned to go al~ead and bui.ld nn Che existing land, they should use their original plan; that there shuuld be land within the City that wouZd be approprtate fur the church and the City ~+hould be able to purchase the sub~eck property to expand the park; and that the CoRlition's auggestian to the Planni~ng Commission would be to perhnps neither re~ect nor deny tnis appllcaCion, but to make sure that every avenue had been explored. In rebuttal~ Mr. Stoopa apologized for the error in stating the current plana were similar in aize, nnd he atated that the previous plans were submi.tted approximately ten years a~o and in the meantime conditione had changed which neceasitated the increased siza; Chat he would que~tion whether the City Council's intent was that the atructureK be iden*_ical to what was proposed in 1964; and that the current proposai was not for a doubling in the aize, but merely en appraxi.mately 10~ increaee; and the plane wPre eimilar tu thoae ori.ginally submitted. THE ?';JBLIC HEGRING WA5 C1,OSEU. Commissioner Morley inquired of Staff if there was any nosai.Uility of relocating the church on C3ty-owned property, and Mr. Roberts advised that right after the h~~meowners addressed the City Counci.l sevezal monChs ago~ the City's Right-of~Way Staff began explor- ing several aitea for po~sible relocation; and that there were really very few aites ~ahich were o~ ~ufficiant eize~ and none were actuglly conaidered large Enough. In response to ques loning by Chairman Herbst, Reverend Moreno stateJ the relocation effort had been explored and the City had not come up with a suitable aite; however, they had no obiections to relocating. Chairman i~erbat then noted that to purchase another site tu trade, the City might have to epend considerably more funda; and that, additi~ually, consideration ehould be given to Che fact that the needs of the church five yeara from now might increpse also, making the subjecC property even lees appropriate for tiie expansion. ~ ~ ~ MINUTrS~ CITY PLANNIN6 COI~tISSTON, June 9~ 1975 75-186 CUNDI'fiONAL US~ PERMIT N0~612 ltGADVF.RTtSKD (Contlnued) UepuCy City Attorney Mrilcolm Slaughte4• advi.sed Chnt LhP Redevalopment Agency mlght be able to purchasc property for sale to ~ private party. ~l.e., [tie cl-urch, if the property wag located within 4 pro~ect ar~ea; however, the City itself did noc have enabling lagiAlation ot other authorixation available [o allow it to work. in rhaC faeh~on. ~heirman Harbet. interjc~cted thnt ttie City might be able tc~ change the dollar figure in the ngreemant tu make thQ rc+locatioa feaRible for the church. Mr. Sl.aughter then advieed that~ aeAUming the church was ~bligated by the agreemc~nt to aell ttie property for S30,U00~ there wa~ no reason for th~~ City l•o pny more for th~ prop~rky. Chai_~~man H~er.bet then notad th~t Che church could bufld to thei.r ol.d ptana. which woul.d not be in tha baet interest of either party. Commiseioner Morle~ noted that any further obligatic>n on the parC uf the City would be a woral obligation. Coauaiseioner Gauer reviewed a caa~e in poinl' wliere the City had made a aimilar trade in the Mahelm Hills area. Mr. Slaugl~ter clarified that, in that cnst, the City wae pa,ying for property ko be used for publlc purposes, wher.eupoc~, Chairtnan Herbst noted that the subject property would be added tc Chaparral Park in the Crade. Mr. Slaughter then adviaed thut he was referring Co the property that the City would be p~~r~}~aping tm m~kp the trade. In reponse to questioning by Chairman Herbat~ Reverend Moreno indicated that the location of the church site wae not ae important as the cnot of purchasing a new aite. Chairman Herbst noted that he realized the petitioner had until August, 1975, to exect the church and church achool addition on the property, after whic:h t~ne xhe City may acqtiire said property; however, he felt a continuance for consideratiun of the sub~ect Petition ior Conditiona~. Uae Permir. No. 612 (readvertised) was in order so Chat the City could do everything possible ta explore ~very alternative in finding a better site for the ch.~rch faciliCy, si:ice it appeared the location was not ae~ important as the maney which might be involved. Chairman Herbst continued bq noting that: it appeared the park needed additional ground and the eub,ject property was an ideal area L-o provide ~ame; that acquiring the subject property might cost the City more than the $30,000 prev~.ously agr.eed to; however, he wo~ild not want the 3ub~ect property to be devel~~ped as a church, iP it w~ss at all posaible for it to h~ developed for park purposes. Commiasic,ner Morley inquired about [he size ~f the church's property on PatC Street, and Reverend NorEno indicn.:ed that said property was approximately ~s0 x 110 feet in size and there was no adjacent vacant land which could be u~sed tu increase Che church aite at that location. Mr. Stoops requeat~d that the Plunning Comruisaion consider the validity of the opposition, based on the actual ad~acent uaes to the aubject T>rAperty. Mr. Roberts noted that the City Council's previou~a direction *.o Staff regarding the differeut location for the church was to explore ~_xisting CiCy-owned properties which might be of auitaUl.e location and size, and there appeared to bP none which qualified. Chairman Herbst then n~~`ed that the Commission's preaent thinking on l•he matter was to poasibly raise the valuc. of the Pub,~ecr property to a realiaCfc and reasouable amount for acquiaition by the City. Chairman Herbst auggested that the ~ity Council e~hould review the happenings at thia meeting and the f~ct thaC unless the City did something about the reloc3tion poasibilitiea, then the church would probably preceed ta construct the addiCion on the subject property, although it was generally agreed that saic: prope~'ty was not really adequate for the size chur~h needed by the congregation; and that the (:ity ahould do ev~erything poasible to make the aub,ject propetty a park area, aince it wae nc~t nctually auitable for a church and the church was willing to accept another suitable loc:ation. Co:nmiseioner Morley offared a mokion, aeconded by Cenm-issioner Gauer and MOTION CARRIED, to reopen the public hearing and continue coneid~:ration of Petl~ion for Conditional Uae Permit No. b12 (readvertised} to the meeting af ,June 23, 1975, to a12ow time fo* the City Council t~ Xeview the matter as it preaently exists, since a proposal had been aubmitted to proceeu with the church and church echool expanaion; that the Planning Commisaion recommends that the City Council direct Staff to vigorously puTSUe anotherrlocation which aould be suitabla for exid church facilitiea, which could eiCher be a trade of ~ity-oWtted property or conaideration be given to tl:e City Ficquiring a parcel specifically to trade for the eubjecC property; that considcration be given to raiaing the value of the eubject property to reflect tha current market value; sitd, further, that consideration be given to the City acquiring Ghe eub~e~t property £or exp+inaion af Chaparral Park. ~ ~ ~ • MINUTGS, CITY YLMINING COtM1i.S5TON~ .Jutie 9, 1975 75'2a~ RECT.ASSIFICA'TI.ON - PUBLIC HEARING. KENNETH A. AND I3F.TTY J NL~LSON, 1651 EaeC 'Courtli NU. 74-75~34 Str.t:eC~ Sr~nta Ana. Cu. 927U1 AND ARNEL DFVELOPMF.NT COMPANY, Att: ~ G~3orgN I.. Argyros~ 1G51 F.aet rourth StreeC~ Santa Ana9 Ca. 927U1 (Qwnere); POb10NA FIRST rEDE1tAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATiON~ P. 0. Box 2768~ Pomona~ Ca. 917G6 (AKent); xayueating tliat propercy deac.riUed as: An irregularly- ehaped parael uf land conRinting of npproximxtely 0.75 acre locatad at th~ eoutiiwaeC cornar of Almont Avenue and St~te C~l.lege Boulevard and h+aving approxi.mate fxontagae of Y37 faet on tl~e soutt~ aide of Almont Avenue and 245 feet on the west eide of St~te Co2l.ege Boulevard~ be reclueeifi~d from the RM-1200 (RESInEN'~'IAL,, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE to the Cl~ (COMMERCIAL, LIMI1'EA) ZONE. (This it~sm wae coneidered ~-t the beginning of the m~~ting.) It waa noted 1:11eiC th~ petiCi.oner ~rae requQSting a two-week continuance in order to develop a re~~ised plot plan. Commiseioner Johnaon offered a motion, seGOnded by Commissioner King and MO'.CT~N CARRIED (CoaunisaionE:r. Tolar being absent)~ that the publi.c heariug and consi.deration of Petition for fieclaseification No. 74-75-34 be and herehy is continued co the Planning Commissi.on meeting of June 23~ ].97°, as requeeted by khe petitioner. RF.CLASSIFICATION - PUIILIC HEARING. T.NITIATED SY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUI~4IISSION, N0, 74-75-35 204 East Linco].n Avec-ue, Anahe3m, Ca. 42805; proposin~ that property ~ described as: An irregularly-ahaped parcel of land c.on9lAting af approximately 1.0 acre located at the aoutheaet corner ef Frontera Street and Park Vistu Street and having approximate frontagea of 240 feet on the south aide of Frontera StreeC and I60 fe~t on the east eide of Park Vlat~ StreeC be reclaeaif.ied from the COUNTY OF ORANGE AIt(0) (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAI~-OIL OVERLAY) DISTRICT to the CITY Or ANAHEIM R3-A-43,000(0) (RESIDENTIAL/A.GRICUL'fURAL-OIL PROAUCTI0~1 OVFRLAY) ZONE. (This ~.tem was conaidered at the beginning oC the meeCing.) It was noted that the legal adWertisement for the aubject petition indicated an incorrect zoning deaignation and Staff, therefore, was respectful.ly requesting that Che Planning Commisaion continue the public hearing and conalderation uf the eub~ect matter for two weeka to allow for readvertisement. Commissioner Morley otfered a motian, seconded. by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Tnlar being absent), that the publi~ hearing and considerarion of. Reclaesi- fication No, 74-75-35 be and hereby ia continued to the meeting of June 23, 1975, on the basis of the fox'egoing ftnding. 1tECLASSIFICA'~ION - PUBLIC NEARING. JOSFPH D. HUARTE, 1464 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 74-75-36 Ca. 92R05 (Ownex); JOHN G. FiUA'.tTE, 1454 East La Pa1ma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92$05 (Agent). Property described as: Rn irregularly-shaped VARIANCE N0. ?.706 r~rcel of land ~oneiating cf approximately 2.4 acres located betwean Fruntera Street and Jackson Avenue on the east side of Park Vista Street, having approxituate frontagea of 240 feet on the sauth eide of FrunCera 5treet, 355 feet on the east side of Park Vista Street, and S70 feet ~n the no:.ch side of Jackaon Avenue. Property Pr.eaentl.y claseified RS-A-43,000(0) (RESIDENTIAI./ AGRICULTURAL-OIL PRODUCTION OVERLAY) ZONE. REQUESTED CI.ASSIFICATION: RM-1200(0) (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY-OIL PRODUCTION OVE~.E1Y) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (B) MINIMUM DISTANCE BE"rWEEN AUILDINGS, (C) MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY WID'PH, (D) MINIMUM NU1~3ER OF PAItKING SPACES, AND (E) MINIMUM DISTANCC BETWEEN OIL DRILL SITE AND DWELLTNGS~ TO CONSTRU~T A 56-UNIT APARTMENT COt~I.~X. (This item was considered at the beginning of the mee*_ing.) It wae noced thAt the petitioner was requesting a two-week cantinuance for•thz aubmittal of rqvised plana. Commieeioaer King offpred a motion~ eeconded by Comu-igsioner Johnson and MUTION CARRIED (Commieoioner Tolat being absant), that tlie public hearing aad consideration of Petitions for Reclasaification No. 74-75-36 and Variance Nn. 2706 be and hes-eby ar.e continusd to the Plaaning Commisaion meeting of June 23, 1975, as xegueeted by the petitioner. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES ~ CI'lY Pi.ANNING CUMMISSION ~.1un~s 9, ] 975 75-288 CONDl'TIONAI. USE - l'Ui3i.1.(; IiL~ARING. 5AN'TA MIA URIiAN SOCIB'f: ~ Att: RHiI Rodriguc,z, ?.885 We~~t PE:RMYT N0. 1539 aa.ti Rond, Anuhei~n, Ca. 92804 (Owner) ; SpEECH AND LAN(~uncr u~:vFt,UPMI:NT ~~ ~~~~~ CGNTBR, AtC: Mr.s. Arleen AgranowiCz, 241 SouCh i.onru Street, Anaheim~ Cu. 9280?. (/egent) : r.equesting permiseion tu itETAIN A SCHt~T. 1~OR EXCIsY- T:[ONAI. CHILUREN IN AN tiXIS'IING CI~URClt vn property deocribed as: A rectangulHrly-ahappd paxcel of land coneieting of npprox~mstely 1,75 ecres hnving n frontagt~ of approxim+.3t~ly .~35 feat on the nor~h eide of Aall Roac~~ having a maxtmum depth of: approxim+~t.e?y 22!! feeC, beic~g locat~ed r~ppxoximat`ly 1.OOU feet weet of the cent~xline of Uale Avenue, und furtt~er daecribad ae 2885 Wer~C Bal.1 RoRd. Praperty prasently claReified RS-A-43,OQ0 (RL'SIDFNTl'AL/ AGRICULTURAL) ZON~. No one indicated their preaen~e in ~ppoaition to eubjact petiCion. Although tha 1.taff Repar~. *_o Che I'lannir~g Commieaion uated June 9, 1975, wae nut read uc tha public hearing, it ie referred to and made a pnrr. of the minutea. Mr. I.on Walker, represeriting the agent fcr ki:e petiti~ner, appeared befora ehe Planning Commieeian to enswer questions reg~rdtng tl:P nroposal. TFI~ PUBI,IC HEAR.IIdG WAS CLOSLD. Thc: PlanninII Commi.eaion entered into di~ecuesion with Mr. Walker regarding the cunditione of approval for Condi.tional Use Permit No, 1012 which was granted by the Planni.ng Commieai.an on Mrirch 2S~ 1968, to eatabl•Lsh a church anl related school fac111ties on Che aub~ect property, eaid conditions inc'luding that a 6-foot wasoiiry wall be construcCed along the norkh property line within a desi.gnated period of. time. Reverend Ben Rodriguez, Pastor of ths sub,~ect church, appeared before the Plnnning Commiasion and indicuted that they had tried to work with the neighbore in a cooperntiv~, effort to build the wall, si.nce at the time r,ondi.tiona.l Use Permit No. 1012 was granted, the churcl~ w+~s unable to undergo all the expenses for Che wall, and the neighbore refused; h~wever, at thie time, money could be made available to r.he church and they would stipulate to fulfilling the origina2 rPqui.re- ment for the wall. The Planning Commisafon determined thaC a 90-day tlu~e l:tmit shuuld be imposed for coneCruct3.on of the required wall, and th~ petiCioner iaidlcated agreemen.t to said time 11mit. In reaponae to questi.oning by Commissior.er King, Mr. Walk~r indicated that they Cri.ed to use the lawn to the eaet for the chi.ldren to play, whic'ti was not near the nei~hbara to the north. Commissioner King then noted that tlie trees and other landacaping provided at the front of the property was very attractive. It was noted that the Director. o£ the Development Servicea Department had determined that the proposed activity £e:11 within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Maheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Repor.t and was, there- fora, categozically exempt frc~m the requirement to file an EIR. Commissioner Morley offered Reaolution No. FC75-119 and moved for its passage and ad~ption, that Petition for Conditionn]. Use Permi*_ No. 1539 be and hereby is granted, aubject to the stipulations of the petitioner and sub~ect to conditians. (Sae Reaolution Book) On roll r.all, th.e foregoing resolution was pasaed by' the following vote: AYES: COMMISSION~RS: FARANO, GAllFR, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: CQi~1ISSI0NEItS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: N~NE CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEA1tTNG. MARY H. DEWIRE, ET AL, 2856 Monogram Avenue, Long PERMIT NQ. 1540 Beach, Ca. 90R15 (Owners}; rec,uesting pecmission to ESTABLISH INDOOR ~ RACQUETBALL AND :"-':C:;4'1LL COUFTS on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of lt~nd consisting of approxim~+tely 1.3 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Tuatin Avenue, having approximate frontagee of 210 feet on the n~rth aide of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 2S0 feet ~n the east side of Tustin Avenue, and further deacrlbed as 100 North Tust~n Avenue. Propaxty presently claseified CL (COA4IERCYAL, LIMITEU) 20NE, One peraon indirat9d her presence in the audience in connection with the sub~ect petition. Although th4 Staff Report to the Plann:ng Commisaion dated June 9, 1975, was not r~ad at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of t::a minutea. C~ CJ MINUTGS, ~'i'fY t'I.ANNING CUP4~1ISSION, June 9. 1975 CONDI'I'IONAL USC 1'GttMTT NU. 154U (Coneinur~d) ~ ~ 75-289 Mre. Mary Uewire~ the petitloner, uppeared before tlie F'lc~nning Commieeion snd dascrfbed the proposed uee, noting thut there would be shower faciliri.ea for boti~ men and! women, and adequate parlcing and landacaping; and thnt the use wo~~l.d be: very attractive tu thF (:ity. Ms. Catrier.ine lialdus~ 101 North Merrimac Drive~ Anaheim, app~s-red before the Pleinnina Cocnmiseion and inquired if. competitive apnrte would be part of the propoeal. The peti- tloner repl.ted in the neBative. The Plann:ing Comm:laeion entared inr.o diacu~A:ton regarding tlie parking, during which it waR polnted out thnt Che pe[lt~.oner was not requesting ~ walvc:r from the parking requirement, and that tt~e parking lot was being restriped to provid~ r~ri additi.onal 13 epacee~ or x tutal of G4 spac.es Lor both ttie commerci.al and recreationul uaes at the subJect lucation. The petitioner ulao indicaCed that one parking apace per r_ourt would probaUly be adequate; however~ they were prupoaing one and one-hnlf apr~ces per court~ which wauld be generuus. ltegarding [he heaviest houra of operation, the petitionet• indicated they would be huaiest betwean the houra of 4:00 or. 5:00 p.m. through 9:00 or lU:UO p.m. In r.eaponse to questioning by Comtai.saioner Farano, the peti.Cioner indicated there would ba no spectators' gallery; and that women would represent ].esa than 107; o£ the cue~umers. Ms. Baldus then etated any oppoaition she might have had regarding the proposal was sati3- fied~ unlese the trnffi.c from ttie uae created a proUle.~u which was unknown at this time. in reoponse, the peti.tionAr etated the courta would be played on araggered one-hour achedules so thut one-half of the course would begin their one-hour playing time on the hour nnd the other half would begin on the half-hour. T~E PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Conunissioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Coumoissioner Morley and MOTION CARRTED, that tYie Planning Commi.saion recommends to the City Council that the aub~ect projecC be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Repo~t, pursuant to the provisions of the Californi.a Environmental Qualixy Ac~. Commissioner King offered Reaolution No. PC75-120 and moved fur i.ta passage and adoption, that Petttion for. Conditional Uae I'ermit No. 1540 be and hereby is granted, aub~ect to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendationa. (See Resolution Baok} On roll call, rhe foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COt~tISSI0NFR5: FARANO~ GAUER, JOHNSON, ?CTNG, MORLF•Y, TOLAR, HERBST NOES; COMM7SSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COIrII~1ISSI0NERS; NONE CONDITIONAL USE - PllBLIC HEAFIi1G~ 1;ARY ALICE GRIMSHAW, 1112 E1 Cruoino Lane, SanCa Aiia, PERMIT N0. 1541 Ca. 92705 (Owner); PACIFIC OUTD~OR ADVERT'LSING, ACt: Jay Kingry, ^ 1i40 Narva Street, Los Ange7.es, Ca. 90031 (Agent); requesting permisaion to CONTINUE 'THE USE OF AN ERISTING BILLBOARD WITH WAIVERS OF (A) PERMITTED LOCATION AND (B) MAXTidUM HEIGHT on propert~ described as: A rectangularly- ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre located at the southwest corner of Broac~way and Anaheim Boulevard~ having approximate frontagea of 131 feet on the south eide of Broadway and 176 feet on the we~st side of Anaheim Boulevard~ and further described as 301 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property presently clasai.fied CG (C02~4IERCIe1L~ GENERAI.) 7.ONE. ANU CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARItiG. WILLIAM C. STOOKEY, 12S South Claudina Street, PERMIT N0. 1542 Anahei~~ Ca. 92i305 (~wner); PACIFIC OUTDQOR :~DVERTISING, Att: Jay Kingry~ 1740 Narya Street, Los Angeles, Ca. 90031 (Agent); r.eque~ting permisaion to CONTTNUE THE USE OF TWO EXISTING BTLI.BOARDS WIPH WAIVER OF PERMtTTED LOCATION on prnperty deacribad as: A rectangularly-ehap~d parcel of land consiating of approximately 4.45 acr~ located at the northeas[ corner. of Broadway and Anahe3m Baulevard~ having approximate irontages of 155 feet on the noxeh side of Br~adway and 126 feet on the east sidE of Anaheim Boulevard, and further deecribed ae 254 South Maheim Boulevard. Froperty preaently claseified C~ (COA4~tERCIAL, GENERAL) ZONE. No ona indicated their presence in opposition to sub~ect petitions. ~ ~ MINU'fES~ CITY I'LANN]~.NG CONQ~IISSION~ Jun~~ '±, 1975 ~ • 75-290 CUNDITIONAI. USL PF.RMI'C NUS. 15G1 AND 1542 (Continuad) Although the St~atf ItepurtR to the Planning Commiseion dated Junc 9, 1975. were not read at the public her~ring, thc:y ure referred to uttd made a parC of the m~nutaR. Mr. Jay Kingry~ represcnti.~ig llie agent for the p~titioner., appeAxed before the Ylanni.ng Cammiasion and reviewed the h:lstory of the three billbourds in queetion. TN~ PUBGIC HENt~NG WAS CIASFD. Commisaioner Tolar recnlled that at the previous public i~enring for the subjsct billboxrde, Mr. K+.ngry had been usked tiow long it w~uld tuke for. the Y'acific Outdoor AdverCiaing Compuay to recupernte their investment ln the billbuai~do, ~nd Ctie responen wao approximaCely six months to a yeur t~nd, therefor~, thF Planning Cnmmission had gianted the one year. Thereupun~ Mr, Kingry staC~d tt»t if Che opini.on of th~: 1'lanning (:ommiesiot~ wus based on whether the d:lgii company had goCCen their money oul• of rhe eigns, then i~ would take r~even to ten ye~rs~ The Pl~inni.n~ Commi~sion and StafF reviewed the Planning Commi:.~ion minut.es of the rreviour~ public he~rings f~>r the aub~ect billboarda, during whi.ch Commiseioner Johnson noted thnt the motinn3 and minutes were as he remembered them and, [herefore, he was eurprised tt~at the petiCiouer was back Uefore the P.lanning Commission with the matter. Chairman Herbgt inqu.red what was the retitioner's reaeon for aaking for continuance of rhr_ aigne and Mr. Kingry stated since Chere were no objecriona fr~m Che public, they would 2ike to keep ttie btllboards until there was a chan.ge iti tha use of. the property; that the aervice stati.on At the souLhcaest corner of Broadway and Anaheini Boulev~rd was operating presecitly and the lundownera were nLso receiving rental cu~ney in connection witt- the blllboarda. Chairman Her.bst then noted [hat he agre~d that the areu was run down and aubject to renewal, and that the Uillboards ~aould give s~me revenue to the property owner~ that they would not otherwi.se have until some redevelopment took place; thHt he waul.d be in favar of al.lowing the use on a year-to-year basis, sub~ect to review and also sub~ect to r~emoval at any time. Mr. Kingry then stated the billboards were preaently on a 30-day lease arrang~-ent. Commiesioner Tolar took exception to the suggested continuation of the bi.llboarda on the basis tliar. all of the propertie» in the area could benefit from aimilar billboards. Cammiasioner Far.ano added that the other properti~s had not been allowed to have bi'l1- boards. Co~anisaioner King noted xhrt he would go along ~vith a one-year extension of time. The Planning Commission entered iato discueaion with Staff regardi.ng the application mctde to the City Council on Apri1. 22, 1975, requeating an Extension of time for the continued uae of the existing Uillboards, and i.t was noted that satd requeat was denied ot~ the basis khat the conditional use p°rinir was granted for a spFCified one-year pe:ind of time; and it was furthEr nated that since it was not appropriate to ~rant an extens~an the petitioner should make a new application. Commisai~ner Farano inquired {.f the City Councit indicated any diapleasure with Che aigne and their tocation, and Zoning Sapervisor Charlea Rouerts noted thst therP were coumients made by one or t~ro of the City Council Members who were not particularly in favor of the request. Deptity City Attorney rtalcolm Slaughter n~ted that one of. tt-e billboards was not preaently locaCed within a redevelopment pro~ect area, however, it was concei~rable th~t the project area might be expanded ir~ the future to include that properY.y und h~ then inquired if Cl~e peciCioner wae aware of the Rel~~cation Act which might antitle the petitioner to rel.oca- tion assietance, and in reply Mr. Kingry atated he was. Mx. 3laughter the-. inquired if the petitioner would be a~r~eable to walving the right to relocation aseistance for all three billbo~-rds, and Mr. Kin~;ry reQlied in behalf of the petitioner that he would atipulute thereto. The Planning Commiasion concurred that if Che sub~ect request was approved, th~ fore~oing atipulation to waive the right to relocation asaistance would be required in writing from the petitioner p1•ior to review by the City Counr_il, and Mr. Kingrq replied that he had already alerted his company in that xegard. Commieaioner Tolar noted that he fel~ the City h~.d already corrected ii:e wrong by allowing the billboarde for the one-year period of time. St wae noted that the Director of the Development Servicee llepartment hnd determined that the proposed activity fell within the definiCion of Section 3.01~ Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelinea to the Requirements for an Bnvironmental Im~act Report ~nd wae, there- fore, categorically exempt from the require~oent to file an EIR. ~ ~ r.~. ~ MINU'1'f5, CI'fY 1'I.ANNIN(7 C(1I~PfLSSION, Junc 9, 1~)75 CONllI'tIONAI, USfs PLItMIT NO5, 1541 AND 154~2 (ConCi;~u ~ ~ ~ 75-291. CommlaAton4r. KLr~b offerod reeolutione and moved foi their parNege and edopr.lur~ ~lint Petir.io~-s Cor Condi.tional Uae Pex'mit Non. :541 and 15l,2 be qrun[ed for a t•i.me limitnCioi~ of on~ yeur~ subj~ct t:u revi~aw and con3iderution f~~r excunnion of kim~~ upon WT~.tCOil rcqueat by the peCitioner; anJ aub~ect Co thc ettpuletl:i.ona of thn petillon~r nnd eub~ecr to Ch~ :f.nterdepartmeritnl CummlttQe recommendueionn. On roll cal.l, thc foreQoing rc~~ ~~1u~.1o1K t'~il.ed by Y.hc fol.lowing votc: AYI:S: CUMMISSIUNLKS: JO}{NtiON, KING, HIsReST NOLS ; CO~~Q•tISSI0NcI2S ; FAItl1N0 ~ GAUER, MORI.EY ~ TOI.AR Ali56NT: CQMMISSIONERS; NONE r~om-niseionet' Motiey then offered reROliirionr. an d movecl for thair {~assage and adoption, thnr. 1'etitions for Conditional Uea Perail.t Nos. 1541 und 1547. be dunied. Un roll caJ.i~ the fnrogoing resolul'iany failed l,y the following vuCe: AY;.S: COPiM1SSIUNCRS: F'AI2tW0~ MOR1,f:Y, 'rOLAR NOIiS: CO[~C•1I.5SIONERS; GAUGR, .IOHNSON, KINC~ NERBST At3SEN'1': CUr41ISS10NCRS: NONF. Commie~ioner Gauer offar.ed Rasalution No. PC75-121 ~nd moved for ita pasauge and adoption Chc~t Petitiori for Condi.ttoua.l. Use Permit No. 1541 be and hereby is grnnCed, sub~ect to the atipulaCi.ona of Che pet:!Cioner und sub~ect to the following condition~ (See Re~otiition I3ook) : 1. That tl~e aub~ect property ahall be deve].oned eubstantiaYly in ar.cordance with plrlns and specificaCi.ons on fi.le with Che City of Anxheim ma.rked Exhibit No, l.. 2. 'That this cotiditiunal uae permit ie granted fur a peeiod of oi~e (1) ye~r, to expire en June 9. 1976~ at which time the billboard ahall be remc~ved from the ~ubJect pruperty. 3. 'Phat Che applicant ia hereby granted permission ta illuminate said billbonrd for tlic one (1) year period tliat said biilbo~rd is permitted to exist. 4. That~ in tha event the l:omm~inir.y Redevel~~~rment Agency acqutrea the aub~ect prop•- erty for. redevelopment, prior tu expiration of ttiia conditioiial use permit, all rights to severance damagea for removal of the bi.llboard are hereby waived, a~s s~ipulated to by the petitioner; and, £urther, tiie faregoing s[ipulation shnll be submitted in writi.ng by the owner(~, of the billboard pri~r to City Cour.r_il review oi tha proposal. On rull ca3.1~ ti:e f~regoing resolution aas passed by the following vote: AYES: CUA4~lISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, HERBSi ;~OES : COI~4dIS5I0NEKS : FARAIiO, MORLEY , TOLAR ABSENT: COA4~tISSIQNERS: NONF. (' ~misaion~r Gauer ~ffered Resolution No. PC75-l.'1.2 and moved for itb paseage a.nd adoption t,.at Petition fnr Conditional Uae Permit No, 1.5k2 b~ and hareby is granted, aub~ect to the atip~ilations of ehe petitiuner and sub~act r_u the following cenditiona (See Resolution 8ook} : 1. That the aubject p~operty shall. be developed substan~ially in accordance with plans and specificationa on file with the Ciry of nnanetm marked Exhibit No. 1. 2. Ttxat this conditional use permit ia granted for a peri.od of one (1) year, to expire on Jux1P ~1, 197ti, at which time the billboard~ shall be removed from the aub,ject prope_ .y. 3. That~ in the e~ent the Cummunity :Zedevelcpment Agency acquires the aubject prc,~~ erty for redevelopment, prior to expir~tion of thla conditional uae permit, all righta to severance dama~ea far removal o£ the billboards are hereby waivei, as atipulated to by the petiti~ner; and, further, the foregoing stipulation ehall be aubmltted in writing by zhe owner(s) of the billboZrda prior to City Council review of the proposal. 4. That the applicant is hereby granted permisaion to il'l~uninate said billboards £or the one (1.) year period that said billboarde sre pe:-mitted ta exist. ~. On toll call. Che foregoing reaolution was pasaed by tt-e fallowing vote: AYES: CON4IISSIONERS: (;AUER, JOHNSON, KING, HERBST NOES: COAIIr1ISS10NERS: FARANO, MORLEY, TOLAR ABSENT: COMMISSYJNERS: NONE ~ ~ ~ MINUTBS, (:ITY PLANNING COb41LSSI0N ~ Ju~a 9, .1975 ~ ~ 75-292 CONDITiONAI. USC - PUBLIC NEARING. TIIL~ LINCaLN NATTONAL LIF~; INSURANCE (:OMPANY hND PERMTT N0. 1544 MARKET BASKET~ Atts 'P. A. Kil.lacsn~ 6U14 South Eaetern Avenue~ Los ~ Angelae ~ Ca. 9004 ~(Owr.ec'a) ; MICHAGL~ .1. AND T1tMCRitll DUI,LING~R~ 1308 Weut R~tnneya Drive~ Annhaim~ Ca. ~zaoi (Agente); r.equeating permiesio•n f~r UN-SALG UEER l1ND WINE IN AN EXIS'1'ING RF'sSTAURANT on pr.up~rry described aa: An irregularly-shnpad pnrcel oE land coneiating of approximstely 4 acrea locat~d at the southw~wt cc~rnor oE Bull Rued und Mahoim Roulevard, h+~ving approximnke Erontages of 2~U fect on kl~e south bide of Bal.l Road and 63Q f:eat on thc+ weat eide of Anal~eim Dou.levard. and furthcr deocribed as 1215~5 South Anaheim Boulevard. ProperCy presc~ntly claseified CL (COt9~iGRCIAL~ L].MIT1sU) ZONE. No one indir_aCed thui.r preaence in oppusl.tion to s~ib;Ject petition. A7.thougt~ tt~e Stnff Report to the Planning ConmilRr~ion daCed JutiE: 9, 1975, was not read xt khe ^:.hlic heari.ng, it ie refeYred tc and made a part of the minutea, Mr, end Mrs. Mlke Bui linger, tne ag~nte t'or thP petitioner, appeured before tho Planni~ng Coma~iseinn to anewer questione regarding the proposnl. THG PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In responee to questioning by khe Planning Commiseioii~ Mr. Bu~linger atated tney ~iQ not wisli to stipulata to apecific noure of operuCto~i at thie time einr.e the liuurs indic:ated in the Staff Repor.C were their preaent operating hours and were sub,~ect to chaiige. Commiasioner Tol ~r noted that the aub~~ct restaurauC mainly se:rved induetry and comroerce in the areu and tlie addili.on of tl~e on-sale beer and wine woul.d not substantially increac~e the patronege or be detri.mer~tul to the surrounding nelg:iborhood and ahopping center. The Plnnning Commiesion entered into diecussion with ehe applicant, during which it wae determined t:hat ~he buainessman at-ouldnot be ppn~liaPd regarding dedication requiremants; and Commiasioner Gauer notsd t!~at the sub~ect ehopping cent~r had beer, in operation for muny yeara with a pizza reataurant. Depiity CiCy Attorney Malcolm Slaughter noted Chat there was a letter on file from the property owner giving the applic.~nt the u9e of the properCy for any lawful. purpose; however, eaid letter did not by ite terme coromit the owners to dedicatio;i for the widening of Dall Road and Anaheim Koulevard. In response to questloning by Commi seioner. King, Mr. Bullitiger etipulated Co providing additional. trash aturage areas as maybe required by the Senitation Diviaion and in acc..rd- ance wi.th approved pia~~s on file with the off.ice oF the liir.ector of Public Woi'ka. It was noted that the Director of theAevelopment Services Departmer.t had ~etermined that the prorospd activity fell within thedefinition of Section 3.01, Clasa 1, of I:he City of Anal~eir~- Guidel.inea tu tha Requiremente Eor an Rnvironmental Impnct Report and wus, there- fore, categoxically exempt from the requir~-ent to file an F.IR. Commisaioner T.olar offer.ed Reaolution No. rC7S-123 and moved for ita passage and adopti.on that Petition for Conditional Use PermiC No. 154G be and hereby ia granted, aubject [o the sCi.pulation.s of the petiCioner and subject to the Interdepartmental Committee recommenda- tions wj.th the exception of the condition requiring dedication for street widening purposes. (5ee Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoir..g xesolution was aaesed hy the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUL~R, JJHNSON, KING, MOR7.EY, TOLAR, HEItBST NOES: COP4IISSIONE~ZS : NONE ABSENT: COMt4ISSI0NERS: NONE VAR.IANCE N0. 2705 - PllBLIC H~ARII3G. CUI~CI-TURNER COMPht7Y, P. 0. ~~x 1457, Newpurt Beach~ Ca. 92663 (Owner); FRED J. BARBOUR, 1851 Elba Circle, Costa Mesa, Ca. 9'L626 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO PERMIT TH:: CONTINUED OUTDOOR. STORAGE OF TRUGKS ANP. EC~t~IPMENT on property desci ibed as : A rectangularly- ahaped parcel of. land conaieting of approxima~ely 1.~~ acre having a frontage of approximately lU7 feet on the south eide of Cynrede Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 410 feet, and being loc.ated approximately 165 fpet west of tt-e centerline of. Vine Street. Prope. :y presently claesified RS-7200 (RESIDENtIAI~, SINGLE-FAMILY) ~ONE. Approx~±mately five persons indicated their preaence in oppoaition to dutij~ect petftion and it was noted that petitiona containing approximately 96 signatures in oppneition had been received. ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S, Ci'1'Y YLMlNING COIYQ~tISSION, June 9~ 1975 ~5'29-~ VA1tIANCL N0. 2705 (Continued) Aesietnnt 7oning Supdrvieor Annil;a 3antalahti r~ad the Sraff Repor.t tu the Planning Commieeion ~~nted .Juna 9, 1975, and nn1.d 9tnf.f RepurC io refor.red to and made a purt of tl~u minutes. Mr. Fred ,J , liarb~ur ~ the agent for tt~c~ propertiy ow ~~r, Appeared before the Ylanning Commiseian and took exception Lo the conditton eeC forth in tlie St~ff Report rrquirl.ng etr.eat and allay lmprovemcnte. on the baaie that the inr_ome from the property wa~ $50 a month (whicli wae clarified later on to mer~n SSU r-eC income). He s~ipulated that they would be ngreeablA to making the req~lred etreat aud aJ.ley dedication~ however, Cammise~o~,gr Tolar inquired if the petit.l.aner could provi.de acc:ess to tha sub~ect property frota I.incoln Avenue, and Mr, Barbour ataCed that matt:er woul.d lirsve ~o be diecuaeed with their tenanle of the ad~acent packi.ng houso. Commiseioner Tolar then notQd hhat at a previ.oue publlc her~r.ing on the aub~ect pr.operty, M•r. Horbour had indic~ted n willingnese to work with the tenante of the pncking hous~~ etc., to move their gate ao thut tl~e euU~ect uee could have the ucceos from Lincoln Avenue, C~~1. Ec-rl Rhonds, 122 North Vine Stre.et ~ An+~'~cim, appeared before the Planning Commiseion and preaenCed a petiti~~n signed by approxim,it~ly 20 property owners in oppoeition. Col. Rhuade statEd the suh~ect property was 1~cnCE~d in Redevtlopm~ut Pro,ject Are~z Alpha, xind wae not a blighted ~rers. He read from ~i~~ p~ i.ti~n, iioting that the neigtiborhood would ob~ect tu nny truck or other heavy equi,.~nent bei.ng iater;}ecteu onto the neighborhood atreets - Vine and Cypresa Streete; that a sulic: ~~~ncrete block wall should l, ~~equired along Cypresa Street with ~beolutely no accesa to or f-•om Cypresa StreeC or Vine 5treet for the propoaed uae; thut acceas sh~uld be tnken solel.y fr.om i,incol.n Avc:nue fur proper control of the traffic from the s~~b~ect uae, ~nd for ttiQ protection of the svrrounding aingle-family and multiple-family residences; otherwise~ r.lie property ownera and residente in the area were recommending that the sub~ect varian~e Ue denied. Mr. James Rinker, 225 North Vine Strett, Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Commiesion in opposi.tion and atsted there were many problems related to the use of CY~e alley in Sack of liia reAidence which was adjacent to the sub~ect property; that he had dedicated ior that alley in approximately 19~0 and about 15 years ago th2 City laid some oil on it which laated about aix months; that he would ob~ect to any diesel-type trucka going in and out of Che subject property ad~acen~t to hia home; lhat aome of the other prop~rty appArently owned by the subject property owner had been uaed ro train backhoe operators who were making noises at 10:00 and 11:00 at nlght, s few ti~nes a week; Chat it ap~eared he alUays had probleme getting the Police Department out lo check on the problem he wae having on the basie that the people who were making the noise were on their own proper.ty; that ~reeentl,y he cuuld h~ar the radios in the tri~cka from inside hia home; that there were many other usea 2hat ~ould be made of the subject pr.operty that would be lesa bothereomt to the neighbors, other than a truck storage yard; and that the use certainly did not improve Lhe luaks of the property eince it wxe like a~unkylyd~ Mr. Maurice Dug.-n, 3U'~ North Vlne SCreet, Anaheim, uppeared Lefore the Pl~nning Commission and staxed there were trucks starting up ut 4:00 and 4:3U a.m. ak the sub~ect location, and it was very dusty and a public nuieuttce. Crnnmiseioner Tolar nor.ed that the oppoeition had very valid arguments and were juaCi.fied i.n Gheir requeste. r,.. Rinker further stated that presently there was rruck traffic using the alley,which wAs only graveled, to get ro Cypxeas Street to the north. Col. Rhoads added that he was concerned about the number of trucks and c„ her heavy cunstruction equipnent ~hat might be stored on the s~b~ect property, eince the applicant might get a conCract ior. an additional 100 trucks sfter the application was approved. THE PUBLTC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Herbst indicaCed that the proposal was for aa interim use of the property; however, the Planning Commission would want same prctection for the single-family reeidente; and thaC the property was situated between industrial. and residenttal propertise. Commisaioner Farano noted that requeating tha uee of RS-7200 ~oiied property for *.i~e etorage of trucka as an interim uae was not a reasonab?e st~tement. Commisaioner Johnson i.ndicated that an interim use ahould be one that could become permanent, providing it was satiafactory. • ~ ~ MINUTL~S~ CITY PIJWNINC CUP41I3SION~ Juna 9, 1975 VARIANCL~ N0. 2705 (Continuc~d) ~ ~ 75-294 Chalrman Herbet noCed that outdoor eturage of [rucku and equipment wuo a very brund etate- menC; and that if the petikion~~r could f ind eome other ueo for t.he proper. ty, there might not bo ue much oppoAition. Commiseioner King inquired if Che petltioYtor wuuld stlpulate thtst the eub,jecl• property would b~ ueFd only by ttie aewer. contracCor who wea presently occupying the property, snd Mr. Barbr~ur el:ated Chnt tt~e tanant woul.d probably only he ttiere a fsw months. Deputy City Attorney Mnlcolm Slaughter auggested Chat the v~ariancce be restrict:ed to lhe ueo, but not tu thh tonant ~~r tt~e namFe of: the ~onipany since ir would be di.£ficul.t to Qnforce. Itt reaponea tu yu~etioning by c;ommisaioner Mc-rley, Mr. Uarbour. etated the length of Che lease wae ,~bnut one yeAZ. The Ylanning Commiselon entered into diacuesion regarding the appropriate limilation for the aize o£ tlie krucke and other equlpment which shau].d be permitted to be stored on the hub~ect propert.y, during which it w~se determined thnt the trucke And equipmenC Co be eCored on the eub~ect property ahould not exceed 5500 pounds wNight or 1~-tun capacity or rating, and the Lrucks and equipment shoul.d be conatru~t:ion-kype veh~.cles or machinery; and~ thereupon~ the petil-ioner so stipulnted. The peCietuuer further stipulatcd to inatalling ced:tr or redwaod slat~ in the exieting chaintink fence on the north and east sidea ~f the praperty to enclose the aubject use, and that the existing chainlink fence on the east side would be relocated in accordance with the f~i11 tiltimlte width of the alley. Cummisgioner Morley offered a motion, seconded hy CommisAioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commiasion recommends to the City Council that t:he sub~ect pro~ect be exempk from the requirement to prepare an Envi.ronmenCal Impact Report, pursuant to Che nrovisiona of the Cal.iforni.a Environmental Quality Act. Commiasioner Morlsy offered ltesolutton No. PC75-124 and moved for ixs passage r~nd adop-- tion, that Petitinn for Variance No. 2705 be and hereby ie granted for a period of une year~ aub~ect t.~ review and consideration fer extensiun o.f time, upon written request by the petitioner; subject to the condition that the trucke and equipment to be atored an the aub~ect property shall not exceed 5500 pounds weight or 1~-ton capacity or r.ating, and said trucks and equipment shall be construction-type vehicles or machinery, as etipulated to by the petitionsr; that dedication for atr e et and alley widening shall be made, as stipulated to by ~he petitioner, however, since the petitioner demonstrated that the proposal was for an intPrim u~e and for a ahor t periud of time, a hardship would be created if the atreet and alley improvementa were required at this time; that cedqr or redwood slata ahall be installed in the existiag chainlink fenc, ~ on the ~~orth and east eides encloaing the sub,ject use, and thE exist ing chainlink f ence on the east side ahall be relocated in accvrdance with the full ultimate width of the alley, as stipulated to by the petitioner; that for the protection of the ad3acent single-family neighborhood, approval of tliis variance shall be aub~ecr to the petitionet providing access to the subjecG property from Lincoln Avenue only, and that no access of any kind shall be pro- videci to Vine Stree* or to Cypress Street, and no gatea s~all be provided to permiC use of tha alley abutting the r~~~' ~ect property to Che east; and sub,a,ect to conditions. (See Reaolution Book) ~n roll call, the foregoing resolution was pas sed by the following vote: AYES: CO1~II~tISSIONERS: ~:4R!'.NO~ GAUER, JOHNSON, KING~ MORLF.Y, HER}3ST NOL~S : COt4IISS ION~RS : TOLAft ABSGNT: C~I~iISSIONERS: NONE P ~ * ~ MINUTES~ CYTY PLP.NNINC COl~AlI38ION, June 9~ 1975 75-295 RR~ORTS AND - ITBFt N_ 0. 1 CRI; OI~NDATION3 CONUITIONAI. U9E PERMIT N0. 1515 - Requaet ~nr. axten~ion oP tim~ - Propexty coneieting of approximstely U.bS acra located at the eoutheaet corner oP Orang~tharp~ Avdnue end Lemon Stroat. anc: £urther deecribed as 150 WoAt Orsngettiorp• Aven~~a (Yervi.ce et~arion) . It was noted that the applicnnt waA requeating a ane~yoar extane~lon of Cima for completion of the conditione of Roeolution No, PC"15-~i7 which wae u~iopted in connectian with Condttionxl Uee Permit No. 1515, to permit rruek r entnle in con~uneCian with an ex~.eting eervice atat•ion~ with waivere oP Che minimum landecaping ad~acent to etreat f•ontageR and inCerior boundariea. 'fhe Planning Commiesion entered into discueaion fal.low:ing which Comwieeioner Morley offered a moti.on~ seconded by Commiasioner Farano and MOTIUN CARRIED, that tlte sub~er_t rsquest for extension of time for completion af the conditinne in connecCion with Conditiana]. Use Permit No. 1515 be and hereby i~ denied. ADJAURNh~EAT - There being no further bciaineea to diacuae~ Commiaeioner Farano offared a motior~, aeconded by Cotinnieeioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED, to ad~ourn the meeCing. The meeting ad~ourned aC 5:k0 p.m. Respectfully submi[ted, G!~?~.-~o~I~ ~/~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary Anaheim City P].anning Commisaion PBS:hm ~