The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1975/07/070 R C Q MICR( FILMING SEPVICE, 1N~; ~ ~ ~ ~ Ci.ty It+~:ll Anahcim, Cul.ifc~r.niu .1uly '1, 1~75 RL:t;~11,AR Mll1,'P1NG OC' 'l9IL ANnHEIM CITY PI~IINNING COMMJSSION RGGU~.}1R - A L•ec~ ~lar meeting of the Ant~hPim Cit.y Plunning Commisaion wae~ cnlled to MF.k'PING order by Commissianer. Iic~rbst At 1 i30 r~.m. in thP Council Chamber, a quor.~.un bai:~g preaAn;.. PRGS~NT - CODIMISSIONL'RS: Barn~r~, tiarbst, .7ahnson, King, Morloy, '1'~,.lar ABSLNT - CUMMI3SIONER.S: Farano ALSO PRI;SENT - Frrink Lc~wry Jay Titua Don McDani.ol Annika Santalahti ;llan Daum Bi11 Cunninqham Robert Kelley Pat.ricia Scun.lan Deputy City Attorney Of f ice Lnyineer Assisr.ant Development Servicea Di.rector.- Pl~nninq Zoning Supe.visor n~~iatr~nt 7,aning Supervisor Assoai.ate Planner Assietant Planner Cornmission Secrokary PLEIX',L OF - r_umrris:,ioner Ile;' ~t lc1 i.n ttie Pledge of All~~~i~nce to t.hP Fl.ag of the ALLEGIANCE United States ~n~eri.ca. E.LECPION_ OF 1975-76 CHAIRMI~N ~ CHAIF2M11N PItU '1'L:MF'ORE, '.JD SECRI~:TARY OF TH~ PLANNING COMMI5SION It was noted that the terms of office for the Chairm~~n, Chairman Pro Tempore, and 5ecretary of t•he Anaheim City Planniti:g Comm;ssion expir.ed ua of June 30, 1975 at,l, thereforo, it was in order to elect a Temporary CY~ai.rman for ele^ tion of said ofFicern. TEMPORARY CHAIkMAt~? - Commi~sioner Johneon offered a motion, secvnded by CommiRSi~nor. King and MOTION 'A}2RTED ((:nmmiss.ioner Farano being ab~ent) , to open nominationa for ~'emporary Chairm«n. Commissioner King nominated Commis~ioner. Herbst as Temporary Chairman for the election. Commissioner Johnson offered a motion, secondec~ by Co~ranissio»er King and MOT1oN CARRIED (Comtnissioner E'arano be.iny absent? • that the nominations be and heroby are .:losed. Commiasioner Tolar offered a mct•ion secanded by Commissioner. King and MOTION CARkIED BY UNANIMOUS VU'I'E (Commissioner Farano bei.ng zibsent) , thaL• ~:ommis~ioner Herb~t be and herAby is elected Temporury Chairman for the election_ CHAIRMAN - Temporary Chaii-~nan Eierbst noted tYiat nominations weze in order for the office of Chairm•^n of the Anaheim City Pla~ining Comn~i~sion for the 1975-76 fiscal year. Commis~toner Ying :~ominated Commissioner Far.ana as Chairman. Commi.asioner Tolar offered a motion, se::ondeci by Commiasioner Morley an3 MOTION CARRIED (Commissionr.r I~arano beinR absent), that the nominations be and heraby are closed. Camr.~i.ssio~ier 2'olar offered a motion, seconded by Co~nmissioner Mnrley and MOTION ^ARRIL;D BY UNANIMOUS VOTE (Commiasioner Farano being absent), that Commiasioner Farano be and hereby ia dlected Chairman of the Anahei.m City Planning Commiaston for the 1975-76 fis~al year. CIIAIRtMN PRO TEMPORF - Temporary Chairman Herbst noted that nominations were i.n ~rder tor the office of Chairman Pro 'Pempore of the Anaheim City Planning Commission for th~ 19"'-76 f'scal yoar. Conun~.saioner Kir.g nominated Commissioner Morley as Chairman p~o Tom~ore. Canmisaioner Tolar off3rad a motion, secon~~d by Commisaioner Kiny and MOTION CAFtRIED (Commissioner Farano being absent), that the r~ominations bo and here~y are closed. 75--319 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ MTNUT~S, CITY I~IJINN'iNG COMMTSSION~ Jul.y 7, 1975 7~i-320 l;LL*CTION OP 1~)75-7fi CHA'HMANl Cf1AIFtMAN PRO '1'EMPURh~ ANb SECRE'fARY C)F THk: ['L.AN[JING COMMTSSION C~mmiaeionor. Tolar oEfurod a motion, secondod by Commi:.•~ionor Kiny ar.d MOTtc)~~ rARFtI~U !3Y ~1NAN'tMOl1S VOTE (Commiae~.cmc+r t'ax•nno beiny absEint), that Commiaeionor Morl~~y ba and h~r.ol~~:~ fe elocted Chnirman Prcr'Pr.mpore o£ thc~ Anahe i m C!ty Planninq Commiesic~n fux Che 1975-7G fisca]. year. SECRETARY - Tompurt+ry Ch~~i.rman Hrzrb~t n~tod rhat nomi.n.itions wor~~ in ordur for tho off ic~ of Sc~cratary of kho Ar~ahoim ('ity Planning Cocsi•missi.on fc.~r the 1975-7G fiaca.4 y~aK, Commisaionor Morlay nominatod ~rs, i~atricia B, Scnnl.an as Sucrot.ary. C;o~-miineioner Morley off;+red a motion, 80CUIlC;P_(I bY CO~NI1199i.ont~r Johnson anci MOTION C.ARRIED (Cammissionor Fardno boing absent) , that r.he nomi~iati.on:{ ba and herc~by ar~ r.losed. Commiseianor ~7~hneon offor~~d a motion, neaondod hy Commi~si.onur Mor1~y and MOTION c:4RRI.ED SY UNANIMOU5 VOTE (Commiaeioner Far.ano bo;.ng absent), t}iat Mrc;. Pat:r.icia 3. Scanlan bo and hereby ia 3ppointc~~ Secretary o~ tho Anahoim CiL•~ Plann.ing Commission for tha 1975-76 fiaeal year. Theraupon, n~w Chairman t~co :'emporo Morley asaumed the chair and int-roc~uced lho new Planning Commianionar, ME. CharlenA flarnes. F2CCLI~.SSIFICATTON - CON'1'INUEO PUDLIC HEARING . ARDEN STRI~ND, ET AL, 5861 Sucuniat, Yorba NO. 74-75-42 Ii~ da, Ca. 92686 (Ownors ) ~ I.P.S., c/o tcon C:umer, 1J95 Norkh Main Stroet, Suito D, Oranc,Q, Ca. 92667 (Agent). Property der~cribed as: VARIANCE NO. 2711 An irregularly-shupe~ parce.l o£ lan~3 ~ongi5r.ing r~f apprcximrstely 3.0 acras having a f.ront:age o~ ap~roximately 204 f.eet on ~he souxh side of FrontQra Street, huvi nq a maximum depth of approximate~y 590 feet, and bQir~r lucated approximately 365 f.eet wes t of the centerline of Glassell Street. Property presen*_ly classified RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAI:/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. REQUESTED CIr-:,SIFICATIONs RM-120U (FESIDENTIAL, MUT.7'1PL~-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WALVER OF (A) MAXIMUM SUII•DING HEIGHT, (B) MINIMUM k'LOOR AREA, AND (C) MIIdZMUM DISTANCE HE'TWEEN BUILDIlIG9, TO CONSTRUCT AN 86-UNIT APARTMENT COIdPLEX. The subject petitions were continued from t2-:e meeting of June 23, 1975, For the petitioner to submit a soils ~ePort, No one indicdted thefr presence in oppositton to subject petitions. Although the Staff Report to the Plann~.ng C:ommisaion dated July 7, 1975, was nat read at th.e public ;~earing, said Staff ~4eport is raferred to and made a part of the mfnutes. b1r. Fton Comer, t a.ge~t for the petitionar , appeared belore the Planning Cc~nission ar.~l indicated that the soils report had been submiLted to the ~.ity for review. T}^erPUpon, Commissioner Herbst requested to have S~aff •s analysis ~f said report. Asaistant Zoni Supervis~r Allan Paum noted thai: the soils report indicated that the ~+ropoQed development would bA compatiblo £or tl~e ~ubjec~. e. THE PUBL.LC HEAR.ING WAS CLOSED. ~~mmisaionex• Tolar indicatr.d ~:oncarn that the majority of the proposed units mighL• equate to bachelc~r or ainglea-type apartmont3= whereu,p~n, Mr. Car~er stated the proposal was based on their tonant demand in the l~usiness and Lhey did not intend Lor the complex to be for. singlosJ and, further, that cou~les would prol~ably occupy the une-bedroom unita as couples. In respon~e to qiestioning by Commis.r,ioner ~ierbst regardiny svund attenuatian, Nlr . Comer atated they had retained Dr. Juhn H1111ard tu inake the neceasa:y conatruction and engineer- inq recommendationa to meet the minimum HUD requirements for sound attenuatlon, and thut they would atipulate' to ~akinq steps to re3~ce tr~e tioise level generated by the ad jacent fr9eway traffic to 65 dbA in the private re creational-leisure areas of the uziits adjacent to the freeway and to k5 dbA inaide th~ un i ts (wi~h windows and doors cloaed) of said unita, in accordanoe witti the minimum NUD z-equirementa for ~ound~attenuPtion. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTf:~S~ (:IT~' YI.ANNIDIu G(k1~SISSION, ~TUly ~, ;.975 R~CLAS.^,IFTCA'PIOt3 N0. 74 75-42 AN^ '~„RIANCL NO. 7.711 (C~ntinuod) '1ti-37.1. It war~ notod that a lattor. hnd t,enn r.o..~~iv~d from th~ SAntn Ana Rivor/5anti~lyo Creek Graanbalt Co~uniaxion :~ug~~ent.inq that• ar- "c~arthkono, nan-L•ypi.cel" block well k~ c~natructad adjacont to th~ pArk Ail•n to L•he we:+t of ~ubject prnparty, bacau~a of th~ pr.o~os~d ridinq trai.l which wouia r.g within viow of eai9 wall. end, furthe+rmor~, ~hdr i.k might bo Aoxirablo to have plantinq insidc said well whirt~ would bo high on~uqh tn br ~iaiblo irum tho park. Thereupon, Mr. Comer stipulatod to cun~tructing yaid oart'n-toned, nun--typical 6-foot high mASOnry wall along tho w~st proFar.ty i.na, in additi.on to na 6-foot hiyh mr~sonr.y wall along the oAat und south proporty 1~11E'S. Commis3lonor Tolar offered a mot:ior~, secun ted by Commiasi.onax• Herbst :~nd M(YPIUN CARRT~D (Cc~r.unissionc~r Farano Uainy a.bs~nt), Chat the Planning Commieslon recrnnmr_nrls Co the City C~u~cil thst the aubject pro~or_t bcj exempt frcun the requirom~nt L•a Pr~paro an Environ- montal Tmpact Roport, purouat~t to thc provi~ions of the Cal.iforrii.a E:,~vironmentul Quality Act. Commissioner TOLAL offored Resulution No. PC75-144 e.nd moved for its pavsago and adoption, that tl~e Planning Commission doea hereby zeconanend to th~ City C incil that Petition for. ReclaseiPicatiot~ No~ 74-75-42 be approved, subj~cr. to thA 3tipulutioria oE the petitioner and subject to the Intord~partmental Commi.ttee recommandA~iona. (See Ftesolt~tio~ Baok) On roll call, the Eoreg~ing rasolution was passe~i by th fol.lowing vot~: AYES: COMMTSSTONERS: BAFtNES, HERDST, JOHNSON, KING, TOLAR, MORL~Y NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CUMMISSIUN~FS: FARANO Com*~iissioner Tolar offered Resolutior. No. PC75-145 ar~d moved tor ita pas~age and ~option, that Petitior. for Variance 1~~. 2711 be ~nd h::reby is granted, granting waiver of ihe cr.aximum buildir~q height wit}iin ].50 feet of an agricultural ~one on the basis that the adiacent land to trie east and wes~ i~ currently zoned RS-A-43,000, huwever, a commerc:ial (CL) development is panding or~ the ~roperty L-o the eagt and the property ta the west is part of the Santa Ana River/S~.ntiago Creek ~reenbelt Planj granting waiver of the minimum floor area for a mi.aimu.~ flc+or area of 550 square~ feet, as propased, on the basis that the Planning Com~ni.ssian has previously granted. said waiver foi• efficiency (bachel~~r) type units, not to exceed 25+b of the total number of apartmPnt• units; grantiny waiver ~~ the mi~ii-num distance beY.ween buildinqs ~~~~ rti~ l~asis that said waiver pertains t~ only four loeations in th~ pzopoaed develop~r,ent and, furtharmore, that ~ai~i waiver pertains ta bulldinq walls containing mair. entrances opening up on'o patio ~aR; subject L•o the stipulations of the petitioner and suhject Co the Interdnpartm._ .al Committ~e rer.c~mmenda- tions. (SeF~ Resolution Book) On roll call, the toregoing resolution was passed by the £ollowing vcte: AYES; CnNL~:ISSIONFRS: BARNES, F[ERBST~ JOHN~ON, KING, TOLAR, MORLEY NOES: COMMISSICNERS: NONE ABSENZ': COMMISS7~NER~: FARANO CC ITIONAL USR - CONTIL~UED YUBLIC HEARING. KII,ROY INDUSTRIES, 515 South Flower Street, PEFtMIT N0. 1546 Suite 230~. I,os Angeles, Ca. 90071 (Qwner)j FLUOR CORPORATION, c/o R. B. Hwnbert, 2500 South Atlantic aoulevard, Lc~~ Angeles, Ca. 90U40 (Agent)= requesting parmission to ESTABLISH A H!?I,iSTnP on property descri~ad as: An irregularly-shapc:d parcel of land consisting af approximately 10 3cres ~~aving a fr~ntage of approximately 3:'9 feet on the aouth ei~e of T,a Palna Avenue, '~avinq a maximum depth of apprcximately 1175 feet, being locatod appruximately 69Q feet w~e,~ of the centerline of M111er Str~et, and further ~ieacribed as 3340 East La Palma ~venue. Property presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMI~:En) 7.ONE. The subjeck petition was continued Eroxn the meeting of June 23, 1975, pursuant t~ a written regueat by the City of Orange Pl.~nning Co~nisaion. Na ono indicated their preaence in oppoeition tc aubject petition. AlthougY: the Staff Fteport to the Pltsnning Commiasion dated July 7, 1975, was not read at 4.he public hearing. saic Staff Report is referred to and mado a part of the minutes. ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S, CI'I`Y PLANNTNG COMMY55ION, ~T+~ly 7, 1975 ~'i-3z2 CONQ[TIONAL USF, PERMIT NQ. 1546 (C'ontinuorl) 'Ir, itay Woil~r, r~prua~nting tho Fluor. Corporation, the agent for the p~tlttoner, t~ppaared bofore the Pl~nning Commiaeion at-d r~viowad ~ho prop~~al to havo 1 hel.iotop ~~ thA aubject lacution, natinq thet they prefl~nr.ly had a hel.i.xtop ut ~hei.r facility in tha Ciryo uf Commorce nnd tho noise wes noC objecti.onable~ 3nd ihat for the bejnafiC of both tho City of Anahaim and ttio City ~f Orange, they hAd prepar.ec1 a vide~o tmpo t~ domnnstrato t:he noise yenaratad by th~ lending and ~ako-orf of tho heli~optera th~yintended to operate at the subject location. Mr. Weiler guve the videa tapr~ prodontation and lndicat~d the pAak noiee level whe~i landing Hnd take-ofE wauld probably not excc~e~l A6 dbA, with the udjacant froeway noiso boing 80 to B3 dbA. tie stateci the flight pattern would baHically follow tlte~ Rivarsi.de Fr~eway sncY tho Snnta An~i riverbed and the halicopter~s would not fly ov~r t.he adjeoent miniaturo qolf coursot that ~he noiao from *he helicoptors would layt only a few secands per landi:lg/tnke-ofE ~~nd thare would be ~nly a few flighta por dby ta trt-iiapnrt their axeculive peraonnol. THE PUBLIC HEARI*iG WAu CLUSFD. The Pla.,ning Commiasi~n indicated con~.r~rn foi .~ ;~~tenti..~Z traffi.c haznr3 wh.ich mi.yht be crea~ed ~•~ the fliqh~ path and tha hc:li.r~top locatio-i which was cloec to the adj~cen~ ~rc~e- way. I' wa•~ gon~+rally concurrecl that a lettor ~hould be required from thq CaliFornia ti_.~hway Patr.ol prior ta Clt•y Council roview of th~ subject propoeal, eaid l~tter to be fa• .,rat~la and to in~ieate that tiie proposed flight and/or landinq ~~attc~cns would not h~ detrimental or hazardous to the saf.ety of the freeway traffic in the subject area. Mr. Weiler atipu.lated that the aforomentioned letter w~uld be obtained. Discussio:. i,liowed req3rding the propnsed r,~mt,Qr esf flights per day and the txmo of ~ay for said flignts, durinq which Mr. Weiler stipulated ttiat all flighte would occur du~i.ng daylight hours only and thaL- the first flight (landing or take-off) each day would b no earlier than 6:00 a.m., and the last fliqht (lar~ding or take-off) each day would ba no later than 8:00 p.m. Mr. Weiler furthar sti.p~tated that the proporsed h~listop wou'ld not invoJ.ve scheduled service and thc:re would be a maximum of three flighte (landings and take-offs) per day. Ms. Madeline Krpaii, 1127 South Chantilly, An~ahaim, appeared befor9 the Planning Commission and inquired if tYie f.liqht pattern wou:ld be over a:ly homes along the river and freeway, and Nir. Weiler indicated in the negative. Commissioner Johnson offered a motion, seconded by Commission~r Herbst and MOTION CAFt12IED (Commissior~er Faran~ being abaent), that the Planni Commisaion does hereby recommend to the City Council that the subject projoc~ be exempt rom the requirement to prepar.e an Environmental Impact Report, pursua-~t to the provisions o£ the Californ3a Environmental Quality Act, Commissioner Johnsun offered Resolution No. FC75-146 and moved for i.ts pe~sage and adoption, that }?eti.tion for Conditional ;lse Permit No. 1546 be and hereby is granted, surject to the stipulatione of the peti~ioncr, an3 subject to lnterdepartmentr~l Committee recommendations. {gee Resolution Sook) On roll call, the for~yo.tn~ xesolution ~va~ passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs BAItN~;S, :iER6ST, JOHNSON, KING, TOLAR, k10RLEY NOES: COMMISSIONERSt NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIOP~RR.S: FARF\tJ0 RECLASSIFICATIJN - PUBLIC HEARING. NOR'EAST PLA2A, LTD., c/o Mark D. Leff, t~0 El Camino NU, 74-75-41 Drive, Suite 110, Beverly Hills, Ca. 9021Z (Qwner)= BIT.L PHELUS, 1095 Nnrth Main, Suite S, Orar~gc, Ca. y266? (Agent). Pr~per~y deacribed as: TENTATIVE MAP OF An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 16 TRAC'r N0. 8710 acres located nn tiY-e west side of Kraemer Boulevard be*_wePn Crowther ~ Avenue and Oranqethorge Avenue, having approximate fr,ont~sqes of 620 feec on the aouth side of l:rowther Avenue, 160 feet on the weat sid~ of Ks•aemer Houlevard, ar,9 460 feet on the north side oi Or~anqRthorPe Avenue. Property preaent~.y clasaified CL ((,~'~MMERCIAL, LIM3TED) ZONE AND CH (COM[~RCIAL, HEAVY) ZONE. ggQt)ESTED CYASSIFICATION: RM-1200 (RF:SIDENTIAL, MUI.TIPLE-FAMILY) 20NE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: NALL & FOREMI~1~, SNC., 2530 North Grand AvenuP, Santa Ana, Ca. 92701. Subject property is propaeed for subdivision into 7 RM-1200 zoned lots. ~ ~ • MINUTES, CITY PI.«.NNING COMMISSION, July 7, 1975 75-323 RECL.Ac [FICATION ~O. 74-75-41 ANU T6N'1'H'PIVE MAP OF TIil1CT_NU, 9710 (Cont.inuod) Na ono indic+ttud thair prc~senca in appoe~ition to subjr t petitio~iaj howevar, one notiae waa r~ce'~ad in favor of residential dovelopment. Althouqh tho Staff Ropozt ~o tP~e Ylanning ~ummiesion dar_~ec~ July 7, 1~~75, was not rnad ac tho puhlic hear.i.ng, said Stnff Report. ie re£err.ed to ana mrd~ e pe~rt o£ tho minukea. Mr. Wil.liam S. Phdlpa, tlte agent £or the potitioner, appcazod be£oro the Planning Cammi»si.on and reviewed previ:,us ~JxO~GNd18 for devolo~xnent of the subject prop~rty, which included e ragionnl shoppin^ cent~r. He axpl.ainad that the pr.~7porty ownor hed tried to eell tho pxo~t~rty many timea t~ut wnd uneucce~eful becauso ~f the break-up of the proporty. Mr. Pholps t}~on r.~viewe 1 the aurrounding l.nnd ueoe, notir,g ttiaL• the proposal would ecid continuity to tha areaJ that a reqiona] or somi--r~aional :~hopping center would not bc~ a qood uae of thc~ proparty; that t.he proPosal wc~uld have far leas environme~~ta1 impact than a ehopping center; th~~t tio had r4quoated An EIR Nogative DF+rlar.atiot~ sinca he did not ta~l thnt an ~nvi.ronmontal impact report document waa nece~eary for r.his propoaal, o~~~ec{a11y in view of tt~o cost for so.me~ und *hat the subject prn~eri:y was thF last i.n kh~ arna L•u l,a devol~~~ed. THE PUBLTC HEARING WAS CL05ED. Commi.ssioner To1ar r.otc:d that the ~~ropo5al, with approximately .1000 to 1200 additi.onel residonts to be imposed upon tho ctrea, would have n tremendous impact on tho atreets, achools, ind parks in the are~., otc.t and that ho wss~ not in favar of tho propor~al, ospecialLy without an envi~onmental impact report (ETR) to provide aome noodnd information. CoTnmtss.to~cr Harbst added that he was vary famiJ.iar with tha su}~ject praperty and ':he previoLS z~ni.ng actions ~.i,ereon; that he had boqn opi~osed to the CO zoninq ~nd tho proposal for a reg.ional st~oppinq center, sinac~ he had coneidered the property to bo clasaified ML since tt was adjacent to a rai]road and, add;tionally, would create Hound le~v~~l problAma for a residential projaci-; that ne wculd not consider any zoning proposal wf.th~:t ~velo1~- ment plans and would also want t~ know wh~1• was being planned for tlie cottunercial y ~~~c3rty thai: would be> remaining at thls location. Mr.. Phelps respondPd that he co;ld not answer r•garding the remaining commercial portian of the property, however, plans co~td be submitted ~or the 3ubject propoeal; and that the _~bject property would have rw more of a r~uundlevel problam tYian ti~~ adjacent. apartment complex to t}ie we;zt on Orangethorpe. ~_~nnmissioner Herbst then notod r.ha*. he ~•ag appoaed to apartment complexea in industr.ial arr~ because of L•he confli^.t in types af ~raffic= howev~:r, if there was going to be some _, ..,.~~cia] development on part af the ~roperty, the proposal might be considered better planning. He noted that Kraemer Boulevard was a main thoroughf.are into the industrial area, and the *_'lanninq Commission was desirous of 'hav'~g the EIR to diacuas the varioua impacts involv.d with the p•ropo9a]., In response to q~ieqtioning by Cor,ur~ission~ar Johnson, ~~mmissioner Herbst noted t; at the »ubject propcrcy did not have eiiough auri•ounding residential development to support a regiona.l shopp?ng center; whereupon, Commissioner Johnson noted tr~at he was concer.ned that the City might Le blockinq off its perip}~oral 3hopping area p.~te,,t al with the people doing theiz shopQing in the other noighborinq citiess that yi.elcling, aa with the subject propasal, the City might be givir.g up land which could ecome a major shopping center in Anaheim and the City might end u~ with no major shopping .:enter un:le~s it was downtown. C~mmi~sioner H:~rbst added that if the proposed multiple-family cievelopment was colstructed, the residents of 3ame, plus other~ in the area, could possibly suppcrt a local market, but not a r.eyional shopging center. Chairman Pro Tempare Morley noted that he did not wish to saddle che developer with a aomplete EIFt fo.r the propoaal, and only those impacts pertaining to t~~•affic, railroads, noise, and schools would need to be diacu~sed ~n detail; whereupon, Deputy City Attorn~y Frank I.owry concurred that, although the City and State Gu:.delines required that many specifi~ impact ar~as be discussed, it was not necessary to cover them all ir. ,qreat detail, thPrefore, he would go along with Chairman Pro Tempore Morley's suggeation. The Planr. ng Commission entered inta di.scusaion ~~aith Mr. Phe~ps regarding the need for plans o£ the propusal, showinq adequate circulation and the possibility of creating two comp].exes instead of one for a finer pro;ect, in addition to the need for an EIR as previously discussed. Thereup~n, Mr. Phelps requastad that the subject matters be continued for one month to a'llow time for the petitioner to obtain the information 3ought by the Planninq Commi.ssion. Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Comnissior.er Farano beinq abaent), to reopen the psblic hearing and continue cungidera- tion of Petition for Reclassificati~n No. ~4-75-41 and Tentative Map o£ ".ract No. 8710 to the meeting uf Auquat 4, 1975, ~s requested by the petitf~ner. • ~ ~ MTNUTE9, CITY PT.J~NNING CUMMI3SIQN, July 7, 1975 75-~24 RECLASSIFICAT.LON - PUBLIC Hh;ARING. ARD~N D. 9TRAND, 840 Woet Gx'ove Stroot, Oca~ng~, Cn. N0. 75-76-1 92665 (Owner). PropArty dasnribad ns: An irr~yulrrly-:attapod peraol oF land conaieting of approximat.c~ly 1.5 acr~d located ~c tho xouth~+eet VARIANCE NU. 2'718 cornar of Frontera SCrQat nnd Clasnell Str6et, hc.viny 3pproximate ~ frontagea of 320 i!eat on the south eide of Frontvru St:r~ot•. and 177 feot ~n the weet sida of Glassoll Street. Property preaently clveni- fied RS-A-43,000 (RE&ID~;NTIALjACRIG'ULTURN~) 20NE. REQUESTED CL115SIF'ICATION: CL (CUMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONL. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WA7VCR OF (A) MAXT.MUM NUMNER c~F FItEE-STANDING SIGNS, (B) MINIMGM DISTJINCI. HE'1'W~GN FREL-STANDINC SIGNS, ~C) MAXZMUM BUILUING H~IGHT, AND (L) I•2H~QUIRF.D DJA(:K WALL~, TO CONSTRUCT A COliMERCIAL SHOPPING CEN'PI:R. ~~~ ona indicat.~d thoir presence .in oppoaition ho aub~ect petitlons. A1thoUgh the Staff. R~~port to the Plannin~ C~mmiesi.~n dated July '7, 19?5, was not read ah th~ putlic hear~ng, oaid Staff Report is roP.erred ko and made a Fart of the minutea. Mr. Arden D. Strand, tha petitioner, appeare~ beforo the Plsnning Commissic,n to anawor quostions regarding tho propo~al. THE PUBLIC fiEAAING WAS CiOSED. Mr. Robert Johnson appeared before r..he Plannirig Commi~siuii and stated he was preaently in c~scrow to purchase the easterly portion of the ~ubject property, and thf development of the entire property was intended to bQ t.ied toqether visually in that the archi.~ectt~ral style of the ehopping center and mar.ket would be compatible. Mr. Sam Fall..in~ the engineer for the pro~wsal, appeared before the Planning ~ommission and, in response to quostioning by Commis~•ione.r Herbat, s~.ated tne property was propased to be subdividPd into two parcels, however, the devc~lopment of tt~e Qroperty was to oocur simultaneously and, thc~refore, they did not £eel a need for a wall to se~~arate the two par.celsj and that although there were techni.:aliy two applications to develop the entira proparty, the petitioner was desfrou~ of having them considpred as oiie application. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response i:o questioning by Commissioner Tola.r, the peritionr~ stipulated that ane of the two proposed adjoining driveways on Frontera Street w~•~..1 be el~.n~i ated and 'chat one single, shared driveway or access not exceeding 30 feet in width would be constx•xcted t~ serve both parcels from Frontera St.reet, The peL-itioner further stipulated that a mutual inqreas and eqress easement would be filed and recorded in the office of the Orangp County Recor.der for the common driveway access on Frontera Street; and that trash storage areas would be Provided on ix~th parcels in accordance with approved plans on file with the ~ffice of ~he Director of Public Work~. Discunaion pursued reqa~ding th~ proposed signi.ng of the subject property, during which it was pointed out tl~iat since th~ property was to bE: divided into two separate parcels, two signs would be permitt~d as a matter of riqht; however, the sfgn proposed on the wcgterly par~el facing Frontera Street did not comply with the requ3rements tkiat the sign bQ lacated no closer to any property ].irie aF an abutting parcel (other than streets) thaa a di-tance equ~;~ to 40~ of the widti~ of each parael. Yt wae further pointed out that a variance from the siyn_ng requirements was ~etermined to be nec~ssary on the basis that presently thc~ pragerty w.s one parcel and a parc;e'1 map tio subdivide the property had not yet been filed or recordud Commissioner Herbst sugqested tlat the two waivers pErtaining to signa Ue denisd witta the understanding that when the properties closed escrow, the two signs would become legal if the ona eign could be relocated an conior.nance to Code. Thereupari, t~e petitioner stipulated to withdraw t.he requested waivera pertaining to signs, b~,sed on the faregoing. In reaponse to k_~~s~.i.oning by ~he Planning Commiasion, the petitioner stipulatEd to devalop- ing the subject prop,.rty precisely in accorddnco with the au~nitted plans for the proposed commercial shopping center and market. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINLiTEB, CITY PLANNING COMMI33ION, July 7, 1975 75-32~ RF~CLAASIFIC.ATIUN NA. 75-76-1 AND V1 rANCE N0, 2718 (Cantinued) Uiacuselon puraued ragarding ~h• requeated waivar of the rag~iired block wall aci~acent to e residen~.tal zone, as well Ai the Santa l~na Ri.ver/Santiaqo Creek Greanbelt Commise~an'a requdst to construct e~ 6-fook high oerth-tono masonry wall elong tne e~uth propdrty 11ne, 9d.~.C~ wal]. to bo campntiblo with the we11 proj~oac~d tor the adjacant npertme;~t complex to tt,o wer,t, during whieh the petitioner stipulated to constructing said walle alonq the w~et nnd eouth proparty linee~. The pnt:itioner indicated thoy wore seeking to havA tho proporty awnar to tho weet ~articipatu in cnnetructing tho required w~eterly wall anci uie P].annir:c~ Commieaion indicPt•ed th:it the Petitioner would bc:+ requ~lred to aonstruct tllo wall au a conditic~r~ oP approvctl of the aubject pruposal, how~ver, if tho petitianar wae ablo to qet the udjacent property ownor to share in tne cost, tha'~ would be batween the pc~titionor and the adjacent property owna:~. zt was notc~d that if ane of tha rwo parcel.s, fo].i ~wing aubdiviaion, fi.ne~lized the zoninq aho~~t of ttio othar, a wall would La caquired l~tw~~on the *wo par~els~ whereupon, tha Pla-nnin~t Cornmiasion oncouraged and emphaaized that tim! ny for the finalizat ion of zoning would be esse~~tial in that respect. Thereupon, the peti.tionar atipulated to finalizing the CL zoning on both parcels coneurren+:J.y. Commisaioner lierbst offared 'a m~tion~ aeconded by Cummissioner Tolar. and MC~TION CAR.°.IED (Commissioner Farano being absent), `:hat the Planning Conm-tsaion does hereb.y recommor,.l t~ the City Council that the aubject F•~o;ect be exempt from the requisement to prepare an Environmen~al Impact F~port, pursur~r~ tu the ~rovisions of the Californiu Environmental Quality Act•. Cammissionar Herb~t offezed Resolt~ti.on No. PC75-147 and moved £or its passago and adoption, that the Planninq Commission does hereby reco~mnend to the City Counc:~l that Petition for Rocla~-~ification No, 75-76-1 be approved, subject to the stipulationA of the petitioner an~ ~.~ject to ~he Interdepar*mental committee recommendations. (See Res~luti.on Book) n rnll ca].1, the forego:ig r~solution wae passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNESo HEP.I3ST, ,.TOHNSON, KING, T07~AR, MORT,EY NUES: COMMISSIONEFLS: NONE ABSEI~T: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO Commissioner Herbst offered Re4olut ~n No. PC7S--].48 and moved f~r its tiagsage and adoption, that Petition for Variance Na. 2718 be and hereby ts granted, tn par', fince the petitionor stipulated to wi~'~raw the requested waivers of the ~naximum number ~~ ~ree-standing signs, minimum distanc~ bu~ween free-standing signs and required block wall to construct a commor- cial shopping center, granting the requested wziver of thc~ maximum building height on the basis tk~at the adjacent land to the west and south is curreiitly zoned RS-~-93,000 and County A1, however, a multiple-family development is pending on the property to the west an3 the property to the soutli is part of the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plans subject to the stipulat3ons of the petitioner an~i sub~ect to the "nterdepartm~atal Com[nittee recommendations, (See Resolution B~:ok) On roll call, the foregoing r.esoluticn was passed by the following vote: AYES: CUMMISSIONERSt BARNES, HERBST, JOHNSON, KING, TOLAR, MORL/EY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIOP~ERS: FARANO CONDITiONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. 4TLANTIC RICHFiBLD COMPANY, 3580 Wilshire Boule~~ard, PERMIT N0. 1549 Los Angeles, Ca. 90~~10 (O~,,mer)j PUP N' TACO DRIVE-UF, cfo Russell C. ~ Wendell, 4220 I.~ong Beac:h 9oulevard, M281, ipng Beach, Ca. 90807 (AgenL•)= requeating per~ei.ssion to ESTABLISH A DRIVE-iJP RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER ~F MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described as: A recta~•qularly-shaped parcel of land conaiating of approx~.mately 0.4 acre located at the northQast corner of Ball Road and Knott Street, havinq approximate frontages of 125 f~~et on the narth side of Ball Road and 125 feet on ::he east side ot Knott Street. Property preaently clasaified :.L (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) 20NE. No one indicated their preseneo in oppositioT~ to aubject petition. Although the Staff Repurt to the Planning Commission dated Julf 7, 1975, was not rcad st ~h~ public hearing, said 5taff Report is referred to and made a par~ of the minutes. ~ ..~.. ~ MTNUTE3, CITY PIJINNING COMMI83ION, July 7, 1975 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1S49 (Continued) ^~ ~ ^5-326 Mr. Ru~aell Wend~+ll, re,preeenting the ngent for t.h4 petitioner, appeared berore the Planniny Commioeion to anewar quoatione regarding the propasal and took exc:eption to page 5-b, paragraph ].S of tt~e Staff Report, noti•ig that the propoadl wae in excees oP the minimum r~quirem~nt for rho vchicle accc~GSwaya for 90-degreo parking epacos. THE PUaI,IC HEARING WAS CIAS~U. The Planning Commiaeion entAred into disauseion with the petitioner and Statt rogsr.ding t.ho proposed turninq cadius, durinq which it waa clarifio4 that the submitted p:an~ i.nc~.i- catr_d a minimum uf 25-foot, 9°incl~ accasawaye f~r Yhc 4 parking cpaces in question. Discusaion pursuod rogarding thn drtveway9 prc~~~~~~~ or~ Knott Streot, uuring whicli the petitioner indicated they wore pr.opoaing to re~oca~,.e the moat southorly dri~,.way and ~~tilize it for eyress only, which they felt wo~ald be aaFe~ however, that driveway coul~i ;ilso be For right turn~ ~~rily. It was notad that the City Traffic Engineor h~.l indicated t-he referenoed driveway was uneatisfar.tory einoe ih was hazardous, especiall}~ if left turns wer~ allowed on~o Knott Straetj whereu~un, tha potitioner stipulat~d aaid drivoway would be for right turns ~nly. Further discu~sion was hetd, durir • which the ~etiti.on4r stipulatad ta elimiriating tha most southorly ivewuy on cho easc vide of Knott Street: and the ~~~aterly driveway on Ball Rr~ad, w~ th the Yruvlr~Ion tha:: the c~ortherly driveway on Kno~t Street would be widenAd to a maximu«< of 30 feet. Ttie Planning Commiasion g9nerally concurred that tho location of the remaininq driveway on Rnott Street would be subject to the apl ~oval of thc~ City Traffic Fnqineer and, further that the rQmoved ~iriveways woutd be required to be rep2acad with standard ~urb, gutter an~: sidewalk and tlio proposed on-- site landxoapi:~g would b~ extondcd acrosa said re~laced clri.veways. It was noted that tha Director oP the Dev~lopment Services Department har~ determined h.hat tk~e proposed activity f~ll wi~hin the definition ..c Section 3.01, C1asF .i, oF the C.ity of Anahaim Guidelinea to tiie Requirements f.or ari Environmental Impact Rep~r.t and was, there~ fore, categorically exempt from the requi.remen~ to flle an ~IR. Commissioner Kinq offe~~d Resolution No. 1~C75-149 and moved for ita pa:~sage and adoption, L•hat Petition for Co~iditi~nal Use Permit No. 1549 be and her.eb_~ is granted, grantin~ the requested wa~ver of the minimum number of I~arking spaces on the basiQ t:~at the request is minimal for the uae, as pXOposad; 3UDjGCC to the atipulations of the getitioner and the Foregoing findingt~; and subject to the Interdepartmen~al CommitteF• re~ommendations. (See Resolution Baok) On roll call, the fc~regoing resolut»n was paased by k~. £ollowing v.~te: AY~5: COMMISSTOIVEIiS: BARNES, HERB,,'P, JnI3NSON, KI1~G, TOLAR, MORLEY NOES: COMMISSIUNERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO RECESS ~ At 3:15 p.m., Chairman Pro Tem~ore Morley 3eclarad a rece3s. FtECONVENE - At 3:25 p,m., Chairm~n Pro TempAre Morley reconvened the meeCing, Commissioner Fc~rano being absent. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBL7C HEA.RING. ROBERT MILLEF., 1530 South Harbor Bouleve_rd, Anaheim, PER~KIT NO. 1550 Ca. 928Q2 (Owner); LUCILLE VOC:, 1755 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92801 (Agent); requesti~g permj.ssion to have ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN c~XISTIt3G RL:S'PAJRANT on property describQd as : A rectanqulaxly- shaped parcel of la~d :unsisting of approximately 0.4 acre having a irontage of approxima'tely 125 feet on the narth side of La Palma Avenue, havinq a maximum depth of approxim~tely 134 feet, and bQ.tng located approximately 650 feet west of the centerline oP Euclid Street. Pro~erty preaontly classified CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. No one indicated their ~roaence in oppositi.on ~:o subject petition. Al~houqh the Staff Ropo.ct to the Planning Commission dated Jixly 7, 1975, was not reaa at the pui~lic hearing, saic`t St~.ff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. M5. :.ucille Voqt, tho agent for the petiti~~ner, appeared before t.ne Planning Commiasion to answer queation:~ reqerding the proposal, ing that ahe did not undera~and why buildi.nq permits would t,e r9quired for an exiating ._:staurant. --.,~- ~ ~ ~ MINUTFS, CiTY PLANNiNr, COMM1S:;iON, .7uly 7, 1975 ~5-32~ CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT KU. 1550 (Continued) THE P[JBLIC f[EARING WAS CIASGD. 7.aning Supervisor Annikn Snntalahti noted f~~r t.he potit:ioner• ~h~t since buildi-~q permite w~ro not taken aut l~y Cha proviou~ owner, a bu~.ldiny inepection had not bciem m~cin on the chnngas to ~he atructur~ and, +-~uL~iare, an inrspecti.on was ~tiece~r~eary ar~ p~rt oP the applicat.ion present.ly beforc t:1H Planning Com~~~it~:3.lon. Dc~puty City Ar•Lornay Frank Lowry noted t.hat if thQ subj~ct con~if.tiona] use ~~e:-mit wnr~ ~yrentad, it wou1~ be sub3act to buildiny >»rmits and inepe~tione and wo«ld also be raquirvd Lo comply w~th the requira- menC+~ of th~, c~range Coun~y Health Uepartme~it. In reanonse to queetioninq by ttie i'lanning Commiseic~n, Ma. Voyt atate,d she had occupied the x•astaur;uit for ~3pprox.i.matFly ono and ane-half yenr.s and ehe stipulatRd that the exiAting illegal raof. eign wu~~].c~ be r~muved irmn~~~i~3tely t.f lt was not already removed. The Plar.niny Commi~5lon enterec3 iiito di~cussion regardinq the r~quirement for dedi.r.ation in connection with stzae~ widenin~i and also for t'~e ~ayment of. street tree feos, during which tho Planninq Commi.saion genar.ally conciirred th~t since the auhject rr~~taurant wae located within an exis~iny ahoppiny centc~r and tt-e applicant did nnt own tho propcrty, said requiremai~ts ahould be bar~ocl on the businese itaolf and, therefore, those itame ahould not be raquired at this time. Conunissioner HerLsL ~:l.ari.ficd that thc sut~jeet restaurant• was an oxisting Liisi~ess ~~i~hin an existing shopping center whioh was pr.obr~bly constructed prior t~ the need for the widening of the street, but neverthe].ess the tenr~nt's applioa~i.on shou].d not ba sub~ect t.o a r~quirement that was rightfully the obligati.on o~ the pr~perty owner. It was noted that t)ze Director. of the Developmc~nt Services Aapartment had determined that the proposed activity fell within the defi.nii.io-, of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Ana*-eim Guidelines to the Requir~mants far an Er.vironmental Impact Report and was, there- foi•e, categurically exemy~,t from the rea~xirement tu prepare an EIR. Commissioner King ~ffered Resolution No. PC75-].SO nnd moved for its passage and adoption, that Petition for Conditional ilse Permit No. 1SSU be a»d hereby is granted, gub~::c~~ to thc condition that the exiating illeqal rooi' s~.gn on ttiA subject p<operty shall be removed immediately, as stipulated t~ bf the petitioner; that plana 9}ldll ~ submi.ttad to the Building Division showina compiiance wikh the minimum standards of the City of Ar.a;ieim, including ~he Uniform Building, P1umUing, Electrical, Housing, Mechan~cal an~ Fire Cc~des, as adopt.ed by the CitX of Ana'~eisn, witli the appr.opriate perm.its to be oh::ained for any necessary work, said r.ondition t•~ be complied with within a period of 60 days; t?~at ~he use sh;.ll comply with the requ~:ements of the Orange County Health Depart_ment; and the subjeat prop~rty shall be developed yubstantially in accor3ance wihli pl:~ns and ~pecifi- cations on file with the City of Anaheim maY~ced 13xhibit Nos. 1-~nd 2, (Se~ ' s.lution 13ook) . On r.oll call, the foregoinc cesolution was passPd by the following vote: Ai~S: COMMISSIONERS: BAI2I3c,S, HERAST, JOHNSON, KING, TOL?1R, MORLEY NOES : COMMISSIO'.dl.,t2S : NONE pgS~NT: COMMISSIONEkS; FARANO c:ONDITI0N1~~ USE - PUBLIC 6EARING. TUNS'CALL FF+MILY TxUST, c/o Gharl~s ^.unstall, 17071 PER1'"'T Na. 1551 Magnolia Avenue, Founrain Va~]~y, Ca. 9270R (OHr.e:r); DON J. CARSQN, ~ 18212 Rainier Drive, ,ian~a An~, Ca. 927Q5 and F~WARD JOFFE, 3707 Sea Cliff, Fountain Valley, ~a 92704 ar~: Rabert Ar:3erbon, 704 Monros Way, Placentia, Ca. 92670 (Agenta)j requesting pemiission Lo ESTABY,ISIi A CO:QTRACTOR'S STORAGE yARD WITH WAIVER OF' MIN~MUM S~'lBACY. LPi1DSCAPING on prop~rty described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of lanu consisting of approximately 4.3 acres tocated at the southeast corner of i,a Jolla Street and Red c'~n Street, ~evino approxi.mate ~rontages of ~98 feet. on the south side of La Jolla Stree~ and 626 feet or t;he east side of Red Gum Street. Property presently classifi .d ML (INDUSTkIAL, L?MITED) 2u:'F~. No one indicateri the~r presen~co in opposition to subject petition, however, one letter wea received from Cannon Conatruction Canpany expr.ess~ng opnoaition to the requested waivar of the min9.mum se~.back lanc3e:Aning, with a suggestio. thar a 6-foot high solid maeonry wall be required for any ty~_ of oxterioz storuqe of the type n~rmally as,sociated with a "contractur's storaqe ~ .•d." r • ~ • M2NUrE3, CiTY PI~ANNING COMtCSSION, July 7, 1975 CONDITTONAL USE PEItMTT NO. 1~'~1 (Continuc~d) ~ ~ 75-328 Mx.~ Don Cnreon, xn agent t.oY ths petitioner, appeared bef:oru the P'lnnnirn~ Commission anc3 statoa they wero roquest.iig r.hat tho waiver of. h~o lundsc~pin~ along Rod G~m 5treet bo a temporary waiver ainco ~h,~y would preeently al.l~!w for the setback `~ut ~~~~uld like to wdit to install tha landscaping wllan Red Gum Stre~~t wae Lully clevelopod~ that the area had bc~an uti.lizinq elatt.ed r~dwoocl fences which look~d at~r.activo and eaid Penca matarir~l wou.l~i lo~d itsalf La removal when the adjacent propQrtiea developed~ and kh:~' t~o woulc'.~••+stion tho need Eor aidewalks si~ico tha area was not pedoetrian~oriont.ed. Tk1E PUSLIC NEAkt1NG WAS CLOaED. C~mmisaioner Tolar noted that he did not envieion a hardship with rer~~~oct to the landeaap- iny and the City wad looking ~o khe subjact area for somo good dovelopmentt that the landscaping was very import+xnt to onhanca not. only the subject x~roperty but al.so the areaj and tt•iat tho Planning Commission did not wish to maka an excep~iun with reapocY. to 3aid lanascaping. Mr. Car3on indicated hhet hQ agre~d that the landscapiny wauld mako a~visual imF~rc.~remflnt. to the araa and good landscapiny would b~ neceosary in the fut~ure, however, pr~~e7tly no one o~her than the agr~cu'~ural wor.kers trev~lod d~wn Rod Gum Sk.reet. F•trther d.is~:usaion pursued regarding the raquire3 landacaping, dur.ing which the planning Co~~m~..saion ganerally concurred that no axception ahould be m.ie and, t}iereupon, Mr. Caraon withdrew L-ha :equcst f~r t-h~ waiver with the stioulRtion that the pro~ect would comply with the sit~ development standards of thtl MI, Zc,ne. In re:~ponso to questioning regarding relief frum t;-e sidewalk requiremenh, Office Engineer .1ay 1'itu~ advisod that Staff's Auggeetion wou13 be that thp recommendation as set forCh in rhe :;~aff. Report be imposed and then if the owner had a valid point in that there was na immediate tieed for sidewalks, a requ~~t for waiver aould b9 made to the City Engineer wha could grant a revocable waiver so that in tl:e future if conditions uhanged, said wai.v~r could be revoked and sidewalks requi.red at that time. Tn rasponse to questioning by Commissioner H~~~' constz'uction material or. other' materials st: nr~~poaea 6-foot high chainlink fence which w~. cedar slats. ~:arsun stipulated there w~uld be no ~ r.hey would be visible above the ;srd to be interwoven with redwood or It was noted that the Direct~r c~f tha Development Servi.ces Dppartment nad det~rmined that t ~~roposed activity fel~ within the definition uf Section 3.01, Class 1, oi h.ne c:ity of Anaheim Guidelines ta the Requirements for ar ~..:'_ronmental Impact Rep~'~rt and was, there- for.'e, categorically exempt £rom the requirement to file an ETR. Commissioner 7'olar. offered Resoiution No. FC'lS-151 and mov~ed for its p~~saye and adoption, that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1551 be az-d hereby is granted, in part, since the requested waiver o£ the minimum setback landscaping was wi~hdrawn by the peti.tionc:r; subject to the st;ipulations of the petit3.oner and subject to condition3. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolutiot~ was passecl by the follow~ing vote: AYESt COM[dI5SICNEP3: BAF~~~S, Y.r^.RBST, ~OHNSON, KING, TOLAR, MORr,~.i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONL. ABSEN`r; COrSMISSIONERS: FAR.F.~O VARIAVC~ NO. 1713 - PUBLIC HEARING. GRANT O. AND ALBEFYI~A G. HQOD, 4'l9 South Camellia Street, Anahei.m, Ca. 92804 (Owner~); requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK TO PERMI^ A HOUSE ADDITION on property described as: A rectangilarly-shaped parcel of lan3 consistiag of approximately Q.2 acre having a frontage of anproximately 73 feet on the west side of C.unellia Street, havinq a maximum depth of approximately 105 feet, being located approximately 250 feet north of the cent -line of Willow pvenue, ~r-d further described as 429 Sout:~ Camel.lia Street. Property presently r,lassified RS-'1200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. No one indicated thexr presancE ~.n oppasition to subject petition. Altrough the Staff ~port to the Planninq Commission dated July 7, 1975, was not read 2t the public hsaring, sai3 Staff Report is referred to and ma~ie a par~t of the minutea. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTGS, C:ITY PI~AhNtNG COMMISSIQN, July 7, 1975 ~•`~"329 VARIANCE ~JO. 2713 (Continuad) Mr. Grant 0. Hood, tho petitionor, eppee.r~d ba£ora the F.lnnni.ng Commisaion to anowor queationa rayarding t:ha propusa'l. THB PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In reaponse to questioninq by tho Planning Comn-ie£ion, Mz. Hoc~d ~tn~.ed the home wae purchased i7 May of thie year and the addition w~~- already on at thnt timej that in the edcrow they had roque.eted to havo thn building p~rmita for the r.oom additi~n and the s~llera werQ unable to providA same, sii-ue aaid room add.ition waH illeqally conatr~~cted and was 14 incheR cloaer to the proparty lino than wa~, ~~ermitted by C.ity Codet that the City I~ispactor had b~en out to adviae what had t~ be d~ne ':o brinq the etructur.e up to Code, howa~ar, prior to any building permita beic-y issudd, L•hc~y were reqiiired to have x variance for thp minimum rear yard setback requi.r.amUnt, fc.lowing which they would be will- ing to comply ~rith the applicable building roc3es and obtain thc~ nPC:oaeary pormits. Zoninq Supervisor Annika Santalahti notad th~t if the P1lnninq Commisaion wag favorat~ly cat-sidering tho subject varianc:e, a condi.tian oE a~proval sl~,~ .ld bo adde~ to th~ae pre- sented in the Staif Repor,:, "That plans ahall be sixbmltted to tho nt~ilding Divi.Rion showing compliance with tha minimum standards of' the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Buildiny, Plumbinq, Flectrical, Housiny, Mechanical. an~i Fi.re Code~, as adopte~ by tho City of Anahoim; and the sppxap.riate permit~ shall b~ obtained fur :r•~ neces~ary ~aork." It was noted that the nirector of the Dczvelopment service~ Departmont had determined t}iat: the proposed activity fell withir the definition af Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City af .Anaheim Gui3elines t~ t.he Iteq~tirements for an Environmantal Impact Report and was, there- fore, categorically exempt f.rom the requirement tc~ file an FIR Commissioner Kir-g offered Resolution No. PC75-152 and moved Fc,r its passage anc. adoption, that Petition for Varianoe PIo. 2713 be and horaby is granted, on the hasis that if the petitioner had t~ remove 18 inches Prost- the existing illeqal structure in order to mECt the l0-f.oot setback requiremer.t, a hardship ~rou].d be created and, additionally, the r.equest is minii~i~i1; subaect to the foregoi.ng condition and subject to the Tnterdepartmentai Committee recommendatians. (See Resolution 8ook) On roll call, tk-e for.egoing re~olution was passe~ by the following vote: AYES: COMMIS IONEIZS: BAFNES, HERBST, JOt;'JSON, KING, TOLAI2, MORLEY NQES: COMMISSIONEAS: NONE ABSEt~'1': CUMMISSIONERS: FARADIO VARiANCE NO. ?.714 - PUIILI(; HEARING. MARTHA BIRCHER, 311 Rirr.her Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92801. ~ (Owner); WALTER THORNTON, a/o Tic Toc Systems, Inc., 2588 Newport Bouievard, Costa Mesa, (:a. 9262'1 (Agent); requesting WAIVE:R OF (A) P~RMITTED ACCESSI~RY USES, (B) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, (C) MINTMUM BUII.DING SETBACK, (D) MINIMUM FRONTAG~ LANDSCAPING, AND (~,) MINIMi3M NUMBER OF Pl-1RICING SFACES, `i`0 ESTAL4LISN A SELP'-SERVICr GASOLINE PUMP AT AN EXISTING TIC TOc' MARKET. Property presently classifi~d RS-A-~3,0, J (RESIDE:iVTIAL/AGRICULTURAI,) 20NE. No one ind~cai:ed their presenee in opposition to s>>~~jecr_ petition; howev~r, it was nated that a letter was received from Mace E. Taylor, a property owner ~r, the area, in opposition to the nroposed variance on the basis that "without the removal of present paricing, there is adequate space for the:ir curreiit operation without attempting to use an already over- crowded area fur an additional function." Althouqh the Staff Report to the Planning Commi~•,ion dated July 7, 1975, was not read at the pub'ic hear9.ng, said Staff Report is referred to and made a gart of the minutes. Mr. Larry Wasserman, representing Tic Toc Markets, San Dieqo, appeared before the Planninq Coi~nission and reviewed the number of Zic roc Markets in operation, ~tatinq that the subject market was veiy i~arginal and the corporation was seeking to upgrade i.ts economical statuE; that the market was con~tructed prior to annexdtion of the proper.ty to the Citys that the property owner to the south was agreeable to leasing additional. property to be utilizad far 5 additional parking spaces in connection wit.h t11E propesed expansion~ ~'~at the corPora~ion was presently operating approximately 4G stores (U-Tot-IIn) in the City o£ s ~.,. S MINUTES ~ CITY PI.J~NNING COMM7:SSI(. ,:1uly 7, 1975 VAR1 : N7. 2714 (Continued) n^~~ ~ 75•• 3.i0 San Ulego, G having gas pixmpet tt~at the gne~lina Her _..a did n~t include wat•er, air ~~r oChar auComotivc~ ~~+rvicesT that, in fact, tha oparntion did nor fdll ~irider any FrQCise doPinition as eet f.arth iti thc~ ordinanccr~~ and thak, since L•hc qaeoline oieration wRa not undor suporvision, tha pri.ce was lese~ thr~n at a regular ApYV~CB stakion. TIiR PUHLIG HF.ARING WAS CLOSED. In rc+sponae to quostioniny by C:iai.rman Pro Temp~ri :torley, Mr. Wasserman ytate~ tho builc2- ing on tho eouth would not be ramoved, b~;t would be confinQd to r.esidential use at the pres9nt. timu. Commiseioner (iorbat noted that five wai~ars f.rom the Code wor~ being reque3tc~:i a7d the hardship +~opoa:ed to l:,e based e~tirely on economics, which the Nianniny Commiasion wua nct allowed to r.onaid~r; that:, in tho past, the Comm~esion had categorl.c~l.ly denied ze~~~ioata to huv~ gasoli~~o sal.e,i in coujunet.t~n with eonvenie,~ce markots, on the bas~.s that, i£ allowed, tlio ~omml~sior wo~.lci the~ Y,e obliqed to allow aervice stations to sal.l E~odt and, furthermoY•e, grantisay ~f th~ waivezs would be ~etting sn undesirabLe precedent f.or future aimilar reque~'a. c'ommis~ioner Herbst further noted that thls Zpp].ication wa3 the worat receiver3 so f. . wit;, ::• -p~ct to accessibili.ty of parking. Commiosi.onei Tal.a:° added that i.t appeared ttta subject property wa:+ already uverbuilt~ aiia that he cuul~l v3.sualize real pr.oblems relatQd to tho accE4aibility of parking for tt-~ exis~ing use ~f the property, and t:a grant the suhject pPtition woiil3 be making the situation worse. Mr, ha3serman i.~9lcated thai: hy cli.minating 2 of the existing parking spaces adjacent to the pro~wsed gasoline pump and hy acquiring the 5 spa~es or, the adjacent proper.ty, tha sit»ation wo~~.d be impr.ov~d; wherc~upan, Chuirmin Pro Temp~~re Morley took e~cception, notir~g that the 5 au.~itional parking spaces were inconver~ient since th~y were not ~•ery accesaible and probab~y ~.,rould not be uti tized by the cu~tomers. N'ir'. Wasgerman then r~tat.ed the proposad use st ChQ subject locatiot~ u~-ulr; not require many parking spaces; whereupoti, Commissioner Herbst noted that rhe prop~:r~.y was overbu3lt ~riqinally, whi2s it was s*_i.1.1 in the Cuunty; and tha~ r.he required parkiny was for 16 s~~t~cea, wiY.h only 7 being proposed. Commissioner Herbst affered a motion, seconded by Commisaione.r King and MOTION CARRIED (Commi.ssioner Farano being absent), tnat the Planning Commission .recommends to the City Council that the subject project be exem~t fr~m the require-,~ent to pr.epare an Envirun- mental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of. the California Environmente,l ~uzlity Ar. t . Commissioner Herbst offer~d Resolution No. PC75-153 and moved for. i.ts pa5sage and adoptiQn, that Petition for Vari .ice No. 271.4 be and hereb~~ is der.ied on the b~~is that the subject property is pres~n~ly ~verbv.ilt; the existing and proposed parking is inadequate and a11 the propc~sed parking ~paces ~re not fully accessib!es the proposed use wo~xld set an unde~ir-- able precedent for .f.turp similar requeats; and, furthermore, if. gasoline sales were permittad in cunjunc:~on with convenier,ce food ^~arkets, food sales might be entitled ~o be permitted in conjun tion with service stations, also. (See Resolution book) On roYl call, the foregoing resolution wa~ passed by ti-e £ollowing vote: AY~S: COMMISSIONFRS: BARNES, HERHS'P, JOHNSON, KING, TOLAR, MORLEY NpES: COMMISSIONEItS: NONF ABSENTt COMMISSION~RS; FARANO VARIANC~' N0. 2715 - P(1BLZC HEARING. JAM'.3 VERNON HOOPS, 1101 Ki.ngs C~ :.-.le, Anaheim, Ca. ^ 92805 (Owrier. ); requ~ sting WA.T.VER Ok` MAXIMUM SITE _OVERAGE TO CON£TRUCT A~AMILX ROOM A1~~ITI~N on nropPrty c~escribei, as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land con9isting of approrimatel;~ 0.1"l acre ha~~ing a fronta~e oE approximate].y 38 feet on the west side of Kings Circle, having a maximum depth of ap}~~oximately 94 feet~ and being locat~d approximately 110 feet nor~h ~f the centerline of Clif,~ark Way. Pro~erty presently clas~iEied RS-5~0~ (It~SIDENTIAL, SINGLE-I'nMILY) ZONE. Na one tndicated their presence in opposition to subj~sct getition. Althouqit the 5taff Report to the nlannitig Commission dated :ruly 7, 1975, was not r.ead at the pubiic hea~ri.ng, said Staf:f Rerort is rePerred to and made a part of the minutes. ~ ~ . MtNUTE5, CTTY PL,ANNING C~' 1MISS.ION, Jul.~~ 7, ].9%5 75-331 VAkIANCE N0. 2715 (C:antinuod) Mr. Jamoe No~~ps, tha patitioner, appearc~d be£orQ the Plann.fny CCMIIII~.ABiC~R ta anawor quoshion:~ ragarding the, p•ropoenl., etating itiat. tho ~r.o~c.sod fxmily r~om ac3dition wou.ld nc~t be visiblo from the~ front ot tho ;~roperty. THF, PUBLIC HF.ARIt~G WAS CL?SED. In responeo to quc~stioniny by tho Plunr~iny c:un+mit•Sion NL. lioc~pa atnL•ed the frnnily r.oom addiLion wae no~ded sinc~~ ha had a family of ~ix lx~~ , that tho addition woul.d a.lao increase tho Hizr: of ~:helr oxiyting 3ininy ~:ooml that hu 1-HC9 c:nneidorNd purchasing a largor hame, rather than building onto thc~ subj~cC humo, howovc~r, th~ Yrice of homae prohibitod ;~~ fr.um doing so~ that thc~ other homc~s in tho aroa were on lc~rgc;r lots and had ma~it simi.lar rvom aciditionsl that the r~om r~ddition would bring his t:otal tloor area to approximately 17A0 squaro foc~t and they wou.ld 3till. hflve a Lair. size roar yar.d~ that they did not propos<; ta have a fireplace in the ro~m additiuni that a mintmum 5-tioot sPtnack along th~ roar. and sidc~ yards would be ~'trictly adhor.Ad to~ and that ther.e woulri be no noise problem from thc us~ ~f the room. IL• was noted that the Aireator of the Development Services Departm~nt hacl detormined that t.h~ pr.oposed ~ct.ivil•y fell within thc~ definition of Section 3.01, Class ]., of the City ot 1U~ai,~im uuiaeiin~~ ~o t.h~ Requlrt+ments t'uz an Envirunmental Zmpact l1e~~ort ~1n~7 was, there- fore, cateuorica].ly c~xompt fro.n the requirement to file~ an ETR• Commis!~ioner :Iohnaon nffered Resol.uti~n No. PC75•~154 and mo:~eci for its passage and adop- tion, that Petition for Variance N~. 2715 be and hereby is granted on the basi:. that the peti'.i~ner drmonstr.ateel a hard4hi.p would be createci if sai.d waiver were noC granted, ~l.nce the subjc~ct prcper~y has an unusual shape and other lcts in the suuject tract with larger lot aze~s have m.3de similar. room additi~ns; and, additionally, the subje~t proposal c9os~` riot encroach into any of the r.equired ~Vtbacks or ea~etnantst subject to conditi.ons. Reaoluti~n Book) Gn r.oll call, the faregoing r.esolution was passed by the following •vote: AYES: COMP1I:tiI0NERa: BARNGS, IiERI3ST, JQHNSON, KING, TOT,AR, blOR~.EY N0~3: COMMISSf.ONERS: NUNE ABSENT: COhIAtISSlU'NERS: PARANO VARIP:+CE iJO. 2716 - PUBLIC HEARING. WII~LInNI L. AND MARX L. TOWNS~tvD, 601 Po.rto Place, Anaheim, Ca, 92802 (Owncr.,); requestinq WAIVER ~F MINIMUM REAR YARD SCTBACK, 'i`c` CONSTRL'CT A ROOM ADDITION on propexty described as: An irr.egularly-shapPd p~rc~'_ oP land consisti ~ of. approximatFly ~.15 acre haviny a i'r~ntage of ap~.roximately 79 feet on the nox'thwest ~ide of Porta Flr,c:e, haviny a maximum deptti of apF.'oximately 127 feet, and being located approximately 459 feet north of the centerline of. Apollo Hvernie. Pr.~oporty presently alassified RS-7200 (RESTDF.NTIAL, SINGI,F:-FAMIT~Y) ZONE. No or.e indicated their presenae in opposition to 3~.~bject petiti~c~. Although the Staf£ Report to tlze Flaiining C~mmission dated July 7, 1975, was not redd at the public hearing, said Staff. Report is referre~ to and made a pa~-t of the minutes. Mx, William L. Townsend, the petitioner, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated the subject lot was tha smatlest in the neigl..-~rH-~d; that they h~d a good .relat~on- ship with the ~eighborhood and their neigh}~ors to the rear, who h~d the largest rear yard ~rottnd, was in agreement with the proposal. THE pL1BT,Ir FIGARING WAS CLOSEB. It was noted t.hat t'.:~ Director of tt-e Development ^ervices Depart:ment had determined that the proposed a~tivi`y .°ell within the definition ~.. Section 3.01, Cias~ 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impa~t Report r.nd was, there- fore, categorically exempt fram the raqui_rsment to file an EIR. Commi~sioner tierbst offered Rasoltition NO. PC75-]5~ and mc•-e:~ fc,r its passage and adoption, that Peti'.•ion fo.r Vaciance No. 2716 be and hereby is granted on the basis that the subject propF.:ty i,~ locatec~ on a cul-de-sac and i~ irreguJ.arly shaper~j and tiiat equal usable open spacs is available elsewhere in the rear and side yard~ of the subject nroperY.y; subje~t to IntF,.rdepartmenta~ CommitteE recommendations. (5ee Reaoltition Aook) On roll ~;-1.', rhe foreg~ing resolution was passed by the following vote: P.yEat COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HF:RBST, JOHNSON, KIIJG, TOLAR, MORLEY NOES: ".~MMISSInNERS: NONE ABSENTs C7L~RdISSIONERS: FARANO • wviw^i^r .~~~ s ~ MINL"^R5 r CITY 1'LS1N.11.NG C'(X"1MjSSION ~ Jlll~l 7~ 1975 75-332 VARIANCE N0. 2717 - PUDL~IC ~tE~1RING. BRW14iUR5T APARTMENT FUNn, LTU. , 1620'i Caa t Whittier ^ ~ Boulevard, Wliittier, C:a, 90G03 (C~wT~t~r) J ARTHU~t RUALAFF' ~ C~J• OF CALIFORNIIA, c/o Mlch~el Patl~.k, 600 South Commonkualkh AvenuFi, i,os Angeles, ~:~. 90Q05 (AgAnt) t Laquesting WAZVER OF PERM7'I"I'ED SYGNS 9`0 PERMIT FIVE 1PI,RC5 AND ~NE BANNF.R on property doecribed ae t A roctengi~larly •sh~~>n~ p~r.cc~l oP, land cona:lnting of appr.~ximately 13 acrus locatrd at the eou~heu~t ec~rner of Crc~scent Avc,nuc~ and Valloy Streset, heving c~pproximataly franCages of 940 f~~t un th~ eauth aidc ~~f. :ruecent Averaie and 605 feqt on the paet aide of Vall~y ~tr.ec~t. Property presc~ntly cl.acj:~.i£.i~~d RM-120U (RESIUENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) LONi;. No ono indicaCed their. preso~~ae in oppositfcn to sub~ec~ pet•Lti.on. Although the 5taff Rapot•ti to tha Pl.ann~ng Commission dated Ju]y 7, 1975, wa~s no~t ruad at tha public hearfny, said St.aff Raport ~e r.~f.erred to ~;nd madc~ a pt+rt of the minutoA. Mr. Howard Weinstoin, reprasen~inq the Agon* for the p~tiCiot~er, rapp~ari~d beforr the Planning Commisaiori and atated they ware asking for help in m.-~rkot;iny tli~~ Aubjact apart- mentsi that there had baen extreme f.inancial dlfficulti~s with tho subi~ect: ~ ro jaut r6c~ult- inq from increasod i.ndabtedness and uperating costsJ that they w~ro r~E~aking t-e].p w~.th the i~so of flags and banners until the occupjancy factor roachEid 95$J that they could attribute 5,14 of the3.r tenants ta udver.t:.ising through the use of flags and bunndr.sr and ~hat th~ c~,tr~~nt now managemant had improved the vacancy facCor. aiid tl~e occupancy waa prc:nent].y „~pproximately 90'b. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In responr~e: Lo qusstioninc~ by the Planning C~mmission, Mr. Weinstei~ atatQd t~he flags and barinQrs would call attention to the fact that the apartments wero available and wotxld servQ a3 an eye-catchor. Commi.ssioner Tolar racal].ed that addi.tional signing had been approved for the aubject project about a year ago, and said aig»ing was more than the neighbors were enjoyingj and he questioned h~w the City would be able to kaow when the occupancy w~s at 95 ~ and whether the use af Y.lle flags and banners would stil.l be nepded afterward when the occupancy rate dre~pped back down. Niz'. Weinstein stated they could k~ep the City informed Fither by telephonc~ or by ].etter. Commissioner Herbst r.oted that the propo~al, if granted, woul.c~ be a p~-lvileqe which should not be allowe~' fos just one pr~ject; that preseni.ly flaqs were perm9.t~;ed by Code when the projects were new, and approval of this proposal wo~ild aet an iindesir~ible precEdent. Mr. Weinstein took exception, stating that the project was und~r new nnanagemen~ and should ba treated as a new prejec.t on that basis for economic reasor~s. Commissioner ~'~hnson noted that it appeared the City had assisted witYi the occupancy growth facto~ diready and it would be uut of order to approve the pr~posal under the guise of the project l~eing new. The Planniny Comn~issir~ entered into discussion regarding the possibilitiy of granting the proposal for a specific period ot time to help tne project reach the 95~A occupancy rate, during whi.ch Commissi~ner To1ar noted that it was doubtful that apar.tment projects this size would ever maintain 95~n occupancy, a.nd approval of the proposa3. which inv4ilved a project four and one-half years o~d would b~ 3ettir~g a precedent for the other projects in the City; that Che evidencL clearly indicated the new management of the subject: pro~ect had improved the occupancy; and thak he was not in favor of granting an ex.teneion for the use of flagy and batiners. Mr. Wei~stein stated he disagreed that a project th~s ~ize could not reach stability of 95+E occuparcy, however, they needed the support of the proposed flags and banners. Commissioner Herbat noted that he would favor qranting the proposal. for a periw9 of eight weekends to enable the Planninq Ccmnission to determine if the flyinq of the flttgs and bannera actually assiated the occupancy rate, and that a report from the applica~nt would be requested as to the resulta over said pdriod o£ time. Chairman Pro Tempore Nlor~ey noted thatY~ ~dnnot to be~construedaasaa precedentjQwhereupoouldhee~~itionerd;stipulai:ed pilot prog.. to furnishinc, a re::,rt as suggoated. • s • MINUTF.S, CI1'Y ['LANN.T.NG C:UMMISSIJN, .7uly 7, 1975 75-333 VARIANCC NO, 2717 (Co~itinuad ) It wae noted that kho Uiror.tur o~ thc+ U~ve~lopment sorvicoH (~Qpu~•r.ment had detaxminud ti~~nt. h.he proposed ar,~ivity fo~l within lhe doFinition af 5oction 3.U1, Claeo ll., af tho City ~f Anah~i~n G~xidelinea to the Hec.~uiromont~ f.ox an Em~ixonrnc~ntal 7.mPaat Report and wae, thore- faro, car.ogorical.ly exem~t. Pron, the rnquirement to file a~: t~:Tx. Commie aionc~r. HorbaC, oEf:exed R08QZUt~.Dll No. I'C75-15G and movod for it ~ passtiye an~~ ndopt.ion, th+st t'atition f:or. Varianca No. 2%17 bc and herel~y i~s grnnted .'ur a period uE tim~ consiat- ing of eight c~nsocutive weekends, ir~cludiny any legal hulidn~/s occurr,iny clux Lng tiiat pexic~d, ouid p~riod cammonr_ing on tli~~ d~1Le e-nd expiring on August 31, 1975~ bnd foll.owing L•hu expiration datr, of this var.iance Che flaga and bannezA eha11 be romoved nnd thu pt~ti- tionor ehall su}~mit e~~ritten roport for Planning Comanissi.on snd/or Citiy Council rovi~w, eaid raport tc~ indi.car.e thea b~nafits derivod from the uso of the flaga, as stipula~ed to by the pc~titionerJ subject to conditione. (See Resolution Book) On r~ll call, the foroyaing rosolution was ~agaad by the £ollowing vote : AYES: COMMISSIONERS: k311RN66~ NEREI5T, 1!I~JG, MOI2L~Y NOESs CUMM7SSIONERSs JI~HNSODI, TOLACt ABBEN'P: COMAfISSIONF'.Fts": FARJINO VARJANCE N0. 2719 - YUBLIC HEARING. ORKLF•Y AND MAFLILYN DAVIS, 3362 'Teraciimar nrlve, Anaheim, ~ Ca. `.~28o4 (Ownera) i requesting WAIVGR OF MINiMUM RE;AR YARU SETBACK TO CONSTRL'CP A ROOM ADDI'SIUN on property deacr. ibed a~ : A rectangularly- shaped parc~~]. of .land consi~ting uC a~proximatdly 0. 2 acre loca~P~7 at the southeast corner ~f Teranimar Drivc and Danbrook Drive, having approximate fi•ontAge~ of 91 feet on the south aide of Teranimar Dri.ve and 100 faet on tne east sida of Danbrook Drive. Property presently clasaified RS-7200 (FiESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FI-MILY) ZONE. No one indicated their presonce in oppos~tion to subject pet.ition. Although the Staff Report to the Planninc; Cot-n~issior dated July '1, 1975, was not read at the public hearing, said Staff Roport is i•efer:ed to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Oakley Davis, the potitioner, appeared beforP tYie I~lanning Ccxnmission to anewer questions reyarding the proposal, and ~tated he had a l~rge lot and a smal]. house at the subject location. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CIASED. In response to questinning by the Planning Commiesion, Mr. Dawis stated there were no objections from any of the nefqhbors for what he was proposing on hia property. It was noted that :.he uirect•or of the Develogment Services Aepartment had determined that the proposed activity fel? within the definitic~n or Sectio~i 3.01, C1ass 5, of the City of Anaheim Gtlidelines to ttie R~;quirem~nts for an Environmer.~al Impact Report. and was, there- fore, categorically exempt from the requiremer~t. to file ~n F.IR. Commissi-oner Ki~~g offered Resolution ho. FC75-157 and moved for its passage and adoptlon, that Petition for Variance N~. 2719 be and hereby is granted on the basis tliat the requeat is minzmal and that the proposad room addition and exist9.ng d~aellinq are at an angle to the rear property line and, although the minimum setback. is proposed to be 6 feet, the average r~ar yard setback is approximately 10 feet; and, therefcre, a hardship would be craated if said waiv~r were no'; grantedj s~ibject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) Ori zoll call, the foreqoinq r~soluL•ion ~'~s paesed by the follo~ing vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERBST, JOHNSON, KING, TOLAR, MORLEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT : COMk1ISSI0NERS : FARANfl ~ ~ ~ ~ MINU'.Cl3S, CT'fY PIJINNIN(i COIfiM.TS:31'~~N, July 7, 1q75 '1'i-:3 ~`~ Rf;SULiI'I'IUN O~ APPHk:r,rnTZp;1 - p~pF~MF.R PLANNIIdG COMMISSION~R Mi:LBOURNE A. GAUER Cummias.ioner Herbst c~f foreci a mot ~.on, socondoc~ by Cummisr~l.oner ~arnes and MOTION CARRIE~ SY UNANIMUUS VIyPG (l:~em~ie~sioner Friranci boinq absc~rtt) , that the following reno~urior~ of approc:i.aeion, in recognition of ti<~rmor Plnnniny Commiseionor Melbourne A. Gauor' c~ 41 yuars c~f r~ozvico ot~ tho Cornmissior~, t~ei ~dnpted und presant~d to Mr. Gauer. al a lunaheon to b~ ha.ld i.n hia honor on July 9, 1975: F.ESULUTION QF APF~l2ECLA'I'IGN WHEREAS, M1sLHOURNL A. GAUER ~.y rekir.ing £rom pub].ic ser.vice as of July 1, 1975~ and WIiERF;AS, MGL has s~rv~d tt~c Citizers of tho City nf Ar-ahoim as a Memhor. and Past Chairrtian of ~he Anaheim City Planning C~mmission continuously since tho ysar NINE'PEEN 11UN~R13U AtJD ':HIR'PY-FUUR, when the popu.laCion of thc~ City txpproximated 11,OOOi and WF;~REAS, ML•'.L has been inatrumanttsl in the organi~ed growth and developmerit of the City of Anaheim whic:h now has a~ralatian of:' 191,e0Q; uncl WHEREAS, thrcughout: hi» forY_y-•ono yec~rs of sarvice on L•he Planning Commission, MEI~ ha~ boon n valued memb~~r, givi.ng freely ot his spec9.a1 knowledg~ and talents in the many dFjci.sioris made by this body; nnd WHI:R~AS, MEL has faitYifu].ly fulfilled his duties as a M~amuer and Past Chairman of the Planning Cortunis•sion i.n a hi.ghly able, expedient an~. commendable manner, and ha.s endeavored to represent and serve the interosts of the people of the City of Anaheim at all times; and WH~RGAS, the Members of the Planning Commfssion, past. and present, have r_ome to know MEL as a diatinguished and beloved friend and associate, and his knowledge and frier.dly person shall be sincerely missed by this body. NOW, THEREFORE , BE I7' RES0I~VED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, in consideration of t}-e ftii.thful and arduous performance of his o~fice, does hereby commend and exnr.•ea:s its appreciation to MELBOURNF. A. GAUER for his aervices in the best interests of the Citizens of th~ ~ity of Anaheim. B~ IT FURTHER RF~SOLV~D that this Reaoluti.on shall be made a matter of rec.ord in the official minutes ef the Anaheim City Planning CommiESion and that a copy shall be r,resented to MELi30URN~ A. GAUER in appreciation of his services as a Commissioner of the Anaheim City Planning commission, with an expression of beat wishes for his good health and a.long and joyous retireme:nt. THE FORGGOIN~ TtGSOLU'PION IS H~RE23Y signed this 7th day of July, 1975. ANAHEIM CITY PLANiJING COMMISSION (signed) (~igr.ed) ~signed) (signed) ATTEST: (signed) (siqned) Patricia B. Scanlar.~ (s__ ic~_ed) LEWIS HERBST FLOYD FARANU G:.EN L. JOHN~ON PAUL KSNG RICHARD MURLEY HAROLD V. TOLAR Secretar.y ~ ~ ~ MINUTP~S, CITY YI.I~NNING rOMMISSION, Jul.y 7, 197`i 75-335 1tLPOKI'S AND - ITEM NU. 1 RGCOMMCNbA'.CIUNS SOUNb AT'rENUATIUN IN RE57Dk:NTIAL F'RO,]L.~:TS - "~ "~ T~ol:icy r.ocommendat:i.on. Aesistant Flnnner Rc,burL Koll~;~ pre~jont«ad tha 5taff Repo~ l• Co t~~o P.l~snniny Co~~israion ~latod July 7, 1975, and yuLd ~tAfC R~(:~arY. i~ rci'orr~d to and maoc e~ part ~~{' th~~ minutnH. Mr. Ka7.ley noted that th~ rec~nt aound moasurement•~ taken by Ci~y 5tnff of the two tracta loca-tnd south or th« Rive~side ~'r~oway and c~ast. of. Imperia.l Hic7hway indic:~ltc~d thut, dlthouqh kx>th _racts worc>. conytruct~d witti a noiac~ bxrr~er conaistiny of r~ 6-•f.oot mneor~ry wall on top of a 6-foot carthen berui, thf: mogt r.~+cQnL•ly uun~tr.~ucted tract was dasignc~d wtth no secon~l-story windows fuciriy the f reeway, thc~ windows wore double-•stra~igth ylar~s and facod the s.ide, and thc buildiny w~~ll~ had addi.tiona.l instilation makinU th~ homr.:s i.n said tract much quti~ter tha-i the other tr.act whlch hud no noise insulating foutures oCTier. than the noi:~~: barrier. Mi~. Kelley furt.h~r noted that he had cont;acked t.he Uranyo Caunty tlealth Deparrment which had a vali equipped wiUi sophi:~l..icatec? devi.ce:~ which c:ould monitor, recorl and compare saund l~vels an both sides of• a barrier. sim~.iltanec,usly to r~veal i:he prec ise amount of att~~luation provided by tho barrier t that the van cuuld be made avail- able to tha City on a contracttiai basis if a mora procis~ evaluation of tho noi.s~ barri.ers was desiredj however, th~ County did not: giva a C03t estimate or. quotai;ion sinco tha ~igures would be based on a specl.fic detailad requesk from the City. Commission~r tierbst of£or.pd a mot.ion, seconded by Commissioner Johri3on and Mc7P10N CARI2ZED (Carnmisai~ner P`arano k,oinq absenfi) , L•hat the Planning Commission does hereUy rACOmmemd that the City Council adopt as a wriL-ten ,policy r.ec7ardiriy slli.elding of residential devel- npm~nts from noise sour.ces (i.e. , freeways, railroads, major arterial highways, etc. ) that th~ r.equirement for a noi.se harrier consisting of a 6-•f.oat masonry wal.l on top of a 6-foot earthen berm be conkinued for res.idential projects adjacent to noise sourc;es, Lo providc the minimum level of noise protection to mcet HUD standards, with additionaL protection being provided by inareasing the heiqht of the berm and req~iir.ing qxeater setbacks in tho se locat•ions where hiyher sCandards are feasible; that the Planning Commission does further recommend t.hat the ~'equirements for double-strength wi~ic3ows and forced-ait circu- lation be continued for those hom~s adjacent to the noise sources and, additionally, that wh~re two-story homes are adjacent to the noise sources ttie second story shall havo no wir~dows which face the noise sources; and, further, that a more precise evaluati~n yuch as is available through the Orange County Health Departniant. of the effects of the r.cise barziers shall Ue a*. the disr.retion of thc City Council. ITEM NO. 2 R~QUEST FOR EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - G.rading permit for four sir~9le-family resiciences and access road iocated northeast of the intersectiun of Peralta liills Drive and Per.•alta 41ay. it was n~ted that an appli~ation f.or a grading pexmit had been filed for the subjact prc~perty, to construct four single-family residences and 3I1 access road at thp subject location; that an Gvaluation of the environmental impact oi grading at the sub3ect loca- tion was required under the Nrovisi.ons of the Califarnia Environmental Q~~ality Act and the State EIR Guidelines, since the project was located in the Scenic Corridar; and that a study of the proposed grading by tha Engineeri.ng Aivision woul.d have no aignifican~ environmental impact. Commissioner BarT~es noted that she did not have a conflict oF interest with respect to the ~ocati.~n of the subject propexty; however, Commiasioner Jot-nson noted that he did have a conflict of interest, as defined by the Anaheim Munictpal CndA "ection 1.1.400 and the GovFrnment Code Section 3625, et seq., i.n that he owned adjacent p.roperty, and that pur- suant to the provisions of the referenced Codes he was declaring to the Chairman Pro Tempore that he was withdrawing f~:om ~he dAliber.ations on the subject matter and would not take part in eitl~er the discussion or the votiiag thereon; and, further, that he had not discussed the subject matter wich any ~nember of the Planning Commission. T}iereupon, COMMI55ION~R JOHNSON LEFT TEIE MEETIN~ TEMPORARILY AT 4:42 P.M. S LafE clarified for the Pl.anning Commission that the location map for the subjecc propasal indicated the incorrect proper.ty, and the correct location was immadiate'ly east of Commis- sioner Johnson'a property. Staff indicated that a carrected location map would be prepared ~or City Council review of che proposal. Commis9ioner Herbst ofEered a motion, seconded by ~'ommissioner. King and MO'I~ION CAtt~tIEA <Commissioners Fara~no and Johnson being ak~sent), that the Planning Cortunission does her.eby recommend to the City Council that the guursuantrtoethe provisionsrof the Californiat to prepare an en~vironmental impact report, p Environmental Quality Act. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON RETURNED TQ THE MEETING AT 4;45 P.y. ~ ~ ~ MINUTI?S, C7TY F'Id1NNTNG C(~MMTt,S[ON, Ji.tly 7, 197ti ~~'r~'i~' I'PGM N~~. 3 oRANC,r Cc)UNTY G~N~RAL, PLAN NIFNUMI:NT NU. 7.-75 - T'C1:M H, NOIIL FU1N(.H - R~qu~et for dotarm.naY.lui1 of policy. Rasoeiata P1annHr, t311x Ciinningham p,cesantc~d ~he SCaFf. I2efx~rt to th~ P1&llniily ~'~~mml.:,ezi.on duhed July 7, 1975, +~nd tiaid Staff ;tc~~ort is referrcd to and made a par.t n1` Ch~~ ~nli~ut.~:d. Mr. (:unningllnin noted th~~c dur.in~ tL•~~ publi.c: ht~arings un the 1903 I,anrl U:~c }.l.ena>nl: befora the Uranye County 1~'lanninq ~'ommi~siun and I~oard of. SuPorvleors, thu ~.ity of AnuhAi;n tonk an o£ficial positian ro r.acomm~nd thal thA "Presarvo" cl.a:~9lficatian be revir~cd to tho "Urban" clas~i£icution, in ordcz to r.c~fleet Che Anaheim c;enoral P1.An for the SunCa lU~a Canyon uroa, huwevczr, tho 198:i Lnnd Uea l:lc+ment, as evenk~.~;slly adapted h>> the C:ount,y, did not rc~fl.oct the "Uruan" claysiFicati~n r~~commen<ied by At~aliei~ ; thaL- eairice the Publir, h~ar•- inge, tho Canyon Area Gencr~l Ylanning Task Forecs wns estab l ~:a'ried, c;ity ~?taff wa~ given diroction to evaluat~ th~ oxisting General P1an and t:o undortake a Genor.al PJ.an study of the Sphere of Influonc~a Area, and the Nohl Ranch Ayricultur.<~l Prar;erve was cancellUd~ and tliat L•hc~ subjact area presently met tho criteri.n proposed by ~.he County for removing nn area Arom the "Pre~erve" sta~us, and tho County was pr9pared to undertake a coordinat~d planning pragram. Commissi.onor Herbst offerod a moLion, s~conded by Cc,mmissioner T~lar and MOTION CARRiLD (Conuni35ioner Farano being ahaent), to recommend that thQ Ci.ty Council, in light of tho County cri.teri.a for removing an area from the "Preserve" status and also in light of th~ camnoiicing Anah~im Genaral Plan study for the area: (a) Recommend to thQ c.~ranqe County Planninq Commission L•}iat the "Preserve" atatus designation £or the Santa Ana Canyon arc~a be changed to the "Planning Reserve" s~atus; (b) kecommend t~ tho Orange Cc~unty Planning Commission that the entire Aiiaheim Sphero uf Influ~nce Area within the Santa Ana Canyon area be placecl in the "Planniriq R.eserve" statusj and (c) Propose coorcllnation and cooperation betwecr, the CounL•y of Oranqe, the City of Anaheim, the property owners, and other af.fected agencies in a joint pl~nning effort for Anaheim's Sphere of Influence in the ~anta Ana Ca~iyo-~ area. • ITEM NO.. 4 CUNDITrONAL USE PrRMIT NO. 15].7 - Information report regarding r.eceipt of the Sta1:e grant to upgrade the Colonfal Manor Halfway }Iouse located at 703 North Lemc~n Street. Far the information of the Planning Commissicn, Staff' noted that the City was in receipt of copies af two lette.rs dated June 23, 1975, and addressed to Mr. Frank Itose, Chai.rman, Colonial Manor Halfway Hou~es, Inc., from the State of California Health and Welfare Agency, Offi.ce of Alcohol Program Manaqemer;t i.ndicating that the State grant applied for b•~ Mr. Rose had been granted in connection with the subject conditiona.'_ use permit. Copies of the letters were made available to the Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT - There beir~g no further business to discuss, Commissioner KinR offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano being absent), to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~.~.~.~,~~~~~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secret~ry Anahaim City Planning Commisaion PBS:hm