Loading...
Minutes-PC 1975/09/290 R C U MICROFIIMiNG SERVICE, INC. ~ ~ ~ ~ City N~~11 An~ihr(m, Cfll ifornla Septembcr ?.~, 1975 Ht:f,ULAR MEET I NC, Q F TIIE A~Il1H[ I M C I TY PIAN~I i ~~G C~)P1N 1 SS I(1N _____~__„___~__ , ~ RCGUI.AR - l. regu 1~r mec t i nn uf the An.~he I m C i ty P I ann 1 nc~ Comm i.s ( on WQS c~~ I 1 ed to MCF.TII;f, orcir.r by Chalrman Far~no at 1:3r~ p,m, in the Council ChTmber~ a quorum boinq {.resent, PftF.SFN1' - CHIIIRM~Nc Far~no - C~MMISSI~tlFRS: Barnes~ Nerbst, Johnson~ Kinq, T;~lar ADS(:NT - C~MM 15S I(1~~F.RS : Mor 1 r.y ALSQ PRCSENT- Ron~1J Thompson Planning D~partment Olrector Frar~k Lowry Deputy City Attorney Jay 71tus Offlce En~ineer Annika Santalahtf Xoning Supervisor Don Mc.Danfel Ass(stant Planning Director-Planning Allan Daurn Assistant Zc~ning Superviso~ Patrlcia Scanlan Planning Commission Secretary PIEDGE OF - Commissioncr Nerbst led in the Pledge df Alle~iance to the Flag of the IILLEGIANCE Unlceci States of America. APPROVAL ~F - Commissfoner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioncr •Johnson and TIIE MINUTES MOTI~N CARRIF.D~ that the minutes of the: Pl~nning Cc~mmission meeting of 5eptemher 3, 1975, be a~d hereby are approved, as submftted. Comn(ssioner Johnson offered a,:~otion~ seconded by Commfssioner Barnes and M~TIQN CARRIFD~ rhat t~~~: minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 15, 1975, he and hereby are approveci, as submitted, CONTINUED E~~VIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEnRING. C. MICHA~L~ INC.~ P. 0. Box 278, ~1ldway City~ REPCNT ~~~. 133 Ca. 97.G55 (Ov+ner); RAAB S BOYER ENGINEERING C(1., 14~~8G Dear.h '- Boulevard, Suite R~ Westminster, Ca. 92~83 (Ager~t). Property VARIAWCE ~~~. 2728 described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cunsist- ing ~f approximately 18 acres located at the southeast carner TENTATIVE MAP OF of Verrnont Avenue and East Street~ naving approximate f~ontages TRACT N4. (375$ af 733 feet an the south side of Vermont Avenue and 1188 fe~t (REVISIOtI N0, 1) on the east side of ~.ast Street. Property presently classifi~d RS-A-43,0~~ (RESODEN7IAL/AGRICULTURAL) 7.ONE. VARIA~~CE REQUEST: WAIVEk OF (A) REQUIRE.MENT THAT ALL LQTS rRONT ~N A PUBI.IC STC~EET AND (B) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUtLUINGS. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: 119 RM-4000 lots It was noted that the subject items were continued from the meeting of August -+~ 1975~ for the s~~bmission of revised plans, and from the meetings of August 18 and September 3, 1975~ at the request of the petitioner. Two persons (ndicated their presence in opposition to the subject items. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Allan Daur,i read the Staff Report to the Pianning Commtssion dated 58ptember 29, 1975. and said St~ff Report ts referred to as (f set fortl~ in full in tha mtnutes. Mr. M(ke Doty~ representing the firm of Phlllips Brandt Reddick and the pet(tioner, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated he r~ould spaak directly to the ~hanges which had been made t~ the proposed plans, whereupon~ he presentcd three exhibits~ noting thAt the proposed project was basically a duplex concept with some of the advantages found tn single-family detached homes, plus some of the amenities of the condominium concept -- (.e,~ opnn space and common areas; that the previously-submitted pians depicted a conventlona) approach, I~owever, the revised plan created a more open feeling; that 75-446 ~ ~ ~ 75-~~~+7 `11D~U7FS, CITY I'LANNING GOMMISSION, Septsmt,cr 7.9~ 1975 [~NIRUMMENTIIL IMPAC7 REPORT N0. 133, VARIl~NCE Nr1. 2728, AND TENTl11'IVE MAF OF TRIICT N0. ~%`;~ RGV1510N N0. 1 Continued '- approxlmatcly 82x of the dwellinys would havc ~1GCCSCi dire^tly to thc comnon opsn space with ~c~tes which vrould be optlonal at the time af purchase; that four children's play a~'etl5 would bc provlrled through~ut the pro.)ect, fn aclcftC(on tn tennls courts~ swimming pool an<' maJor Tultl-purpose gatherlnq rooms; thst the r~evlslon reflected a change in the traffic clrculatlon, wlth the nulomobiles br,ing kept r~rr.tty rnuch to the outsldE of the p~-oJect; that thc nev: circul<~t~nn plan wo~ild minimize the crossing oP st~ee~s to get to the open ~~re~s, ctc,; that the streeks ar~uld be c~nsr.ructcd l~ tha City standards, with rolliny curbs~ etc., that the revised dwellin9 unit layout ~N~s m~re upen or undulated, and not row-typd hou~in~; and [hat a lancfscaped se.tback wciulci I~e provl~fed dlong E.ast and V~rnbnt Streets. Mr. L. ~rnnt Rohlnson, 13~~1 lbth Strcet~ Redlands~ a~~peared before the Planning Commisslon in oppositlon and r~iterated somP of his comments mrde at thr. Plannin9 Cmm~ission meer.ing of Auc~ust ~~, 1~175 concr.rn(nc~ nis prorerty wh(ch was oeveloped with industrla) uses acl~~~cent: to the s~ib.)ect pr~perty on East Street and furlher stated that ~t the time his ~roperty was ~evelopecl, he was a~lvised thUt East Street was to be ~ secondary highway and~ consequently, the buildinc~s ~vere to have an ~~pprox(mately 60-foot setback; that~ alth~~~gh the subJect develupment was ~roposed to hav.. a buFfer zone along East Street, p~rC of the buffer are~ show~, on rhe p?ans was not truly (ndicative of what the ~levelopment ~aould have when East Stree~ w,~s eveniu311y wide~ed; that, mainly, he was opposed to havir.g high-denslty housing directly across the street from his inciustrial park s(nce he envlsioned problems from his tenants who hAd been in the industrial p<~rk for many years; that other IndusLr(al parks were also lacated in close proxi~ntty to thc subJect property an~' n hls Judgment~ to allow the resiae.ntial devclepment at the subJect location would be poor planning. Mr. Clyde Farrow~ 1023 South Dove Place, Anaheim~ appeared befor~ the Planning Commissior in opposltlon and stated one of his c~ncerns was primarlly the loss of the buffer area whlch was origlnally proposed for development of thr subJect property; that he was also concerned thit new plans were being proposed prior to a market'.ng survey; that the developers were hasing the proposed condominiums on the value of existing residenti,l develc+pment in the area; and that thc adJacent residential development was interESted to have the originally-proposed buffer zone which was agre~d upon in the previous public hearing. In rebuttal~ Mr. Doty stated the pr.,posal was not a high-density development; Lhat East Street was not inter~ded to be widened, or Staff would have so inJlcated in the conditions of approval set forth in the Staff Report to the Plarinincl Commission; that he understood the concerns of the rGSidential property owners directly adJace~t to the subJect property, hawever~ a 20-foot setback llne was sti11 proposed along the property linc, with landscaping per the des(res of the purchasers of the units~and any other development would afford the same buffer; that C. Michael, Inc. a~as sophlsticated enough to always req~ire and obtaln merket ciata prlar to spending a doliar on a proJect; and there was marketing data for the first and sFCOnd proposals indicating that a reduced value proJect should be implementnd~ since the first pr~posal would not be viable on today's m~rket; that alluding to the pos~ibllliy that the subJect developer intended to change the plans from the beginning dtd not make sense; tl~at the proJect had been conducted in good faith; and that the merits of the proposal had been well done and well thougfit out. TNE PUBLIC HEARIMG WAS CLOSF.D. Comm(ssioner Tolar inqulred where the ~.:sts in the proJect would park~ str~ce they would be unable to park on 2I~e streets unless tliey parked on one side oniy, In response~ Mr. Doty stated a total of 459 parking spaces would be provided~ which was the total spaces required by the Ctty -- 232 in garages~ 116 on the drive.way ap~ons and !11 on the streets. Commissloner Tolar made an obserration that the parking spaces wcre being provlded in accordance wlth the standarc~s for RM-~+000 zonirg; that the stand$rds for R5~5~~0 z~ning were 5 spaces per sfngle-family dwelling; that the proJect would have parking problems and the pr~posal~ withouC addltional parking spaces~ would not s~~isfy him. Mr. Doty further replied that they were proposing parking spaces in excess of the RM~4000 Zone standards and in excess •~F what woutd be needed; however~ if need be. they would provtde parking spaces on one si~~e o~ thr streets throu~hout the proJect. Commissioner Tolar then lnqulr~d if the homes would be sold individually w~th fences and Mr. Doty lndlcated In the affirmRtive; whereupon~ Commissl4ner Tolar noted that by having fenees~ the developc~ w~s eliminating RM-4~00 zoning and was proposing snall houses on postage stamp lor,s. Mr, Doty explaine~l that the developzr wc~uld b~ marketing a dup~ex unlt; that by using the proposed confir~uratlon~ they were :nking advantagc of some of the beneFtts of sin~le-ft~m(ly hausinq and providing some o4 the amenities oP condomintum-type ~ ~ ~ 75-~~4!) ~!i~~u-r~s, ci~~v PLIINNING f,Q11MISS10N~ ~eptemGar 2~, !~7a l'NVIROMMf.NTAI IMPACI' REPORT N0, 133~ V1IRIANCE N0, ?729, AND TE:NTATIVE nAP OF TRAC1' N0. 87tia ( K E V; S I G N N Q. 1) ( Con t 1 n u e d ,,,_,,, --~-^~-"""" "'^" _.__. _~ r.._~-.-. _............------•-~ h,ousi and, w~th thc oor.n spt~ca hcing providrd, lhey f~it thc proposal could be ~114C 1 I ~C(~. Corrrnlssloner hlorbtit Inqulred c.oncernir~g tl~~e malntenance c~f thc open space, and Mr. ~ucy stated the mal~~cen~nce end contrc~l af the commc,n r~reas wriuld bc throuyh ~~ r.ommunl!y aasoclatlon. Lommissioner Herbsr n~tr,d tha; it ~~ppeare~ nclditi~nA1 hauses ancl strer.[s could be, ad~~d in ~'~e ''uturc; that the proposa) was to uhtain thc best of the twa znnes for r.he ~~~^v~loacr; that if thP devela~+~r wanted tl~e nrr)ect to bc tt Planned Cammantty. then there should be truly upen ~pnce end the ad,j~cent sin-~le••family homes should be prot~c tr.d ; th.~t the dev~ 1 opr.r was encroach i ng ~~pon thr RS- J20~ ( ft-1) Zone w 1 th h I gher densliy and prlvnte streets; thr-t sin~~l,-family residr.ntial dLVClopment standards requlred standard strGets t~ be constructed; that h,e ~~•is not i~~ favor of ~ proJect which tnnk advanta~c of the bcst af the two zones for the dc.vel~pcr and not for the homeowners; that the streets were narrc»v~ and th- pArklny was not adequate, since the RS-5~~~ 7one requlred thc 5 parkfng sp~ces per dwelling unlt. Mr. Daty took excepLlon and rr.lterated th~t thc prop~sal ~t and excceded the parking standards for the RI~-1~~~~ ~une. Commissioner Herbst then noted that t~ developer should put back the buffar strlp orlylnally approved f~ the development af the sub)ect property :~nd prov{de all Che amenities of a Plannc~l Cnmmunlty. Mr. Do:y questioned Additlonal amenities; whereupon, Commfss?oner 7olar nated that therc should be no fenc(ng of the open space allowed; and that if the homeowners a~sociatlon should disband~ the ~.vhote pro.ject could change, Deput~ City Atrorney Frank Lowry advised chat at the deslre of the ~~~11orir,y of the memhers of a homeowners assoclatlon, the assoclatlon couid be disban~led. Mr. D~ty then stated thaf. the assumption was oeing taken that the people who lfved in the proJect would allow the as>oclat(un to bp olsbanded. Commissloner Herbst then noted that although the developer was p:~~nosl~g a 20~fo~t setback along the property ~lne, the buildings woulci be on the setbaci~ linc, an~: the normal setbac;ks for• the single•family zone were n~t ~rovided; a~d th~t the 20-foot sc:tback was not intended~ per Code sta~dards, to be ut(lizecf as part of the back ~,ards. In response to the. concerns oF Mr. Robinson. OFfice Englneer ,lay T!tus advised ~.at there were no plans aC the present time for East Street to be w(dened, with tfie exception of 40 feet from the centerliiie of the street; that ~aid street was a secondary street; ~nd Chat he undePStood the s~ubJect property had dedicated for 45 feet from the centerline. Commissioner Johnson noted that he d~sagrecd wich Commissioners Nerbst and Toiar concerning the proposal. Chairma~ Farano noted rhat although the f'tanning Commission recognized the potential density u~der the RM-~i000 Zone. the fences would not be permitted; wF~ereupon, hSr. Doty stated the f~nces were pr~posed to cr~ate son,e feeling of privacy. Ctiairman Far~ne then fnqulred~ in vlew of the discussion concerning the proposal :~nd sinc.: he would not voCe for the proposal as presented which was an "R-1/'~~~0" s~bdivlsion~ whether the Net~tlonsr would -ike a continuance to revise the proposed plans; whei:~apon~ Pli. boty stated he woulo respect'~ulty request a two-week contl~uance, however~ r~v(sions to tti°. plans m~; requlre a longer period of time. C~rm~ls•:io~tier King offere~i a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Barnes and MOTION CARR!ED (Commissto~er Morley being absent), that consideration of Variance N~. 272fl and Ten~a*_(vs Map of Tract No, 875~ LRevlsfon No. 2) be and heretN is continuEd to the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1975• C~ ~ ~ ~ FIfNUTES, CiTY PLANNIf~G COMMISSION~ Septemher 29~ 1°75 75~4~-9 CONTINUFD REf,L11SSIFICATI~)II - PUAI.IC HEIIRI~;G, RAYMUND SP[I!AR, 913 Palom~ Place~ ~ullcrton, f,a. N0. 75- 7~i-?. 9263y ((kvnnr) ; Wi I,L I AM C. MC C UI.LQCK. ~~ 3?~ ~' ampus Cr l ve ~ Nr,wp~r t ~'"'~ ~each, l,a. 92f,fi0 (Agent). Proparty descr(bcd as: An irregularly- VARIANCE Ntl, 2713 shaped parcel of lon~i can~istin9 of approxlmately 11.1 acres loc~~ted at the nor[heast corner ~f La Palmo Avenue and ImF~erlal Hiqhway~ having ~~Proxim~te fruntn9es of 2~t1 fect on the nurth ~Ide of' lo Pa1mA Avenue ancl 3(~5 fr,et on the east ~Ide af Imperial i~ighway~ hovin~ a n~+xlmum ciec~!h of approxlmately 793 fcet. Property p~'~sently cl~ssified RS-A-~~3~~~~ (SC) (RES'. UENTIl1L/AGRICULTURAL~•SCENIC CORRIDQR OVi•JtLAV) Z~NE. RF.QUF.S1'F.D CLA551FIC~TInfl: CL(Sf,) (COMMERCIAI.~ LINITF.D-SCl~NIC C~RRID(1a OVERIA`!) ZONC RF.QUF.STED VARIANCF.; ~lAIVER OF (A) PF.itMiTTED DISPI.AY SURFl1CE~ (H) RE~L~IRED BUfLDING SETHAf,K AND (C) PRQHIDITEO ROOF-Mf.~UNTEb EO.UIPMF~IT~ T~ ~~NSTRUCT A COMMERC I Al. SHOPP I ~!G CF.NTE R, The sub.jeet f tems were cont ( nued from the P1 r+nn i ng Commf ss ion meet i n~ of September 3. 1975~ for more informntlon pert~~inln~ to the envlronmenknl impact, i~~ ~dciitlon to speclfic plans. It was noted that no one was present in the audi~ance concerning the sub;ect items and that the petitioner was requesting an ~ddlt(onal two-w~ek continuance. Cc~m~fssloner K.inc~ of(ered a motic,n. seconded by Commissioner Talar and PIOTION CARRIED (Commfssioner Morley I~elnnrabsent)~ that the public heai~e11andnhercbsiare^contlnu~edCtotthes for Reclessification 1~~. 7.~-7~-~ ancl Varian~e No. Z733 Y Plann~ng Commis;iom m~etin9 of OctobPr 13~ 1975. as requested by the petitioner. iNTRODUCTiON OF NEW FINDi~;uS IN CONNECTIO~J ~~ITN PF~'''JISIOMS OF TIIE NFW STATE SUEiDIVISIONS MAF' ACT (G)VERNMENT C(1DE SECTIO~~ 66h7'~~5) - Informational item. Deputy Ci ty Attorney Fran~ Lowry presented and re~J th~e fol lowing communication .o the Planntr~g Comm(rslon, for informatlon ard direct ion (r, their future approval or disapproval of tract mops: "Septembcr 29, 1975 T~ ALL MEMBERS OF TNE C I TY CpUNf, I L~ PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON ~ CITY CLERK AFID SECRETARY TO TF1E PLANNING CC;MMISSI(1N: 'fhe new State Subdivlsion Map ~ct makes it mandatory to include in al) moCions approving~ er recommen~ing approval of~ a tract map~ Pither tentative or final. a specific findin9 that the proposed Subdfvision ~oge er with fts des(gn and tmprovement is consistent with the City's General Qlan. Government Code~ Ssction 66473,.5. Further~ the new 1aw req~!ires the d(sapproval of a tesltative or ffnal If he Coun~il make~ an of the fullowing~lndin~; , 1. That the prop~sed map is net consistent with a~plicable generai and specific plans. 2. That the design or irnprove,~~ent of the proposed subdivision is ~ot consistent ~ui :h appl icahle general 4 cf spec i fic pl ans. 3. That the :,fte is not ahysically sultable for the type ~~f development. 4. That tlie site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of develo~~ment, 5. That the design of the subdivision or the propused improvements are 1 ikety ?o cause su~stant:~l envfronn~ental damage or substai,ti~ally and avoidably InJure fish or wildl ife or thel r habitat 6. That the design of the s,~bdivisionor the type of lmaroveme~its I~ likcly to causc serlous pubilc health ~rob lems, 7, That the deslyn of th~ subdivision or t':~ type of +mpro~• ments wil'. eonfllGt wi th ~asements ~ acqui reJ by the puhl ic at lai .~e, f~r acce~s through or use of property within ~ha prapos~d subdlvlsion. AL~1N R, WATTS, C I TY ATTQRNEY BY s/F___rank 4._lowry, '~r•-- [T•.puty CD 'orney~~ ~ • • M I P~UTES , C I TY PLAN~~ I ~IR COMM I SS I ON ~ September 29, 1975 15-W50 E~lVIRONMENTIIL IMPAfT - DE~IELOPFR: I~ELTI.ER ENYE.RPRISCS-BRt10KVALE, NGINEER: F 9003£~ C 7~+0 North La Rr~a ANACAI. ENGINEERING REPORT NQ. 141 ~~ • . a. Avcnuo~ Los Angeles~ l h A SubJect 92a05 Ca " " m~ e na CQMPANY, 222 [ast lincoln Avanuc. , . 7fN"fATIVF. MAP OF property. c.onsl~;ting of Approxim+~tely 31•5 havtn 1l ~cres located between npproximate frontages TRACT N0. £~a6f~ 1 VISION N0 q venuc, Ron~.~eya Drivc and La P~ilma of 6.G2 f~et on the south side of Romneya D rive and 1435 fect on . RE the north sicle af La Pa1ma Avenue~ having a maxlmum depth of approxlmately 1320 °eet ana ue:ing located ap~roxlmately 483 feet west of thc ctnterllne of StatP College doulavarci, is proposed for subdivislon in[o IG4~ single-famlly lot s cievelopnd in canpliance wlth thn RS-5000 Zone reyulremen:s . It was noted thit the sub)ect itcm~~as ~~ntinuc~l from the Plannin~ Cormilssion meetiny of Sept~mber 15~ ~"7`.~~ fc,r ~ddltional fnforn~;,tiun ~nd revised pl~ns. One pcrs~n indicatecl his prr5ence ln opp~sition t~ the sub}ect tentative map. Assistant Z~ninn Su~ervisor Allan Daum read th~; Staff ftep~rt to the Plann(nc~ COm~ui55~0~ J~tcri September 2~1, ,975~ ~ncl sai~l St~ff Report Is referred to as i f sek forth in ful l in the minutes. Mr. C~~1 Queyrel, rep-'~ientincl the englneer for the developer, appearecl before the Planning Ccxn~(ssion [o explain the revision +.o the suhJect kentative map and reiterated some statements mad~ at the Plannincl Commiss(on n~eetin~ nf September 15~ 1Q75~ that the price range of thc proposed homes was $5~~~~~ t~ 57~~~no; tl~at thc minimum floor area per dwe'l in~ would be 17nn squar~ feet; that the original densit•~ approve~l for c~~~velopment af the subJect property was 2S~ dwellinc~ units ~~n!I they were prc~posing to reduce said density to 16~~ units; that the developer was proposing a qunlity pro.ject which would upgra<le the area~ without yuesLion; that the f{re hydrants were praposed to be located behind the siciewalks ~~liere there would be no interference with pedestrian traffic; that *_he flre hydi•ints b::hind the curbs would save moncy f~~r the City in conn~ction with m~inte nance of parkways~ th.~t the streets in the devel~pment wcre propose~l to he tc~ thc stanJard fiiilside width an~1 no prec.edent woulrJ be set since a precedent was already established bv an~~ther cieveiopment (an RS-72~~ tr~~ct o~ Sunkist Str^,^~); that the proposed lcits would he In excess of 6'L~~ squarc fect; that the Intcrde~artmental CommitteF recc~nmen~ations Nos. 9 3nd 10 diJ n~t apply r.o the current proposal~ howe.ver, they di<1 apply to tl~e previously- approved ~~roposa) for dev~~lopment of the prope~ty for a cond~~minium pro~ect with a homeowners assoclatlon; and tl7,t the dc~veloper was reques.Linc~ relfef from the requirement for a berm as a sound-attenut~tion device aciJaccrit to La Palma Avenue, since they intended to construct a G-foot wall and pr~vide sound attenuation ;n the units. Mr. Queyrel c.ontinuecl by st~tirg that the developer would stipulate to the 61~-foot width for Haxter Street through the subject property, since City Staff f~ad advised tha t an adcitlonal publlc hearin~ woulcf be rr:quired C~ amend the ori~iinal resolution app roving the zor.ing ancl development of the pro~erty; and that tlie property owner was present to answer questioris reqirding the proposal, and renJerings of simiiar dPvel~~pments were av ailible for review. Mr. [?onald B:rryman, IZiFi East Belniont Avenue~ Anaheim, ap~eareri before the Plannfnq Comnissi•>n representing the youth grc~u~s at Thomas Edison School ancl as C~iairman of the Parent Ac~visoi'y Councll ard memher of the P7A at said school~ and stated they were opposed *_o the subJect dcvelopment since n~ addit?c~na1 land would be added to the adjace nt park; Chat when th~• original prop~~sal was considered at public hearinq, it was suggest ed that additional land fe decficat~ci to the City or acquirerl by che City, or that additional facSlitles be prov(ded for the pe~ple in the area; Cliat at the original City Council public hearing~ petitions s~gned by approximately 1^5~ residents were filed in favor ~f expanding Edfson Park~ etc.; that if additienal park facilities ~.nd/or land were not added, there would be an impact on the existing park, as well as the s~hools in the area~ sl:~ce there a~ould not be enough parking or recreatlo~al facilities; that although it Fiad t•~en suggested that the chi Idren use the greunds at Sycartx~re .~~~n;or Nic~h School , t~iat was rot ~. good area sirsce it was being used consistenLly by Little LPac~ue and ~occe r leams; and that the younger chil.ii•en needed park facilitles ancl he would encourage the Commission to cons~der additional park land for the area in connection wit~ the subject proposal. Chairman Farano noted ror the opp~sition that .~ r•esolution of intent I~a~ been a dopted by the City Gouncil fnr RM-~~~'~~ zoning on the subject property and the de~ieloper would be entitle~i to proceec~ with t~ie previous proposal, without additional p~hlic hear:ng; and that the Commisslan did i~ot have the powar or the .~uthority to take action requiring the ac3diCional park la~d ancl facilities bein4 re~u ~tr_d; ho~•~ever, the matter coul~i be taken to the City Council level for c~r~sideration. ~~ ~ ~ ~ MI NU ~ C:S ~ C I'Y PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON ~ SeptembPr ?.9, 1975 75-451 E~11fIRONMEt~'~AL IMPACT REPORT N0, 141 AND TENTATIVE F1AP OF TRACT N0, 98G(~ ~RFVISION N~J. ~)(Cont.) Commissioner T~far not~cf fnr the opposftlon th~~t since tha previous develapment plan w~s an R14--ifi~n proJect with its crim rec.reational facility~ at th.~t tlme nddltlonsl park land wAS con5ldereel lass desirabl~ than aclciitional Facilities whlch c~ulcf be provtded wlth the pnrk in-1lcu fce ancl SAIC~ pIc~113 werc apprt~vc~i on th~~t I~asis. Doputy City Att~rney Frank L~wry further ~dvised th~t In considerlnci t~~~~ subJect tentatlve t+-act map~ tha Plannlnn ~~mmission cauld not requfrc dcdicatlon of p~~rk land. The Plnnning Cammissi<>n entcre~d fnCO dlscussion wlt-~ tli.: engfneer for ~.he developcr concerning tho prev~~~us discuss'ons relative to park expnnsian and/or Facllitles, during which Mr. Quoyrel stAted tl~e m2tter had been left up to the Parks~ R~crtation and the Arts De~artment to decide wheth~r to h~ve thF pa k fees or lanci ~t $95,~~~ nn flcre to add to thc southerly nortion of the existinn pnrk, and that~ In his opinlon~ he dtd not fsel tf~ere wc>uld he ~+ problem with tl~e recreational facilities based on the new proposal. Cammtssioner ~le~rbst dtsa9reed, noting that thc exist(nc~ residents in Che are~ had orlqlnally requcsted murc ~~rk land; that thc existinc~ park was very small; that the extenslon of Baxtcr Streel would gtve the park additio~~al exposure~ making it open to the entire cortntunicy; that if additional parl: I~nd was evar to be adde~l~ it would Lave to be conslderecl wlth the current proposai; and that the develop~r di~l not need City Cou~~c:fl approval to be able to dsdicate for adcliti~nal park land. In response to questioning hy ~ommissloner Tolar~ Zonin~ Supervisor Annik~ Santalahti noted th~~t the four rear-on lots had been ~I iminated ancl the qreen l ine sf~c~wn on Lhe revised olans fnclfcated the lot lines presented at the September 1` 1975 Planning Com~niselon meetincl. Ml~s Santalahtl further noted that lf the Pla ing Commission should act favorably on the sih,ject tract~ovirm~RM-4000pr.oninatebe~finalizeddtol~th~e kS-50t10 Z:.ne, Reclassific~tion No. 7f-J~-23, apP 9 9~ to reflect the actual devel~pment of thc property. Mr. Lowry added that it was perm(ssible to down-zone witnin a zone and, alihough tliere was a resol~tlon of intent to RM-~i000 zoning~ RS-50~0 zoning ancl development c~uld be a~pproved without violation of the ordinances, inasmuch as the zone could be ~ess intense but not more intense than the resolution of intent. Chairman Farano contacted the Parks, Recrzation ir,~l tFie Arts Uepartment Director John Col'ier hy telephone, followin9 which he noted that he had requested Mr. Collier's presenc:e at this meetinc~ to c~nfirm informati~n pertaining to the additlonal park land vs. in-Ileu fees issue. Chalrman Farano then ~eq~~ested that the Planning Cammissiori c~~~sider the next item on ehe agenda white waiti~g for Mr, Coitier to arrive. ~ ~~~~,~~ At 2:5Q p.m., discus~~on p rtaininG to Tentative Map of Tract No. 8a66 was cont'nued to ~oltow~ng the puL•lic hearin~ for Conditional Use Permit ~~o. 15~~5; and at 3:05 p.m., discu sion concerning said tract map ca-~tinued. i~ :::~ ~. V Cl~air^an Far•ano ex~lained the subJect preposal vs. the previously-approveJ proposal for tf~e development of the ~ubJeci property to Mr. Coilier, noting that previously Che issue concerning additional ~ark land 4~as resolved around the fac[ that the petitioner indicated recreational areas would he pro•~ided within the boundaries cf the development; tha~~ s'~~sequently~ .~ new development was being proposed and, althou9h the density was sut~stantially lower, recreati~nal faciiities were no longer prnposed within the development; and that the develo~er was of the understanding that ttie Parks~ Recraation and the Arts Department did not want land but did want the in-lleu f~~es. Mr. Queyre~ stated he had met with the Parks~ Recreation and the Arts Department tu discuss the proposed sin~le-family resldEnti.:l developinent; and that the decision haa besn that the in-lieu fees ~~ere mor~ de~irable th3n ciecllcatioi~ of land to the park, due to the amount of land that wou~d be involved in the transaction. Mr. Collier advised that the Oepartment had suggested accepting !n-lieu fees rather than ~dditional land cn the basis of the amount of land ~,~hich would be involved, with the proviso that the developer wo~'d construct a G-foot block wall alorig the north and west property lines 2djacent t~ Ea~son Park if said wall was deterrninecl to be necessa~y by rlir department, with drai~~ane provisions in back of the wail anJ sidewalks to continue along the park and the ~treet~ an~f to prov(de access for the peclEStrlans and bicyc',es to La Pa~ma Avenue, and with the CiCy to contract to maKe improvements for Baxter St:~e': using ~ne-hatf of the in-11eu Pee. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PIONPII~~~ CQMMISSION. Se~~tcmber 29~ 1975 75'45~ kIJVIRONME~~TAL IMPAC"f _REPQR7 N0, l~il AND TE^ N_ TATIV~~MAP OF TFAC1' N0. 8tiF6 (REVISION ~~o. 1(Gont.) In rr.sponse to questlonin~ by Cnmmissloner Hcrhsl~ Mr. Colliar advlsed that an anproximately ~~~-fooc wid~ strip of land would have: been Inv~lved if dedlcntion of perk land wa3 nccepted in connection wit-~ the s~~b,)eCt property. Commissloner Tolar inqulred wlial Mr. f.ollier's npininn was as to tf~e Impact the subJect sinqle-FAmily tr,cc ~•~ould have on thc park, vs. thc prr.vious con<lominium pro,~ect~ and wl~etl~er additlon,il requlrements coulcf be ol~ced on the cleveloper. Ile further noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission had been discussinq Joint efforCs by the School District and the City *.o hull~l ~ind/or impr~ve park sites; ancl inqulred whether the benefits from the in-lleu fe~~s pald by the developer coulcl be restrlc~ed to the subJect Are~-. Mr. Colller respondecl Chst no thouqht had been glven to add(n~ fncilities to Edlson Park, Commissioner Tolar cnntlnuecl hy not in~i that~ althouclh the prop~sed single-family lots would have their own yards, ha d~d not a~ree that thp childr~n would not use thc pc~rks and facilities that ex(sted in thc are~ ; that he would like to scc ti,e in-I!eu fces paid by the developpr to be used to improve the ,ark F~~cilities in tha sub.ject are~~~ elther at Sycamore Junlor Nigh School or at Edlson Park~ the Irnprovements ko includ~. Items such as lightin~ for tennis courts, etc.~ in answer to some of the p~'~blems. Comrnissioner Jahnson noted that I~e conr.urred tliat the in-) teu fees sl~ould be used in the subJect area and in thak m~nner the City w~uld not be ic~norinq the signatures of the ~eople in the area who wanted more p~irk lind. Mr. Colller Actvised that improvement•s to the Sycamore Junlor Higl, School 9rounds was ~ g~~1 ~ossibllity f~r use of the in-lieu fees and would be more effectivc th~~n addin~ a Strip of lanci to E~+iso~i Park. In r~sponse to questioning by Commissioner Tol~r, M. Lowry advtsed th~ the Planniny Comrnission could m~ke a recommendatian to the City Council that the in-lieu park f~es be utilized spectft~.~lly ~n improve tf ~ park in the immr,dl.iCc area, Commissianer 1lerbst noted that tl~e accessih(1(ty to ti~e Sycamore Junior High School c~rounds involved crossfng La Palma Avenue by the young chilciren, which was I~azardous; hc>wever. h~~v(n~ the sigrial at D~xter and La Pal-na would iTelp, an~1 presently there was a signal at Acacl~ and La Palma whic h was out of the way and the grounds ~~ere fenced off at that point; and that the people i~~ the area had the rtght to be heard concerning the par~ land. Commissiu~~~:i Tnlar noted that from tf~e in-lleu park fee scheclule~ the propossd develop~^ent woul~i proba~!y generatP approxima t ely $65~04~ and he was interested tn -cnow how much of those fees would be remaining fol'~aring the impr~vem~nt of daxter Street with sidewalks, Mr. Collier advised that addition al study woulci ~. required to I~.now ex~~ctty how much money wouid be remaining to m~~ke park improvements and also to take into consider~Clon the addition of a strip of land to Edison Park rather than accepting in-'ieu fees. Commissioner Ilerbst then noted th at the A~ahPim Shor:s development in the C{ty ~f Anaheim had partic~pated with the City in aJd(ng appr~~ximately h acres of park land; ana rhat because of the density propose~ on the subJect property, park land :leJication should be a c~nsideratian. Commissioner John san concurred with Com^issioner Herbst ~nc1 noted tha; the sub_ec.t proposal was entirely d~f ferent from the original development plan approved fo~ the sub)ect property. Mr. Qucyrcl stated that the devel oper was proposinc~ to make full imprcvements to Baxter Street wii:h the excepti~n of app roximately 5n~ feet in front of t e park itsrlF, i~1r. Ccilier ad~~ised that approx{mately 60Q feet al~ng the park frontage was to f~e improved by the City for one-half width. Commissioner• Tolar in~icated tha t he was very concerneo thai some type of park improvemencs bc~ ma:Je in conJunction with the subject proposat. Commissloner Nerbst ;~~ed that th e Commission might consider ~ trade-off to allow 5 feet of street dedication to I~e utiliz ed in the yards, In exchange for approximately 2 ac' of park land which would involve eliminatinc~ two rows of houses aiong the southeriy ed~e ~f tlie existinct Edison Park site an d such an amendment to the proposed tract map would not affect the rest of the trnct; an~i th~t 'c~ would not vote in favor of the tract ma p in its present form with hlllsid~~ streets for .. fiatland develnpmert, wherein the Pl~innina Commission w~uld bc subc ,flnate totlie developer; however, if the developer was wi 11 ir.g to help the area in regard r.o park l;~nd, soms consideration woul:l be warranted. Chairman Farano added that ~~e a dJacent p~rk was an important consideration to the salahil~ty oF the subJect tracc. s ~ ~ ~ MINUTCS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~eptcmber 29~ 1975 75-453 ENV I RONMENTAL ( MPACT REPO_RT NU_, 1 h 1 ANO TENTAT I V[ MAP OF TRIICT N~. 88f~6 (R~V I S I ON PJO. 1) (Cont. ) Mr. Queyrel then statrd th~t khe property owner was present to m~~ke any further commitments In relaCir~nship to t•he pr~perty; that, In the develaper's opinton~ a trade-off had already been made hy re~1~iC~ th<~ d~nslty from 25~ unfts to 164 unft~; th~t the land had Inltlally cost ipproximatel ~~~~~ nn acre and the vnluat~on vias presently up to about S80~OQn an acre; .~n~1 :o o~..~ ~ the In-lleu fFe~~ In a~idition to .ibre pArk land wns askin~ too much, Commfssioner Toiar then su~qestPd th.i~ the develope~• ml~hY. make street improven;ents on both sides of (iaxter Street ad,Jocent to the park, n addlti~n t~ thc payment of in-lleu fr as i tra~'e-off, Mr. Gecrge J. Heltzer~ tlie ~roperty owner, apoeared beforc tlie Plannincl Co~ntssion and stated they had lislenr..d to thc Planninc~ Commission an~.l t-~~rs that perhaps tha subJect pronPrty should be developed with the single-family type residences~ wh(ch was a hlq cut in ,.~~nsity frcm the orl,~inally-approved 75~ dwel{inq units; thnt the dr~inage for the area had been obliyated to the suh]ect property and (f he ha~, known about that, he would prohably not have purch~~sed the property (n the first place~ that he had gone along with the ~rafnage and was proposing the single-f~,mily resfdences; that he had worked with the Parks~ Recreati~~- nnd th~ llrts Dep~~rtment who haci no funds to purchase the park land to Increas~ the sir~ of the existing park; however, as a further conslderation, he would stipulate t~ p~ ~~fdl~~~ Cho full street (mpr~vements for all nF Baxter Street. including the footage along the frontage uf the park~ and that was abnut all he could provide. Cf~alrman Faran~ re~~inded the petitlaner that the wall was also a requirement~ as originally ~~proved~ ancl that by providin~ tlie ful) street impr~ovements for Baxter Street~ tha in-ileu fees would be total{y for improvemenr. to the Sycamore Junior Filgh Schoo) grounds or C.disan Park. Mr. Queyrel st(pulated In behalf c,f the petitloner that al) of thc F3axter `,tre~t imp~~vements and other improvements required hy the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department would be provided. Commissioner Her~sc noteci iat on the basis being discussed, he coulcl not Justify approval of the project. Commissioner Barnss indicateci that she also could not Justi`y approval since there was a real need for p~blic park land In the area, with Edison Park being very small; that sf~e did not feel there was safe access to thc Sycamore Junior High Schaol grounds across La Palm~ Avenue; anJ there were so many problems invoived, including the sti'~ets in the development~ tha: she clfd not fecl the stipulations weie adequate to justify approval. Commissloner T~lar pointed out tl•~at the subJect develapment w~~uld resolve a lonc~°standing flood control p~~blem that existed in Che area and the develop~r would be sp~~nding a large sum of money for said drainage; that the flood problem in the area was presently So bad that `~e did not knc~w how the people got arou~d dur•ing the rainy season; an~1 that because of the expend(tures which were required for the dralnage, he felt the developer had a hardship to justify approval of tl~e proiect with the stipulatians as made. Commissioner King c ncurred. Commissioner Johnson then r,oted that the in-lieu fees were ~~ot suffictent to purchase enough land to increase the park significantly~ however, hP r~cognlzed the positian of Commissioner Herhst in Lhe m~tter. Cummiss(oner Herbst adcfeci that the money derlved frnm the fn-lieu fees, if utilized to improve the Sycamore Junior liinh Scho~l ~rounds~ woui<t not service the :ubiect property and the subject area. Park Superintendent ~ick Kamphefner advlsed there was an approximately 12-acre park land deficiency in the subject area; and, in resryoi~se to questioriing by Commissioner Herb~t, he stated he did not have figures tn compare the addition of 2 acres of park land vs. ~he street improvements, etc., as stipulated to b•~ the petitlaner. Commissionar To~ar n~ted, in hfs oplnlon, ~'~<-~t the people would probably utili~P the improvements to the Junior hiyh schoo) site. It was noted that on March 25, 1q75, the Anaheim City Council certified Envlronmental Impact Report P~o, l~il for the subJect property ar~d the c,om~nercial parce? to the east and that sinc~e the praposed mouifications to plans for• the subject property did not involve any new environmental impacks, no aciclitional EIR or action thereon was necessary at this time. Commissioner Toiar ofrereJ a motion tl~at the Plannine~ Commission doPs hereb~ approve Tentative Map of lract No. arG~~ (Revision No. 1) on the basis that the proposed s~ibdivislon~ togeth~r witl~ its design and improvement, is consis~ent with the ~ity's ~ ~ ~ • MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSI(1~~ September 2y, I~J75 75-4,r,4 ENVIRONMENTl1L IMPACT REPOaT N0. 141 ANQ TENTATIVE MAP OF TR11CT N0. $~66 (REVISION N0. 1)(Cont.) General Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Section ~6473.~; subJect t~ the stl~ulations of the petitloner and sun.j~~c to ~'~e Interdepartmentel Cammittee rccamirendAtlons; that the Pl~~nning Commisslon does her~by recommen~l to the City Councfl thot the parks and recreatlon In-lleu fees paid by thf: subJect cicvelopcn c~ utllizecl for the sole purpase of malcing Improvem~~nts to the ~dJace~,t SycAmore Jurlor High Schoo) p~rk facllitles or to Ecllson Park to eliminate s~~me of tha prohlems rel~tect to park deflclencles in the subJect area and to enhan ~ the s~iblect :rea; sald tn~lleu Fees bein~ accopted since there Is na Avt~ilable usable land In the su~ject area to add t~ the e:xtstine~ adJacent park; and chor. xlie P1~nning Commisston does fu ther recanmen~~ to the City Councfl that Reclassification IJo. 1-75-23~ aPprc~vin~ RM-t+Q~~ zoning OR the subJec.t property~ be 'FInallzed to the RS~ 500n Zone~ to reflect the actual development of the ~+roperty as a~G1--l~t, RS-5~00 subo ~ision, Comr*issioner Herbst noted that he could not vute fo~ the praJect si~~ce, in his oplnlon, appr:~vAl a~~~uld set ~ very undesiiable precPdent for the use of hillside streets 1~ flatlanci cievelopment; however, If the Planning Comnission should approve the developmant~ a stlpulatlon should be called for concerning the 5-foot easement behind the sidewalks fo~ use by the City for excavation~ ma(nteni~~~_~,~ etc,; and thaC ~ther flatl2nd ;racts would be requesttng (n the future to hav~~ stre~r.s ~<~ the hillsi<le standards ancl such re~;~~ests may result in changes to the ordlnances in that respect. Miss Santalahti requested that the Planning Cc~mmission make a finding a3 to the re~~on for approving straets constructeci t~ hillside s~,rds at the subJect location; whereupon~ Cormissioner Tolar e~ anded upc~~ I~i~ MOTIOPI that. the subJect development with streets constructed to hills~de standards is )ustified on the basis that the developer has decreased the density from 25~ dv~ell(ny units originally approved~ to 164 dwelling units; and that tt~e developer will construct storrn drain improvements costing app-•oximately $200~OQQ to eliminate water runoff in thc subject area. C~~mrtt(ssioner Tolar also n~ted thnt he was not concerned that ~pproval or the subJect development would set a precedent. Chairman Farano notP~i th~t~ ir his opinion~ there was na c,uestion that when there w~~s deviatlon from the standards for st~c~t cross sections, Etc.. precedents were set. unless the deve'ioper Justifieci the departu~e from the normal standards by unusual improve.ments ~r other betterment to the community itself; that *_he stipulation of the petitioner *.o makF Khe full street impr~vernents far Baxter Strcet~ freeing the in-lieu fees to be completeiy utllized for park improvements in tlse subJect area, was a trade-off; and that the adrJftional 2 acres of park land discusaed represented only one-sixth of the deficient park land for the subject area, owever~ the p~rk improvements woul.. essentially add a substant:al piece of la~J to the available park space. TherF~~pori~ Commiss~oner Tolar further amended his MOTION to tnclude that the property awne~ s'~all ded~cate for a 5-foot easement adjicent to (inside) the proposed sidewalks lr the subJect tract, except on Baxter Street~ sa?d easement to be utilizeci by the City for excavation and maintenance purpos~s, .r.c. Commissic,ner Kina seconded the ~~~~~tion, as amended~ and MOTiON CARRIED (Commissioners Johnson and Herbst voting "no" and Commission~r Morley being ahsent), subject to the fullowing conditlons: 1. Tn:~t development of this tract is c~ntingP~t upon the completi~n of Reclassifi~..,tion Plo. ?~~-75^?.~, approving the zoning of the property. `L. That should this subdivision be developed as more than ene subdivision~ each subdivision there~f shall be submitted In tentative form for approval. 3, That all lo~: within this tract ~hall be served by underground utiri[i~:s. 4, That fire hydr~nts shali be instatled and charged ar required ~nd deCermined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to comm~anceme~t uf structura) f~aining. 5. That the owner(s) of subJect property shall pay t~~ the Ctty of Anai~etm the apprnoriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determinecl to be appropriate by the C~ty Counc(1. sald fees to be paid at t!~e time the building permit is issued, 6. That vehtcular access rights~ except at street and/or alley openings~ to La P~lma Aveiue shall be dedicated co the City of Anaheim. r 1 U ~ ~ MINUTES~ CI1'Y PLAP~NING COMMISSION~ Septcmber 29. 1915 75-455 ENVIRONMENT11t. IMPACT REPORi.rrO~ 141 aNt~ TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 8a6G REVISIQN N0. I(Con:.) .r_.._..-- - 7, Th~t drr~inage of sub~ect propcrty shall hn digposed of In n manner sAtisfactory to tl~e C(ty ~nglneer. 8. That the all~nment an~I termin~~l pnint of storm dralns sh~,wn on this tentative tract mAp shall not he cr~nsidEred final, ~sc clriins shall be subiect to precise design c~nsiderations and ~~ppro ~l of the Clty [. ~cer, 9, That strect n~mes th,11 be apF~rovecl by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of ~ final tract map. ',fl, If permanenl street n~ime siclns havc no[ becn inst:-Iled, kempc~r~ry street namP signs shall be inst~llecl orior to any occup~ncy. 11, That In accordance with Cley ~~uncll polfcy~ a six-foot masonry wall sh~il '~e :onstructed on the south pr~perty Iine scpnratinc~ Lot Nas. 1 throu~h 1~ and 153 th~rouc~h lh~; from La Palma Avenue, P,easonable l~ndsc~iping~ includfn~ (rrigatlon factlities~ shall be inslalle~l in lhe uncemented portion of the arterla; hic~hway parkway the Pull distance of said wall~ plans for s~~ld lan~isc,~pin~ to he suhmittecl to and subJect to the approval of the Superintendent of t'arkway Matntenance, an~l following installatiun and acc~ptanc~, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsil~illty for mai~~tenance of sald landscaping. 12. That al) engineerlnc~ recluirements of thF City of Anaheim~ along the full 64^foot width and enti-•c len9th of Baxter Street hetween Romneya Drivc and La Palma Avenue~ including preparation of improvement plans anci installation of all tmprovements such a:. curbs~ qutters~ sidewalks, street gradfng and pa~iing~ draln~ge facilitles, and other appurt~nant work sh~ll be complled with as required by the Ctty Engineer and in accordance wlth st~+ndard plans and spec(flcations on file in the Office of the City En~~lneer~ ~s stipulated t~ by tl~e petitioner; and tlie su6mitted revised tract maps shall be further ~evised to reflect the b-~-foot width of Baxter Stiraet. 13, That the property owncr(s) shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement to consist of a five-foot strip of land along the i~iside of the sidewalks in the subJect tract, except on Baxter Street, said easement to be for the purpnse of excavating, malntenance~ etc., by the City. 14. That prior to the apFroval of the ~inal tract map~ the petitioner shall :ubmlt final sper,iflc floor plans and elevations to the City Council for approval. 15, That a final tract map of subJect property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of thc~ ~ran~~ i.ounty Recorder. CONDITIO~~AL USE - PUBi.IC HEARONG. SOUTHERN Pr;~.~FIC INDUSTRIAL DE'JtLOPMEP~T CO., PERMIT N0. 15b5 One Market Street~ San Francisc~~, Ca. 94105 (~wner); DONALO R. SKJcRVEN/JAMES E. MARTIND/1LE. 471L We~t First Street, Santa Ana~ Ca. 92i~3 (Agents); requesting pers~ission to ESTABLISH AN OUTDOOR LUMBER STORAGE YARD on propPrty described as: An irr•egularly-shaped parcel of land consist(ng of approximately 3.1 acres having a frontag~: of approxiR+ately 160 feet on the narth sidF: of Howell Street, having a maximum dept~ of approximately 900 feet. being located ~pproximately 10~~i feet east of the cenC~ rline of Lewis Street, and further described as 11.13 East I,~well Street. Pro~erty presently classified 'r1L ( I NallSTR I AL, L I r11 ~~~~) ZONE. No one indicated their presence in opposltion to subJect petit~on. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 29, 1975~ was not read at the public h~aring, said Staff ReF~~rt is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Carl !J. I~Illquist, represent+ng Southern Pac(fic (ndustrial Development ~o.~ the property awner~ appeared before the Planniny Commissicn and stated they were proposing to lease the subject property to '~r. Martindal~; that~ in reviewing the Staff Repor' to xhe Planning Commission, he hec~ar~e concerned about the clrainage east of the railroad ~racks~ ~ince the street and dr+inage h.~d been constructed by his company and subsequently dedic;~ted to the Citv, meaning tl~at said street and drainaae ~vc:re no longer under their ownership or malntenanze. THE PU6LIf :ARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING GOMMISSION~ Septemb~r 29- 1975 CONDITIQ~~AL USE PL'RMIT N0. 1565 (Continued) ~ • 75-456 Offlce Englnecr Jey 71tus acivised r.hat th~ drninage structure which carrled tha water from the eas t to the west s 1 de of thc north.'so~~t.1i r~ I 1 road ~pur had been da naged by truck and equlpment trafflc which crushed it~ making it nc, lon~ar funct(onal; th~ot the damage eould have been cAUted by the trafflc ~rom the farml~,~t or aqricultural usaye of the property; and thet the recommencfe,d cordltlon Qf approval (No. 2) was o genera) requfrement when propdrty wAS being Impr~ved and the dralnage~ etc.~ ~ras in nce4 nf repair. In rasponse ta c;uestlonlr~ by ChalrmAn Farano~ 14r, Hillqulst stateci they owned thc subJact property when tho dralnage w~s constr~icted and that the property had been vaeant with perhaps some agrtcultural usacle~ such as strawberry farminy; hawever~ the propFrty was not presently ~~r,der Icase for a<~ricultural use. Mr. Titus adviscd the Planning Commisston that the subJect property I~ad been checked in thn fleld and that farming was pres~ntly underway~ with sprfnklers, etc.; whereupon, Mr. Nillquist ~tated ~Ithough there •,~as no lease for agriculcural usage oP the property prosently~ there mlght be somc minor f+~rming underway; and that his understanding wHS that usu~lly when improvements were dedicaCed to the City~ the obilgation ~or mainr.enance wes the City's. Chatrman Farano noted that tho Cl~y did nut destroy the improvsment and Dnputy City Attorney Frank Lowry further nottd that ihe City of Anahcim requlred addittonal ded' ~tion or imprevement when there was a change of use of a property; that the proposa' .ss for a chan~e of use and the starm draln was ln netd of repair; and that tha condition as set fnrth ln the Staff Rcport~ was a condltian for granttn~ the spPCial use. Discusslon pursued regtirdtng the permitt~ height of the outdoor storage~ during which Mr. John Rose~ the engineer for the proposa', stAted they were noL Hware of sald hatght requirement and he inqutred lf a w~ll gher th~+n 6 fePt would be permitted. Commissioner Tol~r noted that trees approximately ~ery 10 feet might be des(rablc to screzn the uSe. Mr. Rose explained that the closest utdoor storage would occur approximately '.;0 feet back from the fence adJacent to Howell SLrP=t and that said s~orage may not be visible fr~,,~ the street; that most of the storage would bc several h,, ired feet from the street; thiat they were propasing a 6-foot slatted chatnlink fence; and that the subJect property was ~ot ln a view-type situation. T~iereupon~ Mr. Rase stlpulated ln behalf of che pet(tionar that the outdoor storage would not exceed 6 f~et in height within the first 100 feet from the proposed fe~ce in the parking lot area adJACent to Howell Street~ and that the proposed 6-fc,nt high chalnllnk fence would be interwoven with ~edwood or cedar slats in accordance with Code requiremerts for enclosure of outdoor uses. Commlsstoner King made an observation that the backs c~f the extsting buildings in th~ industrlal area and solid walis were all that could be seen frem the sub.iect proosrty; ttiat Howell Street dead-ended at this property; and thot he did not feel trees should be requlred~ slr,ce no or~r, would be obser•ving the subJect property. Commissioner Herbst noted that ~~hatever was allowed for the subJect develapment would t~e sought by other developers in the area. Cortm(ssfoner Tolar affered a motion~ seconded by Commtssioner Ktng and M0710N CARRIED (Comml~sioner Morley being absent)~ that the P1Anning Commtssion does hereby recortrnend to the Ctty Cout~cll that the subJect project be exempt~ from the requirement to prepare an environmental imp,:ct report, pursuant t~ the provisions of the Caltfornla Gnvironmentai Quality Act. Commissioner Tolar ofPered Resolution No. PC75-~93 and moved for its p3ssage and adoption, that Petiei~n for t:onditional Use Permit ~Vo. 1565 he and heieby is granted, subJect to the sttpulatio~s of ..he petitio~er ~nd subJect to the Interdepartmental Comnittee recommendations ar.d the further conditi;,n rhat 5-gallon minimum-sized trees shall be planted on 10-foot centers adJacent to the proposed 6-foot high chainlink fence in the parktng lot area adJacent to Howell S~reet. ~See Resotution Book) On roll call~ rhe foregoing resolutio~ was passed by the foYlowing vote: AYES: CQMMISSION[RS: gARNES~ HERBST~ ,1011HSON~ KlNG~ TOLAR, FARAPJO NOES : COMM 1 SS I 0;lERS : NONE A6SENT: COMMISSiQNERS: MOPI.EY RECESS ' At 3:40 p.m., Chairman Farano ~~eclared a r•ecess. ...a.._._ RECONVENE. - At ?:5~ p.m.~ Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting, with Comrnissioner Morley being absent. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CIT~' PLANNING COMNISSION~ Svptembcr 29, 19I5 75-457 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC FIEARING. RONIILD ii. ANO SHIRIEY J. COS9Y~ 223Q North 4festwood~ FE~tMIT NQ. 156I, S~nta Ano, Ca. 92706 (Owner); Cl1l.IFQRNIA SERVIC[S CORPORATIOPJ~ c/o Stcward Corhetk, IGO) West Pnac:htrce Strect N.E.~ Atlanta~ Gc-ryia 3~)3~~~ J. DEI1~1 IIFLLF.R~ ESQ.~ Tuttle b Taylor 6Q!1 So~.~th Gr~nd Nvenue, Lo+ lingeles~ Ca, ~1~Q17~ JAMES C, STANLFY~ Coldwell Banker~ 2333 North Proddway~ Santa Ana, Ca. 927QG (Agents); rcquesting permissinn ta ESTIIHLISH AN AUT~MOE311.F. AUCTI(1N AI~D RECONDITI~l~II~IG F1~CIL11"f on property descrih,ed ,. A rzctanqul.vrly-shaped parc:e) of land cor~sisting af approximataly 13.7 acre~ havlnn a frontage of ~pproxim.~tcly 856 feet on tl~e east sl..~ of Tustln Avenue~ having a maxlmw,, deE~~.li of approxlmt~tcsly 680 feet~ belrg lor,ated appr~ximAtcly 22~ feot nnrth of th~~ centerline of Mireloma Avenu~~ and further described as 132~ Tustin Avenue, rroperty presenCly classified ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITFD) ZONE. No one indlcated thelr presence in opposf~~~~rti co subJcct ?ctitlo~. Although the StaFf Report to the Planning Commisslon c:,~teci September 29, 197~, w~s not read at the publlc hearing~ sald StafF Report Is refPrred to and madc a part of the minutes. Mr. Dean Heller, representing the agents for kh~ pctitloner, appearecl before the Plannln,y Commission and stated the proposal was to co~iduct automobile auctions on the subJect property; that no additional s:ructur~l improvements wcre proposed excEpt for minor redecorating; that the northerly approximately one-half of the subJect property was presently unlmproved; that the auct(onfng services would be provided to 1!censed automobile dealers, banks, leasing comp.~nies and finance companles in the exchange of inventorfes; that the automobiles would be trade-ins~ generally; tha[ the a~~ctioning would be canducted wtthtn the building, with the exception of the reconditioning services; that the autorr~biles would be left witli the auctioneer and many of them would be parked inslde the buildinq and some behinci the building, however~ a fence would be provided to screen the park~d vehicles from vtew. Mr. Heller took exception to the Interdepartmental Committec rncommendatlons set forth in the Staff Report (Condition Nos. 2 through $) pertaining to streets, drafnage and other improvementa requlred b~ the City for the granting of the subJect use~ stating that Condition No. 2 was essentfally a street improvement (tem; that the requested improvements~ with the exception of sidewalks~ I~ad been installed at the tlme of the inittal consCruction on the improv~d port(on of the proper~y; hawever~ no impr~vements were made for Che un(mproved portion of the property and Chey were herawitl7 requesti~y tliat the referenced improvert~cnts for the unimpraved portion of the property be deferred until such time as that pruperty was developed, or approximately thrce years; and that th~ey were also requesting a waiver from the requirement to install sidewalks since there should he vfrtually no pedestrians in the area which was indu~rri~~l. THE PUBLIC tIf.ARING WAS CLOSE:~. In responsc to yuestlonin~ by Commissioner Kin~, Mr. Heller stipulated that the proposed 6-foot high cyclone-type fence would be entirely (nterwoven with redwood or cedar slats, in ac~orciance with Code requiremPnts regarding the enclosure of outdoor uses. Commissioner• Tolar quest(oned how the petit(oner intended tu excluc.e he general public from the proposed auction, ~soting that he was not in favor ef a used car lot at the sub}ect location. Therf ipdn, Mr. Warren Young, President of California Services Cor~+oration, Bigelow Trail~ htedford~ New Jersey~ appeared before the Planning Commisslon and stated the Corporatior. hired security personnel to check the people admitted ~.., the auction ta insure 'they were in fact registered dealers with the State oF California ar,d also register~d with the auction. In respon•>e to que~tioning by Commissioner .;ahnson. Mr. Young stated the proposed operation was similar to the operar.ion on Garvey St eet in Los Angeles. Commissioner Nerbst noted that the pr~posed use appeared to be convnerclal~ rather than industrial and the Zoning Code for the industrial area specified that the use must be a use that ssrvtces the Indus*.rlal community; and he queSYioned ;iow the proposed use would service the Industrtal community. Mr. Neller repli~d that, in their opinion~ tha condtttonal use permit was applicable to the subJect ~-e in the industrial zone~ as long as the pr(mary i~se was confined within a structure. Commissioner Herbst took exception, noting that he dld no~ agree that the proposed us~e would service the industrial community~ and that th~re were many areas in the commercia) zones of the City where *_he subject use w~uld flt. Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti noted for the Planni~~g Commiss~on that the proposal was a who~esating use and not a retail use, Commissioner Nerbst not~d trat wholes~~~ing precludecl the coll~ction of sales tax on lten~s sotd, -~J ~ MINU7ES~ CITY P~^,NNING COMMISSION~ Se~tember 29, ~975 CQNDITIONAL USE P[RMIT N0. 15~6 (Contlnucd) ~ ~ 75°~+5~ In responSC to quest(oning by Commisslonar Farano, Mr. Hcilr.r stl~ul~tcd thare woul~+ be no dismantlln~ of ~~utomnblles on the subJect. property nnd thr. Ai~t~~rmhil~a ~.~<~uld be driveable and in g~od condltlnn whRn said vc-•,icles left the premises, Mr. Heller further stntecl that f~es were char~ed for the ~uctloninq servl~:e~~ and they ~ttracted mc,s[ly th.~ +einher class ~n~l l~~te model automobiles; that they dId n~t advertise to tlie publ (c because they only de:~le with registered deal~r•s; ancl that they v,ere proposing to have only wall signs on thc buil~fing and would use thr, m~~il serv(ce F~r advertfsing whlch w.~~ d~rocted to dealers on:, Comnissior~ar ,;ohnson noted that at othcr simil~r 1~ :attons a percent~iqe of the autumobllss wr.re purchased by deslers who hrought individuals, uch as him5elf, tu the site for a selectlon. Mr. Youn~ stated the pricticc:s of his t,rm did not c~nclone the proce~lure outlinPd by Comm~ssioner Johnson; that the ind(viduals who were n~t de~ilers would have a difffcult [Ime clett~ncl onto thP property and In the event such an act was commit*.eci more than dnce~ the dealers would be suspencled from future admission to thc au~•ti~m, Comml~sloner Kinc, noted that a large por~ion of th$ praperty was presentl~ vaca~~C or ~mimproved and considCrati~n sr.o~ld tie c~iven to deferrlr.g the engineering requirem~nts of the City for the perlod of 'imP requesterl by the petitioner; whereupon~ Camm(ssloner F~rano inqulred if a time 1(mit could be est~l~lished for bonding for sald improvements and Office Cnc~ine~r Jay Tltus replied that tl~e b~nding proceciure was acceptable if it was *.he desire nf the Planning Commissinn, however~ if the presently unimproved portlon of the property was used for any reason then the impr~vements would be requlrecl. Mr, Tit.us recommended that the additional d~dic;ation be required at this time ~nd advised tFiat a letter could be submittecl by the petitioner to the Cfty [ngineer concerning the r~~quested waiver of the requlrement f~r sidewalks adja~~ent to the Sub)ect prope;ty. Chairmar~ harar.~ clarifled that since Mr. Heller had fndi:~ted there would be appr~ximately three years prlor to the unimproved portion of the property being used~ and ir~ the ~onding were permitted~ it would be with the understandinn t`~at ~t the end of the tf ,:e ~~ears the bonding would either be renewed or the improvements made in the event the propert~~ was to be used at tha`t Cime, Discussion pursued reg~rd(ng the availah'e parking 5paces on ~ha subj~~~ ~roperty~ and Mr. Neller sta[ed 15~? parking spaces were niarked off In thc driveway areas a~ 1 additlonal area was available for parking a~hen needed; and he did not anticipate rhat as many as 300 parking spaces would ever be necessary. It was noted that the Dlrector of the Planning Department ha~ deter,,nined th~t the proposed activ(ty fell wir.hin the defi~ition of Section 3•~~~ Class l, of the City of Anaheim Gui~irlines to the Requlrements for ~n Envir~nmental Impact Report and was, therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirment to p~•epare an E{R. Commissioner Ncrbst offered Resolutiors No. PC75-~~:~4 and moved for its passage and adoptlan~ that Petitlon for Conditional Use permit No. 15f~6 be and liereby is granted~ ..~ the basis that the pPtitloner stipulated that the proposed ~~se will be conducted whrl!y (100~) as a whol~ ~ operation with no retail sales, that only State of California licensed automr` ,~ dealers wha are also registerecl with the subj~_t establlshrrPnt wi11 be permitted on tl site in connection with tfiP sa;e or purchase of automobiles, that the reconditioning of ~~itomc,~iles will be an ac~essory function, clearly ircidenta) to tne permitted prlmary use~ an~i that thP proposed use wil~ he conducted inside the existiny ~truct•~~P; that, inasmuch as ~ppraximately on~-half of the subject prope-~ty i~, currently undevelored ~.~d vacant~ and s'ince no strucLUrai changes are currently proposed t, the developed portlan of the property whlch is to be ~tilized presently for the subJect use, the Plann(n~ Comm(~sion docs hereby determii~e that the p~ti~loner sh~~.l' not be required to make the engineering and street lightiny impruvements along Tustin A~• ~ue adJacent to the undevelo~ed pc>rtton of subject p~'operty at thts time as would typic.,''y be required by the City, however, a bond in an amount and form s~tisfactory to the C! _~f Anahe(i~~ shall be posted with the City to guarantee the ;nstallation of said intiprove~~ets at such time as the vacant portion of the property is developed; subJect to ~he stipulations of the petitioner c~ncernfng the proposed fenc: e~~losure for the o~tdoor use~ cor^oliance with 2he ML site development stand~rds for signing, w'th only a~all siqns being proposed, and the dismantling of automobiles at the sut~act I~,,:ation; and subJect to the ~nter~epartmenta) Committec recornmendatiuns. (See Resolution Book) 0~ r~ll ca~~~ the fnrego~ng resolutlc,n was p~sser! by the following vote: AYES: CQMMISSIOIJERSc Bl1R~ S, NERBST, KING, TOLA~c~ FARAPIO NOE~: COM'~ISSIO~'~RS: J(1HNSON ARSENT: COhMISSIONERS: MORLEY ~ ~ ~ M I ~IUTCS , C I TY I'I.A~IN I NG CONPi I SS ( ON ~ Septcmber 2~ ~ 1915 ~ ~ 75-i+`~9 C~ND1710fI11L U5E - PURLIC fienr~rir,, LLOYD KL[:I~1~ 21~ ~~uch Manchester, An~~halm~ f,a, ~'f.RM17 NQ. 15G7 ~7.~'11 (c~ner); requestincl pcrmisslc~n ta EST~BLISH AUTOMOBI~E SALES ~ AGFNCIES A~lI~ LQTS WITH WAfVERS OF (~) MINiMUM STRUCTURl11. SE78I1C.K AND (D) Rf.QUI REn ~ iTE SCRf.Et~l'lG .:n pr~per~y described es: An I rrequla~-ly- shaped pircel of lind consistinq ~f ap;,rnxlmat~,ly 21 acres loc~~te~l on the south slde of la Palma llvenue betwcen Whlte Star Avenue and l~rm~ndo Street, having approxlmate fr•ont- aqes of 1~i~3~3 feet or+ thc s~uth sfdc Qf Ls Palm;~ Avenue, 13~i'.'. Fect on the east slde of White Star Avenuc, and 5~~ fect on t'ic west sicle c'' Arrnando Street. ProperLy presently classifled RS-A-h3,~~n~(n) (RESI(1F~IT1l1L!AGRICI-ITUt~,~~.-OIL PRnpUr.Tl~tl dVF.RLAY) 2~NE, No one 1n~11cated thelr presence in o~position c~~ [tie subJect petftion. /1lthou~h the Staff Rep~rt to th^ f'lannin.i Comm~ssl~n d:~ted Septemher 29~ 197;, 4l7~i no[ rcad at thc p~ibllc hr,arin~, sald Staff Report is ~eferred to and m.~tde a part ~f the minutes. Mr. Ran~1y sosch, representing the ~~rchltect f~~r t~~~, devr.loper, opUeared before the Plar~ning Commisslon ~~nd state~l the s,ubJect propert~~ was located aclJacent to the Rlverside Freaway and the use ~•~ould he we11 lo•~ated to ser~ie the n~~~~~s of the industrlalists in the are~, primarily; thit, ;f Che p'oposal ~s ;r.inle~l, the people who worked in the area would not have to go out of the are~~ for servicing of thc:ir aut~~moblles, etc.; that they wer~ withd~a~~;ng the request for waiver of the requ(red site screening adJacent to La Palma Avem ;: since they 4~er~ proposin~ to provlde the landscaping and trees in accardance with the s~te d~velcprnent standards nf the ML Zone; that there was no intent to have an :~`~;al ecllfir_e constructecf in the landscap~d setback .~reas, however~ they were pro~osfng to have raised cement slabs fn said setback ~~reas to display automobiles, t1r. Bosch further stated thot, in each ceise, architeGt~ral control would be malntained ta avold (n~ompatibillty wit~~ the uses; chat an enclosed, walled storage and di•;play area for temporary stock prlor to sa-a would he provfdecl; and th~it the sic7ning ~,!ou~d be provided (n acco~'dance ~ri th tlie ML Codc stan~lards, Upon f~ iul -y of Cha) rman Farano, Mr. Bosch Stipulated that no walvers from the S(gn Orcllnance would be reyuested later on in the development of t!~~ ,,rop~rty. THE PUP,LIC HEARINr WAS ClOSEO. In re~;.ans~ ti: questionln~ 1,, Commissfoner King, Mr. dosch stated the planned ri~h~-of-way for the extension of I.a Mesa Str~~t to the south of the subJect property was not a part of tihe subject prope-ty, exc~pt for a few feet~ a~ith the remainder being on adjacen~ preperty ~wned by anothar p~rty; however, the petitioner had made more than the usual attempts to ~~:quire the adJacent property to tlie suutli; and that the petitioner would .tlpulate to ded i c~t Z ng for r i-' t-of-~ ~ay f~~r La Mesa Avenue based on a 6~-foot st reet w~~ith :nea~, ~,red from thc right-~ ~y 11ne of the Riverside Freeway and to posting a cash t ~d for the streeC improve~ _., inc?uc11~~g the street 1(ghts far said street. Mr. Basch furtlier statecl th,t the subject pro~~osal had been presented to the Chamber of Commerce and there were no obJectlons. Commi~sioner King inquired concerninn the exterlor lightinc~ and Messrs. Bosch and Rrn•~land stipul~ted in behalf of the petitioner th;~s• the propc~secl exterior lighting would be dire:cted away from the adJacnnt streets ancl the R(verside Fr'eeway so as not to be detrimental to ths flo~~~ of ;raffic and to submitti~g plans for said ligY~ting for review and approval ar Caltrans. Commissioner Herbst noted that he :+as prohably the greatest objector to the ` posed type of devclopment In the industrial area~ especially to preserve the integrity ~, the Northeast Industria) Area; that the s~ibJect proposal was similar in nature to a retreational vehicle sales ~ncl service proposal along the Riverside Freeway which was dCnled by the Planning Comn,issi~n; that there ha~i a15o been problems develop from the approval of tha Ca~elot Golf Cour~c• which v~as approved as an interim use in the industrial area; that the i~dustrial users des~ived protection from intrusion of commercial ~~ •s .+hich had incompatible traffic flo~,~~; and, In his opinion~ the subject proRosal wouirJ be an intru~ ior~. in rebuttal, Mr. Bosch stated they felt very strongly that the indlviduals in the City who required the proposed services worked (n tlee in;fustrial areas; that in order for ind~~strialists and their emplayees to have their• cars serviced out of the area where they work~~l there was a great lo~s of tlme~ effort and mnney involved, if no facilities f~r ehe service ~ere conveniently locaCed; that the subject property was located at the edge of the light industrlal area~ with expos~~re *.o the i2iverside Freeat~~y to provic~e aGCess for ~ ~ ~ MI N~' f~'S, C I TV PLANN I NG COMMI SS I ON ~ Se~tembcr ?.9 ~ 1975 75-~~60 C( ,iQll~L USE PERMIT M0. 15~7 (Cortlnued) ttie grGt+to~ [ sec7men 1 ot` the comnwn I ty at the t( me sr_rv I cc was nrecfe~ -- when the ~ommun 1 tv wns qolne~ to an~t fr; ~n au+rk; that, ,~I Ch~ugh the pmposnl w~is not an indus[rial use, It was a ~i~hr ~_ommorclal usr.; that, in thP c~~se a!' dealerships, l~rge storae~e ~~reas for thc backlog of cars were required; an~l th~it tl~ay did ~h.ir~ ~fi~+ concern wlll, the invlolablll~y of the ind~istri~l area. Mr. Dan Rowland, the ~rchiCect ~~~r the prc~pc~s~~l~ appeared before the Planning Commisslon and stoCPd that, since the. commrncement af the propos.+l, there had bcen a~ncerns relacing to the r.,~ing~ especlally sinc;e the M-1 (ncw ML) ton~~ ha~l no provislon for auComotlve uses; tha[ the C-3 (nch :.H) Zunc ~~rovided for automotivc uses closcly related to the existinq develapmsnt alon~ Anahelm Baulevard; t~at he was aurprised that the Clty of Anahelm li~d nc>C r•eallr.ecl thit the ~?r~posed use was a compatible use in an industrial zone; that the cltics ~~f Rlverside and Santa B~rhara had ~~ut~m~hile sales and s~rv~c~e pArks similar t~ thP sub.;er,t proposal in an industrial zone~ with teiversi~te's park being approximately 75 acres in slr.c:; etc.; th~t there was a need for a large area of land for the sub~e~et type use; that they hc~d cher.ked by telephone wlth the inclustri:~lists in the area and ~ut oC approv.lmately ~;~1 ~entacte~l, there was n~ nppositi~n; that ail of the 5~ inc{ustrialists were invftecl to the Chamber of Commerce Offica~ as .~+n accommodatlon t~~ the Industrlal cammunlty, and ::ven were piesent at a meetlnn there tn sec the presentatlon~ as presently beln~ presented~ ancl the seven industrialists a~;keci questlons similar to tf~ose belnq asked by the Planninci Comml~,~.;(~n; that the lnclustriallsts were in favor of the proposal ~s ~n accommodatlon to the area ancf for thei;~ nwn purposes, He further stated that the use sh~uld bt uermltted, under tlie conditi~nal use perr.ilt procedure~ in thP ML Zone, ~ommissioner Nerbst noted that his main concer•n was that a retail sales organization was ~:ropose<1 that would not be primirily to servlcc the industrlal area; that the property was close to the freeway and wuuld attract fr~m it, ha~~:ver, there may be only a small amouni of busine~s From the ind~istrlal comn~uniky itself; anc! that because the property was c,lose to the freeway and tl~ere was addilional undevelopeu property a ~ng the freeway in the area, approv~l of the 5ub.ject proposal might set a prececient for the Cevelopment of the other vacant land in the area. Chairman Farana noted that he agreed there were problems when employees needed au*.omutive services and no f~cilities were within a reasonablz distance; thut he would agree with Commissloner Herbst's opinions if the prop~sal was for one dealership~ however~ six were proposed and, for that reason~ he felt the industrial community would take advantage of t.!;~ services offered; and that banks had been permitted by conditional use permit in the industrfal areas, as a service, also. CommissionPr tlerbst clarifierl that the sales aspect ~f t'e oroposed operatian v~ould set the precedent and not the servlce; an~.l he questioned th~~ diFferentiation between the subject pt^oposal and the previously denied application f~~ a recreational vehicle sales and servlce operation in an industrial area. Chairman Farano noted that usualiy someone who was e~etting his recreatioral vehicle serviced was netting ready to go on a vacakion, etc,~ however~ automabiles were essential For transportation to and from work and a convenierit servicing establishment was important; and tf~at, additionally, the difference between the two uses was not ~•+hat the uses were but the fact that the proposed type use ~; a combinati~~n oF available services that would be approNriate in the subJect area~ fn his opinion. Commis,ic,ner Ilerbst then noted thaC if 25$ of the business ~as from the industrial community~ then 75~ uf tne customers would live out of the area and :ake their cars there for servicino. Chairman Farano noted that the subJect location was out-of-the-way f~r any residential section of ttie City. Commissioner Tolar notec! th~t sales t:~x dollars would be brounht into the area if the subject pr~po~al was developed and~ further~ woutd provide a convenient service to the people in the area, Commissloner Tolar offered a rm~tion~ seconded by Com.iiss?oner Kinq ar.d "10TION CARRIED (Commissianer Morley being al~ser.t). that the Pianning Commiss!~n cines hereby recortmenc: to [he City Counc~l tnat the subject pro}ect be exempt fr~m the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, p~ suant ta the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Assistant Zoning Supervisor A?lan Daum noted for the Plannin~ C~mmiss`-:n that the reference to La Mesa Str:,t in Conditlon Nos. 2~ 3~ 4 and j, as sat forth in the Staff Re~ort~ should be deleted~ with a new rer"erence made to "the new street through the property." Said correction to theStaff Report was acknowledGed. ~ ~ ~ MINUTE&~ CITY PIAI•ININf, COhSMI°SION~ September 29, 1975 CO~~DITIONAL USE PfI2MIT NO. 15G7 (CnntlnuecJ) _____..~... 75-4G1 Conmilssioner Tol~r ofi'~recl Resalutlon t4o, PCJ~~-19~ an~i muved for its passagr and adopcfan, that ~'et i t lon for Conc1) t i~na 1 Usc Pern~i t Na, i~6 % bc an~l her~hy i s qrant~cl ~ i n part, gr~ntincl w~~ivar of the mini~m•m structurAl sethnck t~ r~rmit cemanc sl~nbs in the I~ndscaped setback within Che 5~~f~oC requlre~lrnir,imum structurnl s~tbr.:k, s~id slabx tp be utilfr_ed to display nutcsmobl~e3; th,~t the petitioner wl~h.:rew tlie re~inesteri .;ifv~r c,f the requlred slte screcn(nq with thc stipul~tion to r• vidn I.mdscr~pe scrcenfnc~ in conformancc kith th~ site developmnnt ~tandnrcis ~f tl~e MI_ Zo _; SUb~P.Gt to the stipulacions of the peCltioner concer•ni~~ slqninn, bon~iine~ for the Stl'Cr' I~,~r;nvemenLs, e"c,, ~lon~ la Mesa Strsct to the sc~uth oF the sub~ecC property, ~+nd the cxtcrior Iightin~ of the Nropo~ec use; ~.ai~i use being ~ranted on thc Las(; rhat the Planninq Com~nfssf~n doe~ hereby cletermine thac the proposed a~tcxnobile sales agencies, wirh automellv~~ 5ervlc ind 1,~raing as 3cce;sory uses, will servicc ch~ adJ~icent In~1v•.tri:~l arcaso and suhject to Inteardep.~-tmental Canm(ttee reco~~mend~tlons, as ~mendr,cl ahove. (See Resalutlon Book~ On roll call~ the foraqo(n~ resol~tinn was passecl by the ~o1laNii~q vote: AYES: CQMMISSI~FI[RS: J~HNSO`!~ KIN„~ 1OL~it, Fl1RA~10 NOF•.°: COMMISSIQNERS• B~RN[S~ NERf3ST ADS~NT: CQMMISSInPlF.RS: M~RL[Y CJ~IDITIO~~AI. USE - PUBLIC HE~RIN ~. COMET~ INC. ~ P, 0, dox 63G6, durban~., Ca, 9151~ PCRMIT N~1. 15G~' (Owner); iiOMER WALLACE~ %29 N~r-th 7opeka Strect, Anaheim, Ca. 92~305 r (Agent); requestin~ pcrmission to ESTAHLISII IIUTOMOBILE P/11NTING AND BQDY RF.f'AIR on pro~erty describeJ as: ~~ rectanc~ulsrly~shaped parcel oP land consistinq of approxinately ~~ 7'1 acr~ located at the northwest corner of OrangE- th~rpe A~ienu= ard Or•anc~eth ~~ p.: f'ark, having approx~mate frontages af 1F2 feet on the north side of Uran~ethorpe Avenue an~J 215 fent on th° west side of Orangethurpe Park~ ,nd further descrlbE~l as 1713 Nortfi Orangethorpe Park, Property presently classifled i~IL (INDUSTRIAL~ L!"IiTED) ZOMF.. Two persons tnd(ca~ed their pres~nce in oppositlan to subJecC ~etir~on, Assistant zonirg Supervisor Allan Daum read the Staff Report to t`e Planning Coirmission da~~o September 2~1~ 1975~ and sald Staff Report is referred to a~ (f set forth in full ir the rn(n~~tFS. Mr. Rod Wallace~ 1C3~~ Catalpa Avenue, Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Commisslon to ,•Ppresent the agent for the petitioner and stated no waive~s from the Co~~ were being requested; thdt other similar uses er.isted in the subJect indu~trlal ~ark; and that the proposed use would be compatible with the other surrounc+ing uses. Ms, Norma Scott, 252~ Glenhaven, Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Corc~mission to express appositlon to the subJect proposal in behalf of Mr. Bergrnan, owner ~f Color ~nd Custom~ another establlshment in the subject industrial complex~ and statr,d the propo~al was the exact same kincl of business as Co'or ~nd Custom, however~ Calor and Custom hrd ad~quate room for thEir business an~l the su::_jECt appiic~nt did not; that Color and Custom was required to do all of their palnting and repairs Insiue the buildin9, whereas, the subject bu(lding was very small with only enouyh rrom for twc, vehiclas i~side; t!~at the subJect appl(csnt was already using t'ie ~utdoors for part of their busiress; that she liad a list and pictures of the cars that h~d been ~utdo~rs at the subject s~te in varlous stages of repair ancl they could identify eictht of the vehic~es as not belonging to the applicant or his employees. M:. Scott reviewed the 1(st of cars~ noting that the information was partly gatherecf from repalr estimates that Color ancl Custcxn had provided ta the owners of the eiglit vehictes; that the subject esta~lishment had bee~ worlcing on the vehicles outside for 3pprox~mately three weaks; that Co~or and Custom had been requ(red to move thelr business to the subject industr~ial complex in order to ue able to have sufficient space to conduct their operat=on inside the buildinq; and C~l~r and Custom occupied spacs approx;mately thrPe times as large a~ the subJect building. THE FUBL I C IIEAP, I NG WAS CLdSED. Cheirman Farann r~oted that the subJect petition was a res~~lt of a complalni against the subJect establishment; that he was not in favor of the applica~t not complying vilth the ordinances of the City; and he requested that *.he applicant address himself to the manner in which the business w~s presently being operated. ~ ~ ~ MINl11fC; CIT"( PI.IINNIN(i CUMMI:,SIO~~, Sepl~^mbor :9, 1~75 ~ONDI ~ ~O~~AL IJSf. I'C~t111T M0, 15b(3 (Con~ lnucd) 75••4f,2 Mr, Id~l Incc tit.r~ecl th;-t nt'. thc prr,~;ent timc the vc~ ic.les wcrc parked outs idc ind thc fr.ncin~l ~•i~s not complctr~~t; nn~1 thrc the vehicles ~n the pr~rerty ~ither bclon9ect to th~ employees ~~r fr•Icn~l~. Commisslonci• Tolnr nc~tecl th,.~~ vchir.l~s in s[acles c'~f rep:~ir sh~uld he {n~,lde the buildlnc~; whereupon~ Mr. W~'licr. stntcd thc vehlcles whicli were parked nutside wr.re brougl~t t.o thN preml~,~s in the(r {aresenC ~:t,i[~~; thnt he utilizecl p~~int ba~ths at arother locatlon for th~ ~,~Inring; khat a shc;rt tim~ aqo '~e h~~~1 becn w~l sandln~ c~utside~ 'iich he did not knnw was prn~ilblted; lhit thc estnl?llshment was set up tr, takc c~re of on~ or iwo cars ~~r day; :ind that they were not In the business ~f t~~4~.in9 circ ~f w~ecked vehicles. Mr. (:dw~~rd Mc+ncinl, ~13~1 Itit~ ~ay, Sanli An~, the opcr~tor of th~ subJect establishment, appeared bcfore the Pl~nninn Comir~i531cm and stated thc namc of the sub]ect business was Colorman; thaC the subJect location was the only place they hid found which was ava~iable and ~~~itablc for thc subJect usc; thnC they had brou~ht in th.:ir own cars to wurk on; that tliey ii~d c.onformP<1 t~ the requlrements ~f thc Fire Marsh~l and the Electrlcal Code, and ,~crc only arorkfnn ..~. . ~wn cirs insid,: the buil~tinq; th~t they were nr~t aware the~~ cauld not sand the ~:ars outslde untll som~one fmm the City came out; that the cars were taken icross ta+r~ for p~iln[ing; an~l that they ha~1 been issued a cease order by the Clty ~nd, therefore~ no work on the cirs was beinn cond~.~cted at the present time, t+nd the cars were .just sltting on the propcrty. It was n~ted that the pet~tioner had stipulated at the timc of Staff revlew to providir~g •a cha(nl(nk fance interwoven wlth redv~ood or ceciar slats to effectively view-screen any outdoor stora~a 1,~ conformance with ML Gode requirements. fn response to yuestlon~nct ;Y~ hemin5identheKscreened enclr~suretand,not~on'~theaadJaeent1~$ [ha! may he on the s I te aiou puhlic streets. In response to questionln~~ by Chairman Farano, Mr. Mancini stated they did auto show type and quallty w~rk an< could tit as m~ny as four cars into the building at one Clme if thPy had to. Ch~irman Farano n~ted th~~t he would not vote in favor of the proposal unless a time llmit not to exceed two years was imposed, since if ti~e appllcanCs haci not understood their obligations to tFe Clty's ordin~rces u{~ t~ the present time, two years would ylve them an opportunity tc ~:nderstand sald ordlnances, ~r the time for the use would not be extended. Commissioner Herbst note~i tha: hfs primary c:oncern was that all of the r~ork be conducted inside the hulldinc~ and, thereupon, Mr. Mancini stipul~ted that all phases of the proposed operation would be conducted in~i~'e the building. It was note~! that 3t the Lime oi 5*.aff revlew ofi the prnN~sal, the petitioner had stipuiated that any proposed business sic~niny would be in conformance with ML Code requirements. It was noted that tf~e Directo. uf the Pl~nnin9 Department ha~~ determined that the proposed act(vity fell with~ ,~ cleflnit(on of Section 3•~~. Class 1~ of the City of Anaheirn Guideiines to the i~nq,:.'. ~r~enr~ for an Environmental im~act Repo! ~n~ was, therefore~ categorically exempt fr•om rhe requlrement to file an EIR. Corn~nissloner K~ng offered Resolution No. PC75-196 and moved for Its passage and adoptfon~ that Petition for ~on:.~lrional Use Permit No. 1563 b~ and hereby is granted for a perlod of two years, subJ~c; to ~°~ ^w and consideration for extension ~f tfine by the Planning CommulationsnofGth^ipet1itloner; andnsubJectntoe'~nterdepartmentaltCnmmitteebrecommendae st p tions. (See Resolution d~ok) On roll call, the fore~oing resolution was passed by the following votC: AYES: COMMIS~IOtJERS: g~RNES~ HERBST~ JUHNSOIJ~ KiNG~ TJLIIR~ FARA~IO t~0E5~ COMMISSIONERS: NONE At~SENT: COMM15510NER5: M~RIEY ~ - ~ ~ ~ - - - ~-- ~~.i 3 MINUIE~, f,ITY ~'Ll1NNINC COMMIS~~(>N~ :;Mptemhe~r 7.~), 1975 '' ~~' VARI~tNCE N~. 7.7~~~ - PUR:,lC IF~R~rIG. it~Rf•.ItT l.. l1Nf~ CLARf~ l. ARfit('C~~, 2Z~1 Ilurth Rcclwc->od ' Drivc~ M~iMQim, Ca. ~?.~~~6 (Owncrti); rcr~urstiri~•i N~iVfPS (F (l1} MINIMlIP1 f'R~IJT SF7[-ACY. ANG (N) MINIMUM NUMf11:1~ OF PARKI~IG SI'l1CFS, TO PE:ftMi~ AN C•.XISTIN~~ GIIR~GL C~~lVf'RSIO~! on proF~criy c(escrih~d ~~: An Irrc,ctul~i'ly•shr+pr.~l parccl c~t land con5l~tln~ oF .~~+prnxlm~tcly 0.7.3 acrc h~vin~ a rront~qe ~~f a{~(~r~xineitcly `1; 1'cet on the north sidc of Nurt~i kedwoc~d Drivc, h~+vinq n m:iximum dcpth ~f op~rc,r,im.~t~•ly 11.~~ f~et. be(nn locate>d tipProxima[ely G~lcl fE,~[ we~st of the cr.nt~:rllne of Whittler St~^et~ and furth~er d~>.sc~ihe~i ~,s 22(11 North Re<Iwcwd Drlve. Propcrty presently c~.l55IfI/!d RS•-A~t~3,000 (nESIDE~IT'Il1l/AGft1CUl.7UR11L) 7.~MF. No one Indicatc~l thr_ir presenc:e in ~~p~sitic~n to subJe~:t petition. A1 t~u9h th~ 5 taff Repor t t~ the PI ann I ng Commi ss i on datecl S~~ptembcr 29, 1975, wr:~s ~iot read r~t the ~+ub) ic he~ring, Said Staff Report ls referrrd to an~l made ~ part of the minutes. Mrs, Clar~ L. Aberegg~ thr. propcrty ownsr, app~are~l before the Pl~~nnin~ Cammission and stateci Mr. Don Hemme of the Uti l i tle•s Deparlment had Indlc~Ce~l a wa(ver would be granted in con+iection with water assessment fees wh(ch were outl(ned in Che Staff Rpport recommencia t I ons . TNF PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLQSEb. Chairman Farano noted for the pet(tioner that the conrllClon requiring water assessment fees woulci stand; however, if the Clty Staff could grant such a waiver, sald fees rr~ay nat be required. Oiscussfon pursued regarding thc number of parking Sp~~eS availabie to the propert•~~ during wFiich Zoning Supervisor Annika SantalahYi noted th~~t although the iot was o~ a eul- de-sac, sald lot was unusually wicfe, being 93 feet, and there was consequently room for three on~street parkinq spaces, in adcfition to tfie t~ao spaces in the carport. In response to questioning by Commissloner To'~r, Mrs. Abere99 stated tlie conversion was made in 1960 and presently they were in es~ to sell the home, Miss Sa~*.alahti advised that at the time the home was constructecl setback requi rement was 15 feet and i f a garage had been constructed rather than a carport, sald structure would have been within the rPquirements of the Code. Mrs. Aberegg further stateci Lhat at the Cimc~ of the original censtruction of the home, which was custom-built, the plans for the garage were a~proved by the C1 ty wi th the plumbi ny, electr i c ity and wfndows for later convers i on i nto ~ raan. Cortmissianer I~erbsr indicated that if the carport could be made into a garage for two cars. it should be done, since two-car garages were 9enerally requlred ~n ali single~• family zones. In response to questloning by Commfssioner Tolar, Mrs. Abergegg stated there was a buyer for the property, whereupon, Commissioner Tolar note~ that the conversion apparently was ~ccepted and wanted by the buyer. Commi ss iuner King noted thaC the carport a~peared to be cons i stent wi th the rest of the home and looked to be part of the architect's original plan. Comm(ss(oner King inqulred If the carport ~~~ould hold two cars if doors were installed on sald carport; whereupim, Mrs. Aberegg sf~~ted the carport had always been used as a carport and was very satisFactory~ and that they were sel l ing the hc~me under conventianal financing. Chairman Farano noted that, althou~h he did not wish to hurt people~ the subiect conversion was illeaal and the Retitioner had apparently and openly flaunter the City's ordinances. Commissioner Johnson inqulrpd why doors could nat be instalied on the carport;, whereupon, Miss Santalahti advised that~ structural ly speaking, the 8ui lcling Department had (nspectsd the structure and were not sure that the doors could be adequately supported wi t~out ac~d{tional straln to the existing structure. !t was noted that the Director of the Planning Department had detcrmined that th~ proposed activity fell within the definil'ion of Section 3~~1, Class 1, of the Ctty of Anaholm Guldelines ta the Requirert-ents for an Environm~~~tal Impact Report and was~ therefore. categorically exempt from the requtrement to f ile an ElP,. p ~ ~ MINUT~S, ~'I~'Y p~n~ir11NC CbMMIS5!ON, September 79, 1975 ~~~4G4 VARIANf,C NU, 2734 (Contlnucd} Commisslancr King offcred Resolutiun Pdo. PC7:-~`~7 and nx~vod f~r its pass~ge and adupClon, r.har. Peti[I~n ~~r VArlance No, 273h hc ~n~l hcr.~l~y Is c~rnnted, granting w~~iver of th~~ m(nlmum f ront seCb~~ck to A front-on garagc on thc basis th~~t the carpori structure was bullt In ~+ccorclanca with thc seth<~ck r~~~ulrc^men~s In effect ot the timr, of its eanr~truction, ancl ~1~spltc subJoct property bcing l~catcd or thf~clr~'~~f~~raccs t` (r,~~ll "kn~ickle." her.ausF of the width af suh_ir..c[ prnpcrty, bein~ 93 ~ p 1'~' Y provlcled in thc drlve~~ay ~re av~ i lahlr. in th~: strcet; grnntlnc~ wf~iver of thc minlmi.im numbcr oF ~irl~inc, apaces on the basis that there is room for threr_ on-5crcet p~rking spaces, In t~ddltt~n to the twu ~arkinq spa^^s provlded wfthin the c:-rport; that the Pl~nn(rg f.ormi(ssion dor.s further determfnc hat d;~:~~pProval of the sub.ject requcs[ wr~uld cre,~t~ a h~~rdshlp for the pet~`ioner, pirticulariy slnce the subJer_t property is In escrow and tha new c~wn~rs ore satisfled wi2h thc: prop~~rty as it Is pre~s~~~~tly cc~~?structed; anJ sald varl~nce i•s gr~inteci subjr.ct to the Inter~l~p~~rtmental Comrnitt<,r. recc~mmen~iations. (See R~sc,lutton Eiook) Un rol l cal l~ the fore9oine~ resolutfon was passc:d by the followin9 vo4e: AYES: COMMISS I~NERS: IiARNES, HERA.°~T, JOhItJ50P~~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: C~~~MISS I OIdEAS: FI~RANO ADSENT: COMMISS IONERS: MORLEY VARIANCE N~, 2J35 " FURLIC HEARIP~G. RIGNARD LUT7_, 72(1 South Euclid Street~ Sulte 9~ r Anaheim, Ca, ^2"~2 (Owner); reyuestin9 WAIVER OF (A) MINiF1UM NUMBER OF PIIRKIHG SPAi:ES, (8) MAXIMUM BUILDI-IG HEI~HT AND (C) MI~IIMUM BUILOING SETE3/~CY.~ TO CONS'~RUCT AN OFFIC[ BUIIDING on property described as: A rectangula~!y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre having a front- age of approximately 12Q feet o~i the west sfde of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approxirnatel y 100 feet ~ bei ng located approxirnately 210 feet north o'F the centerl ine of Orange Avenue, and further described as 505 South Eucl id Street. Praperty presPnYly ~lassifled RS-A-43,QQ0 (RESIDEtJTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) Z~N~~, No one Indicated their presence !n opposition to subJcct oetition. Although the ~taff Report to thc Planning Commission dated Septemher 29~ 1975, was not read at the pub 1 Ic hear i ng, sa td Staf f Report 1 s referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Richard Lutz, the property owner~ appeared before the Plannina Ca^~m~:~ion and stated he would like to construct a 38o~-square foot, S°space off(ce oc• ~:nmmerclal building at the subJect loeatlon; and that he would be willing to abide by all of the condixinns of approval set forth in the ~taff Report. 7NE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. Cha i rman Farano Inqu i red i 1~ a massage par l or woul d be ane of the users af the bui l d i ng space; whereupon, Mr. Lutz stated that although there ~aas a potential tenant for a massage parlor~ he had not spoken to said potential tenant for approximately t:hree months and there was presently no lease or contract for such a us~:, 7hereupon, ',:ha(rman Farano (ndlcated that he would not vote to have a massage parlor at the subject location. 'Loning Supervi sor Ann(ka Santalahti advised that the s~~bJect property was under a Kesolution of Intent to CL (Corrmerclal~ Limited) zonimg, which was appropr{ate for a massage par) or use, Mr. Lutz furtl~er stated that one of the office sp~~.es would ~~robably be for a real estate office. The Planning CommissioR entered into dlscussion concerning t1~e requested waive~s~ during wh i ch Commi ss i oner Herbs t noted that the wa 1 vers of the max I rnum bu 1 1 d I ng he! ght and the mi n t mum bu 1 1 d i ng setback shoul d be den i Ed; and Commi ss loncr IC) ng noted that i f the bu i l d i ng was set back 1 ~ f ee t f rom the s i de prcperty 1 I ne, ti~e 10 feet woul d be was ted space, in hts opinlon; that the property ownrr to the north ~~pproved of the p~uposal; and that he couid not Imagine lA-Foot setbacks between the commercial bulldings along Lincoln Avenue~ as an example. Chai rman Faranc r~oted that the setback, were part of the ordinance and could not be disregarded; and, addiklonally~ the subJect property was not on Ltncoln Avenue in downtown P.naheim. Planning Dcpartment Director Ronald Thompson advised tha; the ~ ~ ~ MINUTFS, CITY i'l./1NNING CQMMISSOON~ Scptcmbcr 2y~ ly')!i '15-4~5 VARIANC~ N0. 2.~;~!i __..____~._.-.-- .-._ (Contlnued) subJect ~~ren <~ lonq E.ucl irl Screet n~y wel I be deve'ope~f comme;rcl~~l at the sidey c time th d a tat~=r cl:ite~ 7s; ard set6nck would not deniqnstnd on tl~~^ llnihclm GenerA , a , At ~ Plan~ an bc requ i rccl . Camm(ssioner Tolrrr questlnnc::f tli c access poincs an Eucl id Street In reldtlonship tn the ject property~ sub whc!'eupon~ the t+ppr~ved Area Devcl~ipm~^nt Pl~~n No. 95 was rE.vlewed ancl . Mfss Santnlah[1 aclvfsc~i th~+~ lb feet of th~ approved 2(1-foot .~ccess polnt on Euclld Str~et w~~s locr~terl alon~ th~ northerly ed~r. of the suhJ~ct F~,ropcrty. Further discusslon purr,ued conc.r.rnfnc7 a massag^ parlor at the subJect locatlon, whereupon~ Mr. Lutz st I p~ lated that s i nce hc had not heard fram the ~rospeck i ve tenant `or the massage pttrlor, he would st~{~~alate that a mass~ge p~rlor would not bc one of the tenants oi` tlie proposed bui ldinci, Deputy C1 ty Attorney Franlc Lowry acivised that, dur. to thr_ zonin~, such ~ stipulat(on wauld be useless; and Comm(ssioner• .loh~~s~n clarifleJ th~~t a conditlon~l sise perm(t ipplicitfon would he requ(red if a massage p.irlor was propose~i in the future, if the patr'onage or emplayment was 1(mited to persons 10 ycars of age ur ulder. Commissloner Herhst offered a mation, seconded by Commis~ioner King and MQTION CARRIEO~ that the Planning Ccrnmis~lon does herehy recommend to the City Councll that the sub}ect proJect be exempt fr~m tl~e r'equl rement ta prepare an env) ronmental impact report ~ pursuant to the provis ions af the Calit'ornla Environmental Quality Ack. ~nmmissioner Herbst offered Resolution tJo. PC75~19f3 and moved for (ts passage ancl adoption, that Petition for Var~ancc; No. 2735 be ancl hereby is grdnted, granting waiver of the minimurn number of parkinc~ spaces to permit 16 parkin~ spac~s on the t~asis that sald request is mi nimal; grancing waivcrs of the maximum butlding helght and minimum bullding setback on th e basis that the property to the north of subJect property is designated for qeneral cortxnPrcial uses on the Anahieim General Plan, anci if sald development occurs, the bu(?r11ng height restrictlon and 10-foot setback would no longer be required; said Varlance being 9ranted subject to the Interdepartment:~l Comm(tCee recommendations. (See Resolution Bookj On roll call , the ~oreyoing resolution was p~ssed by the following vote: AYF.S: COMMISSIONERS: BARP~ES~ HERHST, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COhy~11SS10N[RS: JOHNSON~ FARANO ABSENT: C6h1MISSIONERS: MORLEY SCNEDUI.ItJG OF ADJOURNED REGULAR PLAN~dING COMMtSSi0P1 FOR PUBLIC MEETiNG CANCf.RNING E XPANSION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA Chairman Fa r ano suggested th~t an adJourned regular Planning Commission meet(ng be scheduled o~ Octuber 6, 1~75, at 7:3~ P~m•~ and that consideration be given to holdin~g sald meetln ~ in a facility larger than the Counci) Chamher at City Hall~ as suggested by the public at the prevlous pubiic me~tiny regarding the subJect matter. Comnfssione r Herbst noted that inasmiich as a very effective meeting had been conducted in the C~aunci 1 Chamber on September 15~ 1975- ancl t;~e meeting held pr~viously at the Chartres Recreation Center was not as effective or controlled~ he was not in favor of ho;ding future rtiee tinas awaY from th~e City Halt~ althouqh some of the pe~ple at the meeting on September 1 5 were not able to ~et ir.to the Chember, Commissione r Johnson noted that he would not be ~bla to attend a meeting on October 6, since he would be out-of-town. Commission e r King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herhst and MQTION CARRIED (Commission er Johnson abstaining~ and Commissloner Morley being ab~ent). that an adJourned regular me e ting of the Anaheim Qlannlna Commission be scheduled Fo~ October E, 1915, at J;30 p,m., in the Council Chamber at the Anaheim City Hall~ said meeting being a public meeting to further consider the proposed exparslon of Redevelopment ProJect Alpha. COMMISSlONER TOl.AR I.EFT THE MEETING AT 5:3~ P•M• ~ ~ ~ ~ MI~IUT[S, CITY PLIINNING CQMMISSIQN, Septnmbcr 29~ 1975 7~~~~('~' V~R11~Nr,F. N0. 273~~ - PUf-LIC NFl1ftI~IG. STAFl1C~ I~IC.~ c/o Sholl Q11 Co.~ P. 0. Box 2ab9, long "-"""'~~ Efeach, CA. 9oAnl (Owncr); JOHN T04~NSEND~ u951 P Ishop Strcet, Cypress, ~•, 906;~ (Agcnt); rc~ur.st.lnc~ WAIV~R OF PF.RMIT°~'~D USES TO [:5T118LISH AN AU7QMODILE UPI'OLSTERY SIIOP an pro~erty dr,scrihed ~s: A rectan~iulArly-shaped parccl of land conslsting of nppro>~lmntely (1.3~~ Acre I~~ca[ed at the sout'~~ast corner of Bt~ll Road nnd W~estcrn Avcnuc~ havlnn approximale frontn~~s of I?5 fect on the ,outh si<ies of Ball Roaci ~nd 11~3 fr:ec on the east si~le of Western Avenue, and Further descrlbed ds 31%4 West Ba~l Roflii. Propcrty presently classified Cl (COMME:RCIl11.~ LIMit[D) ZOt~E. N~ one InrllcAted thelr pr~sence In oppc»ltl<•;n to subJect peCitl~~n. A1Chounh the Strff acport to the Planning C~mmisslon dated September 79, 1~75, was not read At the public hearing, s~~id ~aff Repart Is referred to and madc a part of thc minutes, M~. John 1'ownsend~ the aqent for the petitfoner, anpeared before the Planning Commission and reviewcd tt~e proposal, statfrg that he hoped to establlsli his uphuls•:ery busl~ess at the riow vacant service st.~t(on slte; tliat no walvers from the site development standards were being requested and they were proposing to provide the trce screening along t.he south and eas t property 1 I nes an~i ~ acld i t i ona I 1 y ~ tt~e wes ter 1 y dr i vr.way on Ba 1 I R~ad and the northerly driv~way on Western AvenuE would be rernnvcd and replaced wlth ~tandard curb~ gutter and s i dewa) k; ±h~-~ t he was al ready i nvr.st i ng a cons f derab 1 e amount of mone~y 1 n thc Froperty and woulci respectFully request a w~~iver fram the requlrement to pay $2 pe~ fr~nt foot al~ng Ball Road and Western Avenue for street llghting; and th~t he did naf canslder sald Streat lfgntlnq requirement to be falr or economir.ally practical to him. THE PUBLI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Comm(ssion~r Johnson noted for Mr. 7ownsend that the street lighting fees were a normAl requlrr,ment to a property owner when there ~as a change (n land use, if said fees had not been collected for the property In the past. 7.oning Supervlsor Annika Santalahtl advised that the referenceci fees w~uld amount to appraximately $486.(1~ for the subject property and was requlred to be paid only once. I~ response to questioning by Commissioner Herbst~ Mr. Townsend st.~ted that, as the n~w property owr~er, he would stipulate to submltting a written request to terminate Conditianal Use Permit No. S`~Z which was granted in the past to permit a service statlon withln 75 feet of a rasidential zone. It was noted tViat the Di*ector of the Planning Department had ~eterrnined that khe proposed activity feli wi*.hin the definition af Section 3.~1. Class l~ of the City of Anahelm Guldelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Irnpact Rep~rt and was~ therefore, c~tegorically exempt from the requirement to File an EIR. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC75-199 and moved for its passage ~nd adoptlon~ tF,at Petitfon for Varlance No. 2736 b~ and hereby is granted, subject to the stipulations of the petltioner, and subject to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passecl by the following vote: AYES: COMMISS 10~lERS: BPRNES~ HERBS7. JOHNSON~ KING~ FARANO NOES: COMJIISSIOMERS: NONE ABSENTa COMMISSIQNERS: MORi.EY~ TOLAR ~ ~ ~ MIPIUTFS, CITY PLl1NNING COMMISSI~N~ Septembor 7.9~ 1975 ~~~~~~ Vl1RIANCE tl~, ~7~7 PUl1lIC IIf.~1ftI~IC. MART11l1 BIRCNER, 311 Nort.h Blrchcr, Anahcim, Ca. ~7.Rni (Owner); MICIIAFL J. CI1P11'0, 13?12 Ma~nc>lie, 9-2, Garden Grova~ Ca. ~26hh (llyent); rcqucstlny W~IVE.RS OF (A) MINIMUM NUMBF.R AF PIIRY.ING SPACES AND (B) PERMITTfU USES~ TO ESTAl1L15H Rf.T111L SALCS IPI A CbNVFRTEU RE~l~~E~1CE an property described c+s; A rr:ct~nyularly-shaped parcel of land consist(nc~ of apprnximately Q.I~~ acrc hnvin~ o frontaqo of ~pproximately 7Q fcet on the east slde c~f Brnokhurst St~e~t, hr~v(ng a maxfmum dspth of approximatcly 07 fceC~ beln~ locatidQ~Pe;°x12~Nortli'l3r~ookhursto5treet..thPr~pcrty,,resertlynclHSSAfIedcRSaA~~~3~,pt0~r dascr b 3 ( R[S I ULNT I AL/A~~R I f,ULTURIIL) 7.~P~F.. No onr. Indicated thelr presence In opp~~sitfon to :he subJect petition. l~lthouqh thr. Staff Repart to the Pl~~nning Commisslon wns not read at ~~e put,lic hearing~ sAld StAff Rcport Is referred t~~ ~nd made A pnrt of thc minutcs, Mr. Michacl Capitn, the agent for the petitioner~ appearod bef~re the Planning Commisslon anJ state<1 they were Ieasln9 the subJect praperty and wished ta convert the residential structure to a ret~il use; that there were other retail uses in thc imm~diate area of thc subJect property; and thit the homes in the arca were all bein~ converted ko reCafl uses as they were sold, TFIE PUBLIC NFl1RING WA:~ CLQSED. In response to questloning by Commissioner King, Mr. Caplta stateci they were not presently in operation at the subJect loGation; and thaC the strlp of land along the north property line to be usecl for access to the rear of tfie property anci to the parklnc~ area was part of another parcel but owned by the suhJect property owner, Commissioner Herbst questloned why Mr, Capito had selected the subJect proPeavil~~traveled retall sales operatlon; and Mr. Capito replied that BrookhursY. was a very Y strect~ the property was close to the freeway, and the multiple-Family and sinc~le••family residentlal dr:~ielopment in the area would support the prc~pos~d retail sales of women's clothing. Commisstoner V~erbsr ~otPd that the building would be required to conform to the building Code for commerclal structures and that he was not in favor of eanverting resident+al build(ngs to commercial uses unless said conversions were professionally and pro~erly identif(able as commercial structures. Chairman Farano adcied that tlie Building Code requirements could not be waived an~.i the electrical~ plumbing, etc., requirements were more stringent for commercially used pr~perty than for residentlal. Mr. Capito stated they were proposing to make no structural changes to the subject buildiny. Mr. Capito then stated there had been other commerclal use.s on the subject property~ such as a tclevision repair and a rztail ouliet~ and two ~~ x(~-fi~ot windows had been installed on the front of the buildinq. Commissioner Herbst noted that the subJect property was part of the Gaza Strip annexation and many of the commerclal uses were exlsting on Cne properties at the time of saie~ annexation from the County; that tl~e subject area wa~ a dise~race to the City~ and he would not vote for any more comnercial uses in the area; and t~~at lf the applicant ~~anted to establish a commercial use, he should go to a commercial area and a commer•cial building. Commissioner Kinq noted that he would agree that there were a iot of vacancies in ttie commercial areas of the City of Anaheim. In response to questioning by Chairman Farano, Mr. Caplto stated they 4~ere proposing to have a flat sig~ placed against the structure, with no big sic~ning ta be put up. In response to questioning by Commissioner King. Mr. Capito clao'ified that a wooden fence was located along the soutf~erly property line. Chalrman Farano further notecf that residential structuras were usudlly converted for commercial uses by changin~ the front facade of the~ F,uI1dln~ to give the appearance of a commerclal structure. Photographs of the subject structure were reviewed and Mr, Capito stated that the u~e w~~es nat a mass~ge parinr. In res~onse to questioning hy Chafrman Farano~ Mr. Capito reitarated that he did not intend to mAke any c~mmertlal-typ~ chan9es to the facade of tl~e: subJect building and. ~'f'Johnson,notedhthatethe~proposalewastdiffbcult t~eJustify andhe bulldinq. Commissi~~~~-~~ • ~ ~ s MI~~U'ff.S~ CITY PIANNING CONNISSI(1N~ September 29, 1975 7;-46R VAR111~ICE N0. 2?37 ~Gont I nued) althuugri It would be eci-~o eG`time whe~fhaiwastdosirouspof~usi~g~~a rC~ld~nceaforChis own ~(mlisr circumntances +~ bus 1 r~r.ss. It was ncatecl that tl~r, Dirnr,tc." of the P1Anninn Departnx;nt had cleterrnin~d thK~~nnhelm ~osed actlvity fell withfn thr. deflnlt{on ~f Sectio~ 3,~~~ Clt~ss 1~ ~f thc• Clty o~ Guidellnes ta tlie Rbqulrements for ~~n Enviranment~~l Im~~act Report: ond was~ t.herefore, categorlcally excm~t fr~m thc r~equlrement to file an EIR, Commissloncr Ilerbst offerecl kesolutfon No. PC75•~~~~ and moved for (ts passagc and aJoptlon~ thet Petltion for Var(ance No. 2737 he and herr.by is deniecl on the basls that tha p~:tltlone:r lndlcateci that no structural changes wer•e proposed to the exls~ing resld~:ntiel structure whi!;h would morz prnperly ar~d prof~s~f~nally Identify sald struclure a~s a c:ommerclal buildinc~; that the ~xistinq c~mmercial uses in the arca were existir~g at tl~e tima of annexatlon of sald area t~~ the Cfty anci~ as su~h~ are presently nonconforming uses ~~nd the Commission is not desirai~s of perpetuating such conversl~ns in the subJect aree. (See Resolution 8nok) On roll call, the fore~olnq resolution was p~ssed by the following vote~ AYES: COMMISSION~RS: BARNES, NOES; COMMISSIONERS: N(1NE AOSC•NT: Ct1MMISSIf1NERS: M~RLC.Y~ HERBS ~~ JOfINS~N ~ KI NG ~ Fl1RAiJ0 TOLAR AMEt~DMEPJT TO TITLE 17~ - PUBLIC HEARING. To consider an amendrr~ent to the Anaheim ANAHEfM MUNICIP/1L CODF Municipal Code~ 1'itle 17 - l.and f)CVelopment and Resources, -' ~ Chapter 17.QA - S~~bdivisi~ns. Oeputy City Attorney Frank Lr~ry reviewed the Staff Report to thc P'ianning Commis~i~~n dated September• 2~), 1975, an~ said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Lowry noted for the P1Annin9 Commission that the pr~posed new Subdivis(ons Ordinance was technical, in nature, ancl was a revision to the Subdivisions Ordinance which was incorporated in the Charter of the City; that the subJect amendment was necessary to enact "The Subdlvlsion Map Act of 1974" and to provide for the control and regulation b~ the City of the desi~n and improvements of subdivisions or parcels c~f real property requiring parcel maps; and that the new subdtvisions laa~s enabled the Cit~i to have several options or alte~•natives. described as follows: A. School Site Oedfcation The new State law permits a city to require, as part o~F its s~bdtvison ordinance~ that a developer dedicate to an elementary school dist~rict such land as the Councll may deem necessary for the p~rpose of construc'ting schools, provided that the school p~y the a:.tual cast to the developer of the property plus any improvemenks ~nd taxes, and further provlcled it does not make th~ development economlcally lmpossihle. This must be imposed on the ~~eveloper at the time of approval of tFe tentative map an~l accepted in a short sp:+ce of time by the school district~ and does not apply if khe subdivlder has c~wr~ed the property for rnore than ten years. B. Reservation A new aspect of the State law permits the City ta est~bl(sh fn its subdivision ordinance a requirement that the subdivider res~°rve sites approprlete in area and locatlon for parks~ recreational facilities~ fire stations, librarles or other "publtc" uses in accordance wlth f(xed standard~~ formulas~ procedures and method of payment therefor. The City would be require~~ to pay for 4uch land in accord- ance with a formula established by the State law. ~ ~ MINUTLS~ CITY pLANNIr~G COMMISSIOIJ~ Saptember 29~ 197; 14MENDM~NT TO T17LE l7 (Coniinued) A • 75-~~9 C. Soils Rnports Tl~e n~w St~tc law p~~mit~ thr. requlrement tl~at prellminary s~i1 reports be subrnikfed for e~~ery t~:~~tatlve trict or parcel map, and F~rovlcle procrdures for waivar and approvnl of, ~r dlsapproval af~ subdivisions c~nt~~ining sofl problems. Sin~e this Iti cov~r~d extens~vcly ~n the Clty gr~idln~ ordin~~nce it was not chosen by staff. Newever~ lt could he included if it is the desire: of the Planning Comm i ss i on incl/or the C i ty Co~anc 1 1. Mr . l.owry con ~ 1 nued by not i n~ th~~ t t~~e approp r f ate C 1 ty 5 t~if f(w i th the except I on af the Parks and Recrea[ion Uepartment) and tt~e Or~nge County C(vll Engineer's ~ssoclatlAnd~thPir ot.her outside aqencies~ had revlewed the suh.)ect propc~sed AmPncirient ta Title 17, -~plnlons werr. revlewed hy a commfttcc~ said opinions eiChcr br.ing incorporated~ reJec[ed or madlflecl for fnclusion in tl~e Amr.n~lment; Lhat the formal of thc propos~d ordinance was presented hy the State of Californi~ in concert with~ tlie State ~ar to all cities in the State to achleve unif.~rmity for dc:vel~pers anci land owners wha were sometimes confused when every city had their own format; that the differences between the ordinances of the varlous cit(es would only relate tu the ~ptions wl~icli could be Incorporatecl; that due to the fact that the new laws for subclivisions had been in effeck for a pert~od of time and not yet adopted by the C(ty~ *.he developers in the Clty haci been affected by the exQ(ratlon dates oP tentative tr~ct maps~ etc.; and that the pro{~osed ordina~ce~ if approved by the Plannln~ Commission at this meeting, would be passr_d to thc City Council for public heari~c~ in two weeks. Chalrman Far~+no note~l regardin9 the oark in-lieu fees whfch were incluoe~i in the p~'oposed ordinance, that it appeared the Planninc~ Comrnission was not ready to take an action rec~ard(ng that aspect; and that the L~a~uc ef Callfornia Cities' suggestion for adoption of thelr rec~xnmendatlon that tnn~P~~kulationumaEenotebenthe~desir~~of1theaCity ofrAnahe~im. population t~ 4.Q acres per 1, p p Y Commissioner Herbst inqulred if the regional parks~ i.e,, Featherly anrl Yorba, were included in the City's park acreage ancl he noted that th~e City had made various contrib~attons ta those parks in their develo;ment. Mr. Lowry advised tF.at the policy had been to only count parks dedicated to the City of Anaheim~ with no credit for Caunty~ State. Fecieral~ or school dfstrict lands; ttiaC the park in-lieu fees included in the propnsed ordinance were exactly the same as v~as presently in the City°s Code and, therefare, consideratlon of the League's recortme~ded fePS could be considered at a future date f~~r inclusion in the ordinance; and that he was mainly concerned that the Planning Commissian consider the three options ~r alternatives descril~eci above for possible inGlusion in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Jim Barlsic~ representin~ ,inaheim Ni~ls~ Inc,~ appe.ared before the Planning Commission and stated [tiat any sinnific~nt increase in the park in~lie-~ fees would have a big effect on the pe~ple in Anaheim Hil-s. Mr. Lowry then advised that the fee schedules wouid be presentec'. to the City Count'ii prior to tlie secoiid read i ng ot the ord i n;+nce ~ an~1 a 1 though [he~e wou 1 d be some new fees , there may n~~t I,e any increases in existing fces. Discussion follawad concerning including a~t!on "A. School Site Dedicati~n" in the proposed ardinance, following which the general consensus of the Planning Commission was not to include sald opiion in the rew ordinance, Regardfng option "D. Reservatinn~" M--. Ha~isic statec tne developers wouid probably ~~ot mind reservinq sites apprapriate in area and locatic+n for park:, recreational facilities~ fire statianso libraries or other public uses~ as long as they knevr they would 9at ~air market value far the land. Mr, Lawry advi~ed that when the land was acquired for the referenced sites within s(x months the developers would be more or less reimbur;ed what they crlginall;~ paid for the propErty: whereupon~ Mr. Barisic stated he d~d not agree with that methocJ of p~yment. Commissianer Joiinson noted that, iii his opinion, the acquisltion of land t?y a public entity should be at the fair market value at the time of acquisition. Commissioner Barnes noted that she cild ~ot feel ~~nder the procedure outlined by Mr. Lowry that the dedeloper would lose anythl~g~ ~espec(ally (f no grading or other improvements to sa~d land w~uld be require~i, Thereupon, Cornmissioner Barnes i~ciicated r.hat she w~uld like to sce optlons "D. R~servation" ~~nd "C. S;~11 Reports" added into the proposc.d ordinance. 0`fice Enqineer Jay Titus aclv{sed that since the City's Grading Ordinance fully covered ~~~~~ ttie subJect of soll reports~ salcl op[ion ~~ would be a duplication~ it included in t e propos~d Subd(vlsicns Ordinance. Mr. Lowry agreed that lncludingtoptlon "~~~~a~ cover~ed in praposed ordlnance woulc.l be reclundant, and since the ~atter of so 1 reports • ~ ~ s MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSI(1N, 5,~tember 29~ 1915 ;5-410 AMENDMCNT TO TITLE 17 (Cvntlnued) the Grodinc~ Ordtnanca (n many scctlnns and In many difPerenl ways, eny rovlstons t.o the Grrding Ordlnance t.o be correlated wlih the Subd(vlslons Ordinance may l.e a maJor fldministrativo chore. Further c9lscur-sf~n pursued rec~ardin~ opkiun "R. Roservotlon"; whereupon~ Mr. Lowry advised that the Clty would be forced to use n formul~ cstrhlish~d by tf~e St~~te Law ln the purchase of taroperty for the rePerenced sites. Comm(~sloner Ilerhst not.ed that~ In his opinion, the referenced sites should be ~cquirc~l thro~~qh bonds~ elc, Thereupon~ Commissioners Barnes, Ilarbst anci Fa~ano inciicated they were not in favor oF includiny :.ald optlon "H" In the proposed Suhdivisions Ordin~~nce. TH[ PUBI.If, fiEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissi~m er Herbst offered Resolution No. Pf.75-2~1 and moved fur its passage and adoptlon, that Che Planninq Commission of the City af Anaheim does herehy recommend to the City Co~~n~:il oF the City of Anaheim that an amenclment to Tltle 17 - land Develnpment Resources~ ChapCPr 17.~~ ^ Subdlvtsions~ as depicted on "Exhibit A" be ad~pced~ wlth the added r~rovision that soil reports shall be requlred in accordance with the City's Grad~n~ Ordlnanc~. {See Resolutfon Bo~k) On rcll call, the foregoing resolution was passed b•i the following vote: AYES: COMHISSI~PJERS: BARNES~ NERBST~ JONNSO~'~ KING~ FARAFJQ NQ[~: COMMI5SIONF.RS: NONE ABf~EPITt COMMISSIONERS: MORLFY~ TOL~R E:NVIROPJME-ITAL IMPACT - Submitted for certification in connect'on with a request for REPORT N0. 15~- a grading permlt for constructlon of a private road located on the north side af Mohler Drive, approxim~tely 0.7 miles from Santa Ans Cany~n Road. The Staff R.eport to the Planning Commission dated September 2^~ 1~)75, discussin~ the su~Ject proposal was presented ancl made a part of the minutes. It was noted that t~ie subject private road was already un<ier constructlo~~ and almost completed, and wo~lcf be ap~roximately 12F0 feet long~ provicling acr,ess to five parce land having a total of 1~~.-+ acres; that the pr~perty owner was intendinq to divtde n C the parcels into Lhree, makinc~ a total of seven parcels; that it would be possible dlvide tl~e total property into as many as 37. Parcels if zoned according to the Re•~ of Intent t:u RS-HS-22~Q~~; and that the Traffic Engineer had indicateci that the ~~ traffic resulting from such development could be a matter of concern. It was f~ noted that the EIR Raview CommltteP had pointed out several items of significancr 1) the street would be a 1'1.6n-foot long cul-de-sac~ with a 15~ grade makinn acc.+•s- dlfficult for emergency vehicles, '?) it might be preFerable to provide a conne~t~1 some other street to the north to improve circulation and provide an addition~l - -. route instead of a dead end and 3) several eucalyptus trees had already been em~.••t,~ however~ the exact number could not be determined. The Planning Commission entered irito disc~assion c~ncerning the proposai and ex~~res~-~~ concerns similar to those of the EIR Review Committee, noting th~~t the Comrr~~ss~or ~!~ou',d be concerned t~rith the safety factors fnvolved. In response, Planning Supervisc~ ~~o+ McDaniel advised that the items pointed oui by the EIR Revievr Committee were ini~r~ ional only and were not points upon which the subJect EIR should or should not be a~prov:.. Commisslo~er King offered a motian~ seconded by Canmissioner Johnsor and MOTI~ ~ ns~lED (Commissioners Morley and Tolar bein~ absent), that tl•~e Planning Cor.imission belic~-es that Environmental Impact Report No. 15~-, having been considered r.his date hy the Co~~••~sslon and evldence, both written and oral, havin~ been presentecl to 5up~lemc:nt sa~d ~lraft EIR No. 15~, does co~form to the City and State Guldelines and che State ~' California Environmental Quality Act and, based upon such informar on, doe:~ hereby recommend to the City Council that they cert.ify said EIR No, 15~~ ls in nmF~li~nce with said Environmental Quality Act, ~ ~ ~ MI~JUTES ANAII[IM CITY PLl1N~~IN ~ COMMISSIQH~ SepM^+hrr 2~~ ~~'75 75"~71 RI'P~1RT!~ A~IR ~ ITCM N~. 1 RF.CQMM:lJ~l1?In~;S ~~~~F. DfCI.~Rr11'I~1N RfQ,UFST - For ~~~ ~1r~~~11nry ~~~:rmit - ~ ~t (Ji7-~ V1n Corral. I t w~s ncked thati .~n app) Ic~t icr,~ fc,r ~ gr~rlin~ permi c wa~s f l lecl in c~r~ner,t lon ~~i th a ~~rop~~s~t t~~ const~uct ~ sw~rrm,ln~ pnol ~n~1 rccrc~tl~n hu'lrlin~t fc~r ~~n exlsting singln- fami ly rnsicience ~t the sublec.~ aclciress; t.h.~t ai, evalur~tlr~n of thc rnvircmmental im(~act of grac'~inn Ht ;~,:; sul~ject l~~c~iti~n wns rec~uire:~l un~l~~r the prnvlsinr,s of the Cal{fornla F:nvlronmonCal Quality Acr. in~l the Stat~~ EIR Gul~lalines sinc~ the p-'n.)e~t was located (n the Scenlc Corr~~lor; and th~~t a stu~ly ~F tnc ~~mp~s~J ~r~~lin~ hy the Encllneering Divlslon an~l the Plannln~ Depnrtrnent in~lir_atcJ th;~t it woul~l havc nn slnnlflcant ei~yironmental irop<~ct. C:xnmissioner Kinn offere:d a m~tlon, secon~led by C.ommfssic,ner Johnsnn ancl M~71~N CARRIEb (,Cumrc~issioners Morlr.y and 'fc~l~~r bein~~ absent)~ tnat the Plannlnq Commisslan does hereby r~ccx^~-and to th~ City Cauncil that thc suh,ject proJect be exempt from the requirement to p~eparc ~n envirc~nment~~l impict r~r<,rt, pursuant to the pr~visions of the Callfornia Cnv i ronmc:r tA 1~u~~ 1 i ty -1c t. I TF.r~ Nn, 2 E I R NEG11T 1 V1: DE.CI_I1RAT S 0~1 RFQU[ST - For a grad ( nn perrn i t at >?.31 Crescent Drfvc. It w~as noted that an application for :j grading permit w~s fll~cl in connect+on with a propos;~l t~ consCruct a sinc~le-family resiclencN at the subJect acldress; that an evaluation of the environmental impact of grading ~t tl~e suh.ject loc~ition w~s required under the pr~visians of the California Environmental Quality Ac[ and tl~e SCate EIR Guidelines since the pro,ject was located in the Sccnic Corridor; ~nd that ~~ study ~f the proposed ~radin9 by the Engfneeiinn Divisfon and the Pl~nninc~ Department inclicated that it would have no slgnificant env!ronmental impa::t. Ccx~missioner Barnes notE~d tl~at she was cancerned about the cirainage requirements in the area, sin~e the drainage went throue~h the subJect property all the way to Anaheim Hills; and she suggested that City Staff review the drainage situ~ition. Thereupon, Office Engineer Jay Titus advised that there was a natural channei over the edge of lhe subJect property, extending to Santa Ana Canyon Road where a storm draln was proposed to bP constructed witl~ Trace TJo. 7;67; that Anaheim Hills~ Inc, an~1 the Grant Corporatien had jointly posted bonds for said drainage; tf~at~ over the. past few years~ those deveiopers had given the City assurancPS throu~h letters that tliey would give easement for the storm drains which would be cons:r~icted at a later date and that they would not block the easement for dralnage. Commissioner Y.ing offered a motion, seconded by Commisstoner Nerbst and MOTION CARRIED (Cortm(ssioners Morlcy and Tolar heing absent)~ that the Planning Gommission does hereby recommend to the Clty Council tl,;~t th~~ 5~'~ursuar.trtoethebprovi5l~nsrof the Californiat to prepare an environmental impact r:,p i•t, p Environmentel Quallty Act. ITC~1 N~. 3 F I R~VF DECLl1PJ1T1 OPI RFQUEST - For a G i ty of Anahe im disposal site located southeast nf the intersection of I3a11 Road and the Oran~e Freeway. It was noted th~t the City of Anaheim was prop<~sing to purchase a parcel of land con~isting of ap{~ror.imately 1f1,6 acres at the subJect loc~ti~n for use as a disposal site for inert fill rniterial; tha~ the subject site presently con~isted of an excavation, having an aver7ge depth of approximately 25 fcet; that (t was estimated that ttie site would be in use for l~ to 15 years before it was completrly filfed witF inaterial consisting of canstruct~~n .~aterlals from City ~roJects~ str~et sweepings and ,ther inert materlals; that the site was bordereci on the east hy the Sant~ Ana niver, on the nortli across 8a11 Road by the Burris Pit~ and on tf~e northwest by the ~x~t from the Orange Freeway and, additi~nally, an agricultural field was l~~critcl r.o the s~uth across Taft 1lvenue and a sinc~le dwel-fnq u;~it was locatecf to the southwest; that it was estimated there would be an ~verage of 20 to 25 trucks using the siie per workin~ day~ cr•eating no notlceable affect ~n the traff~c on k3a11 Road; that thn, trucks would enter the site via the froncage road adJacent to the Santa Ana Kiver~ said road being dead end ieadinc~ to the ~ u MINUtFS, GITY PLANNIMG COMMISSION~ Sr+ptembcr 29~ ~975 ~ ~ 75-472 ITEM NO,~ (Continued) stables locsted approximately 9~h feef. south of tF-e disposel site; and thnt tho condltlon of the ~tiito, after fllling~ would 5e a substantial Impravement fr•cxn Its extstlnc~ conditicm. Plannir~~~ Dep~rtmenl birector Ranald Thompsnn a~lvised th~t fr~m a flo~d c~ntrol standpolnt~ the proposal would be a go~~d pro.jPCt for the City~ Commissiorier Klnq ~fferrs~l a motlon, seconded by Commfssloner Herbst ~nd MOTI~N CARRIED (Commis~cSone~rs Morley an~l Tolar helnn absent), that the Plannfnc~ Commisslon does hereby recommend t~ the City Councll that the subJect pro.Ject be exempt from che requlrement to prepare an environment~l Imp~~ct rr_p~rt~ pursu~nt to the provfslons of thc Californla Envlronmenta) Quality Act. ITEM N0. 4 f,Cl"'~~~I L TO YORRA REG IONIIL PARK - Requesr, f rom the Oranc~e County Enuironmental Mana~ement Agency for a deter•mina:lan as to conformity ~~ith the City of Anah~im's GenerAl Plan~ a,~l for an EIR Neoative Declaratlon in connection with the proJect. It was nar.ed that the C,fty of Anaheim had prepareci an a~reement with the above-mentloned Agency concerning the acces~ routes to Yorba Re~ional Par~:; Lhat one of the items ort the a~reement provided that the City of Anaheirn st~all grant an easement for a rlding~ btcycle and pedestrian trall through City~aNncd property known as the Shorb Wells property; that~ In accorddnce with Sectlon G54n2 of tlie Government Code~ L'he Agency was requesting that the Anr,heim Planning Cnmmission determine if r,lie proposed trail was in accordance with the City's General Plan and~ also, for a concurrence with the f(ling of an EIR Neqative Declaration for the pro)ecC; and that the development of a trail to provide access to Yorba Regienal Park was (n accordance wl~h the Open Space and Conservation Element of ihe City of Anaheim General Plan and there would appear to be no adverse envlronmental impact. Commissioner Joh~nson offered a motion, seconded by Commis~foner Herbst and M01'fOP~ CARRIED (Ccmmfssioners Morley and Tolar being absent)~ that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find that t~ie proposecl trail, as described above, is in accordance with the City of Anaheim's adopted General Plan and~ addltionally, '.he Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby recortmhnd to the Anaheim C!ty Council that the subJect proJect be exempt from the requirement to prap~re an environmental impact re~ort, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. iTEM N(l. 5 ENVlROPJMENTIIL IMPACT REPORT N0. 152 - Request f~r review of EIR Addendum in connection with the equestrian center approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 15E1. It was noted that the subJect Addendum to EIR No. 152 included the following additional information in connection with the proposed equestrian center; (a) There are now two drai~aae Inlets located on the site, Re-grading ta the proposed confi~uration will re.sult in pluyging of one inlet, The remalning inlet wll) be enlarged to hancile the additinnal storm runoff. During a 10-year storm there would be ponding to a maximum dep~h of one foot at the inlet. (b) There are 2~ on"SItE parking spaces. It is proposed that additl~nal parking for approximately 5~n cars would be available across Serrano Avenue where a 4.5~acre site Is anticipaterl for use as an underground water pumping Factltty to be operated by the City of Anaheim, The Public Utilities Divisiun is agreeable to dual use of the site. 7his additional parking would be used prin~rily for special events. Cort~missioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTIQN CARF!ED (Cor-missioner Jahnson votin~ "i~^" ano Commissioners Morley and Tol~r bcing absent), that the Addendum to Envtronme~~tal Impact -ieport No. 152 {s~pplementing master EIR No. 80)~ having been cnnsidered th(s date by the Anaheim Planning Commisslon and evidence, bnth written and orai~ ha~lnc~ been pres~nted to supplement said draft EIR No. 152 and Addendum~ the Planni~g Commission believes t~~at said draft EIR No. 152 and Addendum conform to the City and State Guldellnes and the State of California Enviror~mentai Quality llct and, based upon such information, does hcreby recominand to the Clty Council that they certify said EIR No. 152 and Addenclum are In compliance with said Envtronmental QuallCy 4ct. ~ ~ ~ MI~~UTES~ CITY PIANNING COMh115510N~ So~tember 79~ 1975 ~F'~~~3 ITfM N0. G C NDtT ONAL US[ f'ERMIT N0, 1554 - Request to amend Resoiution No. PC75-177~ nunc pro tunc - Propercy consistincl uf approximetely 1.3 acra4~ lacatecl At thu south~ast cornPr of Santa Anu Strnet and Atchison Stre~t. The Staff Report to the Planninc~ Commisslon d~ted Sept3mbor 1.~, 1975~ was prosented and made a pArt of the minutes. it was noted th~~t on Au~ust lf'~ 1~17y~ th~ Plannln~ Commisslon qranted C~ndttlonal Use Pcrmit No. 155~ in Resolutfan No. PG75-1;7 to permit metal reclamation and outdc~or storage of r~gs~ paper and metal, w(th walvc+rs of the minimum fr~nt setback and the minimum number of parking spaces on the subJect property ancl~ subs~equently~ the City Council took no ~ction; that Cond(tlon No, 1 of s.~icl resolutlon lnc~rrectly wordecl and did not express the intent of the Plar~i~inc~ Commission In thetr approval, ~lncc canditional dedicatlon along Santa Ana ~xreet was Intsncled; anci that sald re~solution should c~rrectly set forth Cancf(tlon No, 1, as follows: "1, That the cw~ner(s) ~f subJect prnperCy shall conditionally decicat.e t~ the Clty of Anahelni a strip of land 3~ feet in wldth from the centerline of the street alonq Santa Ana Street and Atchison Str~et for stre:et w(dening purposes, including a 15-foot property Itne raci(us, if thc existing bu(ldings adJacent to Santa Ana Street and/or Atch(son Street are removed or remodeled." Commtssloner King offered Resolution No. PC75-202 and moved for its passage and adoption, that Resolutian No. PC75-177 be and hereby is amanded, nunc pr~ kunc, to ame~d Condition plo. 1 Co read as set forth above. (See Rcsolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was p~sseci by the following vote: AYES: COMMIS5I~NERS: BARNES~ HERR57, JOHNSON, KlNG~ FARANO NOES: COt1MISSIONERS: N~NE ABSENT: COMMISSIQPIERS: MORLEY~ T01_AR ITEM N0. 7 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7~+-75-21- (REVISION N0. 3) - Request for approval of revised plans - Property consisting of approxii~~ately 7 acres located north and west ~f the northa~est corner of La Palma Avenue and State College 9oulev~rd~ haviny approximate frontages of 265 feet on the north side of la Palma Avenue and 7~33 feet on the west side of 5tate College Bo~~levard (vacant property). The Staff Report to the Planning Commission dat,;~~ September 29, 1975, was pre~ented and madP a part of the minutes. Ms. Diana KolodzieJski, the applicant~ and Mr. Steve Powers, agent, appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss the revtsed plans, stating that the shopping cenxer would have a Fazin's supermarket and a Skag~'s drugstore~ for exam~le; and that no waivers were heing requested. Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti noted that Revisiun M~. 2 plans werc approved subJect ta development in accordance with the precise ~,lans submitted at that tim~ and~ consequently, Revision No, 3 wes subject to review and approval by the Planning Commisslon and City Council; and that a restaurant was no longer being proposed on the properCy~ whtch would essentially reduce the number of parking spaces rzquired, The change in proposed square footage of floo~ area from 9f1,61y to 1(17,7go was noted and Mr. Powers stated thac the increase was because of the drugstore addition to the plans. The Planning ~orimission took ex.:eption to the truck circulation indicated on the new revised plans~ noting that sa~d plans were not in substantial accordance with the original approval of the proJect; th~c the plans were similar but the fioor area was increased ~y approximatcly 2~$ a~dthe traFfic flow was not adequate; that, although the new plans did no-. have to be exactly the sama as the or(ginally approv~d plan~, the proposa) should be in substantial conformance. Commissioner Nerbst noted that the elimi~ation af bu(lding "8" would help the clrculati~n. Chairman Farano noted that the square footage of bullding area dld not concern him, except for the Impact on parking and traffic flow; and that if the c~eveloprnent plan was In substant(al conformance~ an add(tional Fubl(c hearing would ~ ~ ~ MI~~IIT~S, CITY FIANNIN~ COMMiSSION~ Sgptemher 2~1~ 1975 ITCM N0. 7 (Continued) ~ _.___..r._. 75-47iF not b~ required. Thereupon~ Ms. KoloclzfeJski rcqur,stacl thet A two-weAk contlnuance be granted to make further revisirns ta the proposed plans~ along the llne:s ~f thc discussion at thls maotilnq. Cummisstoner HerF~st offcrecf a motion~ se~cndc~t by Cammtssi~ner Johnson and MOTION CIIRRIEO~ that the subject request for ~pproval ~~f revised plane In conner,tl~n with Reclassiflcatlon M~, ~f~-]~-~l~ he and herehy is cont(nuc~l to the Pianr7(ng Comm~sslon mecLing of Qctobcr 13~ 1:~75~ For const~fEration, as requeste~f by the ~~pplicant. ITEM N0. ~3 Pl1R~: IN-LIEU FEF. PRQPOSAL ° P~rks and Recreatlon Commisslon request for Planning Comm(sslon revlew. The Planning Canmission generally concurr~d th~t Che s~~b)ect request be continued to th~; Planning Comm(sslon me~ting of Octoher 1~~ 1975, for further study. ITFM N0. 9 ER ETITIO~!) REGARQING NECIASSIFICATI~rJ NQS. 6~-h9-1 ~- ANO 7~!-75-22. Mrs, Nancy Brown, 2513 Chain Avenue~ Anaheim, a property owner in Tract No. 66~) adjacerit to a cammerclal shopping center ~~nder Re::lassification No. 74-75-72, presently bein~ constructad on Llncoln Avenue near Magnoiia, appcared before the Planning Commission in c~nnection wlth a petition signed t~y ~pproximately 41 residents in Tract No. 6691 in oppos(tion to the wall separatiny the shoppine~ center from sai~i tract. The Plann(nq Commisslon toak exception to the petitlon which was submitted~ noting that the Commission did not employ un~lerl~anded tr,chniques or procedures tn their cor.siderati~~n of matters which came before them, and also that the subJect commercial shopping center was not being co~structed under any type of zt~ing ar,tlon since the de~/elopEr had submitted plans to the Bulldinq Division whir,h c:~implied with the zoning requfrements of the C 1 ty . Mrs. Brown indlca~ed she was not responsible f~r the preparaCion of the pet(tion; however, she was opposed to the fact that the developer was using the existing wall nn residential property and when ti~e grading for tlie shoppinq center was done~ the deveinper had undermined thP wall; that wher, she watered her property~ t~ze water ran underneath the wall and traveled onto the commercial property, undermining the wall~ and someone came out from the Ctty right away an~~i ir~dicatecl to the property ewner that if the water ran onto the canmerctal property, th,~ homeowners wo~ld be responsible for ai7y undermining or Qther damages and 1f the hame~wners did anything to defend the(r rlghts, legal action would te taken a~ainst them imnediately. Chairman Farar~o not~d that the Commissiun would not tolerate any false accusations and he referred to the written petition which indicated the builder~ and not the City Staff, had made th~ comments referred ta by t1rs. Brown. For clarification o'F the matte~•~ Zonir~g Supervisor Annika Santalahti read a Stafr Report dlre.ted to the City Council on the matter which explained the problem in depth~ noting that the wall was located on th.~ residential property and that the shopping center bulldings were oein~ constructed in complete compliance with the CL zoning on the property; ~ald Staff Report is ref~~rred to and made a part of the mtnutes. Mrs. Brown expl~ined that when the developer graded for th~ shopping cen:er, thP ground was graded below th~ level af the adJacenc residential property and the grading was also below the leve) of the foundation for the existin~ block wall which was origlnally between 62 and 6A (nches in hPight; and presently the wall was very shaky and could falt down anytlme. Chalrman Farano suggested that th.: developer of the commercia) pr~~+erty and the adJacent homeowners be tnvited to the Planning Ca~,xnission meeting of October 13~ 1975~ and that in the meantime the City Staff could mAke a thorough on-site investigation of the matter. Deputy Clty l+ttorney Frank Lowry advised that the draira,ye flow for the commerc(al slte wns prop~rly dtrectecf to the west and the grading w~s done in the proper manner; that the cammnrclal property would legally have ta accc{~t the water from the adja~ent resident(al ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CGMMISSI~N~ SeFtomber 29~ -9?~, ;5-475 ITEM N~. 9 (Continued) propertles~ flnd thn homeownef•s ahould not h~ve to be concerne~l abou[ that; thc~t the shopping center w~s in the drywall sr.a~es ~f cons~.ruction anu thn develop~+r ti~d been advlsed that tha wall separAting the cammerclsl property from the res(dent{al property would have to be brought up to 6 feet In height from the hlyhnst grada of thn tw~ properties; and thi~ developer would h~ive thc obligatlon to either provlde Che latmral support fnr tha er;istiny ws1` or to hulld <i ne~v wall~ whichever was dcemr.d approprlate~ h~+vever~ the wall would h~ve to be resolved pr~or to flnal Inspectlon for occupancy o1' th~ shapping center, Chalrmar~ Farano indicated Lh~t he was n7C in f~vor of permiYtin9 the .ievel~~er to {~roceed past the presr.nt poln[ of constructian unle~s tne wall problem was resalved Immediately since tF~~ problPm was apperently caused by ~.he grAdinc~ for the shopping center. Mrs. Brown suggested that somethin~ shauld pr•obably be done About thc wall prfor to tt~e laying of the blacktop and t4r. Lowry concurred. Thereupon~ Chairman Farano ncted that since the developer had caused an appnrently unten~ble si':uatlon they should be rcqulred to ftx the probtem trm~ediately and not wait for final irspectiun. The Planning Commission generally concurred ta recamrt~end to the City Council that Staff be dlrer.tcd to cont~ict the c7cveloper irmiedlately on September 3~~ 1975~ to advlse of the wlshes of the Commissio~~~ that the pr~~blems pertaining tu the wall be resolved immedlately; tha° in any evenr.~ the wall must br resolved pr(nr to ~inal inspection; and~ further~ In the evert that StafF cannot handle the matter administratively~ the developer and khe adJacent homeowners shal) be requested to attend thP Planning Commisslon meeting of October 1:;~ 1h75, to discuss and reso{ve th~e problem pertaining to the wall. AGJOURNMEN7 - There betng no further business to discuss, Cemmissio~er Johnson offered a mot~on, seGOnded by f,cxrxni~~sioner King and MOTION CAftRIEO~ to adJourn the meeting to October 6~ 1975, at 7~3~ P.m. in the Counctl Chamber at City Hall for th~ purpose of holding a public mcetinq for consideration af the proposed expansion of Redevelop- ment ProJecC Alpha. The meeting adJourned at 7:35 P•m• Respectfully submitted~ ~~~~~~ ~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary Anahelm Ctty Planning Commission PBS : I~m