Loading...
Minutes-PC 1976/03/01~ ~ CICV Nall Anar~elm~ f,allfornia March 1~ 1976 REGULAft MF.ETIWG 0~ 1'NC_~.ANANE!M CITY PLANNI~Ir, COMMISSION REGULAR - A renul~+r meetln9 of the Anahelm Clty °lanning Commisslon was called MEF.TItIG to ord~r by Chal rman F~+rano at 1; 30 p.m. In the Counci l Chamber ~ a qu~rum being p~esent, PRESE~IT - CIIAIR~;i.~l; Fr!'Ano COMMIS5I~~IERS: B~ri~es, Herbst~ Johnson, Kiny~ Morley~ Tolar ABSFNT - COMMISSI~N~RS: None AL5t1 PRESE~~T - Frank Lowry Paul Singr_r Jay Tltus Annika Santal~htl Allan Daum Bill Cunn(ngham Patricia Scanlan Deputy City Attorney Trafflc Engineer Off(ce Enylneer Zoning Supervisor Assistar,t Zoning Supervisor Associate Planner Planning Commissian Secretary PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Flerbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag c,f the ALLEGIANf,F United States of America. APPR~VAL OF - Commissioner J~hnson offered a motton~ seconded by Commissioner Morley TNE MItJUTES and MQTIO"J CARRICD, thaC tF~e minute5 of the regular Planning Commisslon meeting held on February 111~ 1976~ be and hereby are approved, as submitted. VARIANCE Nb. 277b - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RORERT L. WETZLER, 1533'A Buena Vista~ San Clemente~ Ca. 9z672 (Owner); B. LARRY BROTSCH~ 315 East Riverdale~ Orange, Ca. 926~~5 (A9ent); r~que~scing WAIVER OF PERMITTED ArCESSORY USES~ 70 PERMIT AUCO REPAIR IN Apl EXISTING SERVICE STATION on property descc-ibEd as a rectangularly°shap~d parcel of land consisting of approxlmately 0.5 acre located at the nor~i~ed~t ~ar~er of Beach Boulevard ar~d 8a11 Road, having appruximate frantages of 150 feet on the east slde of Beach Bculevard and ~5~ feet on the north ~ide of Ball Road, and further d~scribed a~ 934 South Beach Boulevard. Property presently classtfled CL (COMMF.RCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. The subJect petition was continue~i fr~xn th: Plannfng Commission meeting of February 18~ 1976, at the req~iest of the petitioner. No one Indicated their presence In oppositiun to subJect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commissio~ dated March 1, 1976, was not read at she pubtic h~aring~ said Staff Report (s referred to and made a part of the mtnutes. Mr. Larry Brotsch, the applicant~ appea~ed before the Planning Commission to answer questlons concernin~ the propasal. 7HE PUBLIC HEARI~lG WAS CLOSED. Commissionsr Y~ing noKed tnat he had checked the subJect property in the field and round that it would be very difficult for the ~utomotive repalr operatior, to make more noise than the automobilz traffic on Beach Boulevard and Bal! ttoad; that the nearest neighbor woutd be the motel nff(ce ',ocated more than 200 feet from th~~ subJect building; that the clientelc for the sub.lect bustness establishment went to the rear of the building for service in view ~f the fact that the front doors of the butld(ng were seaied off; that he underst~od all of the work wa~ being detie lnsi~e the building and the service station use on the front of the property hid some of the subiect b~ildtng; and that the yard was neat and clean~ with a planted berm for greenery. In response to questi~ning by Comm(ssioner Tolar~ Mr. Brc,tsch stated he was presently doing valve work, ennine cleanup, brakes, pumps, etc.. In the nature of automotive repalr; and that he had a few accounts whtch periodically requirod chanqtnc~ whole engines. Commtssioner Morley noted that he had observed ample ~arking for thc proposed use. 7~-93 ~ Clty Nall Aneh~~im, Callfo!'nle March l~ IA76 REGULAR - A regult~r mectlnc~ of the Anaheim Clty Planning Commissi~n was call~~d MEE7I~IG to order by Chalrman Farano at 1:30 p.m, tn thc Councl) f.hnmbar~ a quorum bein~ prnsent. PRESENT ~ Cf1AI RMI1~J : Fargno COMMISSI~~lERS: Barnes, Herbst~ Johnson~ King, Marley~ Talar REGUI.~R MEETINC; OF THE 11NANEIM CITY PLANNING C(1MM15510N ~ ~ ABSFN7 - COMFIISSIQNERS: None ALSO PRF.SENT - Frsnk lowry Paul Singcr Jay Titus Annika SantAlAhtl Allan DAUm Btll Cunningham Patrlcia ~canlan Deputy Ctty Attornoy Trafftc Enginecr Office Engineer Z~ning Supervisor Assistarit Zoning Superv(sor Assoclat,e Planner Planning Commtssion Secret~ry PLEOGE OF - Cortmissioner flerbst led in thc Piedge of Allegiance to the Flag of the ALLEG II1Nf,E Un i ted Stat~es of Amerl ca. APPP~OVAt OF ~ C011M1IS~loner Johnson offerCJ ;. ^r+rlon. seconded by Commissioner Morley THL• MINUT[S and MQTIO"{ CRRRIED~ that the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held on Februar'y 1~. 1976~ be and herehy are ap~r~ved~ as submltted. VARIANCF N0. 2776 - COIJTINUED PUE~LIC HE~RING. ROBERT L. 41ETZLER, 1533"A Buena Vlsta~ `~- San Clemen!e~ Ca. 92672 ("wner); B. LARRY BROTSCH~ 315 East Riverdale, Orange~ Ca. 926G5 (Agent); re~uesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES~ TO PERMI7 AUTO REPAIR IN AF! EXIS7IPlG SERVICE 5TATION on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre locatec! at the northeast cornEr of Bet~ch soulevard and Ball Road~ havfng approximate frontages of 150 feet cn the east side of Beach Boulevard and 15n feet on the norCh side of Ball Road~ and fiirther descrlbed as 93~~ South Beaci~ Boulevard, Property presently classlfled CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) Z~NE. The sub_)ect petl!ton was continued from the Planni~g C~rmission mees~ing of February 18~ i976, at tfie request of the petitioner. No one indicated tt-elr presence tn opposition to sub,jec.t petition. A1Chough the Staff Report to the Planning Commis:;ion dated March 1. 1976~ was not read at +ihe public hearing~ s~id Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. M~. I.arry 9rotsch, the applic.ant, appeared before the Plonning Commission to answer ques*_'v^S concernin~ the proposal. THE PUDLIC HERRII~G WAS ~LOSED. Cominissioner Kt:~g r~oted th~t he had checked the subJect property (n the field and found that it wauld be very dtfftcult for the automotive repalr operatlon Co make morc noise than the automc+bile traffic on Beach Boulevard and Ball Road; that ths nearest nPighbor would be the motel office located more than 200 feet from the subJect building; that tha clisntele for the sub_ject business establishment went to the rear of the b~ilding foi service in view of the fact that the front doors of the building were sealed off; that ne understood atl of the work was beinq done in~ide the building and the servic~ station use on the front of the property hid sone of the subJect buildtng; and that the yard was neat and clcan~ with a planted berm for greenery. In rasponse to questloning by C~mmisstoner Tolar~ Mr. Brotisch stated he was presently doing valve work~ en~ine cleanup, brakes. pumps, etc.~ ln the nature of autorative repair; and that he had a few accoun:s which periodlcally required changing whole englnes. Commtsstoner Morley noted that he had observed ample {~arking for the propnsed use. 7b~93 ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March I, 197fi 76-9~+ VARIANCE N0. 2776 (Continur,d) ChRirmbn Farnno notc*c1 thnt uver the p~st five years or so there had bcen a number of servlce station operators wantir~~ to do heavter work aC thefr siCes; howev~r, the Code rRStricte~l the warlc; end hF inqulred if Commissfoner Nerbst felt appraval of the sub]act rt,quest would couse a"run" on slmllAr requests for incre~iseci actlvlty at servicC statlon sites. Commissloner Herbst responc+ed that he would be cautious rbout perml'tting tncreased act~vity at one site an~i not ~it onother. Ch~(rman Faran~ then I;,quired if the applicant ha~ a hardship, noting that a hardship was genornlly b~s~cl on the fnct that the preservAtlon and enJoyment of a substantial property r~~1ht poss~ssed y oth~r property In the s,~me vlcEnlty and zone ~~uas denled io the property in questi~n. i,: fu~ther tnquired if thc ~pplieant was aware of any ~ther service statton o(~erator whn was condt~ct'nn thc tyre of cQerAtion propcsed, Mr. Brotsch replled th~~t he was lice~sed by Che StaCe of Cal(fornla t~ perform thc intenslvP autoinociva enqine repali, Commissioner Kinn notecl Lh~it the subJec:t establlahm..~:t was not a service static,n. Mr. Brotsch stated the front af the buildtng was hoarded up ancf overhead doors had been Installed (n thc rear~ making the automot(ve repair ~usi~ess separate from the servicc stat(on oper~tion on the front cf the property. Commissloner Morley note~l that there was clearly a dual use of the serv(ce st~tlon site~ with two separate huil<iincls, and he questioned the possibillty of o lot split t:o legalize the uses. Thereupon~ Zoninq Supervisor Annika Santalaht) advi~ed that the Site development stan~lards requlred a service statlon site to he a minimum of 150 feet hy 150 feet in size. In response to qu~stfonin9 by Commissl~ner Herbst~ Mr. Brotsch st~~tPd that he had a sublease from Mr. John DeWict; and that he was in operation approximat~ly three months prior to the construction of thr. n.ew service station facilities on the front of the property. Commfssioner Herb~t then inqulred how the selt-service gas statton was allowed to be constru~ted w~Ch~~t a minlmum sitP. Cortxnissloner Johnson noeed that ht had empathy ~er *_he appllcant since he did not have the ~ontral of the propert•; needed to be able to co~tin~ie; that, as a Planning Commissioner, he had voted agal~st many ;ervice station conversians which did not meet the minimum requt~ements; and th~t it w~s dii`f'i~ult t~ support the prop<~sal based on the previuus actl~ns of the Commtssion wt2h respect to ~erv(~e station sites. It was noted that the Dtrecto; of the Planring Department had d~i.ermined that the proposed actlvfty fell within the definition uf ~ect(or~ 3.01, Cl~ss 1* ~f the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requlrer+ients for an Environm~ntal Im~act Repc,rt and was, therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirement t~ file an EIR. Gommissioner Kin~ offered a resolution and moved for its Rassage and adoption~ that the Anahetm Flannin~ Cammiss`on does hereby grant Petltion for Variance No. 2i76, ar~ the bas~" that the automotive repal~° operat!on is an established business on the subJe~t property tnrough a sublease and, furthermore, the buslness is an enhancement Co the prooerty; subject to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendatlons. On roll call, the Foregoing res~tutinn falled by the following vote: AYES; COMM~SSIO~lE:RS: BARNES~ KING~ TOIAR N~ES; C011MISS IONEhS: I~ER35T~ JOf1N50N, MORLEY, FARANO A6SENT: COMMISSIQNERS: NbNE ConKnlssioner Herbst noted that the subJect property had been illegaliy subdlvlded into twa sep~rate businesses constit~ting a dual use of a minimum servlce statton slte and apprnval would set an undesirable precedent, especially since there were many closed service statlon sites ln the City which would ltke to be ccnverted; that no hardship hac' been demonstrated, as far as the property itseiF was concerned; and tha: the treatment given tov:ard the subJect appticatlon should be ln a manner representirig go:.d business ln the communlty. Thereupon~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolutlon Mo. PC76-36 and moved for its pa:,sage and adoption~ that the Anaheim City P1anning Commission dnes hereby deny Petition for Jariance No. 2776, based on the foreqoing findings. (See Resolution Bc,ok) On roli ca11, thp foregoing resolutfon was passed by the following vo~:e: AYES : COMMI SS I ONERS : ~+E?~ST •~~~~t~SON ~ MOftLFY o F~',~A~~O NQES: COMM{SSIUNER''. :F , ~:i~~~~ TOLAR P,9SENT: COMMISSIONE"~ •• - ~ ~ M: NlITF5 ~ C I TY PI.ANNI NG GOMM I SS I ON, Merch 1~ 197G 76-95 UARIA-~f,F. Nn. 7.7~1 - CQ~ITI~IUED PURLIC NEARING. WII.I.IS WALKEP,~ 41k North Phi ledelphla +` Strcet~ Anahe(m~ Ca. ~2f3~5 (~wner); C. M, WILKS~ 513 Parkwood S2reet~ Anahel~»~ Ca. 92801 (Agent); r~q~~esrinq WAIVFR OF (A) MINiMl1M FlAOR AREA~ (I)) MINIMIlM YARD DEPTfI AND (C) MINIMUM REQUIREU PARI(fNG~ TO CO~~STRUCT A TI!ItE[-UN17 APART~~EIIT f3U1lDIM(i en praper•ty dascrlbecl as a rectnngulr.rly•~ shapeci ~Arce) of land consistl~tic~ of approxirr~ntely 0,1 ~~cre hevinn a frontage oP approxlmately hF feet on the enst si:!c of Philadalphla . t~eet~ havincl %+ maxlrnum depth of approximately IZn tect, hein~~ IocAt~d approximntr.ly I'~5 feet south f th~~ cQnt;sr- line of Syc~more Streut~ nnd further descrlbcd as 41n Nu~i~~ "~~~~~adc~phlA Street. ~rt~perty presantly cir~ssffled k~~-12~0 (R[SIDFNTIAI. MULTt'rll~.-FANILY) ZONE. The sublect petltlon was conr.inueci from the Pla~ninq Commts,lon meetinq of February I~~ 1~7G~ for the submirtnl of revised ~lens. Tw~~ perscx~s lndlc~ited thef r pre5cnce in ihe Audience In cannection wi th the subj~c[ pctltlon~ alfhnuqh there was no one pres~nt to rapresent the appllcant. It w~s noted that the petltl~ner was requestln9 an addltlonal two-week continuanc.e on the basis that r.herc was not sufficlent tlme fol lowin., the meeting of February 18~ 1 yJG, to submit the revlsed plans for analysis by Clty Staft ~rlor to this meettng. Comr~tssloner Kin~ offered a motion~ s~cconded by Commissioner 1'olar and MOTI~N CARRIED~ that thc A.~ahe(m Clty Plannin9 Cornnission does herPby yrant an adciitinnal continuance For conside-•atlan of Patlti~n for Variance No. 27a) to the Plannlncl Commission meeting of `+Wrch ';, ~Q%~~. as requcste~l by the petitioner. (NOit: Thls Item was considereu at tha b~glnning c; Li~c u~cetin~~.) RECLr,SC~FICATI,IN • PUBLIG HfF~RING. I~lIfiATF[) 8Y T!tE Ai~/1HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NQ. 75-7h-~~ 2Q4 Easr ~ In~:•; ~ n,,,en~_~a, ~!nal~etm. Ca. 9?405; ProP~sing that Property ~-~ `~!~ ~ descrihed as i recra,~g,~lariy-shaped parr.el uf lanct ~.~,~;slst!„~ eF appro>•irn~tely (~ •:~-r^s 'oc:ated a~ Lhe northwest corner of 9a1 1 Road and Empire 5treet, having a~:proxi~~i~.te front~ge~ of 620 feet on che north side af Ball a~ad and 44Q feet ~n the west side of Emplre 5trcet, t~e reclassifiec! from the CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMI7ED) ZO~~E t~ the RM-l20Q (RESID~NTIAL~ MUI.TIPI.E-FAMILY) TONE. Three persons inclicated ~h~:ir ~resence in appositlon to the subJect petition; and it was noted that cne letter was received in opposition. Asslstant ~untr.q Supervisor Allan Daum rcad the Staff Report to the Planning Cortmission dated March 1, 197~, and said Staff RepQrt is referred to and madr. G p~rt of [ha minutes. Mr. Dudley SGhumacher~ 211~ West Rali P.ead; Apt. A~ appeared before the Pianning Comnfssion and stated he managed the majority of the praperty in question~ ueing all of the prnperty ci~ Juno a~d Ball Road~ ~xcept for one parcei a~ ~ne west end of Ball Road; tha* he was protestinq the proposed zone change on the basis that ln years past it had becorr~ increasingly ~iffic.ul'. to r~nt the units as residences due to nolse condltions along Ball Road; thnt a short t(me a~o the Cii.y removed a larre section of tre~s along the front of •,.he property which were serving to buffer the sound ar,d traffic dange~s ane', since that time~ an autortx~bils hacl driven into his own living room at the subject lo~at i on ; that the traff i c s i gnal s i n the area operated or a 21+-hour bas i s and thp suF,Ject property was drasticat ly affecced by the exhaust fumes from the automnbi les st~nPin9 and startinq; that, also, a larc~e golf cart manufact+~rinc~ company was located across the st~eet from the subject property and~ durtng the ~ast surtmer following the seeond shlft, there were drag races in ::~e are~; that al i of the foregoing made i t increas i:~gly d 1 f f I cu 1 t ko rent the un i ts as res i dences and somet i mes the un i ts ~'ama 1 ned emp ty for months; that at the tin~e he bought into the sub]ect property and to manage it, there was a shortage of business offices and some of the units were remodeled and used fo~ effices; then, as tin~e went a~~ng, they converteci the units back to residences and they vx~uld probah 1 y h~ve to go back to of f t ces aga i n when the un 1 ts became un ren tab 1 e; that the property was purchased as coinnercialiy-zoned property with the iniC~~t ~~~a~ it c~uld be for comm~rcial uses; and that losinq the commercial zoning would downgrade the property value. Mr. Bob ~iardin, 2~?.7 West Ball Road, appeared before the Plonning ~ommission and stated he had been at the s~bJect location since 1961; that since 1961 '~e hia~i remod~~led his office; that his clients were havtnq di"~cu~~Y findinn parkt~g sRaces in the area; that the area was ~o congcsted that he did not feel the units immediataly adJacsnt to Ball Road could ve ;uccessfully Converted back to residences; that havin~ had his offlce on Ball Raad for so many years ~ a hardsh i p woul d be created i f he were ~o mc+ve h I s ver~ ~:-~.vy law pract t ce; an~! that the best use for ihe property along Ball Raad was officas trnly; and, therefore~ he was respectfully requesting that the subjece petition for rtclassification be de7ied. ~ ~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING CaMM!SSION~ IMrch 1~ 197b 7G-96 REC:.ASSIFICATIOW N!0_~,')5-76-19 ~Go~tlnued) Mr. Clit'f Catter~ 2131 We~t eell Rosd~ appeared before the Planninn Commission and statod that 1F he had to vacAtc hls ~,"`t~L ~n Bell Road hp would be put completely out uf t~uslnass; that he haJ benn at the sub~ect 'ocatlon for almost fivo yenrs a~d had bull. up his business for ret(rem•nt; tnat thn nolse from Dall Roecl and the m.~nufacturing plant across the stract wAS bacl~ finwev~r~ hls offlce was nbro or less toword the back oi• the propes'ty with his recnptlonist' erea otfering an ~dclttlonal burfer from the nolsc su that lt dtd nnt spol) his buslness; that tlie bulldl~c~s alon~ Ball R~ed wsre not approprlate es apArtrent units :~Ince Che notse was t•oo distractinq; and, ti~~refore~ h~e+ wds rCSpectfully rcyu~:stin~ th~t the subJect petltlon for reclossificetioi~ ba clenlecl. TlIF. PUBLIC H[ARINf, WAS CLCSCO. Commiss~oner Tolar notecl th~t, as he uisderst~~~ it, Mr. Schurt~cher represented the bulldings on Juno~ anci he Inqufred whether a rr.classification to RM-1200 of orily thosn propertlas abutting Juno would creatc a h~rdship~ leaving thase parcels nbutCl ~ Ball R~ed aa CL. Mr. Schuma~cher respan~ied that such an action would he rgreesble to hlm slnce he was oniy conc~rn~d abont those parcels abuttl~~ Ball Road remalning cammerr,lal. Commisslc+~er Tnlar then noted that he felk the property owners t~ac1 justified rights to the commorctal xoning presently on the property; and that to have the untts all residentlal~ ther•e would probably be some raal ~rievances in terms of sale. The °lann{ng f.ommtsslon acknowledged recelpt of the latter (n oppos(tl~n from Mr. Douglas Eclwards wh~ owned 60 of thc units at th~ subJect location. C~mmissloner Herbst inqulred whPCher therc were any comnerclal uses in the untts faclny anto the narth an~l south sides of Juno; wher~upon~ Mr. Schumacher answered in the negatlve. Commissioner rlerhst then noted that~ although the Planning Commissi~n did not wlsh to tmpose a hardshlp on the properties, thr.y clesired to havefrom therinterru tedtng~ and that he has interested to know if th~ traffic rotse and smug P trafflc on Ball Roa:l affected all of the subJect properties or ,just those facinq Ball Ro~d. Mr. Schumacher answered that the units facinc~ onto Ball Roaci appeared to give adequate buffering for thosP units facing onto both sides of Juno. ~n response to questioning by Com~nissioner Herbst~ Zaning Supervisor Annika Santalahti advised that Undoubtedly there wouid be a shorta~e of parkinc~ s~aces for conmercia) usage of the pr~perty since the Code required 4 spacrs per 1000 square feet of floor ~re~; and that adequate parking would be required on~SICG or wlthin 200 feet with an appropriate agreement; and that tfie Bulldiny Uivisiar wauld make the determinaCion whether a building was sultable for conversion to a co~nmercial use, Coir~nissioner Tolar suggested that e time limit might be imposed for conversion of all of the apartments along Ball Raad to comnar~ial uses; and thaC the pr~perty owners were presently enJoyin~ dual use of tl~eir property, which he did not favor. Mr. 5ctiumacher stated that the City should nat have aliowed apartments ta be constructed on the commercially-zaned property. In response to auestioning by Chairman Farano, Deputy Ctty Attorney Frank Lowry advised that the butldings on th~ subject propErty were const,ucted ~uring the 1960's and~ as such, were nonconforming structures for a period of time; however. the Code allowed ten years for conformance and the te~ years had expired~ glvinc~ the propert, no gra~dfather rights. Commtssioner Herbst notad that by granting a maximum of five years ~ make conver~ivns nn the property woul~~ in effect, be yranting an extensi~n o time for the nonconforrt~inc~ structures. Mr. Schumacher stated they were only interested in h~ving the buildings fronting or Ball Road ~~sed as offices ar zor+ed commerciay and the rest af the property could remain as residential uses; hc~wever~ it was passlbie tnat, if rhe 37 apartments fron:ing on Ball Road whicn were presently oc,cupied a~ re~tdences were to be restricted to ~ortmercial uses, those u~its might rematn empty since they :i~~ not k~ow whether they co~ld rent them as oi•fices at this time. He continued by s-:ating that they had purchased the property with the cortxnercia! zoning and had not expected to have the "rug ,jerked from beneath them," so to speak; and that the de~elopment was designed for resider•`ial use by Mr. Edwards and constructed under the app~oprtate buildinq ~ermits. Mr. Schumacher further stated the use of the subjact property had been hurt by the City when the man~facturing use was permitted acrass Yhe street. Further discussion p~~rsued, during which Commissione~ Herbst noted that the ~ublic hearing should be contlnued so that the matter could be readvertis~d in a manner which would resolve the many c~rrors on the p~rt of the City and the subject property awners; that a variance should be advertised to allow the three bulldings on Ball Road which were prasently being used a3 offices to continue to be used for that purpose, with the ~ • M 1 NUtCS ~ C I TY 1'LANN 1 NG COMM I SS I ON ~ Ms rch 1~ 19'b 76- 97 REf.LASSIFICATION N0. 75-76`19 (Co~titlnued) remalnder of the buildings to romaln residences; and th~t~ In tha process~ all of khc property would revert to the RM•12~~ Zone. ,i respanse to quR~tl~ning by Commissloner Johneon~ Mr. Schumt+cher st~~ted .hrae offtces nncl 37 resldAnceg presently cxisted an Bell Road~ ~nd thn three offlccs appearod to bs creeling the har~lshlp. C~mmissl~ner Johnsan offered a motion~ socond~d by Commi~eloner hlorley and MOTIAN CARRIED~ that tha Anahetm Clty Planning Commtsslon doc:. hereby reopen tiie public hearing for Petitian for Reclasslflcatlon No. 75-?6-19 to be contl~~ie~1 to the Planning Gonmission meetln~ of April 12~ !976, for reactvertisement with a varlrnce petltfon~ as dlscussed in the foregoing minutes~ sold re~dvertisement t~~ be at the expense of the City. RECLASSIFICl1TI~N - PUBLIC ~IEARINIi. ~~il'I'IATFD BY TNE ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. N0. 75'7~~'~1 20~~ East Lincoln Avenuc. Anahelm~ Ca. 928~5; Proposing that prc,perty """'""-"' describecf ae a rectAngularly-shaped p~rcel af land cansisCing of approximately .6~3 acrc located at the southarst carnar of b~l! Road and Empire Streec, hsvtng approxlmate irontages of 188 feet on the south s(de of Ball Road and 157 fPet on the west side of Empir•e Strcet~ be reclassified from the CL (Cf1MMERC111L~ LIMITED) ZQNE to thc CO (f,OMMERCIAI, CFFICf. AND PRUFESSIQNAL) ZONE. P~a orie fndlcated thelr presence at sald public hearing In opposilion. Although the Staff Report to thc Planning Com+nlssion dated March 1~ 197F~, was not read At the public hea~•ing~ said Staff Report is referred t~ and made a part of the minutes. THE PUBLIC "ARIN~,~ WAS CI.OSED. Commisslonar Tolar offered Re~olu:lon No. P~7~°37 and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anahetm City Pla~ning Commission does hereby recommei~d to the C(ty Councll o f the City af Anaheim that Petltion ~or Reclassificatlon No. 75-7~-21 be approved, subJect to th~e Interd~pirtmenral Committee recommendatlons. (See R~solutinn Rook) On roll call. the foregoinn resolutlan was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNFS~ NERBST~ JOHNSON~ KIN~~ h40RLEY~ TO~AR, FAR4N0 NOCS : COFIMI SS I ~Nf RS : NQNE ABSENT: CAMNISSIOtJERS: NQME i;ECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC NEARING. D s T LEF,SING, G06 Fernhill Lane, Anahetm~ Ca. N0. 75-7~7-z5 92807 (0~-ner); TAYLOR-DUNN MANUFAf.TURING CO., c/o R. Davls Taylor, ?.14r~ West B:,!1 Road, Anahelm, Ca. 9 8b~+ (Agent). Property VARIANCE N0. 27n3 described as an irregularly-shaped aarcel uf land consisting of approximately 2 acres having a frontayc of approximately 114 feet on the south sidP of Ball Road~ having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 426 feet~ beinn located approxim~tely 450 fe~t eaSt of the centerltne of Brookhurst Street~ and furtl~er desc.ribed as 2144 West dall Road. Property p ~.sently cl~sslfted CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ANR RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIIIL/AGRICUL7URAL) ZONES. REQUESTED CLASSiFIC.1TIr,N: ML (INDUSTP,IAL, LIMITEU) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANf,E: WAiVER OF MINIMUM REQIIIRED LANQSCAPINt~, TO PERMIT EXPANSION OF A MANUFP.f.TURING FACII.ITY, No one ind(cated Lheir presence in opposition to the subJect petitions. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Cammission datpd Marcn 1, 1976, was not read at the public hcaring, said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of tl-e minuzes. Hr. David Taylor~ representing the agent for tfie petitioner, appeared before the Pla nning ~ommlssion and stateo their operation had been in the subJect area for approx;mately 27 years; that the requ~st was to expand .in existing use to -.djacent property; that they were proposing a 60~000 square foot ad~itior to tte in wtth the entire development; and that the proRosal would improve the neighborhood~ since tl~ey planned to remove an old ho use adJacent to the street. TH~ PUBiIC HCARING WA~ CLUSEO. l_.J ~ ~ MlNU7ES~ CITY PLANNINr COMMISSIOfJ~ March 1~ 197~ 76-q8 c'~ - RECI.NSSIFiCATION N0~ 6^2~ aND VARIANCE NU_,~ (Contlnucd) in responsc ta questi~nirg by Commissioner Kl~q, Mr. Taylor stuted the neie~hborhoad hnd experinnced consl~ferehlA pr~hlems with lrees in the p~rkways sinca th~re we~e many ~chcx~t children in thr area who dropped papers~ etc., which u~ually collecked in the plantec! a reas ++dJacent to thn p~rkwAys; and that they wore proposi~a to pnve the parkways around the trees plantrd In tree wells. t~ resE~onse t~ quastloning by Chalrman Farano~ Traffic Enginrer P~ul Sinqer advised that seven drlvewAys on Dell Ft~ad were pronoseci, inclia~~~~,:, ;h~~~ r~r~ytW~yg which servecl the exlstinq facllltlns ancl, in his ~plnl,~n~ most of the driveways were not really ne:cessary; and~ therefore~ the irflfflc Division was rccomcnending tl~nt some of the driveways be closeci or ellminata<I. ~eputy i.~ty Att~rn~y Frank lawry ~dvisecl that the ~roperty which was the subJect of this publ ic hcaring h,~el approximately 111~ feet of frontage ~~lonn Bal l Road which was propose~l t~ have four driveways. In responsc~ to furthcr questtonin~, Mr. Taylar describe~ the proposed use for the proposed driveways, st~~tinn thnt, if a drlvearay were to be eliminateci~ It would be the ~iriveway which went to the old residence on the property. C~mrr~issic+ncr Tolar notecf th:+t he did r.ot feel it was c~nod planntnq to have the driveway on the west side of the restaurant for access to the subJect property; where~~pon~ Mr. 7nylor clarified th~t the regtaurant hact its own separate access anct p~rkinc~ lot which would be dlvlcied ofP from the rest of the property. Chalrman Farano noted th~~t ~f~e subiPCt petitions could elth~r be approved subJect to approval uf the driveway system by tlie Traffic Engineer~ or said petitions c~uld ~e readvertised to inclucle a!1 of the property involved with the sub_ject use. The Flannin~ Commissi~n entered into di~cussion re gardino the number nf driveways whlch were involved far thu total operation. Mr, Singer a~lvised that the Traffic Division felt strongly that three of the proposed drtveways should b~ eliminat~~~ and that the ane remaining drlveway be ~ligned exactly with Coven~cry Place. In ~espor~se to questioning by r,;,N;rn~~~~~ l~arano~ Mr. Lowry aovi~ed that approva! of the subJect petitlons could be m~de subJect to the submission of plans indic~ting the number and location af driveways ~nd traffic circulation pattern as appr~ved by the Tr~ffic Englneer. Thereupon, Mr. Tay~lor so s~lpulated. Commissioner Barnes expressed c~~.icern r~gardin9 the number of trees which would be ins*_alled ln the parkways and r~e reasons for cementing the parkways. Mr. Taylor responded that the City had a~.andard tree p'.~nting pattern and the number of trees shown on the submitted plans was apr'~"<~ximately c.orrer.t; that thPir problem in the area stemmed from the fact that *.hey weti•e surrounded by heavy walking .raffic with schools located down the street and, consequently, there was a lot of tra~n in the area; and that most of the surroundin~ properttes t~ac1 already cem~nted their parkways~ includin~ the condominium development down the ,treet, due t~ the heavy foot traffic, Cor~~issioner To!ar r~oted that he was inclined to agree that at least ill of the required landscapinn should be provided far the manu~acturing use in the subJect area; that the only reason he wouid vote for the proposed expansion was because the est~blfshment had bee.~ at thls locatlon for a number O~ YLd!$; tf~at, in his opinion, the arPd '.:~~ ^~~t suited for manufacturing since all of the surrounding propertles were residP-~cia1; that landsca~ing was badly needed along the front of the hulldinas t~ di~strar.t fram the manufacturing usE; ~n<i that he would not vote in favor of the use :,nd grant a waiver of the minimum requirecl landscaping, reqa~dless of the hardshfp rel~ted by the pe:ltlone;r. Thereupon, Mr, Taylor stipulated to provide the le) Peet o` landscapin~ adJacent to the butiding in~•Qad of ad}acent to the sidewalks, and the ~'lannin~ Commission generally agreed that lf the subJect petitions were appraved. said apprnval w~uld be subJect t~ :~~e submission ef precise landscaping plans for approval. Miss SanLalahti revtewed the list of permitted uses under City ~o~ncil Resolutlon No. 69~~-311 approving N-1 (light industrial) zanin~ on the ad;acent property to the we;t, beinq: 1, Architectural~ engineering, research and tcstin~ firms und labpr.,to~tes 2, Bakery, wholesale 3, Bottltn~ plant 4, Garment man~~facture 0 ~ MI NUTFS ~ C I TY PLANN 1 NG CQM111 ;S I ~N ~ M+~rch 1~ 197G ~~'~~g RECLASSIFICAT101~ N0. '~- G°25 A_, ND VAaIANCE N0. 27~3 (Contlnued) y. Launctry 6. Matl ordor firm 7, liatton p~cture Studlos~ Iabur+~Curlea~ and film pr~cessing S. Newspaper egtab)lshments g. Phuto-enqraving~ photo-copying~ phnto-processinq Hnd bluaprintinc~ ~p. Printing esk~iblishments 11. Radlo broadcasttny studio or st~tlon 12. Shoe menufacture 1~. Telephane ex.h~~nne, studlos. offlces and aqulpment bulldings 14. Televiston broadcasting studlo or statfon 15. Wh~lesele buslnos., storAge bulldings and warchouses 16. Manufacture of golf carts or similar Industrlal electric and gna-powered vehicles~ anrf rel;.ted wheel and a~-essory equipment 17. Other uses~ as ma~ be approved by [lic City Counctl Commissloner Tolar ~oted th+~t if tlin petitioner outgrew tne ~roperty f~r use es a go1~ cart and related wheel and accessory equlpment manufact~irinq p1an~C~ then he would not favur the property remal~in~ ML~ on the basis t•hat the use was not cantistent wltn the surroundtng arna~ other than the existing ML use on the adJolntn~ parcel to thc west. f.ommissloner Fierbst not~d that it appeared aporoval oF the subJect property for xhe golf car* mar.ufocturing, as sugclested by Commissioner Talar, would create a hardship slnce approximately onc-third of the aperation would be restricted to said use while the remaln(nn ~ppraxlmately two-~thlyds Already existing was able to enJ~y many uses; and~ In hls opinlon~ the propo~a) should be granted In a manner similar t~ that granted for the adJolntnc~ property to thz west. Commissioner King cQncurred. fommissioner Tolar notedhehm~ ht~beeentitled todtheeuse~,,itimaytnotUbe appropr(ate itrthe many years and although h property changed ownership or the use changed. Cortm(ssioner Tolar offered a mo*.ion~ seconded by Commissloner King and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Comntssion does hereby recommend ta the City Gouncii of the City of Anaheim that the subJect proJect be exempt from the requirements to prepare an envlronmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the Calt~ornla Environmental Quality Act. Cortmissfoner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC76-38 and moved for its passage and adoptlon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doES hereby recommend to the City Councll of the City of Anaheim that Petition for Reclassification No. 75-76'25 be opproved~ subJect to the conditton that the use of the property shall be limited to the mnnufacture of yolf cartg or simila~ industrial electric; and gas-powered vehicles and re!ated wheel and accessory equipmenti; subJect to the stipulation of the petitioner that the number ar+d locatton of drSveways and the traffic circulation pattern shal~ be subJsct ta th~ approval of the Trafftc Enqineer; and subJect to the Interdepartmenta'. Commlttee recommendations. (Ser. Resalutlon Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vate: AYES: COMMISSI~NERS: BARNES~ JOHNSON~ kING, MORLEY~ TOLAR~ FAMNO NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST ABSENT: COMMISSlQNERS: tJONE Comntssioner Herbst noted that he vocecf "no" because of the wordin~l of Lt~e resolution and not because he did not favor the use application. Commtssioner Tolar offered Resalution No. PC76-39 and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim Ctty P!anning Cormissiun does hereby grant Petition for Varlance No. 2783 for "0" feet oF iar~dscaping within the required setback area; provided, however, that satd required 10 ~`ee;. of landsc-ping shall be provided elsewhere on the prop~rty~ preferably next to the front of thc bu(ldings, subJect to the condition that a precise landscaping plan shall be submltted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuance of buil~ing permits; and subject to the interdepartrt-enta) Cnrtmittee recommendations. (See Resolution Book) On roll c~ll. tF;e foregolnq resolu2ion was passed by the following vote: AYE4: CdMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERBST, JOHNSOPJ, KING~ MORl.EY, TOLAR~ FIIRANO NOES: Cf1MMIS510NERS: N~NE ABSF.NT: COMMISSIONE.RS: NONE s • MINUTES, ClTY PLANNING COhfMiSSION~ March 1. 1.97~ ')6-100 RECLASSIFICATI~N - PUBLIC HEARING. ANANEIrI MFM~IRIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION~ I111 Wnst NQ. 75'7h"2~~ la Po1ma Avenuc~ Anahnlm~ Ca. ~28~1 (Owner); JAMF.S W. MG ALVIN. I111 West La Palma Aye~nue~ Anahefm~ Ce. 92~~~ (Ag~nt). Property C(1NDITIONAL USF. deicribed as Parcel A- a rectangul8rly-shapdd parccl of I~nd PEKMIT Ntl. 1'~7S conslstin~ of approximatoly .1~ acrc located at the narthwest (aFADV~RTISED cornei of La Pslma Avenun and La Palma Glrcle, havlnq approximate fronta~es of 75 feet on thc n~~rth side of La Palma Avenue and 67 fe~t on the west side of La Palma Clrcle; ~nd Parcel B- a rectongularly-sh~~pec: parccl Af la^d consisting of approximAtcly .14 acre having a frontage ~f approximately 5`~ fcet on the north slde of Hermosa Drive~ hAVing a maximum depth of apProximately 10~~ fec~~ and be~ng locetncf apprnxlmately 310 feet east of the centerlina of NermasA Drlve. Pr~perty presently classiflecf aS-7200 (RESIUENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUCSTED CLASSIFICAT~ON: CO (COMMER~.IhI~ OFFICE ANU PROFESSIONAL) ZONF. REQUESTED CQNDITIOrIA! USE: EXPAND AN EXISTI~IG NOSPITAL PARKING L01'. Mn one indicate.~1 thetr presence In opposition to subJect petitlons. Althaugh the Staff Report to the Planning Commisslan dat~d March 1~ 1976~ was not read at the publtc heartng, sald Staf~ Report is referrod to ~nd made a par•t of the minutes. Mr. aandy SoSCh~ representing the architect far the proposal~ appeared before the Planning Commission ~nd revlewed thc proposal. Ms. Helen McConnell~ President di the Assistance League of M a!~eim~ appeared before the Planni~g Cor~rnlsslon and inquired whether the hospital wo~ild be expanding any further west in the future~ ancl whetlier or not there would be a wall constructed along Hermosa Drlve to prE:vent any trafflc flowing out to that street fram the hospltal property. Mr. Boscti responded that thF subJect proper~y would be enclosed by a 6-foot wall with landscaping alon~ Herrnasa Urive; that no access was proposed to Hermosa Drive; and that it was dtfficult to indicate what the plans for the hospital might be in the future. TIIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In reiponse to questioning by the Planning Commission, Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti advised that the subJect application pertained to a smal! parccl fronting on Hermosa Orive and a small parcel at the corner of La Palma Avenue and La Palma Circle; and that thE other parcels tndtcated on the plans were atready zoned. It was noted that the Director of the Planning bapartment had determined that the proposed activity fell within tfie definition of Section 3•O1. Class 11, of the C(ty ef Anaheim Gufdeiines to thP Requirements for an Fnvironmental I~upact Report and was. therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Commissioner Morley offered Resalution No. PC76-40 and rx~ved for its passage and adoptlon~ that th~ Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of An~heim that Petition for Reclassification No. 75-76'26 be approved~ sub~ect to the InterdPpartmental Committee recomnendations. (See Resolution Boak) Qn roil call, the foregoti~c~ resolutlon was passed by the follawing vot~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARfIES~ NFRBST. J(3HNSUN, KING~ MORI.EY, tOIAR~ FARl1Pl0 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COh1MISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Morley offe~ed f',~s~lution No. PC76-41 and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning CommiSSlon ooes L+::r+^.t~y ~ra~nt Petition for Conditional Use Psrmit No. 2375 (readvErt!sed)~ to expand an exlsting hospital park~ry lot~ s-~b.iect to the Interdepart!^.!~ntal Committee recommendations, (See Resolution Book) On roll call. the fe~regoi~~~ resolution was ~assed by the fnllowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: BARN~S~ HEt'<HST~ JONNSON~ KING~ hlORLEY~ 70LRR~ FARANO NOES : COMMI SS I OHER5 : N0~lE ABSENT: CJMMISS'ONERS: NONE ~ ~w^ ~ MINUTF.S~ CITY PLANN14f, COMMISSION~ Marcl~ 1~ 1976 y6-101 RF.CESS - nt 3~3~ P•m.~ Chalrman Farano daclerad a recess. RECONVENE - At 3:k5 p.m•, Chalrman Farano reconvnncd the mo~etin~ with all "-'-` Planning Commis~lune~s boing present. CONOITIQNAL USE - REApVERTISED PURLIC HEARING. B[TQINE PROPERTIES~ INC.~ 12550 PERMIT N0. 1~~14 BrookhursC Street~ Sulte A. Garden Grave~ Ca. 92~1-~ ~~+ner); WILLARQ R. POUI~ 1255~ Ar~khurst~ Sulte A~ Gaidcn Grovc, Ca. 92640 (Ac~ent); requestln~ parmisslon to tXP!!ND AN EXISTING QRIVE-i"J TNEIIT~R on proporty de:scrib~d as an irreqularly-shaped parcel of lAnd consistlnc~ of ~pproximntely 23 gcras located at the southeast corner of Durst and Lemon Streets~ havlnc~ approximAtn frontages c+f 12E1y feet ~n the sc~uth s(dc of Durst Strset anci 67~ feet on the east side c,f Lemon Street~ and beinn located appr •<Imately 9~~ feet soutli of the cenr.erllne of Orangethorpe Avenue. Property presentl'~r clRSSirleci ~'ll (INDUSTRIl1l~ LIMI7ED) ZONE. Na one lndicated their presence in oppnsitien to sub]ect petitlon. Although the Staff Rep~rt to the Plannin~ Commission dated March 1, 1~7~~ ~JA~ rQ: read ot the public hearin~, said Staff R~port is referr~d to and m~de a part of the m nutes. Mr. Willard Pool~ Che agent r~~ t'~~ ^°*iti~ner. appeared before the ?lanning Corxnlssion and reviewed the pr~posal, stating that one movie screen was cxtstin~ on the property~ Chat an ~~ddit(onal screen ha~~ been authortzed p~evinusly~ and ths~t they were presently requc+sting to have a thlyd : reen on the subJect propErty; that the tota! number of car sp~ces tn th~e theater would Actually be three less than thay were presently authorizsd to have; that they were planning tc~ spend approximakely $1 mllllon to expa~d the drive-in theater at its present l~cation; and that the petitioner was agreeable ta the condltions requirSn~ riedication and improvements~ however~ they would take exceptio~~ to a portion of the Traffic Engineer's recommen~iations. TIIE PUBL I C ~1EAP I NG WAS CLOSE~. Traffic Fnglneer Pt~ul Stnger advised that he was recammendinq a lar~er rai'us of approxi- mate~y 7.5 feet be provided at Durst Street fior turning of vehicles at the entrance to the theater; that perhaps lt was premature to rcquire the ~cversal of the traffiG entrance and exlt, si~ce :he present entrance may not b~ the ultlmate entrance for the theater; and that he vras not :ommenting concerni~g dedication. Discusston pursued concerninn the p~ssible future entrances to the theater, during which Mr. Singer pointed out that frontacle along the freeway of approximately 15~ to 200 feet was owned by Calirans. in respanse to questioning by Commissioner Nerbst~ Mr. Pooi stipulated that the proposed 6-foc-t I~igh chatnl ink fence wo~ld be interwoven with r•rriwc~od or cedar slats to properly screen the property~ in addition to planting trees ~~n !; °oot centers. in response to further questioning by Commissioner {~erbst~ Mr. Ed Lucas~ representing Pacific Ortve-In Theatres, appe~~red before the Planrinc, Commission and stated they were presently using an exlstinq approxim~tely 12-foot hiqh meCal fence along Durst Street~ and anot~er fence from 17. to 2~ feet high along l.emon Street; thot the p:-oposed 6-fc~ot high chatn) ink fence wi th reclwood stats would ab~,u~~d the Northrop property on the east and *.he freeway on the south; and that profiles would be developed for review by CalTrans concerninc~ the screeninc~ for the theater. Commi~,ioner Herbst indtcated that~ tn his opinion~ the 6-foot high fence would not adequately screen the theater from the freeway; whereupon~ Mr. Lucas stated the fence was left ambtguous although it would have to meet wirh approval by CalTrans. Commissioner Barnes noted concerning the rever•sal of the exit and entrance, that she had been to the sub]ect theater and there d1d appear to be a maJor problem ~(th turning co~flicts at Lemon Street. and the exit and entranc9 appCared to be opposite of where they sho~ld be. Mr. Stnger explained that the presently existing counterflow condition outsi~le the property eitminated a serlous conflict of mixing the entertng and exiting trafftc ins?de the property. • ~ MINUTE.S~ CITY PLAhNING CbMMIS510N~ March 1~ 197G CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT NQ. 1414 (Gontirrued) ._...._-....-- - 76-102 Commissloner Johnson ~fferecl a motlon~ sGCOndad by Commtssioner King an~1 MOTION CARRIEU~ that Chc An~heim City ~lanninn Ca~mtsslon does horeby ~ccommend to the Clty Council of the City of Ar~al~Bim that the suhJPCt pr~~Ject b:~ exampt fr~i~n the requiremenfs to Arbpere an ~nvlronmental tmpnct raport, pursuAnt to the provislons of tho Callfornl~ Cnvironmantat Que~lty Act. Commis~sloner Johnsan offered Resolutien No. PC7G-42 and moved for its Nassage an~ adoption. that the Anahetm Clty Plannin~ Cortm~ssion does liereby granr Pctttion f~r Conditlonal Us~ pe~rt,it No. 1-~1~+ (reedvorttsed) to axpand an exl~tin ~triv~~-in theater to three scree :ub~ec:t to the conditlon that an approxtmately ?5'f'c+~' turring radiu~~ as approvad by the Tr,iffic Engineer, thall be provlded at thG Durst ~treet ant~ance; that tha propased 6-foat htgh chatnilnk fence sf~all be interwoven with reciwood or cedar ~lats and tr~e~ shnli be plant~d on 5'faot centers aJJACent to sald fencr.~ as ~ttpulrted to by the petitloncr; and subJect ko the interdepartment~~l Commtttec recommend~clons. (5ee Resolutlr~n Buokj On roll call, the foreqolnh resolutlon was passed by thc follawl~g votc: AYES: COMMISSI~IPIERS: BARNES~ HERBST~ JOHNSON~ KING~ MOFLEYe TOLA12~ FARANO N~ES: COMMISSI~NCRS: NOPIE ABSENT: C~MMISSI~NFRS: NONF CONDITIONAL USc - PUDLIC HEARlNG. GENERAL PIPE 8 SUPP~Y COMF'ANY, INC., ?.22 East PERMIT N0. 1603 Manville Street, Compton, Ca. 90220 (Owner); PAUL D. WILLIAMSON~ '-'- 1048 West 17th Street, Santa Ana~ Ca. )2706 (Agent); requssting permission to ESTABLISH A RECREATIONAL VEHICLF. STOitAGE YARD WITH WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES on property described as an irregula~ly-shaped parcel of land conslstin~ of approximately 9 acres havtng a frontage of approximately 494 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approximatety 1093 feet, and beinc~ located apprnximately 170 feet west of the centerline of Grove Street. Property presently classif(ed RS~A•43~000 (RESIDEN7IAL/AGRICULTURAL) A4D ML (INDUSTRIAL~ L.IMITED) ZqNES. Pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 1.1.400 and Government Code S~ct~on 3625. et seq.~ Commissioner Johnson n~ted that he had a conflict of Interest in that he awned the immedlately ad.~acant property and Commissioner MorlPy noted that he had a confltct of tnterest in that Morley Truck Lines leased part of the property to the west side of the subJ~ct property; that pursuant to the Fr~visic~s of the above-referenced Codes, they were declarin~ to the Chairman that they were witl~drawing from the p~blic hearing in connectlon wtCh Petition for Conditi.^.nal Use Permit No. 1603 and would nut take part in eiCher the discusston or the voting thereon; and that they had not discussed the subJect petitlon witl~ any member of the Plannincl f.ommission. THEREUPON, COMMISSiONERS JOHNSON AND MORLEY L~FT THE rptip~ClL CHAMBER AT 3:55 ~•M. No one indicated their presence in opposir.ton to subject petition. Although cne JL'al'i' Report to the Planning Commtssion dated March 1, 19?G, was not read at the public hearinc!. said Staff Repert is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Paul Willlamson, the anent fnr the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Commisston and reviewpd the proposal~ stating *_hat they referred to the proposed proJect as a recreational vehicle storage "park"; that they were proposinq to have a~ecurity 9uard to occupy the house trailer and such a guard was necessary for the type of operatlon ~roposed; that they w~re prop~sing ta have no access from G~ove Street; and that the proJect would be completely pav~d with asphalt and strlped. TIIE PURLIC HEARIMG WAS CL~SE~. In response to questioning by the P!a^ning Commission, Mr. Wfiliamson stated an area would be provided in the wash rack area for emptying the holdtng tanks of the racreat(onal vehlcles; that the 8-foot wire fence was typical for the proposed type of operatton and a~o~1d be manufactured with interwoven redwood or cedar slats; and that the overh+ead lightinq adJacent to the R{verside Freeway weuld be dc~wnlighted and directed away from the freeway in a manner which wo~~ld not Interfere w'~h traffic safety. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNiNG C~MMISSI~N, Merch 1~ 1~76 CONDITIOWAL USE PERMIT N0. 1603- (Conttnued) 76-103 C~mmiss(onor Tolar n~ted that he was not opposed to the propo~ed use of the property as an Interim use; and thot a tirr,e llmit of five years might ~~e appropriAte. In respon~e~ Mr. Wllllamson requeste~d thaC considoralion be glv~+n to 15 years f~~r the use In vlew of thc expenses whfch would be fncu~•red to improve tho property. Commt=~.loner Herbst noted thAt~ although tha expenscss would not be too great~ ft wes likely that when the use came up f`or renewal~ lt would l~a renewed; however, he woulcf llke Chc privilege of revlewing It at the end of the flve-year perlod; that he was in f~vor of the us~c as a good~ s~lld, interlm use of the property Lo relieve tha tax burden; that It appeared the alsles might be too narrow and 25 feat~ ratlier than 23 feet, should be the minimum wtdth. In response~ Mr, Wllliamso~ statecl th~y h~d been using 7.3-foot aisles in a slmilar storage park which had been in operatlon for approxtmately three years~ with na problems; ~~~~d thAt they wc~uld have to consider the wconomics of the proJect if they had to have a minimum of 25-foot aisles. Chatrmon FarAno noted that the 23-fooC aisles could be consldered adequatc~ although it was more dtfficult to mAneuver the vehicles Into the s;.~ces. Mr. Wllliamson speclfied that the parkin~ space striping would he ~t a minlmum of GO-degree angles~ and the end aisles wauld be a minimuM af 27 fee-t wlde. Commissioncr King offered a motion~ seconded by Cammissianer Tolar an~d MOTION CARRIFD (Canxnlssloners Johnson and Morley being temporar(ly ab~ent), that the Anahetm City Plenning Commission ~oes hereby recortrnend to the CiCy Council of the Clty of Anahelm tha~ the subJect pro.ject be exempt from the requlrements to prepare an environmenta) lmpact report, pursu.,nt tn the provtslons of the Californla Environmental Quallt~ Act. Cortmissianer King offered Rmsolution No. PC76-43 and movecl f~r its passage and aduptlon. that the Anahelm City Pianning Commission does hereby grant Petil•ion for Conditi nal Use Permlt No. 160'i to estahllsh a rtcreational vehicle storage yard on the sub]ect praperty for a period of ei~ht years, subJect to review and conslderation for an extension of tirr~ upon written request by the petitioner; grantln~ the use of a trailer for the purpose of houstng a securlty gua~•d~ whlch is determined necessary for the proposed storage park; subJect to the stipuletlons of Che petitioner tl~at the end alsles shall be a minimum of 27 feei wide~ that the other alsles shall be a minim~m of 23 feet wide, and that the parking angles shall be a minlmum af 60 de~rees; and that the overheacl lighting adJacent to the Riverstde Freeway shall be downlightPd and directed in a manner which wf11 not interferc with trafflc safety; and subJect to the Interdepartrt-ental Committee recomrt~endations. (See Resolution Sook) On roll call, the foregoinc~ re:solution was passe:f by the fallowing vote: AYES: COMM;SSIONERS: BARNES~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONFRS: JQHNS0~1, HERBST, KING~ TOLAR~ FAfWNO MORLEY COMMISSIONERS JOHPISQN RND MQRL~Y RETUP.NED TO THE COUNCIL CHAMRER~ AT ~+:15 P•M• CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC NEARING. RICEMAP~ INTERNATIONAL~ INC., 300 West Katelia PERMIT N0. 160~- Avenue~ Anaheim, Ca, 928n2 (Ownar); RAY W. 5HIRK AND DAVIO FON LEE:, 300 West Kate~la AvPnue~ An~hetm, Ca. 92802 (Agents); requestin~ permissior to Ei(PAND A MOBILEHOME PARK TO {NCLUDE A RECREATI~NAL-VEHICLE PARK on property d4 :rlbed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 23.7 ar_res having approximate frontages of 900 feet c,n the south side of Katella Avenue and 387 feet on the west side of Haster Street~ having a maximum depth of approximately 595 feet, and fu~ther describe~ as 300 West Katella Avenue. Prop~rty p-'ssently classified RS-A-43~000 (RESIDEN7IAL/AGRICULTURF,I) ZONE. 'Three persons indleated thetr presence in ~ppositton to ti~e subJect p~rition. Mr. Ray Shirk~ the agent for the petitioner~ appeared befnre the Planning Comnission and requeSted that a four-week continuance be granted for the subJect publ(c hearing on the basis that the petitioner was not prepared to speak to the conditions whicl~ would be Imposed if the application were ~r~nted and specif{cally relating ta the conditions pertalning to dedtcation. Gommissioner Tolar o~fered a rnotion, seconded by f.omnissloner J~.hnson a~d MOTION CARRIED. that the Anahelm City Flannin~ Commission does hereby continue the pubilc hearing ~nd consideratlon of Condttional Use Permit No. 1604 to the P~anning Commission ~neeting af March 29. 1976, es requested by the petitioner. ~ ~ MINUTE~~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 1. 1~76 76-104 CQND171(1NI1L USE - PUBLIC H~ARING. ~ACOR LOGIIR~ ET AL~ 28~Q La Crest~ Avcnue~ Anah~sim~ PERMIT NQ. 16t1, Ca, 92A~G (Gwners); JOSFPII F. CREVIER~ ~6951 E1 Clcrvo~ M(ssion ~ Vle.jo. Ca. 92675 (Agcnt); rcqucsting pcrmisslon to ES7ABLISH A CONTRAf.TOR'S STO MGE YARD on property described a~ a rectnngularly° shaped parcel c~f land consisttnc~ of a~proximately 0.9 acre havtnq a frontage of approxl- matnly 1~i2 feet ~n the south sicie of La Crest~~ Av~nue~ havliin n maxlmum dopth of apnrortmately 'i10 feet, ancl belnn locatecl approxlmately 265 feet east of the centerilne of 'lue Gum Street. Property prosently classifled RS-A^43.O~Q (RESIDFt~T1A1./Af,RlCULTIIRAL) zrn~~ No one Indtcateci thair presence ln oppc~sitlon to the subJect petltlan. Althouqh the Staff Report to the Plannii~q Commlgston d~ted March 1~ 197G~ was not read at the publlc hearing~ sild Staff Repore is referred to and mnde a ~art af the minutes, Mr. Jo~eph Crcvler~ the agent f~r the petittoner, aapeared beS`ore thc Planning Commisslon ~nd stated that he was prop~sing to move his construction storage yard from its prese~t location to the subJect property which was two blocks away, s(nce his let+se was expiring and Che {~ro~erty owner was planning to build c~n the propcrty; that lhe subJect property was the most convenlent relocation he was able to find f~r his buslness; and that he would have e four-year lease for use of the subJect property. T~~E PUBLIC NEl1RIN(; WAS CLOSED. Discusston pursu~ci concerning thr. oiling of the ground surface com~+ared to watering to retatn the dust and eliR~inate any resultant problems~ d~aring which the Planntn~i Commission (ndicated they favored oiling. Mr. Crevier stated Lhat he preferred to water down the properxy eve ry other day and that o(ling was a very expensive process, costing approxtmately $~~~~ to 55~~ per acre and having to be repeated frequently due to the heavy equlpmant which would be driven over the property. The Planning C~mmission discussed the possibtlity of f~aving ar+ approximately 3-inch 1nYer of ~r~vel over the prope.rty, in lieu of tl,e olling or watering, and 't ~as noted thiat the gravel would als~ requirc watering to keep the dust dawn. Mr. Crevi~r stated the property would be wat~ered~ as needec'~ depending on dust conditions. Commissioner Tolar noted that the subJect property owner also owned the property to th~ west and if satd property owner was wtlling tn lease the subject property for the proposed use, then the dust problems, etc.~ should be covered in the lease. Commissioner Tolar then requested information pertalninq to the helght of the fence in relationship to the he(ght of Che equipment and/or materlals which might be sCored next to iC. Deputy C(ty Attorney Frank Lowry clarified that the Code specified materlals or products and he did not interpret contractors` equipment to be in that category. Cortxnissioner Nerbst noted that the proposal was for an interim use of the subJect property and was obJecttonable in terms af mass storage and~ therefore, a row ~f cypress trees on 3-foot center~ should be requi ed along the north prope:rty line to provide an effective screert for the property within a short period :~ time. Commissioner ~olar uffered a motion~ seconded by CQmmissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recomnend to the City Council of the Citq af Anaheim that the subject proJect he exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report~ pur~uant to the p~ovisions of the Call~Fornia E~vironmental Quality Act. Commissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. i'C76-44 and moved fo~ its passage and adoption. that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Comnission does hereby grant Petition for Condi~iona~ ~:a Permit No. 1E05, to permit a contra~tor's storage yard at the subJect location for a pert~d of four years, sunJect t- revlew and consideration for an extension of time upon written request by the petiti~,~~er; subJect to the condition that cypress tress shall be planted on 3-foot centers along the north property line to provide an effcctive screen for the use within a period c,f two Years; and sub)ect to the Interdepartmental Cor,mittee recommendations. (See Reso)ution Book) On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by tl~e followine~ vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ HERB5T~ JOHN50~;~ KING, MQRLEY~ T4LAR, FAR4N0 NOES : COMMI SS I ~F~E RS : NONE ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS: NONE • • MI~~U7CS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 1~ 197G RF.PORTS A~l~ - I'f~M N~. 1 RF.f,(1MMEtIDAT1(1~~5 REQUr FS~~R EIR NEGATIVE DECLAKATIO~I - For a gra~iing permit at 4(,2 Counery Hill Road. ~6-105 It was note~l thAt an sp~licatian for a ~recilnn permit hoc~ h~en fiteci to construct a single-forilly resldencr. at the subjesct acidress; that an evaluetlon of the envlrnnmenta) Impact of gr~7d(nq nt this locatfon wes rGqulre~l under the provisio;s of the Callfornia Env(ronmental ~uallty Act anct the State EIR Guldellnes because thc pr~Ject was loc.ated ln the Scenic C~rridor; an~l th~~t a study of the pro~oserl ~radin~ hy the Fn~(neerfnq and Plannina Dlvislons In~ltcated that the proJect would hava no si~niflc~nt envlronmental Impact. Commissloner Johnson offcred a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Kinq and MOTI~N CARRIED~ th~t the~ Anaheim City Planning Commission does herehy recommend to the C(ty Cauncll of the City of Anr~helm that tlie subJect proJ~ct be exempt from the requir~ments to prepare an envlronmenta) impact rap~rt~ pursuant to the provislons of the Ca1~Farnfa Environmental Quality Act. I 7EM tJO. 2 F.,ll. QR EIR NEGATIVF DECLARATION - For a p;~rcel map on properky n~rth of the souiheast terminus of Timken Road, It was noted that ~n application fnr a parcel rn~ip had been filecl ta divide a five-acre parcel located north of the sautheast tQrminus of T(mken Road into four parcels; that an evaluation of the envir~nmental impact nf parcel maps was requlred under the provisions of the Callfornla Envlronmental Quality Act and the State EIR Guidelines; that a study of the proposed parcel map hy the F.nqineering and Plann(ng Divisions (ndicaCed that there would be no signlflcant envlronmenta) Impact based on the facts that (a) the proposed parcel map was compatible with tf~e Anaheim feneral Plan and the property was under a Resolutlon of Intent to RS-HS-22~~On y~nin~, an~i (b) ali of the proposed parcels would be accessible from existtn~ roads or short extensions af existing roads. Comm(ssioner Ki~i~ offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Johnson and FIQTIUN CARRIED, that the Anahelm City Planning Conxnission does hereby recommr.nd to the City Council of the City of Anahelm that the s~ibject project be exempt fram the rsquirements to prepare an envlronmental impact report, pursuant to the provisi~ns of the Californla Envlronmental Qual(ty Act. ITEM N0. 3 '~'~~R FIR NEGATIVE DECLARIlT10P~ - For a grading permit at 75~+~ Vista Del Sol. It wa3 noted that an application for a grading permit had been filed to construct a single-famlly residence at the subJect address; that an evaluation of the environmental impact of gradin~ at this lo~ntion was required under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ~nd the State EIR Guidellnes because tiie pro.ject was loc.ated in the Scpnic Corricior; and that a study of the proposed gr~~iing by the Engir~eerinr~ and Planninc~ Divisians indfcated that it would have no significant ~nvironmental impact. Conxnissioner Barnes offered a motion~ seconded by CommissianPr Kinc~ and MOT10N CARRIEO~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recomnend to the C(ty Council of the City of An3heim that the subJect proJect be exempt from t~re requirements to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisio~s of the California Environmental Quallty Act. I7FM N0. ~~ EC.~[A"3S~FrCATlQN N~. ?h-75-24 - Request for approval of precise landscaping plans - Property con~istlny ~f approximately 7 acres located north and west of th2 northwest curner of La Palma Avenue and State Colleg~e Boulevard~ havtng approximate fror,tages of 2F5 feet on the nurth side of La Palm~ Avenue and 7f~3 feet on the west side of State C~llene doulevard. The 5taff Report to the Plannin9 Commissio~ dated March 1~ 1976~ was presented and made a part of the minutes~ ~ ~ MINUT~S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON, Mar~.h I, 1976 ITEM M0, << (Cantinucd; ._.._.___.___ 76-1~6 It was noted th~t the Planning IlapartrnE t staff had analyzed Che ~uhmirted plans and Pound f.hat sald plans exceeded the site development stand~rds of tt~e CL Zone; tl~at the prup~sed landscaplr+r~ would effectively s~reen the prolact ~rom adJacent res(dentinf propertlas and ple~santly accent the arc-~itectural their~e oF the pro~oct~; and, f~~rther, thAl a compa~ison botween the conceptu~l lenclsc~i~e p'Ana~ which were included in the approved precise pl+~ns~ and the submltted rreclso landscape plans Indicate al) perimeter and parkin~ landscaping to be the s~me (n dimen~lons Hnd arca. CommfssionQr Herbst noted that a lehenJ was not shown on the submitted landscaping pl~ns to indicate the scale used in preparin~ the p1Ans; whereupon~ Mr. Jerry Cummings~ representlnq the architect for the pr~!~~r; ap~e~red before the Planning Commisst~n »nd stated the measurements compared witli ttie concept plans orlginally appr~ved. Mr. Cummings then noted the miss!na informatian on ths pl~ns for tha records. Comnisstoner Kinq o1`fered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Mnrley and M~TION C~RRIED~ that the Anaheim City Planninc~ Cummission does hereby recommend t~ the f,ity Cou^~.il af the City of Anaheim th.~t the precise l~~idscaping plans submitled in cannection wlth Reclassiflcatt~n No. 7~i-75-z~~ be approved. I TEti N0. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT tJO. 1577 - RequesC for approval of revtsed plans - Property cansisting of approxlmately 2.ti acres~ having a frontage of approximacely h34 feet on the east side af Dale Avenue~ havinn a maximum depth of approximately ?.ii5 feet~ and beinq located apprhxtmately 2~-~ Feet north c~f the centerline ot= Lincoln Avenue, The Sf.aff Report tn che Planning Commiss~on dated March 1~ 197G~ was presented ind made a part of tl~e minutes. Ms, Joan Hamilton. representing T. M. Shamna Assoctates~ thc architects, appeared before the Planr-ing Comr~ission and stated turfblocks would be installed in a strip approximately 2~ feet wlde around the nnrth, south and east boundaries, and said strlp adJacent to the p~oposed S-foot wicJe sidewalk would serve as a tot•~1 fire emergency area, as ~pproved by the Ftrt Department. ShP further stated that pilasters would be con5tructed and used at the two entrar.ces to the emery~ncy area to prevent regular trafPic in sald area. Comnissioner Kin~ offered a motion, seconded by Comnissioner Tolar and M~TIOP! CARRIED (Comnissloners Barnes and Farano abs~taining~ since they were not present at the meeting of February 2~ 197G when Conditional Use Psrmit No. 1577 was considered), that the Anahelm L'ity Plannincl Commission does hereby approve the subject revised plans~ as submitted ln connection with Conditlonat Use Permit No. ~571. ITEM N0. 6 RIDING ANU IIIKItJ~ TRAIL~ - P.equest for approval in prlnciple, as recommznded by the Canyon Area General ?lanning Task Force. The Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 1~ 197f~, w~~s presented and made a part of the minutes. It wa~ n~' c1 that the Canyon Area General Planning Task Force had taken unanimous action endorsi~~~~ the proposed Riding and Hiking Trails plan for Ziie canyon ~rea; that the trails plan would be incorporated in thr Gener~l Plan Amendment anticipated for early July~ 1976; however~ in the in.terim~ concern had been expressed that ection be taken which would give ~uidance to potential developers in tfie immediate vlcinlty of the pronosed trails and whlch would reflect the City's poticy with regarc' to tl~e p~oPosed trails. C~mmissioner Nerbst offered a mc~tion, seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTIOM CARRIED~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby adapt, and recortmend to the Ciiy Council of the Lity of Anaheim adoption~ in principle, of the Riding and Htking Trails Plan~ as recortttnended by the Canyon Area ~e~eral Piannin~ 7ask Force. ~ ~ M I NUTf:S , C I 7Y PLAPJN I NG CQMM I SS ~(1N ~ Ma rch 1~ 19'I6 7~'" ~ ~~ ITF.M N0. 7_ TFI~TATIVf' TRACT NQS. 87~5~ ~i`~3, ~795 and f379G - Request for ~ppro~~+~l of lake plnns - Property conslstinq of approximatcly s% ~cr~::; iocated north of Le 1'alma Avenue, approxlrru~tely 16C~0 fcet west ~~~f the centerline of Euclid Strr~t. Commissloner Nerbst noted that on Octuber 29, 1975~ he had fl`ed a confilct of interes4 form In connectlon witli development ~f tfie subJect prcperty (see Condit(onal Us~ Permlt No. iS7~~) ~ pursuant to the prov(slc~ns of thc Annhzim Munlci~n) Co~1~ Section 1.1.~~00 and Government Cade ~ect(on 3~~25, et seq.; that ,atd declaratlon was stitl applicable and he was, thereforc~ declarfnq th~t he was withdrawing from thc Plnnnln~ Comm!sslon's conslderetton of the subject request and would not take nart ln elther the discussion or the votln~ thereon; and~ further~ that he had not discussecl the. subtect matter with any member of the Plnnn'nq Comm(ss(on. 7fIrREUPQN~ CQMMiSSIONER HERBST LFFT TNE COUNCIL CNIIMBER AT ~~~45 -'•N• Tlie Staff Report to the Planning Commission datad March I~ 197~- was presented and made r~ part of the minutes. Deputy City Attorney Fran~: Lowry revlcwed for the Planning Commtaslon the purp~se oti' the l~ke, belnq a hoi~inn basin for run-o{'f waters in the area; ~nd further note~I that an agresmtnt perteinin~~ to the lake inclu~ted a provlslon for a~ater sources durinq dry seasnns to maintal~ water in s~~icJ lake. The Plannln~ Commtssfon entered lnto discusslon with Mr. Chrlsk(~nsen regardin~ the cons~ruction of the lake~ durtng which City SLaff advtse.. ~nat the lalce was propased to be sloped -~:1 from the shorelinc~ with a maxlmurn depth of the upper lake to be S feet and the ~OWPr lake to bt I~ feet. Nr. Christlansen stated they had decidecl~ for safety's ~ake, that the slope shauld 6e 4:1 from the sharellne to the middle of the lakes. Mr. Lowry noted that the agreement pertaining to the iake also provided for no construction over the IakP. Mr. Christiansen further stated that the proposed plans had been appro•~ed hy the Bullding and £nc~ineerlnq Divlsions as meeting the i'~quired standarcls; that the water level of the lake would be controlled by aute^~~tic valves, with enough freehoard to keep the lake from ov~rflowinq; that the circulation and rPCirculattan sysxem was apprnven; and that the matter of insect control woulcl be effective and (n accardance with thc condltions of approval prev-ously imposed by the Planning Commtssion ~nd City Council. Gommissioner Morley offered a motion, seccnded by Commissioner King and M~TIOP! CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst bein~ temporarily ahsent)~ tf~at the Anaheim City Pl~nning Commission does hereby ~+pprove the lake plans as submitted in connection with Tentative Tract Nos. a775, a793, ~795 and ~,796. COMMI SS I~NER HERBST RL•-ENTF.REQ TI1E MEETIhlG AT 5:0~ P.M. ITEP1 N0. 8 TEP11'ATIVE TRP.CT NU. ~866 ~ Request for approval of final ~~ecific plans - Property consisting of appruximately 31.5 acres loc.~ted between Romneya Drive and !a Palma Avenue and beinc locateci approximately 483 feet west of the centerSine of State College Boulevard. Zoning Supervisor Annika Sant~lahti presented the Staff Report Co the Planntng Commission dated March 1~ 197F~~ and said Staff Report is referre~ to and maue a part of the minutes. Shn noted that the plut plars being presented had not been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr~ Cal Queyrel of Anacal Engineer1nct appeared before ihe Pldnning Cortxnission to answer qursti~ns regarding the pruposal. In respanse to questioning by Commis~ioner Tolar~ Mr. Queyrel stated that accordinG to the sound readinas taken~ they did not anticl~ate any problems in ~neeting che sou~d attcnuatlen prablems for Lot No. 13~ althoi~gh satd lot was not set back a minlmum of 40 feet '~rom La Palma Avenue. ~ ~ ~ M~~IUTES~ CITY PLI~NNING C~MMISSI~N, March 1~ 1976 76-108 ITF.M N0. 8 (Continund) Commtssia~ier Herhst questic-~e~l the ;~~e~d for a virinnce for ~everal of thc loc~ in arder to r.onstr~~~t the five-hadre+om rn~ciels; w~iereup~r Mr, Queyrel statsd that thc usable l~t slzo had been reduced by thr :,5 faet req~aired bY th;: Clty 'c~r eas~m-,,r r~irposes ~lon~ the sidc+walka; o~d thnk they were not actua:~~- nr~rncinq r~ hn~n fivc hedraoms sfncc the fifth rc~om wa~ a bon~is rot~m. Commiss(one~ Tnlar ~iot~~1 th~+t~ i~~ ~-~~s apli~lon~ the cha~ges being prapo.e~l were minor ln nature on thP basfs that the property c+wn~sr• hacl aqreed to resolvo the dralnage pr~blems ~^ the area and to pa'~in~ In-I~eu pArl: fr..as in aciditian to (mpr~ving thR pArk side of Baxt~r ~traet At an approximatc cost of $10,f1'1~ to th~ ~leveloper for sald stPeet improvemants. Commissioner Hcrbst then note~l that, ln his opinton~ che subJect property nwner tiad not agreed at all to work with the City reg:~r<ilnn the ne~d f~r additlonnl pArk lanci in Che n~e+~; that thc only thin!~ agreed to was to sPll the needed park lend t~ the City for ~i very htgh price; ancf that approxirr~tely one to one and ~ half acres of lanci had been ~aine~ for the development through the pr~Rosal to develop to the hiltslda clevelnpment stanJards; and~ therefore~ no devistlons to the appruved develo;~ment should be un<Inr consicieration at t~~fs tlr~e. CornmiSStoner Herbst further noked that the subJect property shoulcl be like any other prop~rty in Lf~e Gity a~id~ If th~re were drn(nage c~r street improvement problems, the developer should bG requlrcd to t~ke care of them; and that the only item o~fere~~ by the ~roperty c~~ner to the i:ity had bern the widening of the park side of Baxtcr Strect. in response~ Mr. Queyrel st~ted the subJect property di~i not have drainage problems since sail property was hic~h and dry; however, they had ac~reed to take the dra~np~e dl~verted From Romneya and Sycamore~ etc., ta the Acacia retard(ng b~sin. In resFonse to Further quesclonin~ by ttie Planning Comnisslon~ Mfss Santalahti advised that a revlow of thc f~oor plans revealed tl~at t~~ of the lats were *.oo e~nall for the five- bedroom plAns ~~nd~ in her cpinl~n~ VlOUIIJ require that a variance ~pplicatlon be fil~~d and considered at a ~~~bl ic hearln~. Miss Santalahtl further aeivised tfiat there ~~as also a q~aest ton con~ern 1 r c, the rPC~ut rement~ of Ci ty Ce~unci 1 Pol i cy Ko. 53~ ~or 4Q-f~ot min imum setbacks adJacAnt to ~rtrrlal highways where the lot depths were not 12Q feet; a~id that the Planninq Commission m~y wish to makP a recommendation to the City Councii tF~at said policy requirpments be waived ir CO!1^nrtinn wirh Lot No. 13• C~mml:sioner Tolar then n~ted that, sfnce so many lots (14) were tn violatlon ~f the lot arr_a ~equirements ror the five-bedroom plans~ said plans sho~lu he re<luced to four bedrooms Co comply with the Code and eliminate the need to apply for a variance. He further nn[ecl that h~ 'Felt a recoRRnendation to the C~t~~ Council would be in order for a waiver af the policy requtring 4~-foot minimum setbacks adJacent ta arterial highways. Mr. Queyrel stated it would be beneficial to the development to have the five-bedroom plans. Thereupan~ Miss Santalahti noted tliat the Planni~q ('ommissic~n and City Council requested to review and approve the precise plans in order to verify tl~at no waivers would show up un the final plans and, ln Che suUJect case~ wai~ers were indicated and would require a vartance application for a~~ oval. Chalrman Farano took excepzion to a deviation from the RS-5~~n0 7_one site development standards far devel~pment ~f the subJect property~ to allow for sm~~ller lot sizes since~ in his oplnton~ there had been 3 lot of "shaving" to allow the RS-5001) zoning and streets to hillsicie standarcls. Mr. Quint Turner~ representinq Max Nartman 6 Associates ~f BeverlY Hlils~ thc~ architects, and Mr. Cal Queyrel ind(cated they felt that an in~ficatton had been made by Staff that the minor devfatten for lot sizes w~~~ld probably be acceptable ta the Planning Commission. Mr. Oueyrel further stated that they had met with Staff who inJicated that the bonus rooms were considered zs betlro~ms; i~owever~ tn his ~pinion, bonus rooms did not indicata the number of peo(~le who ti•~oul~i be living in a house; that Staff h~+d indicated that tf the bonus rooms were in the hous~s that were on large lots~ they miy},t b~ ~cceptable to th~ Planntn~ Cortmission as a minor deviation; and that they had careiuiiy aelectPd the lots with the most exposure~ etc.~ for the bonus roum plans. Mtss Santalaht) advised that when measuraments were spelted out in the Code, the Staff Gould not a~lvis~ otherwise anci that the requireme~ts were strict in that respect. Mr. George A. Heltzer~ the property ~wncr, appeared before the Planninq Conmission and stated he had apparentiy been misled ~y his archite~t an~ enaineer for the proJect; that he would stipulate that thP development would cnmply with ttie Code requirements ~nd, in particular~ would not dsviate from the lot area requirements in relation to the numb~r of r ,1 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PIANNlNG COMMISSION~ M+~rch 1~ 1976 )6-109 iTEM N4. 8 (Contlnued) __.._~ bedrooms praposed on eech lot; th~~+t he hnd n~ Intention of vlolatl~g the Codd r~qulrcmants or causing eny probltm~; I~owaver, hl~ erchitr.ct ond englneer were profosslonels and he h+ed li~tenad to thr.r~ ~ccardingly. Commissloner 7olAr offdr~cf a mation, seconded by Commiseioner King end MO'iiOt~ CARRIED (rommiss(oner Herbst votlnq "na" and Commissloncr Morley Abstaining)~ thet ~he Anehelm Gity Plannlnq Commission does hcreby epprov~ the finel speclfic plans for Tentativo Tract No. f3A66~ subJ~ct t~o the stiputatlon af thc property awner that the proposed developmant wlll comply with the slte deyelopment stendards ef the RS-500Q Zonc~ and~ pa~rticularly, that thore wlll bo no devlation trom the lo! nraa requircmtnts ln reiatlen r-, the number of bedrooms to be constr~icted on the lots; ond the Pl~nning Co~nnlsston does furthrr recanmend to the City Councll o` the Clty of Anahelm that C(tv Council Pol iey tio, y''B requlring a 1~0-foot minim~m setback ~d,~acCnt tn arterlal hlghwt~ys ba wAlved [u pPrmit Lot No. 13 to have a setback ot 27 Feet frora La Palma Aoanue. Commissloner Morley noted that he was abstalning on the bnsis that t-e was not. present when the subJect tr~ct was or(gtnfllly approved by the Plannina Commltsion; and Commissloner Nerbst noted that he wAS voting ~'no" since hc was still of the apinion that the 9U~~P.Ci proposAl was a precedent-settinc~ trect in the Clty of Anehelm ano would c~use the City rtr~ny regrctti. AbJOURNMEt~T - There betna no further busine~s to discuss~ Commissic+ncr Morley otferecl a mc~t~on~ seconded by Commissloner Barnes and MnTIC-N CARRIED~ that the rt+eetfng be adJn~~rned. 1'he meeting b~;ourned at 5:2A p.m. R~Spt~i.i l~i ly subm( tted~ V !.l~ti i~~~/~• 1'"' Patrtcia B. Scanlan~ Sec~~tary Anaheim Ctty Planning Comm(sston PBS hm (~ R C U MI~~Of Il MING SkRVICE, ~~4{:.