Loading...
Minutes-PC 1977/03/28~ ~_.~ i City Hall Anaheim~ Callfornia March 28, 1971 RE(iULAR MEETING PRESENT ABSENT REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Pra Tempare Tolar at 1:30 p.m.~ on March [S, 1977, in the Council Chamber, a quorum be(ng present. • C~iAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Tolar CQMMISSIONERS: - COMMISSIONER: ALSO PRESENT - Frank lowry Annika SantAlahti Paul Singer Jay Titus Joel Fick Patricia Scanlan Part-ela Santala Barnes, David~ Herbst, Kirg~ Morley Johnson Assistant Gity Attorney llssistanl ~'lar-ning Director - Zoning Traffic Engineer Gffice Engineer Assistant Planner Planning Commission Secretary Planning Dr.partment Sec.retary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissianer Herbst led in the PledgP of Allegiance to the Flag af the United States of Arnerica. EIR NEG~.TIVE DECLARATION - CONTINUEJ PUBLIC HEARING. WINSTON J. ANn VELMA J. ~;EIGER~ 3145 Locust Avenue, Lon4 Bezch, CA 9C807 (Owners). Property RECLASSIFICAT ION described as are d angularly-shaped parcel of land consisting N0. 76-77-22 of avprox`mately 0.8 acre having a frontage of approximately 119 feet r~n the north side of 5avanna Strret, having a maxi- VARIANCE N0. 2867 mum depth of approximately 299 feet, being located approximately 190 feet west of the centerline of Knott Street, and further described as 3515 Savanna Stre~i. Property presently classified RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/ AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. REQUESTEQ CLAS5IFICATION: RM-1200 (RE5IDENTIAL, MULT~PLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESI~ED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM BUILOlNG NEIGHT AND (B) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUIIDINGS, TO CONSTRUCT A 20-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. It was noted that the subject items were continued from the Planning Commission me~tings of November 8, 1976,f~r revis~d plans and f,-om January 17, 1977, in order that General Plan Amendmeni No. 142-Area I might be considered by [he City Council prior to Planning Commission consideratfon of the subject i[ems. No one indicated their presence in opposition to the subJect items~ however, Assistant Planner Joel Fick advised that Mrs. Joan Todd, 3620 Wes2 Savanna Street, Anaheim, had been present earlier in the meeting and left a list of her objections fo~ consideration, said objections relating to the drainage on Savanna Street and the dwelling unit count which exceeded the numberofuni[s existing on adjacent properties. 77-220 3/28/71 ~ MINUTES~ CITYPLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH ?.8~ 1977 77-221 RECLASSIFICATI(?!i N0. ]6-77-22 AND VARIANCE N0, 1867 (C~ntinued) Mr. Dennis Cherry~ 345 Univcrsity Orive~ Costa MGSa~ the architecc, appeared before the Planning Commission and explained the revisio~s to the propasal, stating that they had decreased the on-sice parking spaces fram 40 to 38. He fu~ther stated that the City had obtained an cascment at the end of Savanna Stre~t to handlc the drainaqe situation, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to questloning by Cammissioner Herbst~ Office Engineer Jay Titus advised that the C(ty had acquired an easement on the propercy at the west end of Savanna Street in Buena Park~ and a ditch in the easement would facilitate drainage :o tl~e flaod control channel; that the ultimate piping in the dilch tiad not been instalted ~nd probably would not be until the prop- ~rty At thP end of Savanna Street developed; and that previous to ~his t(me the drainage water pooled at the end of the street. Commissioner Herbst made an abservatiun that the drainaye from the subJect proJect miyht he detrimental to che area until th~ ultimate drainage system was completed; whereupon~ Mr, Titus advised that the water should now ~~rain tA the channel. In response to questioniny by Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar, Assistant Ci[y Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission of the changes rtiade to General P1an AmenGment No. 117 at the City Council public he~ring, notinc~ that the subject property was designateci for medium density land usPS, since it was situatPd between two properties which wern_ already developed with this type use. Commissioner King offered a motion, sec~nded by Commissioner Morlcy, and M4TlON CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson beiny absent), that th~e Anaheim C~ty Pl~nning Commission has ~eviewed the subject ~roject, consisting of an 18-unit, two-story apartrnent complex on approximately Q.S acre on the north side cf Savanna Street approximately 190 feet west of Knatt Street and does hereby recomrnend [o the City Council of the City af Anaheim that a Negative Declar- ati~n from lhe requirement to prep~~re an environmental impact report be appr•ovcd for this proJect an the basis that there w~uld be no significant individual or cumulative adverse impact on the environment due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim Genera) Plan designates subject property for medium dens9ty~ residential land uses comme~surate with the proposal, and the Initial S[udy subrriitted by the petitioner ind~cates no significant adverse environmental impact; and that the tdegative Declardtion substant+a[ing the foregoing findings ~s on file in the Office of the Planniny Depa-tment at City hall. f.ommissioner King offered Resolution No. PC77-69 and moved for its passage an~i adoption, that the Ci[y Planning Co~rxnission does hPreby rec~mmend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim r.hat petition for Reclassification r~o. 76-77-22 b~ approved, subject to the Inter- departmental Conmittee Recommenda[ions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo{luwing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DARNES, DAVIO. HERBS'f, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMiSSI0NER5: JOHNSON Commiss~oner King oFfered P.esolution No. PC77-70 and moved for its passage and adoption, tha[ the Anaheim City Planning Commission dQes hereby grant petition for Variance No. 2867~ in pa~[,~~ranting the request Tor waiver o~ the maximum building height for an 18-unit apart- ment complex on xhe basis that, although the subject property is located entirely within 150 feet of RS-N-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zoned property, it abuts parcels zoned RM-1200 to th4 east and west which had waivers of maximum building height appraved by the City Council, said parcels separating the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 parcels; 3/28/77 ~~ ,~ , ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28,1977 77-222 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-7~-22 AND VARl,Z"!tE_N0. 2867 (Continued) that the requested waivcr of the minimum distance between buildfngs was dcleted by the revised pla~~ ~nd is no longer necessary; subject tA the Interdepertmental Committee recommendations. (See Rcsolution aook) On roll ca~l~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the followfng vote: AYES: COMMIS510NER5: BARNES, pAVlD, HER95T, KING, MOR~EY, TOLAR NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONEaS: JOHNSON EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - COMTINUED PUBIIC HEARING. ANAHEtM NATIONAL BANK, P.O. Box 6377, Anaheim, CA 92806 (Cwner); THE METZ CORPORATION, 250 VARIANCE N0. 2914 Briggs Street~ Costa Mesa~ CA 82626 (Ayr~~l); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM NUMBFR OF SIGNS, (B) MINIMUM OISTANCE BETWEEN SIGNS, AND (C) PERMITTED SIGN LOCATIUN, TO CONSTRUCT TNREE FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as a rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.0 acre located ac che southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard, having approximate frontayes of 300 feet on the south si,e of La Palma Avenue and 147 feet on the west side of State Callege Boulevard, and further described as 5~~ North State College Boulevard, Proper[y presently class~fied CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) AND R5-A-43,000 (RF.SIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) 'LONES (with a resolution of intent to C~). It was noted that the subject ~tems were continued frorn the P'anning Commission meeting of March 14, !977, at the petitioner's request. It was further noted that no one wa~ present in o~~po~~t~on to the subject items; and, a!though ihP Staff Report to the Plan~ing C~mmission dat:ed March 28~ l977~ was nat read at the public hearing, i[ is referred to and rr~ade a part of the minutes. Mr. Bill Murray, representing Metz Corporacion, the sign company, appeared before the planning Comrnission to answer questions regarding thr proposal. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. piscussion ensued concerning the loca[ion and types (direc,ianal and identificatian) of signs proposed for the existing bank nn the subjec[ property. and also the consolidation of signs, and the use of La Palma Avenue only for access to the property; durinq which Assistant Planner Joel Fick advised that the lettered signs on the pians did not. match up with the letters set forth an page 2-c of the Staff Rep~rt. Conunissioner Morley suggested that only one free-standing idenlif+cation sign be ~ermitted, whether it was on r.he corner or on La Palma Avenue; and that the directional or teller signs be painted on the parking loc blacktop. Mr. Murray stated that the location of the sign on the Gorr~er wauld cause a problem since the exit was not big enough for an entrance also; that the proposed locat~c,n for the ide~ti- ficatio~ sign was [o identify the entrance to the bank on La Palma Avenue; and that h~ would disagree that the .lirectional signs painted on the blacktop would be effective. Cortmiss~oner Barnes noted that when new customers opened accc~unts they went inside and afterwards went to tF~e drive-up windows and usually remembered I-~ow [o reach the v~indows. 3,' ~ ~ . MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28~ 1977 11 -223 VARIANCE N0. 2914 (Continuo~) In response to questioning by [he Plnnn(ng Conanission~ Mr. Murrey statetl thcy had to d(rect the customers al l around the parking lat because there wcre six windows. ard if someone had to cut across they would cross the ent i r•e par•king lot since there was no roorti for backing up; and that they could put the cxisting free-standing diractional sign an the building and reduce thc other wall siyns to cornply with the wt~ll sign r-,qui rements. It wgs noted that the Dircctor of the Planninq Department had determined that the proposed act(vity falls w(thin the definition nf Section 3.01, Class 11, of the C(t y of Anahelm Gutde~ines to the Requirements for an Environmental In~pact Report ~nd is~ ~herefore, categorically cxempt from the requir~ment to file an EIR. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Na. PC77-71 and rm~ved for its passane and adoption~ ttiat the Anaheim C!ty i'lanning Corrrni55iuri docs hcr^by yrant Pet~tinn fnr Varlance No. 2914~ in part~ qranlinq ~h e requested waiver of the maximurt number o` si~n~ to permft two free- standing signs, ~ e of said signs tc be far identifi~. iun purposes anu~,~iented towArds La Palma Avenue and the second to be a d i rect ional s i gn for traff ic control on the site, said waiver being granted on the basl~ that thc petitloner demonstrated that a hardsliip would be created if sa(d waiver was not granted ~iue to the limited access toth e subj ect dr.velopment from La Palma Avenue; granting the requested walver of the mi nimum distance between s~~ns t~ permit a distance of less than 88 feet between the two approved free- standing s igns. on th~ basis that the pet i t ioner ~.~monstrated t.hae a hardshlp wo~ld be created if said waiver was not g--~~ted due to the ~ i ze ~f the s~~bject property , and the use of the second sign is for o~~-si.: dErectional pu~poses only and not for advertisi~g purposes; ~enying the reqUested waiver of the permitted sign Incation slnce the petiti~ner stipulated ta eliminatinq 2he si~n which created the nred tor this waiver; subject to the Interdcpartmental Committec reconxnendations. (Se~ Resolution Book) On roll call, thc• f~regoing resolution was pas~;ed by the followinq vote: AYE5: COMM15510NERS: BARNES, OhVID, HERH`aT, KING, TOLAA NO~S: CQMMISSION~RS: MORLEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: .1UHNSON c I R NEGAT ~ VE DECLARAY l ON - CON7 I NUEC PUBL I C t1EAR i NG. WARM I NGTON VENT~IRES, 1 7880 Skypark ~ Cir~ie, Irvine, CA 12707 (Owner); A,S.A.W. ~OKPORATION, VARIANCE N0. 2916 540 North Golden C i~c, l c- Dr ive ~ Sui te I 14, Santa P.na, CA 92705 (Agent); reques[ing WAf`1ER OF MININUM STRUCTURAL SETBACK, TO ESTABIISH A CONVENIE~~CE CENTER on property described a5 a rec- tangularly-shaped parcel o` land consisting ~f approximately 0.5 acre located at the north- west corner of Qrangethorpe Avenuz and Kraemer Boulevard, havinq approxi:natp frontages of 143 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and 149 feet on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard, and further described as 1701 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property presently classi- fi~d as CH (COMMERCIAL, HEAVY) ZONE. It was noted that the subjeGt i tems were cont inued f rom the Planning Comm i ssion meeting of MarcF~ 14, 1977, at the request of the petitioner. 'rlc~ one indicated their presence in oNposition to ti~e s~~bject items; and, although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated Mareh 28~ 1977, was not read at the publ ic hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the mi~utes. 3128/17 ..• ~ MINU'iES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28, 1977 77-224 VARIANCE N0. 1916 (Continuod) M~. Bill Asawa, representing the agent for the petitloner, appeared before the Planning Commission and reviewed the hi;~c~y of the subJect property, stating that (t had been before the Commission and fity Council recently in connesctlon wlth the zoning of adJacent property (R~classification No. 75-76-16) which mistakenly Included the subJect property~ end which had been corrected by a nunc pro tunc resolut ion, etc.. and the proposa) was now in conformi ty with the zon~ng on the property, wlth the exception of the one requested wa(ver; and that they h~d maintained the normal percenr.age of landscaping on the site. THE HU6LIC HEARING WAS ClOSED. Commi ss ione ~ Morl ey made an observat ion that I ~ aNpeared tt~e property was be ing overbui I t and perhaps thc dcvcloper• haci not crPated the parccl large enough for thc~ proposed uses; whereupon. Mr.Asawa stated lhat he and his b~other were purchasing the subject property from Warmington Ventures and had not known the ~riyinai hiylory of proposals on it. Com- missioner M~rl~y then indlcated that when Mlarmington submicted their oriyinal plans for this property tl~ey proposed a 20-foot landseaped buffer adjacent to che single-(amily residences to the west and north~ and the proposal before the Commission at this time was f~r f i ve and ten feet of landscaped buf fer i ny; and that , al though the Code permi tted IS feet u~.d~r certain conditions~ rather than requiring 20 feet, 15 feet was the absolute mi~imum. In response to questiuniny by Commissioner Tolbr re~arding a hardship ~or the granting of t~e requesced variance~ Mr. As~~ra ~[ated that Lhe subject property was approxirtiately three feet or so iuwer th~n the adjecent residential propertics and sloped up at the wall; that~ althnug~~ ne could not exactly say there was such a thing r~s a hardship to supp~~rt the request. thay had a~tempted to rect i fy or compl y with the other regu i remPnts oi the C i ty; and that they were land~caping approximatel y 25~ of th~ site, which was c~nsiderable for any site. Coimii ss ione r Mor• 1 e;~ then noted that i t ap;~eared that t hc deve loper was buf fer i n~ the store and nat [he ~djace~.:. home5; and that the residents needed the buffering for protection from the poten; i al noises gentr~ted by tl~e cemrnercial uses. Commissiuner Herbst reviewed a previous proposal on Kellogg wnich had proven the fact that developers tricd to put too much on prapPrty to che detriment of the neighbors; and he noted that he felt the ?.0 fcet of buffering, fully landscaped, should be provided. Com- :nissioner K~ng took exception, noting that the property on Kellogg was flat l~nd and the subject p~opert.y had ai~ embankmer~i plus a block wall co buffer ~he residences. Mr. Asawa stated that the subjeci property was at d grade differential at least three feet iower than the adjacent residential proper~ies. Commiss ioner H~rbsl then rev iewed the cond i tior~s of approval of the adjacent res ident ial trac[ ~ not i ng that a s i x-foot h i gh wa I 1 and s i x-foot h i yh earthen berm wer~ requ i red adjacent to the arterial hlghway to buffer the roaci noiseS~ reducing the sound in the rear yards to a maximum of 65 dbA; and [hat lf the Comm:ssion allowed the commercial dev~lopment to encroach upon the bufFer, then the purposes oi :he wall and berm would be clefeated. Mr. Asawa stated they were proposing no aceess to the rear of the bi~ildings and did not intend to use the arsa inthe rear; that the proposed building was ~pproximately 12 feet high, and the embankment.and wall would be at leastthreefeet higher on the subject property 3/28/7% ~: w i. MINUTE 5. CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, MARCH 28, 1977 VARIANCE N0~9_qL16 (Cantinued) 71-225 than th e adJacent proparty; that it was suggested to them thot a walkway be provlded from the re ar of the property to permit the adJacent residents to have pedestrlan access withou t having to travel over the strerts to reach the stores; and that there would be no vehi~ular access to che rear of the building. Commis sloner Tolar noted that it epp~~red there would be no landscaped buffer an the north slde of the prnperty due to the walkway; whereupon~Mr. Asawa s[ated they could provide a 10-foo t setback, rather than 5-feet~ an the nort.h so that same landscaping could be provided adjace nk to the north property line. if desired by the Planning Commission; and that they hed felt the diffcrence in grade elevatians was a mitigating factor. 1'hereupon, Mr. Asawa stipulatnd to providing a 10-foot building setback along the north property line. Conmis s(uner Hcrbst noted tl~~i he could not find a hardship for granting the 10-foot buffer area in lleu of the requi~ed 15 to 20 feet; and he questioned whether the previous proposal to develop the propercy indicated a 20-~oc,l wide landscapecf ~~uffer arP~. In response, Mr. Asawa s tatFd that he had becn made aware of the 20-foot wide lands~;aped buffer area by the previo.~s developer and, thereupon, he requested a two-wcek continuancc to revi3e the pro- posed plans . Commis sioner Talar nc~ted that he was not in favor of a further continuance unless the petitioner intended to revise the plans ta pr~vide at least a 15-foot wide landscaped buffer adJac e nt to the north and west property lines to protect lhe adjacent residentisl land uSeS. Mr. A s awa fndicated they were reyuesting the continuance in order to investigat~ the possi- bility of inrrcasing the buffer area, as discussed by the Planning Commission. Commissloner King offered a motion, seconaed by Conxnissioner Morlcy, and NOTION CARRIED (Commissfoner Johnson being ahsent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~n does hereby reope ~ the public hearing and continue the public hearing and consideration f the subject items to the Planning Commission meeting of Apri! 11, 1977, as r~quested by the netitioner~ for rev(sed plans, ENVIR ONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. OEVELOPER: ANAkEIM IIiLLS, INC., REPO RT N0. 197 380 Anahcim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92806. ENGINEER: VTN CONSOLIDATED, INC., 2;01 Campus Drive, Irvine, CP, g2664. RECLA SSIFICATION Property de~cribed as an irr~gularly-shaped parce) of land N0. 7 6-17-41 ~onsisting of approximately 100 acres located between Imperial Nighway and Anaheim H~lls Road, having fruntaye ~f approximately TENTATIVE MAP OF 1095 .`eet on the east side of Imperial Highway, and being TRAC T NOS. 97k9, IocatPd approximately 525 feet south of the centerline of Nohl 9750, 9)5) and Ranch Road. Property presently claasified RS-A-43,000(,SC) 9752 (RESID~NTIAL/AGRICULTURAL - SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE. REQUESTEO ~LASSIFICATION: RS-HS-10,000(SC) (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY HILL5IDE - SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) "[ONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUESTS: TRACT 9749 - 55 RS-HS-IO~Q00(SC) lots TRACT 9750 - '~0 RS-HS-l0~OQ0(SC) ldts TRACT 9751 - 40 RS-NS-l0,U00{SC) lots TRACT 9752 - 62 RS-NS-l0,A00(SC) lots. 3/28/77 1~ MINUTES, CITY PLAN~lING COMMISSION, MARCH 28~ 1977 77-226 EIR N0. 197, RECLASSIF ICATION N0. ~6-17-41, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N05. 97~+9~ 9750~ ~~~) AND 9152 (Cunl i i~unJ) TRACT N0. ,~~~0 - REQUE ST FOR TREf_ FIEMOVAI It was nated that the subJect items were cantinued from the Planning Commission meeting of March 14, 1977- fur r ~ vised plans; and that the petitioner was requesting an additional two-week continuance i n order to prepare and submit revised plans. Commissioner King off~ red a motion, seconded by Co~r,missloner Marley, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~n dues hereby further continue the s ubject iterns to the Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 1977~ as ~ equested by the p~ t i t lon er, for rev i sed pl ans . EIR NEGAiIVE QECLARATI qN - READVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. EUCIID ROMNEYA COMPANY, 50S North Tustin Avenue~ q219~ Santa Ana~ CA 9'1705 (Owner). RECLASSIFICATION Pr~perty JeS~~~ibed as an irregularly-~haped parcel of land N0. 58-~-31 consisting of approximately 2.8 acres located north and east _ of the In*_ersection of Romneya Drive ar~d Euclid Streel, having VARIANCE N0. 2922 approximate frontAges of 75 feet an the north sid~ of Romntya prive and 4B5 feet on the east sicie of Euclid Street~ and CONDITIONAL USE having e R~aximum depth of approximately 224 feet. Property PERMIT N0. 1700 presently classified CL (COMMEaCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. RECLa~51FICATION REQl1EST: PETITIONEit PROPOSES TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. VARIANGE REQUEST: WA iVE~ OF (A) MA%IMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS, (B) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, (C) PERMITTED SI GN IOCATI~~N, (p) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN SIGNS, AND (E) PERMITT~D USES, TO f.ONSTR .CT FOUR FREE-STAND I NG S I GNS AND A~v AUTO REP~11 R FAC I l. ITY I N R PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER. GONDITIuti^L USE REQUE ST: 70 PERMIT A ORIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT. Nn one indicated thei r presence in opposition tn the subject items. Although the Staff Re port to the Planning ConKnission dated March 28, 1977, was not read at the public hearin g, it is referred to and made a part of the minuces. Mr. Howard Adler~ ge n eral partner of Euclid Romneya Company, the petitianer, appeared before the Planning C ommission and described the proposed project which was a sF~opping center on CL zoned p r operty, nith about three times the Code requiremcnt fo~ landsc:aping. He stated tnat they h ad been warking with che Traffic Engineer~ to insure the efficieiit a~~d smooth flow of tr affic along Euclid Street; that they were proposing a Taco de Car~os drive-thraugh restau r ant, a tire and auto accessories sh~p, a retail market, etc.; that ~he tire installatio~ would be incldental to the auto accessar store; that other similar auto accessory store s were existing in CL zanes in the City and, therefore, the denial of this request would c r eate a sub5tantial hardship to the petitioner; that because of the location of the subje ct property, the number of signs permitted by Code for this kind of shopping center would cause a hardship~ since the Code only allowed one sign, the hardship being due to the loc ation w;th a cluster of large trees existing near the north property line on adjacent pro p erty, the dense tandscaping along the R~mneya Frontage, and the gas station ta the south, all obstructing the visibility of the site and, therefore, the proposed signs were necessary ; that they were also requesting sigr~s for future ~~ses; and that they 3/28/77 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28, 197~ 77-227 RECLASSIFICATION M0, 58~-59-3~ AND VARIANCE N0. 2927 AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. I700 (fnnt' ~11UPf~~ __._.. _^.. . ---------~ _._.. __.._ wcre requestinq that the restricted uses of the pro~erty, as required at the t~me of the reclassif(cation of th~ property~ be lifted to allow the uses gener~lly permitted (n the CL Zane. THE PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CLASED. !n response to questianiny by Comm(ssioner Kiny~ Mr. Adler stipulated that the tire installation or rnounting would be conducted entirely inside the building. In response to further yuestioning by Conrnissioner King, Mr. Fishman (from thc audience) stipulated to providinq additional trash storage areas~ as requ(red by the Sanitation Divisior~. Mr. Fishman also indicated that plans far the additional trash storage areas t~ad already been submittPd. Olscussion af the hr~rciships ensued relative to the [ire iristallation use, during which Mr. Adler stated that one of thc questic~ns on the application was, "would the denia) af this variance deprive you of a ric~ht enjoyed by others in the area"; and that he felt the situation was a use hardship and n~c one of c onomic~. Assistant Cicy Attorney Frank Lowry referred to the requir~d findings ~f ha rdship which related to shape~ size and topograpt~y of the site. ar~d the deprivation of property rights enjoyed by others having been granted such rights following the new laws established in January~ 1977. In res~onse to questioning by Conxnissioner He rbsc, Mr. Lowry clarified that the Code could bc interpre[ed t.o allow the selling of tires in the CL Zone, with the installation being incidental thereto, and that auto repair could be replaced by tire installation in Che warding of the req~ .; whereupon,Mr, Ad1er c~ncurred, Conx~iissi~ner Tnlar indicated concern tli2t the rcf~rence to auto repair might be problematic i~ the future, whereupon~ Mr. Lowry advised that~ by acting upon the a pplication as a use variance and limiting the use to tire installat~on or mounting only, co n ol of the intended and/or approved use would be enforceable. 'tegarding the prop~sed signs, Commissioner Toiar noted chat no doubt the signs would enhance the properiy, however, thc reason fa r the ordinance was probably due to ahuses of signing; that~ furthermore, the people who patronized the proposed shopping center would mos[ likely not be looking for a regional shopp.ng center and would know what existed in t.he subject area; and, therefore~ he did not favar the propos~d signing although he did favor tt~e shopping center. In response, Mr. Adler stated that the freeway entrance and exit were an attraction of the subject site, drawing customers. Discussion ensued regarding the traffic signalization at Medical Center Drive and Euclid Street interconnecting with the existing sig naly at Romneya Drive and Euclid Stree[ and the River~ide Freeway and Euclid Street, in lieu of the constru~tion of a raised land- scaped median in Euclid prohibiting left-turn movement onto and from Euclid Screet from the subject property. during which Mr. Adler stipulated to cooperating with the installa- tion, location and synchronization of t~: signals in the area since they feared the people would drive past the site heior•e they realized it was there due to the poor visibility of the site, and he indicaced they did not wis h to construct the raised median. 3/28/71 ~Y MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 28, 1y77 77-228 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 58-59-31 AND VARIANCE N~. 2922 ANO CONOITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1700 (Continued) Commiss(oner King noted thak It appeared that the lacation of thF praperty creatcd a definite nardship; whereupon~ Chairman Pro tempore Tolar took excepti~n, notfng that he could nat support that theory when approximatPly 40~000 cars passed the site each day. Commissioner King requested Mr. Lowry to comment regarding the hardships which were present with the subject property~ and Mr. Lowry indicated that cc~mment thereto would be an invaslon of the province of thc jury (Planning Commission), Commissioner Herbst noted tl~at the parcel for the r.onvpnience market could be split-off at a later date and his abservation was that not many people would be drawn fr~m Euclid Street tn thP market even if the proposed convenience market sign on Euclid Street was granted; and that~ in his opinion, the only hardship related t~ che northernmost sign adJacr.nt t~ Euclid Street~ due to the t~ees which were on State property and would nat be removed, Mr, Lowry reviewed the apprnved conditfon for the Anaheim Shares planned community project to the northwest of th~ subject property. noting that the rPferenced project was required to instail the mrdian being discussed at thi~ meeting and, ther•efore. the two condi[ions would be diametrically opposed, although thc Anahcim Shores ~roject favo~ed tl~e potential for left-turn rnovement along Euclid Street; and that if the signals were a condition of appraval for the suhject proposal then the concfition of approval for the Anaheim Shores planned corTm~unity shauld be so amended. In response to furt'~.er questioning regarding the [raffic si~nalization, Traffic Engineer Paut Singer advised that the Tr~ffic Division's recorrmendation was for the raised land- scaped median in Euclid Street from the freeway to Romney~i Drive prohibiting left-turn movement. on the basis that traffic signals would be verv close together and would create some delay in traffic mavem~nt. Commissianer Herb~t nuted that the subject develaper should work wi[h the developer of the Anaheim Shores ~roject in a recipr•ocal ~rrangement regarding the median or signals. whlchever was ~~~u:~ally agreeable to the concerned pa~ties; and that, in his opinion, the signalization would be o~ening the door for f~ther development in the subject area, which might otherwise remain dormant. Mr. Adler stated that the two devel~pers were willing t~ pay their proportionate share f,~r the signaliza[ion and would supparL the Traffic Engineer's ~ecormendations. In response to questianing by the f'lanning Commission, Assistan~ Planning Director Annika Santalahti advised that if the signalization or other traffic control measures were needed imnedia[ely in connection with the proposed projeci, then it would be aRpropriate for the subject developer to pay for the entire cos[s and to be reimbursed for the adjacent developer's share at the time the adjace~t property developed. Mr. Adler stated they would post a performance bond if the adjacent developer did not proceed as indicated. Mr. Larry Fishman appeared before the Planning Commission and s[ated that they had dis- cussed the traffic control problems with Mr. Christianson of the Anaheim Shores project~ who ind'+tated they were willing to go ahead with the left turn pocket~ etc.; and he opointed out that, witho~t some kind of left-turn break they would not have a project. Chairman Pro tempore Tolar then questioned whether Anaheim Shores was agreeable to the costs for the signalization; whereupon, Mr. Fishman stated they had discussed the division of the costs based on acreage and were in favor of that approach. In response to questioning by Commissioner King, Mr. Fishman stated that they could live with three of the proposed signs, if nec~ssary, and 'e stipulated to eliminating one of ths signs adjacent to Euclid Street. Commissione Barnes noted 3~2g~~~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION, MARCH 2b~ 1971 77-229 R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 58'S9'3) AND VARIANCE N0. 2912 ANO CONDITIONAL USC PERMIT N0. 1700 ~Cu~tinued) that she did not favor o sign varlance~ esp~cially because of the amount ~f t~affic which traversed Euclid Street each day. Mr, Fishman explainecf that the subJect prop~rty was c~mprised of four separate parcels of land, with the patential of the convcnienca market and the Taco de Carlos being handled as separate parcels rather than an integrated center; however, they were trying to avaid strlpc~mmercial development that would nat be sn asset to the City; that, if a reasonabl~ solution tn the signing problems was denied~ they would be penalized for proposing a bet~er project; and that the three signs were acceptaGle but would present difficulties with the many users on the property. Mr. Fishman clarified that they would accept one sign for the convenience market oriented tawards Romneya prive~ one sig~ towards the middle of the property adjacent to Euclid Street, and one sign for the restaurant adjacent to Euclid Slreel; driJ llial llie unr siyn for the restaur~~nt would solvc thcir problcros in relati~n- ship to the larye group of trees near the norch property line. In res~onse c~ que5tioning by the Planning Commission~ Mr•, Fishman stipulated to r•~locat- ing the sign adJacent to Romneya prive in conformance to Code requirements, thereby elimi- nating the need for thc waiver, Further discussion was held concerning t!~e sign~ng, during which Assis[ant Planner Joel Fick pointed out that the elimination of one of the signs also eliminated the need for the waiver of maximum sign area which w~uld be ir~ cc~~ipliance with Code requirements. Mr. Fish- rnan further stated that the height limits and minirnum ground clearance for signs in the City had created some pro~lerns in rel~tionship ta pr~viding visibility for the site~ since they were concerned that the people be able to see the signs at the proper time to eliminate possible traffic conflicts; and that direciory-type signing was inappropriate fo~ the site. Mr. Fick clarified that the minimum ground clea~ance did not apply to [he subject property because of its proximity to an intersection. Commissioner Nerbst noted that it would be appropria[e [o provide a 6-foot high masonry wail adjacent to the drainage right-of-way at the nr~rth end of the subject property to properly buffer the adjacent residential land uses from the potential noises g~nerated by the proposed drive-through restaurant. Ne recognized that a woaden wall was existing but did not ~ffer adequate sound buffering. Thereupan, Mr. Fishman so stipulated. Commissioner Barnes inquired whether the resi~ents to the north had been notified of thi~ public hearing and Mr. Fick indicated in the ~ffirmative. Mr. Lowry advised that he ~iad received ielephone calls from the manager of the medical center to the south of Romneya Drive, from Fores[ Lawn and from the L.D.S. Church in Salt Lake City, Utah, all asking questions rPgarding the proposa) but none expressing opposition; and that the call frnm the L.D.S. Church was eo specifically ask about the philosaphy of the tire center~ to which he had responded that the tire installatiun or moun*,ing would be incide~tal t~ tire sales. In response t~ questioning by Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Fishman stipulated that the automotive repair facility would be an accessory use in conjunccion w~[h tire sales and that said facility would be for tire installation or mounting only. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Cortmissioner King~ and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission nas reviewed the subject proposal eo (a) amend the conditions of approval in connection with Reclassification No. 58-5y-31 ;Condition No. 1}, (b) construct an automotive repair 3/28/77 ~ MINUTE5, CITY PLANNING COF~MiSSION~ MARCH 28~ 1977 77-230 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 58-59-3~ ANp VARIANCE N0. 2922 AN~ CONDITIONAL USE PER~ '~0. 1700 ~Continued) ----- ----- -----_~.._~ facility and Four free°standing sic~ns fn a proposed shopping center~ and (c) construct a drive-through restaurant in a proposed shapping center. an approximately 2.8 acres of land located north and east ot the intersection of RomneyA Drive an~ Euclid Street~ and does hereby recommend to the City Cauncil of the City of Anaheim that a Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmenta) impact report be approved for the subject proJect on the basis [hat chere would be no ~iqnificant advcrse en- vironmental impact since che subject propcrty is adjacent to commercial development on the south and west and is separated from the adJacent residential land uscs by a drain- age right-of-way; that there would be no individual nr cumulative adverse impacts on tl~e environment due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates lhe subject property for comnercial land USCS commensurate with the proposal, and the Initial Study submitted by the petitianer indicates no signiFicant adverse impacts; anci -.hat the NPgative Declaration subst~~ntiating the foregoing findings is on file in the ~'~ice of the Pla~~~~~n~ D~p~rt~s,ent at ('ity Nall. Cuirr~~is5iuner Herbst offered Resc~lution No. PC77-72 and rraved for its passage and ~doption, that the Anaheim City Planning Convnission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that the requP~t for deleti~n of Condition No. I of City Council Resolution No. 4989 and Ordinance No. 1393 adopted in connec:tion with Reclassification No. 58-59-31 be approved, on the basis that the subject property is adjacen[ to commercial land uses to the south and west and those uses whith are permitted by riqht in the CL tone appcar to bc appropriate for the subject property; tha[ the property owner(s) sh~all either (a) ins[all a raised landscaped median prohibiting left-turn movements onto and trom Euclid Street prior to final buildiny and z~ning inspec[ions or (b) pay for the installa- tion of interconnect+ng traffic siynals at Medical Center Drive ~nci Euclid Street, the exact amount of payment (estimated to be ~100~000) ta bc determined by the City Traffic Engineer at the time of paymPnt; or thac a b~nd shall be pos[ed by the property o~m er(s) for the installatian of said signalization; said payment for installation of traftic si~nals o~ the posting of a bond therefor may be by reciprocal agreement hetween the ~ut~;~ect property owner(s) and the owner(s) of [h~ planned conxnunity development ta the northwest, and whomever shal) pos[ a bond shall be the respor~sible party; that payment for the installation of traffic siynal5 or posting of a bond to guarantee said alterna- t;v~ shal) be ct~mplied with prior to the issuance of building permits for development of subjec[ property; and subjecl to the Vnterdepartmental Committee recommendatians. (See Resolution Book) On roll calf, the foreyainy resolution was passed by the foltowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, pAVID, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JO~iNSON Commissioner Herb~[ offered Resolution No. PC77-73 and moved fcr its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe~ hereby grant petition for Variance Na. 2922~ in part, granting the requested waiver of the maximum ~umber of signs for three free- standi~~g signs~ since the petitioner st.ipulated to deleting one of the three proposed signs adjacent to Euclid Street, on the basis that the proposed convenience market faces on Romneya Drive and would ~ot benefit from the main sign for the property facing Euclid 3/28/77 ~ ~r w MINUTES, fITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, MARCH 28, 1977 77-231 RECLASSIFICATION N0, 58-59-31 AND VARIANCE N0. 2922 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 170q (C~nttnued) Street, and that two free-stand(ng signs adJacent to Euclid Street are determined ta be necessary due to the lengthy frontagc af the property and because kf~e property is nok visible to the southbound motoring public due [o a grou~ of large trees lacated nn adjacent property near the north property line; subject to the stipulation of the petitioner that said additi~nA1 sign adJacent t~ Euclid Street will be locaced in eccordance with Code starf~~ds and that the total sign are~ for the sub}ect praperty will be a maximum of 350 square feet~ in acc~rdanr.e with Code standards; denying the requested waiver of the maximum sign area hecause it is no longer necessary since the petitioner stipulated to eliminating one of the proposed free-standing siqns adjacenr to Euclid Street, and t.he resulcant total revised sign area would be in conformance with ;:ode standards; denying the requested wafver of ihe permitted sign location on the ba~is that the petitioner did not demonstratc that a hardship ~rould bc c~~ated if said waivcr was not granted; granting the requested waiver of the rninimum distance between signs for a distance not exceeding 245 tect on the basis that the petitioner demonstrated that a hardship w~uld be created if said waiver was not qranted due to the lenqthy frontaye and the lack of visibilicy to southbound traffic An Euclid Street due to the group of large trees on adjacent property near the north property tine; granting the requested waiver of permitted uses to permit an automotive repair facility as an accessory use in canjunction with tire sales on tlie subject property, subject to the stipulation of the petitioner that the automotive repair wili consist of tire installation or mounting only, and will be conducted entirely inside the building; sub_ject to the stipulation oF the petitioner to providing additional trash storage areas as required by the Sanitation Division; and subject [o the Interde~artmental Conunittee recommendations. (See Resolution Book) On r~ll call, the foregoing resolution was passed Ly the following vute: AYES: COMM15510NERS: BARNES, DAVID, HER65T. KING, MORLEY, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOFtN50N C~mmissioner Herbst offered Resoiution No. PC77-74 and moved for i[s passage and adoption, ihat the AnaFieim City Planning Commission does hereby yrarit petition for Conditional Use Permit N~. 1700 to permit a drive-through restaurant in the Cl Zone, subject to the stipulation of ihe petitioner to constructing a six-foot hi9h masonry wall along the north property line adjacent to the drainage right-of-way, said wali being for [he purpose of buffering the adjacent residencial land uses fr•om potential disturbances generated by the aropased restaurant; subject to the stEpulation of the petitioner to providing additional trash storage areas as required by the Sanitation Division; and subject to [he Interdepartmental Committee recortmendations. (See Resolution Qook1 On rcll call, the foregoing resolution wa~ passed by the followiny vote: AYES: COMMISSIOhERS: BARNES, DAVID HERBST, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSiONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON 3/28/77 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28, 1977 77-232 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - PUBLIC HEARING. IMPERIAL BANK, 9910 La Cienega, Inglewood~ "- CA go3p6 (Own^r) ; PI..~TKIN-Rf15FN qFVF.IAPMENT COMPANY, RECLASSIFICATION 12122 l.awler Street, Los Angeles, CA 90066 (Agent); requesting NU. 76-77-39 reclasslfication of property described as a rettangula~ly- shapcd parcel of land conslsting of approximately 0.7 acre having a frontage of approximately 132 feet an the west side of ~uclid Strcet, having ~ maximum depth of appr~ximately 225 feet. being located approxi- mately 170 feet north of the centerline of Glenoaks Avenue, and further descrihed as 835 North Euclid Street~ from the RS-A-43,000 (RESIUENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE to the CL (COMMERCIAI~ LIMITED) ZONE. No one indicated their presence in opposition to the subJect items; and, although the Staff Report to the Planning CommissiQn dated March 28~ 1977, was not read at the public hearing~ it is rc~erred to and made a part of ihe minutes. Mr. Nissan Matlin, I1110 0-,io Avenue~ West Los Angeles~ the architect for the cievelaper~ appeared before the Plannin,y Commissinn to answer quesiiuns reyarJiny ll~r. piu~,usai and indicated they wauld comply with the reconunendati~ons contained in the Staff Report. 7HE PUBLIG NEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to questioning by Commissioner King~ Mr. Matlin stipulated to providing trash storage areas in confarmance with Ci[y requirements. Assistant Planner Joel fick indicated that the Staff Report incorrectly indicaled the propo~ed zoning on Page 6-a, para_yraph 2, which should read~ "CL (Commercial~ Limited)" rather than "R11-4000..." PursuanC to discus~ic~n regarding parking spaces, Mr. Metlin stipulated that the proposal would be occupied by the commercial uses specified on the subrtiitt.ed exhibits, including a furniture store, in order that the available parking would satisfy the minimum Cade requirements. Discussion ensued concerning the on-site traffic c~~culation and the aliynment of drive- ways with the east side of Euclid Streei~ during which Mr. Matlin stated tfiat the City Traffic Engineer had indicated that the on-site circulatio~, as prop~sed,was desirable since the property was extremely tight, although the Traffic Engineer would have preferred it anuther way. In response, Traffic Engineer Paul Singer advised that he was an advocate of keeping driveways to a mininum near intersPCtions; that if driveways were offset and in the wrang directions, on-coming vehicles could be vying for the same space making turns difficult; tt~at, under the circumstance~~ of the subjec.t property, given the layout of the property, the on-site traffic paitern would accommodate the structures pro,.osed; and that he was not implying that the proposed on-site circuiation p~tterns were good. Commissioner Kiny offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissianer Johnson being absent), that the Anaheim City Plannir+g Commissiun has reviewed the proposal ta reclassify the subject property for limited comne~cial land use, said property con~isting of approximately 0.7 acre on the west side of Euclid St~eet, ap~roximately 170 feet north of Glenoaks Avenue, and being sur~ounded by limited commercial land uses to the north~ south and east and by multiple-family residential to the west; a~d the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that a Negative Declarativn from the requirement tQ prepare an environmentat impact report be appr~ved for the subject proJect on the basiy that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the environment due to the approval 3izai» ~ MfNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28~ 1977 RECLASSIFICATION N0._ 76-77-39 (Continued 77-233 of this Negatlve Decla~ation •ince the Anaheim Ceneral Plan desic~nates the subJect prop- e~ty for general commercial „d use, and the Initla) Srudy submir.ted by the ap{~licant indicat~s no 5lgniflcant adverse impacts; ~nd that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoiny findings is on file in the Office of the. Planning Department at City Hall. Cammissioner King offered Resulution No. PC77-75 and moved for its passage ~nd ad~~ptian, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reconmend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that petition for Reclassification No. 76-77-39 be approved, subJect to che stipul~tion of tl~e petitioner to providing trash storage area, in conformance with a~aroved plans on file in tfie Office of the Public Works Director~ said trash storage areas to have adeyuate access for sanitatian vehicles; that, in the event the furniture store vacates the property, revised parking plans shall be submitted to tl~e Planning Department inrii~~tin~ conformance with Code s[andards~ as stipulated to by the petitioner; that the praposed driveways shall be alfqn~d with existing driveways on the east side of Eu~licl Slreet~ in a manner SacisFactory ta the City Traftic Engineer~ as stipulated to by the petitioner; ar,j subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee recommenoations. (See Resolution ~ook) On roll calt, the foregoing resolution was passed by [he foilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVIp, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON RECESS: Al 3:26 p.m., Chairman Pro ternpore Tolar declared a recess. RECONVENE: A[ 3:36 p.m.~ Chairman Pro tempnre Tolar reconvened the meeting with Commissioner Johnson being absent. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - PUBLIC HEARING, MINI-SKOOLS, LIMITEU, 716 Somerset Pla~e, Winnipeg, Manitoba~ Canada (Owner); IRVINE 9. MARGOLESE, RECLASSIFICATION 5522 Southall Terrace, Irvine, CA 92715 (Agent): requesting N0. 76-77-42 reclassificat~~~r~ of property described as a rectrn_yularly- shaped parcel of la~d consisting of apprar,imatel 0.7 acre having a fr~ntage of ~pproximately 25~ feet on the east side of Topanga Drive, having a maximum deptl~ c~f approximately 134 feet, and being locat~ed approximately 172 feet south of the c~nterline of Lincoln Avenue,from the RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAI, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE to the RM-4000 (RESIDENTIAL, MUITIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. No ane indicated the~r ~~resence in oroositi~n co the subject items; and,although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 28, 1977, was not read at the public hearing, i[ is referred to and made a part of Lhe minutes. Mr. Paul C. Minnick, 3400 Glen Nolly Drive, Anaheim, the petitioner, appeared before the Planniny Commission to answer questions regarding the propasal. T'HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King affered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the prcposal to reclassiFy the zoning from RS-70Q0 Zone to the RM-4000 Zone o~ approximately 0.1 acre on the east side of Topanga Drive approxima[ely 1)2 feet south 3/28/77 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMM15510N, MARCH 28~ 1977 71-234 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77~42 (Contlnued) of Lincaln Avenut~ and does her~eby recomm~nd to the City C~uncil of the Cit.y of Anaheim thet a Nec;~tive Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report bP approved for said proposal on the basis that there would be no significant individual ar cumulative adverse impacts on the environment due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anahtim Genaral Plan designates the subJect praperty for land uses commensurate with the proposal, and the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner ind(cates nA siynlficant adverse environmental in~pacts; and that the Negative Declaratio~ substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the OfFice of the Planning Department at City Hall. Commissionr.r King offered Resolution No. PC77-76 and moved for its passage and adoptian~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that petition for ReclASSification Na. 76-77-42 be approved, subject to the Interdepartmental Committee rec~mmendations. (See Re~olution Book) On rull call, lhc~ foreyuiny re~~~lution wa5 paysecl by the followiny vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIOMERS: NOtrE ABSENT: COMMISSI~;~EkS: JOHNSON EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LARRY G. /1ND PAULETTE E. JAMES, 819 North Loara Street, Anaheim, CA q2g01 (Ow~ners): RICHARD DONNER, RECLASSIFICATION 433 S~uth Primrose Street, Anaheim, CR 92804 (Agent). N0. 76-77-43 Pro~,erty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcPl of land consisting nf approxirnately 9916 square feet having a front- VARIANCE N0. 2921 age of approximately 67 feet on the west side ~f Loar~ Street, having a maximum depth of appruximately 167 feet, being located apprnximately 240 feet south of the centerline of Catalpa Orive. and furthrr described as 819 North Loara Street. Property presently classified RS-A-4~,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURALI ZONE. P,EQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-120U (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED VARI~INCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM 9UILDING SITE WIDTH Tq CONSTRUCT A SIX-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. No one indicated their presence in oppos~tion to [he subject items; and~ atthough the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 28, 1977, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and macie a part of the minutes. Mr•. William S. Phelps. 1095 North Mai~ Street~ Orange, building consuitant, appeared before the Planning Commission to answer questions regarding the proposal. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Cummissionsr M~rley, and MOTION CARRIED (Cortmissioner Johnson being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the subject proposal to reclassify the zoning on approximaLely 9916 square feet of land on the west side of Loara Street approximately 240 feet south of Catalpa Drive from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the Rk-1200 Zone for the construction of a six-unit apart- ment complex with a waiver of the minimum building site width requirement, and does 3i2ai» ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLAN~IING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28~ 1977 aECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-43 ANO VARIANCE N0. 2g2t Continued »-235 hereby recommGnd to the City Cauncil of the City of Anaheim that a Negative Decleration from thc ~equirements to prepare an environmental impact report be approved for the subject proJect on ~he basis tha~ thP Anaheim GenPral Plan d~signates the subJect property for medium-density, residential land uses comnensurate with the proposal; that there wauld he no significant individual ~r cumulative adverse impect on the environment due to the approval of this Negative Declaration sfnce the subject property i5 adjacent to multiple-family residences to the nc~rth~ suuch and west, and a street is adjacent to the east property line, and the Initial Stucly submitted by the Fetitioner indicates no si~nifi- cant adverse environmental impatts; and that the Negative Oeclaratlon substanttating the foregoing findinqs is on file in the Office of the Planning OPpartment at City Hall. Commissioner King offered Reselution No. PC17-71 end moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City rlannin~ Commis5ion does hereby recommend to the City Council of the Citv of Anaheim that petitio~ fnr RPfIA~.sificacion No. 76-77-43 be apProved, subject to the Interdepartmental Committee recornncnda[ions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSE~lT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON Cnmmissioner Kinq ~,ffered Resolution No. PC77-78 and moved for its passaqe an~ adopcic~n, that the Anaheirn fity Planning Commission ~OP.S hereby qrant petition for Variance No. 2921, granting the requested waiver of the minimum building ;ite width on the basi•~ that the request is minima) and the petitioner demonstrated that a hardship would be. .reated if ~aid waiver was not granted, since it per[ains to the existin~ lot width,and the surroundiny area to the nc,rci~. south and west ~s cleveloaed with a similar u~e; sub,~ect t~ the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. (See aesolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follc~wing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVIQ, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON EIR ~ATEGORICNL~Y EXEMPT - PUBIIC HEARING. OSI REALTY INCOME FUND, 343 San Anton~a Drive, Long Beach, CA 90807 (Owner): C. J. BUNNER CORP., VARIANCE N0. 2917 343 Sar~ Anconio Drive, Long Beach, CA 90807 (Ayent); re- quesiing WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTED SIGN LOCATION ANO (B) MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT TO CONSTRUC7 A FREE-STANDiNG SIGN on property described as an irregular;y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approx~mately 3.0 acres havin~ a frontage of approximately 580 feet on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue, having a rnaximum depth of appr~xirnately 550 fee[, t~eing located approximately 655 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, anci further described as 1441 South Manchester Avenue. Property presently classified C-R (COMMERCIAL-RECREATION) ZQNE. No one indicated their presence in oppasition to ihe subject items; and, although thP Steff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 7.8, 1971, -v~s not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 3/z8/77 ~.. MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28, ~971 77-236 VARIANCE N0. 2~17 (Guntinued) Mr. Rudy R~driguez, representfng the petiti~ner, appeared befor•e t.he Planning Commission t~ answer questions regardirg thc praposal. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS Cl.OSEO. (n r~sponse t~ questioning by Conmissioner Morley, Mr, Rodriguez indicated that, al[hou~h tht• proposcd sign tould be reiocated to r.liminate the need f~~r che waiver, they wc~uld like to retain it at the proposed Incation to enable them to capture the northbound traffic on the freeway priur to reaching the Harbor Boulevard off-ramp. It was n~ted that the Dir~ctor of the Planning Department had determined that the pro- posed activity felt within the definitian nf Section 3.01, Class ll, of the Cily uf Anaheim Guidelines to thr. Requirements for an Environmental Impact Repc>-t and was, [hel•~ru~~r, c,at~yuricdl{y r.xru~Nt fr•Un~ the requ+ren~eni ta file et~ CIR. Cammissioner Morley affered Reso{ution No. ~c77-79 and moved far its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning ConMnission does hereby qrant petition for Variance No. 2917~ in part, denying the requested waiver of the perm~tted sign location on the basis that the petitioner did not demonstrate that a I,ardship would be created if said waiver was not granted since the proposed ~notel is at a lower grade elevation than the adjacent freeway and the proposed Sd-foot high sign would provide identification of the mutel as a con- venience to the nx~tUriny public; and, further~ tha[ [here arF existing ~iqns of similar heights on other properties in the surrounding arca; subJect to the Inierdepar[mental Commit[ee recommendations. (See Re~solution Book) AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID, HER6ST, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSlONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMHIS~IONERS: .IOHNSON EIR CA1'EGORICALLY EXEMPT - PUBLIC HEARING. DALE E. ANO SARAH ANN FOWLER, 1430 South ~ Grand ~lvenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (Ownersl• JOYCE C. ROBB~ VARIANCE N0. 2919 507 East Edgewater, Balboa, CA 92F~60 (A9pnr~; requesting WAIVER OF PERMtTTEO USES TO PERMIT A RETAIL SALES OUrIET on preperty de~cribed as a rectangulariy-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5•Z acres lotated at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Shepard 5[reet, having approximate frontayes of 440 feet on the south side of La Pal ~,Hvenue and 510 feet on the west side of Shepard Street, and further described as 3198 E~yt La Palma Ave~~ue. Property present'.y classified ML (INDUSTKtAL, LiMITED) ZONE. No one indicated their presence in opposition to the subject ~tems, however, it was noted that one letter was received in opposition; and, although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 28, 1977, was not read at the pubiic hearing. it is referred to and m~de a parc of the minutes. Mr. Dale Fowler, the petitioner, appeared before the Planning Conunission to answer questians regarding the proposal and requested a waiver from the requirement to i~stall sidewalks on t.he basis that there was no foot traffic in the area. THE P~BLIC HEARING k'AS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst advised that the sidewalk waiver would be under the jurisdiction of the City Engineer. 3/28/77 MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 28. 1977 77-a37 VARIANf.f_ NQ._.2919 (C~ntinue~ Cheirman Pro tempc~re Tolar noted that the proposel apperired to be similar to a"FedMart" operation and th~ customerr~ w~uld have automobiles; and he questioned a hardshtp. The Planning Commission Secrer,ary rcad a letter in opposition~ as fo~lows: "March 23, 1911 Dear Members of the Planning Commissi~n: The industri~l Cc~nan.~'ee ~f Lh,e An.~+heim Chamber of Commerce has expressed ~oncern over Iterr~ z919 on your Agenda for the next ~lanning Gammiss{on meetir,,g. It +s our un~~~~•Standing chat Universat Buy~rs Ser~ice has applicd for a v~riancc, which if yranced would ~lacc a retail store within the industrial area. The An~~heim Chamber of Commerce has gone c~n recard many times in appasition to the intrusion by non-i;idustrial relateJ business int~ industrial areas. We are opposed to s~ich inlr~asiuns because they reducr ihe integrity of our fine industrial areas which have ~~~en~ and will continue to be, the backbone of our payrolls and .nd~strial base benefits, It is our hope [I•,at this variance wi1~ be refused by you, the Planning Cummissic~n. Very truly yours, /s/ Johr~ Flocken President" In rebuttal, Mr. Rudriquez stated that the f~;regoing letter was the Chamber's typical response to any use uther thar, industrial in an indust;;al znne; and that the subject ouil~ing was sui'~i!~i~ for camr^err,ial ~~se and had been constructed witti the blessings of the Planning Cc~nxnis ion. Ms. Joyce Robb~ t~-e ayent for the petitic~er~ appeared before the Planning Commissio~ ,and stated that she felt [he propoyed project would be ~f benefit to tlie City of Anahr.im since most of their customers were located in the City -• Disneyiand~ North American- Rockwell, etc; and tt~~~ :his was a closed-door opera*.ion and nu~ open co the pt~blic. Chairm~+ Pro tempore Tolar noted that the proposed variance did not neGessarily speak ta a closed-door operation; and that it appeared therP could be from IS to 15,000 customers over a saecified period. In response, Ms. Robb stated that the ;.ustomers were req~~red [o have a minimum of 200 employees; and thai she had actumulated data to back up her claim that the parking was ad~qua,:e~ said data being a s+gned lis- of daily customers. Ch~~irman Pro tempore Tolar then noted thaz there ceuld be eve~ more customsrs than he initially thought, if each company as a customer aa~ requirPd to '~ave 200 employees who could shop at the store. 3/28/77 ~ MII~UTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28, 1977 71-z38 VA~tIANCE NQ, 2919 SCont (nued) _ _ Commissionpr Herbst questioned why a commerci~l zone was n~t sought for the proposed use~ and Ms. kobb stated that thelr warehouse was only about ten blocks away from the subJect locAtion. Comm{ssioner Herbst then noted lhat commercial uses in ind~~strial zones were generally those whlch served the industrial community and d(d not break down the integrity of the industrial zone; that he couid see no connection between the proposed use and the industrial cammunity; that the goods which would be sald in the proposed s[ore could probably be purchased at many other stores in the City in commercial zones; that GEMCO, for in~tance~ had st~r,.+d out with cards for their customers~ but now was open to the public; that he also did not fe~l that the Camelot Golf r,o.irse belonged in the induscrial erea; and th~t the Cicy was rapidly I~sing its industrial acreage. Mr. Rodriguaz spoke [o the hardships involved in the pr~posal~ being that the area near Shepard and La 'ai~~e was aul~5la~~lie{ly devel~~Ncd willi c.~nrn~rcial u~es, that the pruposed stor~~ would not be ope~~ to the publ ic and w~uld serve th^ industrial corrn~unie~, and this lype establishmen[ would ~ctually reduce the cortmer.:;al-type traffic in th~• orea; that ti~e building was existing and had [he apprnval of the Planning Commiss-on and City Council; and that they nePded a cerrain anx~unt of "out front" business, ~n ad~itiun ;o the warehousinq toward the back of the property. C~~mmissioner Morley clarified ttiat h~ did not belie.ve the i'l.,nnl~iy Comm~ssiun had approved some of the items referred to by Mr. Rodriyuez as haviny been ap~~roved by the Cumrnission. Chairman Pro temporc To~,~r clarified thae uses approv~d prior tn the new State laws req:;~ring the f;ndinos of hardship could no; bE~ used t~~ justify a ha~e~ship for a current proposai. Corrnnissionr.r Herbst notrd that if the proper'y was developed unc~cr the cnncepts exc,lained by the petitinner at this public hearing, it ~~as wrong, 5ince very specific uses ~. re appruved for the property, to his recollection. I*_ was noted that the Director of the °lannin9 Dep~rtmen~ had cieterrrined that the proposed activity fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Clacs l, of the Ciry of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and•~~5, therefore~ categorically tempt f~Gm the requiremen[ to file an EIR. Cc•xnissioner Nerost offered Resolutivn No. PC77-80 and moved for ~[s passage and adop[ion, that the Anaheim City Planning C~mmission does hereby ,-•ny petition for Variance No 2919 on the basis that thr~ petiti~ner did not demanstra~e that a hardship would be created if ~he request~d waiver of the permitted uses was not grant~d; that the proposed use is not designed to primarily s~~rve the adjacent industriai cummunity; that th~ use is appropriate for a comrnercial zone anc suitable sites are available in the City of Anahein; that che use would potentially yener~•e traffic of a commercial nat~re which is not tompatible with inclustrial traffic; that app~oval of this w:iver would b~eak down the integrit~~ of the industrial community; and tr~at zaning on the subject property and adjacenc prc~per•ties prohibits commercial-retaii ~~ses. (See Re~olution Book) On rol) call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the foiloo~ing vote: AYES: COMMISSIOIrERS: BARNES, DAV~D. HERBST, KINu, MORLEY, TJLAR NOES: COMMISSiONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON 3/28/71 ~ MINUTES, CI TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28, 1977 77-739 EIR NEGATIV E DECLARATION - PUbLIC HE~RING. ROBERT A. AND ROSEMARIE SMITH~ 13729 East Rosecrans~ Suite 202, Santa Fe Springs, CA 9078A (Ow~rrs); VARIANCE NO . 2920 CLYDE CARPENTEFt 6 ASSOC., INC., 292 Wilshire Av~nue, a109, Anaheim, CA 92801 (Agent); requesting WAIVER OF MINIr1UM NUMBER 0'' PARKING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT A MINI-STOaAGE FACILITY on property describ~d a. a rec[angularly-shaNed parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.2 acres h aving eppr~ximatP frontages of 317 feet on th~e south side of Winsto~ Roa d end 155 feet on the west sidc of SunkiSt Street. Property presently clossified ML (IN OUSTRIAI, LIMITED) ZOl~E. No one indi cated their presence in opposition to the subject items; and, although th~: Staff kepo r t to thE Planning Cormiission was not read at the public heariny~ it is ~ eferred to and made a pert of lhe minutes. Mr. Clyde CarpenteT~ t.he agant f~r Lhe p~titioner, app~ared beforr. thr Plannirig Conxrii~sion and stared regarding Paye II-c, paragraph 13, that they wouid rearrange the units aclJaceiit to the pro posed parking spaces so that the rental units would not be blocked if th e parking was being u tllized by other vehicles; that they wauld providP rr_f~se storage area in ~ccordance with City of ~inaheim slandards; that there wer•e two parcels of property in- val~~ed in t he proposal, and lhe proje~.t was set up for two ph~ses of constructio,i; and that they were reque:;ting t~ be able to make the street improvemErnls on Sunkist Screet as ~art of Phase I and the improvements on Winston Road as vart nf Phase II. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Assistar~t Clty Attorney Frank Lowry advised that dNdication along the streets could 5e made imme.di ately ~nd the posting of bonds or other forms of security would pern,it the actual improvements tu be made later on. In respanse, Mr. Carpenter stated that one of the parcels froi~;ed on Sunkist Street and the other on ~J~~~s[o~~ Road, and ~~iat i f they had not chosen to present the project i n two phases r~~e-y ~~uuld pr~bably have ~een reyuireci to only improve the adjacent street as each parcel ~ras develope~i, etc. In re~ponse to questioning by the Pl~nniny Comn~ssic,n, Mr. Carpenter stated that both narcels ha d the same owner; and tha[ there woul.i be a total of 1,170 st~rage units , and the majori ty of the parking was in the Phase i parcel. Corrvnissioner Herbst t~xPressed concPrn [hat the increased ~umber ~f ur its would create a need for more parking spaces tha~ for previous proposals which had about half the number of units; th~t, in lieu of th~ building square fQCtage, [he number of units eh~uld be usod as ~~Y~e crite,- ia ln juci~,int~ the need :or parkin~; spa~e~ !'o:• ~r.ini-wa~•ehousas or mini-~ ~o:•a~e txr~:ts. Cummission er King noted that the prcposed parking, being 33~; of the requirement, a ppeared reasonable ; howeve~, if the use changed at a l~ter date. the buildings should be r equired to be t~rought into conforrnance with thP Building and Zoning Codes, etc.; and :hat he felt that ttie potential traff;c from the ~:roposed use woulc~ be ~~uch less than many ML uses with passibly several hundred ernpioyees. Commissio n er Herbst reiterated his objections to the proposed parking, noting tha t practica! 1 y no parking was a) lotted for Phase I 1 of th~. developn~~nt~ and the variance would rur. with the land if the development was ever converted to other ~es; that there 3/28i 77 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C OMMISSION, MARC H 28, 1977 77-24A VARIANCE N0, 2920 (Continued) w~uld be no Jobs gencrated by the proposed usc; and that this type unit had bcen knawn to fail and if it had to be c~nverted. the Planning Commissio n may be in the positiun of having allowed e hardship to t~e created, Commfssioner Morley ayreed with Conrnissfoncr King that more parking w~s unnecessary, especially if the site d evelopment sta~~dards were reyuired tc. bc brought up to the ~uildiny and Zoning Codes if the use was converted at :j later date;ancf he na;ed •f~at the users would probabl y not use the parking spaces but wa~,l d park jn fronc of their un i t s to 1 oad and ~~n 1 oad , and tlien 1 ea ve. Chairman Pro temuore Tolar noted that he agrecd wit'i Cammiss ioner Herbs[ regarCin~ the 7aok ~: },rvE„~:~c,~i E:e~r:iu~ :'~~ 4'1~e:e IT; nc;a ':hc~t lhc gr:snt.ing 4f the varianc~ w+[h rhP ~tPntial that the PhaSC II might not be built~if Phase I was not successful, was not too practical. It was noted that there wcre approximately ?.7 parking spaces proposc~d in ^I•iase I and approx i ma tc I y 8 pa r~: i nq spaces prpposPd i n Phase I I. In response to quest ion in~ by Conxniss i oner King, Mr, Carpenter statecl that tl~ere was room for the cars to pass eaeh other in front of the units; that they had been desinniny ~hese type facllities for a n umber of years, inrluding a P51 facility in Anaheim w- _h had a similar number of units and only six parking S~c~GpS in th~ enr.ire project, and there had been no parkiny problems t.here to his knowl~~dge. Discussion ersue~~ regardirg the phasiny ~f the con5trucfior~ and che two parcels involved, during which it was empl~asized by the Planniny Comrnission that they did not wish to grdnt ~ variance for p~rking for Phase II, unless lhe petitiuner stipulated tl~at the entire pruject wauld be "hui 1 t out"; that Chey wanted to be assured that the Phase I I parcel wc~uld not be sold ~~r( with a variance for pa~~king on it; and that the Cornmission consider granting unty Phase I w~th [t~e parking waiver and consider thc~ second phase and parce) at a later dace-. rhe devclupe:, ~tir. AlLert Smith, ~ppeared and stated that in case Phase I did not ~-~~cceed ecorn~mically, they wou~d not build Phase II, but intended to do everything in Che ir power t~ develoF it, and that he wauld stipulate to deed re- str+ctions for [he mini-stoiage use only c+n both par:els and to hringing the parcels into ful) conformancc• w~tti the Buildin5 and Zoning Codes, including the parking require- ments, 31 ~he bui:ldzr,E,~ ~u~i;•e tu Ue cor.vc~c-ted 1'or o++{lO:~ UJ9J in the :'utarc+. Ccmmissioner King offered a n~otion, seconded by Cormiission Marley, and MO~fION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson '~eing absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Conmission has reviewed the proposal to conscruct a mini-storage facility with a waiver of the minimum ~arking requi rernen[s on approximately 4.2 acres loc3ted southwest of the i~7ter- section of Winston Road and Sunkist Street, and cloes her~by recomr ynd te the City Counci 1 of the C i ty of Anahe i m that a Negat i ve Declarat ion f rom the requ i rement to prepare an environm~ntal impact report be approved for the subject p~oje~:t on the basis that L~~ere would be r~u significant individua! or cumulat~ve adverse im~~ac~; on the e~~vironment due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the proposed parking is adequate for the use and the I n i t i a 1 S t udy su~mi t ted by [he appl i can t i no i ca tes no s i gn i f i cant adve~ se ervironmental impacts; and that the N~gative Declaration substantia[ing the foregoing findings is on file ~rt the ~ffice of the Planning D~:partment at Cit.y Hall. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC77-81 and moved for its pas~age and adoption, that the Anaheim ity Planning Commission does hereby grant pPtit~on for Vai iance No. 2920, qran[ i ng the requested wa i ver of the ;nf nimum number of pa rk i ng spaces on the bas i s that 3/28/71 ~• ~~ ~ ~ MtNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCN 28, 1977 77-241 VARIANCE N0. 2 2~0 (Continued) the Planning Commission ~ecognizes that traffic to the site, as proposed to be developed, will typically be infreque nt, usually of short duration~ and would often involve pick-ups and deliverles transacted in front of thr. storag~ ~inits and, thr+r~f~re, d~t~rminPS that th~ proposed n~mber of designetr.d parking spaces is appropriate for the proposed u5e; that the subject proJect~ in its entirPty, shall be devel~ped as e mini-storage ta~ility, as stipulatcd to by the petitioner; that deed restrictions lirniting [h~ usc of the sub- ject property to a mini-storage faciltty, shal) be submitred co the City ~lttorney's Offi~e f~r review an; approvAl an d then be recorded in the Office of' the Orange County Recorder, prier to the issuance of a buil~iina permit; and~ in the event that the rnini-storage usc of the property shall terminate by mutual ag recment bctwecn thc property c~vnar(s) and the City of Anaheim, said property ~hall c~nform to a~l development standards of the ML Zone, as stipulated to by the peti.~~ncr; and subject to the Interdepartmental Committee recommendat ions. (See Rc~sol ut ion Book) On rol l cal l~ ,hc~ for~going res~lut ian was passecl by thF fol lowing vote: AYES: COMMI5SIONERS: BARNES, DAVIO, KING, MORI.EY, TOIAR NOES: CQMMISSIONE R5: HERBST ABSENT: COMMISSIONE RS: ,:OHNSON The P I ann i ng Gcmmi ss i or nera I I y cancurre~ i n a reconmendat i c~r-. made by Corruni ss ioner Herbst that lhe Planniny Department be directed to study the concept of mini-storage and/or mini-warehouse projects *~ be permitted by co~ditional use permit in industriai z~~nes, and to include a study of the parkiny requirement; related to r~~ber oF units versus building square fool'age. Mr. CarpP ntcr vuluntecred Lo assist the ~lanning Departr,~nt staff i- the preparat ion ~_ ~ the st~~dy. E I R CATCGOIt 1 CALLY EXEMPT - PUBL I C-1EAR I NG . R I LHARD 'v . AND MARY C. BUTLER, I 287 North Grove S~reet~ Anaheim~ CA 92806 (Owners;; requesting yNRIANCE NG. 292s WAIU~R OF PERMITTED OUTDQOR USES TO PERMIT AN EXISTING STEAM CLEANING FACILITY on property described as a rectangularly- parcel of land consiseing of approximately .76 acre having a frontage of approximatel~, 220 feet on the west side of Grove Street, having a mar.imum depth of approximately 150 feet~ being located app roxima[ely 190 feet south of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue~ and further described as 1287 North Grove Street. Prop~~rty presently classified ML (INDUS7RItiL, LIMITED) ZONE. No one indicated [heir presence in opposition to the ~ubject items; and, al[hough the Staff Report to the Planning Comm~ssion was not read at lhe public hearing, it is referred to and made a pa rt of the minutes. Mr. Butler, the petitioner~ appaar-d before the Planning Commission and presented the proposal. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner M:. ~y noted that f~e ha.J view~ed che sui.,ec[ property in the field and the :,team-cleaning equipment was not visi le from [he public street. Upon questioning by the Plann~n~~ Corr~issinn, Mr. Butler stated that all drainage from the steam-cieaning rack i,ras collected by a sand trap and did not enter the public str~e*. ar sewer system. 3/28/77 MINUI~S~ GIT~ NLANNIN~ I.OMMISJIUN, MAk~N ?.~~ 19)] 77-242 VARIAVCE NO ~923 Cont(nuod,~_r______ It was ~oted that the DirectAr of the Planning Departmr.nt had determined that -he praposed activlty fell within the d~finitfon of Secti~n 3.01, CIaSS I. c~~ the City of Anahr.l+~i Guidclincs t~ the Requirements for an F.nvironm~nt~l Im~act Report and was~ therefore~ cat~goricaliy exempt fram thr requirem~nt ta file an Elli. Commissioner Marley ~fferecf Resolut.lon No. PC77-89 3nd mov~d f~r its passage and adoption~ that the Anah~im City Planninq C~mmission does he~eby yrant petition for Vari~nce No. 2923, granting tha waiver of t~~ rnitted ou!door uses on the hasis that the use is screened by a 7.S-foot high chainlin~ iencc int~rwoven with redwond slat~ anJ is nut visible from Grove Streel; ~ubject tu the Iu~rrJeNartrnen[al Com+nittee rccommcnd~tions. (Sce Resolu~inn Rn~k) On roll call, the foregoinc~ resolu+.ion was passcd by thc following vo[e: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, OAVID, HERBST, KING, MORLEY, TOLtiR NQES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMI~SIOt~ERS. JOHNSQM EIR C~~'EGORICALLY EXEMPT -~'UBI~C HEARING. CHRISTINE 0'DONNELL, 4885 Abbott R~ ', ~ ~ Ly~~wood, CA 90262 (Owrer); CARL 'rJaRCHER ENTERPRISES, CONDITIONAL JSE 1200 North Harbor Boulev~rd~ Anaheirn, CA 92801 (Agent): PERMIT N0. 1695 requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A DRlVE-Up WINUOW A' AN ~~'~~ ~ EXISTING RESTAURAN'! W17H WAIVEK Of MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKINi, SPACES on property described as a recLang~.~larly-shaped parcel of land consi5ting of approximately 0.5 acre having a frontage of ..~ppr~~ximate!y 15J feet on the west side af Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, being localed approximately 190 feet south of the centerline of Or~,ngewuod Avenue, and further described as 211y South Harbor Boulevard. Praperty pressntiy cla~sified Cl (COMMERCIAL~ I~MITCD) ZONE. No on~ indicated their presence in opposition te the subjecc items; and, although the Staft Report to the Planning Comr~~ssion dated March 28, 1917, was not read at the public hear~ny, ic is .eferred to and made a part of the minUieS. M~. ~ave Garrison, representiny the agent for the petiticner, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated th~y had :-~.~b:ni`.tc~d an ana~,sis of unused par{.'ng spaces taken at the suhjec: site during peak operating times to sub~~tanti3te the proposed parking spaGe variance. Mr. Garrison suggested that the Planning Commission direct the Planning Depart- ment Staff tu study the parking requireme~nts for drive-through restaurants. THE PUB~IC HEARING Wn~ CLOSED. It was noted that th~~ Director of the Planning Depart~r~ent had determined that the proposed activity fpll with:n the definition of Section 3.01, Class 2, of [he City of Anaheim Guidelines [o the Requirer~,ents for an Environmental Impact Report and was, therefore, categorically exempt fram the requirPment to file an E~R. Commissioner Gavid offered Resolutian No. c~c77-83 and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Cammission does hereby grant pPt~tion for Conditional Usc PPrmit N~. 1695, granting the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces an the basis [hat the petitioner submitted an analysis of unused parking spaces at the subject site during peak operating hours to substantiate that the proposed parking is adequate for 3/28/77 ~. MINUTES. CIiY PLANNING ~~~MMICSION, MARCN 2$, 1977 71-243 CONDITIONAL 1SE PERMtT N~. 1F95 (Continued) _~ the pre,pose~ use and sitp, subject to the Intr.rdepartmental Committee recommenciations. (See Resalu•i~n Book) On ral) cnll, the f~regoing resoluti~r~ was passed by the f~llowiny vote: AYES: COMMISSIO~fRS: BARNES, DAUID, HERi35T, KING, MORLEY, T0~4R NOES• COMMISSIONERS: NONE AB~ENT: COMMISSIONERS: JUHNSON EIR CA7EGORICALLY EXEMPT - PUBI.IC HEARING. LnRRY R. SMITH Ar~D JUDITH I. SMITH, ~3041 ^ Evans Circle, West~~ .ter, CA ~2683 (Owners); CA!il Yu~NKIN~ GONDITIONAL USE 94a So::h Knoit St,.cr, Anaheim, CA 9?R(14 (Ac~Pnt); requestinq PERMIT N0. 1697 permissi~n to EXPAND AN EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER ANC. WINE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM KITCHEN AREA on p<<_~perty de- scribEd as an irrec~ularly-shaFed parcel of land consistiny of approximately 1.6 acres located northwest of the intersecti~n of Ball Roa,.i and Knott Street~ having approximate frontages of 20 feet ~n the north ;ide of eall Road and 170 feet on the west side of Knott Street~ haviny a maximum dept.h of approximately 390 feet, and further described as ~45 Snuth Kn~t- St~e~t. Pr~perty presen[ly classified CL (COM~~ERCIAL, LIMITCD) Z~NE. No one indicated their aresence in opposi[ion t~ the suhjart items; ho~~ever~ AssistanC Planner Joel Fick not~d tFiai one person (l~yce KPter. owner of thr_ adjacent service station site) was present earlier i~ the meeting and left a lis~ of ~b,jections to the proposa) far considera:ion, being thar. there ~ ~s inadequate parking for existieg uses on the subjec[ .ite and there were a number ~f par•king problems in the immediate area. Although thP Staff Report to t~ie Planning Commission dated March 28, 1977. was not read at the public hearing, it is referreci to a~~d made a part of the minutes. Mr. Carl Younkin, the agent for the pPtitic~nc~r, aapeared beFore the Planning Commission and in~licated the p~rtions of Che fl~ ~r ar<a desiynated tor dancing and qames would be closed aff during lhe daytin,e~ to be ope~ed ~o~ use onlv after 7:00 p.m. T~iE ~'lJ[~:.IC 11EA~ti~~.^+ ~lAS C~t)SCD. In response t~~ q~i~st ioninq FY the Planniny Co~rnr~ission~ '1r, Younk~n Stated that a sl idiny divir.~er and arcl~way would separ~te the ~ance fl~or and ~ame room fr~ thc r~st of the facilitles; that a major port~on of the floor spac~ :~as clesiunate~i for danciny and games a~d the actual dininy arr,a upon which the kitche~ area requirement was comouted was insig- nifican! since tliere was •~c~~roxlmately 700 square feet ~f kitchen are~ for approximately 900 syuare. fNr;t of ~linin~; ar~.i. Assistar.t f'lanning Olrecror -'c.ning Annika Santalahti suyyested that the Planninc~ Commission may ~rish to coiisi~ier the proposal in term5 of limiting the number of fixed s~3r~,r for the d i n i ng roor,~. In response to a request by the Planninn Commission. '1r, Younl:in marked on the proposed plans the exact areas wl~ich were dPSignated far Jining, dancing~ and c~ames, as well as the number of tables and seaCs flruposed. 3/23/77 ~~; MINUTES~ CITY NLANNINf, r~~~~!~ISSION~ MAR~N 2$~ 1~77 ~y-~t~l~ CONp 1 T 1 a11AL USE PERM 1 T NO . 1 F+97 (Con t 1 nusd ) It ~~s nated that the Director of tf~e Ptan~ine~ Qepartment had determinQd that the 4~roF ,~ed acttvity fel) wlthln tha deflnitlon of S~ction ~.~1~ Class 1~ of the Clty of Anahelm Guicfelines to the Ruquiremenes for an EnvlrAnment~l Impact Repart and was~ ~roersfore~ cetegcrically exempt trom the re~uir~ment to Pilo an EIR. Commtssioner Ho~bst offered Rnsolutton No. PC17-84 end mov~d for its ~flssaqr enJ adoption~ Chat the A~ahelm Ctty Planning Con~ission ~ees hereby grant petltl~n for Condittonel l~se Pcrmtt No. 16~7~ to expand an existing restaurant wlth on-sale beer and wine~witl~ waiver of thes minlmum kitchen area on th~ basis that the petttloner sttpulat~d thot thcrc ~•r) l l bc o r~ar.lmum of 90 totel se+~ts In thP dlning ~rea of ths existinq and proposed restaurant and~ since portlons of the tn~a) floor ~rea are designated for dancing and games only~ the percentage ot' floor space designated ~y th~ ~etitioncr for kitchen area is dete~mtned to be approprlate fo~ thc pr~posed ex~,~~nslon; s~bJect to the Interdepartmenta) Committer. recorm~endatlons. (See Res~lutlon 9o~~k ) Un roll call~ th~ foreq~ing resolution was passed by t!~c following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNF:S~ UAVID~ FIf.RB5T~ KING~ 1~10RLEY~ TOIAR NOES~ COMNISSIO~~EaS; NnNE A-iSEf~T: COMf~1 I SS I ONERS ; J411N50N 3/28/77 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING C~~ 'ISSION~ March 28~ 1977 77_?-i`~ ~NVIRONMENTAI INPACT - DEVLLOPEa: JOIiN D. LUSK 6 SON~ P. 0. Box C-19560~ Irvine. CA REPORT N0. 132 927>>+. ENGIP~EER: NOPEN~ HEULUNU b OARBY~ iNC.~ 30~0 Wast Maln Street~ Alhambra~ CA 91$O1. SubJec.t praperty, consisting TENTATIVE MI1P QF of approximately 11.8 acres haviny a frontage of approximatnly TRACT N0. 97~2 452 fe~c on the north sldo of Nahl Ranch Road~ having a maximum d~Fth of approxim~tely 80~ fee.t~ and belnq located approximately 52~ feec east of the cenrerllne c+f Vlllarcel Drlva~ ts proposad for subJivlslan into ?~', FlS-HS-10,000(SC) lots, No one indicated thelr presence In opposlti~ ~ to the sub,ject iLem. Although the Staff Report to the Plannin C~mmtssion deted Marcl~ 23, 1977, was not reao at the meeting~ It Is refcrred to and ma~~ ~~ part uf tlie minutcs. Mr. Nerold He~lund, representing the ~eveloper ~ appearecl before the Pl~nning Ccxrr.~lssion to answer questions regardiny thc: prop~,al. I)Iscussion ensued concerning the possible subsequent divisi,~~ of certain lots into two lots~ Und the Plannfn~ Commissinn expresseci concerns thereto. Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that if thc northerly portion of the lqts in yu~~scion dld not meet the 10.000-square foot requlremenl of the zone~ a lot split would be illegal, t~owever~ if said portlons did meet the requirement~ a lot spilt was pussible; that ~t appearec{ that only Lot Ho. 2Z was at lesst 10~00~ squ~re feet in size and could conceivably be sniit into two lots at a later date; and that any jo(niny a'~ lot areas t~ creaCe a legal size parcel 10,000 squa~e feet or larger would be a problem between tl~e respectlve property c.waners. Commissloner Herbst no;eci that tt would r~ot be the tntent of the Planning Commisslon to allow a~y further sub~~tvision in the subject tract. Dlscussion of the possibility oF creating a cortmon open space or a Lat "A'' over the northerly portions of Lot Nos. 22 through 29 which were separated by Ridge Gate Road en~u~d, during which Mr. Hedlund stateci that the property would then be assessed very low a~d mainta(ned by the homeowners association; whereupon, Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar noted that if Lhe association stopped paying the taxes on said corrmon area. it would possibly become City-owned property. Mr. Hedlund furthe~ stated that rhe City had requ(red the separation of the lots under discussion; whereupon~ Assistant Plannin~ Director Annik~ Santalahti advtsed that the alCernattve r.o the proposzl was that the separated area be one lot. all on a slor;:~ being inequitable c~mpared to the ather lots and better spl~t in the manner shown; hcwc.~e.*, thf decision of handling the matter was left u~ to the developer in th~ preparation or Che tract map. It was noted th~~t Env(ronmental Impact ae~~ort No. 132 on the subject p~operty was certified b~ the City Gouncil on February 25, 5975~ and the proposed resubdivision has been determ3ned to be substantially in accordance with the original development proposal and additional enYironmental assessment is not necessary; and~ therefore~ no further action on the EIR is necessary. Commissioner Herbst ~ffered a nx~tion~ seconded by Commissianer ~torley and MOTION CARRIED (Cc~nmi ss i onCr Johnsc+n be i ny absen t) , that the Anahe i n- C i ty P 1 ann i ng Comm i s~ ion does hereby find that the proposed subd(visinn. together with its design ana improvcment~ is consl5tent 3/28/77 ,~- ~ ; .. MINUTES~ GITY PIANNING CAMMISSION~ Ma~ch 28~ 1977 7~-~4~~ E~ R NQ; 13~2 A,_„N,D_ TEN7ATwl V~ E MAP OF TRACT N0. ~/y1 (Cont i nued) with the Clty of Anaheim's General Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Sectton 66~+73.5; a~d does. therefore~ approve Tentative Hsp of Tr.,ct No. 9792 for 2g~ RS-MS-t0~QA0(SC) lots~ subJecC to the following conditions: 1. That should thts subc~ivision be developed as more than one subdlvislon~ each s~bdivtsion thereof snall be subm{tted t~ tentatlve form for approval. 2. That in accordance wlth Clty l.GU11CI) policy~ a 6-foot hie~h, open, dCCOratlve wall shall be constructed at the top of slope on thP south property line separating Lot rlus. 22 through 29 from Nohl Ranch Road. Reasonable landscaning~ tnGluding irrlgation facilities~ shall be installed In the uncemented portlon of the artrrial highway parkway the full distanca of sald wall~ plans fnr said lanJscaping to be sub~~itted to and subJecC to the approva) of thc SuperintenJer~t of Parkway Matntenance; an~t f~llow(ng Installation and acceptance, thP City af Anaheim shall assurr~ lhe respon~(bility for maintenance of satd landscapfng. 3. That all lots within tlits tract shAll be serveJ by unc+er~round utllitles. 4. That a final tract map of subJect property shall be submi~t~d to and app~oved by the City Council an~i then be recorded in the Offtce of the Qrange County Recorder. y. That the covenants, conditlons, an~i restrtctic,ns shall be submitted to and approved by the CEty Attorney's Office prlor to Clty Counctl approva) of the fii-al trac.t map and~ further~ that the approved covenants. condilions~ and restrictions slial) be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. (i. That prior to filing thr_ final tract map, the applicant sh~ll submit to the City Attorney for approval or• ~enial a canplete synopsis of the proposeJ functlontng of tt~e operating corpo~ation includin~;~ but not limited to~ the articles vf incorporation~ bylaws, proposed +~~th~ods of management~ bonding to insure maincenance of coirr~on property and buildings, ~n~l such ~ther inf~rmation as the City Attorney may desire to prntect the City. its citlzens~ an~l the purchasers of tlic pr~ject. 7. Thac. street nim~s shal) be appr~ved hy thc City Plannin~; Uepartr~e:nt prior to approval of a final tract map. 8. In the event that sub,ject pruperty is to be divided far the purpose of sale~ lease or f(nanciny~ a parcel map~ to recor~~ the approved divisidn of subject property~ sh.ll be submitted to and approve~ by ~he Gily of ~~naheim and then be recorded in ihe Offtce of the Oran,ye County Itecarder. y, Ttiat tl~e owner af subject property sl~all pay to [~~e City c~f An~!~etm the appropriate park and recreation in-lteu fees as Jetermined to be appropriate by the City C~unc(l, said fees :o be paid at the timc cl~e buildiny permit is issued. 10. That drainage of saiJ property shall be di;posed of in a manr, r satisfactory to the City Enyineer. If~ ln the prepa-'ation of the site~ sufficient gradiny iS requirc~ to necess(tate a yradin9 permit~ i~o work oi~ grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainaqe facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be ~~ovided the City that s~ch dratnage facilities wlll be completed p~ior to October lSth. NecesSary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedlcated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated con ~nation proceedtngs therefor (the costs of which shal) be burne by the developer) pri.,~~ to the commencemen[ of yradtny operations. The require~ drair~a3e facilitics sFiall be of a size a~.~ Cype suffic(~nt to carry runoff waters oriqinatin~; from higher properties thraugh said pruperty to ultirnate disposa! as approved i.~ the City Engineer. Satd drsinage fac(lities shall be the first item of ~onsCruction and sl~all be completed and be functio~a) throughout thP Lract and from the dawnstream boundary of the property to the ulti~ate point ~f dispc7sal prior to the issuance of any fin.~l building inspections or occuFan-y permits. Dra'nage district reimbursement agreements may be made available t~ the developers of said propPrty upon their request. 3/28/77 ~~ ~. s ) MINUTES~ CITY 4LANNING CAMMISSION~ March 28~ 19~7 )7-?.47 EI_R_N0. 132 ANQ TENTATIVE MP-P OF TRACT N0. 9792 (Contlnued) - ......-.-~- .~. ~....~ 11. That grsdtnfl~ excavatlon~ and all othe~ c~nrtructlon activities shal) bs cc~nducted in ~~ch a manner so as to minimize the possibillry of any stlt ortgtnating from this proJect being r.arrted tnto the Santa Ana Rtve~ by sto~m weter ortginatin,y from or f1~wing through this p~oJect. 12~ If permt-nent street name stgns have not bcen installod~ temporary atreet n~me slqns s!-ai~ be Installed prtor to any occupancy. 13. That ft~a hyd~ants sh~ll be installed and eharged~ as requlred and determtned to be necessary by t~~e Chief of the Fire O~partment~ prlor to commencement of structural framing. 3/28/71 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N, M~nCH 28~ 1977 ?7-2~~8 REPORTS A~•D - ITEM A RECOMMENDATIONS EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION REQUEST - Grading Plen No. 595 at 123 South Derbv Circle. It was noted that an appliction for Grad(ng Plan N~, 595 had been filed t~ gr3de approxi- mately 633 cubic yards of ~arr,h, with 38 cubic yards excess, for ~ sin~le-family lot on approximately one acre~ in conformancc with City standerds and policies; and that a study af the proposed grading ^'an by the Planning Department and Engineering Division lndicated that there w~uld be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmrntal impact as a result of this project. Conunissioner Herbst offered a motiun~ seconded hy Commissioner Morl~ ~~OTION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson bein~~ ahsent), that the Anaheim City Plonning C ion does hereby find thaf th~ ~rnposed gra~~ing plan for the sinSle-family lot at 123 Sou~n p~rby Circle will not have a significant individua) o- cumulative adverse environm~ntaf impact becausF the Initial Study indicates the ~rojecl will involve cr~ly rr~inor grading ~s ml!igated by con- formance with City standards •~nd policies~ and therefore, recommends to the Ciky Council of the City of Anaheim that the ~Vegative Declaration fron~ the requiren~~~~~ti to prepare an en- ~~ir~~nmental impact report be approved. - ITEM B EIR NEGATIVF. QECLARATION REQUEST - For Parcel Map No. 604 at 801, 9~1~ 1001 East Ball Road. It wa~ noted that an application for Parcel Map No. 604 had been filed to subdivide approxi- mately 17 acr~5 at the abave location into three industrial lots; and t.hat an Initial Study of the proposed parce) map by the Planning Department ~rid the Engineering Divisic,n indicated th~~t there would be no significant individual ar cumul•~tive ad~f.~rsp environmental impact as esult of :his project because no sens~tive envirc~nm~ eal ele~nent5 were involved and the ~ject was in conformance with City plans, policies and st~ndaras. Commissioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King. and MOTION CAFRIED (Commissioner Johnson being absent). that the Anaheim City Planning Gommission does hereby find that, pursuant to the pruvisions of the California Envir~nmental Quality Act, the proposed three-lot i~dustrial subdivision (Parcel Map No. 604 at 801, 90! and 1001 East Ball Raad) i,rill not have a siyr~ificant ~ndividual or cumulative adverse environmental impact because the Initial St~~dy indicates that the project is compatible with City plans~ policies and standards and no ~ensitive environment~! elements ~re involved and, therefare, recommends to the City Council of ~'~e City of Anaheim that the Negative Declaration from the require- ments to prepare an env~ronmental impact report be appro~~ 1. - ITEM C EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION REQUEST - For Parcei Map No. 630 at the south side of Wectport Drive and the southerly terminus of Peregrine Street. It waa noted that an appticatian for Parcel Map No. 630 had b~. n filed to subdi~iide approxi- mately one acre a che subject location into four parcels to develop four fourplexes; and that an Initial Study of the proposed parcel map by the P+anr~ing Department and the Engineering Division indicated that there would be no significant individual or c~mulative adverse environ- mental impact as a result of this project because no sensitive environmental elements were involved and the project was in conformance with City plans and ordinances, and was compatible with surrounding urban land uses. Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that, pursuant to ~he provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Che proposed four-la~ sul~division (Parcei Map No. 630) at rhe soutt~ side of Westport ~rive and thr. 5outherly 3/28/77 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28, 1977 - ITEM C (CanCinued) '7-24'~ terminus of Peregrine Street will not havc a significant indivldual or cum~~lative advcrse environmental impact because the Initial Scudy indicates that the proJect is c~T~atible with City plans, ordinance5 and surrounding land uses, and no sensitive environmer.,al elements are involved; ~nd~ therefore~ recammends ;o the City Council of the City of Anaheim that the Nega- tive ~ecl~ration from the requlrements to prepare ar environmental imp~ct report be approved. - ITEM D EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION REQUEST - Fur Parcel Map No. 631 at 2500 Miraloma Avenue. ~t was noted that an application far Parcei Map No. 631 had been filed to subdivide approxi- mately 3.6 acres into two industrial lots at the subject location; and that. an Initial Study of the propased parcel map by the Planning Department and the Engineering Division indicated that there ti•rould be no ~ignificant individual or cumulative advcrse e rn~ironmental impatt as ,3 result of this project because no sensitive environmental element.s were involved and the projecl was tompetible with City plans, ardinances and yurr~uun~liny areas. Commissioner King offered a m~[ion, seconded by Conmissioner Morley, and MO710N CARRIFD (Commissioner Johnson being absent)~ that t.he Anaheim Cicy Planni.,g Conxnission does hereby find that, pursuant to the provisions of the California Envi~onmental Quality Act, the ~rapose~ two-lot industrial subdivision (Parc~l Map No. 631) at 2y00 Mlraloma A~enue will not have a ,ignificant individual or cumul~tive ~dverse envirornnenta! impact because the Ini[ial Study indicates that the project is compatible with City plans, ordi~ances and surrounding land uses and no sensicive environmenta) elernents are involved, ~nd,chPref~,re, rPC~mmends to the Gi[y Council of the City of Anaheim thai the Negative Declaration ~rom the requirements to prepare an env~ronm,:ntal impact report be approved. - ITEM E VARIANCE N0. 289? - kequest for terminatian - Pruper[y consisting of two parcels ~f land (approximately 4.8 acres) located n4rth of the intersection of Knollwood Circle and Wnodland Drive~ and further de- scribed a51168 and 1170 Kr~ollwood Cir•cle. It was noted tha[ Variance Mo. 2893, ta permit dental and opton,etr:~ affices in the ML Zone~ was approved by the Planning Commission on January 3~ 1911, for a period ~f 1$ mnnths, subject to review and approva) of a possible time extension upan written request by the retitioner if the permanent medical facility under construckion at 3 different location was not completed within said 18-mor~th period; and that the petitioner had terminated the business relationship with the proposed occupani of the dental and optometry offices and ~,as requesting tha: ~'ariance No. 2893 be terminated. Commissioner Norley offered a motion. secanded by Commissioner Barnes, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissione~ King abstaining and Commissioner Johnson being absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Corrmission does hereby recommend to the City Council of thE City of Anaheirt~ that all proceedings in connection with petit~on for Variance No. 2893 be terminated, as requested by the pet~tioner. - ITEM F VARIANCE N0. 2863 - Request for an extPnsion of time - Property consisting of 6.3 acres located ~n the south and we~t sides of S2quoia Avenue, and further described as 2238 .;?yuoia Avenue.. It was noted that Variance No. 2863, to permit outd~or manufactur+ng on the subject CL zoned property~ was approved for a period of three months by the Plannir~ Co~nmission on October 27, 1976+ subject to review and consideration for possibre one-year extensions of ti~~~e upon 3/28/77 ~~ MINUTES~ ' Y PLANNING C~MMISSION, MAPCH 28~ 1977 77.?~U - ITEM F (Continued) writtenrequest by the petit tie.r., ~~id time lir,~itatlon being for the purpose of deter,nining whether the proposed use and a m; noise therr.from would be detrimental tu the ~urroundtng ~esid~nti~l uses; thar~ a~ a result of a complaint from a n~arby resident. the Zoniny Enforce- ment Off(cer and an electrical inspeetor investigated lhe premises and found substant(al amounts of sawdust outsid~ the req~.ired Pnclosure~ numerflus iflegal eiectrical instaliations~ and (n- operable vehicles b~(ng used far atorage; the complainant had also reported chat the restricted hours of operatlon (9:00 a.m. to noon)for thp autdoor use were being violated, witli woodcuttii~g being conducted uniil I1:00 ;~.m.; thac other Zoni~g Code and con~lltions of the approval of subJect variance were also found in violatioii; and that several of the ~~iolations had been correct•:d~ howevtr, `he pe, tionPr had submitted a letter stating tf~~t he would like to have the variance terminat~d if che occupant had not complied with City reyuirements c~nc:ern(ng fire and e?ectrical hazards by this tim~~. pisr.ussion ensued concerning the use of che subject property and the violations, eic.~ during which it was ~vinted out th~t it ~ppcarc.f all of the items had been takCn ~a~e uf t,y the ~pplicant with the exception of the removal of the bagged sawdust; whereupon,th~ Planning Con~niss~on agreed that an additiona) two-week continuancc~ to consider the subject request w~uld ~e appropr~a[e. C~mmissiontr King offEred a motion, seconded by Conn~issioner Barnes, and MOT1~)N CARRIED (CommissionEr Tol~ar vo[ing "no"' and Cartmissioner Johnson beiny absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Corrrnission does herebv cont~nue the subject request for dn addicional two weeks to the meetin~ of April 11, 1977, ir order that an inspec[ion miyl~t be made ~f the property to determine if tlie oc~upant is corducting his operations in a manner which is in conformance wiLh the applicable saf~ty require~~en[s and compatiblc: with thc~ neighboring residential proaertiss to the wPSt. - ITEM G CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1510 - Request for an extension of time - Property consistiny of ~Nproximacely 5 acres on the west side of Jefferson Streec, ap~roximately 690 feet south of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue. It was noted that Conditional Use Pern!it No. 1510. to permit a ma~ntenance and storage yarc' for heavy equipment., with waivers of a) permitted st~uctures, b) permitted fence locafion and c) minimum fr~nt setba~k, was granted for a period o~ one year by the Planning Commission on January 6~ 197~, suhject to review anu consid~ration for a~ extensi~n of time ~~pon written request by th~ petitioner; that no previous extensions of time had been requested; and that no complaints had been received reyarding the ~~;e. Cor~nissioncr King offered a mr.tion, seconded by C~mmissioner Mo~ley~ and MGTION ~AitRIEO (Cammissione.r Johnson being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a two-year extension oF time for Conditional Use Permit No. i510~ said time extension being re;roactive to January 6, 1~i76, and [o expire on January 6, 1978, subject to the fol- lowing conditions: 1. That redwood or cedar slats be installed in the chai~!irik fence within ninety (90) days. 2. That landscaping b~ provide~, as ~ndica;~~ or~ Exhibit No. 3, within six (6) months. 3• That the pe~itioner submit a letter within thirty (30) days indic;,ting that the existing non-conforming billtaards will be removed on or before the expiration of the amorttzatinn period on January 8, 1980. 3/28/i1 ~{s* `~. MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 28~ 19)7 77-251 - ITEM H CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 1511 - Aeq~est for an extens(on of time - Property consisting of approximet~ly 5 acres on the west side of Jeffcrson Street~ approximat~ly 690 feet south o~ chr cent^rlinc of Orangethorpe Avenue. It was noted that Conditional Use Permit No. lyll. to permit a private cat kennel on th~ subJcct propcrty with wa(ver of permitted st ructures (mobile units not permltted) was granted for a period of one year by the Planning Comm iss~on on January 6, 1975. subJect to review and consideration for an extension of timo upo n request by the petitioner; that the cats were haused in two mobile structures; t hat no pr evious extensions of ti^~e had been reqiiested; and that no complaints had been r~cclved regarding the use. Cummissioner King offcred ~ nx~tian, sec.onded hy Cortxni ssioner M~rlPy ~nd MQTION CARRIED, (Commi~sioner .~ohnson being absent) that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Commission does hereby yranl d lwu-yr.ei exlen5 iun uf l ime fur CvnJ i liuna 1~i~C Pri mi l Wu, 151) ,~a1J l i~na rxlen~ ivi~ be i ng retroac~ ive to January 6, 1976, and t~ expf r•e on January 6, i976, subJec[ to the requirement that landscaping be installed, a s Indica t ed on Exhibit No. 2, within six (6) months. - ITEM I TRACT N0. 9466 - Requt~5t for app~ova) of specific plans - Property consisting of appraximately 26 aeres on the north side of Canyon Rim Road~ a~proximately 730 feet wes. uf Serrano Avenue. Ir, was noted that centativ~ map of Tract No. ~46G, to establ ish a E4-~~t, RS-HS-10~000 (SC) subdivisi~n, was app~oved by the City Counci 1 on Sep tcmber 21, 1976, follow(ng a recommenda- tion for approval by th~ Planniny Conmission ; tl~at appr~val ~f the sub.ject tract included a ~ondition that prior ~o approval of the (i nal trac t map~ the pe[itioner• submit final speci fic floor plans and elevation~~ to the C i~y Counc i 1 tor apQroval; that the appl icanC (Vernon H. Taylor, President, Socaland Corp. 1 had s~bmitted a plot plan ir, conformance with the requirernent of the R~,-NS-10,000 (SCj Zone, and floar plans and elevations for the four basic models of h~mes to be constructe~i, all models having three-car garages, etc., and the applicant was rcyuesting approval of sa me, Conniissioner Oavid qu~sti~neo whether the developer had made an attempt trn~ards providir~g low and modera[e i~come huusing. No one re sponded. Commissioner Morley offered a mo[ion, seconded by Cornnissioner Tolar, and M~~TION CARRIED (Cammissioner Johnson being absent), that the Anahei m City Planning Cammission does hereby recummend to the City Council of the City o f Anaheim that the ,`inai specific plot plans, floor ~lans and elevations fcr Tract No. 9466 be approved, as submitted. - ITEM J TRACT No, 9149 - Reques t for wai ver of Council Pol:cy No. 538 - Property consisting of approxima tely 22 a cres l~cated northwester'y of the inter- sectioii of Orangeth~rpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. The Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated Ma rch 28, 1911, was presented and made a part of the minutes. It was noted that the subject trar_t was app rovNd b~~ the City Council o n February 17~ 197b, Following approval by the Pianning Cor±,mission, to es tablish a 117-1ot. RS-5000 subdivision at the subject locatian; that Council Polic y No. 53 8 permitted building setba~•~.s on lots 3/28/77 '~ ,; ^ ~ ,. ~ M I NUT ES, C I'i Y PLANN I N6 COMM 1 SS I ON, MARCH 28, 1971 - ITEM .J (r~ntinuedl 77-x52 adJaeent to arterial highways to have a minimum death oF 4Q feet~ es en alternative ta the Subdi vlslon Ordinance rrquirement for 120-faot deep lots; that the peti tioner (Davld E. Cu~n i ngham) was request i ng that the Pol t cy be wa ( ved for Lot Nas . 87 a~d 88 to perml t setbscka of 35 and 37 feet ~ respec.t i vel y~ f rom C rowther Avenuo on the bas I s that a kn~ckl e In tt~e street design caused s~id lots to have less depth tha~ the ather lots adJacant to Crowther Ave~ue. Commiss(oner King offered e motion, seconded by Commissloner Morlcy And MOTION CARRIED (Comrnissioner Johnson being absent) ~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss(on does h~reby recos~mend to the C i ty Counc i I of th~ C i ty of Anaheim that Counc 1 1 Pol i ey No. 538 be wa i ved for Lot Nos. 87 and 8S In Tract No. 9149~ to permit bullding setbacks of 35 feet and 37 foet~ resp~ctively~ From f,rowthrr Av~nue. ADJOURNMENT There be i ng no further bus i ness to d( scuss ~ Commi ss i oner Mor ley of fered a mot ion ~ se~onded by Ccrmm i ss i aner Bernes, and MOT I ON f,ARR 1 ED, (Commi ss ioner Johnson being absent) ~ that the meet i ng he ad journed . The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Respectfully submi tted . ~ ~ ' ,~~.~...~~ , ,~ '^Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary Anaheim C(ty Planning Commission PBS : gw 3/28/77