The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1977/05/09~ ~' ~ ~ a ~r City Hall Anaheim~ Cal ifarnla ~ay 9, 1917 REGULAR MECTING OF T~IE AtiANEIN CITY PLAN~~I~Ir, COMMISSION REGULAR - A reyular meettng of thc Anahelm City Plenning Commisston wos called MEE'TIt~G to order by Chai rman Johnson at 1:30 p.m. ~ on May 9. 197 7, (n the Cour,ct 1 Chan~ber~ a quorum being present. PRESENT - CIIA I RM/1N : Johnson G0~1NISSIOt~ERS: Derne:~~ Ilsrt,st, Y.irig~ Tolar ADSCNT - CONMISSIONF.f~;; David VACANCY - Ane seat ALSO PRESEt~T- Frank Lowry Asslstant Clty Attnrney Annika Santalaht( Assistant Planning Oirector-Zonin_, Jeclc Wh I tc Dc~-uty C i ty A t torney Paui Singer Traffic Engineer Jey Titus Office Enr,ineer Joel Fick Associete Planner Pamela Santala Commissi~n Se~retary Pro Tom~ore kLEDGE OF - Comm(ssioner King led in the Pledge of Aliegiance to th~ Fleg of the ALLEGIANGE United States of America. Cummiss(oner iierbst offcreJ a motior~, seconded by l:ommissioner Barnes and NOTION i.ARRIED (one seat bciny vacant) ~ that staff prepare a Planninc~ Commission Pollcy regardiny a buffer becween cam~~Crcial or mult(plc-family ~esidential e~ses and existir~g si~gle-famlly uscs in order tf~at developers can be forewarne d of such a policy. Chairman Johnson indicated I~e would not be pr~sent at the May 2J~ 19 7 7,Planning Commission ineeting and perhaps not on June 6~ 1977, altliougti hs was not certain. EIR NEGATIVE QECLARATION - CONTIt~UED PUdLIC 11EI1RING. E.E.S.A. lNVESTf1ENT COMPANY, ~~ 15 Nor th C i t rus ~!101 1~~wood ~ C,1 90~36 (Owner) ; THOMAS CART~R ~ RECLASSIFICATlON 1073Z Riv~rside Dr(ve~ North Flollywaod, ca q~6n2 (Agent); h~. JG-JJ-48 requestin,y reclassirication uf pror~erty descrihPd as a rcctangularly-shaped parcel of lanJ cons istinq of approxi- mately 1.2 acres having frontage of app r oxl~,tely 219 feet on the soutl~ side of Lincoln Avenue and 130 feet at the cul-de-sac t~ rminus of aella Vista StreF•t~ an~ haviny a maximum ~~epth of approximatcly ~yb feet east of the centerl ine of Knott Street~ from tF.e CL ~COMMCRGIAI.~ LlMITED) to the R11-120C (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE- FAMILY) ZOt1E. At 1:32 p.m., Chairman .:ohnso~ no~ed that since the petitioner had no t indicated his presence in the Councll Chamber~ this item would `s temporarily postponed unti 1 hhe Qetittoner was present. Ai 1:51 p.m., the public hearing was opened. 77~•307 ;/9177 ~ ~. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ hey y~ 1917 ~7~3~n RECLIISS 1 F i CA71 QN N 0. 76• y~-48 ( C~n t 1 nued) It was notod that the sub,ject item was contlnued from the Planninq Commisston meating of Aprl) 25~ 1917~ at the request of the petitlonar. No one (ndicat~;d their presence in opposit(on to the subJecc item; ~nd, althouc~l~ the Staff Re~+ort to thc Planniny Comr~~Isston dats~J May ~~ 1~77~ was not read at the publlc hearl~g~ Ic is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Prlor to the appllcant camlr~,~ to thc micropl~one ~nd for khe record, staff notad that ~evised plans had been submitted to the Planntn9 Department tliat morning, J~leting the two possible waivers that wcre discussed in tl~e staf!' report. In responsc to questioning by the Commisslon~ staf~F lndicated the;• had had tim~ •~ study the revlsinns. Mr. ThomAS Carter, 10732 ftivcrside D~ive. North Hollywcx~d~ Califo-•:,ta, repressnting the pet(tioner~ appearcd before tt~e Planning Commirsion and noted the proJect, as revised~ complied wlth all thc requiremcnts af th~ HM-12~f1 Zone, that th~ ~ecre.ation-lcisure area is ln excess of the requireme~~t~ and that the densfty is less than the mr~ximum ~~crmttted. TNC PUBL I C NCl1R1I:G NAS CLOSEU. Chatrman Johnson aske~ whether the ~mount of traffic from thls proJect to 9ella Vis:a Street hAd been looked ~t. Mr. Carter indicatcd :hat a minimum of traffic would be on 6ella Vista since ttie ~evised plan includes one dr(veway on LincAl~ Avenue and lhat~ at the request of the City Traffic Enginenr, the slxe of the 6clla V~ ca cul-de-sec had been increASed. In respanse to questioniny by Commissioncr King regar~~ing Item 15 of the staff report concerning trasf~ enclosure locations~ Mr. Carter stipulated to satisf~~ing the ~equlrernents of tf~e Sanitation Division and indicated f~c had solvec the protlem since previously tlie enclosure location was at the en~i of a deadend ~Jrive~ but thie rev(sed plans placed it on ,- thr~ugh drlveway. in re~ponse to questioniny '~y Cortx~ission~ M~. Carter stipulated to construct(ng a block wall along tlte eest property line and tndlcated there was an existing wal) along the South sic'_ but that the west siJe was de veloped with a motel which he co~slJered a r~sidentlal use and, theresore~ a wall was not needed, Commissfoner tlerbst commented the future residents of thc apartment~ st~ould be protected from the existing motel to the west. Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry noted Ct~at a motel was not a resider~tial use but a cAmmercial use~ and was he co unde rstand the applicant had stipulared to a wall on the wesc side also. Mr. Carter indicateJ it was a reasonable requirenent and would so stipulate. In response ko questioning by Commissioner Barnes~ staff indicated thPre were 20 "tuck- under" park(ng spaces and 16 space s in carports, an~i that including the open spaces there were a total af 54 on-site spac~•s. Commissioner King offered a n~otio~, se~con~ed by Cc.vnmissioner Tolar an~ N0710N CARRlED (on~ seat be i ng vacan t; ~ tha t the Anahe i m C i Ly P 1 ann i ng Cornm i ss i ~n has rev i ewed the sub.j ect proposal to reClassify the ~oning from cornmercial to multiple-family residentlal ~n approxirttately 1.2 acre~; of land f~onting on the south sicie of Lincoln Avenue appraximately 998 feet east of ~he centerline of Knott Street~ and does hereby recort-mend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim th at a Negative Declaration from the r~quirement to prepare an env6ronmental impact report oe aNproved on the basis that tl~ere would be n~ siynificant indivt~ua! or• cumulative adverse e nvironmental impact due to the approval of this Negative 5/9/17 ~. j ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION~ Mey 9~ 1977 71-3U9 RECLASSIFIC:TION N0. 76-77-48 (Continuod) .~~.r.~_ ~.. _._._. Declaration slnr_e tha Anaheim Gnnort~l Plan deslgnetcs the subJect pro~erty for madlum- denslty resielentlal anJ/or genaral comn~ercial lond uses commensurate with 2he proposal; that the subject property is loceted immediat~ly nurch of similar multiple-famlly restdentlal zoning and development; thet no sansltlve environmenta) elements are (nvolved In the proposat; th~t the Initial Scudy submitted by tlie petitioner indtcat~s no signiftcant individual or cumulativc adverse environmental tmpacts; and that the Negative Dectarat(on sub4tantiating the fore~~otng findings is on filo in the office of the Flenning Depo~tment at City Nall. Camnlssioner Ki~ig offered Resolution t~o. PC77-98 and moved for tts passoyc and adoptlun~ that the Anehe 1 m C 1 ty P I ann i ng Comm 1 ss i on dnes i,ereby recomrnei~d to the C i ty Counc 1 1 nf tlie Cit~~ ~~f Anaheim that 1' tition for Reclasslflcatlon No, 7G-7'-~+r be approv~d, (S~e Resolutlon liook) On roll call~ thc for~goiny resoluti~n was passed by ctie following vot~: AYES : COM~11 SS I ONEkS : ~AR~IES ~ IItR4ST, K I NG ~ TOLAR ~ JOIIt~SQ!~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE Afl~ENT: COM111 SS I ONERS : OnV I Q YACAMCY: ONC SEAT E! R CATEGORI C/til EXE11P71 ON - CONT I NUEO PUBL I C HCARI IJG. RAY aN() ESTELLE SPEHAR AND t~ARC li. VAR I ANC E NO . 29 30 A~IN HALLIGAN, 913 Pat~ama Place. Fullerton~ CA 92(i35 ~~ers); t'~:UICINI-BELL DEVELOF~MENT CO.~ 4405 aiverside Orive, surbank, CA 915~5 ~Agent); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM STRUCTURAL S ETF3AC1: AND ( B) H I M I MUM LANpSCAP I NG , TQ COf~ STRUCT A CONMERC I AL SIIOPPII~G GENTER un prope~'. described as an irregularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of approxlmately 11.1 acres located north anci east of the northe;~st corner nf La Patma AvenuP and Imperlal liiyhway~ haviny approxlirwte fronta9es of 630 feet cn thc north s(de of La Palma Avenue and 372 feet on the cas~ stde of Imperial tlighwey~ and located approximately 190 feet north nf the centr.rline of La Palma Avenue and 3a0 feet east af the centerline of Imperial Highway. Property presenily classified CL(SC} (COMMERCIAL~ IIMITEO-SCENfC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) and itM-12~0(SC) (RESIDEI~TIAL, MULTIFLE-FAMILY-Sf,ENIC CORRIDOR OVE'tLAY) ZONES. It was n~ted that the subject item was conti~~ued from the Planniny C~mmission meeting of April 25~ 1~71, in ord~r fo~ the applicant to consider revised plans and to present the necessary "showinys" for approval of the reque:ted waivers. No one i nd I ca tPd tt~e i r pres ence i n appos i t i on to tl~e sub Jr.~ • i tem; and , a 1 though the S taf f Report to the Planning Commission dateci May y, 1y77, was not read at the pubiic hearing~ ic is referred to and made a part of the min~~tes. Mr. John liell~ representing the agent for the property owners~ appeared and noted the petition was continued in order that the petitioner could escablish a reasonable justification on t~ie basis of which the waivers could be granted~ and f~~rther noted it was ~ppropriate for the ,~-~perty owners' attorney to present the case. Mr. Larry 8allard, attorn~y~ 140~ North Narbor aoulevard~ fullerton~ cane to tf~e podium and revtewed the requested watvers and corm~ented this particular property is u~ique ~n that it is an 11- acre corner parcel on which access rights have been dedicated along one of the streets, thereby concentrating traffic onto tl~e other two streets, and that other simtlar parcels are not similarly restricteJ. Mr. Bell nc~ted that in the previous public ~earing a 5/9/71 R *- '~. .. ;' .. MINUTES~ CITY PLANNI~~G CONMISSION~ Mry 9~ 1977 77-310 VARIANCE NU. 2930 (Continuedi problcm with trash cnllectlan ~•~as brouyht up an~ he had slncc conferred with the architect and that 1C Is his intentlo~ to N rovide a trash-cc-mpact(on system. THC PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSCq. ChAlrmen Johnson n~t~:d therP hAd been no significant change in t~,c plans since the last mret(ng. In response to questionli,g by Ca~x»lsslon~ Mr. Bcll noted access rights ta In~erial Hfghway had been cfeJlcatecf ~nci it was no longer a p~rcel wit three street frontages. Commissioner Toler cor•~mented the rcason for the canttnuance was to prepare rcvised plans end maybe ellminate thc w~fvers; that he was r~ot in favor of any development (n the bullding or landscaped setback ar•eas; that there was no untque hardship regarding tl~is property In that thc developer had 11 acres to work wit:F~; th~t the devcloper knew the deditatian of acc~ss rtyh[s had been made; and~ furthernK,reN this p~~rce! hAS been before thls Comnisslon prevlously in connection wlth other publfc t~earinc~s anri these very problems were discussed at that time; end th~t there were no ch~n9es since the la5l P1Anning Comm(sslon mectin~, Mr. Eiell responded tl~ey had restud{ed the project, b~t the proposed bullding does not exceeJ the maxfmum allowed anci~ as A mattr.r of fact, the re~'ass(fication zoning the property included exhl~ ~ showine~ 12Q,000 syuare fret Uf building and the :.urrent propasal is approx(mately iu0,000 squarc fee:. tle furttier indicated the developer does not knaw the specif(c users when the zoning is acquired and that things Ghan~e as specific tenants are found wlth specific needs for specific uses; and that he felt the developer had found the solution to thc h.~rds~tiip issue. Commissioner Tolar indicated ctie solut(on was [o relocate the build(ng in accordance with Code standarcis and asl:ed exactly wl~at is th~ h~rclshi~. Mr, t3allard not~d that in order to be able to grant e var(ance~ spcci~l circumstances applicable to the property includtng s{ze~ Shape~ topoyrephy~ locatlon~ etc. must be est~blist~ed and notPd he felt th~ special circumstances here consisted of a parcel of this size wli'ch w~uld typically havc access on three boundaries and did not bccausc (t was. as lie undcrstood it~ thc City of Anaheim's requlrement to dedicate access rlyhts to Imperial Ilighway. He f~rther noted it is probably vall~i that access ric~hts be dedicate~ on this Iilyha~ay because of the traffic load, but notec7 sucf~ e1eolGation creates a prot~lem with the property not bein~ able to develop to its fullest potential. Commissioner Herbst~ with~ the conc.u~rence of Mr. Frank Lowry, A•;sistant City Attorney, noted that access rlghts had nut be~,~ deJicated to tl~e City of Anaheim ~~~t to tFit-. St.'~te of Galifornla in connection Nith the prop~5ed freeway designation uf In~peria) hiqhway. Ne fu~ther noted tl~e propcrty was zonc~i RS-A-1~3~000 at that time an~i that Mr. Spehar, the property uv+~ner, had propose~! commercial zoning afcer dedication had been made; and everybody kne~~ cxactly wha; the parcel was anJ what access it had; and there was r,o justification at this time to argue a hardship bec~use of restrlcted access. Commissiorser 1lerbst further noted Mr. Spet~ar was compensated at the time the State acquired the access. Mr. Ballard clarifie~l that tt~e point he intended to riake was that the access dedication was not a voluntary ~ct by the property own~r but was because of some c7overnmentai requirement, anci that in terms nf t!~e regu'ations regarding tliis Corc~mission's ability to grant a variance~ he felt the dedication was a sufficient special circumstance. Comm6ssion emphasized that the o~ly problem with the proposal appears to be overbutlding and that ic does not justify a variance; that the hardship as defi~cd by thc petitioner is the same for all properties on Impe+-ial Highway; that they had gone througli extensive public meetinys regardiny a General Plan amendment on this property; that a tremendous ar~iount of time and study was put forth considering cam-ercfal uses and ti~at the necessary 5/9/7~ .. ~' ~ • ~ MI~~UTEs~ CITY PLA~INING COMMISSION~ Hey 9~ 1977 ~~'~>> VARIANG~ N0. 2930 (Contir~ued) ...~._. dedications, lanJscapl~g, setbacks~ etc. were all part of those dlscussions. Commtssion further noted therc: was na unusual tc~poc~raphy or surrounc!fng land uses. It was not+~d that the Director af tt~e Planning Depar;s~~ent had dctermined that the proposed artivlty fell wlthin the deftnitlon of 5ec;lon 3.Q1~ Glasses 3 an~J --~ of thc Clty of Anahalm Guldellnes to tlie Requirements for ai~ Envir~~mcntal Impact aeport and was~ therefore~ categorically ex~mp[ frum the requirc~rent xo file an EIR. Commisslone~ 7olsr offerec! Resolutlon No. PC77-99 and moved for its passnye and ndoption~ thet the Anahclm Clty Planning Com~nisslan does hereby dGny Petitlon for Varlance No. 293~~ to construct 8 CO~""' CId~ shupping center with waivsrs of mtnimum structurol setback and minimurn landscnpin~~ on the basls that the petttioner did not demonstrate that a hardship would be created if tl~r. requested w~lvers were not yranted; thet when commercla) zontng of the property was appr~ved, the property vwner F~~+~~ already madc tF nccessarv dedlcation wtiich nK~dl f les acce.ss Lo tt~e rroperty ~n~i submi tted development ~ ns in complete compliance with said Zoning Gode standards; that th~~re are ~lt~rnatc methods of develupfng the shopping center in compliance with Zaniny Cade stinciard~; thAt there were no spec~al circumsta~ces applicabla to the property includ(ng size~ shape~ topography. l,catlon~ surroundi~~~s or acc~ss llinit~tinns, which do ~ut apply to other property unc'ar idential zoning classiflcat(on in the v(cinity; an~! that appr~~vol r,iqht establish an undestrable preGedent ~or future similar requests in the Scenic Corridor. (See Resolut~on Book) On roll ca:l~ the fore~~oin~~ resoiution was p.~ssed hy the followin<~ vote: A' S; COMI1155101~Ef~5: NOES: COMMISSI0NCR5: AE35EWT: COMM I SS I Ut1ERS : VACANCY: EIR t~EGATIVE. DECL~FATI011 RECLASSIFICATION NO . 76- 7 ~.. t~9 CONUITIONAL USE PER~11 T N0. 1703 UARI~ES~ 11LZE3ST, KING. T~LI1R~ JOt~I~SQN r~O~~E: D11V I U ONE SEAI' - PUDLIC HE.ARING. f10LLY WADE TUSZENSKI. 1126 River Lane~ Santa Ana~ CA ~2706 (aNner); GEORGE ADAMS~ 32~~ Frontera Street~ Anahcirr~ Cl1 9280G (A~ent). Pr~,perty described as an irreyularly-shaped p~rcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 6.4 acres located at tf~e s~;~theast corner of Frontera Strc~:[ and t~ewkirk Road, hiaving approxi~ate front~ a~es of 726 fect on it;c south side of F*~ntera Street and SGC fect on the east side of Nesrkirk Road, and further described as 37.00 Frontera Street. Property presently ~lassified RS-A-43~000 (RESIUEtIl'll1L/AGRICULTUML) ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOtI: ML (INUUSTRI~L. LIMITEO) ZONE FiEQUES7EU COt~DITIONl1L USE: TO i'ERMIT A RE50URCE RECOVERY ANB RECYCLINf OPERATION, No one ir.iicated the~r presence in oppositi~n ta the suhJect items. Although the Staff Report to tl~e Planniny Commi;sion dated May 9~ 1977~ was not rea~i at the Rublic hearing~ it is referre:l to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Uo~ SGruggs~ 44G4 Walnut~ Chino~ Calif~rnia~ ProJect Engineer representing r.he agcnt for the property awner, indicated the propos~l is a re;source recove ry and recycling ~/9l77 ~ ,~ ~~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION~ May y, 19~7 17~312 RECLAS~IFICATION N0. 76-77-49 AND CONQII'IONAL USE nCRM1T NO_ ._ 1703 (Continucd) ._... _.~.~_ _..~..~ .._ cente~. tha subJecc locatlon belnc~ the main bas~ for operetions at tl~c Orange County landfills; that a Negative DeGlaretlon Is belny ~~equested and ~.ontrary t~ thc staff report~ the petltioner feels an EIR is unnecesse~y; thet this part(cular prop~sal Is the best use for Che subJect property; that the petttloner acknowleclges tF~e land was occupied prlor to subn~ittiny a!1 the necessary xoning appllcations. but he is working witfi the City and intends to canply wlth C(ty requ(rements Including street dedicatlon~ landscaping~ sc~eening~ etc. TNE hUBLIC IIEARING ~'.~S CLOSED. In response to questionin~~ by Commissioner Tolar regardiny I~o~~r the use was established without tlie necessary City permits~ Mr. Scrugc~s indlcated he could not speak to that since he was not fnvelved (n that phase and doasn't know the timing or clrcumstanc.es but thAt he is nvw responslble for the entirc pro)ect ~nd tt~e zoniny petitions. Asked whether the buslness is currently in opcration aftcr notlcas of violati~.~~ were issued~ Mr. Scruggs replieJ (t Is being used for a storac~e facillty ~intil th~ r.oning petitions are resolved because al) ttie equlpment Is there. Commissloner Tolar indlcateJ an Elit wes needed; that hce was very conc~rned wlth the nature of the proposal; that ilthough he is sympachetic with waste recyclin~~~ he doesn't feel thls is 3 go~d location; and tl~at tliis type of use should not be ~n a freeway which ts one of th~e maln corridors leadln~.~ into the Cicy of Anahcim. He further noted some effort should be made to make it a more slyhtl~ project; tl~at it was opened Illegally and Is an eyesore; that trafftc on the adjacent surface streets may be a baJ situatfon because it is the only access. Mr. Scrugys res;'^nded ;hat the Initial Stu~y sFiowed thc siic was a GO•foo*. deep hole that has been tandfili~~t~altli a good deal o; Anaheim rubble and rubbish and Is quite soft; that since someone would p~~bably have tU yc~ dawn 60 feet ta consCruct a building~ ihe best land use would seern to be rubbish or a recovery operat+on; that rubbish will not be hauled here; and th~t the petltioner was williny to provide tlie City-required landscaping~ etc.to totally enclose the usP, ''.ommissiuner Totar indi~ated he visite~l sever~+l s(m!lar operations and all were unsightty; and as he vlewed it~ ins~ead of putting the r~~bble underground, the petitianer has brouqht it to the surface. Mr. Scruggs cl~riried that recycling materials means not t~ bury it as trash is 6uried but to cxtract r•ecycl~ble materials frcxn la~dfill and return lt to a us~fui condition; tl~at currently su~h rubble anc~ fiil !s lost and gone~ a~~f the proposal is .~ extract it and bring it back t~ life. Gurtx~ission indic~ted that they had aesthetic concerns regarding the visibility from the adiacent streets, especiaily the freeway, and questioned wliether the use would be hidden by the proposed berm and wall~ and ~rould thc pubiic see the +op of the crane. Mrv Scrug~s answered "ye5". In response to questioning by Commission~ Mr. Scruggs in.. cated it was Lhe petitioner's intent to recycie paper in the future. Asked how is paper controlled when it is wiizdy, he answered it is immediately put in compaccors, although enclosing fences are usually 5/9/77 ~ '. MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Mey q~ 1977 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77~49 AND CONOITIONAI. USE PEP,MIT N0. 1703 (Contlnued) ww~~~ ~+~ "~'~'~~i' 17-3~3 constructed to catci~ fly-eway Ffeces. Ne clarified tha bulk of the recycling ectivity would bo materlats from the land fills~ sa~d matcrtals t~ bs sorted tnto various components~ reprocessed and beled. Commfasion noted an EIR was necosse~ry fn order to consider the truck trafflc a~d quesCloned th'. facllity's ADT. Mr. Scruggs responded about 5U trucks per day maximum~ although LI pettttoner is lookinh for ways to reduce the truck traffic due to its cost. Commissl~ ~er ~lerbst noted the aole access t~ this property was f~om Glassell and Frontera~ setd {r c;rsection developing residentially in the ot1:-r direction (westerly) and that perhar. two-story apartments will bc looklny down into thp facility even though a watl and be~tr ar~ proposed. Mr. Scruggs tndlcatcd thc ~partmcnts were a~~ood ~1~a,' awAy~ and that the materials brouqht In for proeessing had been pulled from la dfll) and~ hopefully~ nottiing 1~~ oulled that is not of use. In response to questlaning by Commission~ Mr. Scru~ys explaincd that materlals are ~ipron- loaded ont~ conveyors ancl pasS by a crew of inen who extract what ts wanted~ for example: team 1 pulls carboard~ team 2 ~ulls metal~ etc.; that there wlll be five t~~ etyht-ton loads arr(ving per truck; and that, for example, 12 tons of steel per parting truck load will be xrensp~rted to Long Beach. Chairman Johnson noted the Comnission feels thcre wilf be an environmental lrnpact and~ therefore, an EIR should be pr~pared and that the requcsted Neyative Declaration is very we~k. Mr. Scruggs indicated he is not saying :he use wlll not have an impact but Is polnting out that In hls opinion the E~etitioner is proposing the best use for the land which at ont time w as a ~ubbish dump. Chairman ,lohnson noted Comnission is aware of tt~e problems of a landfill site~ buC the petitioner should not have established ttie use aliead of tin,e ano created an eyesore. In response to a question by Mr, Scrugys~ Chairman Johnsan noted his b~~iness was located aboui ~ne- tt~ i rd mi 1 e down ttie f re~~way . Frank Lawry. Assistant City Attorney~ indicate~.' the !ecnrd would show Chairman Johnson owns a piece of property in the Northeast Indus:rial Area. said parcel being located approximately one-third mile from the sub~ect p~operty but was outside th+e zone of influence tn which. In the opinion of the City Attorney's Office, a conflict of interest would ex'.st, ard that Chairrnan Johnson has thereforc been allowed ta remain in the discuss~on concerning this particular piece of property. Commissioner Herbst asked haw long would ii take to pr~..•ide a'~ndscaped berm~ wall and minimum 15~'9allon trees. Mr. Scruggs answered about b0 days~ inciuding krigation facilities. Carnmissioner Herbst inJicated he was wncer~ed about the EIR as it pertains to site scree~iny and repeated his concern wtth truck traffic, noting tt might increase from ;0 ... 5/9/17 ;~ MINUTES~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ May 9~ 1971 77-31~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7G-77-49 AND CONDITIO W1L ~SE PERMIT r~0. 1J0~ (Continucd) trucks a day now to 100 trucks tomorrow wlth a resultant impACt on Glasscll and Frontera end the (r t.;raectlon. Cnmmissinner Da~res questioned the Jepth of ehe landfill ,ince others had indicated mast of the proporty (s not GO feet ~Jecp and eliere Is the possibility that developmant of another kind could occur. M~. Scruggs responded he has the origtnal yradi~~ plan includtng a to,~o~r~phic map wlth contours shc~winy A depth of GO feet. Cummissloner Barnes as~cd whether any nx:asurements haJ bnen tiken recently. Mr. Scruggs indicateJ "na"~ he had t~ken thc w~:rds of tlre enginr.erl~c~ drawing. C~~mmission King questioneJ an apparent clerlcal error in the s`a`'f report~ Item 13-a reyarding effective slte scrceniny, which indicated ~?~~-foat ~ ~h masonry wall. Joel Fick, Assoclate Planner. indlcated the 26 feet referred to a builcfinc~ setback~ not to fence height. In respor~ae to questloniny by Commis5'on. Mr. Scruggs (r,~llcated the petl~ioner would ac~ree to provide whatever sit~e screening was necessary~ and that a satisfactory wall wes necessary to -;eep som~vne from steppiny into the area and tt~e c,uard dog frum leaving the area. Chalrman Johnsan asked whether the site screeniny wo~ld cansist of~ col'iectively, a 6-foot berm, a 10-foot wall~ and 20-foot trecs. Mr. Scruggs stated Lhe trecs would ;~st shc~w greenery over ~I~e top of the fence. Commissioncr I~erbst indicated he did not think 10 feet would be adequate ar~d yuestion~d the noise from the conveyors anc~ other site-gener~tcd sour,ds. He noted Commission nreded to know what wall a sound enyineer would recommend to buffer the sitc nolse and also the Ilne-~f-slyht look(n~ tvwards the ~roperty. Commissioner King questio~~ed pa[entiai alr poilutian. Commissioner Herbst noted air qualitY would have to be satisfied in compliance with the Air Pollution Control Board reyula•~ons; that the EIR sl~ould discu;s all these items plus possible litter on the streets; and that the a~plicant should taice ~ continuancr, to prepare an EIR. Mr. LoY.~y noted he had been infoimed the•.re is anuther bu~iness on the premises in addition to the proposal; ttiat the petition Joes nn~ contain a reference to that separat~ business; that no application has been filed for a. iny petftion; and is tl~e pecitioner reprrsenting that second business or nat. Mr. Scruqgs answered there is an existing landflil ope~ation which was lssued a grading permit ir~ October 1370 a~d recently terminated; that he couldn't think of the gentleman's name, although said i~divtdual was told to cease and desist the operation; that only his trucks were there at the moment, alcf~augh he '- tryiny to relacate them: ar,d that the petitioner's operativn will nc~t including iandfillir,g becau.,e it is ~~11 filied. 5~'9/77 ~ `,. -M r ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNINf COMMISSIOPl~ Msy 9~ 1~7J 11-315 RECLASSIFIClIYION N0. 76-77-49 AND CONQITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 17Q3 (Continued) Mr. Lc~wry notpJ the b~~stn~ss i~as apparently bcen CerminatPd and sincc there may bQ Il~ega) truck storage~ a notice of vic~lat(on may b~ Issuod. In ~esponse to quastlo~iny by Commis~lon~ Mr. Lowry InJicated the Commisslon shoutd take a vote to decide if a~ EIR is necessary an~. lf so~ cantlnue tl~is itcm for four weeks. Commtssianer Ne~bst offered ~ motion to raqulre an EIR, satd EIR to include Information r@lativc to truck traffic~ sound~ linc-of-sight~ etc. Mr. Flck recomrnende~i the (tem he contlnue~t f~r at least six weeks in order that the Ela bA prope~ly advertl~ed. Commissioner Bernes noted if an EIR is required, lt must include thc State-mandated items and none can be deleted or the EIR would be Inccxnplete; Mr. Lowry agreed. Chalrr-w n Jahnson ~oted thc ne~ltioner should be aware thaC a cor,tlnuance for an EIR does not mean a pos(tive vote ~~~~ the propusal and~ therefore~ it wos the petiti~ner's choice to puc•sue this matter. Mr. Scruggs acknowledge~f Chalrman Johnson's comnk~t. Commissioner Kiny sec< ~deci thc motion that an EIR bc preparr:d and that the Item be continued to six weeks~ June 20. 1977, iii order to allow for advertisem~nt af the CIR~ and MOT10~~ CARRIEU (one seat beiny vacant). FurtheP di~,cussed ensued reyarding the length of the continuanc:. Mr. Scruggs Indicat~d they could not prepare an EIR in nine to ten days as Mr. Lowry ~ndicated would bc necessary. ~hairman Johnsan asked whether the operatio~ could be halte:. in the rt-eantime. Mr. Lowry indicated if Commissior~ dcnie! the pet'cions, afeer 22 days the zoning enforcement office.r would lssue a r~otice to cease the operation. Chairman Johnson indicated he was conte-ned that ~o advantage Ge accorded the petEtioner by the cont(nuance or that he turn it to hls advantage by delay(ng tactics. Nr. ~owry noted t;~e p~titioner has h~d abaut two months Co ~;repare the EIR since the original nottces of violation .vere ;ssued. Mr. Scrug~; cortment~~ he could probably do ~ne within nine to ten days. but he didn't know about a prlvate u~, >any and thai they had had guotes of "up to eight or ten weeks". Comnissloner Tol., indicated he did not r~eeJ twe weeks or 60 days to vote on this project; that he feels an EIR will be a wastP; that in his opinion this is an ' appropriate land use and sa,~ opinton is not gotng to chanye; Lhat he will oppose the petitior~s; and that if it is in order, he would like to offer a resolutfon t~ deny the petitions. Mr. Low ry in~icated that wou1J noC be in order In vipw of tlie p~evious motions requiring an EIR and the conttnuance, and said motions would have to be rescinded. 5/9~77 `~ ~~ ~ MIN~~TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ F1ay 9, 1917 77-316 RECLASSIFICATION tJO. 7G-77-49 AND CONDITIONAI USC FCRMIT N0. 1703 (Contlnued) - - ..`.._~ -.------- In r~sponse to questloning by Commissioner King~ Commisslonsr Tolar (ndlcAted a recycling plant Is very necessar~~ and t,e totally agreed with the concept of trying to salvac~e trASh~ but that nn matter how you clean It up it (s stil) trash; that the lacatton on a freeway which (s an entrence to the Clty of Anaheim is undesirable; that 5~ trucks per day onto Frontera and Giasscll~ the anly access to che p•operty~ Is unJesirable; and l•hat debris hauling is not the best use oF the l~nd. Comm(ssloner King canxnented wherever subject use is located~ public rot~ds must be useu. C~mmissioner Tolar commente~i ther.~ Nroperty wit-~out this view fmm Une of the main cor~idurs Inta Anaheim. Followiny further dlscussion regardiny tl~e lengtli of the contfnuance~ Mr. Scruggs suggested aboui tl~rec additional wee4s, until July ~~ 1977. Commisslancr Tolar commented he will votc against such a continuance because the use was lllc~~olly establlsheJ and wl lt conL~~~,..: to operate iile~~lly for the duration of thp public hearing procedurc. C~mmission~r tisrnes con~nented although shc fecls~ at this moment, this 3ocation ts not good because the operatior is across the freew~y frorr Orange County's best Industrial area~ she wi1) not makc up her minu until the EfR Is available. Commisstoner t~erbst modifiecJ iiis motion to permit an eight-week continuance, until July 6 rather than June ?.0~ 1977~ qivin~ the applicant two more weeks to prepare an EIR, seconded by Commissi~ner Kin~~. Commissioner Herbst _~-,rmiente.f he wanted the tIR to show the impact of Chis proposal on the area; that because it was a d~mp site~ the use could probably be compatibte with the ground use; th~at prop~r screening is necess~ry; that the 10-faot screening suggested iS probably not hlgh enouyh; and that dense landscaoing would probably be approprtate. In order to assure the motion was correctly under~tood by all pres~nt~ a button vote was Laken and MOTi01~ CARR{ED (with Commissioners Johnson and Tolar votiny "no" and one seat being vacant). 11r. Lowry noted that the motion to continue requires a mere maJority of the quorum present anu not a majority of thc eniire Pianning Comm~,sion and~ therefore. the motian carries. EIR NEGATIVE DEC~AkATI ~ - PUBLIC NEARING. L. KENIdETH I~EULER, ET AL~ yQ6 Pioneer Drive~ Anaheim, cn 92ba; and CALIFORNIA TOWEL ANU LINEN SUPPI.Y CO.~ RECLASSIFICA710N 710 W. Sth SCreet, Los Angeles, CA ~)003' ~~ners); FROST N0. 76-77'50 CONSTRUCTIO~I CO.~ INC., 707-K S. State College Boulevard, Fullerton, CA g2G31 (Agent); requesting reclasstficatlon of property described as a rectanguiar~y-shaped parcel of land consisting af approximately ~,18 acres having a frontage of appruxim~tely ~i28 feet on the nortt~ side of La Palma Avenue~ ha:iny a maximum depth of approximately 52j feet~ and beiny located approxirnacely 4i9 feet east of the centcrline of Euclid Street~ from the RS-A-43,000 (RESIDEI~TIAL/AGRtCULTURAL) ZONE to the RN-120Q (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. Three people indicated their presence in oppositien to the subJect item. 5/9/77 ~ . . . ~~. MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOW~ Ma~, 9~ 1~177 REC UISSIFICATION N0. 76-77~5~ (Cont(nued) i7-~17 At the request of the persons preR~nt in opposition to the propos~l~ Joel Fick~ Associate Planner~ r~sd the Staff ReporC to th~+ Pl~nnfng Cortmfssion dated May 9~ 1~17. COMMISSIONER TALl1R TEMPORARILY LEFT THE CU~I~CIL CHAMaER AT 2:k2 P.M. At~D RETURNED AT 2:45 P , P1. Mr. ~avld Frear, ag~nt for thc pruperty awner~ described thc proposal and Indicate~i al) one-bedroom apartments ~ould liave 81-spuare fo~t p~!(os and al) two-bedroom apartments would have 9)-square f~ot patlos; a~~d th.~t thcre would be fcur lAndsc.aped recreatlona) areas~ each having a Jacuzzi or I~ot betly and ba~becue facilities; and tha~ a circalar drlveway wtth two accesses ~nta La Palrna Avenue allows ingresS and egress in an efftcient manner. Ne further indfcated the Gener•al Plan Jesignation for this property was comrnercial and/~r me~ltum rPSi~iencl~l ~~ses; an~i that probably gr~ater traffic would be generated by commercta) development tl~an tlxs prapc~sed resid~ntial usas. Mr. Frear indicateJ thcy I~acJ Ji~~uSSeJ a~vtentisi problem~ reua~Jiny t~~e wescerly ~iriveway which is located adjacent to the moriuary drlveway~ with tf~e City Traffic Engineer; and tha: attempts werc made to contact thc owner/lessee of tl~c mortuary in o,d~r to obtain a mu~ual ingress and egress easement alony the west property line~ however~ tlie ~resident eF tiie company was out of tawn anci could not bc~ coneacced until this morning. lie describer! the surrounding land uses and notecl th~~: the ~x(stlnq block wa',1 will be c~ntinued along the west property line a~d will~ with the proposed driverray and enclosecl garagcs~ pravide buffering for che ~ropospd resident~al use; th~~t a 1~0-foat~ one-story sctback and enclosed gar•ages will buffer tt~e existing residences to the east; that no ingress or eyress +s proposed to Glen Drive to the ea,t; end that a modifled cul-de-sac as recomm~~~ded by staff bloc~.s acccss [o G~~~n Drive. i~ir. Frear displayed a drawing showing the archit~ctural treatment of the bacF: of the c~arages abuttiny the residences to the east and consistiny of textured stuccu witi~ ~~ood pilasters; and indicat~d they Feel the project will be pleasing to their neighbors. Mr. A1 Kaebrich, 1035 North Oresder~ Street, Anaheim~ appeared before the Planning Commisslan in opposition to tlie suhject icarn and stated that he lived to the south of the subJect property across La Palma Avenue; that tl~ere is already a traFfic problern on La Palma; that many acclJents occur at [he intersection of Drescien Street and ~a Palma Av~nue; that he would like to see the possibility of cnntinuinq ~oara Street ttirough to La Palma Avenue studled, altliou~~l, ,t has been dP!Prmined to bc too costly; that~ apparently~ a traffic siynat cann~t be installed at th~ c~rnc~r of ~)resd~n Street and La Palma Avenue because it is too close tv the Euclid Stree[ sign,3lization; sand that he has been informed that if Loara Street is continued through. it would be far enough from Euclld to warrant a traffic signal. Mr. Koebrlch comnented on all the traffic traveling nortl~ on Luara S:reet: fram th~ Santa Ana FreEway~ Y.N.C.A,~ school, and Anaheim Plaza; that people cominy up Loara dogley onto Dresden and then to La Palma Avenue. Mr. M.oeb~-ich note~ that one of the reasons he bouyht his property was the beautiful view of tt~e mountains across the vacant subject praperty; that his main objection was the traffic; and that the subjact property would be a good ar~a for ~ park. Mr. James ware~ 1133 Arbar Street~ Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Commission in oppos~tio~~ ta th~: subject itQm and stat.ccl hc lived on the east side of the proposal; thai he was c~ncerned witt~ ~he traffic congestion~ especially at 5:00 p.m.; tf~at residents of the proposal instead o` cc+~~~in~~ east on La Palma Avenue anc! [urning left might go up to Romneya Drive and cor~e cic~wn alo~g Arbor Street; that the noise from the laundry located to the west of the subJect pr~perty would nc~t be very desirable for the apartmenY residents; 5/9/77 ~ ~ MINUTLS~ CITY PLANNII~G COMNISSION~ May 9~ 1~77 RECt.ASS ~ FI cA1 i nt~ c~u. 76-'17-50 (Con t i nued) ,~ 17-3t8 xt~ac an EIR would be approprlate b~causc of the addi tianal population; anJ li~a~. 1~4 was coi~cerned with burglaries b~cause of people ,jumping over the fence. Mr. Darreil Ament~ 11+14 Glen Drlve, AnAheim, ~ppcareci before tl~e Pla~nin~ Commission in upposl tlon to the subject i tfsm an~ statcd h~. I ived to the casc of tt,, proposal; that I~is primary concern was to preserve the quality of the envirenment in which he Ilves; that he is concerne~l tt~~~t a Neg~tive Ueclarntion wati flled instesd of an CIR; thHt he does not know how any Jeterminatlon can be made relattve tc the traffic flow ancl patent{~1 school impa~:l without an EIR; an~ th~t I~e ~hares Mr. Ware's concerns and thinks that an CIR shc~ulu be prep~reJ for a proJect ~s iarge as the proposal. In rebuttal~ P1r. Frear in~icated it would be their policy tc~ r~nt to adults because rentin~; t~, fa~ni 1 fes is ex~ren~ely expen~ive in tcrms ~i operat;onal cos-s; th~t r,eneral ly their ~~rupost~is lia~l ~~o impact on scttie,ols becouse th~re woulc: no~ t,r- achoc~l-age tenants; that witli respect t~ anyone Jumping over ttie ~ence~ yaroges are being praposed adJacent to the property I lnes ancf hc fccis no one wi I I bu scal ing ths ~~ara~,~es; thal ~~dra~,~es wi l~ provicie a very effc~ctive noise buffer in a~t~ition to the blor,~ wall and driveway; ~nd as he previously statc~l~ Utl~er usc of tf~is property migl~t c~enerate substantially yreatc:r traffic. TNC PUbLIC NLl1RIUG WAS GLOSEU. Guc~mi551oner Herbst askc~i wliethcr [hc pcti tioner was ~ware of the Plani~inct Commission pelicy regarding constructi~~n of a buffer betwecn the e:xisting sin~~le-family resiJences and the praposed apartments; that although a 10-foot wall (garagr_) w~+s praposed alun~: the east property line and the petitioner may call it security, he cor,siders it a stark }bstruct(on of vlew, air anu circulation. Ilc clarific~ thc ~olicy was to pravide a buffer area consistin,y of landscapiny with sornc sort of b.:autification to separate the apartments frc~m single-family housin~;; th3t the resiJences wcre t~~ere firsC and the apartment proposal is encroachiny; that the bull: of thc traFfic ~enerated by the apartr~ents is on the easteriy side adjacent to the resi~ences; that tenants ccxning in and ~~~~[ lete at night would potentially cfisturb the resi~ences; and that if thc prnpos~il werc rtversed and a 24- foot landscapin~~ buffer wcre constructed along the r~ i~J~nces, the propos~l would be more compatible. Comiiissioncr Herhst further n~ted that hc a-;rcrs with thP petitioner that the traffic ~enerateJ by thc ~~roposr.d apartr~cn[s would bc less tha~ commer~ial use might generate. In respunse to questioni~.g by Comr~issior~ Paul Singer, City Traffic Ene~i~eer, indicated tl~at [ypic:ally commercial uses w~uld qenerate r10!'t' craffic than resi~lential; that tnere miyht be sur~ intense ~n-s[reet parkin~; comparec! tc~ ~ I ic~ht cornrierci ~1 use; that possibly traffic woulef come suuth from Romneya alonq Arbor Street to the pr~posal but it would probably not exceca tOb. Jay Titus~ Office Engiiieer, inJicateJ an Inter~fcpartniental Gortimittee recomr-~endation sp~:ciflc~s that Glen (lrive be clased aff froin the proposal witti ;, r~dified cul-de-sac so that there would be no ~irect access fra~i ttiis p~oject onto said street, therefrre~ any traffic cominy alon~~ ~rbor Street woulcl I;ave t~ enter La Palma Avenue before enteri ~g this proJect. In respor~;c to questionin~ by Commi~sion~ Mr, Sin~er indicated he did not expect that tliere waulJ be any conqestion in La Palma Avenue causrd by cars attempting to enter the subJect property. He did note~ however~ that there was a continuous left-turn p~~cket in front of the propused driveways and in close prc,ximity to Eu~lid Street, and as indicated :n tlie staff 5/9/77 ~ . .. °4 ~~ ~ 1 MINUTCS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. May )~ t)7/ 77'319 RCCLASS 1 f! CAT I 0~~ t10. '1G-77' S0 (Cont I nucd) roport, i t would bu preferable ;o liava tha main driveway to tt~(s pro,jcct located directly opposit~ Uresden Strect. thereby ps nnittinc~ a nnrmAl type of turning (ntersection s~t one I~catlon rather ttian three (one located east ~t Dresden~ the second at Dresden end the tl~ i rd wes r, of Uresclen) . In responsc to comn~er~ts by tl~e Commission rcgarcling realigning the ma(n driveway wtth Oresde~~ Strect~ Mr. Frear indicat~:d kttie prup~sal included e 1~~-foot sin,ylc-stary buffer zone from the eas[erly property line anJ that a redesign of the ~roJrct mic~ht be economically disastrous. Chairmon Jotinson inquirr.d ~ilieth~r tl~e ComMissioners felt an EIR would bc~ n~cessary. It wos noted that there will rbvio~~51y hr ~r, incr~AS~ in traffic. as Anaheim continues to grow. Frank Lowry~ Assistant City Attorney~ '. dlcateJ tlic City of Anaheim has spent ur wlll spend approximately one-I~alf million Joll~rs on 12 acres of ~ArE: land adjacent to w(th John Marshail Sch~~~l locatc~ approximately onc>-quarter mile directly west of this praJect; that sald 12 acres hould be added tU th~ existirig ~-1/2 ~cre park at the intersectlon of Rmm~eya Dr(vc and La Palma Avenuc adjacent to thc An~hcim Shores ~lanncd Conxnunity. Choirman Johnsan noted the Commission's cancerns appeareJ n~t eu be with the proposed reclassiflcAtion bu[ with rtx:ans in which the resiclents in the area coulJ ~e protected. 1'here was further ~.fise.ussiun reyarJin<3 the possit,ility uf rcversiny thc proposed site plan; and that ttie proposed density was approximately 28 ur~its pr_r acre. In response to a questior. by 11r, Frear concerniny bufferiny a~fj~cent to the residential uses~ Commissioner Tolar indi:: ~ted ff there is a desiyn problem with tl~is ~roject. it rmulcl be appropriate ttiat the Item be continued to allow a redesic~n, Comrnissiun noted 2heir primary concern was with the bufferiny treatmenc along ttic c~stcrly property line and tlic concentratian of un-sitc traffic alonc~ said resiJen[ial si~r.. Discussion ensur_d regar~lfnq a coi~tinuance and it was deterr~ined that two weeks wnuld be appropridte if the plans werc resuhmi[te~J to staff wiChin ttic nex[ four days. Further discuss;an ens~ed regardiny wficLher s~ecific siie plans mi~~ht bc brouyht to the Planning Commission rior to issuancc of a building pcrmit rather than continuing thls i tem for two weeb,ti ~ hrn~eve ~. Corroni ss i on i n~.f i c.ate~ they wi sheJ t~ revi ew the ~evi sed p 1 ans p~ior to consicJcriny the reclassification. Ccxnmissioner Herbs[ offered a motion~ secon~ieJ by S:ommiss+on~r Kiny and MOTIOt! CAFtRIEC (Comnissior~~r Tola~• voting "no" and one seat bein~ vacant)~ that [his ite~ be continued four weeks, to Junu b~ i~7/~ in or~cr [h~at revised plans could be prepared. RCCE55 - At 3:3~ p.m.~ Chairn~an Johnson declared a rec:ess. RF.CONVENE - At 1:~+1 R•m.~ Chairman Johnson reconvenpd the meeting. Gc.mmissioner HPrbst in~i(cated that durinn the reces~ Mr. Frear had sta[ed the plans could be revised witfiin the next wee~: in order that the item be reheard in two weeks; and, tf~ereforc, Commissioncr tlerbst offered a motion~ seconded by Cormissioner Ktng and MOTION CARRIED (Comm(ssioner Tolar votiny "no" anJ one seat being vacant)~ that this item be continuecl for two weeks, co the Plann=ny Ca+nnissian meeting of May 23~ 1977. 5/9177 ~ M I NUTES , C I TY Pl.ANt~ I NG COMM 1 SS I ON ~ May 9~ 1977 R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77'S0 (Continu~d) .~ 77-32~ Mr. Lawry nated t1-at s( ncP sa, ~c ~~f the oppos 1 t i on liad apparen t 1 y 1 e f t the Gounc I 1 Chamber lmmedlAtely after the prevlous action, it would be ap~ropriate that they bc n4tifiod of the two-wec1, continuancc instea~ of faur weeks. It was noted that Mr, Koebrich was present and hed received aral notice. EI(t CATEGORICAL E~Et1PTIUN - PUULIC HLARING. PATRICY. L. AI~O JCSSIE l~. D~P11EL~ G10 South Loara Street~ Anaheim~ C!1 92L02 (Owners;; requesting WAIVER VAR I At~CE f10 . 2;~;1 OF MAX I MUN FEtJCE I1E I Gt1T T(1 COIJSTRUCT A f~-FOQT H I Gt1 FEIICE on praperty d~scrlbed as a roctanc~ularly-shaped parcel of lanci consisting of approximdtely 0.7 acre tiaving a 1`rontage of approxlmately 13~ fect on thc cost side of Loara SCreet~ havinq A maxlmum depth of Approxi- matcly lbl fcct. bcin, IocateJ apprnximately 35; feet n~rrh nf thr r.entrrline of .~1lomar Avenue~ and further clescribed a5 ~1O South Loara Street. Pro~erty presently classified RS-A-N3 ~~U~) ( RES I uENT i AL/AGR I GULTl7Rl1L) ZONE . Na one indicated thelr presance in oppositlon to the subJect items; and, althou~h the Steff Report to tt~e Planniiiy Commissiun ~ateJ May y, t~j77~ was not rcad at tl~e public hear'Iny, it is referreci t~ anJ mAdc a part of the minute~s. Mr. Patr i ck Uan (c 1~ prApc:rty owner ~ ap{~cared befpre tl~e P 1 ann i nc; Commt ss i ~n .~nd nntcd the proposed fence would aliyn witti the existiny fences up .~nd down Loara Street including tt~e wall recently constructed by tlie devr_1<.~~er of tt~e subdivision to tfie imrtiediatc nortt~; that hts nau~e~ iristead of facing Loara Strt:et~ actually faces nortli anci thc~ side yard is on Loara Street. Reqardin~~ the Intcrdepartr~ntal Committ~c recomnx~ndatlons~ Mr. Danier (ndicated that althouyh h~ was willin~ to dedicatr to tt~e ultimate riyht-of-way, he objected to f~aviny to insCail c:urbs and gutters becau,e it woul~i cost about 55~OU4 (based on estimates hc had gotten); a~iJ Chax he questloned tf7e strcet liyhti~y condition stnce ttye street 1 tyhts I-ad bcen in for ycars. THC PU4L I C NEI1R1 ~~G ul15 CLOSLU. Commissioner Herbst noted that City orclinances require a minimum !;-foot fenGe around swimminy pools and tliat because of tt~e placenent of the existinc~ house ;I~e pntitioner wants a swinnn(ng poa) in the front yarJ, in othcr words, thc City of Anaheim building codes and safety re~~ulati~ns co~flict with tlie zoning ordi~ances in this rarticul~r case, creating an unnrcessary hardship tha[ is not suffered by onc~r nearby and similarly-shaped properties ar~d that thc petitivr~er is b~ing deniecl the appropriate recre~[ional and open space environn~nt he is entitleJ to becausc ~f t',e ordina~ce conflict. Cexnmissioncr King noted tha[ althouyt~ Loara Strcet is not desi~natecl as an arterial hlghway, it I~as an estimated ~UT of jJ~~ vehiclcs fur[her to the south. It was noted [hat tf~c Direct~r of tne Planniny Oe{~artme~t had determinecf that the {~ropased activi[y fell within tt~e d~finition of Sectivn 3.')1, Glass ~, of the City of Anaheim GuiJelines to the Requirernei~ts for an knvironmental Impact Re~ort and was, therefore~ categorically exempt from tlic requirement to file an EIR. Comnissioner lierbst offereJ Resolutioii t~o. PC77-i00 and moved for its passage and adoption~ that the Anaiieirn City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 'L~31~ to construct a i~-foot hiyh fence with waiver of maximum fence height~ 5/9/77 ~ ~ ~- ..'~ MINUTGS, CITY PI.ANFIING COMMISSION~ May 9~ 1977 77''•Z1 VARIAt~CC t~U. ~)31 (Contlnucd) on the basfs t~~at a li;+rdship would be createJ if seld waiver were not granted sin ce the locatlo~ of the exlstiny huuse restrtcts the private recreational usAge of the p roperty and makes it dlfftcult to put a swimming pool anywhcre on tlie property than In th e front ysrd; tl~at sim(lar G-foot fenc(ng has bern constructed on nParby residenttal lots ; and subJect to the stipulatlons uf tlio applicont end amenJing the Interciepartmental Committee racommondatl~ns by dcleting thc condition reg.irding tnstallation of strcet lmp~ov ements at thls tirne because it is an extraordinary expcnse compered to ttie proposed fence Imp~avement costs, and addi~y the standarJ condition reyarding the {~ayc~snt of street lightiny fecs~ ~~s recomrr~ndeJ by st~ff. (See Resolutton Dook} On r~ll call~ the forcyolny resolutlon w~s passed by the following vote: AYES: C01!MIS5IUNERS: EIARNES~ HERBST~ KIt~G~ TOLAR~ JOIIt15c)I~ NOES ; COM1~1155 I O~~E NS : NUNk AIiSE~~T : CnMH I 55 I ONL RS ; Dl1V I U VACAI~CY: ONE SEI1T EtR PIEGATlVE qECL,4RATI0N ^ Pl;[3LIG IILARItIG. J. G. SIIAQOUtI~ 61(? Newport Ceriter Drive, Newport Beach~ cn j2GGo (Owner); ROtJALD D. MG MAHQN VARIANCE ~~0. 29j2 ARCFIITEGT b ASSOC.. G15 East Chapman kvenue~ Orange , CA )~666 and liUti CAFIPUELL ~ 1555 Wes r tmbassy ~ Anahe i m~ CA 92$02 (~gents); reyuestinc~ WAIVCR OF (A) PERMITTED ACGESSORY U5E:S ANU (ts) NIIliMUM ~AlI05Cl1PIf~f,~ TO PERMIT ACCESSORY KETAII 5/1LE5 on pr~perty described as an (rregularly-st~ape~ parcel af iand conststiny of approxir-ately .<S8 acre ha ving a frantaye of approximatcly 212 f~et nn the south side of Lincoln Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approx(rna[ely 27n fect~ and being located approximately 53~ feet east of Che centerline ~f Laara Street. Propcrty presently classifiecl HL (IIIL~USTR111L~ LIMITEp) ZONE. No one indica~ed their presence fn opposition to the su~ject item; and~ althouqh the Staff Report to the Plan~i~g Comrr~ission daceci Play '3y 1911, was not read at tt~e publ ic hearing, it is referred to and made a part ot the rninutes. Mr. Dob CampbPll, 4Q9 South Fann Street, Anaheim~ representiny the property owne ~~ appeared before tl~c P 1 ann i ii~~ Gomn i ss i on and rev i ewed the proposa 1. TNE PUDI.IC HEARING WAS GLOSFU. In response to yuPsti~ning by Commission to explain special circunstances applicable to the subject property which w~~uld justify approval of Che proposed waivers, Nr. C ampbell nated the lot was irregularly st~aped anJ that other nearby parcels have 3-f~ot landscaped setbacks. Commissioncr lierbst agreed with the irregular lot shape but noted it appeared the petitioner was overbuilding the site and qucstioneJ whether the other nearby parcels were comr~ercially or tndustrially z~r~eci. .~oel Fick~ Associate Ptanner, noted there might be a difference: in the zoning. Comrnission noted a certaln amount of retail use in an industrial area has previo usly been approved in conneccion with conditional use permtts and tl~at the pro~~osed use ap psared to be reasonable, however, thz prpposed landscaping waiver did not aprear to be Ju stlfied. In response to questioning by Mr. Campbell~ Commisslon reiterated thaC a 10-fao t landscaped setback was necessary in tl~e ML Zone and that ttie development plans could be appropriatcly modified. 5~9/77 ~ M I I~UTC S~ C I TY PLANI~ I I~G COMM I S~ I ON ~ Nay 3~ ~ 9 77 VARIANCE N0. 2932 (~o~tlnucd) 77-322 Comm) ss (~ncr Tol ar of fer~~ a mat 1 on ~ seconded by Commiss i on fiornes end M6T I ON CAh't I CD (one seat being vacant)~ that the Anaheini City Plenniny Ct~mmissl~n has revtewed thP subJect pro)ect, conslsting of a pro{~osed lndustriel buildlnywitt~ walvers of ~sermitted accessory uses and m( n irnum I andscap i ng on appr~xirnate ly ~. ~ acre of 1 ancl in th~ ML 7.one f ront i ng on tlie sputh side uf l.In~oln Avenu~:~ ap~~roximat~ly y35 feal east c-f thr. centerline of Loara Street. and daes hereby reconxnend Co Clia City Councll of the City of Anaheim that a Negati ve Ueclaratton from the requi rcme:nc to prepare an envi ronmental i mpact report be appraved for the suhJect property on the basis thet chnre would be no s lgn i ficant tndividual ur cumulative odverse envir~~mental ~mpact due to the aprroval of this Nogative Declaratton since the Anat~eim Genera) Pien desic~nates the subject property for yeneral .o~nnerelal lar~d uses conmensurate with the propc~sal; tliot nCarby {~rc~pertles are dcveloped Mith simf ler u~es; that n~ scnsitive ~nvfronrnent.~l elemerits are invAlved In thc praposal, ~nd the (nitial 5tudy submltteJ by the applican~ InJlcates no slynificant individual or eumulailve adverse: eiivironn~ental impacts; and that the I~egatlve Ueclaratlon substantlating thc foregoin~~ ~tndinys 1n on filc in thc ~fficc of thc Plannlnq Ucportmcnt at City Hall. Com~issioncr Tolar offereJ Ras~~lution No. PC77-10' and moved for its passac~c and adopt(on, that the Anahcim (,ity Planniny Cummisslon Joes hcreby grant Petition for Varlance Na. 2y32~ in part~ denylny the rc~tuestc~d waiver of minimum landscaping on the basis that the petittoncr dld not Jemo~stratc that a hardshfp would bc crcated if said waiver wa5 not yranCeci SinCr_ thc subjcct pmpcrty can bc devclo~~e~l in acc~~rd.311Gr, with the Nl. site development slandards; anc1~ further~ approviny the reque:sted waiver of permitted accee~snry uses to allow rctail distrtbutluri of products prod~ced on the premises on th~ basis tFat sim(lar waivers of permi[ted accessory uses in an in~iustrla) zone hav~ previously tsee:- granted; that tiie subject praperty~ al[houqh zoned industrially~ has been designated for general commerclal uses by thc Anahclrn GenPra) Pl~n; that ocher nearby (ndustrial propert(es I~ave been develo{~ed wi th sim( la~ co~r~nercia) uses; .~ncl subJect co tt~e Interdepartmental Committee reconme;nclati~ns. (See ftesolution EiooG.) On roi 1 call~ the f~reyoiny resulutian was passe~l by the followin~ vote: AY~S: CON-1~~:,IONLItS: flARNES~ HLRbST~ I:ItIG~ TOLAR, JQIINS01~ NOES: CON~11 ~S I G~IE:HS : IJUi~l AEiSEI~T : CU~",t91 SS I O~~C{~S ; UAV i U YACANCY: ONC SEAT E 1 R CATEGORI CAL [:XEMPT I Ofl - HU(3L 1 C HEAR II~G. ROBERT E, ANU MAY L. vlOi1 G, 1200 Wes[mont Drive~ Anaheim~ cn y2~~t~~ (Owners); ANGELA HARVEY. 60y Ve~tura, CONUITIOt~AL USE Apt. I~ Anaheim~ CA g2~G1 (Agent); requesting 0~I-SALE dEER RERMIT I~O. 1J04 ANU NINE I~i AN EXISTII~G RESTAURANT on praperty described as a re:,tangularly-st~aped parccl of land co~sisting of apnroxi- mately .G~ acre haviny a frontaqe of appraximately 130 feet on the south ~icle of La Palma Avenue~ tiaving a maximum deptl~ of ap~rox?rnately 23~ feet~ beiny located approximate~~ 2:)0 feet west of t~~e cent~rl (ne of Magnol i a Avenue, and further Jescribed as 2~2fi We,t La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified Cl (GONMERCIl1t,~ LIMiTEU) ZO~~E. fJo one i ndi cated tliei r presence i n opposi tion to the sub ject i tem; and ~ a 1 though the Staff Repor t to the P 1 ann i ny Commi ss i on dated May 9~ 1977 ~~aas not ~ead a t the pub I i c liear i ng ~ i t is referred to ancl mad~ a part of tt~e minutes. 5/9/77 ~ '`r ~, MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIf~G COMMISSION~ May 9~ 1977 77`323 COf~DITI0Nl1L USE~PERM_T N0~1704 (Go~~tinued) The petitioner appeared bafare the Plenn(ng Comm(ssion and nnted she had no comnents ta make but was avallabl~ ta answer ques~ions regarding the proposal. TNE PUDLIC ~~~ARINr, wA5 CI.OSEU. Comrnissloner Kiny not~d that i~e had a confl (ct af fnterest as def(ned by An~heim City Plenning Cammission Resoiution No. P:7(,-1~7 adopting a Ca~i~~ct of I~terest Codc for the Plann i ng Ccrnm( ss ion and Government Code Sectton 3625, ec seq. ~ in that hC owned cortxnon stock ir~ Pacific Ligl~ting Gorporatlan and Dunn Properties~ tt~e dev~loper of tha property to the tmmeJlate nortfi of the subject property~ was assaciated with sald corporation; tliat. pursuant tu tl~e provislons of thc abovc coJcs~ hc was declaring to th~ ChAi~man that he was withdrawiny from the I~carin,y ln connectlon with it~m 1~0. 7 of the Plannlny Comnisslon agenda and would not take {~art in efther thc discusslon or the votiny tliereon; and tliat he had not d(scusseJ trils metter with any member of the Planning Commission. TIIER~UPON~ COHMISSIONER KING LEFT TNE CqUNCIL C1IAMBER AT li:QB P.M. Following a sliort Jiscuss(on concerning the proposed use~ it wAS noted that the Oirectar of th e Planninc~ Department hac~ determined that the proposed activity fell within the deflnitlon of Sectlon 3.~1. Class 1~ of the Anahelm City Guidelines to the kequlrements for an Environmental Imp~ct Report and was, therefnre, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. CcHnmissioner Ilerbst off~red Resolution No. PC17-iQ2 and mc~ved far its passaye and adoption~ that t~ic Anaheim C(ty Planning Coiri~iisslon dae5 hereby c~r~nt Petition fo~ Condi tional Use Permi t No. 110~+~ tc~ perml t on-sale b~cer anJ wir~e in an existlny resCaurant; and subject to the. interdepartmental GAMInIt1CC recmmendaeion. (See Reso 1 ut i on E~ook) On roll call~ the fore.yoi~~y resolution was passc~ by the folluwing vote: AYES: COHIIISSIOrJEIZS: (3ARNt5~ IIf:R(fST~ TOLAR~ JoH1~5oN NOES : COMt~11 SS I OI~ERS: NONI ApSENT: COHHISSIUNERS: DAVI~, KItIG VACArICY: OtIE SEAT CONMISSIONER KIP1G RETU~NEU TO TNL COUHCIL CNANBCR AT 4:1Q P.M. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEHPTION - PUOI.IG t1E.ARIt~G. ~EAM Ii1VC5TftEt~T COMP/1F~Y~ 2~50 East La Jo1Ia Street~ Anaheim, CA y2307 (Owner); DON J. CARSQN. CONDITIONAL USE 1f3~12 Rainier Drive~ Santa Ana~ CA 927~~5 and NILLIAM S. PERMII' N0. 1J05 FRANTZ~ (,3~ East Chapman Avenue~ Oranye, CA 926f~G (~`,gents); requPStiny permission to E5T/1BLISi~ TRUCr. AND TRAILER STORAGE 411T11 WAIVER OF PERMI7TED OuTD00R USES an property described as a rectanyularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately l.a acres haviny a frontage of approx(nrately 2J0 feet on tl~e east siJe of Red Gum Street, tiaving a maximum depth of approximately 29i: feet~ and being locatsd approximately 3~0 feet south of Che center- line of La Jolla Street. Property presently classified ML (INUUSTRfAL, LIMITED) ZON~. f~a one indlcated their presence In opposition to tfie SUbjCGL item; and, although the Staff Repo rt to the Planning Commission dated May 9~ 1977~ was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minu~es. 5/9/77 1, M 1 ~~UTk:S ~ C I TY PLANN I Nf, COMN i SS I ON ~ Mey y, 19 77 CONOITIONAL U5E NEaMIT ~~0. 1705 (Continusd) .~.~.~ ~ . ,~ 77-3~~+ Mr. Bill Frantz~ 635 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, rdprasenting the prop~rty awne~~ appeared before the Planniny Corn~nisslon and nated the only comment he I~ad to make was that he felt it was a sllylit m(snomer in the steff report to idcntify the proposal as e storage yard when it was more nf a s~rvice yarJ. 11e indlcated that within the ncxt 12 to 2~- manths tl~ey anticipateJ constructlon ~f servtce facillt(es after whtch tlme al) melntenance w~uld be done inslde a builcling and the outdoor use wc~uld con3ist solely of overnight parking for the vel~icles; ond tl~at chey agreed to tnstall perimetc~r fenc~ng as requlred to screen ths pro{~osecl ouCdoor use from adJacent proper[ies~ as requireci. TIIE PUULIG iICARII~G WAS CLOSEt1. Staff noted that ti~e Zoninc~ Code specif(es that all outdoor uses shall be screened end shall n~t bc visiblc from adjacent propertles~ In otl~er words~ if thc item stored aulduurs is 10 feet hlyh~ the Zoniny Codc wo~ild require a 10-foot htuh fence. I n response to quest ion i ng by Commi ss ion ~ Mr. Franez noted tti~at tf~ere wc+ul c1 be n~ rento 1 af outdoor storage space ancl thr~t tfia proposcd use was for ttic petitioner only. Commission Jiscussc~i th~~ proposed usc: consistiny of the out~o~r storA9e of crucks and trailers with (ncidental liglit outdoor maintc:nance and determined the outdoor maint~nance would be limite~ to a two-ycar pcrind~ followiny whicli tin~ bulidinys would be constructed and all n~aintenance w~uld be coi~ductc~i in~oors. 11r. FranL.z agreed with th~ C~mmission's interpretation of tl7c use anJ reiteratc~ his willingness Ca cvmply witF~ all site screening requ i remen ts i n thc Ml. Zonc . It was noted that thc Director of thz Planning '.lepartment had de[~rmincd ~h~t the proposed activity fell within the cS~flnition of Sectiun 3•O1, Classes 1 and 3~ of the City of Anahefm Guidet(ncs to tiie Requirements for an Environmental Impact Repc~rt and was~ therefore. cate~orically exempt fran the requirement to file an EIR. Commissioner licrbst offereJ aes~lution t~o. PC7~!'1~3 and rr~veci for its passage ancf adoption, that tf~e An~heim City Piannii~g Conxnission does hereby c~rant Petition for Condttional Use Permit No. 17~~~ in parc, to pcrmit truck, tract~r~ and trailer stnrage witl~ waiver of p~rmitte~ autdoo~ uses b~:iny limited to a t(me period of two years an the basis tliat tlie petitioncr inciicated the praposed outdoor use consistin~ of outdoor truck maintenance wc~uld be relocated ta a buiiding which was anticipated ta be constructed witl,in the next tw~ years; said ~utdcx~r rnai~tenance uses consi,tiny of washing and cleanln~~ tractors and trailers~ tirc changing~ oil changing an~1 lubrication of the equipnent~ minor engine tune-up, anJ rninor repa3rs to and servicing of equipme~t, as specified by ttie petitioner; tliat the petitioner scipulated to conplying with the site screening requirements of tf~e ML Tone; anJ subject to tt~e Inter•departmental Committee recommendations. (See Rssclution ~vok) On roll call. tlie foregoii~g resolution was passed by [tie foll~wing vote: AYES : C011N I SS I UNEkS : UARNES ~ HER(iST ~ KI 11G ~ TOLAR, JONt15~~! NOlS: COM~IISSIUNLkS: NOPJE ABSENT: COMMISSIOtJ1:R5: UAV{U VACAtJCY : ONC SEAT 5/~/77 ~, MINUTES~ CITY PIANNIFIC GOMMISSION~ MAY 9~ 1977 77-325 EIR NEGATIVC DECI.ARATION - PUfiLIC NEARING. STEPNEI~ NOPY,INS UCVEI.OPItE~IT COHPANY~ ~3~3 Avocado~ Sulte 225, Newport Beach~ CA ~2~~(~~ (Owner); COt~U1710NAL USL SIIORT STOP URIVE-'~tIRU~ 14b4 N. Glassell~ Orangc~ CA 926G7 PE.RM1~ N0. 1~ (Aycnt); rr.questinc~ permisston to E~TABLISII A DRIVC-T1IROUGII - RESTAURANT WIT11 WAIYtR OF MIN111UM I~UMBER OF PARKI~IG SPACES on property JesGrlb~~f ~s .~n IrrPgularly-shape~l p~rcel of land cons(stinc~ of approximately 0.3 acre liaviny a front~g~ of approximately 163 feet on the west sldc of hcllogg Drlve~ havlny a n-oximum depth ~f approximately 1~5 fcet~ beiny located ap~rox(matcly 115 feet no~th of tha centr.rlinc of Oranyetl~orpe Avenue~ and further descrlbed a~ 11n3 ~~"~1099 prive. PropcrCy presently classified CI. (COMMkRCIAL~ LIMITCq) 20PIC. Frank Lowry~ Assistant City Attorncy~ noted that prior to consicleration of thts item and Item No. 1~ (GonJ(ii~nal Usc Permit Nv. 17~7) he hA~i Indic,~ted he had a potentlal conflict eonc~rniny s~bject petit(on since I~c liveJ (n the vicinity of tlie subJect property and~ therefore, lic had requeste~f a temporary po5tponement until 1f~~ O~puty Clty Attorncy could arrlvG to repiace hE~i Juriny tl~e hearing; lie alsu nc~ted [hat he was probably being overcautlous but w~s wi tt~Jrawi ng from the n~eetinc~; that Jack Whi te, Deputy C) ty llttorney~ had arrived and would take f~is nlacc for the duration of the discussion concerning subJect petition. 11R. L~~JRY TEMPQRARILY LEFT TIIE COUNCIL CIIAt1GCR AT ~+:2; P.M. No one in~iicatecf their presence ln npposition to the subject petitio~, and~ although the Staff Report co the Planniny Commissian date~f May 9~ 19J1~ waS no[ rcad at the public hearing~ sai~i staff report is referred to ancl ma~c a nart of thc minutes. Mr. E. UeMar Baron~ presiJent of Shor[ Stap Urive-Thru~ a~tei~t fc~r thc propcrty owner~ appeared before the Planninc~ Comniission and noted Sornc af the numbers in the staff report should be revised; Itcm ~ shuuld re~d ~ to ~ employces (rathcr than 7 to 11); Item 8 pertaininy to the available parkir~y in tiic cxistinr~ shoppiric~ center should read that the peti tic~ner intends to remove 12 ex(stin~~ s~>aces (ratt~er than G) ~ thereby reducing the total numbar of excess parkirzg spa~es for the shopt~iny centc~r to "l~ (rather than ;~~) ; and that incluJiny thc subject propusal~ ~ excess parl,in~3 spaces wou1J bc provided in the shopping center ultimately (rather tt~on 11). Ile ti~en revicwrecJ the proposal and indicatPd approxiinately a13~6 of tlic subject property would be open land, ZO'L is landscaped and 53~ consists of parkiny. TNE PUBLIC NEARII~G WAS CLOSt~. Discussion ensueJ cancernin~,~ tl~e curr~nt parkinc~ situatian in the st~oppiny center~ noting there may not be adequate p~rkiny at this timc and that [t~e proposal could reduce the availabllity further. In response to questioning by Commission~ Mr. aarort indicated he had not observed any parking deficiencies; he has not taken any photoyrapl~s to So in~icate; and that the anticipated business hours wou1J be from midclay to the evenin~. Further ~iscussion ensue~ reyardirig tf~e parking avallability on the suoJect property in ~elation to tlie shoppiny center. It w2s noted if Short Stop D~ive-Thru t~as an agreeeient with the shUppi~~g center~ no parklny waiver would be necessary in tl~at a sufficlent number of parkiny spaces would be available. 5!9l77 ~.. 'ti . MINUTES~ GITY PL.ANNItJG GOMMIS510N~ May 9~ 1977 CONUITIOI~AL USE: PE.RMIT I~O. 1ZOG (Continued) i ~' 17-32G In res~nse to quQStionln~~ by Commission~ aob Cxcl~ rf~prescnting liopkins Uevelopment Ccxnpany~ indic,~ted thc subJect property~ alt~~ough integretcd wlth the shopping center~ wes being solcl as a s~pnrate porcel to Mr. t3aron; that Cf,'tas have bcen racorded for the entire sho~~piny c~nt~.r and proviJe f~r tt-c stinred uss of all tlie parE:lnq facilitles; thet Stat~r Drothers enJ Clie other xenants' approval wauld be squght for communlty parl;tng uses. Thc Planniny Commissi~n and Mr. White Jiscussed thc posslbility of ubtaining a parklny agreament wl~ich w~wld obviate thc need for the reaue,teJ waiver; ond It was noted that the condltional use perm(t w.is still n~ecled for the cl~•ive-through reskaurant regardless ~f the parklny. CommiSSfoner E~arnes as~.eJ whether oi~c property cwner miyht Fx~ssibly fence aff his parking frcx~~ tha rcmalnder of thc areo. Mr. Lxel respondecl the CCF,Rs would prohtt,it that and wauld elso specify that the eventual sale of propcrty must bc ap~~roved by all parttes to the CCGRs. Cammissioner 4lerbst notcJ ti~at sh~pping cencr.rs typically appeared to develop wi[h c~nly the mtnirnum numbcr of parkiny sp~~ces reyuire.i; thAt customr.rs of ttir~ drlve•through resteurant could pick up lunch and drive to onc of tl~e parkiny spaces to cat; that all c~rivc-throti~h restaurants appcar to havc pc.~l;-hour parl,iny ~roblems; and that GCbRs can he challeng~d and are not always upheld, Mr. 41h(te noted that CCSRs are a pr(vate rnatter and tP~at chc City cannot enforce them. Further cliscussion ensued rey~rJ~~~e~ the cffeGtiveness of CC~Rs in gu~rant~eing adequat~~ an-altc: parkiny for tha entire 5hoppiny ,:enter. I[ was notecf Uy Cornmission that slnce the C t ty cannot enforce the CC~,Rs, i t i s thr: Ccxrm i ss ion `s rr. sE~ons I b i I i ty to rnake sure adequate parkl~y is available. In respc~nse ta questioninr~ by Comrnissl:~n, Mr. Excl notcd Statcr (irothers and a i tquc~r store -rill be rnrneJ Gy Che same p~rty within the next G') days and basic:ally there will be two pr~~erty ow~iers: Stiort Stop Driv~~:-Thru and th~e owner of tf~c rest of the st~opping center. Commisstoner Tolar sug_ycsted thc pe.itioner gec a Ict[er from thc atfter property owner giving an lrrevocable riyht t~ par~ in~ to s~3ic! petitloner, thereby elirninatin~ the risk. factar oF the CC~:Rs; and nc~teJ [h~~: t~e feels the center miyht still be ovefcrowdr,d for this additional use. Gommission notea that juniur anJ senior high schoals and apartments arc located nearby. Further discussion ensuecl reyordi-iy the availabili[y of parklny; th~~t ~i of tl~e parking spaces rnight be utilize~ by the employees of thc proposal; that the parkin~ si*.uati~~ should bc taken care nf I,cforc the drive-through restaurant is considered; and that a continuance might be ap{~ropri~f.e until the petitioners can get an a~reement re9ardiny the parkinu. In respanse to questioning by thc Cor~mis~ion, Mr. E.xel sta[ed tl~at if a parking agreement could not be accom~lished withiri the nexL sevcn days~ il would not ~e agreed upon at a~l. 5/9/71 ~' , . M ~ NUTFS ~ f ITY PI.ANNI Nf; Cf1MM 1°,S I ON, Mey 9~ 1977 17'317 CONDITIONIIL USL' PERMII' N0. 1 OG (Continued) ........~... Commisstoner 1lerbst statecl tt~at thls parce) does not stond un Its own but Is an interrat~d part of the shUpping center an~1 aJequate parking must h,e shuwn for the ~ntire proJect. oerhaps by rneans c~f wri tten ( rrev~~cable a~raor~ents. Joel Flck~ llssociotc Planncr~ noteJ if this iten~ Is t~ bc continucd~ It would be appropriate that thc petiCiuncr subrnit an overall si[e plan of thc shoppiny cent~.r sincc only a Ict[cr has becn subrnitte~f substitintlattng the uthc~ uses And nun~cr of pa-~klny speces avall~blc; tl~at it. t~acJ becn bro~.aght ta staff's attent(on tl~crc is 3n exlstinc~ restaurent on th~~ sir.c havin~,~ a yreater parking requirsn~ent than gcneral ret~~!I uses as were spectf{eJ by thc petitloner's lc~.tcr. Cunrnissiu+~ I~~~S{cate.i +t would bc hcl~~ful to havc a car eount tak.en in the n~rkinc~ 1~7t nt various tiiT~es; that nt~ut~~yraphs takc~~ at intcrv~~ls thrnughout the day and on voriaus days of the week ~nlyht bc aprro~riate; anJ that~ sp~cifically~ infc~rma[io-- reyarding vacant parkin~ spaccs at i~c~k hours (for ir~stanc~. 4;00 p,m, afccr sr.hoal is o~.,r.) wauld be appropr I at~~ . Commissi~ ~+er E~drI1C5 Uffered a nr~tlon, seconded by Commissioner Y,ing and MOT101~ CARRIED (one sn.~: , ny l~ci n~~ vacant) , that th i s i tem be continue~i for two weeks as ~greed to by the pettr ~: -, tc, hlay '!3, 191J~ in ur~l~r that a parkiny a~areement co~ild be obia(ned and an ove:r ~ts i~lan sN~~c:ifyiny the land uses anJ number of parkin~i spaces cauld be 5 ubr~ , .; . MR- '~~Z~ ~~ ~..RIIE~ TO TfIE COUlJCIL CIIN10kR A7 ~-:45 P.N. ~~~ :'IUC DECLARATIQtI - PUpLIL HE/1RING. LENIS R. ANU JU~~I lli SCIII+IU, 1G$1 LanylPy Aveiiue~ Irvine~ CA y271~~ (Owners); S.C.G. PROPERTIES~ ;~~~u. t"~ r-t1AL USE 1681 Lang 1~y Avcnue ~ I rv ( ne ~ cn 927 t~{ (Agen t); rcques t i ng ~* ~I" ~~li. 17~7 permissfon ta ES7AliLISN A RECREATIQtIAL FA~ILITY on property describeci as an irregularly-shaped parcel of tand consist~ iny of approximately 2.~ ac-•es locate~ at the southwest ;4,~r~.~r of Katella Avenue anJ Uouylass Strcet, having approx.imatc frontagss of 'L15 feet or thc. south side of Y.atella Avenue and 40Q fect an thc west side of Douglass Street. -h-roprrty ~rescntly classifi~d NL (It1UU5TRIAL~ LIMITCJ) zo~~e. N~ ~ne indiGated thetr presence in opposition to the subject item; and~ althnugh !he Staff ~s,~ort t the Planning Commission clated May 9~ 1977~ was not read at the publlc hearing~ it is r~terred to and made a part of the min~tes. +1r. Steve Groat~ 16~1 Lanyley Avenuc~ Irvine~ representiny the property owner~ indicated that the proposal was a men and womens` athletic facility~ consistin~ of 2Q racquetball courts~ ana that the facility would alsa inclucfe a weic~ht program and exerc~se classes. He further indieateu chat altliough it was not sh~wn on the current plans~ they anticipated construction of an outdoor swirtminy pool in the future. In respon;e to Chairman Johnson's question~ Mr. Groat indicated that tl~ere were no particular ttems he wished to bring to the Commisston's atCention. TIIE PUBLIC HEARIt~G WAS CLQSE:D. 5/9/77 ~~ 4 ~~,, i MINIITFC~ f.ITY PLANI~INf± COMMISS~IQN~ Mqy 9~ 1'177 ])-37f~ C01~_TIUNAL USE PERM;T ~~0. 1707 (Contlnucd) Chalrman J~hns~n noted the City had no rninfmum parking stanclords f~r the specific use as proposeJ and~ ttiereforc. I~~d the petllluncr stu~lled the parkiny needs of simllar rec~eatlonol facilitles? Mr. Groat answeri~d ttiey had reviewed similar facilltles in 5c~utt~ern Callfornia ~nd foun~i thusc facilities averayeJ at,out 2.1 perkiny spaces pr..r c~urt. and that the ~~ropc~s~l suppli~~l r~re than were provided by those facll(ties, Gorrxn(ssioner Talar questfuncJ whc[f~er the petitioner was familir,r with thc facillty in tht~ Corona-I~orca area j ust af f tlic R1 vcrs 1 de FrcewAy ~ an~ that sa i cl fac i 1 1 ty ap~eareci to h.~ve quito a bit af parkin~. Mr, Groat answnre~i he hsci not seen tliat ~artitu'ar facillty. (n response ta questioniny by Comrntssioner Ktny c~nccrniny Itcm ly of the staff report~ P1r. Sroat inJicated they ftia~f secured a tra'f~c consultant at thr onset c±f thtc ~,mJ~ct ~nd that they had hfs recomnx~nJation in writiny~ an~ that tl~ey woul~f comply with the requirements of the Gity 7raftic Enyiricer regarJiny [he cc,ntrol uf .~ccess tc~ Y.atell~ Avenue. Commissioner Kiny offerecf a rnoti~n~ seconded by Conriissi~ner Tolar and NOTIO~~ CARRIEQ(one seaC being vacant), that thc Anaheim Planniny CUt-K~lI55IOh has reviewed tl~c subjer.t proJcct conslsting of a privatc recreational facility on a~proxi~:wtely ?.,~ acres of land locat~d at the southwest corner of Katella Avenuc and Uouglass Street~ and does hereby recammend to the City Councll of the City of Anaheim tha[ a Neyative ~eclaratton from the requlrement to prepare an environmental lmpact report be ap~sroved for [he subject property on thr basis that there wc~uld be no significant individual c~r cumulative adv~rse environrnental impact Jue to the app roval of this Ne~~ati~ic Declaratlon slnce the Anahelm General Plan designates the subject pra~erty for qene~al fnclustrial land uses commensurate wltti the proposal; that no sensitlv~ env(ronnkntal elements are involved in the proposal; and the Initlal Study subeiitted by the applicant InJicates no significant individual or cumulativc adverse enyiron~nental ir~pacts; an~ that tt~e Neyative Ueclar~tion substan[iatiny the foregoing fin~inys is on file in thc office of the Planning Department at City Nall. Cortmissioner King ~~ffere~ Resolution No. PC77-10~~ anci ~i~vcd for its passage an:f adoption. tl~at Che Anahetm City Planniny Commission doPS hereby gr~nt Petition for Conci(tional Use Permit No. 1707, to permit a private r~crcational facility subJeGt tc~ the peticloner's stipulation thac a solid landsc~ped mE:dian would be cor~structeJ In Y.atella Avenue !n front of the subject property to prohibi C left tur•ns. and suuject to the lnterdepartmc~nta) Comnittee recor~unendations. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the t~~regoiny resolution was passer! by th~ following vote~: AYES: C0111•11SSIOt~E(;S: BARNES, IIE:RD57, KING~ TOLAR. JOtIf~SON NOES: COMMISSIONCR5: NOI~E ABSENT: COMMISSIO!aERS: DIIVIU VACANCY; O~~E SEAT 5I9/77 '~" ~ MINUTES~ CIlY PLIINNING COPiMISS10N~ May 9. 1977 77-3z9 ENVIRONMEN7AL IMPACT - DCVELOf'ERt ANAIIEIH f11LL5 CORP.~ 3A~ Anahelm I~ills Roed~ R~PORT N0. 1~ Anaholrn~ CA )2$01. EIJGINCF.R: VTN CONSOLIUl1TCD, INC. ~ 23~1 Campus Drlve~ Irvine, CA ~3266~. SubjeGt D-'~DC~ty~ TEI~TATlVG MAP OF consistiny of approximr~taly 8.~ ~cres located rppruximately TRACT ~~0. 9021 34; feet south of thr. ce.itcrllne of Nohl Ranc,i aoad~ approximately fi7!, fcec wost of tl~e centerllne .~f Solomon Urivr~ is proposed for subJtvlsiun Into 21, RS-it:,-10~~QQ(SC) lots. No one appe~red in appositiun to subjcct petit~on. Althaugh tf~e Staff Report to thc Plann(ng C~m;,iission dated May ~~ 1~JJ, w~~s nat read at ti~e puhlic h~ariny, it is referrcd co a~~~ made a part nf the minutes, Mr. Philip Uettencourt~ Vice Presi~lc~~t ~~~' I'ut~lic llffatr;~ Anahe+m Hills~ Inr,, the petitloner~ app~ared before thc Pla;.~iin~a Cnmmisslon and Indlcaced he was in agreement with the I ntcrd~:pvrtrnenta' Comml ttce recommendat fons regardi ny tl,e: tr~ct buc woul d! i kc to submit some additionai inforriatic,n. Nc noted that the EIR analysis In~licates split-levcl pads had becn utflizecl ~n a numl,cr of lots~ thereby rcJucing th~ yrading (he displayed said lots on a wal) map) and notecl thc EIR evaluation utill:~~ cost/bene`it informatlon. He further noted that a waiver of thr; IaL I inc rer,uircr^•sncs of thc Hillsidc GraJi~~<~ Ordinance ls beiny requesteJ; tli~~t bec~use Uf cummonly-used lanciform grading techniques~ It is difficult to place ali lot lines Un che top uf slup~; and that the res{~onsibllity for maintatnlnc7 said slope areas falls tc~ con~munity associations. Fle further noted there was an error i n the s taf f re~rt: i tem Ilo. 5 slu~u! d i ncl i cat:• the uens ( ty ~f the proJect is approx(n~ately 2.~ units pcr acre (nat ZU); that thc permittcd density in the RS-NS- 10~000 ~onc is approxirnaicly 3,); ~nits pcr acrc; and tf~at thc ~~roposal Is a reduct~on in dens i ty f rom th~ use approved i n cunncc t ion wi th tt~e Anahe i m il I I I s P 1 anncd Coi+mun 1 ty. ~1r. 9ettencourt comn:entpJ on th~ mitiyation measures suygr.steJ by [he Orange County UntfleJ Sehool Uis~rtct; tl~at I~r. Selby~ tf~c Uistrlct Planner, was present ~arlier but h~id to leave; that the mitiyation n~casures identifled on paye 23 of the EIR were im~lei.~~~.ntrd by the Orange Unified School Uistric[ iiaard on March 2~+~ ~;~71~ an~l incluclc the follow(nr.: expanded busing servic~. for studr.nts att~ndinc~ Imperial Cler~enta ry Schoal; an adjustment in attendancc area bou~ti~arics to ac~:ommodatc stuJe~ts for the Fall opening cf Anaheim Hills Elementary 5ch~~ol; tlie ad~iition of porcaole cl~ssrooms at Canyon H(yh School for che 1977'7~~ sr,hoo) y~ar; anJ the a~dition of a p?lot proyram for ycar-rou~d schools at both Canyon an~! ~1 Rancho Juniur Iliyh Schools in about one and one-half years. He noted that tt~e 21-lot proposal w~uld yiel~l only 2C studen[s ancl~ tficrefore, micigation rneasures were obvipusly not a resul; of this particular proposal bu[ arc in response t~ d~velopment in tiie entire canyon area. TH~ PUBLIC HEARlNG WAS CWSED. In response to cornmentary by the Cor~unissiun (ndicating tt~at the Oranye County Unifled School District i, asking $80~ from each developer per stude~t atte~eiing District schools. Mr. Bettencourt inciicateJ the situation was more c~~mplicated; that the District has adopted a fee policy asking develc~pers to enter into voluntary aQreements with th:.• pistricr; that ane City of Orange efevel~~per c~lled it [he "velvet hammer"; tha; ~aid policy specified an $~00 fee for each "tmpacted student" yielded by a devel~pment; that, fvr exainpla~ if t.he 20 students frorn th?s project are divided into three grades, 5 att~•nding thc~ m!ddls school ~fiich ts over capacity~ $4~0^0 is paid. Ne n~:ed t~e Qistrict cannot legally implernent such a fee on i[s own initiative; that it has to rely on the >/9/77 MII~UT~S~ CITY PIANI~lNG COM-iISS10t~~ May 9~ 1977 77-330 EIR N0. 199 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 9821 (CantPnued) pc~wer of the cities relative to tl~Q Subdivislan Map Act; t~at tlia proposal h~s been under conside~atfon by a Jolnt City Councll Committee of thie Cities of Oronge and Anaheim; that Gouncllme~ Roch and K,ott are mernbers of tl~e Anaticim contingent; and tl~ai IIACWIC has invlted the Oistrict to makc a proposal. In response to questloniny 6~~ Conrnisstoncr Herbst reyar~iing whetl~er the fce wauld be spent in the erea or does it ~o intu a ycneral fund. !1r. ~ettencourt (ndlcated (t ~~+-~arently went into a restricted funJ; that he belir.vas there is abaut $200~~~~ currently collected from five I~omebullders in tlie east ~ran5+e area; and that the 9istrict has indicated no approprlatlc~n can be madc frpm -hat fund without specific cction bciny Caken at a public meetiny of the Uo~rd, in othcr wards~ it wnulcJ not bc at staff's discreti~n 'ta spend the mon~y. He furCher in~iceted he tt~ought the District'S N1~n for thc ncxt tcn years invulv~d about SiS r+illios~ in ne,~~ r,chaal fACtlicles; that thc bistrict was h~~pin9 the butlder fec would raise about onc-thirJ; and that the bala~~c.^ would comc from either a State school bui ldin~~ al~.l lu.~~~ funJ uverridc clect(on or a~ac~cral nhl i~.~tl~n I,ond. Gomrnissianer Ilerbst nuced the biyc~est problern for Analieim iiill; is tlie vot(ng of the dc~wntown Gity of Orangc~ residents, said residcnts not supportir~g a bond i5sue for Anaheim Hills; that he felt tliis is a ~+~ajor prot,lem; an~ that thA entire Orange Unifted Schonl D;strict would havc tu support expanslon proposals ratl~cr than An.~hcim Hflls supportin~ itself. Commisslone~ Tolar n~[ed approxirnately two-thirds of the prapertv caxes yo to the School Uistrict; that to further tar, the developer is coercive; that Jeveloprnent ls mad~ more difficult; that he vi~w~r5 the Uistric['s proposal as anothcr tax; and that the use of these funds shauld be specific. CcxTx~lssioner E~arnes nated the Schv~l U(strict ha~ recetit!y distribu*,ed a costly, four- c~lo~~ ylussy sumn~er school scheJule. Mr. Bettencouri noteJ that Yhie official spokesman fcr Che Uistrict, George Simpson~ Ass(stant Superintendent. mad~ a presencacion cc~ the City of Ora~i_yc Plannin~ Commission and would perhaps welcorne appearin~~ befc~re tt~is Commission with tl~eir views on the sub j~ct. Mr. Tolar noteJ t~e had n<~ problems with the development ~~rc,pvsal and tl~at It was a nice project. Commissioner Tolar ~ffered a motion, seconded by Car,xnissiurs~~r Kiny and MQTI01~ CARRIED (one seat beiny vacant)~ that Environmenta~l impact Report ~20. 199, supplem~nting master EIR P~o. 80) for the proposeci development of 21 resldential i~ts on the ~.9-acre site locAted south of I~ohl Ranch RoaJ and west of Solomcm Drive, F,aving been considered this date by the Anaheirn City Planniny Commission and evidence, hoth written and oral~ having bee;~ presented to supplement saiJ Jr~ft EIR No. 19~. tlie Planniny Con~mission finds that (a) potential project-genera[ed (ndividual anef c~~muiatlve adverse lmpacts have been reduced to an (nsignificar~t level Jue to the low density propusal and (b) the subject draft EIR I~o. 199 ~onforms to the City and State Guidelines and tl~e State of Ca~ifornia Environmental Quality Act; and~ ~ased upon the foregoiny informati~~n~ the Planniny Commission does hereby reconmend t~ the City C~uncil of the Ctty of Anal~eim that they certify satd EIR No. 199 is in compliance w(tii said environrnenta) quality act. Copies of CIR No. 199 are on file in the Planning Department at City I~all. 5/9/77 _~ V ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLAN~~II~G COMMISSION~ Mey g, 1917 77-331 EIR N0. 1~)9 AND TENTATIVE ~IAP OF TRACT NU_~yES21 (Contfnu~d} Commissioner Tolar ofPered a rnatlon~ seconded hy CortNnissioner King and MOTIf~N CARRIED (one seax ba i ny vacan t) . that the Anahe ~ m C I ty P 1 ann i ng Commi ss i on Jor.s licreby f( ncl that thE proposed subdivison, together with its cJestg~ and improvemenc~ l~t conslstent wlth thc City of llnahcim's General Plan~ pursuant to Govnrnrnent Cadc Section GG~~73.~; and does~ thcrefore, approve Tentativc Map of 7racc I~o, ~321 for twenly-or~e (21) RS-NS-1~~0~0(SC) lots~ subJect to the following condltions: 1. That the opprou.~l of Tantat(ve Map of Tract No. ~3~21 is grented subjcct to thc completia~ of ReclassiFication P~o. 73-7~~~1~G. 2, 7hat sl~ould thls subdivis6on be developed as more tl~an onc subJiviston, each subdivision thercof sh<~ll be yubmit~c~ in t~~nta~iv~ form fcr ~~pprovat. 3. Tliat all lots with(n this tract sl~~ill bc servcd by un~irr~rcunct uril+tles. 4. 7hat a final tract nk~p of subJect propcr[y shal) bc submitted to and approved by the Clty Council anJ then bc recor~c~i in the Officc of ths Oran~Jc Gounty ~~ecorder. ~. That tt~e coven~ints~ condlt'ons~ ~ncJ restric[ions slial) br. subu,icced to and approved by thc City Atturney's Office an~i ~ii~: City En~~ineer pric~r to issu~ince of building pe rm i ts . 6. That prior to issuancc of builJiny permlts~ thc ~ip~~licant shall subrnit to the City Attorney for approval or dr.nial a comple;e synopsis of the propos~ecl function(ng of the operating corporatiun includin~~, but no[ lirnite.f tc~. the arcicles c~f incorporation~ bylaws~ proposcd rnethods of manaycment~ bondiny tn insurc nWintenance of ~ommon property and bulldings, and such o[her infurn~ation as t~~e Gity l~ttorney may ~icsire to protr.ct the C i ty, i ts ci t i zens ~ an~i ti~e purcl~asers of tl~e pruject. J. That slre~t namc:s sh~ll bc apprpved by the Gity Planniny Ue~artment prior r.o approval of a f i nal trac[ in~ip. f3. In thc r_ven[ that subject pr<~perty is Cu bc dlvi~fecJ for tl~e purpose of sale, lease or financinyy a parcel rnap~ tc, record the app~•ove~1 divisfcrn of subjec.t property~ shal l be submi tte~i to ancl appruve~! by [he; C i ty of Anahe ir~ pr ior to a~prov~l of the f i nal tract rnap. 9, That the c~wner(s) of subjec:t ~+roperty sh:all pay to Cl~c City of Anaheim the appro~riate park and recreation in-lieu fees as deterrnined to bc appropriaie by the City C~uncil~ said fees to be paid at tlie time the buil~.iing permit is issuec:. 10. That drainaye of sa(d property s~hall t,e Cisposed of in a manner satisfactory to tt~e City Engineer. If~ in the preparation of tl~e site~ suFficient gradirig is required to necessitate a gradiny perriit~ no work on yradiny ~r~ill be pcrmitted betwePn Octob~r 1>th an~i April 1$th ~nless all reyuired off-sitc drainage facilities liave heen installed and are operative, P~sitive assurancc: shali be prov(cied thP City tliat suct~ drainage facilities will be conpieted prlor to October 1>th. t~ecessary right-of-way for off-site draiRaye facilities shall be deaicateJ to :he C~ty. or the City Council shall have inltiateJ condemnation procee~iings tt~erefor (the costs of which stiall be borne by the developer) prior to the coron~encernent of gradinc; operations, The reGuired drainage facilitlea sl~all bt~ of a size and type sufficicnt to carry runoff waters oriyinating from higher properties through said pro~erty to ultimate disposat as approved by thc City Enqtneer. Said drainage facilities sl~all be the first item of constructian and shall be completed and be functional tl~roughouT tt~e Crac[ and from tt~e downstream boundary of the p~operty ta the ultimate poink of disp~sal prior t~ tiie Issuance of any final building inspectinns or occupancy Nermits. Draina~e distric[ ~eimbursement agreements may be made availabl~ to the developers of said property upon their request. 11. That gradiny~ excavation~ and all other construction activities shal) be conducted in sucli a manner so as to minimize tl~e possibility of any silt originatir~g fron this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through thls proJect. 5/9/77 ~_ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNII~G COMMISSION~ May 9~ 1`)?7 EIR N0. 199 AND TENiATIVE MAP OF 7RACT tiU. $21 (Continued) 77-33Z 12. If pcrmanent street name slyns liave tiot been installed~ temporary street name signs sh~ll be Installed prlor to any occuprncy. 13. That fire hydrents stiall be Installed and charged~ as required and determ(nod to bo ~ec~ss~ry by tl~~ Chief ~f thc Firc. Oepartme~t~ prlor to cc,mmenc:ement af structural framing. 14. That all structure:, shall confo~m to the scandards and specificatlons oi Flre Zone 4. 15• Th~t prlor tn tf~e issuance af butlding permits~ flnal spec(f(c plot~ floor and elevation plans shall be submltced to the Planning Commission for revlew and approval. 16. In accordanc~ with tt~e requtrements of 5ection 1~.02.0~E7 pertaining to the initia) sale of residenttal h~mes in tlie City of An~helrn Planning Area "B"~ the seller shall provide eacl~ buyer with written Information concernin~ the Anahelm General Plan anJ the ~xistiny 'l.UI1TIly within j00 feet ~f the boundaries of subject tracc. ,.~R CATCGURICAL EY,EIIPTIOIJ - Request to ~bandon a portlon ~f a public utility easemcnt lucotcd at the west side c~f Euclid 5treet~ ABANDONMENT NQ. 7G-{GA north of Gleno~ks Avenuc. it was note~l that Mr. Paul Plotkin I~ad submitted a requc;at for abandonr~~ent of t. e subject existiny public utliity easement; thal the easemencs as tl~ey presently exlst interfr.re witi~ the ~roposcd Jcvelapment of cha slte as ~ small neighborhood shopping center; that the app) icant haJ yranteJ new case~nents [o the Ci ty to acc.ommo~iate the prop~sed developrnent of the property; that an envlronrnen[al revicw of thc proposed abandonment inulcated this project to be cateyori:olly e;cempt fram tiie flling of an environrnental tmpact report undEr tl~e provisions of Section 3•~~~ Class ~~ of ihe City Guidelines; and that the City Enyineer was recominendinc~ approval nf the requested ab<~ndunmen;, Commissioner Klny offered a motior~~ s~econ~ed by Comnissinner Tolar and MOTI~N CARR'ED (~ne seat being vacant). that tMe Anaheim Cicy Planning Commissio~ does hereby recommend to the C i ty Counc i~ of the C 1 ty of A~iahe i m tlia t the rec~ues t to abandon an ex i s t i ng pub 1~ c ut ( 1 i ty easen~nt located ~7t the west side of Euclid Street~ norch of Glenoal:s Avenue~ be approved~ as recommendecJ by the C 1 ty Eny i nee r and based on the foreclo i ny f i nd i ngs ~ a 1 eya 1 descriptlon of said casement being on file at the City. ~ ~ ~ 5/9/77 ~ ~ MINUTCS~ CITY PLAt~NI~JG C0~1t11SSI0N~ May 9~ 1q77 77-333 EIR CATEGOaICl1L EXEMPTION - Raquest to abondon e porti~n of a public ut(lity ~ easement located becwaen TuNa~~ya DrSvc ~nd Narding ADANDONMEI~T ~0. ~JG-17A Avenue. soutl~ of Linc~ln Avenue. _.~. __ ...._._~_ 1 t was noted that Mr. Geral d L. donc~wl tz had submi ct~d e request for t+handanment of thc subJect public utlllty e~~sen~ent; that tl~e subject easement was origlnally acquired in tonnectlon witli a proposed p1An of C1P.VCIOPIIIEIIC of thls propQrty under Condition~l Use PQrmit No. 1~0~ wliich hos slncP been terminated; th~t ti~e applicant hes ch~nged his plans to devclop tliis pr~perty end subsequently requ(res a revislon in the existing easemPnt to acc~xnmodate utility facilitles; that an envi~onrr-~ntal review of the pr~posed abandonment IndicatoJ tl~is proJect to b~ cateyorically exemp[ from tlie fillnq of an environmental irnpaGt report unJer thc provisions of Sectl~n 3.~1~ Class 5, of the City Guidelincs; that the SubJect request had be~n revfewed And apFroved hy tt~e ~~ffectnJ ~icpartments of the City of /lnahelm anJ ~7ffectc:~l outsi~ie a~~en~ies~ and thr. City tngine~r was~ therefore~ rocommendfi~g apnroval uf the rcqucstcd aband~nment. Commissionar Kiny uffcred a nx~lion, seconcled by Comnissioncr Tol~r an~l t10TI~N CAP,R~E~ (one seat beiny v.~cant) ~ that thr City of Mahr.(m f'lanninq Commiss(on dues hereby recommen~l to the City Council of thc Gity of Anahelrn that the ~equ~:st to abandon ~ portion of an existing public utility casem~~nt locat~.J between Topanga Drivc anJ Ilardiny Avcnue~ south ~f Lincoln Aven~~e~ be approved~ as recomn~:nced ~y th~ City Enyineer ancl based on tlie foregoiny findin~s, a icyal descriptiun of sald easement beiny on file at the City. RCPORTS AIlU - I TC~1 A RECOMMEI~DATIONS VARIA~IGI: N0. ':G'_)J+ - Request for an exte~nsion ~f timc for outcloor stor~~~,e of shippiny containers - Property consistiny of ap~ruximately 0.; acre locate~! at ~1~~-52~. Sout~~ Rose Street. The Staff Report to thc Piannin~~ Commission d~.ed May ')~ 1')77~ was pre5enied and made a part of tl~e minutes. It was noted tha~t the applicanc (liowar~i Farrand) t~aJ submittcu a request for an extension of time for Variance No, 2~~`.)~+~ rctro,,ctive [o llpril 2',. 1~)77~ to permit the outdoor storage of shippiny containers on tl~e subject property; that thc subject variance was granted by the Plann(ny Cocrvnission on April 23~ 1~75, for a period of two years~ s~.+bject to revtew and consideration for po~sible time extensions; and that n:~ complai~ts have been received regardin,y the container storaye since the approval of subjec.t variance. Commissloner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Cunxnissi~ner King and MOTION CARRIED (one seat belny vacant), that t1~e An~~heim City Planniny Commfssion does hereby grant a two-year extcnsion o~ time tc~ explre April 2~~~ 19J9~•f~r Variance No. 26~~~ on ~he basis of the foregaing findinys. 5/9/17 ~_. MINUTES~ CITY PLANI~ING COMMIISSIQN~ May 9~ 1917 ITCM B ~lT~'T FQR APPROVAL OF ItISTALLAYION OF SOLAR COILCCTUR PAN~I.S ON ~ RES I DE'IT I AL STRUCTURE I N TH~ SC:N I C CORR I liOR - Laceted a t 5303 t3ergh D~ t ve . 71-33k It was notod that M~, Georye 11. Markor (wl~o did not indicatc his prese~~ce In thc City Councl) Ch~rnbers) fiad submittcd a request for approval of roof-mounte:d solar collector panels in nrder that hc mlyht abtain a building permlt; that khe proposec! panels were to be loceted on the roc~f ~f ~ resldenee for the purpose of heating a swirnning pcx~l; thr~t this Item was ori,yln~lly brought to the C(ty's attention by ane of tl~e homecnvners In tl~e area who opp~sed the Install~t(on of ony rnof-mounted equl~xnent includlnq sc~lar collector panels; tliat this wos the first requvst tl~e City lias recelvecl reyar~lin~ such equlpment (n the Sccni. Corr(dor; an~l that the Ci ty Atto~ncy's Office has In~licated an amen~lmenC to the 2oniny C~de would bc approG>riate In order to permlt such equipment. Staff commented that the Commission would wish t~ cansider whelher or not r•oof-maunted salar collector panels should be permitted in the: Scenic CurriJur an~t I f su~ woutd thr. Plannin~~ Corxnlssion wish to revirw ahy s~~ch rro~~s~ls prior to i ssuancc nf a hui ldin~.~ permi t. Planniny Comriisslon discusseJ tli~ pc~,siblc ir•~:~r.; of' rc»f-mnunte~d solnr collcctor penels on neArby propcrtles in tfic Stenic C~rr idor. Comniss(oner Herbst in~iicatcd hc ha~i revlewecl solar c~llectors and thcrc wcre qulte a few types; that he was concerneJ with the vie~~ frum abovr_ and at cert~in times of the day when the ~.un miyht ~~f'lect on ylass p.inclr,, p~~sibly creating prol,l~ms b~4ausc of residents looklny d-own into thc sun's ~~lare; tl~at considering the enerqy crur~ch~ solar panels were a coming thing; ancl that pc~ssibly blaek panels which might not refiect any ylare wc~uld be c:oinpat i b 1 ~ w i th thc area ; and tl~at wou 1 J i t bc pos s i b 1 c to c~ct i nput `rom represen ta t i ~es of tlie industry. Frank Lowry, Assistant City Attornr_y, indieate:d lt was tl~c opininn of tf~c Attorn~y's Office tt~at therc ~rc two itcrns to be considered here; 1) an interpret~iti~n from the Planning Conniission as the final arbiter of the 1.o~~in~~ Code as to whether solar equlpment falls within tlie definiti~n of rr,x~f-mounted equipmcnt; and 2) thc need to study the situetion in vtew of the fact tliat State le<3isl~tors are presently considerinq a nurnber of bi l ls deal ing wi th solar equiprr~nt. IneluJiny means of mak(n~~ i t manJatory on a) l cfties to permit it reyardless c,f zoning or builJir,; codes~ or anything else. Commissloner Herbst lndicated thcrc~ were somc solar pancls on tl~e market chat fullpw the sun and liave to t~avc an area to rnovc in, pc,ten[ially destrqylnr~ someone else's view; and noted pertiaps tliere~ were also solar pancls that wuld be builc inco ttie building and would not be detrimental. Commissloner aarnes noteJ solar panels could be i~~stalled on the ground (n~teacl ~f being roc~f-mounted. Ccx~xnissior~er lierbst asked Pl~il ip E~~ttencc t of Anal~eim Illlls~ Inc., wt~o was present in the Counci l Chamber, whether he had liacl any input rcgarding soiar• panel iny from any developers i n the h i 1 I anJ ca~iyon arca . Hr. Bettencourt indicated "no"~ an d noted !ie ~as present because of his interest in the Commissinners' reaction to tl~is subject; that Analieim FI1{ls was recordiny a master communlty associatlon wtilcli would have architectural control ovcr the balance of the 5/9/77 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 9, 1977 ITEM D (Continued) ~~ 77•335 undovelupeJ Nurtfun~ of the Anahcim Hills arca and th~t thcy wcrc there for looking for guidoncs as to what wero the public conccrns about tlils typa of thing; tnat th~~y are not yet famlltar wirh any solar equipment wl~ich guarar,tens ncn-reflective yual ities; and tliat beceuse of the vict-v situation they want to watch the situation very clasely, Ght~irman Jol~nson comnentod the atate af the art concern(ny soler equlpment was ln Its Infancy at ti~is tlmQ and if a Jetailed study wore made today~ it woul~; proba~ly be out-of- date in one yoar or su~ so spec(fic designs are almost i~,consequentlol~ no roattQr how nice or uyly~ because uf unforeaeen brcaktl~rou~~l~s; tl~at ConMniss(nn should cnnsi~ier proposals on a case-by-casc uasls; thot inonstrosftias may be built Gy residents tonstructlny tf~elr own systams; and that the City has some design crit~ria specifted ln the Scenlc Corridor Overlay Zone of khe I~i l 1 anJ canyon area. COMMISSIQIICR TULAR Tk 'nR.Af,ll~ ICFT Tf~F Cc~ur~tl~ CNAr1BER AT 5:2o P.M. AWD RCTURN~D AT 5:2~+ P.F1. Commisslaner Darnes c~mmeited there n~ay be exlsting solar coi lector systems wliich sre satisfactary (n terms af ~estl~etics, which ~io not ~larc~ ~~ncl ~~oter~~tial future systems that will bc even bcttcr, Commisslonerllcrbst not~d it ml<~ht bc apprup~iat~ t~ establSsh crit~ria by whieh to evaluotc solr+r collector sy~lc~r~s. Commissl~ner Barnes corrrnentecl on the cl~finition of roof-mountecl equipment and noted that on some cornmr.rc i al es tab 1 i slinn~nts ~ a 1 thouyh every thi ny i s SuppOSC~I to be rer.ned~ you can still sec ovcr the [op; and tl~at this typc solar of equipnent c:~u1~1 t-.e und-mountcd. Staff inJica~ed tl~al in aJclition to the problems which have beer, discussed by Commission, there are such things as solar rights~ f~r exanple, in which case so~~^one may install solar culle~tar panels un the yroun~ anJ there would l,e notiiiny to prevenc a neiyhbo~ from planting trces wnich raiyht bloc~, thc sun's rays. Comn,ission noted the City currently has no controls nver suct, th i nys. In response to questioniny by Coirnaission~ staff nuted tt~e applicant had indicated he was going to adJitionol e.<pense of bctwecr: ~1'~0 to 5800 to install thc panels in the propc~se~l manner~ Chat Is~ Lo be raised witli ttie back ~:ortion of tf~e pancls befng shi~~l~d in order tp blen~i in w(th the existing roof ~~~ateri~l. Staff furthcr no[ed tliat Cncrgy Services had conducted a survey an~f Jetermined that a large N~~centaye of the solar panel manufacturers tfiat were contacted by t!~at division ~~ere out af business tl~ree months after a listing had been printeJ, Gornnissioner Herbst commented that this par[icular application is more or less In the flatlands~ namely. adjacent to the Riverside Frec~~ay~ and that perhaps lt would bc appropriatc tu yo ahead anci per~nit the proposal~ and also that this would yive the Commission an example to look at. Commissioner ~arnes comrr.~ntecl if this was approved~ how can any subsequent proposals be den~ed. Mr, Low ry noted it may be aFpropriate to con..ider tnis proposal in connectton witf~ a condltlonal use permit. Commissioner Nerbst ayreed that a conditiunal use permtt would be tt~e appropriate means of consldering roof-mounted equipment of this type in the Seentc Corridor, and furtl~ermore noted Commission dtd not wan: to destroy what had been aecomplished in the Scenic Corridor so far. 5/9/77 ~~ ,~ ,~ ,,~ MI NUTES ~ C I TY PLAIIN I NG COMNI SS I ON ~ May 9~ 197] I TCN U (Cont i nucd) .._.....,. 77~33G Commissionnr Nerbst offered a motlon~ seconded by Cheirman .Ichnson and MOTI011 CARRIED (one seat beiny vacant) ~ Ghet the appl Icant be requt rcd ta f i le s condi tl~anal use perml t ir order that th~ propos~l cansiatln9 of r~of-mounted sulor collector panel~ in the S~enlc Corridor coufd bo cnnsidnred at a public heorinq. I~ responsti to qucstlonin,y by C~mmissior~er Barnes~ steff comme ~e~1 they had no Idea when t.he State woulci ccxne through with any klnd of yuidellnes; that ther~ was a~endlna bill requlrlnq all cities to develop xoning c~~dinances and builJtny codes not only Nermlt•.iny b~t requlring solar pAnels In eartain areas; ehoc there ar~ cfforts to subs(di zc solar heating (n hoth thc Fcderel and Statc Govcrments; anci that tf~ere are tax wrlte-offs av~~liable for solar equirmcnt. Cw~m~i~siuner Herbst clarified his motion by Indieating that staff was also being directe~i to research al) avai~able informat~on regarJing the Jiffcrcnt types of solar pan~ls so that the Commissle,~ would have the fuil benefit of such i~~f~rmation at the public hearing; and resta[eJ th~t solar panels were consiJered roof-moun ' equ(pment. 17EM C AITRIANCE N0. 23~~~ Ar~u CO-~DITI oNAL USE PCR-tiT NO. 1~i0~? - Req~~cst for an extensi~~n of tic~e far a c~nter for th~ sale of' Ihandcrafted art obJects and related merchand i se wi th food c:+~es~ lUGated c~n tl~e souLtnNest c:orncr of Uroodway and Adams Street; and an existing bi l lboard locatc~J on tl~c southwest corncr of Hroa~lway arod Hessel Stre~et. The S taf f Repor t to the P 1 ar~n i nc~ Conrii ss fon dat ed M~y 9~ 1977~ was pr~s..n[ed and madc ~ part of the minutes. It was noted that thc ~pplicant, Mr. 4avid S. Collins~ f~acJ submitted a reyue~;C for extens(ons of cime for Variance Na. 'L3~~9 and Conditlonal Use Permit No. l~~f,~~i, retr~~:~ctive to April 17~ 1313 anJ July 9~ ty7~-; that the subject variancr. haJ been granted 'uy t~~e Planniny Lommission on Apri 1 17. 1',~72 for a per iod of onc yenr witl~ possible ti~.ie extensions; that Condit=onal Usc Permit il~, 1~-08 had bcen approved by the Planning Commission o~ July y, 1~73 for a F~eriod ~~f onc v~,r with possible timc extensians; tha[ both uses were establisheJ with t1c~ !!~^ ~at~ons in order tha: the Commission could determine whethcr sald ~ses 'iad an ~d~er;e effect .~n adjacent properties; that previcus time extensions I~ave been yranted for t~o yaar; ;, t',,~t ~'~~ complaints have been received; and thaL staff reconmen~:c~~ that said re~;ue5[ be yr !nted. Ccxnmissioner Tolar ofFereJ a mot(on~ s~:conded 'ay Cornmissioncr Herbst an~~ Mi)TION CAR.KIED (o~e seat beln~ vacant)~ that the Anaheim City Planniny Cocrnissi~n dues hereby grant the requested extensions of time for Var:ancc Nn, 23~-9 to expire an Apri i 17, 1g79 and for Conditional Use Permi[ No. 1~+!'it3 to ex~ire on May 2u, 197~3, on the basis of the foreqoing ffndings. 5/9/77 .. ~... MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSI011~ May 9~ 1977 77'337 I TEr~ D ~R~~f:D AMF~~UMEIIT TO ZONING COUE SUE35LCTIONS 13.03.'130.Q1~~ "Ilr~l 15TF~~ tlsf'S PFRMITtFp" ANU 1t~,f13.n4n.~l~n~ "Ai1T11(1RITY ANf) CUI~U 171UN5". The Staff Rcporc ta tl~e Plannlny Commissian datecl May 9~ 1917~ wAS presenteJ and m~de a part af the ~~~inutas. Frt~nk Lowry ~ As s I s tan t C I ty At [orncy ~ rav I ewed tlie proposed Code ~mendrnent and nc~ted 1 t would lessen the necd for use varlances Ir~ that uses not permltteJ hy Code but simllar to uses permitteJ In any cqmpatil~~: zone could I~e conslclereJ as a condltl~nal us~ permit applicatfon rether than a varfonce; that the Jeterrninoeion whether a conciltional use permit would be approprlate wauld be meJe by thc Pl~~nning D(rcctor or hl~ designated staff representative; tht~t the propused amendo~ent wou1J be consis[ent with ,yeneral law cit'fes and the present pendiny le~~islatiun in Sacramento and the recent court clr.cislons on the subject. Commissionc~r Tolar uffcred ~ riotian~ secandec! by Cunrifss(c~n~:r Darnes ar~J 1{OYIOt~ CARRICO (one seat beiny vacant)~ that thc Anaheirn City Plannin~ Cornrni,sic~n does hereby recommend to the City Gouncil uf the City of ~nahr.im th~t Zoniny C~~Je Subsec;tions 1u,~3.Q3Q.O1Q and 18.03.0<<0.020 be amenJed as recoi,rnencle~l Ly staf F, I TkM E R£QUE:ST FOR OR~NGf. GOUI~TI' U~E PEftMIT Al1U VARIh11CE FOP, CU;~STRL'(,T t Ot~ 01' A ii 1 LLUOARU I t1 AN t1tJ 1 I~GORPUR/1TE~ ARE~~ ADJACF.I~T TO DOUGLASS ~TRECT SOUTlI OF IU~TELLA AVE11l~C. Staff Report ko the P~ ~nniny Cor~,.tiiss ion JateJ flay '~, 1~l/l~ W~s -~r~esented and made a cyf tl~e minutes. 1. ~,.. ~~oteJ that [he prop~sal cons isteJ of an Ini [lal Study submi ticd to thc Orangc Co~nty Environmental Manage~~ent Rgency for a use permit a-uI v~riance to construct a billboar~~ ttie ap~~licant bei~iq Jay Kinyry, Pacific Ouccioor Advertisin~7 Campany. It was noted that [hr, prop~sed bi 1 1 board, locatecJ ~•~1 th i n the C1 ty c~f Anal~e iin's sphere of influence. c:oes r~ot canforrn to the Clty of Anaheim Munici~~al Code in tliat it Pxceeds the helyht permitte~l in the C(ty af Anaheim, it exceecls the maxlmum permitteJ area of a billbaard~ i[ is oricuted to a freeway an~1 CoJe prohit~its sucl~ orizntatio~ of a billboard~ and it is not located within 20~J feet of the intersecti~n ~f two arteria) hi~hways as reyu i red by Code. I t was further notecl thc C i ty Counc i 1 of tl~~ C i ty of Orange had wri tten a letter of protest to t~~e Santa Fn_ Ra i I road~ the proper[y owner, aiid had further autl~or i zeJ the i r s taf f to wvr~; w t Ch tl~e C( ty of Anafie i m i n oppos i t(o~ to the proposa 1. Commissioner Tolar offared a inotion, seconded by Conmissioner ~arnes snd MOTION CARRIED (oi~° seat beiny v~cant)~ tl-at the Anaheim City Plannirzy Cexnrnission cloes liereby recommend ta the :i ty Counci I of tlie CI ty af Anaheim tlzat said Counci 1 forward a recomrnendation of den i a 1 n cunnect i un w i tti the prop~~sed ~ranye County use pe rmi t ancl var i ance. AUJOURMEt~T - There being no further buslness to Jiscuss~ LommfssiQner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner darnes and MOTION CARR~ED (one seat be i ny vacan t) . tha t the meet I ng be ad journed. Tf~e meetiny a~s:curned at 5:31+ p.m. PHS:hm Respectful ly submi tte~i~ ~./,l~j/tr,~. r; :' , Y "l,, .,~' ,.ci P~ame a H. S~ntala, Secrekary Pro Temp~re Aneheim City Planning Commission , 5/9/17 ~