The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1977/07/06~~ Ctty Hall Ar~ahelm, Cal iFornia July 6, 19~7 RF.GULAR MEE7ING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING i:OMMIS510N REGULAR - A regula~ meec(ng of the Anahe(m City Planning Commisslon was called to order MEETING by Cl~airman JohnS~n at 1:30 p.m., on July 6, 197J, in thc Councll Chambers, a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Johnson COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, David, Y.inq and linn ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Herbst and Tolar ALSO - Frank I.o~•lry ~-c~. i cfans ~ i ty Ar torney PRESENT Annika Santalahti AS;;~.tant ~'ianning Qirector - Zoning Jay Titus i,f'f;~:f: Eriyinecr Paul Sinyer 7raffic f.nyineer J.J. Tashiro A~,s~st-~nt Planner Edith Harris t I~nnifl~ Co is,ion Secretary Jack Whi te [?ruu~.y ~i ty~l tt~rney PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Barnes led ir~ tiic~ ~ledqe of A1legiance [o the Flag of the AI.LEf,IANCE United States of Amrric:a. By consent of those COfI1f11I5510l1P1"5 pr..~r,t~rc, Cc,mmissioner Johnson a5sumed the. Chair as Temparary Ch~irman to elect thP c~fiice~s f;.~r fiscal year 1971-1978• He talled for nomina- t ions for the pos i t i on Urt Ch2 i-'m~7r. of ,.he Anahe i m C i ty P 1 ann f ng Con~ii ss i on . Commissioner King nominated ~cmmis~ion~r Tolar as Chairman. Commissi~ner King offered a r~tian, s~conded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Tnlar being absent), that nominations for Chairman be and hereby are closed. Commissinner King offerec~ a motion, seconded by Comnissioner David and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst ar~d Tolar beir~g absent)~ tha[ Commissioner Tolar be and hereby is elected Chair'man of tr~e Anaheim City Planni~g Comrr~ission for the ~377-1978 fiscal year. CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE - Temporary Chairman Johnson called for nominations for the Chairman Pro Tempore. Commissioner Linn nominated Commissioner Herbst as Chairman Pro Tempore. Commissioner David offered a motion~ secondti:d by Comn,issioner Barnes and MOTION CARRIED (Cortmissioners Herbst and Tolar being abser~c),that nominations for Chairman Pro Tempore be and hereby are closed. Commissioner Linn offered a motion, secondpd by Commissioner Barnes and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Toiar being ahsent), that Commissioner Herbst bc and hereby is elected Chairman Pro Tempore of the Anaheim City Planning Commission for the 1977-1978 fiscal year. SECRETARY - Temporary Chairman Johnson called for nominations for the Secretary. 1-6-77 11-412 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1977 17-413 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1977-1978 (continued) Commissioner King nominated Edith Harris as Secretary. Temporary Chairmen Johnson offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTlON CARRIED (Commissi~ners Herbst and Tcal~n c~ing absent)~ chak nominations for Secretary be and hereby are closed. Temporary Chairman Johnson offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MQTION CARRIEO (Conxnissioners Nerbst and Tolar being absent) ihat Edith Harris be and hereby is elected Secretary of ttie Anaheim City Planning Commission for the 1977-1978 fiscat year. Due to the absence uf' the newly elected Ch~irman and Chairman Pr~ Tempore. Cornmiss(aner David offer~d a motion, seconded by Cornmissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Cornmissioners Herbst and Tolar being absent) that Commissioner Johnson continue as Temporary Cliai~'~~~an for thc entire meetinc~. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Commissioner David offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner JUNE 20. 1977 MEF.TING King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Flerbst and Tolar absent) that the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission hcid on June 20, 1977~ be and hereby are approved as submitted. tTEM Nd. 1 CpNTINUED PUBLIG NEARING. OWNCR: HOLLY WADE TUSZEWSKI, EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA'TIO~~ 1126 River Lane~ Santa Ana, CA 92706. Agent: GEARGE RECLASSIFICATION N0.~~7-49 ADAMS, 320C1 Fronter~ Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1103 described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land con- sisting of approxirnatety 6.4 acres loc.ated at the south- east corner of Frontera S[reet and Newkirk Road, described as 32Q0 Frontera 5[reet. Property presently cla~sified RS-A-4i,000(RESIDENTIAI/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. REQUESTED CLA5SIFICATION: ML (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL) ZONE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO PERMIT A RESOURCE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING OPERATION. It was noted subject petition was continued from the meeting of May 9, 1977. for the submission of an Environmental Impact Report. Don Scruggs, 4464 Walnut, Chino, California,referred to a letter dat~d June 22, 1977 to Mr. George Adams, stating inadequacies of draft Environmental Impact Report No. 202 which was subrnitted in conjunction with petitian for Conditiona) Use Permi[ No. 1703• Mr. Scruggs reported he had met with the Planning Staff, Robert Kelley, and discu~sed those inadequacies arid reported that changes are being made in the reporC and these will be submitted by July 20, 1977, to the Planning Department for their review. There was no one indicatiny their ~resence in oppcsition to this request and although the staff report to the Pl~nning Commission dated July 6, 1977, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOStu. A discussion was held concerning the time necessary ta process this environmental impact report after al1 information has heen received, with Frank Lowry, Asst. City Attorney, st~ting 30 days would be required after receipt of the complete report. Commissioner Linn offered a motion to continue consideratiun of the aforementioned request to the regular meeting of August a9, 1971. 77-413 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 6, 1977 77-414 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-49 and CONDITIONAL USf. PERMIT N0, 1703 (continued) Temporary Chairman Johnson felt the requirements for thc environmental impact report had been explicitly outlfned at the May 9th meeting when the continuance had been granted ka allow the pntitioner to submlt an EIP.; that a vote f~r continuance had been very marpinal at that tirne with at least two Cammissioners stating their views that they felt this was a bad use for the land; that the petitioner had submitted a very limited EIR which he felt the petitioner knew would be inadequate; and that he wauld be in favor of going ahead and voting for denial of tliis request. Mr. S~ruggs stated he had t~rned in 90 pages af pertinent information and the ~lanning Staff felt they needed more information and that he was getting that infarmation to amc.nd thc E I R. Temporary Chairman Johnson stated that the Nlanning staff f~lt the EIR wa~ Su inadequate that they had not passed i[ on to the Cornmission for review and since [he Commissioners had not reviewed tfie report, then he would support the motion for a continuance to August 29, 1977. Commissioner Oavid secondrd the nM.,iion made by Cammissioner Linn, and MOTION CARRIEO (Commissioner Herbst and Tolar being absNnt) to continue consideration of the aforementioned reyuest to the regular Planning Commission meetiny ~E August 29, Iq77, in order that the pEtitiorier rtiay submit an amended Environrnental Impacc Report. Commissioner Linr~ stated the information must be submitted by July 20th in order to meet all legal requirements for advertisement, etc. ITEM N0. 2 CONTI~~UEO PUBLIC NEARiNG. OWNER5: ROBERT D. AND EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION HARQLDENE V. WIENS, 7536 Vista Del Sol~ Anaheim, CA RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7-77-59 92807. Sub.ject property is an irr•eaularly-shaped parcel VARIANCE N0. 2y consistinq of approximately ~.9 acre,hav~ng frontage of approx mate y T~~feet o~i the south side of Oranyewood, located approximately 250 feei west of the centerline of Spinnak~r Stree;. Prope~ty pres~r~tlY c.lassified RS-A-1-3,000 (Residential/ Agricultural) 'Lone. REQUESTED CLA551FICATION: RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL. MULTfPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: Maximum buildiny heiyht. (1 story permitted; 2 stories proposed), to construct a 20-unit apartment toinplex. ThF~e was no one indicatiny thei~- presence in opposicion to this request and although the staff repart to the Planning C,..rnmission dated July 6, 1917 was not read at the p~blic hearing, it is r~ferred to and made a part of ~he minutes. Robert Wiens, the petitioner•, pointed out [he revised plans were ior a better project with some of the larger trees be~ng saved. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King asked Mr. Wiens if the driveway had been aligned with Nauticai Street as requested by the Traffic Department. Mr. Wiens replied that the driveway had not been aligned with Nautical Street; that he had met with Mr. Singer and he had recommended that it be aligned, but did not think it would have to bP danger marked. 7-6-77 77-414 i MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ July bt 1977 77-415 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASS. N0. 76-77-~ b VARIANCE 2944 (cantlnued) Temporary Chairman Johnson stat~d his concern and related Mr. Herbst's previous concern about the landscape buffer adJacent to the singl~-family residences abutting the south property line; lhat a 10 foot buffer had been requested and that the revised plan shows only a 5 foot buffer. Tom Orummond, architecC for Mr. Wiens, explained an altern~te plan tn provide the 10 foot landscaped buFfer, eliminating c+ne of the maJor trees. This plan woulcl re~rrange the parking. Commissioner King pointed out tha driveway wauld serve as a buff~r~ plus khe 5 feet proposed. Mr. Drummond stated t.here is a[otal of 25 feet between the property line and the carpo~ts. He ylate~J also tt~~at trees or whatcver is r~quired woutd be plante~l in the landscaped partt~n. Commissioner Barnes asked wliat was prup~sed for the five fee~ shown from the property line to Building No. 3, with Mr. Drwrxnond replying that that area would be landscaped as specified by ~he Planning Department. Commissioner Barnes alsu discussed the access, with Mr. Drummond pointing out the access is to the front of the project. Commissioner King asked f'aul Singer~ Traffic Enyineer~ what his thoughts were concerning the alignment of the driveway a~ith Nautical Street. ~tr. Singer stated that his recommFndation would be that [he driveway be aligned with existing streets; that the City triES to eliminate as m~ny offset driveways as possible. Commissioners King and Johnson discussed the feasibility of aligning this driveway with Nautical Street and whether or not this should be a rpquirement. Mr. Singer pointed out that his recommendaCion would be merely from ehe traffic safety viewpoint and that it is possible that other circurnstances should be taken into con- sideratian. Cortunissioner Linn was concerned about the two story units being located within i50 feet of RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zoned property to the east. He didn't feel this should be allowed. The building height was discussed, with Commission~r King pointir~g out that property owners within 300 feet of the pr•oject had been notified of the he~ring and no one had appeared in apposition, TemporaryChairman Johnson discus:ed the establishPd residences Lo the rear of the project, and Mr. Drummon~ statec! there was sufficient distance there. Mr. J~hnson stated he felt it was ~robably the Conxnission's thinking that with the RS-A-43,000 development next door, that,in a sense, would provide a buffer to the church. Ne asked Staff if the 150 faot limit applied to any residential use. Ar~nika Santalahti~ Asst. Planning pirector-Zoning, explained this limitation applies to singie family residential use only; that where the Commission has viewed p~ojects favorably in the past~ thase were usually ~ases where although the land was zoned agriculturally, the land may be designated by the General Plan for multi-family use or alternatively developed as non-single family use such as the chur~h to the west. 7-6-77 77-415 MINU7ES: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 6, 1977 77-k16 EIR NEGA7IVE DCCLARATION. RECI.ASSIFICATION N0. 76~7-59 b VARIANCE 2499 (continusd) Commissioner KI~g asked Mr. Drummond if the curb lacated ad,jacent to the trash area would be painted red As recommended by the Sanitation Division~ and Mr. Drummond replied that it would. ACTION: Commissioner Kinq offered a motior~, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED Commissioners Herbst and Tolar b~iny absenc) tF~at thc llnahcim City f'la~ining Com-nission has revlewed the sub.ject praposal to reclassiFy the zoning from residential/agricultural Co residential, multiple•family to canstruct a 20-unit apartment complex on approximately 0.9 acre~ having frontage of appruximately 137 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, ic,cated approximately 250 feet west of tlie centerline of Spinnaker Street~ with waiver of maxim~~m building height; and do~s recnmmend to the City Council of thp City of Anaheim that a Negative Decfaration from the requirement to prepa~e an environ- mental impact report be approved on the basis that there would be nu siynificant individu~l ar cumulative adver~e envir~nn,~ntal impact duP to the apProval af this Negative Oeclaration since the Anahrim General Plan designates the subject property For low-medium residential land use conrnensurate with the proposal; that the project is nnt AdVrrSt~ co good land planniiig; that similar type apartn+ents are dEVeloped on [he norch side of Orangewood; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the ~nitial Study submitted by the petitioner indic~tes no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and [hat the Negative Declaration substantiating tlie foregoing findings is on file in th~e office of che Planning Department. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC77-137 and moved for its pas5age and adoption, that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Cornnission does hereby reconmend to the City Co~ncil of the City of Anaheirn that Petition for Reclassification No. 76-77••59 de approved, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations; and subject [o petitioner's stipulation that the curb lc~cated adjacent to [he trash area fro~ting on Orangewood be pairited red. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: David, Johnson, King and Linn NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barnes ABSENT: COhMI5SI0NERS: Herbst and Tolar Commissioner Barnes indicated her• negative vote was due ta her feeling that in the past 15 or 20-foot landscaped buffers have been required and she didn't feel the Comrnission should allow the 5-foot buffer on the south property linw. ACTION: Commissioner King off~red Resolution No. PC77-138 anc' nx~ved for its passage and edoption, that the Anaheirn City Planning Commission dops hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 29A4, t~ allow two-story units witl~in 150 fee[ ~f residential zoned property to the east, on Lhe basis that a hardship exists due to the unusual shape of the parcel; that there are two-story units existing in the area; [hat the development of thP two-story units allow site coverage of 43x, and subject to Interdepartrnental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resnlution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: David, Johnson and King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barnes and Linn ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst and Tolar 7-6-17 77-416 ~ ~. ~ \~\ ~'~11NUTES: ANAHEIM CITY PIANN~NG COMMISSION, July 6~ ~g77 77-41h EI~~,NEGATIVE DECLA~ATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-77-59 b VARIANCE 24y9 (continued) Commi56ioner King osked Mr. Drumnrond if the curb lecated adjacent t~ the trash erca would bh painted red as recammended by the Sanitt+tion Division, and Mr, Drurtunc~nd repilec: that i r wc?uld. ACTtON: CommiS~ionrr Kfny offered a motian~ secondcd by Corm,i55ioner DAV(d ~nd MOTION CARRIED Cor,xnissinners Herbst and Tolar beiny absent! that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has revlewed the subJtct proposr~l ta recla~sify the zonin~ from residrntiai/agricultural to reside.ntial, Iqultiple-family to co~istruct a 20-unit apartment compiex on approximately 0.9 acre, located approximat~ly 250 feet west ~f the ceneerline of Spinnnker Street, with waiver of maximum building height; and does rec~rr~nend to the Citv Council of the City of Anahein, chat a Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environ- menta) impact report be apprpved on the basis that there wc~u1J ~e nu siqnificant individual or cumulative BdYC-'S~ !?nV~r~~nrnPnt~l irnp~ct due to thc approval of this Negative Detlaratian since the Anaheirn Gene~al Plon designatr.s the subjec:t propprty for low-medium residential larid use conxnensur-ate with ihr. proposal; that the pr~Jcct i~. nnt ~~1v~r5P to gaad IAnd planning; th~~t simi lar type apartmer~ts ~re cl~veiop~~d on the north sidc of Orangewood; that no sensitive environment3) impacts ~rc involved in the proposnl; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indic~tes no significant individua) or cumula[ivP adverse environm~ntal impacta; and that the Negative Declaration substantiatinc the foregoiny findings is on file in the offic.c of the Planning Department. ACTION: Lummissioner King offered Resolution No. PC77-137 and movc~d for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheirn City Planning Lommissian does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anahefm that Pe~itior for Reclassif'ication No. 76-77-59 be approved. subject to Interdepartmental ComnittPe Recommendations; and subJect to petitioner's stipulation th~~t the curb !ocated adjacent to rhe trash area fronting on Orangewood be pairited red. On roll c~ll, the foregoing resolution wa~~ passed by the folluwinq v~te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Oavid, Johnson, K~nq and Linn NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: Barnes ABSENT: COMHISSIONERS: Herbst and Tolar Comrnissioner Barnes indicaced her negativc vote was due to her Feelinq that in thP past l5 or 20 foo[ landscaped buffers have b~en required and she didn't feel the Commission should allow the 5 foot buffer on the south property line. ACTION: Commissione.r King offered Resolution No. PC77-138 and moved for its passage r~nd adoption, that the Anahei~n City Planning Conxr~ission doe5 hereby grant Petition fo;• Variance No. 2944, to allow two-story units within 150 feet of residpntiai zoned property to the east~ o~ the bas~s that a hardship exists due to the unusual shape oF the parcel; that there are two story units existing in the area; that the development of the two story units allow site c~verage of 43~;, and subjec:t to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the faregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: David, Jahnson and King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barnes and Linn ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: Herbst and Tolar r Y,. i•a ~' -~" ,i ` , ' \ ` . L .. ~ , ~ ( r. . f 1 , iw . ~ ,l i ~q,k ~ ~ ::' t: L ~,. ~ ' ~ ' ti ^, ` 7-6-71 ~` 17-416 ~ MINUTES~ CI1'Y PLANNINC COMMISStON~ July 6~ 197? ~ r~ 71-411 ITEM N0. 3 CONTINUED PU~LIC HEARING. QWNERS: DAVIU R. ROBERDES EIa NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND pICHARQ l.. WALKER, 9252 Garden Grove Blvd., RECLASSIFICATION N0. - 7-61 Garden Grove~ CA 92644. Agent: JOHN COWLES, 185g2 Beach 91vd.~ Huntington Beach~ CA 9264g. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parce) of land cAnsisting of approxlmately 2.4 acres of land located at the nor[heast corner of Riverdale ,~venue and iustin Avenue~ and Further described as 430 N. Tustin llvenuc. Property is presently classified as CL (C~MMERCIAL, LIMITED) 20NE, RE~,i~ESTEO CLASSIFICATION: RM-1200 ;RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. There was no one appearing in opposition ta the request and althouyh the staff report to the Planning Commis~ion dated July 6~ 1977, was nat read at thc public hearing~ it is referred ta and made a Nart uf ll-e ~ninutes. Mr. W(i) BucK, repre~enting Mr. C~wles, agent, stated he felt the best and ~;ighest use af the property would be an apartment unit. Mr. Huck ~ire5ented renderings of the open space areas and the buildin9s as proposed by the revised plan~~. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, recommended that a level surface be provided prior to exiting into Tust.in Avenue to irt~prove visibility. Commissione~r I.Inn point~d out that a 53 foot dedication to the ~:ity would be requir~d. Comm~ssioner King pointed aut the requiremenl [o compty with Council Poi:cy No. 542 pertaining to sound attenuation in r~sidential pro.jec[s.Due io the project's proximity to the freeway, he wanted Mr. Buck to be aware that ihis could be quite a problem. Temporary Chairman Johnson suggested he check^d into the sound attenuatian policy to ascert.~in whether or not the sound could op attenuated and Mr. Buck replied that he would look into this matter. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a rrx~tion, sec~nded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Tolar being absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the subject pr•oposal to reclassify the zoning from commercial, limited to RM-1200 resident~~l~ multiple-fan,ily on approximately 2,4 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Riverdale P,venue and Tustin Aven~e , and does hereby recommend to the City Council of che City of Anaheim that a Negative Dec'aration from [he requirement to prepare an environmental impact repart be approved on the basis that. there would be na sionificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impar,t due ta the approvel of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low-medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal~ and the Initial Study submitted by the applicant indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and ~that the Neoative Declaration substantiating the foregoin~ fi~dings is on file in the office of the Planning De~artment at City Hall. Prior to voting on the above rsx~tion~ Commissioner Barnes indicaCed she was concerned as to whether or not the Orange Unified School District had been contacted concerning this proposal, and /~nnika Santalahti, Asst. Planning Director~ Zoning~ replied that a notice af the rr~eting had been sent to the schaol district. 7-6-77 77-417 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIf~G COMMISS ION, July 6, 1971 17-418 E 1 R NEGAT I VE DECLARAT I ON AND aECLASS I F I CATI ON N0. ]6-77-61 (cont i nued) ACTION: Commissioner King offe~cd Resalutlon No. PC77-139 an~ moved for its p,~s5age end adopt ton ~ that the Anehe im C I ty P I ann i ~g Comm i ss ion does hereby recommend t~.- the C i ty Councll of the City of Anaheim that Petltia~ for Reclasslfication No. 76-77-61 be epproved~ subject to Interdepartmental Conuni ttee Recammendat ions, On roll call~ the foregotng re~olution was passed by thr_ following vote: AYES: COMMI~SIONERS: King, David, Barnes, Joiinson, L(nn NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ARSFN'T: COMNISSIONERS: Herbst ar,d Tolar ITEM NJ. 4 PUBLIC MEARING, OWNERS; MICNAEL J. AND JERI J. GARAN, EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN 1775~ E. Lintoln ~9ve., Ste, 201 . Anaheim, CA 92805• CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT M0. 1714 SubJect property Is a reetangularl~- shaped parcel of ~ 13nd cons i sting of approx imately 896; sq, ft. locaied at the northwest corn~r of CPnter Street and Co('frr~an Street ~ and further described as 1821 East Cent~r Street. Request apprvvel of candltlonal use permi t to ~ermit o~fice ar,d storage facilities with waivers of maximum fence heiqht~ permi~ted uses and minimu-i landscaped setback. There were one or two persons i nd icat i ng the ~ r prescnce i n oppos i t i on to the request . J. J. Tashiro presented the staff report to the Plonning Cammission dated July 6, f971- which is made a part of the irii;iutes. Michael J, Garan~ petirioner, asked i f thc Commission~rs had been to the site, with the Commissioners responding they had see~ th~ site. Mr. Garan reported several thinas he F~ad ~~ne lo improve the property, i.e., clean-up, electrical undergraund, painting~ roof, ete. , stating the property is now in good conditian. He stated he owned the property to the west r.>f tt~iy property and hi s p~rtner owns property to the north at 115 N. Coffman and they were. tc'ying to acqui rE the prrperty between which belongs to Dr. Kirkley and have made offers to him; that the property is turrently zaned CO on the record and his plan is to either acquirz Dr. Kirkley's property or go into a joint venture with Dr. Kirkley to bui ld an office bui ldir.g on the site. Mr. Garan objected ta recommendatior~s for street lights, stating there were lights witf~in 150 feet. He also objected tl~e recomrnendat ian for sidewalks , stat i ng there were no sidewalks to the west or east of the ~roperty and no sidewalks on either side o.` Coffman Street. He stated the chain link fenee is w+thin the encraachment area and was there prior to the street being improved wi th curb and gutter. He stated he couldn't move the bui Idings; the bui l~ings are not coRdemnable, thai they are in a good state of repair. He referred to thz nuisance factor, statfng he felt it was at a min~mum; that he is right next door and i f he f inds out ten~nts are not doing whar they are supposed co, then he talks with them and they are cooperat ive. Mr. Garan showed photographs of the prflperty and surraunding areas. Mr. Garan stated he had improved the area and didn't know whar else to do with the property other than demol i sh the bu i 1 d i ngs . He added there werc othe r prope rt i es i n the arPa w i th outdoor storage without slated chain Ilnk fencing. 7-f~-77 17-418 ~ MINUTES~ n~;AHEIM CtTY PI.ANNING COMMI~SION~ July 6, 1977 77-419 ~~ n~n~.~T un 1~1. /......~1...~...J\ E i R NEGAT 1 V E DECLARAT { ON end CGWu i i i uirh~ vo~ ~ ~~.~ ~~~~~~, ~~~• ...~~~. ~~,..~.., M,-s. HemPri ing, 114 N. Coffman~ across the street for subject pr~perty, stated the tenant uf subJect property hr~d approbched her husband abnut feediny his guerd dogs, which I~r. refused to do. She stated there had been sheetrack stecked higher than the buitding~ witli sheets of It flying about whr,n the wlnd blows. She also stated the gates are left opcn mast c~f tl~e; that th~rP Are~ ibout I7. empluyees who park all day on each side of Coffman; that traffic is held up by the vehicles backing out of the gates; he parks his traller with equipmpnt loaded an it in the strect and then runs the equlpm~nt down the ramps and into the storage yard; that excess i ve amounts of dust are Greated ; that the yard w3s a mess from the guard d~gs and was only cleaned up within the pos[ week; that the yuard dogs growl at everybody passing day or nighl. Mrs. Nerne~l iny presr~~ted pictures to the Commission ~,howing thc condition of the property f rom her f ranc door. Mr. Garan statf~d h~ wa5 not aware of th~ prablPms; however, he did know xhe tenant has two dogs ta yuard against burglary and vandal ism. He also stated there was no way to mov~ tt~~ fcnce wi thou: tearing the bui Iding down. H~ stated he would talk with the tenant ~bo~:t the tr;jtfic problcm. HP stated t~~~ thought the only time there could be a: raf f i c prob 1 em wou I d be i n the morn i ng . Ne stated hE has a month to month tenancy agreement with the tcnant. He alsa stated he was told the Hen,erl ing's caused the d~gs to bark (Mrs. Hemerling stated this was not crue.} THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS LLOSED. Frank Lowry, Asst. City Attorney, explained the City is not ready to widen C~nter 5treet but that i f thc street dedication is required, then the fence would have to be removed when the str~e[ is widened. Ne explained that the c.ondit~on requiring sidewalks is a standard condition which stat~f is required to put in and CommiSSion cannat waive, but the petitioner can apply for a sidewalk waiver. Mr. lowry referred to the lighting and explained this is to require the petitloner to pay his fair share of the existing lighting. Temporary Chairman Johnson stated the request has been made for approval of a conditional use pPrmi t to al low uses al ready tliere. Mr. Garan stated he had asked fur a limited time for five years. He also stated thP street i s widened ; that che r~ ght of way fc+; t~~e s i dewal k rnay not have been ded i cated, but t' ~t the street has been widened. (•~~~y Titus, Office Engineer replied that Center Str~et lacks 3 feet of ultimate dedication and Ccffman iacks 5 feet of u![imate dedication. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Garan about the storage of drywall he had seen',~the pictures. Mr. Garan repl ied that the accoust ical tenant had stored the drywal ![here tPmporari {y while bui'ding a bowling alley at ana[her location. He stated the st~ck of drywail is two or th ree feet h i gh at the preser.t t i me and that nast of the t ime h i s storage i s inside *.tie Guild'+ng. Mr. Johnson stated that the fence i s on the property and i f the property i s used as inter~ded, the pet i t ioner would not be requi red to ren~ove the fence, but when you use the prope rty for outdoor storage wh i cli i s not permi tted i n Anahe im~ then the fence becomes a prablem. He stated that he appreciated the fact that i~tir. Garan had improved the property, but did not think this was a nice piece of property, that it had been an eye sore for a long time. Mr. Garan replied that the propert.y is nir.er in comparison to what it was before, and that the whole street was an eye sore. 7-E-77 11-415 .~ .,. '~. M I NUTES . ANAHE I M C I TY PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON , Ju l y 6~ 1977 77-420 E I R NEGAT I VE DECLARAT I ON _ AND COND I T I ONAL USE PERM I T N0, 1714 ( con t f nuad) Mr. Jahnson stated ho would not support this conditional use permit w(th the variences reques ted ~ bu t cou) d suppor t the us9 I f the setback and fenco requ i remen ts we re ccxnp 1 1 ed with. Mr. Garan stated e 42" fence would not deter vendal ism. Hc also slated the only way he could comply with the setback requirement would be ~o demol ish the bui Iding. Hc roporked he could instruct the accoustical [enant that if he wantad to store materials outside~, then he woul d have to comp 1 y w 1 th the screen i ng requ 1 r~mer~t s h Imse 1 f, Mr. .lohnson asked staff how long this proparty had bQen used illegally. Ann(ka Sentalohtl,Asst. Planning Dlrector-Zoning, answered that staff had become aware of the outside starage prior to recoiving any complaints, but that tha complaints re- ceived had pr~xnpt~d th~ 7~ning Enforcement OFfic~r to take action, She stated staff explains the property is zoned for residencial uses and any usa would have to be rostricted inside Che building ko anyone inquir(ng nbout tlic property. Commissioner Ktng asked how many complaints hava been received ~nd Ms.S~ntalahti replied that she thought staff had basicAlly received complaints from two diFferent individusls. Cummissioner Y.iny askod Mr. Garan about ~lanting greenery on the inslde of the fence to protect the ~eighbors from dust, noise, etc. Mr. G~ran repliou' that the landscaping tenant had suggested he could store plants in pots around the fence, but that he had instructed him to wait and see what action the Cortmission would take. He asked i f the greener~~ would have to be planted in the ground~ i nd i cat i ~g he wou 1 d not want [o spend the money for p I an ts and then have to rort~ove them in a~ear or a year and a half to develop thA property. Temporary Chairman Johnson stated he could understand Mr. Garan's reasons for requesting this condi~ional use permit, but when a use leans, offends or hurts people around the praject,thon the Commiss ian has a responsibi 1 ity to protect the citizens. Mr. Garan stated he had heard of no complaints, other than l1rs. Hemerl ~ng. Hr, stated that one tenant at 115 Coffman had liked havine~ the dogs there for protection af his property. Comrnissioner David asked if the tenan?s had received a~y complaints and Mr.Garan replied that the tenant in the f ront had received no complaints, but that he wasn't sure about the landscaping tenant. Canmissioner David asked about the barking of the dogs pointing Qut th at Mrs.Hemerling had stated the dogs bothered her• and Mr. Garan replied that this was the first time ho had met Mrs. Hemerlin g. Mr. David then asked Mr. Garan what he would do about the dog s+kuation if the request was approved and Mr. Garan replied that he would talk with the tenant and if he wanted to keep the dogs far protection of his equipmen t, then he would have to f i nd sane way of res t ra i n i ng them. C~xnm i ss i aner l. i nn s tated he was ready to move for den i a 1 of th i s reyues t because i t i s an illegal use and other illegal uses in the area did not ,justify approval of t`~is request. He suggested that if the re are other illegal uses in the area~ then something should be done to correct the situ ation immediately. 7-6-77 77-420 ~ ~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1714 (continued) 77-421 Commissioner King suggested A one year approv~l~ subject t~~ revlew in one yea~~, C~mmissioner Li~in stated he would move for denial. Frank Lowery~ Asst. City Attorney, p~intPd out that state laws rea~~ires an action on the neqative declaration prior to action for either denial or approval of the reque~t. The Conxnission discussed the finding~ nf a neg~tive declaration concerning edverse impacts with dust, barking of dogs, iraffic congestion, etc. Mr. Lowry pointed out that in this situatfon~ there would be no significant adverse impacts to the total property in the area due to small size of this particular parcel. ACTION: Ten-porary Chairman Johnson offered a mutiun, Sr~undeJ by C~~mmissioner David and MOTION CARRIEO (Commissioners He~bst and Tolar belnq absent, and Commissioners Linn and David voting no) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed th~ subject project consisiing of office .~nd scorage facilities on approx.imately A965 sq. ft. l~cated at the northwest corner of Center Street and Coffman Street~ and does recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that a NPgative Declaret.ion from the require- ment to prepare an environmental impact repart be approved for the subject property on lhe basis that there would be na significant individual or curnulativc adv~rse environ- mental impact due t~ the approval of this Negatie~e Decl~ration since the Anaheim Genera) Plan designates the subject property for commPrcial professional uses con,mensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmen[a) elements are involved in tl~~e proposal; and the Initial Study subrnitted by the applicant indicates no ,ignificanl individual or cumulative adverse environmental imp~cts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoiny findings is r~n file in the office of the Planning ~epartment. Mr. Johnson stated he felt the adverse impacts discussed on this project were a direct result of the illegal use of the prop~~ty. ACTION: Commissioner Linn offered Resolution N~. F'C77-140 and ,-oved for ils passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission d~es t~eret,y deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 17~4 on the basis that the property is being illegally use+ at the present time; that the petitioner shows no desire to conform by making changes necessary. On roil call~ the foregoing resolution passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Linn, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIOlJERS: Nerbst Barnes, David, Johnson, King and Tolar Mr. Lowry present Che -vritten right to appea) to Mr. Garan at this time. ITEM N0. 5 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: TEXACO ANAHEIM HILLS. INC., EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3350 Wilshire Boulevard. Los Angeles. CA 90005• RECLA~SIFICATION N0. 7~-77-62 Rgent: ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road~ Anaheim, CA 92a07. Subject property is an irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of epproximat acres located approximately 200 feet west af the cerminus of Swallow Way, and boundc e south by Anaheim Nills Gnlf Course. Property is presently classified RS-A-43,000(SC;~ '~~UENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: It was noted that the staff incorrectly showed the requested classi~fication tn be RS-HS-10,000 and the carrect classification should have shown: RS-HS-22+~~0(SC)(RESIDENTiAI,SINGLE-FAMILY HILLSIDE) ZONE. 7-6-77 77-421 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING L'OMMISSION, July 6~ 1977 17-422 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-17-62 (~ont(nued) There was no one Indicating their presonce in opposition to the request and tF~e staff report to the Planning Commissian dated July 6, 1977, was noc read at the public heariny, but is referred to and made a part of the mtnutes. Phillip ~ettencourt~ representing Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated he felt the staff report was adequate with the zoning d~signation chenge as stated. Ne stated this is a 2.7 ac•re parcel bounded on the north by two approved RS-10~000 zoned subdivlsion~ now under cnnstruction and an the south by the Anaheim H(lls Golf Course; that this is a unique estate lot and would r<<~uire a parcel map and rezoning before the proper•ty could be sold. THE PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Temporary Chairman Johnson questioned whether there was enough room for the easement for access to Che parcel because of a droN of about 60 to 80 f~et. Mr. Bettencourt replied that there would be roorn with grading and [hat a precise grading ~lan woutd be submitted. Mr. Johnson felt the grading plan would handle the problem since the Commission could review the grading r~aps. ACTION: Cammissioner David offered ~~ motion, seconded by C~mmissioner Kiny and MOTION CARRIED (Conqnis5ior,ers Flerbst and Tolar being absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the subject proposal to reclassify the zoning from RS-A-43,0~0 (RESIDENTIAL/ AGRICULTURAL) ZONE to RS-HS-22,G00 (SC)(RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE -FAMILY HI~LSIDE) ZONE, on approximately 2.1 acres located approximately 200 feet west of the terminus of Swallow Way, and bounded to the south by Anaheim Hi11s Golf Caurse, and Joes hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that a Negative Declarat~on from the requ~rement to prepare an environmental impact report be approvcd o:i the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impaci due to the approv~) ~f this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim Genera) Plan dESiqnates the subject property for low-density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental clemen[s are in~~olved in the proposal; that the Ini[ial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative advers~ environmental impacts; and that the Negative DeGlaration substantiating [he foregoing findings is an file in the office c,f the Plarining Department. ACTION: ~ommissioner David offered resoluti~n No. PC-77-141 and moved for its pas$age a~nd adoption, that the Anaheim Ci[y Planning Comm~ssion does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that Petition for Reclassification No. 76-77-62 be approved~ subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by tf~e f411owing uote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: David, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst King, Barnes, Johnson, Linn and Tolar It was noted the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory unanimously support the request with the stipulation divided further, at their m•^ting of June 21, i977• RECESS: 3:10 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:20 p.m. Committee (HACMAC) had voted tu that it be one parcel and not sub- 7-b-77 77-422 ~ MiNII~ES, ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1977 71-423 . n~~`i~ ii~n~l-~~. ~~.~~„D~ IMDCOIA,~ ORIIPCRTIFC~ I IGI'1 I'lu. v EIR CATEGURICALLY EXEMPT - CLASSESr) _ P. 0, Box 7250, Newport Beach~ CA 92663• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1 27 Agent; ~ELANEY'S KETTLE Uf FIiH, INC., P. 0. Box >096, Newport Beach, CA 92663. Sub}ect property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately Il acres and being located approx(mately 415 feet P.AS~ of the centerline of Imperlal Highway and further descr~bed as 5781 ~~+s}: SAnc~ Ana Car~yon Road. Request to permit on-sale beer end wine in a proposed restaurant; end on-s.ile liquor in a proposed restaurant. There was no one lndicating their presence in opposition to the request and although the staff report to the Planning C~mmission dated July 6, 1917~ was not read at the publit hearing~ it is referred to and made a par~ af t.he minutes. James Person, Vice-f'resident and Corporatc Counscl for Dclaney's, 632 Lido Park DrivP, Newport Beach, CA, indicated a correction in the staff report in the hours of operati~n, stating the fast food restaurant's hours are II°to II', and the enclosed restaurtlnt's hours are from lh 'to 2'~~daily). TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. It was noted the Director of the Planning Department has determined that the prcposed activity falls within the definition of Sectiun 3.01, Classes I~ of the City af Anaheim Guidelines to the Require:ments for an Envir•onmental Impact Report and is, there- fore, categorically exempt from the requiremenL to file an EIR. It was also noted the Hill and Canyan Municipal Advisory Corrnnit[ee (HACMAC) voted to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1727 (a ~ b) ac t~~eir meeting on June 21, 1977. It was felt the reservations on overall parking should be evaluated in the area. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC77-l42 and moved for its passage and adoption. that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby grant Petition for Con- ditiona) Use Permit No. 1727 to permi[ or~-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant and on-sole liquor in a proposed restaurant; anci subject to che Ir~terdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, *.he fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, David, Johnson, Kim; b L~nn NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst and Tolar Mr. Person thanked the Ptanning staff for their courtesy and cooperation in processing these requests. ITEM N0. 7 PUBIIC HEARING. Owner: BERNARDO M. YORHA AND MARGARET EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLA5S i L. YOf28A, 12S 5. C~ludina Street, Anaheim, CA 92805•Agent: CONDITIONAL USE F'ERMIT N0. 1721 SGPA PLANNING b ARCHiTECTURE, 44~1 Upas Street, San Diego, CA 92103. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.7 acres, having approximate frontages of 388 feet on the West side of Imperi~l Highway and 335 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, Request to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to the request and although the ~taff report to the Planning Commission dated July 6~ 1977, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 7-b-77 77-~+23 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 6, 1977 77-424 EIR~,C~tiTEGORICALLY EXEMPT AND CONDITIONAI U5E PERMIT No, ~~zl (con+inued) Bruce Green~ repressnting the agent~ SGPA, stated the floor plan~ for the Mexican restaurant were submittcd late and indicated the kitciien space requirement was less than 25~~. He stipulated that he would see that the requirement for kitchen space is met. Commisaianer Linn quest;oned Mr. Green about access indicat.ed on che plan to Imperial through a service statlon, with Mr. Green e.xplaining that when the pla~~ were drawn~ it was thouyht this would be possible because of an agricultur~l easement; however~ has siiice le~rned this would not he possible and there would he no access ta Irnperial. He explalned this area woul~ be landscaped. It wa~ noted the Director of the ~lanning Dep~~tmcnt h~s determined that the proprse~ activity f~lls wichin the definition of Sect.ion 3•O1, Class I, of the ~ity of' Anaheim Guidelines to the Requfrements far an Env~ronmental Impact Report an~ is, therefore, categorically exempt fram tl,e requirement to fil~ an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Res~lution No. PC77-143 and maved for its passage and acoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian does hereby grar~ Petition for Londitional Use Permit No. 1721 ta permit on-sale liquor in two proposed restaurants, sub~ett to the petitioner stipulating to me~t the 25~ kitchen s~iate requirement in the Mexican-style restaurant, and stipulatin_ry that there will be no acces5 through another property, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommenda[i~ns. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed hy th~ fallowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, David, Johnson, King b linn NOES: COMMISSlONER5: NonP ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nerbs[ and Tolar ITEM N0. S EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1722 irregularly-shaped parcel of land frontages of 388 feet on che west of La Palma Avenue. Request to p PUBLIC HEARING: Owner: SANTA ANITA DE`.~ELOPMENT I CORP., ~63 San Migu~l Drio•e, Newport Beach, CA 92660. ! Aqent: SGPA PIANNING f~ ARCHITECTURE, 440 Upas Street, San Diego, CA 92~~3. Sub~ecc property is an consis[ing of approximately 6.7 acres. having approximate side of Imperia) Highway and 335 feet on the south side ermit on-sale beer and wine in a restaurant. There was no one indicating their presence in oppasition to che request and although the staff report to the Planning Ccmmission dated July 6. i977 was not read at the public hearinq, it is referred to and rnade a part of the minutes. Bruce Gr~en,representing the agent, ~Gi•A, was available co answer any quesc~nns and stated he agreed with the staff report. ~t was noted the Director of the Planning DFFartment has determined that the proposed activicy falls within the definition of Sectic~n 3.Ot, Class !, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines t~ the Requiremencs for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt fr~m the requirement to file an EIR. It was also noted that the Nill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC) vot~d unanimously to support this request and also the request under ltem No. 7. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 7-6-71 77-424 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 6~ 1977 17-425 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1722 (continued) ACTION: Commissoner King offered tiRSOlutton No, PC77-1k4 And moved for iis passage and adoptl~n~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commisston does hereby qrant Petirion for Condltional Use Permit No. 1722 to permit on-sale beer and wine in a resta~~rant. subject to Interdep~rtmental Committee Recammendations, On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, Barnes~ David~ Johnsc,n b Linn NOES: COMNISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst and Tolar (TEM N0. 9 PUBIIC HEARING. Owner: RONALD K. f, JOAN H. RIRIE, EIR NEGATIVE DECLaRATION and LYNN E. THOMSEN, 71U N. Eutlid Il222, Anaheim, CA RECIASSIFICATION N0. 7a-77-64 92801. Agent: JAMES L. BARISIC, 4848 Lakeview azo3, VARIANCE NU. 2951_ Yorba Lindd, CA 92686. Subject property is a re.c- tangularly-shpped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 0.4 acre localed approximately 89 feet west of th~ centerline of Onu~~daga Street having ~ frontaye of appr~ximately ly0 fret on the north side af La Palma Avenue. Property presently r_lassified a~ RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-2400 (RESIDENTIAL,MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCES: Minimum building si[e width, maximum site coverage and minimum stru~tural setback to construct t~ireP d~~plexes. There was na one indicatiny their presence in opposition to the requesc and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 6, 1977 was not read at the public hearing, ic is referred to and made a~art of the minutes. Jim Barisic, agent, stated the requested waiver concerning maximum site coverage of 52~ was incorrect; that the figure should be 46.~ or 47~;. Annika Santalahti, Asst. Planning Director-Zoning, explained staff has had a problem establishing an exa~t figure since the title report and plans submitted do noc show the same figures for the depth of the property. Temporary Chairman Johnson suggested the Commission continue with the ~earing keeping in mind that there could be difference since he did not feel this particular waivPr was the or~e the Commission would be most concerned ab~ut. Ms. Santalahti sta[ed the Cammission~ if it viewed the project favorably, may wish to gr~nt the waiver allowing a given percentage and if there is a problem with the site, adjust- ments would have to be made prior to commencement of any activities. 14~.Barisic pointed out the private sch~ol mentioned in the staff report to the west of this propcrty utilized a portion of the vacant land for a playground. He als~ stated this property has nu commercial use potential and felt the proposed duplaxes would be the b~st use for this property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Barisic if he had considered putting twu buildings on the site~ rather than three, due to the width of the site, and Mr. Harisic answered that this :s not econamically feasible. 7-6-77 77-425 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, July 6~ 1977 77'42~ EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION, RECLASS. N0. 76-77-64 6 VAaIANCE N4. 2951 (cantinued) Mr. .~arisic polnted out these unils would have a considerable amount of open s~ace~ each unit having a~argc fenCed rear yard and the front yards would also be fenced. He stated a noise analysis is bein~ done and that a seven foot solid masonry ~~~11 woul~ probably be necessary. Temporary Chairmor Jchnson s~ated the l~ts in the area were considerably wider than Che fifty-foot iots proposed. Annika Santalahti~ Asst. Planning Dire~tor-Zoning, explained there have been a few instances prior ta this where non-conforming lots af rec~rd did exist and single Family units could be built ~n each because zoning all~wed it.but that lhis Narticular case is c~nsidered a v~riance because ~f the request to increase density. Mr. Barisic explained that single-family homes wn~,l~ n~r h~ appropriate fur this site. Commissioner Barnes was concerned abcut the nois~ fact~r with the market next door~ and Mr. Barisic stated t.hat he did nct anticip~te ~ problem with the solid masonry wall proposed and the wall of the store. Commissioner Harnes asked about the trash and Mr, garisic. explained the trash collection was in th~ rear. Temporary Chairman Johns~n poinced ou[ that the ditiference in site co~ierage as discussed could become ~ignificant and thac maybe it should be cleared up. fie stated he was having a problem in finding a hardship for granting ihe reyuest for waiver af rninimum structural setback and pointed out thP legal requirEments for finding of a hardship. Frank lowry~ Asst. City Att4rney, explained [he legal requirement for finding a hardship for granting a varianc~ has to be concerning the ~ize, shape, topagraphy or terrain of the property. Mr. Barisic felt the fact these were pre-existinq non-conforming lots which were not appropria[e for singl~-family or commercial development would constitute a hardship. Tem~orary Chairman Johnson pointed nut that if the peti[ioner had come befoi~e the Commission with one fifty-foot lot (non-conforrt~ing, existing), then ihere would have been a hardship. Annika Santalahti, Asst. Planning Director-Zoning, explained that if it were to be assumed this site was already zoned for multi-family uses and the petitioner had a 50 foot non- conforming lot, then he would be allowed to build and probably wou)d have rnodified the sideyard setbacks, buc since he is asking for a zoning action to increase the density, then it must be cansidered as a variance. She statPd the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation. Commissioner Linn asked about the passibility of this site being developed commercially and Ms. Santalahti stated it could be developed either commercially or residentially according to the General Plan. Mr. Linn stated he would oppose this request and hope that it may be developed with a ~etter use of the prop~rty. (Mr. Barisic stated he would not be interested in a commercial develapment.) Frank Lowry, psst. City Attorney, asked Mr. Barisic if he had consid.red the possibility of using the lot line adjustment provision of the Subdivision Map Act which would require a resolution by City Cnuncil. 7-6-77 77-426 ~, MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIMG COMMISSION, July 6, 1977 EIR NEGATIVE__DECLARA710N~RE~LA55 NO 76-77-64 b VARIANCE N0. 2951 (continued) 77-~+27 Mr. Barisic esked the Cortmission if they would pr•efer ta have six apartment units or to h~ve thr~a quality duplexes. ' Temporar•y Ch~lrmen J~hnson StAtCd the plans would net have to be chan~ed. He stated Ae ~hought tho project was good, but legally could not support the requ@st for a variance. He suggasted Mr. Barlsic take a contiruance t~ research other possibilities. Mr. Barisic axplained he had not considered the pessibitity of a!ot line adJustment. He felt the proJect would be difficult co finance and difficult ta sell, Ccxnmissio~~or King statod he falt the proJect was s~iitable f~r the erea and was a very good proJect~ witn Commissiondrs Barnes and David agrc~ing; however, they felt no hardship had been demonstrated. Mr. Johnson read a portion of the ordinance concernin~ variance, indicating special circumstances which do not appiy to other proporties with similar zoning must be demon- stratad. Commissioner King stated he felt a hardship would be the location of the,property, making iC difficult to develop ~nd also the develapment of the surraundinq area. Ms. Santalahti suygesred Mr. Barisic look at the development within the RM-4000 (Residential, Multiple-Family 2one) standards and Mr. Barisic repliod that this could not be done because of the sizr. of thc units, lynn Thomsen~ petitioner, scated he felt a hardship could be justified by the loca[ion and size of thc existing ~ion-conform(ng lots. He stated he had ~+-ned the property r.ine years and until recently had thought the property would be develo~ed conimercially, but with the parking requiremcnts~ etc., the property does not ~end i`self to commercial development. He felt it would be a mistake to ask the developer co change his plans to a six unit apartment complex. ACTION: Commissioner Linn offered a motion, ~econded by Commissioner Rarnes, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Tolar being absent) [o cor~tinue cansideration of Reclassifi~ation No. 76-77-64 and Variance No. 2951 to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 18, 1977. COMMISSIONER BARNES LEFT THE MEE7ING AT 4:10 p.m. ITEM N0. 10 PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: JOSEPH P. GLEASON, 3400 West EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804. Agent: WIR OEUELOPERS, RECLASSIFICATION NO.~ INC., 99~+? Central Ae-enue, Garde~i Grove, CA. 92644. TENTATIVE MAP.OF TRACT N0, 996o Engineer: Raab ~ 6oyer Engineers, 144a2 Beach Blvd.~ Westiminster~ CA 92683. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land r.onsisting of approximatety 3.3 ~crRS, having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on +:he south side of Ball Road, and being located approximatnly 532 feet west of the centerline of Oakhaven Drive. Property is presently classifiied CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) Zone. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone. REQUESTED TRACT: To construct a 16 lot, RS-5000 subdivision. i-6-77 77-~+27 ~~ ~- MINUTE~, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 6, 1977 77-~28 Ela NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASS. N0. 7~-77-65 and TENTATIV~ MAP OF TRACT N0. 9960 (continued) Frank Lowry~ Asst. City Attarney, noted thet he had a conflicl of interest as defined by Aneheim City Flann(ng Commisston Reaolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625~ et seq.~ in that he h~s represented the applicbnt as Caunsel; that, pursuant to the provisions of tha Above c~des~ ha was declaring to the Chairman that he was witfidrawing frcxn the hcaring in connection with Item No. 10 of the Planninq Commission agenda and would not take aart in the discussion thereon; and that he had not discussed this mattor with any memuer. MR. LOWRY LEF1' THE COUNCIL CHAMBER DURING 7NE DISCUSSION AND VOTING ON THIS ITEM. Jack White assumed Mr.Lowry's chair during the ~ollowing discussion. Th~: c~r wa~ no ~:~e i nJ i ~el i ny the 1 r Nr~sen4a i i~ oNNOS i l ioi~ to lli i 5 i r.yuC~ l anJ a 1 lhuuyh the staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 6, 1977, was not read ~l the public hearing, it (s referred to and made a part of the minutec. Ray DoramP, 590 N, Thomas Stroet, ~,•ange, rEferred to Condit!on No. 3 of the recammenda- tions (trash storagm), page 10-c of the staff report, iridicating this d~es not apply to this type development. Mr. Dorame discussed the requested waiver of City Council Policy No. 542 (Sou~d Attenuation in Residentia! Projects) stating there is very limited use of the railro~d track at this location~:with maybe two short trains in each direr.tior~ per day, traveling approximately 15 to 20 mph. He stated other developments in the area do not have any sound attenuation, He also stated a six foot block wall would be built. Conce~+ning the 50 foot wide str•eet easement, with a 36 foot curb to curb tra•~elway~ he stated he felt this would be sufficient width for any fire or emergency equipmenC. THE PUB~IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Temporary Chairman Johnson asked Jay Titus, Offi;,e Engineer, about the requirement for the 54 foot easement, wondering if this was :he entire right of way and Mr. Titus expla~ned that it was. He also explained that the Cit.y has allowed a 36-foot curh-to-curb t.ravel- way in short cul-de-sacs, bui. did not consic'er 7~0 to 750 feet a short cul-de-sac. He stated a 36-foot curb-Co-curb travelway, w+th ~arking, would not be sufficient for fire access and maneuverability. Mr. Jahnson suggested the possibility of developing that portion uf the street adjacent to the medical building with a 50 foox wide easement and designating that parcion uf the street as no parking on either side. Mr, Titus stated that the normal City street standard is 64 feot, with a 40 foot travel- way and two 12 foot parkways, but in this development it was proposed to put the sidewalks adjacent to tha curb and reduce the parkway to ~ feet, which is acceptab~e, but there is still the concern with the travelway. Mr. .!ohnson stated that if the F1an is redrawn to widen the travelway, it would probably change the dimensions of some of rho lots in the bark clase to the railroad tracks and this could possibily shorten the cul-de-sac. Mr. White pointed out the Commission has the option of continuing the hearing to have the drawings prepared or to approve th~ request subject to thE condition that corrected drawings are submitted prior to City Council consideration. 7-6-77 77-~+28 ~ ~,. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, July 6, 1977 77-~+29 EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION, RECIASS, ~!0, 76-77-65 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0, 9960 (continued) , Commissioner King clarified with Mr. Whtte that ;h~ reFerance in Item 10, page 3c, concerning the distanco a res(denttal structure shall be located fram e railroad was 150 feet from th~ 'track' And not the 'right of way'. Commissioner Linn asked who would be responsible for ma~Cing a dacision regarding a "no parking" designation for that 210 fo~t portic+r, o~~acent to thc medical building and Mr. Titus explatned that the Cicy Council would have to pass a rasolution ta that effect. Mr. Linn then esked if tha Commissir,n could recommend that to the Counci) and Mr, Titus rep~lied that that would be a~~propriate. Annika Santalahti, Asst. Planninq Olrector-~oning, statPd th^ City has not been able to get any information fram the railroad cor~pany relative to the actual traffic on these tracks. She elso stated the City rec~)gni'te'} that in cert~in are~~s the trac,~s are n~t being utilizad. Mr. Dorame stated hQ had talked with representatives at So~th~rn Pacific Pailroad Company ~nd felt c.ertain he could furnish a lettor stating there is minimum traffic on that particular track. Ms. Santalahti stated she felt a letter would be beneficial co the City Courcli in deciding wheCher or not to waive that. portion of City Counci) Policy No. 542 cc~ncerning a residential structure within 150 feet of a railroad. ACTION; Commissioner King offered a mvtion~ seconded by Commissioner Linn and MOTIUN CARRIED (Commissionrrs B~rnes, Horbst b Toler being absent) that the Anaheim City Flanning C~mmissinn has reviewed the subject propasal to reclassify the zoning fro;.~ commercial, limited to residential, single-family ~n approximately 3.3 acres of land having a frontage of approxi~uately 50 feet on the south SIdB of Ball Road, and being located approximately 5~2 feet west of r:~e centerline of Oakhaven Drive, and does hPreby recommend to the City Council c~, the City m~fAnaheim that ,~ Negative Declaration from the requirement to propare an e.~virv nrrental impact report be approved on the basis that there would be no signiFicant ir.dividual or cumulative adverse environ- menial impact due to the approval of this Negative Dectaratian since the Anah~im General Plan designates the subJect property for general commercial uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmantal elements are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner inciicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Oeclaration substantl- ating the foregoing findings is on file in the office of the Planning De~artment. ACTION: f,ommissioner King offered Resolution No.PCll-1k5 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Gity Planning Gornmission ~ioes hereby recommend to the City Counci! of the City of•Anaheim that Petition for peclassification No. 7b-77-6$ be a~proved, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On rnll call~ the `oregoing resolution was passed by *.he following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, ~evici, Johnsan, Linn hi0E5: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMM~SSfONERS: Barnes, Herbst. and Tolar 7-5-77 77-~9 ~ MINUTE5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSInN~ July 6~ 19]7 17-~+30 EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARl1T10N, REClA55. N0. 76-77-65 and TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 9960 (contlnucd) _ Commisslo~er King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner David, and MOTION CAtialED (Commissianers Barnes, Herbst and Toter being absent) that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Comm(ssion does hereby find thet the proposed subdivision, together with its des(gn and improvement~ is consistent with the Cicy ~f Anaheim's General Pla , Nui~uanl tu Government Code~ SPGtI~n 66473.5; and does therefore, approve Tentative Map ~~ Tract No. 9960 for a 16-lot, RS-5000 (Residencial~ Sfngle-Famlly) zone subdivislon, subJect to the pctitioner's stipulation to providc a m(nimum 54 fnot wide eflsement with a 40-foot curb-to-curb travel• way for propo~ed Street "A" with the exceptlon of the n~rtherly 210 fpet ~~djacent to the meclical building located on the nortl~west corner of subject pr~,perty which will have a 50 fnot wide easement with e 36-foot curb-to-curb travelway which may be a designated "No Parking" area, and subject to the following r.~~nditi~ns: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map ~.~t Tract No. 9960 ir, granted subject to the approval of Reclassitication No. ~-17-65. 2. That should this subdivisfon be devcloped as rrx~re than onc subdivision, each sub- division thereof shall bc ~ubmitted in tentat(ve form for approval. 3. That ail lots within this tract shall be served by underqround utilities. 4. That a final tracc map of subject property sl~all h~~ submitted to and approved by the City Council and thPn be rec.orded in the Off~ce _` the Orange ~ounty Recorder. 5. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Oepartment prior to approval of a final tract map. 6. That drainage of subjec[ property shall be dispc,sed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. i. That the owner(s) af subject prop~rty sh.~ll pay to the City of A~aheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to b~ appropri.~te by the City Cauncil, said fees to be paid at the time the building p„rmit is issued. S. If permanent street name sions have n~t been instal~ed, temporary street name signs shall be in;talled prior to any occupancy. 9. That the prooosed Str:et "A" shall be a minimum 54-foat wide easement wi[h 40-foot distance curb-to-curb, except the 210 feet ad~acent to the r~dical building located on the northwest corner of subject property which will have a 50 foo[ wide easement with a 36-foot curb-to••curb travelway which may be a designated "No Parking" area. Commissionar Linn offered a rno[ion, seconded by Commissioner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED (Commissio~ers Barnes, Nerbst and Tolar being absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby retommend [o the City Council of [he City of Anaheim that a Resolution designating th~ 210 feet adjacent to the medical building loc~ted on the northwest cor~~er of subject property as a"No Parksng" area on both sides be passed in connection with Tentative Map of Tract 9960. Commissioner King offered a moti~n~ secnnded by Conmiissioner Linn and MOTION CARRIED (~om~nissianPr Barnes, Herbst and Tolar being absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that that portion of City Council Poiicy No. 542 which specifies that no habit~ble residential structure shal'.be located less than one hundred (100) feet from a railroad track be waived in connection with Tentative Tract 9960 on the basis that evidence submitted indicates minimum traffic on that particular portion of the track. 7-6-77 77-430 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLAI~N~~IG COMMISSION, July 6, 1971 71-431 (T~M N0. II PUBLIC HFARING: OWNERS: ALFRED 0. AND MARIIYN R. EIR CATEGORICALLY E~CMPT - CLASS 3 LONG~ $4~ S. Aspen Streat, Anaheim, CA 92802. V~1R1 N E NO ^~~~ Subject property is an irregularly-shaped perctl af land consisting of epproxirrwtaly 9~00 square feet l~rated bexween Aspen Str~et and West Str~et, and being locat~d approxlmately 570 feet soutl~ :~f che centerlire of South Street~ end further descr(bed as 846 S. Aspen Street. Request for walver of maxlmum wali height in rear yerd. There wa~.no one indicating th~•ir presence in opposition to this request and although the staff reporttn the Planning Conxnission dated July 6~ 1971, was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a nart of the minutes. Alfred 0. I.ong, the pecitioner, was present to answer any questions. IHt NU9LIC HEAkING WAS CLOSCD. It was noted the Director of [he Planning Departmrnl has det.ermincd that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Sectian 3.01~ C1d55 3~ of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Repart and is, therefore, ~ategoritally ex~mpt from the requirement to filc~ an EIR. ACTION: Commi,sioner King offered Rrsolution No. PC 77-146 and moved for i[s passage and adoption that tlie Anahiem City Planning Cammission does hereby grant Petit~on for Variante No. 2952 to allow construction of an 8 ft. hiqh bloc~. wall in tl,e rear yard on the b~~is that the property is Iccatcd wi[hin 300' of a frreway and ,in irt~rial highway and is subject to excessive noise; and that A ft. tiiyh wail~ are perrnitted in the fron[ yard of residential properties fronting on arterial strcets; 6 subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommen- dations. On rol) call, the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kinc~, Linn, Johnson, D~~vid NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: CUMMISSIONEkS: Barnes, Herbst b Tolar ITEM N0. 12 PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: BF~THOVEN MARINA, LTD., 55o E. ~IR CATEGORICALLY EX~MPf Ca~'son Plaza brive, Carson~ CA 9074~. Ayents: CONDITIONAI USF. PERMIT N0. 1723 CARMEN P. SFERRAZ2A ANp MART!N P. ~OEW, 94U w. Orange- th~irpe Avenue~ Fullerton, CA 92632. Subject property is an irregularly-sh~ped parc°I ~,f land consistiny of a~prox'~^a[ely 3•7 acres located north of the intersect.ion of Knollwood Cir-1e and Woodland Drive, and further described as 2633 '~loodland Drive. Request ~o perrnit on-sale beer and wine in ~ proposed restaurant in the ML Zone. C~mmiSSioner King noted that he had a conflict of interest as defined by AnahPim City Planning Coirinission Resoluti~~n No. PC76-157 adc~pting a cunflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission ar,d Goverr~ment Code Sect on 3625, et seq., in that he o~vns stock in Pacitic lighting Corporation; that pursuant to the provisions of the ab~ve codes~ he was d~claring to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearin~3 in co.~~:~ction with Item No. 12 of the Planning Commission agenda and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon; and that I~e had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. THEREUPON~ COMMISSIONER KING TEMPOF.ARILY LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. Frank Lowry Asst. City Attorney, pointed out the Commission could nnt act on this matter -ie to lack of quorum; therefore, this item would be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Cam~nission~ July 18, 1977. COMMISSIONER KING RETURNEU TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. 7-6-77 77-431 M ~ MINUTES. ANIIHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Jul y 6, 1977 ~~'~~32 ITEM No, 13 PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: ESTATE OF LEO GOGER7Y, FIR CATEGORICAI.LY EXEMPT - CLASS 1 LUDELLA GOGCRTY, EXECUTRIX. 1311 C11ff Drlve~ Newport f,ON01TI0NAl USE PERMIT N0. 1 2 Beach, CA 92463~ Agent. U-HAUL COMPANY OF ORANGE COUNTY ~ 860 S. P I acen t 1 a Avenue ~ P 1 acen t i a~ CA 92fi70. SubJect property ls a rectangularly-shaped pa rcel ~f IAnd consist~ng of 0,6 ecre, having a frontage of approximately 261 feet on the e asc side of Anaheim Bivd.~ beiny located approximately 126 feet south of the centerlin e of Water Street a n d further described as fi24 and 626 South Anaheim Boulevard. Requesc ~o permlt truck and trailer rentals. Two gentlemen indicated their interest in the hearing, not knowin g whether ar not they were opposed until they had hearcl the present at~on. Although thP ataff report to the Planning Com.nisslon dated July 6~ 1977, was not read at the public hearing, it is rcferred t.o and ma d c a part af the min utes. Mr. Jim Bateman, 1417 Courtney ~lace~ Anaheim , representative of U-Fiaul, scated the pet i t ioner agreed wi th the staf f report and r efe rred to I len~ 12 , pa,ye 13b, concern ing outdoor storage and indicated that nothing would be stored outsid e, except the trucks and trailers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Temporary Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Bateman if there wauld be a n y maintenance performed on the equipment at this location and Mr.dat en~an ~xplained that all maintenance would be done at the Placentia fa~ility. Ne expla :ried that the U-Haul Campany is buying ~nd runningtt~eir own businesses rather than work'sng out o'F service statians. Commissioner King clarified that no repairs wo~~ld be done at this fac.ility. Mr. Bateman explained that bumper-nx~unte<1 trailer hitches would be instailed inside this facility which amounts to drilling a ho le in the bumper an d bolting the equipmeni onto the bumper. Cornmissioner King asked Mr. Bateman about tr ash storage and he e xplained that Condition Mo.l of the Interdepartmental Committee Reco rnnendation5 to provide trash ~~torage areas ~n accordance with approved pl~ns on ~ile with the affice of the Di~ector ~f Public Works would be coRiplied with. Mr. Johnson as~ed the gentlemen who had indi cated interest in this item if all their questions had been asnwered and J. L. Norton „ 627 S. G~audina~ A naheim, explained h~ had attended the meet ing because. of conc:ern over pas; problems w i th the s i te, but fel t this proposal se~med it would mee: ap~roval of most of the neig h bors in the area. It was noted the Oirector cf the Planning De partment had determined that the proposed activi*_y falls within the d~~finitian of Sect ion 3.01, Clas~ l~ of the City of Anaheim Guidel ines to the requi remer ts for an Envi rosimental Impact Report and is, therefore, car.egorically exempt from tie requirement to file an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Linn offered Resolution No• PC 77•147 and mo ved for its passage ar:~1 adoption~ that lhe Anaheim City Plann~ng Co~nrnis;ion does herekv grant Petition for Ca~ditional Use Permit No. 1724 to permit tr uck and trailer ren t als, and subJece to the Interdepartmental Commi~tee Recommendati ans, and subject to the petitioner stipulating that no rtiaterials will be stored outsids th e building and that na maincenance will be pcrformed on the equipment at this location. On roll call, the foregoi~g resolution was p assed by the followin~ vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Linn, King. J ohnson and David NOES: LOMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, ~arne s 6 Tolar 7- 6-77 77-432 MINUTES, CITY PLANN 1 NG COMMISSION. July 6~ 1'j77 77-~~3: ITEM N0. 1t~ Request to abandon a portion of an exist(ng ~~'•~~ICALLY E XENPT - CLASS 5' publlc utility ea~rment to pPrmit the installAtlon of a ~ ~_ swi rn~ni ng poo) wi thnut oncrc~ech i ng i ~, to thG --' existing easement located at lll3 South Trevnr Street. The staff report t~ the Planniny Commission dA~~J July G~ 1`)77~ was presente~~ and made a pert of thc rnlnutes. It was natecl that thc Ulrector of tf~c Plan;iinq De~artment has Jetcrmined that the p~~posed activity f alls within the deftnitl~n of Sectlon 3.~)!~ Class 5, of the City of Anahelm Guldclines to tl~e Requirnnents for an ~nvironmental Ir+~act Report end Is~ therefore~ r,t~t~~~,~ori c~il ly exernpt from the requiremenc to fi le an EIR. ACTIOt~: Conbnissioner Kin~ offe~c:J a nx~tion~ seconde~ L~y f,c~„n,issianer bavid and -- NOTlON CARRIL~ (Commissi aners Barn~~s~ Herbst anci Tqlar beinn absent) ~ that the Anahe i m C i ty P I ann i nr~ Comrni s s i an Jo~s hcrc~by rcc<~rir~cnd to the C i ty Counci I c,f th~e City of Anahelm that the request to abandon a port(on of ~n exl st i ~~~ pub 1 ic uti I I ty easement l~catecl at 11~) S~uth Trev~r Straet be ap~rovc~i, as rccnnxnenJed by the Ci ty Enginecr, a le~,~al descri~[ion of s~ld easement b~iny on f(lc at the Gity. ITEM N0. 1~ REPORT-5 A~~() RECQHNE;~UAT I 0~15 ITEM A- REQUEST FOa APf Cllt NEGIITIVE DECLAR~TtUN - For Gr~diny Pl~in No, G20 at 2 S ~ sa ta r~ve. The staff report to thc Plannin_1 Commission date. July G, 1977. was presented and made a part of ttic minutes. AC7lON: Conunissioncr Kiny oi~ered a nx~[ion~ seconded by Commissioner David and HOTION CARRIEU (Cor~imiss(~ners I3arnes~ Herbst and Tolar hein absent, and Corm~issio~er Linn abstainin~~) ~ that [he Anaheir~ City Planning Commisslon does he~cby find that pursuant to the ~rovisi~ns of tt,e Caltfornia Environmental Quality Act~ the propos~J gradin~;~ of approximately 90Q cubic yards of earth for one RS-I15-43~000 sinyle-fami ly lot at 2~~5 Chrisalta Drive will not have a siynificant indivicfua) or cumulative adve~se environn,ental impact because the (nitial Study indic,ates th~at the proJect is in conformance witfi City standards anJ policies, an~i is compatible witf~ surroun~iing lanci uses; no senait~ve environmental elements are involved and~ therefore~ reconmends to the City Council nf the City of Anaheim that the I~egative Declaration from the requirements to p~•epare ~n environmental impact be approveJ. 1 TEM fi - REQUEST FOR E 1 R NEGAT 1 V E DECLARAT 10;~ - Fo r Grad i na P I an No. 621 ~ at ., rTsa ta r ve. Ttie staff rtport to the Planning Comr~ission dated July 6~ 1~77, was presented and made a part of the minutes. ACTIUN: Gommissioner King ~ffered a motion~ seconded by Co~~xnissioner David and MOi ~nN CAP.RI~D (Commissioners Barnes, Harbst and Tolar being absent~ and Commissioner Linn absiaining)~ tl~at the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon dces hereby f ind that pursuant to the provislons of the e.al ifornia Envtron~nenta: ~u~llty Act~ the Rroposed grading of approximately 1,Q00 cubic yards of earth for one RS~NS-43~000 single-fami ly lot at 24; Chrisalta Drive 7/6/77 1 MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 6~ 1977 P~ 77-434 REPORTS ANO RECOMMtNUAilun~ -_ITEM B (Cuuclc}uFd) ~. will not h~vc a signlficant indivtdu~l or cumulative advcrse environmental Impact becouse the I~itlal Study indicatc~s that the proJect ts (n conformance w(th City standards And policies~ and is c~mp~~ttblc with surroundlnc~ lan~i uses; no sensitive envlronmcntAl elements a~e involved arsd~ ~herefore~ recommends to thc City Council of the City of Anehcim that the Negativc Declaratlon from the requiremrnts to prcpnrc on environmental (mpact report be appraveJ. ~~M ~- REQUEST FOR E IR NEGAT I VE DECLARl1T ION - For PArcc 1 Nap No. ~~;5 at the southwest corner of Mer-chester Avenuc an~.~ Freeclm~n Way. The s[aff report to thc Plannin~~ Commission date~l July G~ 1'_171~ was presented and made a part of [he minutes. ACTION; COmr1~S51c~nar UAVid ~ffcrc~! a inotion~ secc>nJed l~y Comrnissioner Linn and MOTIJN C/1RRIED (Commissianers tternes~ Nerbst and Tolar heing absent.)~ that the Anaheim C(ty Planniny Ganr~ission does hereby find i.hat pursuant to the provisi~ns af thc C~lifornia Environi,~ental ~uality Act~ the proposed two-lot Parcel Map No. 6~~5 at che soutt~west corner of Manchester Avenuc and Freedman Way will nol havc ~ sign(ficant individual or cumulative adver,e environmental ia~pact t~ecause the Initial StudY ii~dic~~tes that the project is compatible witli City pla~is~ ordfnances~ sur~oundin<~ lar~d uscs; no sensitive environmen[al elericnts are involved an~4, therefore~ recommends tn the City Council that the N~gatlve Qeclarat=on from the requiremcnts to prepare an environmental impact report bc approved. ITEM D- COr1ulTtot~AL USE PERMIT N0. l;l j- Re~~•~st for an extensiorti ~f time to permi t a board and care ac 1 i ty ~~~r cl~e treatment of alcohol ics at 703 I~orth Lemc~n Street. The staff report to the Pla~niny Comrnission datecf July 6~ 1917~ was ~,resented and made a part of thc minutes. It was noted that thc ~ircctor of [he Planning Department has determined that the praposed activity falls withi-i the definition of Section 3•O1~ Class 1~ of the City of Anaheim Guldellnes to the Reouirements for an Envirc~nmental Impact Report and Is~ therefore~ cateyorically exeinpt from tlie requi~ement to file an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Klny affered a mot~on, seconcfed by Commissioner David and MOTI01a CARRIED (Cemmissioners Barnes~ Ilerbst and Tolar being absent), that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hcreby ~rant a two-year extenslon of t(me for Conditioiial Use Permit No. 1517~ retroactive to May ?.5~ 1917~ t~ expi re May 2i.~ 1y79. 1 TEM E- Tk.P~TAT I VE TK~CT NO . 846~~ ( REV I S t ON 1~0. 1) - R~q ues t fo r approva 1 of inal speci ic plans. Subject property consisting of ~pproximately 1~.3 acres locateci on the south side of Canyon Rim Road~ approx(rr~tely ~ne mile northeast of Nohl Rancl~ Road. Petitioner~ J'~ry W. Buffington~ Vice President of Oaktree Development Cor~any~ reque,ts approval of final specific plot plans~ floor plans and eleva[ions for Tentative Tract No, 0464 (Revision No. 1)~ to establish a 47-lot, RS-HS-10,000 subdivision. The staff repurt date~ July b, 1977~ to `he Pianning Commission was presented and made a part of the minutes. 7/6/77 MINUTES~ C17Y PLANNING COhWISSION~ July 6~ 1~77 RCf ORT~ At~O RECOMMENR,ATIONS -~1_TF_M F(Contf nued) 77•~435 ACTI01~: Camm(ssioner Johns~~ r~Ffered a m~tlon, secon~ied by Commissloner King and ~ MOTION CARRIEU (Coirr~iss(oners barnes. Ilerbst and Tolar bel~ig ebsent~ and Canmissioner Ltnn abstal~ing), tl~at thc Anah~lm Clty Planning Comnlssion ~oes hercby approve final specific plot planc~ fence plans~ floor plans and elevations for 7entAtive Tract ~~o. 3~6~+ (Revlsion No. 1). j"Zj,M F- CQRRECT I ON TQ PL~jNt~,lNG COMMI 55 I QN M I NUTE:S OF APR I ~ 25. 1977 rega rd I ng eertiflcattan nf fnvironme:ntal Irr~act Report No. 1~7 In conncct(on with Reclassificotton No. 76-71-~-1 and Tentativc Tract N~s. `17~~9. 91ti~~~ 9151 and 9%5?. The staff report to the Planniny Conmiission dated July G~ 1~177~ was presented and m~de a part uf the minutes. ACTION: Cortxn(ssiancr King offered thc follc~wln~ motlon~ secondcd Uy Commissioner Uavid and MOTI~N CAttNIEU (Commissioner~ Darnes, Herbst an~f Tolar bcing absent~ anJ Com~~issioner Linn abstAininy)~ th~t the minutcs of [hr. April 25~ 1971~ meetin~~ be corrected to ~ccurately reflect the motion re,~commending certification of Environrnental Impact Re~ort No. 19J ~s follows: "ComT~issioner Darnes offered a motion~ seconded by Canvntssioner King and ~10TIOt~ CARRIEU (one seat t~einy vacant) ~ that Environmental Impact Report No. l~J (supplcr•ientinq Master EIR No. 80) for proposed grading~ reclassification and Jevelopment af 2Zt; resiJent(al lots and 214 units for the lOQ-acre site generally bounded I~y the Southern California Edis~n Easemen;~ Imperial H i~~hway an~j P 1 ann i ny Un i t XV, fiav 1 ng been cuns i dereci th i s date by the Ar~ahe i i~i L i ty P 1 ann i n~~ Comm i ss i on ~nd ev i dence ~ both w r I t ten and or~~ 1, hav i ng been presented to supplement said Draft EIR No. 137~ finds thaC: (a) Potential project-yenerated indiviJual and cumulativ~ significant aclversr, imp.icts w( 11 be recluccd with respect to lan~iforrns by c~nformance wi th t~ie N1 S Isicie Gra~finy Ordinance; util Ities by planned extension and additlon of facilities; schoois by limite' transportation, tsoundary ctianc3es or other alternatives; and~ circulation by efficier~t traffic controls. (b) Subjec. ~raft EIR No, 1)7 c~nforrns to the City and St~te Guiclrlines and State of California Environmental Quallty Act. Therafore~ based upon such informatiun~ the Clty of 1lnahcim Planning Commission does hereby reconvnend ta the Ciiy Council that said E-R No. 197 is 1n compliance with said Envbr~n~nental Quality Act." ITEM G- ciR CATEGORICALLY EXEI~PT - CLASS 5- Abandonrnent of Sewer Line ~BAIJUONII~NT N0. J6-Z5A Easement north of Lincoln Avenue between Claudina and Emily Streets. The ~taff report to the Planniny Conrnission dated July ti, 1977~ was presented and m.~de a part of the tni nutes . It was noted th~t the Di~eCtor of the Planniny Department has determineJ the proposed activity falls within the definit(on of Section 3.~1, Class 5~ of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Require~nents for an Environmental Impact Repo~t and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the rsquirement to file an EIR. 7/6/77 ~ I MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMNISSION, July 6~ 1977 1~~43~' REPO~iTS AiiO F~CONNC?~p!!T I ONS - 1 TEM ~(Cnnc i nued) ACTIONz Commisslonor King offered a mntion~ secondecl by Cammiss(oner David and MOTION CARRIED (Commisslonnr~ Barnes~ Herbst and Tole~ be~i~g absent), that tha Anehetm City Planntng Commisalon~ pursuanc ta the provistons of Soctlon 5043; of the Stt~te of Cal l fornia Government Code, does hereby reco~~~~d to tho City Council of the Ctty af Anahatm that the request to abandan e sewer lino easement north of llncoln Avenuc becweG~ Cleudina and Emtly Str~~ts be approved~ subJect to the conJition ttiat the ~xisting santtery se+wer llne be relocatPd At no cost to the City~ as recommended by thr. Ctty Engineer and based on the foregotny flndlnys, e leyal doscription of sald aasement betng on file at the. City. ADJOURNMENT Commissioncr David moved th~t rhr. meetinq be adjourned to a special rneeting on friday~ July 15, 1917, 10:00 a.m., in the Council Chamber co hear discussion on the sular panels. Cortxnissi~ner Linn seconded thc motl~n and MC~TION CARR~ED (C~rtxnissioners Barnes~ Herost and Tolar being absent). The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted~ ~4~~ °, • . Edith L. Harris, SecrPtary 7/6/77 _,~