The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1977/07/18Y A ~ ~. ~ItY He~~ Anahetm, Califo~nia ,1uly 18,1977 REGUI.AR MEETING ~rf THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - A regular meeting of c~~e Anaheim Clty Planning Commission was called to order MEETING by Temporary Chalrman Johnson at 1:33 p•m.. an July 18, 1977~ in the Cnunc() Chambers~ a quorum bcing present. PRESENT •• COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, David~ King~ Johnson, Linn and Tolar ASSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Herbst (Arr(ved at 3:00 p.m.) ALSn PR~~ENT - Jack White Deputy City Attarney Annika Santalahti Assistant Planninq Direclor-Zoning Jay Titus Office Engineer Paul Singc~r T affic Engineer ,!. J. T~ahirn A~~sistant Planner Edith Harris Planning Commission Secretary PLEOGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Linn led in che Pledg~ of Allegiance to thc Flag of the United States of America. INTRQDUCTION OF NEW CHAIRMAN Temporary Chairman Johnson yielded the gavel to the new Chairman for the fiscal year 1977- 1978, Harold Tolar, who had not been present at the meeting oF July 6, 1917• Mr. Johnson thanked staff and the Lommission for their assiscance during his term as Chairman, CONTINUANCES Chairman Tol~r explaine~ that requests for continuances had been received on Icem c, Reclassification 77-78-3 and v~riance N~. 2957. Owners: Myron ~ Kayle Simor., Stanley L. Rosen, 1~3~ W• La Paima 4vc~nuP, for concinuance to August I, 1977, in order to submit revised plans, req~~este~i hy the petitioner; Item 5, Reclassification 77-78-2, Conditional Use Permit 1726, (lwner: CLIFFORD H. HAZELTON, 1420 N. Lemon, requested by petitioner in order to obtain additional information pertaining to the acr~uisition of city property for continuance to August 1, 1971; Item 19~ Reclassification N~. 76-77-63 and `/ariance No. 2g46, Owner: Easter Island, LTd., 8-lot subdivis+on on 1.8 acres locaCed northeast tor- ner Santa Ana Canyon Road, east c~f Pinney DriveY request by petitioner for continuance to August 29- 1977, in order to submit revised plans. Commissioner Johnson offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Linn to c~ntinue Item 6 and Ite~r 5 to the Augusc l, 1977 regular meeting, and Item 19 to the August 29, 1977 regular meeting as reques;ed by the petitioners and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst being absent). CONTINUANCE - ITEMS 1 AND 2 Chairman Tolar reported the petitioner, William Clow, had requested a continuanc~ on Items 1 and 2, Reclassification No. 76-77-54,Variance No. 2936 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 9815- for 48-unit, RM-1200 subdivision on 3.3 acres on the north side of Simmons Av~nue, 28?. feeC east of Haster Street and Reclassifi~ation 76-7)-55 and Variance No. 2937 for waiver of maximum buiiding height to construct a 13-unit apartment 7-18-17 77-437 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ,I~~ly 18~ 1977 77-~~38 CONTINUANCE - Ilems 1 and 2(cor~t~nu_ed_) complex on 0.5 Azre on the east side of Haster Street, 113 teet south of Wilken Way. He reportpd that this contlnuance had be~n requested because Mr. Clow had employed another architect and w(shed ta submit revised plans. W(lliam Clow~ petitioner, reported he had employed the services of Dan Rowlend as architect for the proJect and woul~ like a continuance in order to allow him to evaluate the plans for conformance with lhe Anah~Im General Pian and zr•^ing ordinances and prepare reviced exhibits; to meet wfth the nelghbors for their co~,~~ents; to meet witli the Planning staff for their revisw and submit revised plans. He reporte~! he did not k.now how to contdct the attorney for the residents in the area~ but that he had contpcted one of the neighbors, Mr. Cissell~ and h~ had stated he ~~ould contact the attorney, Don Rowland~1000 W. La Palma, Anaheim~ said he would need more time to evaluate the area and submit revis~d pl~ns, and askecl for a continuance uf lwo ~~x~nths. Ne stated during that time he wnulrl mPFr with the neiohbors to show them what the ~lans are and to get their opinion~and would work with the Planning staff in order to present a clean package. Chairman Tolar stated the change of architects made sense and he qenerally does noc ~ike continuances, but would support this request for cun[inuance with the understanding tha[ the peti[ioner will pay for tlie cost of re-nocifying the aroperty owners, Commissioner Johnson sugyested that rather than grant a continuanr_e for such a long time, that it might be better [~ take the item off calendar and readvertis~ as a new item when the revised plans are submitted. Jack White, Deputy City Attorney~ stated the Commission could either he:ar and decide the maCte or continue to a date certain at which time no guaran[ee could he made that ttie plans will be ready~ or finally, c~uld ask the petitiuner to withdraw the applicatic~n and re- submit at the time the plans are rcady, guarantecin9 the m~tter would be heard at that time. Mr. Rowland stated he didn't think the matter should be taken off the calendar, but that Mr. Clow should pay for readve~tising which wo~ld mean less money t~ b~ spent by him and less cost for the City. A person in the audience asked if the opposition could be heard regarding this item. Chairman Tolar stated he would allow a very trief statement. Nick Netty, 625 E. Palmira~ Orange~ s~ated Mr. Clow has had 8 week~ to submit revised plans since the initial hearing; that it i~ no[ the fautt af the homeowners that he did not pick the right architect; that the homeowners have taken time off from work and that they did not want to see this thing dragged on and on. Chairman Johnson stated that I~e appreciated what Mr. Net[y had said~ but that Mr. Clow had just hired the new architect and Lo turn down the application before the C~mmission now would not benefit the property owners as it woutd probably mean they would have to gu before Cr~uncil. He stated the Commission was trying to get some type of sense in what can be devAloped in that area which would be pleasing to the homeowners and the property owner. Mr. Netty stated the Commission was the representative for both parties, but felt they we~e only representing the netitioner. ~- ~ a-» »-a~a ~.. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISStON, July 18~ 1977 77-4~9 CONTINUANCE • Items 1 6_2 (conttnued Chairm~n Tolarreplied the Commissi~n was not represen~ing one man and asked Mr. Netty whet he wanted the Commission to do since they dld nat have revised plans to v~te on. Mr. Netty replied that the homeowners felt the petic(on should be denied, Ch~~irman Tolar stated that to deny the request would not help the homeowner's cause as the rer~uest would then go to the Council and Mr. Netty replied that at least the matter would be moving somewhere. Commiasioner Jof~nson stated he felt the people of the area had wan the victory;thac there appeared to be a change in dir•ection in devel~pmenr of the ptans; that the people had made their point; that progress musr bc qo on and new plans wil) be submitted. Ne stated that ta deny the request or tu take it off the calendar would amount to the sarne thing~ costing the developer about $200.00~ ~vith Mr. Netty interjecting that the cust of che t+me off work the homcowncrs had lcsc ~:hould be figured too. Commissioner Barnes agreed with Commissianer Johnson that the rc:sidents uf the drea had won a substantia) victory and that it rcally doesn't matter wliether the inatter is taken off the calendar or continued. that the developer wiil come back with another project. Mr. Netty stated [he petitioner should be required to start from tt~e beginning. Commissioner Harnes stated that to deny would only cost the petitioner a couple hundred dollars and that would not stop him, with Mr. Netty re~tatii~y the time [he homeowners have lostfrom work be considcrcd. Commissioner Linn offered ~ motion that consideration of Items 1 and 2 be cantinued for two months to the SPptember 12, 1977 reg~~lar ~neeting. A gentlemen from thp audience asked to be heard. He stated the public hearinys are se: ~~p to give the public an opportunity to be heard; that 300 siynature~ on petitions have been suLmitLed and the Cornmission is [here to serve the interest of the ,,ublic. He felt the Conmissi~n was voting on a basis of 300 to l, and were [rying to serve one man. Ch~irman Tolar ~tated the Commission was not trying to serve one man, that the applicant ha~ requested a continuance because he can't use the plans he has and that the Commission cannot vote because they don't have anything to vote an. This gentlemen st~ted the petitioner had bean yiven time to go back to drawing board. He stated the residents were opposed to multi-family residential and wanted to see single-family residential units developed there; that the area hds more than their share of apartments. Chairman Tolar stated there was a motion on the ftoor and called for a second. Mr. White asked if the condition requiring the pet:tioner to bear che cost of renotifying the aronerty owners was a part of the rnotion and Mr. Linn amended his motion to include that candition. Comm~ssioner David secanded Mr. Linn's motion and MOT10N CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst being absent) to continue consideratian of the aforementioned items to the regular meeting of the Planning „ommission to be held on September 12, 1977~ and that the home- owners within 300 feet oi the subJ'ect property be notified of this hearing and the expense of such notification shall be borne by the petitioncr. 7-18-77 77-~+39 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, July 18, 1977 77-440 ITEM N0. 3 CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING. OwnerS: RONALD K. ANO JOAN H. ~IR Nt~ATIVE DECLARATION RIRIE, AND LYtJN C. TIfONSE~~, 710 N. Euclid, N222, Anahcim, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7-17-~4 CA 92801. Agent: ~MES ~. BARISIC, 825 South Western VARIANCE N0. 2951 Avenue, Anaheim. :,ubJect property is a rectangulary-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.4 acre having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, and being located approximatel•/ 89 fect west of the centerline of Onondaga Street. Property presently classified RS-A-43,OQ0 (RESIDENTIAI./AGRIf.1.ILTURAL)Zone. Requested classification: RM~•2400 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. Requested waivers: MINIMUM BUILDING SITE WIDTf~ AND MINIMUM STRUCTURAL SETBACK. There was no one indicatiny their presencc in opposition to this request and although the s[aff report tu lhe Planning Commission datcd July 18, 1971, was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. James H~risic, che petitionPr's agent, repor•ted that the revised plan submitted deleted the waiver requested pertaining to rnaximum site covcrage. He emphasized that he had acquirea three totally separate suhdivided lots (existing,non-cc~nforming lots); that these would be very nice unils with considerable recreatior-,al area; adequate landscaping and solid concrete block walls to be provided. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS GLOSED. ACTION: Commissi~ner King offered a nx~tion, seconded k~y Conn~issioner Oavid and MOTION CARRIEO (Commissioner Herbsi. beiny absent and Corrnnissioner Talar abstaining since he was not presr_nt at rneeting of July 6, 1971)that [he Anahcim City Planning Commissi~n has reviewed the subject proposal Lo reclassify the zoning of the property from residen[ial/ agricultUral to residential, multiple-family on proper[y c~nsisiino of O.A acre having frontage of approximately 150 feet on thc north side of La Palma Avenue, and being located approximately 89 feet west of the centerline of Onon~laga Stree[ with waivers of minimum buildiny s~te width and minimum structural setback to construct three duplexes; and does grant approval af a Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an e~vironmental impact report on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Dectara- ti~n since the Anaheim General Plan designatt~s the subject property for general commercia) and medium-d~nsi[y residential land us~s commensurate with the proposal; that similar multiple-family residential pruperty is developed in the area; that no sensit~vic environ- mental impacts are involved in the proposal; th~t the Initial Study submit[ed by the petitioner indicates no signifirant irdivi~~~al or cun,ulative adve~rse environmental impacts; and that the Negative neclaration substanci~ting the fore;oing findings is on file in the office of the Planniny Department. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resnlut+on No. PC77-148 and ntovecl F~r its passage and adop- - o, that the Anaheim CitY Planning Commic~;on does hereby grant Peti[ion for Reclassifi- cati~n No. 76-77-64, subject to Interdep~rtmen;al Committec~ Recommendations. Commissioner Johnson stated he had opposed this project at the hearing two weeks ago because it was his desire to alleviate the narrow lot situation in Anaheim by collecting them~ but felt in this particular cas~ at this locatio~ wi:h the way the neighborhood is devQloping~ he would support [his project. 7-'8-71 77-440 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ July I8~ Iq77 77-441 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~,RECLASS. 76-77-64i VARIANCE N6. 29 I(conCinusd) On rol) call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the foiiowinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King~ Barnes~ David, Johnson, Linn NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None Aa5TAIN: COMMISSIUNERS: Tolar ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst ACTION: Commissionar King offered Resolution No. PC77-149 and moved for its passage and adoption, that thc Anaheim City Planning Conmission does hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 2951 in part~ waivFr (b) for maximum site c~verage deleted by revised plans; waivers of minimum building site width and minirnum structural s~tb~jck arc granted on the basis that the size and location of the property rnake it difficult to develop; multi-family residential pruperty is developed adjacent to subject site; the minirnum structural s~tback is granted to avoid an unnecessary loss of usabl~~ lan~i; and subject tn rhe Intnr~lP~,~rtm~ntal C~mmittee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregaing resolution was passed by the followin~ vntF~ AYES: COMMISSIONCRS: Kin_y~ Barnes, David, Johnson, Linn NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Tolar ABSEIJT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst ITEM NQ. 4 CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: BEETOVEN MARINA~ I.TD., EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 1 550 E. Carson Plaza Drive, Carson, CA 90745. Agent: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 1723 CARMEN P. SF'ERRAZZA and MARTIN P. LOEW, 940 W. Orange- thorp~, Fullerton, CA 92632• Subject pr~perty is an irregularly-shaped p3rcel of l~ind consi5ting of approximately 3•7 acres located north of the inter•section of Knollwood Circle. and Woodland Drive, and further described as 2633 Woodland Orive. Request is to permit on-sale beer and wine at an exi5ting sandwich shop in the ML Zone. Cortmissione~ King no[ed that he had a conftic[ of interest as deFined by the Anaheim City Planning Cortxr~ission Resulution No. PC76-157 aciopting a Conflict of In[erest Code for the Planning Cornmission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that he owns Pacific Lighting Corporation common s[ock and Dunn Properties is owned by Pacific Lighting and Dunn Properties has an interest in this proposal; [hat, pursuant [o the provisions of the above codes, fie was declaring to the Chairman that he was withdrawing f~m t.he hearing in connection with Iteni No. 4 of the Planning Commission agenda and w~uld not take part in the discussion ~hereon; and that he had not discussed this matter with a~y member. MR. KING LFET THE COUNCIL CHAMBER Di1RING THE DISCUSSION AND VOTING ON TNIS ITEM. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to this request and although the staff report to the Planning Comm~ssion dated July 18. -977. was not read at the public hearing, it is refer•red t~ and made a part of the minutes. Carmen P. Sferrazza, one of the owners of the restaurant, was present to answcr any questions and stated the primary object of the restaurant is to sell sandwiches and would like to sell beer and wine to enchance that objective. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Tolar clarified that the restaurant sells primarily to the industrial park and asked the petitioner what his hours of oper~tion were, with Sferrazza explaining that the opening time had not been established~ but normally would open at abouc 10:30 a.m. and close at approximately 5:00 p.m. 7-18-77 77-441 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIT'Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 18, 1977 17~4G2 EIR CATEGOa1CALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 1 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1723 (continueJ) Chairman Tolar asked Mr. Sferrazze if he would be w(llinq to stipulate to hours uf operation, such as, clasing at 6:00 p.m. And Mr. Sferrazza replied that he has already stipulatcd to close ~r. 5:00 p.m. and that he would be willinq tu sti~~ilate to a closing time. Commissioner Johnson stated his concern that a time limit should be ad~ed to the Conditional Use Permit in the event the business were sold at a I,~ter date and he didn't want to see someone try tu establish a beer bar in a location nat considered desirnble. Chairrnan Tolar stated that historically the Commission h~~s allowed a heer and wine license in conjunction with A sandwicl~ ~'.ap in an industrial area. It was noted that the Direclor af tl~e Planning Department has determined that the proposed activity ialls within the definiti~n of Section 3.01, Glass l, of the City of Anaheim Guidclincs to the Rcquireinents :~or an Environmentat Impact Renort and is, [her~fore, categorically exe pt from the reyuiremen[ to file an CIR. ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered R~•SOlution No. PC 77-150 and nx~ved fur its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Conxnission d~es hereby granr, approva) of Petition for Conditional Use Perrri:t Nn. 1723., s~bject to the petitioner's stipulation [hat the hours of operation will he trom $:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m., and subject to the Interdep~artmental Committee Recommendation. On roll call, the foregoing r~solution wa~, passed by the f~llowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Johnsan, Barnes, Davici, Linn, Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst and Kiny ITEM N0. 7 PUDLIC HEARING. Uwner: FRED N. AND NEILIE J. RULE, 1222 EIR NEGATIUE DECLARATION W. Pearl Street, Anaheim, CR 92801. Agec~c: Bill Perry~ VARIANCE NU. 29~- l7121 McFadden, Ap[. 13, 1'ustin, CA 92680, Subject property is a rec.t~nyularly-sha ed par el ~f land consistir.g of approximately 0.3 acre being Iocated~apptox~P~me~el'y`~62~ feet1~es€ of the centerline of West Street and further described as 1216 and 1222 West PParl Street. Requested waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, minirnum pedestrian accessway width and vehicular access requirement to allow construct of a 6-unit apart:nent camplex. There were approximwtely 15 persons indicating their p~esence in opposition to this request and although the staff report co the Planninq Comnission dated July 18, 1917, was not read at the public heariny, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Nellie Rule, the petitioner, was present and '+ntroduced rhe designer, Bill Perry. Mr. Perry, explained the reason for the request for waiver of vehicular access requirement is that the project is designed with courtyards with the full garages in the rear to eliminate a lot of the eye-sore element in apartment comp~ex designs. He explained that if the 14 parking spaces were provided in the rear, 70 feet of the property would be utilized, which is more than half; and that it was felt the square footage would be more desirable in the courtyard. He explained the request for waiver of minimum pedestrian accessway width could be eliminated. 7-18-7; 71-442 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING f,OMMf5SI0N, July 18, 1977 77-~+43 ElP, !lECATIVE DECLARI`,TION /1!!D VAP,fA~JCE N0. 2~~t) ;cantlnucd; J. J. Tashiro~ Assistant Planner~ reported that a petition had been received containing 59 signatur~s indicating opposition to thls rc:quesl and read the rear~ons listed on the petition as follows: "I. Substandard size will downgrade existing sinqle family dwelling. 2.Additional kraffic on residential street ceusing increased hazard, 3. Carports facing street caustng increased traff(c across sidewalks r.ousinq hazard ta cfiildren. A. Pa~king is already crowded. More units would be unbearable. 5. ThPy would ruin continuity of neighborhoad at a time when Neaplc are trying to improve their home and upgrade the area." Steve Davey stated he opposed the requ~st as stated in the petitian; that everybody knows gar~ges are not utilized by anybody all the time; that Chere is a parking problem on the south side of Pear) and feels th~ people in the units wil) nat utilize thc garages pr~vided at all time$; that the alley is anly about 14-feet wide and is not usable in most areas; and that the Negativ~~ Declar~tion should not be approved as tf~e children in the nei_yt~borho~d should be cunsidered as part of che envir•onment and felt this project would be a Fiazard. Chairman Tolar explained that the Planninq Gon~niission does not recommen~+ approval of the Negative Declaration, that this is done by another Board who reviews these Negative Oeclaration requests. Mr. Davey explained the residen[s in th~ neighborhood are upqrading their prape-ties; that even though lhe area is zoned multi-family, there are no two-story units and this gives an appearance of single-family residences; that Anaheim is trying [o eliminate sub-standard buildings in down[own Anaheim and this is only a few blocks away and he fe~li only standard buildings should be allo~~ed; that [his develoament would be detrimental to the future development of this area if allnwed with variances reque~ted. Chairman Tolar asked Mr, Davey what his attitude would be if the petiti~ner were developing the units with~ut the variances and Mr. Davey expla+ned those in c~ppos~tion did nat want any of the units there~ ~specially the two-story units proposed, the carports facing the street, elc. Chairman Tolar explained this was not a requesc for reclassification of zoning; tha[ the petitioner could build units on the prc,perty. Mrs. Rule explained that these h''1 not be sub-standard units in sile as they will have 1,276 sq. ft. which is more tha~ j0~; of the houses on the street have now; that there will be na increase in traffic on the street since nine of the garages will be on the alley; tfiat property on one end of the street seils for S3Q,000 to $35,Q00 and property at the other end of the stree[ sells fo~ 590,OOU; and that she felt this project would be an improvement in the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cummissinner Linn stated he feltgarag~.~ would not be used for parking, that they would be uedlize~' for storage of bicycles, tricycles, etc. Commissioner Johnson felt the whole project was overcrowded, witF. too much building on too small an~a~rqa. He felt the parking area in front would be dangerous with vehicles bac.king across sidewalks. He felt the plan should be modified, ~assibly eliminating one unit. Chairman Tolar agreed with Commissioner Johnson that the plan should be modified and brought into conformanc~, and he felt there would be less opposition to the project if the variances were e'.iminated. MIhUTES~ :4~1HEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSICN, July 18, 1977 77-~,44 F.IR NEGATIVE DECLAKATION AND VARIANCF. N0. ?)~~9 (~onlinued) Mrs. Rule stated shc~ has an alternate plan with S un(ts, but w~uld ~till requlre the variance tor vehic.ular access requiremcnt. Chairman Tular stated this was one ~f the proble ms he has with the project and cnuld not vote for it with thc f~ur stall5 backiny out ontc~ Pc~rl Strect. Ne stated '+t w~~uld have t~ be desiyned wlth turn-on radius nn the p r operty to allow a straiyht out access. ~h~irman lolar a~ked Mrs. Rulc if h•~~NOUId like i o request a continuance ar would she preFer the Commissian ta vote on the project after h~~~ring t~.:~r view5, and Mrs. Rule repi ie!d that ,he would 1 ike r.o reyue~st a continuance, Corwnissioner Kiny asked Mrs. Rule wfiether or nc.t shn had ~~~nyidered duplcxes and sl~e reoli~d that she had not. Commissioncr Barnes sur~~estecl sim,le-st~ry c~.~rdPn-typr ~p,~rtments. Commissioner Johnson offered a mation~ secondeci by Cornrnission David and MOTION CARKIEp (Commissioner Nerbst being absent) to continue c onslderation of the aforemention~d request to [he regular rneeting of r.he Planning Cc~mnission ~n Aug~ist 1, 1'377, for revised plans. I TEM N0. 8 PUB! ~ t: ~IEAR 1 NG, Qwners ; BOB D 6 BEVF RlY THOMPSON, EIR CATEGORICALI.Y EXEMPT-CLASS 3 1341 yh?nqton lane, Anaheim, CA 92gU4. Sub,ject VARIANCE N0. 2g53 property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land ~~~ consistiny of approxii~ately 5400 sq. ft., hei~~g located approximat^ly 235 feet SOULh of th~ centerl ine Of CI18IE'~ AVCr1UC, and further described as 1341 Ashington LanF. Re~~~iesCS for w~ivers of mieirnum front s.rtback and mii~imum s~de setback to aliow an existing carport. There was no one indicati~q their prrsence in apposit~on tc~ the re.~uest and alth~ugh the staff report to the Planning Conmiission dated July 18, 1977 was not read at the public hearin~, it is ref~rred to and made a pa rt of t he minutes. Bob Thompson, the petiiioner, was present [o an s werany questions and explained [hat if ~et ~ t i on i s approved he w~ 1 I be f i I~ ng for an e~ ~. ~~i,~ch.nent pe rm i c. Corr-~iissioner King asked staff abo~~t the complaints ~~ led by the neighbors a~ m~ntioned in the staff repurt. J. J. Tashi ro, Rs~~t. Planner~ explained that a eompla int wa5 f i led which prompted the act ion, but no i urther oppos i t ion f~as been rece i ved, ~r~l or wr i tten. THE PUDL I(, 'iFAR I NG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Johnson stated r.hat this particula r ~nsiallation did not bother him and he persondlly didn't find any problem with it, but the petitioner had stepped out5ide the law anci when a complaint is regi:[ered, then tr•p Cornmissi~n's hands a~e tied. Comm+ssioner Oavid stated he could nc~• f ind a hardshi p. Mr. Thompson replied that the existiny garage h ad bee n too short for ~ standard-size automobile, and ~ould only acco~miodate one car. Commissioner David asked tt,e size of che garage and M r. Thompson explained it is 17•1/2 ft. when t he door i s opened f rom t he hous~ to t he g arage o 1-'3-77 77-444 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, .iuly 18, 1977 71-445 EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 3 and VARIANCE N0. 2g53 (continued) Ghairman Tolar asked Mr. White tc~ ex~lain the requiremenr. to show that a h+ardship exists t~nd Mr. White explained that t'ie hardship must relate to special circumsrances applicable to the property that do not apply to oche~ prop~rties in tl~e same area and samc zonc. The special circumstanczs have to relaYe to the property itself, the ptiys(cal conJitian of the la~ + such as size, location~ shape,topography etc. Or special ;ircumstances which somehow deprive the property owner a rlght that is being enJoyed by otntr~ in the sarne area and zone. Mr. Thompson Explatne:d that he cou~d not use his property as it was intcnded; that he h~d built the carp~~rt to keep vehi~:les out ~f ~he inclimace weather and had not known the garage was that Small when hP purch~sed thp prnper[y. Gommi~s ioner K~ny asked Mr. "homps~n i f he c.vulcl I~avG niilarye~i the yarage and he rcpl icd th~t he pr~bably •:ould have with a variance. Commis~ione.r King asked Mr. Thompson if it would offend him if his neighbors were S.o do the 58r.ie thing and he replied that it would not. Mr. Thc~mpson alsc explained that his neighbors had signed a pet~tion statir~y they were not ~~pposed to thi~ struccurc. Cornni~,sinner Llnn st~+ted he could not find a hardship. Chairman Tolar stated that he was ~oc opposed co t.he str~~,:turc~; that he lived in the area and did nol think the st.ructurr ~hstructed anyone's vie~r; that it is nut i detriment to the neighborhood, but could n~,t f ind the hardshi~~ -c-~ui r~~d for appro~al . Mr. White explain~.d that th~ F~ardship cannot r•elat~ to the buildings on the prcperty, but must relate to the land itself, i~~osl usually due to the u~lusual size or shape of the parcel making it impossible to locate t-~e garage on the property. Chairman T~lar questioned the special circumstance applic~ble ;c~ the property +n relation- ship to !oc~tion or surroundings. He dis~~~ssc~d tt~e ~adjacent proper[y with a block wall which is heavily landscaped an one side. Mr. White related t~at he was not aware of any case where che hardship was based on the configuration of the 5[ructurc. but that if the Corrmission wisheJ to consider thAt as the hardship, then they could approve the r~quest on that basis. The Comnission discussed whether or not the wall should be con~idered as a hardship, with Commissioners Kiny and Linn feeling that no harclship had been demonstrated. Commissioner Linn offered a resolution for denial on the basis tha* no harc+snip has ceen demons[rated. Commis~ioner B.arnes asked Mr. White if thF wail on the adjacent property w~uld make thc subject p~operty ~~nique fr~m other propert~es in the area since the p°titioner has r~o control of the situation, and Mr. White replied tha[ [he Co:rmissi~n may base r.heir decision o~ that basis. Annika Santalahti, Asst. ~'lannirig Director-Zcning, explained the adjacent property is identified as a reversed corner loc and thal when th~e original tract was cor.stru~ted a varian~.e was yrar~led to allow minimum sideyard setback allowing the fen:e to be built. She explained that if the variance were granted, there is stil~ t• six-foot e~croachment into the public rig~t of way. ~- ~ a-7> »-44~ .~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY ~'IANNING COMMISSION, July 18, 1q11 77-4W6 Eik i.NTE~ukli.HlL'r t~EMFT-i.1i~55 j NNu VNRIANCE i~u. ~3~j ~wiil~i~urui ACTION: Commissioner Llnn offered Resolutlon No. PC77-151 and rrx~ved for it5 passac~r ~: adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planning Cummission does hercby deny Petition far Variance No. 2353~ on the h~sis that no hardship has been demonytrated. On roll ca~', thc foreg~fng resolutl:~n was PASSED hy the follc-win~ v~tP~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Klnq, Linn~ Johnson, David NOES: GQMMISSIONEit5: 8arnes and Tolar ABSENT: COMMISSI~NERS: Herhst Mr. White expl.~ined to Mr. Thorr~p5on his right to appeal [he decision af th~e Pla~ninq Conrnissiori and yavc him a writtpn cn~y c~i these r(c~hts. ITEM N0. 9 EIR CATEGORICALLI' EXFMPT VARIANCE N0. 295T+ ~ southcast of the int~rse as 801. S. Cinda Street. an aviary. PUDLIC HEARING. Own~r~,; htlC~IAEL L. b VIkGINIA L. - CLASS 1 DAMATO, 8G1 S. C indi Stret t, Anaheim, CA 92806 Subject praperty is an irreqularv-sheped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre located ction of S~uth Scree~ and Ric~ Vista Street, and further de~.cribed Request is fcir a w3iver of minimum structural setback to permit There were four- persons indica tiny thcir presencc in opposition to thi; request anci although the staff rep~rt to the Planning Con,niission dated July 18, 1917, was not read at the publ ic h~aring, i[ is refe~ red to and madc a part of t.l~e minu[es. J. J. Tashiro, A~st. °lanncr. explained that a petitian containiny 34 signatures of neighbors has been submitted e ndorsing the petition. Mr. Tash i ro then re~d a pet i t i on wh i ch had been rece i ved today conta ~ n i ~~g 39 s i gnatu res indicating onpo~ition as follows; "Sectian No. 18.02.052•012 of tlie city co~e state. 'h~? th~~ above-m~ntioned bird a~iary should be a t leas[ :w~:nty ~20) feet 'ron; thc pr~perty line of the neighbors. This is only re,pecting your neighbors' privacy. Our home and the Br+an laMagna hame ~5 in bac,k of the Damato home with t~~e bird avi.~~y just six feet over ou~ '~ack fence. lhe odor causea from 125 birds thaf close is very na~ s eating. 1 have two grandc~~i Idren wtiam I k,~ep du~ inq the day and they swim in our pool evc~ry day. ~"bre and rr~re birds are d~awr~, to this area bccause of ttie bir~ aviary and the~ a~rds cantinually defecaie in thP pool and on the patio area rno patic c hairs, thus creating a heaith hazard. It is a DIRTY JOB to clean ~p after t!~e birds every time I want [o invite friends in t~ swim. The NOISE :hat 125 bi r~s ma{.e at dawn when we would 1 ike tu sleep in is very loud and very irritating. If Mr. Damato would move the bird aviary Glose to their he~roon. wlndow, they could enjoy this hobby much t~etter and we neiglibors c~uld sl~ep better with less noise. Even the noise ~n the day time is becoming i ncr~asingly l~ud~er and very undesirable. We respectfully reques t tha~ the c~ty code mentianed above be enforced to give us and the neighbors the privacy and quiet we deserve. 7-18-77 77~+ 46 ~, MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN~ July 18, 1977 77-447 EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMpt - CLASS 1 and VARIANCE N0, 2954 (cant(nued) ~s i gr~ad) Mrs, Georql~ L. Jonc~. 7~2 Stehley Street AnAhe!im, C~, 92806' The Foregoing petition was siqn~d by 39 neiqhbors and was dated July 14, 1977, and is on f(le in the Afficc of the Planning Department. Mr. Damato, the petitioner~ was present end explaincd tha! iF he were to mave the avia r y to another location on his pra~erty, hc would h~v~ to remove somc fruit trees. Georgia L. Jones, 73Z Stehley Street, Anaheim, presented nhotographs to the Commissior~ showi~g the aviary as seen from her ~~operty. She stated this crea[es a health hazard and fel t the aviary should be moved tr, thP count ry. She ~;t~t.e~l that a lo[ of the bi rds ' ar~ cockateels. Mr. Damat~ stated there is no odor with the birds; [hat he* ca~not control thie birds flying over her pool: tha[ he tricd to cooperate w~th the neiyhbprs and had reduce the nurnber of birds to l~'•, that he does fiave love birds which are noisy and wi!I get rid of them; that the birds are no[ sola, but are tr:~ded for ~ther birds ~r feed on occasion; and that this is his hobby. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS Cl.OSED. Chairman Tol~r asked Mr. Damato how he c~~ntrolsthP number and h~w he got rid of tham. Mr. DaRiato replied that he t~ades thPm foi feed or c~ther birds, that Ire might trade several cockateelsfor one Australian- type bi~d. Commis~ioner Jahrson stated he did not have any fault with s~meone having a hob~y; howe ver he feft if it imposes on ~ther people, then it becomes a~roblPn. Ne stated since tliis is in violatian of the City Code that he coc,ld not support the request. Commiss+oner Linn asked the petitioner if the aviary cc~uld be moved and Mr. White poin ted out the complaint was not concerninq the use or number of irds, but tl~e location of the aviary. Commissioner King asked how many fruit trees would have to bQ removed in order to relo eate the aviary and Mr. Damato replied ~hat probably 3 or 4 rrees would tiave tc be removed. Mr. Damato stated he has abo~~t 1/3 of an acre and he was not aware the aviary was in violation of thN Code. Co,~anissioner King stated he felt the ~e[itioner would have to remove some fruit trees and relocate the avia~ ~ and CorTM~issioner David agreed, adding that he felt if a sacr~ fice rnust be made, the burden of sacrifice should be on the person enioying hEs hobby and nut [h e neighbors. Mr. Damata asked if he were to conform with the Code, wUUld he be able to keep his bir ds. C~mmissioner David suggested the fruit trees be located inside the aviary. C~airman Tolar statQd lhat he agreed with the other Commissioners~ that with Che amou n t of property, the aviary could be F'aced 20 feet from the property line and there would be no reason for the request. 7=18-77 77-4~+7 ~.. ~ MINU7ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINi; COMMISSION~ July 18~ 1977 7)-448 E 1 R CATECOR I CALLY EXEMPT ° CL~SS I AND VA~rIANCE' N0. 2954 lcont i nue~) ACTION: Commis s!oner Johnson offered Resolution No. rc77-152 and moved for its pa~sage and adopt(on tha t the Anaheim City Plsnniny Commission does hcreby deny Petition for Varianre No. 2954, on the basis that no hardship has becn demonstrated. On roll call. the foregoiny resolution was pastied by the following vot.e: AtES: COMMISSIONERS: Johnsan, Barnes, David, King, l.inn, Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONEkS: None ABSENT; CUMMISSIONERS: Herbst Mr. White p r esented Mr. Dematn with his written riyht to appeal the Planning Commission's de cision to the City Council within 22 days. ITFM IrO. 10 PUbI IC HE/1RING. OWNERS: ~HELQbN r, CONSTANCE GOI.ISON, 58~5 EIR Nf.CATIV E DECLARATIpN E. Naples Avenue, Lonq t3each, CA 90803. Agent: IiAROLD G. VAR IANCE NO . 2955 MOREIIEAD, 4351 B i rch St ., Ste. 21 I, Newport B~ach, CA 9z660. ~ ` Sub,ject proper[y is an irreqularly-shaped parcel of land c:o nsisting of approximately 0.8 acre located south and west of [he southwesc corner ~f 0 range Aven u e and Magnolia Avenue.Request for waivers of (~) minimum number of parking s p aces, (b) maximum build:nq hPig~~t~ (c) minimum building setback to construct. twc cortxnercial buildings. Th ere were t hree people ~ndicating their presence in opposit~on to this request. J. J. Tashi ro, Asst. Planner, presented the s[aff report to the Plannin~7 Connii,sion dated July IA, 1~77. Mr. TaShiro also read the ~taten~ent or~ a petition dated J~ly lb, 1977, a` Follows: "We. the undersigned, are property owners af the p~ ~vate fa;~~i ly dw~ 1I ings direetly adjacent t~~ the property sub.ject to variancc~ 2955• wP request that the waiver ~f minimum setback, number of parki~~g spaces, ar.d maximum building heigh~ be denied." The ahove-mentioned petition contained 55 signa[ur-es. Nal Morehea d and Allen Adams of 4341 airch S*_., 51e. 211, Ne~wport Beach, CA, agents, were p resent. M r. Morehcad expiained he felt the har~lship on this property w~uld be the 77-foot width of [h e southerly portit~n. !ie explained the plans to develop the p~operty with a neighborhuo d commercial cen[er and the difficulty of deve~oping the southerly portion ~yith the ]7'foc~t width in suth a way as to pr~~vide easy acces~, from Magnolia and to provide e.xposure ~a the public for merchants in the center. C~ncerning the 10-foot setback, he explained ttiat to movP the building to provide suffic~ent room fur the setback would not leave amp~e space for a driveway, unless the building faced the residences. He explained that several proposals for dev~ lc~i,ment of that pro~erty have b~en submittecl and the local residents h ave objected and thf~ roperr.y has not been developed. Barbara Vernenga, 2617 W. Haven Drive, AnaheiR~, tated the residents ~~ere not oppo5e.. to the develo pment oi a one-story commercial building, but were app~sed ~o the request for a waiver to allc~w a two-stary buildinq. They felt this would crea[e parking problems, traffic pro blems, block the morning sun and be an ir~vasion of privac,. ~~~e stated they did no r;ant parking ~r anything else right aqainst thei~ party wall. C hairman Tolar pointed out :.hat the building abut[ing Ms. Vernengo's propert•,~ would be one s[ory. 7-18-77 /1-448 ~ MINlITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Julv 18. 1977 77-444 EIR NF~ATIVE DEGLARATION AND VARIANGE N0. 55 ~canci^ued) Ms. Verneng~ statPd that she was appo•~ed to the waivers r•equested for parking and minimum building setback. Sh~e stated thPre is a schaal to the north, a church to the east and private dwellings to the sou:h an~' +est of the subject property. Martha Fletcher, 602 5. Kenmore, stated she didn't want ~ two-story building, feelinq it would be an invasion ~f her property and block the sun and she just didn't w,~~t to look at a two-story building. Mr. Morehead explained the variances requested did noi <:once rn the twa-story building. He zxpleined he had an alternate plan w'iich would place the huilding closer to khe Srrv~ce station facing the residences~ but felt it w~uld hc undesirable. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLO` ~. Commissioner Linn felt this proposal w~s another c~~se of uverbuilding. fie felt the pzrking prab~~m is bpcause of the second story and ro ~liminate the second story would eliminate the parkiny problem. H~ stated hc thought the landsc~i{~fnq proposcd was not adPyuate. Commissioner Kiny pointed out the two-story building would be located 72 feet from the west property line. He also felt thr. 67 parking spaces versus 60 parking spaces was insignificant. Chairman Tolar expressed his concerr~ regarding the landscaping, He pointed out the Commis- sior~'s policy in relationship to commercial property abutting single family zones, which this developmenx does onthe south and we~t sides, requi~ing a 20-fo~t landscaped buffer zone, not parkiny areas or walkway~, just landscaping. Mr. Morehead sta[ed he had discussed this it~~n wi[h the Planning Department and was told there ~vere two recent ly devel~~~~~d pro~ects wi th in a n,i le of thi s property which had been approved without the landscaped buffer, Annika Santalaht:, Asst. Pianning Director•Zoning, stated there have been a few ins[ances when the Commission has ?,,proved something less than 20 feet, but 10 f~et has tYp~cally beEn the minimum they have luokec' at with specific landscapin!; which mear~s a lc,t of plants, and depending on the type of development. Comrniss.ioner King stated he had a tende~cy to yo along with this propo~al i` the develope~ w~~ul~ c~l iminate the minimum bui lding setback vraiver. Chairm3n Tolar pointed out if a 10-f~ot landscaped huffer is developed on the west pror rty line, then the project would have a greater parking problem. Chuirn~an Tolar ~Lated he ~ould nat support the project w~thout *_he iandsc~ped buff~~r. He felt the pr~~perty owners should be protected from commercial zones. CommiSSioner Barnes questioned staff if the waivers would be required if the building were noved closer to the service station, and Mr. Tashiro poin[ed out the setback waivers would be elimin~ted. Commissioner Johnson stated he felt the problem had been created by the property ownEr holding onto the corner piece of property hoping to se11 to an ~il company at a time when se~vice station sites were more valuable. He stated he would stick close to the Commissior, policy and would l;ke to see a 20-foot landscaped buffer zone. 7-18-77 77-449 ~ MIfJUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July Ib, 1~i7 77'~-5~ EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0._'95~_ (cvntinued) Commissi~ner Barnes sugqested moving Buil~~~ng "A" next [o th~ service station and putt(ng the parktng next to it. Mr. Morehead stated this w~iild be less de~irabl~ as the building wo~~id be faciny the residentlal area. Ms. Barnes ayreed that this would not be as desirable~ but wauld probably rliminate the variances. It wo~ld probably cut down the s!ze of the building but. w~ulc~ gai~~ some parking spaces. Chairman 'olar suygested dense landscapfng be required on th~ west ~nd suuth pror~~~rty linPS if lhe property is developed in [hat way. Chairrnan Tolar ~~Sk~d Mr. Morehead if he would like io request a continuance to redesign the plans after hearing the CoiTxnissioner's ideas and Mr-. Morehead replied that he would like a contin~~ance. Mr. Morehead pointed out a nifficulty in moving the buildinq as sugyestPd by Commissioner Barnes regarding a reciprocal easement. Commiss~oner Johnson offered a motion, seconded by Con-mission M,ing and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst ab5ent) to continue consideration of the af~rementioned item to the regular meeting of the Planning Commis~ion on August I, 1977. Chairman To'ar pointed out that the p roperty owners will not be notified of th~e meeting. ftECESS - A 10 rr~nute recess vr,~, cail~sd for at 3~30 p.n,. RECONVENED - The meetiny was reconvened at 3:40 p.m. COMMIS5IANER HERBST ARRIVED AT THE MEETIN. - 3:40 p.~~. ITiM N0. 11 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ADVENTURE_ INN, INC., P. 0. EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CIASS 1 Box 1169, Santa Arsa, CA 9270:'. Agent: D~CK BC~HER, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1!~ 35o w• K~t.zl!a, Anaheim~ CA y1802. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre~ l~cate~ at the southeast corner of Manchester Avenue and Harbor Boulevard having approxim~te frontages c~f 150 feet on the south side uf Manchester and 150 feet on the east side of Harbor Bouleva~~, and further described as 1400 Sc~th Harbor Boulevard. There was no one indlcating their presence in oppcsirion to this request and although the staff report to the Planning Commission datPd July 18, 1977 was not read at the public hearing, it is-eferred to and made a part of the ~ninutes. Richard Booher , agent, stated the request is ror use of the corner at Manchester and Harbor as a pdrtial car rental agency in conjunction with the service station; that there would be no stora9e of cars at the location in that ttie main ~ocation for the agency is 35o w. Katella, Anaheim; that ~his would be a pick-up and delivery point far the rental cars. Cortmissioner King asked Mr. Boohe~r to stip~ilate tliat there would be no more than four vehicles storeci at ihis location and Mr. Booher stipulated to 4 or less. Chairman Tol~r asked if the service station would be re-opened and Mr. Booher replied that it wauld and he would be running it hirnself. 7-~8-77 77-450 ~ MINUI~S~ ANAMtIM ~IIY r~HNNIM~ ~uMM{~~IG~, ~uiy t~, '~ii ~1-~Si! EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CL~SS I AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1736 (continued) It was noted the Direclor of the 'lannin~ Oepartment has determined ~hat the proposed activi:y fatls within the defi~~i~~ur, of Section 3.01, Class l~ of the Ciry of Anaheim Guidelines t~~ thr RequirPments for an Environmental Impa~:t Report and is, therefore~ c.~tegc~rtcally exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. ACTION: Commissianer King offered Resolution No. PC77-153 and moved for i[s passage and adoption; that the Anaheim City Planning Commis~iui~ does hereby grant approval of Netition for ConditionalUse Permit No. 113~ to permit pick-up and delivery of renta) vehicles at 1N00 Sout~i Harbor Boulevard, subject ta the petitioner's stipulatic~n that four (4) or les~ cars would be stored at this loc~tion, and sub.ject to the lnterdepartmental Cvmmittee Recommendations. except Condition No. 7. concerning the remov~l of tlie northernmost drivew:~v on Harbor Baulevard. On ro call, the foreg~ir~: re~olution was passed 1~y the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, BarneS~ D~vid, Herh~~t, Johnson, Linn, Tolar NOES : C C'.M I 55 I ONE ~tS : None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ITEM N0. 12 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: WILLIAM P. b VIOLET P. WALL, EIR NEGATIVE DECLARAT;ON AUBREY F. R. b CATHERINE HOLMES, 2740 W. Lincal~~, Ana- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. ~1zp heim~ CA 92801. Agent: OCTOBER ENTERPRISES, 13U3 ~~ Avocado Avenue, sce. 195, New~.~ort Beach, CA 92660. Subject prop~rty is a rectangularly-shap~d p~rtel o: I~nd consisting of approximately 1.5 acres having ~ frontage of approximately 190 feet on the south sid~ of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth ~,f' approximately 588 feet, being located approxirnate~y 19U feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2740 West l ncoln Avenue. Reyuest is to establish a ~^_cre~tional vehicle park in conjunction wiih, a nx. -~1, wich waivers of Riinimum buildinq setback and required block wall. There was no one indic.ating their• presence in opposition t.o this reyuest and altheuth the staff reoort to the Planning Commission dated July 18, 1977 ~as not read at the put,~ ic hearing, it is referred t~ and made a parc of the minutes. Ma~k Grosher, 1303 Avocad~~ Avenue, New;.ort Bearh, agent , expl a~ ne~1 the request stat i~ g the existing nx~tel facility would be upg~'aded; the current manaqer's unit will be ex~,3nded to 5e used for recreat ional fac i 1 i t ies; !hat the se:h:~ck wa i vcr i~. ~e i ng reqi~ested bec.: ~~se the existing buildings are set back 3~ feet and it w~~uld be ir;,pr~3ctiGal and economically no[ feasible to completely eliminate the existiny buildinqs. N~ explained the request for waiver of the required block wall was because it was felt the natural buffer created by the drainage ditch and an agrir_ultural area on the sou*h side would b~ sufficient; and reported a 10-foot easemFnt on tl~e east ~ide which is z~nec; fc~; single-family, but that there were na residences at this time. A lady in the audience ii~~iicated there were four houses !here a~ the present tirr~e. Mr. Grosher stated the plan was to upgrade the minimum landscape code requirements and to preserve some very old and matu~t palm trees that ~~re existing on the property. Chairman Tolar asked th~ ladies in the audi~~nc,; if they ~~ern opposed to the project since no one had indicated their oppositior~ earlif~ 7-18-37 77-451 M~NUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 1$, 1977 7~'~i52 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA?ION AND f.ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1720 (cantinued) K.atherln~ ~vely~ 2726 W. Lincoln. stated there were four residents thst adJoin the subJect property. She pointed out that the motel property level had been relsed which put that ~~r~~erty at a higher level than the res(dence~ and in the past there had been a drainage problem. She asked •~here the block wall w~uld be construc.ed. Mr. Grosher shnwed the plan to Mrs. Liv~!y and she pointed out the location nf her property. There was some confusion as to where the four residences in question w~rr> ',cated. Mrs. Lively stated it was her feeling that a wall should be provided t~ :~creen the view of the high rPCreational vehicles at the park. Chairman Tolar clarif~ied that Mrs. Lively was not appased to the u~ itself, but was concerned dl~ut [he wall. (There was ~nothr lady with Mrc. IlvPl who expressed her concern over the wall alsa.) Mrs. Lively askPd whPre the wall would he located because sfie was concerncd about a drainage problem ~~e to the higher level of the mote) property. J. J. Tashiro, Asst. Planne.r, statPd the resi~Pnces in question were located on the east side of the subject praperty. Mr. Grosher stated he would be willing to d~ whatever was necessary, but would like to utilize the natur~~l buffer; that the ~andscaping pr~vided v~ould exceed Code, but for the record, would be willinq to conforrn with the block wall requirement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King stated the palm tr~es look good and he would nc~t like co see them rernoved. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Gr~sher if he was aware of the pro ~?sed ordinance regarding travel trailer parks requiring minimum park ~ite area, minimum lot size, minimum reyuired setback, required screening,re~uirinq landscaping, internal streets, parking requir~ments, and vehicular access, which is Pl~nning Commissi~n policy at the present time. Mr. Grosher replied that he ~+as familiar with this as mentioned in the staff report. Commissioner Herbst sr~ted that f.he plan appeared to be a Ivng way from the requirements and painted out it aNpeared there wbs inadequaf~ landscaping in xhe park itself. Mr. Grosher displayed a landscaped plan which indicated the existing palm trees, the ~rees to be re ~~ed~ the trec, to be replaced, etc., statiny the plan exceeded the minimum requ i remen t 5 for 1 a= 'sc~p i ng • Commissioner Herbst asked '+folans we.re to serve only r•ecreatianal ver~icles and no trailers znd no cars. M.. Grusher stated the spaces were 40 feet and indicatad an area to accommodate wider and longe~ vehicles. Gommissioner King asked aboui the refurbishing or the existing motel, statin!~ it looked immaculate to him, and ~vas very attractive and clean. Mr. Grosher replipd that the property would be upgraded to be cons~stent with thF develop- ment of the new property. 7-18-71 77-ti52 ~ MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ July 18y 1977 77-453 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANQ ~UNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1720 (cantinued) Chairman Tolar stated he was stlll concerned a5ouc the 40-foot parkiny spacps~ ~nd didn't see how a car and trail~er could get in and out. Commissioner Herbst agr~•ed and stated it is (mpossible to park a 26-foot house trailer and a 20-fooc car in a 40-foot space. Mr. Grosher stated that the park obviously would not be able to accornrnodate a person w(th this siz~: trailer and they would not be admltted to the park. Hc pointed out angular spaces for the larger units. He also pointed out they were attempting to use an Nxisting piece of property to its hlghest and best use and were trying to create an answer to a need in th~ area; that with Dlsneyland, Knott's~ and other attraction~ in the area, there is a great influx of tlie.se ty~>es of vehicles into the are~. Cortmissioner Linn asked about the hook-ups and Mr. Grosher irtroduced the architect to answer these questions. Joe Kitashina, :)20 E. Katella~ Orange, stated that hook-ups will be providedfor every lot for water, SEJEf and electricity. Conr»issioner Linn asked about the disposal station, stating he did nat think it would be adPquate. Mr. Kitashino stated the disposa) stat~on is not for the park, hut for• tlie convenience of people who probably have self-contained vehicles who utilize the motel. Ne stated this is not a requirement, but is provided as a convenience. Conunissioner Linn asked the distance fro;n the refuse container to the wall and it was answered this was 25 feet. Mr. Linn s[atc~~i this did not appear to be ~dequate. Mr. Kitashino re;,lied that this wc~~ld be removed t~ecause the Traffic Engineer has advised them it would not be acceptable. He s[ated thatthis was not a requirement. Commissioner NPrbst suggestPd the petitioner request a continuance and ctated he felt this was on~ of the pc~orest designs for a travel trailer ~ar!c he had s~:en. He recommended the plans be redesigned to widen the sfreets, widen the park sites to allow a traile~ and car to park. He stated this would cut down the spaces but he felt the developer was trying to put [oo much on the land. He suggested parking spaces on an angle with one way circulation. He siated he did not want to see a pa~~c/motel ;ite ehat could en~i up as a permanent r~sidence type park. HP suggested redesign of the park following the guidelines and rules to create a travel [railer park with cansidera[ion for the user. Commissioner Johnson stated the property was bigger tha~~ it appeared on the plan and felt the redesign would noc have to be drast~c. Commissioner David expressed concern over sacrificing the existing palm trees and Cc~mmissioner Herbst stated he was suggesting the developer• sacrificP spaces. Mr. Grosher stated he had worked v:i*..h the Cit~~ staff and had tried to follow che Code in every way,but [hat the trees ar~d turr~ing radius as discussed by the "~mmission were neve~ mentioned. Commissioner Barnes stated a slight redesign of the park, providing slanted spaces r~~king it easier to manipulate a traiier was a?1 that was necessary. Mr. Grosher stated he was nat concerned about losin~ one or two spaces, that his concern was the total pioject and stated he w~uld like to reque~~ a continuance for two weeks. 7-18-77 77-453 ~ M!y!~TES .~NAHEIM ~ITV PIANwIN~ f.~MMISSI~N. Julv la. 1977 7~-454 EIR NEGMTIVE DECLARATICN AND CONDITIONAI.USE PERMIT N0. 172Q (continued) Commissiuner Linn asked about the minim~m rec~uired setba~k from single-family r~~sidential uses ~n the east side. 7hi~ matter was dtscssed with relat(onship to th~ locacion of the single-family residences and the easement~ and Annika Santalahti~ Asst. Planning Direct~;. Z~ning, ~winted ~ut this could be a pr~blern. Commissioner King stated he felt the ladies conccrn over the drainage would be taken care of by Fecommendation No. 3 of the Interd.partmental Cornmiitee Recommendat.ions, if arproved. The leve) of thc property was discussed. Mr. Kitashino stated that a survcy had been submi~red indicating the existing grade, trees, structures, lighis, etc. Ne stated the re~r sidc of thc propcrty has bePn ~aise!1 hy whar I,N hr,lieved was a temporary stock pile and the earth had been dumped there with no consideration given to dr~ainage, but ihat when rh^ final engineering oi~ the yradiny por[ion is compl~ted~ thc w~ter will be taken care ~ within the site and if a cancrete block wal) is constructed,ii would contain the water within the property. He pointed out the filled area would probably vary betweer 2to 5 feet and would he regraded. Chairman To1ar suggested that the revised plans incfude a block wall on the east side. He stated he saw no problem with the south side, but felt the eaSL. 5idc should have th~~ wall. Commissioner bavid offered a motior~, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED ihat Gonsideration of the afc~rementioned '+tem be continued to the requl;-r meeting of Planning Commission on August I, 1977. ITEM NU. 13 CONDITIONAL U5c PFRMIT N0. 1725 EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT •• CIASS I a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lanc southwest corner of Pacifico Avenue 1720 East Pacifico Avenue. RequeSr private club in an industrial c~ PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: GOLDEN WEST EQUIIY PROPERT~ES, INC.. 3931 Mac Arthur Blud., Newport Beach, CA 92660. Agent: KINGSMEN OftUM 6 dUCLE CORPS., P. 0. 6ux 3083~ Anaheim~ CA °"903• Subject property is consisting of approximately 17.7 acres located at the and State College Boulevard, and further described as ': approval of a conciitional use permit to establish a ,~x. There was no one indicating their presenc~• in opposit+on to this request and althougt~ the staff report to the Planning Comni;sion dated J~ily 1$, 1y77, wa5 ~ot read at [he p~blic he~ring, it is referred to and made a part of the minu~~s. Comrniss'soner King noted that he had a conflict of interest as derined by the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion Resolution No. PC16-157 adopting a Conf-ict of Interes~ Code for the Planning Commission and GovernmentCode Sec[ion 3625, et seq., in that he owns ~~cific Lighting Cor~~ration common stock; Pacific Lighting owns Southern California Gas ;npany and 5outhern California Gas Company owns property with;r~ 300 fe~t of this projec~; that, pursuant to [he provisions of the aEove codes, he was declaring to t'~e Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection wi[-' item No. 13 of the Planning Commission agenda and wauld not take part in the discussion thereon; and that he had not discussed this mat:er with any member. MR. KING LEFT TNE COU~~CIL CrIAMBER DURING TNE DISCUSSIQN AND VOTING ON TtiIS ITEM. 7-18-77 77-454 ~. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 18, 1y77 77-455 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1725 b EIR C_ATEGORICALLY EXEMPi-CLAS5 1(continued) Joe Blasde) , representing the Kinysmen Orum and Bugle Corps., refprred k~ Items 13 end 14 ~f the staff report stating that no outdoor irarching would he done at this l~cation, and that the group is currently located at 1253 W. Lincoln rather than 191Q/1911 Wrighc Circle as ~pproved under f,onditional Use ~ermit No. 1653 in September, 1976. Commissioner Johnsan pointed out that the Commisston had gon~ to bat for the group in approval of the Conditional Use Pe~•mit. He also ~~ointed out that eac.h t.ime the group asks for a permit, the size of the bingo hall goes up and asked if th~s is really a bin~o oper~tion, with a drum and bugle corp .~s ~ front. Mr. Blasdel replied th~! chis is a big binqo operation,~hat the binyo hall provides the income to send 17~ people across ttie nation for 46 ~tays to pe~form on behalf of the City~ at a cosc of about $150~000, anJ tl~r L~~ngo is incidcntiol to their use. Commissio~Nr David asked how man~ young people were in the aroup and Mr. Blasdcl replied there are currently 325, and there are plans to expand the grc~up to some 500 yaung people. Comr-iissioner Da~~id askp~l how these people were recruited and Mr. Blasd~~l replied recruit- ment is thro~,h schools and by word-of-mauti,. N~ stated this group has been tnterna~ional champions, for 8 out of 13 year~. Commissioner Uavid asked how much thc ducs wcre and Mr. Blasd el st~~ted th~y were 554.00 a year, for uniform fEe an~ 53.0~ a mort.h dues, thac it is a non-prafit organization. Commissiuner Herbst ~sked if the ,~rrx~unt of c~arking spates had been determined which wc~uld be usa~le by the group, and if re would be controlled hours of operation. Chairma~ Tolar asked abo~~c thi~ parkiny siruatic~n if ~~~hF~r hu~in~•tises in tFe industria) complex were working evening heurs. Commissi~ner Herbst asked if the petitio,ier would object to .. eime limit and Mr. 6lasdel replied that he w~uld have to t~ake that under consideration. Commissioner Herb~t was c<~nGerneci about c~~ntrol of the parking thinking it would be necessary to reserve park+ng for the other businesses. He stated that normally an agreement in writing would be required ~>tatiny a cer•ain ~,umbe~ of parking spaces are availablc, Commissioner Nerbst asked if the 230 spaces were utilized, would ttie rest of the complex be in Gode. Annika Santalahti~ statPd [hat they were expec*.~*-.a to use about one half of the spaces. Commissioner D.id asked the length of the leas~ ;+nd Mr, Blasdel repliecf this was not finalized, but probably 25 years. Commissioner Linn asked what the alternative would be and Commissianer Herbst replied that he wouid h.~te to see the other users of the industrial complex leave because they don't have ample parking. He felt wi[h controlled hours of operation there would probably not be a p~~obfem but that indust~ial operations change and depending on the business~ sometimes do work nights and if the employees don't have a plac~ to park, then there is a concern. 7-18-77 77~ 455 ~ i MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ July 18, 1977 71-k56 EiR CATcGuRiC„LL'i CnCJ•ti'T CLnJJ ~ Al~C ~C`:'JI?I~!!l±:. ~.lS~ P~aMIT N0. ~j~5_(rn~tini~p~1~ Chairman Tolar asked if there might be other off-site perking availaule and the petitioner replied there was another complex to be constructed across the street. Commissioner H~rbst was concerned that other users in the complex might not know what is being reyuested and Mr. glasdel stated tF~at ~nly three leases have be~n confirmed for the complex. Commissioner Herbst felt the: Cammission should be talking to the property owner and wondered if he was aware af thc~ problem he cauld be creatir~q for the remaindEr of the complex. C~mmissioner Johnson stated he fell the number of spaces allowed for this use should be spelled out in the lcasc to g~arantee parking for other users of the complex• Commissioner Barnes pointed out if problems or complaints arise concerning a conditional use perinit, the Cortxnission may have it brought before lt~e~~~ fur ri:view. Mr. Whitc cxplaincd there is a provi~ion in the Code which pro~~ides if a use is determined to be detrimental to the pub- lic welfare, it can be reviewed and terminated or additional conditions imposed~ or exi5tiny conditions modified. He explained it wuuld be difficult to terminatQ a use due to insuffi~ cient parking when the Commission had had that information prior to approvat. Commissioner Herbst illustrated his concern for the small businessman who might want to go to his office on Sunday and not be able to find a par~ing place. He felt the pro~erty owner should designate certain areas where cars would be allowed to par•k. 7he petitioner suggested ehat a condition of the lease specifyinq a certain nuniber ~f parking spaces might be included and then when that number of spaces have been u'lized, the peti- ti~~ner wou'o iurn a~vay those people over [hai numbrr. Commission~r Herbst was concerned that specifyi~~; a certain number of parking spaces in the lease might make the rest of the complex non-conforming. Commissior.er Barnes felt it would bad to turn down this requesc and ~hen have no one using the parking lot at this complex during those hours as stipula[ed. She felt therP could be a solution such as a parking agreement and Mr. Blasdel st~ted tl~ey do have an agreement stipulating co those hours in the evenings and weekends only. Chairn,an Tolar suggested a~~roval subject to the lease stipulatinc~ to the required number (23~) of pa~kir~g spaces for the hours stipulated by the petitioner; and that the lessor must disclose to future tenants that these spaces are leased by the c~roup for those hours. Itwas noted the Director of the Planning Oepartment has determine:d that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01. Class 1, of the City of Anahcim Guidelines to the Requir-ements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, cate9orically exempt from the requirem~n[ to file an EIR. ACTION: COr ~issioner Lin~ offered Resolution Nc~. PC77-154 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Com~nission does hereby grant approval of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1725 ta perr~it a private club in an industrial zone, subject to the petitioner's lease specify that thF. Kingsmen Drum and Buyl~~ Corps wi11 have the scie us,e of 230 designated on-site parkirg spaces d~r;ng ~he Bingo 9ames ~hich wil! occur Monday~ WedneSday, F~iday and ~aturday evenin~s from 7:;0 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. and on Sundays from 5:30 to 10:10 p.m.; and thac t`~e lease ~oecify that the Lessor will disclose infor-mation concerning the parking s;-aces designated for the use to all fucurr tenants in subject industrial complex, and subject to petitioner's stipulation that there will t~e ~o outdoor marching activities, and sub,ject fo Interdepartmental Committee Recommendation. 7-t8-77 17-k56 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CItY PLANNINr, COMMISSIO- July 16, 1917 77-457 EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIl1NAl USE PERMIT N0. 17:~ (~ontin~ed) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the '~ lowing vote: AvES: COMMISSIONERS: Linn~ ~arnes, David, J~hnsori, Herbst and Tolar NOES; COMMISSICNERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: hing ITEM '10. 14 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNf.R: CNARLES W, WENTWORTN~ 1320 EIR ~ATEOGRICALLY EXEMPT-Cl_ASS 1 W. Broadway Street, Anah~ m, CA 92802. Agent: CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1729 SHIRI_EY LA BONfE, 608 t. Sycamure Street~ Anaheim. ~~~ CA. 92802. S~~hicct pr nr.rty i5 a recrangu;arly-shaCed parcel of land consis'ing of approximately 0.3 acre, bein~, located approximately 69 f~et east of the centerline of Pauline Strect and further ~iescribed as 608 F. Sycamore Street. Requests approva) ;.a establish a board and care facility. There was nu one indicating their p~esence ir, op~osition to this request and althvuyt~ the staff r~p~rt to thP Plannin~~ Comrr~ission dated July 18. 1977~ Was not r~ead at the public hearing, it is referred to and m~de a part of the rrinutes. John Swint, 707 W. North Str~et~ Aven:, st~ted he had nothir.y to add to the staff report and that Glenn Slaven of the ~range Cou~ty Social Se-vices was present to answer any ques:ions concerning tne tenants. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLO5ED. Cornmissioner King asked staff what c~rnplaints were re~:eived reya~ding this property• It was pointed out that r_omplaints are acted upon by the Zoning Enforcement OFficer without revealing the names. (.hairman Tolar asked the nature of the co~nplaints and Annika Santalaht~ r~ported [hat apparently it had been reported that a care and board facility existed illegally and that wa~ all that was necessary. It was noted that the Director of the Planning Department Fas deter•mined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of ;ec ion 3.01, C1ass 1, of th~ City of Anah~im Guidelines to the reyuirements for an Envir•cnmenta) Imp~~ct Report and is~ [herefor:, categurically exempt from che requirernent to file an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Kinq offered Resolution No. PC17-155 and m~ved for its passage and adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planni~g Commission does hereby grant appro~al of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1729, sut,ject to Inierdepartmenta) Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; King, Barnes, David, Johnson, L~nn~ He~bst b'folar NOES: COMMISSIOh~RS: ~lone ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Non~ ITEM N0. 15 PUBLIC HEARING. GWNER: TEXACO, IN~.. ~°~2 Campus Drive~ EiR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 1 Newpor~ Beach, CA 92600. Agen*_: KINNt'i .4!k CONDITIONING CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1730 1441 S. An,tieim Blvd., Anah~im, CA 92805• Subject propert is an irregulary-s~aped parcel of land consisting of approximacely 0.5 acre located at the snuthwest corner of Winston Road and Anaheim Boule- vard and further described as 100 W. Winston Roau. Request to permit outdoor storage and ', repair of vehicles in conjunction with an existing service station. 7-18-71 ~7-457 '~~ MINUTES: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, .I~~ly 18,1977 71•4SS ~IR CATEGORICALLY kXkMNI-I.LA~S__ I anci i,uNDi710NAL USE i'CF~4iT ~~0. 17;C (cont(nucd) CHAIRMAN TOLAR TEMPORARILY LEFT TNE CQUNC~L CHAMBER AND ChAlrmar Pr~ Tempore Herbst assumed the chair. There were two people in ettendance indicating their lnterpst in this request, not knc~wing whethcr or not thcy were in uppositinn. Although the staff rc~port to tlie Planning Commission ~lated July 18, 1977 was not read ~~~ the publlc hearing, it is referred to ~nd made a parr of the m'inutes. Efob Shank, representing Kinney Alr Conditioning, clarifie~ that the petitioner f~ad not ne^.essarily indicated the service station w~uld br: lea~+ed kc~ som'rUne else for op~r~tion; but the company ls diversified and w~ll be c~perating the service station as a scparatc busine~s enterprlse. Ne referred to the lc~t in question which fs behind the service station as being unpaved, very litter~d with weeds~ etc. He p~inted out the station has been op~ned and clos~d m~~ny t~me~ ~nd rh~t i5 nc,t a good Incation foi a service station. He felt the usag~ of the station for th~ sale of yasoline, ir addition to having a security storage area for the vehic.les chere for repair and n,aintenance would make that locatlon ~ workable ccrner again, Mr. Shank explained the major customer w~uld be Kin~~ry Air Condicioning to handle maint.enance of their vehicles consisting ~f 20 to 30 c.ar~, and various liqht-~futy constructian-type. delivery trucks and service truck~, Ruth Hohenhaus of Fullerton, owner of the offic~ macliine buildiny ~3~f055 the street from subject propc~rty. slated she was pleased that sorneone was going to clean up the site. She explained that her basit concern wa5 whether or not chere would b~ a fence. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst explained the petitioner was requesting to enclose [he car storage area with .~ ch~in link fente with redwood slats. Mr. Shank explained the en[irc property would not be fenced an~ pointcd out the area to be fenced on the plans to Mrs. HoF~enhaus. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS"D. Commissioner Linn asked if the aervice station would ue full-service or self-service and Mr. Shank replied it was planned to be self-service. Commissioner Linn asked if there v~ould be a mechanic on duty and Mr. Sha~k replied there would be two full-time, fully qualifie~! mechanics therP [o repair the Kinney vehicles and would be availa'!e to service other vehicles. There was another lady in thc~ audience who asked t:. speak. THE PUBL I C HEAR I NG bJAS RE-OPEfJED . Mrs. Lenney. apartment owner across the street, stated she was s~,eaki,.^ for her•self and other property owners who had to leave the meetiny or who ~ould not attend the meeting. She stated they were opposed to ihis request and suggested the property be used for apartments, sirnilar to what had been done at the corner ~f Vermont and Anaheim. She related past problems with this vrop~rty. ';ha~rman Pro Tempore Herbst explained the service station is an existing use and this ~~earing is to consider out~oor starage of vehicles. He explained that Kinney is ~ la~ge 7-18-71 71-458 .- ~. MINUTES, ANIIHFIM CITY PI.ANN~Nf, CQMMISSlON, July 18, 1977 77-459 EIR i.i~~~PiORICi~LL'i E~E'rIFT-Cl.i1~5 I NtiQ CONi31Ti0tiAL L'~C f.''.RHIT '~C. li~0 (:.onilnu~d) operatlon and they are requesting this use primarily for maincen~nce of their nwn vehicles and are inviting the public to use these facilities. Mrs. Kenney stated she had Cr]IINd the Plenning Department and w~s informed tl~~e petitioner wanted to park big trucks at the site and repair [ham there, and fe ~ this wc~uld he a garage and with the surrounding n(ce bufldings~ i.e. H~~~nhaus bu~lding~ Fo~r Seaso~is Restaurant, th~ apartment ~ompl~xes, etc.that this use would be a detrim~nt to the area. She related past problems with autorrx~bile rcpairs being done at night at this sitc. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst stated this hearing was not to discus5 past problems. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEp. Mr. Shank d(scucsed the various types af vehicles to be servicPd at t.his loc~tinn ~nd Commissioner King asked him to discuss thosc vehicles, laryer than an automobile, and the number that would be parked at this location. Mr. Shank stated ~h;jt 90~ of the Kinney trucks are 1/1 ur 3/4 ton trucks~ and would only be at thls location tor maintenance or repair, He stated there could be as many as 20 trucks parked ih~re at one time. Mr. Shank s[ated the Four Seasons Restaurant mana_yemen[ had been very happy abaut the proJect when it was discussed with them and that a verbal aqr~ernent had been made with th~m concerning the overflow parking from the restaur~nt utilitizing th~ service 5tation lot when the station is cl~5ed. Cammissioner King stated he w~s in favor of the projNCt, but felt a block wall must be constructed ta be consistent wich the surrounding nroperiies. He also asked about the trash storaye area. Mr. ~hank stated the trash ~tor~ge location would be worked out fo a satisfactory solution with the staff. Mr. Shank voiced his c~ncerns aboui the block ~~all~that v,~ndalis~i, ;s a probler~i and a wall offers a lot of privacy once a vandal is inside and the wall can be scaled quite easily. He s!ated the petitioner woul~l be willing construct a block. wall along [he Wins[on frontage. Commissioner Kiny referred to the Traffic Engineer's recommendation that the two driveways ciosest to the intersection of Winston Road and Anaheim Boulevard be closed. Mr. Shank replied that the traffic flo~~ to this facility would be along Anaheim Boulevard and felt aecess to the majer street would be necessary to adequately operate the facility. He stated the plan was not to modify the existence of the station, but try to augment its use. Commissioner Johnson voiced his concern that with [he conditional use permit the owner could decide to ~1ose the service station and use r.he whole area and the driveways would not be closed. Mr. Shank explained thai when the petitioner had oriyinally discussed their plans with the Planning staff without the use of the service station, they had determined it would he prohibitive costwise and had de~ided to maintain the use of the station. Commissioner Barnes stated she was uoth~red with the dual use of that service station property. 7-18-77 77-459 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ July 18, 1977 77-460 ~IR CATEGORICALLY ~XEMPT-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1730 (cont(nued) Cortmissioner Nerbst ask~~+ ;.` fhG mechanical facillty would be leased end Mr, Shank replied that it would be aperatPd by Klnney Air Conditioning. Mr, N~rbst then asked if the mschanieal facllity w~uld be (ncidentlal to the s ervice station or would the servlce statlon bP Incidential to the mechanlcal facllity. Mr. Shank stated that the mechanical use would be Incidential t~ Khe service sts.tior~ and explalned that several businesse5 in the area were wi 1 I inq to work o~t an dgreement with them to purchase gasollne for their vehicles which would mean thousands nf qallons of gasol int per month, MrSingersteted that any driveway that close to a corner is a problem, Mrs. Kenney st.ated that trafffc was already a problem in the area and felt this would be a greater hazard . Chairrnan Pro Tempore Herbs! explained [o Mrs. Kenney that the public hearing was closed, Mr. Shank asked about the water asse~scrnent fees referred to in Recort~niendation No, I being paid prior to the issuance of a build;n9 permit . Annika Santalahti, Asst. Planr~i~g Director-Laninq, explained this would be rnodifiEd to rea~ "prior lo thc commencen~nt of activicies." Commissioner Barnes suggested landscaping and trees on chc west side o~ the property to enhance the property, She s+~gqested trees to be planted o~ the inside of [he ience or wal l on the north s ide, i. e. lenbn-gurn Eucal ypt.us. Commissioner Johnson suggestpd a stipulation by the petitioner that if the service station is closed, then the condit.io~al use permit is terrnlnated. Commissioner King stated he wantr_d a block wall along the north and west property line. Commi~sioner Barnes s~~g~ested planting something on the wall to prevent graffitti. Ms. San[alahtf stated the minimum requirNment for a block wall is 6 feet ar effectively screen whatever is on the other side af the wal l~ which could req~ire a hlgher wal l. She stated there is a five foot setback requirement on Winston and that a 6-foot wall would have to be placed 5 feet from the propercy line. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC 77-15b ard moved for its passa9e and ~ adopt ion that Peti t ian for Condit ional Use Permi t No. 1730 be granted, subject to the pet i t ioner's stipul at ion that i f che service stalion use is discontinued for s i xty (60) days~ the two driveways c.losest to the inte•sectio~~ of Winston Road and Anaheim Boulevard will be closed within 60 days thereafter; ar,d s~hject to the petitiUner providiny a satisfact~ry trash storage area, and subject to the petitioner constructing a eight -(8) foot high block wal 1 along the north property 1 ine and along the ~aest property 1 ine~ extending from the north property line south to alig~ with store frontages to the west of subject property, subject to Interdepartmental Commi[xee ~tecommendations, except Co~~di t ion No. 2. 7-t8-77 77-460 ~, MINUTFS, ANAHf IM CITY PI.ANNING f,OMMISSi~N, J~~ly 18, 1977 ~7-46) (i N3:. ~~v:CL~ j~i'ZCi' L"v Li1C ~~ri.~Glfiy e3Ciivi'~ Cii~~ t~1C ~1~CL:C~ 0~ `~Z ~~aZ~~ntny Dcpar.TC11L has determined that the proposed activity falls wlthin the definition of Section 3.01, Clnss 1~ of the City of Anaheim Guidel ines ta khe Requirements for an Environme~tal Imapct Report end is, therefore, categoricolly exei~pt from the requlrement ta file an EIR. On rall eall,the foregoiny resoluti~n was passed by the following vote: AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: King, Barnes, Davi~~, Fierbs[, Johnson~ Linn, Tolar NOE S; COMM I SS IONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISStONERS: None ITEM N0. 16 PUFiLIC NEAaING. Owner: JAMES S. AND ANNA L. MORRIS, EIR C/1TEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS I 27771 Calle Ne~~rada, Mission Viejo. CA 92b25• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO~~~ Ac~ent: WILIIAM f1. DAI.TON, 380~ Sandune l.anP, ~ Corona Dcl Mar, +:A 92625. SubJect propErty is a rectangularly-shap~d parcel of I~nd consistingof ~pprc~ximacely 0.3 acre. having a frontuye of ~pproximately 83 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and furth~r described as 408 South Brookhurst Street. Requcst is to permit on-sale beer and wine In an existing resta~.~rant. 1'F~ere was no one indicatiny their presence in o~,positic~n of this reyuesc and although the staff report to thc Planning Conniission datrd July 18, 1977, wa~ not read at the public hearing. it is referred to and made a part of thz minuces. Wi I I i am Dal ton, the aqent . w~s presen[ to answer any qu~~st ions, 'THE PUBLIC NEnR1~;G WAS CLOSED. It was nated thF pirector af the Planninq Department ha~ determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition af Section 3.01, Class I, of the Ci ty of Anaheim Guide 1 i ne_s to the Requi rements for an Envi ronmental Impae:t Report and i s. therefore. , categor i eal ly exempt from the requ i rrment t~ f i le an E I R. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC 17-157 ~nd maved for its passage a~d adoption that the AnahFim City Plannino Conrmis5ion does yrant petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1731 to perinit on-sale beer and wine in an existing rc~staurant. suhj2ct to Interde~artmental Commi ttee Recommendat ions. On rol 1 eall , the foreg~ing resdlut ion was p:,ssed by the Follc~wing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, David, Herbst , Johnson, King, L inn, Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None AB5ENT : COMM I SS I ONE RS : None ITEM N0. 17 Pu~l ic Hearing. Owner: CARL and DORIS ARTHO~ER, EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 24G5 C) iff Drive, Newport Beach~ CA g2663. Agent: COND I T l ONAL USE PERM I T NO . I 732 FRANK WOOLSEY, 16~27 Bol sa Ch i ca 5 t reet , Hunt i ngton ~ Beach, CA g264g. Sub ject propert~r .~sean i rre~ularly- shaped parcel of land ~nsistiny~f approximately I.0 acre, located~approxim~~e~y 205' ~ feet west af the centerline of Harb~r Bo~levard. Request to can~truct a natel with waivers of maximum structural height, minimum front setback, minimum side yard setback and mi n i mum rear yard setback. There was no one indicating their presence in oppositior to this reyuest and although the staff report to the P~anning Commission dated July 18, 1977, was not read at the publ ic hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 7-18-77 77-461 :"" ~.._ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PL.ANNING CUMMISSION, July 18, 1977 77-462 EIR NEGAT_IVE__DECLARATIQN % CONQITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1732 (continued) Frank Woolsey~ agent. wa5 ~rtsent tn answer any questlons and explalned that his architect was alsa present. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Tnlar SLACC~ he had no problem with the usc on th~~ pr~pprty, but q«estioned why the petitioner had appiied for a conditi~nel use pc~rmit and not a reclassification. He explained that it was his understanding chat iF a reclassificat~on was approved, anly twc~ of the waivers would be neccssary, Mr. Woolsey s:~ted he liad followed the direction yiven hfm by staff. J. J. Tashiro explalned the petitioner would only need ta submit a petitlon and pay the fee for reclassificalion since fias has already submitted plans. Ch~irman T~l~r ~SkFd if thr cnn~iirinnal u~P ~e+rmit c~iil~i hF appr~vpd, subjec.t t~ the approval of a reclassific~~tic~n, and Jack Mlhite~ Deputy City Attorney, explained that he could. Annika Santalahti~ Asst. Plani~ing pirector-Z~niny, Pxplained the only zone which allows a mote) is the commercial/recrPation zone. but th:,t a conditional use permit would be required anyway. She explained there must have becn a misunder~tanding between staff and [he peti[ionFr. She also explained it would take approximately one month and 22 days to finalize a reclassification, if filed immediately. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes uffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Linn and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Cornmission has reviewed the sub;ect ~rojr_ct consistinc~ of ~ a two-story, 50-unit rnotel comol~x on 1.0 acre and being locatcd~approximatel'y ~O~~~fe~t west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, with waivers of maximum structural height and minimum sideyard sethack and does approve a Nwgative D~claration frrm the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report for the subject property on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmen[al impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Ar.~hcim Genera) Plan designates the sub- ject property for general cortxnercia) use commensurate with the proposal; that no sensi- tive environmentai elements are involved in the proposal; and the Initia) Study submitted by the petitioner indlcatPS no sign+ficant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts, and thak the Nega[ive Declaration subslantiating the foregoinq findings is on file in the ~f`ice of the Planning Department. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC77-15$ and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheirn City Pianning Commission does grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1732~ subject to approval of a reclassification which would eliminate waivers af minimum front setback and minimun, rear yard setback and granting waivers F.-.r maximum structura) height and minimum s~deyard s~tback, and subject [o Interdepartmental Cortunittee Recorrniendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll~wing vote: AYES: COMMIS510~lERS: Barnes. David, Herbst, Johnson, King, linn ~ Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIOFlERS: None REPORTS AND RECOMMENOATIONS: ITEM 23C - Request for an extensio,~ of time. Conditional Use Permit No. 14A1 7-18-?7 17-462 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, July 18, 1977 77-463 p.~~~..~t f~r avtonc inn ~f t Im~. f.~n~i 1 t lonr~l Use Permi t No. 1441 (cont i nued ) The applicant, Rev. Richord A. Vallancilgham~ was in the audience and requesled that this item be heard at this timp as he was unablr to attend the evening mcettng. Since this was not a public hearing item, the Commission decided to r_onsider the matter at thls time. The staff report to the Planning Con~,~issi~n dated July I8~ 1977 was presented. ACI~ION: Commissianer King offered a motiQn, seconded by Conmissioner David and MOTION ~'CAFiRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hereby grant a three-month extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 1441, retroaccive to July 17~ 1977, to expire Octaber 17~ 1977. RECESS - At 5:45 p.n~. Chairman Tolar recessed the meetinq fc~r dinner. RECONVENE - At 7:07 p.m. Chairman T~lar reconvened the meeting witFi all Commissioners prPSent. ITEM N0. 18 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Owners: WILLIAM H. ANO EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-C~A55 1 CATHERINE A. BRADLEY, 402 Paseo Serena, Anaheim, CA CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 171 92807. Subject ~.roperty is an irregularly-shaped parcel of lar~+ consis[ing of appro,rimately 0.3 acre~ and being located at the cul-de-sac terminus of PaSeo Serera and furth~~r described as 402 Paseo Serena. Request is to permit solar collector panel5. It was noted this item was continued from the June 20, ly?7, meeting f~r the purpose of a work s[udy session with members of the solar panel indu5try. There were three people indicatiny their presence in opposition to this request, and apprcximately three people indicated their preti~nce in support of this request. Although the staff report to the Planning Cornmission dated July 18, 1977, was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. William Bradley~ the petitioner. .3sked the Cammission if they had rece~ved the letter from the State Energy Commission. It was noted a letter dated July 15, ~977. from the Energy Resources Conservation a~id Develc~pment Commission, signed by Michael DeAngetis, Solar Program Office, had been received by the Planning Commission. (This letter is on file in the Planning Department). Harry M. Rowe~ Jr., 422 S. Paseo Serena, next-door neighbar to th~ 3radleys~ stated he was interes[ed in this item; [hat he has been in suppart of Mr, and Mrs. Bradley, prior to the time this mat[er ber_ame an issue; tha[ he felt what they are doing is very im- portant in relationship to our entire society and that they are seeking to find a way to provide solar energy to take care ofi some of our probl~ms. He stated tliat thPre may be people who feel the panels are aestheticaSly a blight, but that he looks at these units everyday and thPy do not bother him; that praperty values will not be affected adversely; that this concept is forward-looking; and tha: he supports Mr. and Mrs. Bradley. Owen Br~wn, 6694 E. Paseo de Morte, Anaheim~ Presiderit of the Broadmoor Northridge Home- owners Association, stated there is a misunderstanding in that some people seem to think the Assaciation is against solar-type heating panels, but that is not the case. He stated 7-18-77 77-463 ,,. ~ ~,, MiNUTES, ANAHEiM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, July 1$, i977 77-464 EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS I~CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1716 (continued) Mr. and Mrs. Bradley knew the Association rules; that thcy submitted plans for al) thelr archiCecturel work~ except the solar panr.ls; that admlttedly~ the Association would not have approvcd the panels if they had received the plans; ~hat there are de~ign alterna- tives; t:hat he did some research and talkr_d to engineers wha have designed these systPms and they informed him there are syst~:ms which would probably be acceptable to their CCbRs; nnd that hc had scen three examp',es that wPr•P probably acce~~table. Ile statcd that since this situetion (of constr~uctlon without Assaciatian approval) ha5 arisen, three or four ~eople have gone ghead and started doing things withoul permission with no cuurtesy shown to the Association by suhmitting plans far appr~val prior to ~onstruclion. Ly~~n Buffington, 7055 Columbus Drive, Anaheim, a member of the Hill and Cany~n Municipal Ad~iisory Committee, said this i[em had been presented to NACMAC a few weeks agu; that thr,~y discussc~d it at great. lenyth anJ spoke with representatives of the manufacturinh cor~pany which installed chis particular systPm. NACMAC's conclusions were: 1) This was no•t the only desiyr~ solution for .a solar heating system; 2) The people who installed il ha~,~e said there. were ~ther install~ti~n possihilitles; 31 This was done in violation of the existing CCbRs; 4) This was done in violatian of the Scenic Corridor regulations in which roflf-mounted equipmen[ is prohibited; and 5) N~ buildinq permits were obtained although they may have been necessary. He stated generally i[ was ihe feeliny of HACMAC t.hat while they support the i~ea of erergy conservation and solar heating~ this particular system viulated almost ~~very r~:gulation that has been designed tc~ preserve the inteqrity of the hill and c~~nyon area. 'iince this area has view lots for which large premiums are i.harged, HACMAC wants to see the integrity of the Scenic Corridor rnaintained. ,~anice Nall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, stated the intPgrity of the ScPnic Carridor is at stake ~nd tha~ there are other wayr. to install solar heatir~q without intruding on neighbors; that th~ Scenic Corridor designati~~n should be protected; and that if this installation is allowed, it will open the door to other similar roof-mount.ed equi~ment. Mary Lou Rowe, 422 S. Paseo Serena, stated s!-ie favored the request and [hat she felt that most of the Scen~c Corridor homeowners had paid to see the t~ills, crees and hear the coyotes and that most pa;d for a view that looked out into the canyon and not down onto solar Fanels in a cul-de-sac. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL05E0. Co~nmissioner Barnes asked Mr. Buffington if he considered solar panels as roof-mounted eyuipment and he responded that he did. She then asked if HACh1AC was opposed to any roof-mounted solar heating panels in the canyon. Mr. Buffington responded Lhat this was not what was intended; that they had bPen shown brochur~s of all types of solar panels which were an integral part of the roof structure and felt this particular system was a cheaper installation and while others which are slightly more expensive are mor•e desirable, [hat hom4owners have paid a great deal f~r the concept of a Scenic Carridor and should not have to view this installation; that roof- slopes tend t~ offer an easy solution to where solar panels can be installed; and that this mi9ht open the door to any type of gerry-rigged, roof-mounted equipment. Cortmissioner Barnes clarified that HACMAC +s apparerstly not opposed to solar panels as long as thev are an integral part of the house. 7-18-77 77-464 MINUTCS, ANAHEIM CITY PL~N~IING CQMMISSION~ July 18, 1971 77-~05 EIR CA7ECURICALLY kXEMN;-~Ln55 1, ~.UNUIIIl1NNl. uSt ~ERMIT Nu.17_ib iwn~inurJ) Chalrman 7olar stated he 1~3d looked at a numbcr of systems in the past two months and had spent a lot of time trying to find ~ut wl~at it took to get t.he Scenic Corridor designation from the State. He staled nobody is opposed to solar heating r~s an energy conservation measure and that it should be encouraged, but he couldn't support the type of equipment on the Bradlcy'i ~IOU$C. Nc statcd that ic is derinitely roof-mounted and while it might not he objectianable to some people. une o~ the biggest prohlems he recognized as a Commissioner was the precedent:-setting potential of some cases. He felt if this particula~ solar sy~tem were allowed, it would t,e just a matter of time before the aesthetic standards ~~f the whale c~nyon were totally violated because everybody would feel a prececlent had beNn set. He agreed w',th NACMAC in that solar heating should bF (n[eyrated architecturally with the house and that chis systeni could be desiyned to be aes~thetically pleasing to observers. Ne ne~t«.d although [his part+cular installation seems to affec.t only residents ~n the ciil-de-sac, he was afraid of what might hC~p~ir_r~ i f this were apprcaved. C~mmissioner Johnson st.ated Commis~ion had studied this ~subject to the best of th~ir ability and~ as ~uests of the Southern Califurni:~ Gas Campany, had viewed two proJects. He noted solar hea[ing syste:ms are rnandated by our times; 'iowever,the fact thiat we need it doesn't give u5 a license t~ construct units wifhuut c~~ncern for d~sign, concern for our neighbors, concern for th~ neighborhood ~~nd~ in this case, wi[hout concern for the Scenic Corridor, Fle restated he was not aqainst ~,olar h~atinq, but would offer a resolution for denial of this particular installation in this City and in this neighbor- hood. He agr~~ed wi[h previous conxnents that this pa~~ticular installation does not comply witti the desi9n F~arameters of the Scenic Corridur, and that [here are ways to build accep[able solar systems. With the background disc~ssion part of the resolution, he affered a resolution far• denial of Conditional Use Pe nnit No. 1716. Comn~issioner Nerbst stated he agrt~ed wilh C~mn~iss;~~ner Johnson and that he was [he only Commissioner left who had worked on the original ,cenic Corridor Ordinance. He noted that the Bradleys ignored tlie "SC" Ordinance and their own CCbRs, and that many huurs a~ere spent to develop the Ordincnce and those CC~,Rs. He also no[ed that one per5on had st~ted he will construct a similar syst.em on hi~- roof if [his is approved. Ne stated any ordinance having to do with roof-mounted solar neatiiig sys[ems in the Scenic Corridor should require appraval of a cond'otional use p~~rrnit. Ne felc che Scenic Corridor Ordinance should be an.rnded t.o permit a solar system wheri arch~tecturally design.r.d as an inteyral part of a t,uilding. Commissioner King stated the reason people are b~,ying homes in the Scenic Corridor is often for aesthetic reasons. Inresponse to a question by Lommission, Jack White, Oeputy City Attorney, statrd staff is not working on any amendements regardinc~ solar equipment at [his time. Chairman Tolar noted that Conunission coulcf offer a separate motian that Staff draw up a resolution sper_ifyirg that al! solar heat+ng equipme~t in the Sce~iic Corridor be allowed under a tonditional use permit. Jan Hal) stated the Courticil m~y assign thP prablern ~f roof-mounted equipment to NACMAC for study and a recommendation. Jim Shaming, 975 ~. Paseo 5erena Circle, asked whether Commission had considered the cost of the Bradley's instaltation ver,us the kind that everyone refers to as being architecturally pleasing; that the diTference might be $1,800 to $5,000 ~nd had they considered amortizing that against the cost of natural gas. He stated CCbRs may not 7-18-17 71-465 ~Y .. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOH~ July 18~ 1~i77 77-~+66 EIR ~ATEGORICALLY EX~MF'I-GLAJS I, I;UNU~ ~ 1UNNl. Uyt F'EkMi'T Ni~. 11ib (cont inued} prohibit s~lar hGating; that he has subm(tted plans to his Assocl~tion and they have been approved. Mr. 9radley noted it appeared that this c~nditional use permit would be denied on the basis of the solar ponrls bcing unacceptahle in the present location, and ~JSICP~ if that would mean th~y arr not acceptable onywhere ~n his house. Commfssioner Johnson restated that Comrni~sio~ has seen solar units which are designed as part of the house and that some of the g~od ones had plumbing which wos sh(elded. He felt the Bradley's inscallation did not meet +.his critera and m~ybe khe system would be acceptable if it could be suitably screened. Mr. Bradley stated he did not frel his question had been answered. Chairm~'tn Tol.:tr stitr~l h.~ ~iiri n~,t kn~w if thP system would be acce~table some other pl ace s ince i t woul d-~ i 1 I be ,~c~af-:nounCed. Commissioner Nerb~.t tated if Mr. 8radley came in -~ith an alternate design that would meet the critera ~'r-~ issir~n has been discussiny perhaps integrating the system i~to the raof~ it wou' a~t~fferent case; that if thc system werc redesigned, Mr. Bradley should submi[ t' :~~ t~ his homeowners group, and that a system acceptable to the homFOwners gro<< ,; h~~ th~: t ~ rst step. It was not:ed '~~ ~-- '~~ of che Planning Department has determined that the proposed activity fal~ - '>L definition af 3.01, Class I, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines ~r,;~~ rements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, ;,ategorica ~~~~-. from the requiremen[ to file an E~R. ACTION~ Comr~~~ ~- .,•~rt J~,~nson offered Resolution No. PC77-159 that the Anaheim City Planning Commissin~~ ~~~~ - -~ rPby deny Petition for Conditional Use Permi[ No. 1716 an the basic [hat sub~e: ~~~:r~~-ty is loc.ated in the Scenic Corr•idor Overlay Zone which specif~cally prohibir; •,~~,~ --~.„~•,ted equipment; that the proposal is not designed to be visually unobjeccic~~~=~^~ ': .znd that there are other systems which would appear to be acceptable in the Scen:. ; ~~~-idor available. On ro11 cal~. r~~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES ~"~MISSIONERS: Johnson, Barnes~ David, Herbst, King, Linn b Tolar NOE~: .l!1MIS5 ~NERS: None ABSEN~ :?MMIS` ~ONERS: None Mr. White a~~vised Mr. Bradley of his right to appeal the Flanning Commission decision within 22 ,iays and presente~ him his written right to appeal. Commissioner Herbst restated that the Commission is not against solar systems and would like staff to add an amendmer,t to the Zoning Code that solar sysLems in the S~enic Corridor will be allowed by conditional use permit only an~ that design critera should inciude the systems being an integral part of the arch~tectural design of the building. Chairman Tolar suggested that such an ordinance be p~epared and brought to the Commission for review. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst uffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTlON CARRIEQ that the Planning Department staff and City Attorney's staff prepare a draft amendment to the apprapriate ordinances aliowing rcof or gro ~d unied so)ar systems in the Scenic Corridor by conditional use permit and recommen~ing ~esign critera. ~-t8-7~ 77-466 ~ ~~,. MINIITES, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July IB, 1977 77'4~7 ITtF1 NG. ZO PUBLIC NEARiNG. OWNEfi: TEXAGu-ANNHEIM HILLS, ENVIRONMEN7AL IMPACT REPORT NQ. 203 INC., 380 Anahein; Hills R~ad~ Anaheim~ CA RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~ 7-7 -1 92807. Engincer: LIND b HILIERUD, INC „ VARIANCE N0. 2950 2065 Huntingtan Drive~ San Marino, CA 9110$. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACTS 8116 Rev. No. 2) SubJ~ct property is an irregularly-shAped gli Revision No. 2~ 02 and ~ parcel of land consisting of approximately RE UEST FOR TREE REMOVAL TRACT ~4) 80.2 ,~c:res having a frontagc of approximatcly REQIIEST FOR WAIVER OF L07 LINE REQUIREMENTS 3480 feet on the s~uth side of Nohl Ranch OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORQINAMCE Road, haviny a maximum depth of approximately 1300 feet and being located approximately 1300 feet west of the centerline of Royal Oak Road. f'roperty presently classified ns RS-A-43,000(RESIpENTIAL/AGkICULTURAI)zOf~E (SC). REQUESTEU CLASSIFICATION: RS-HS-10,00Q (SC)~RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY HILLSIDE)Z(1NE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF REQUIREMEP~T THAT ALL IOTS REAR ONTO ARTER~AL HIGHWAYS. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 8116 REQUEST: 44 RS-HS-10.000(SC)lots. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 8117 REQUEST: 44 RS-IIS-10,000(SG)lots. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 96oz REQUEST: 40 RS-HS-IO,OUO(SC)lor.s. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 9864 REQUEST: 43 RS-NS-l0,U00(SC)lots + 2 op~n ~pace lots. There were two people indicating their presence in opposition to this request~ and although the staff report dated •luly la, 1977~ to tlie Planriny Commission was not re~d at che public hearing, it is referred to and made a part af the minu[es. Phillip Bettencour[~ ~epresentative for Texaco-Anaheim Hill~, tnc.~ the petitioner, was present to answei any questions. He pointed out that th~is property actually had approved tentative maps in 1373, which have expired, and the revised ~~lans reduce the density and lat count. He pointed out[he location of the tracts on thc map displayed and stated that grades and embankments would be provided for the full improvement of a segment of Meats Avenue. Janice Hall, representing the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Commil'tee, stated that group had only reviewed the Envir+znmental Impr3CL RPport and the~ir comments regarding that were in the report submitt~d to the Gommission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. Chairrnan Tolar stated that witFi a project af this magnitude, involving this r.remendous amount of constiuction and gr,~ding, and with the number of hories involved, he would like to be able to visualize what it is going to look like. He related that. the concept of providing a topographic model for review on projects such as this had been suggested by Anaheim Nills and asked wh~~ one could not be provided for this project. Mr. Bettencaurt replied th~-t ,a business decision had been made nut to provide one for this project. He stated tha[ Anaheim Nills has been the only developer asked to furnish this. ~hairman Tolar pointed out th~t Anaheim Hi11s does a big9er volume of development in the Ci[y than other developers ane on p~ojects such as this, a xopo mociel should be furnished. Commissioner Barnes stated in order for her to fully understand the topography of tl~is map~ it would probably require a week or more of studying in order to get a mental picture of ~~hat i t shows. 7-18-77 77-467 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July IA, 1977 77-468 CIR N0. 20~~ RECLAS5IFICATION N0. 77-78-1~ VARIANCE N0. 295~, TT MAP UF TRACTS 8116~ 6117, 9602 a 9864~ REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL~ TRACT 9864 z REQUEST FOR WA~~ER OF LOT LINE REQUIREMENTS OF HILLSIDE GRADING OaDINnNCE (continued) Commissioner Herbst stated he is concerned about lot sizes and pointed out Lot 8 with the 50't~ot frontage, the 110 faot depth and che slo~e from 576 feet to 505 feet, stating that this was a large lot, but that 2/3 of it is unusable slope. He stated the concept ~e has tried to relay regar•ding the lat sizes in the RS-10,000 zone is not being followcd; that the devP1opers are cominy in with 10,000 sq. ft, lots, with 50-foot fr~ntages~ but primarily meeting the RS-10,000 requirements by using the sloprs. He stated the standards for RS-10,000 are intended to provide the buycr a large lot, with 90-foot frontages and not an RS-5,000 I~t, hut th.~t we ~re winding up in the hills with nnt even a RS-7200 lot. He statPd he felt that when this tract is c~mpleted, it will look just like an RS-5,000 tract. He pointed out a r~w oF lots with 60-foot frontages on the Niai~a. Mr. Bettencourt explained the elevation plans and pointed out the split level pads and the step-down iand•:caped areas which are planned to avoid the m~ssive appearance of s~~~pe~. The usable lot area was discussed by Chairman Tolar and Mr. dettencotirt stated that sor~e grading will be done and there will be two-slory fiousPs. Ne felt the idea that this will appear to be an R$`5,000 tract heca~se of the small loc frontages was an unfair analysi~ because of the gracie changes and stair-stepping effect prop~sed. Comn~issioner Herbst stated tlze RS-10,000 inten[ is to pr•ovide estate-type tracts with room between the houses. Mr. Bettencourt discussed tlie publi~ view ~f the streeLscape~ pninting out the cul-de-sac and all the lots v~hich are at !iigher elevations givinq thc, open space effect. Commis5ioner .lUhnsOn agreed with Mr. Herb~t regardinq the narrow lots and used a previous hearing concernin~ roof-mounted equipment in that area as an illustration of a person why buys what was intended by the Conxnissi~n to be an RS-IO~OOG ar~d stated he wasn't sure of the zoning in this particular case, and then not have ei~ough room to hide solar panels. HP stated he realized ihat these lots are selling wefl, bu•t that this should not be the critera for allowing less [han what was intended by the zoning designation. Commissioner Herbst pointed c~ut that a person would not have raom to consiruct a swimming pool if he wanted to and Mr. Bettencour[ pointed out that the buyer would have the magnificent view and it is not possible to give bo[h and stay competitive. He pointed out the buyer can make the determination whether he wants the view or lot area before he buys. Commissioner Herbst stated the deveiaper should stay within the intent of the RS-IO,OQO zone and not try to scale down in width sizes which takes the lot of that zone and puts it into another zone, point+ng out that there is adequate aree~ to meet the RS-10,009 zone requirements, but that 75~ of the lot is in slopes, totally unusable and the people who buy the lot intended for a5-10,~J00 are actually only getting a RS-5,000 lot. Commissioner Linn stated he would like to see a topo model of these tracts in order to see the percentage grading of tlie streets as they appear to be~ steep to him. Ne stated he has heard the Fire Department wants to require 10'X, grades as Che maximum rather th~n the present 15~. Mr. Bettencourt replied that none of the stree; grade~ exceed 12~ Mr. Bettencourt also pointed out [hat the RS-10,0~0 z~~ne allaws lots as small as 8~600 sq. ft., subject to apprnval of the Commission~ but that none of these lots are under 10,000 sy. ft. 7_~g_77 77-468 ~~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANWING CQMMISSION~ July 18~ 1971 77"4G9 EIR N0. 203, RECl.ASS. N~. I/•7~-I, VpK. Nu. ty5u, 7T. MAP OF iFACT~ ~iiG~ t3117~ yG02 G 9864, REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAi., TRACT 98~W F. aEQUEST FOR WAIVER OF lOT LlNE REQUIREMENTS OF N I L1.5 I DE GRAD I N6 ORD I NANCE (cant I nued) .._. ~~ Commissoner Herbst asked whAt wou~d the actual square footage of ~~sable lot size be if all the slopes were taken aut ~nd Mr•. Bettencourt replied they would be ir excess of $~000 sq. ft. Commissioncr Johnson stated lie th~ught to~o models w~uld be nice to ~ook at, but was concernec~ with the slapes and lot sic~s being discussed and would like to see a meeting of minds as what thesc lots are suc~posed to be. Chairman Tolar stated he had v~ted against the project when the topo was shown and that he was concerned about the tot sizes and agreed with what was being discussed~ but felt a topo model would show iust how many of the luts were below what ia intended. Commissioner Herbst ~sked the aver~~ye pad 517P ~nd Annika Sanca~ahti, Asst. Planning Oirector-Zoning~ stated the average size of Tr•act 9602 appeared to be 8,09Q sq. ft., with the minimum being 6,400 sq. ft., and o~~t of 40 iots, it appeared tFia2 5 or 7 would be the minimum. Commissioner linn stated the narrow lot didn't b~ther him~ but secing a row of RS-S,OOQ- type houses ir~ this area did bother him. Chairman Tolar stated he agreed with the lot sizes requir~ments; however, the lots have to be marketed and many prople wauld like :o buy a house on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot with a beautifu) view ratfie~~ than have room for a poul or a horse and that markr_ting surveys show what standards the developers need to go by. Corrnnissioner King pointed ou± the 5~-foot wide lots widr~n out. Commissioner Nerbst stated he Teli what is happening is tl~at the developers are taking ~he RS-10~000, the RS-22,000 and RS-7.200 and RS••5,p00 lot~; and developing narrow street frontages, making up ttie difference in the back and all the trac[s are starting to look alike and he didn't feel that was what was intended by ailowi~g the developers flexibility to develop che sloped areas. Commissioner Barnes stated she r.ouldn'f understand why Ariaheim Hills didn't provide top~ models to illustrate all these unusual grades, and all the wonderful thirsgs talked about which miyht solve the problem. Mr. Bettencourt stated that the last topo ~del Furni~h~d the Commission had not really be viewed by the Commission. Ne stated he felt thz plans neet Code requirements. The Ordinance was discussed and Commissioner Barnes read that portion conc~rning lot sizes required in the RS-14,000 zane. The possibility oF arr~ndiny thP ordinance to include minimum pad area~ minimum fronCages, etc. was discussed. Commi~sioner Herbst stateci he f~lt when the Ord~nance was originally written that the intent had been understaod by the developers and by Anaheim Nills, Inc., but reaiited thas. personnel chan~es have occurreJ and felt that if an amendment is needed to force the developers to follow the intent, that it could be done, but felt allowing the flexibility was also important. Mr. Bettencourt stated the intent of the RS-10.000 has been met in this projert, but that the Commission Just doesn't like the trade-offs proposed and Mr. Herbst painted out there are no trade-offs in the RS-10,000 zor~e. 7-18-77 77~469 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY lo~ 1971 7)-470 EIR N0. 203, RECLASS. N0, )7-)8-1, VAR. N0. 295Q, TT MAP OF TRACTS 8116, $117, 9602 6 9564~ RF.QUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL~ 1ZACT 9864 6 ~tEQIIEST FAR WAIVER OF LOT LINE REQUIREMENT OF HILLSIDE GRApING ORDINANCE ~continued) ~ Mr. dettencourt stated th~y have a review of this project coming up wich the HACMAC group and after hearing the cnncerns of thc Commission and s~me members nf tliP NACMAC group has voiced the same concerns, he would ifke t~ request a continuance for two weeks to look at the consequences of not pravi~iny a topo mc~del and to submit Further topographical infarmation~ unle~s there are okher concer~s~ parr.icularly relAting to the EIR as the consultant would like to c~nclude hts work. Commissioner Herbst pointed out the cancern regarding the sctiuols and Mr. Bettencourt stated the information received from the school dfstrict in prepar~~tion of lhe EIR indicated the school district has asked them nut to make any statements regardin~~ tl~e school housing situation and if there are question~, concerning tha schools, they shauld be directed to the school district office. Commissioner King asked Mr. 6ettencourt why he h~d not merztioned the fact that Some people d~ not like the large l~ts because of yard wark, etc. Mr, dettencourt replied [hat the homeowne- ~ssociati~~n fees are increasing because of the incrr_ased maintenance costs f~r landscaped areas. He stated there is a mandatary requirement under the grading ordinance t~ plant the slopes alcng Noh) Ranch Road and that further information regarding this wi!1 be r~ubmitted. Commissioner Linn asl:ed Jay Titus, Office Engineer, if' the 11~ strer.t grades proposed were acceptable and he replied that for quice ~ number of years this has been acceptable. but the Fire Department has recer~tly indicated they fee) the rt~aximum grade should be 10~; . Corrnnissi~ner Linn discussed [hc water facilities, stating the EIR indicates there is adequate capacity to handle this development; however, he was concerned that more water facilities woulct be necessary with the completion of this and other projects in the area. Mr. Dettenc~urt stated tha~ the other develapmen[s he hao referred to were at a l~wer elevati~n: that a portion of this property is up high enou_yh [o bP a part of the special higli elevation waCer system. He discusse:l Rule No. 15 c-f the City's Water Rules indicating that the de~eloper enters into a parlicipation agreement as the first development in and pays the full amount. of the facility, and tho~e who come in later can buy into the agreement and pay the same amount, thF.;~ [he developers are reimbursed over a 25 year period. CaTmissioner Herbst expressed his concern regarding the 10~ grade requirement and ~ondered about the develoaments that tould be higher into the hills requiring more grading and wondered if emergency fire equipment w~uld be able to respond on sCreets with sceep grades. He asked that more information be furnished regarding this s~~bject from the Fire Department. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered a motion,seconded by Commissioner Linn and F1pTI0N ~ARRIED, tliat considered of the above-mentioned item will be continued to the regular meeting of the Plannir.g fommission on August 1, ~917, at the request of the petitioner in order that further t~pographical information may be submitted. 7-18-77 77-47~ ~ MIS~UTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 18, 1977 77-471 ITEM N0. 21 PUBLIC NEARING: OWNER: TEXA~U NNNM~IM HfLLS~ iNL.~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 380 Anahcim Hills Road, Anaheim, f,alifornia 92807. VARIANCE N0. 295 Eng(neer: sPOWN~ GONZALEI b BAINE~ INC., 501 N. ~olden TEN"TIVE MAP Of TRACT N0. 9~33 Orive, Ste. 20~, Santa Ana~ GA g2705. Subject property ~ is an irregulerly-shaped parcei of land c~nststing of approx(mately 7.6 acres having a trantage ~E approx(mately 11~0 feet on the north side of Cany~n Rim Road, a maximur+~ dept~~ of 5z0 feet and b~ing located approxim~t~ly 3070 feet west uf the centerline of Serrana Avenue. VARIANCE REQUEST; WAIVER OF MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS. TE~.~AT14E TRACT REQUEST: 24-Unit, 25-lc~t RM-4000{SG) condaminium subdivision. There were two people indicating their presence in opposition co tf-15 request and althaugh the staff report Che Planning C~rnmission dated July 18, 1y77~ was not read at the public hea~ing, it is r•eferred to and made a part ~f the minutes. Phillip Bett~ncourt, r~pr•esentakive af Anahelm Hills, stat~:d chan~es have been made since the praject was first presented to the 11;11 and Canyon Municipai Advisory Committee and ~na: this is the first RM-4000 condominium project on Anaheim Hills property and that the property is already ln a graded condition. He pointed out the locatian of the project on the map. David Wills, 17501 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California, stated H.4CMAC was concerned about the parking situation on the firs[ plans pres~r~ted to them and that seven (7) parking spaces h~ve been added and pointed these out on the plans and stated they would be aligned with the particular units, naking a total of 63 guest parking spaces (2.6 spaces per unit), in addition to the twa covered spaces p~ovided for each unit. Mr. Wills pointed out anottier concern of HACMAC's regarding the provision made for trash storage and pick-up. He pointed out the propused trash areas on tfie plans and stateJ an agreement has been worked out with Jaycax and the City Sanitation Inspe~tor for special pick up in fr~nt of the units. Regarding HACMAC's concern~ regarding recreational vehicle parking, Mr. Wills stated it has since been determined chat recreaCional vehicle parking is restricted by the rt~aster ~ssociation CCbRs and recreational vehicle o=~rkin9 will not be allowed anywhere in the developmenY. Another area of concern was the lack of turn around at the ends o"~ the single-sided parking streets. He stated it was felt t',at due to th~ limitpa n~~~+'~er of units effectEd and subject tur~ around areas would only be used by these ~articular units~ that it would not be required. He pointed out that both 5treets "A" ~"B" wili be private streets and signing ta tnat e`~ect will be provided. Mr. Wills presentea a color rendering, conceptual in nature, of thP architecture and landscap;ng and sh~wed smaples of the proposed rough sawn cedar shingles. He stated approximately ~94,000 has been budgeted for landscaping, of which 56(~,000 would be for pianting which is considerably hiyher than w~~at is generally spent on this type of development and th~ remainder of the landscaping budget would go for small privacy walls in the entry ereas and patio areas and the masonry and wrouyht iron wall along Canyon Rim Drive, etc. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Barnes was concerned whethe~ or not the added parking s~aces had affected the landscaping and Mr. Witls explained the areas on the map where thP spaces were added. 7-15-77 77-471 ~ ~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLA~NING COMMISSION, July 18~ 1977 77"W12 EIR NEGATIVE DLCLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 2956 and TF.NTATIVE MAP OF TRACT 3 contl~ued) Cortxniasioner Herbst wrs concerned about the lack af a five-foot sideyard setback~ polnting out •hat a candominium ts a home and the trade-off f~r a"0" ~lot line ha~~ t~een that five fe~t is added to the ocher sid~~ givfng each owner a 10-foot yard (20 feet betw~en buildings). Ne fclt too many units are Growded ont~ th~ property. Annika Santalahti~ Asst. Planning Director-t~ning, stated all setbecks between the buildlrgs satlsfy Code~ except where two bulldings are connected. Mr. Wllls ask.eJ if Commissioner H~rbst was askin~ the minimum b~tween buildings be 20 fee~ instead of [he 18 f~et proposed and Commissioner Nerbst r•eplied that this is what he wanted and poir~ted out lots wlth only 13 feet between units. Mr. Wills noted thos~ were cul-cie-sac lots and asked if relief is allowed for cul-de-sac or pie-shaped luty ~ecause the rnlief in thc frant is added in the hack. Commissioner Herbst stated the ~pace between buildinqs in any tract should be 5 feet. from each property line and in thi:~ case, the develaper is asking for a trade-off to put the buildings together with a"0" l~t linc~; therrfore. the minimum space should be t~en (10) feet for each property owner and he felt the buyers of the unics deserve that. Ms. Santalahti explained the Zoning Cocf~ does addre~s obliquely aligned bulldings and says as long aS th~e extreme and minimi~m are averaqed and the average is within the requirement, it will be allowed. Commissioner Nerbst felt lots which taper down in the front give the effect of very close housinq~ and Mr. Wilis pointed uut the plan for• I-I/2 story unitti will hP uti!i2ed in these areas which would tend to give the open space affect desired. Commissioner Herbst felt that one nice feature of a condom6nium develop~nent is the landscaped areas. Ne pointE~d out there are sorne beautiful condominiwr~ projects in this area, but didn't think any of tf~em had units this close together. Mr. Wills noted the density for this project is lower than other projects in the area. Chairman Tolar stated he liked this plan and felt the trade-off is ~TM~rP usable lot to the rear and Mr. Wills pointed out that this would be common area ~~~ith not walls or anything to obstruct the view. Commissioner Barnes agreed with Chairman Tnlar that this is ane of the better looking developments she has seen and felt the large lot areas in the rear would affset the narrow space between the units at the frant. Comrnisson~r Nerbst was also concerned that on certain lot~• cl~ere would be a problem wi[h windows facing each other, and used Lots 7£. 8 as examples and Mr. «+ills noted the developers would be leoking at the window placemenc and could vary the placement of the windows. Commissioner Johnson agreed that the concept of the "0" lot line is based on allowing the 5 feet required setbacks to be combined to provide 10 feet on ane side. Commissioner Linn suggested that two of the praposed units could be de'.cted and Commissioner Herbst agreed the plan could be modified. Mr. Bettencourt asked if this 10-foot minimum was Code requirement or a Commission policy. 7-18-77 77-472 ~_ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 18~ 1977 77-473 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE ~:0. 2~56 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT 9933 ~con[Inued) Annika Santalahti, Asst. Planning Qirector-Zoning, pninted out that the Anahelm Shor•es proJect had been approved, not under the same zoning, with side yards of 3 feet on one side and 7 feet an the othe~ s(d~, with an easement granted to the nne wlth thP 7 fect, achicving 10-foot sideyards on all sides. She steted she was not Aw~re ~f ~ny proJects where the SideyArds are 20 feet. (Commissloner Herbst noted he had not voted nnthe Anaheim Shores proJect). ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kiny and MOTION CARRIE~ tha~ the Anafieim City Planning Cor~imission has review~d tt~e subject pr~)ect, consisting of a 24-unit~ 25 lot RM-4000(SC) condomini~am subdivisic~n, with wavier of minimum building setback on approximately 7.6 acres haviny a frc~ntage of approximately 1100 feet on the north stde of Canyon Rim Road and beinq located approximately 30)0 feet west of the centeriine of Serrano Avenue, ~nd does hereby grant a Negative Declaration fram the requirement [u prepare an environrn~ntal impact re~,nrt fc,r th~ s~~bjPCt property on the basis that therc would be nu significant individual or cumulative advcrse environmental impact due [o the approval of this Nngative Declaration since thF Anaheim General Plan des i gnates t!~e sub.ject property for 1<~w-dens i ty res i dent i al uses COfT11T1Pf15U1'8LC wi th the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are inv~lved in the pruposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicat~s n~~ significant ~ndividual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregaing f'indinns is on file in the office of [he Planniny Department. ACTION: Cunmissianer Herbst offered a resolution and moved for i[s p~issage and adoption that the Anaheim City Ptanning Commission does hereby grant Petit.ion fnr Variance Na. 2956, subjecr. to all ~~>rs being established wi*,h a minimum of 10 feet between property lines, achieving a minimum of 20 feet be[ween buildings. On r~ll call~ the foregoiny resolution DID NOT PA55 by ihe foltowinc~ vote: AYES: COMMISSIONER5: Herbst b Johnson NO~S: CCMMISSIUNERS: Barnes, David, King, Linn b Tolar ABSEMT: COMMIS~IONERS: None ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC77-150 an~ moved for its pa~sage and ~ adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission do~s hereby grant Petttion for Variance No. 2956, on the basis of the ~~nusual shape and hilly terrain ~f the subject propert~. On roll call, the foreqoing resolution was passed by the fo)lowing vo[e: AYES: COMMISSIONcRS: Barnes, Davia, King, linn S Tc~ia~• NOES: ~OMMISSIONERS: Herbst b Johnson AdSENT:COMMIS510NER5: Nonc ACT!ON: Commissioner Barnes offered a motion, seconded ~ Cormiissioner Linn ard MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Johnson voting no) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe5 hereby find tha[ the propo~ed subdivision, together with its design and improvemer , i~ corisistent with tl~e City of Anahpim's General Plan, pursuant to Government l.ode Section b6473.5; and does, Cherefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No• 9933 for a 24-unit, 25-lot RM-4G00 (SC) subdivis~on. subject to ihe petitioner's stipulation to add seven (7) guest parking spaces as indicated, subject to the following conditions: 7-18-77 17-473 4 MINUTES~ ANAHE~"' ~ITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ July 18~ 1971 77-474 tIK NtGATIVt GECL~RA7i0N~ VARfAtiCE i~0. 2?~G At~O TC~JTATIV~ hl/1P OF TPACT 4933 (Contlnued) 1. That the epproval of Tentative Map of Tract No, 9933 Is grAnted subJ~ect to the approval of Varisnce Na. 2956• 2. That should this subdivl.lo~ be cfeveloped ~s more than ane subdivision~ each subdlvislon tl~ere~f sliall be submitte~i in tentativc furm for approval, 3. Thnt all lots withi~~ thls tract shall be scrved by undergroun~ ulilitles. 4. That e fina) tr~ct map of suhject property shnll be submitted t~ a~~~l approved by the Clty Councl l and then be rec~reled in the Office of the Orangr CAUnty Recordr_ r, 5. Thot the coven~ints~ conditlons. and restrictlons shall he submi tted to and ap~roveci by the Cfty Atkorney' Uffice an~ l:ity Engin~:cr priur tu Cf ly Cow~ci l appraval of thc f(nal tract map and~ further, that the approved c~vr_nAnts~ eoncl(tfons. an~l restr(ctions st~all ~:e rewrdcd concurrently wi th the fl~ial tract map. 6. That p r i or c~ f I 1 1 n~~ tt~e F i na I t ra :,t n,ap ~ the appl i can t sha 1 I s ubmi t t~~ the C I ty A+torney for approvil or denlil a:ompietc synopsis of khe propc~sed ~ur~ctloning o~ the o~eratiny corporation includfny~ but nat llmited to, th:.• articles of i ncorpo rat i on ~ by I aais ~ proposcd rnc thc~~ls of manaycmen t~ bond f ny to f nsurc malntenance of commnn property an~! bui 1dlnys, anc! such othcr i nfurmatlon as the G i ty At torney -naY des i re to proteet thc C i ty, ( cs c 1 t I tens, and the purchase rs of the project. 7. That stre~t namrs sl~all be appruvFd by thr. C(ty Planninn Department prlor to .approval of ~~ final tract rnap. Ei. I n the event that subject property is [o be divlded for the purpose of ~ale, ~ease o~ financiny, a parcel map~ to record the approved division of subjcct property, shall bc submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be ~ecordeci i n the Of fice of the Urangc County Recorcler. 9. Ttiat the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to ttie City of llnal~eirn the appropriate park and recreation in-1 ieu fees as dcter~•~ined to be appropriate by the Ci ty Counci l~ sald fees tu be paid at the time the bulldi nS permlt (s i ssued. 10. Tliat dra( nage of said ~roperty shal 1 be di sposed of i n a manne r sat i sfactory to the Lity Engtneer. If~ in the preparation of the sitc, suffieient grading is ~equlred to necessltate a grading perr~it~ noaiork on yra~linq wili be permitted between October 15th and Apri 1 15th unless all required off-s i te drainage faci 1 i t ies have been i ns ta 1 1 ed and are operallve. Posi t i ve as surance sha 1 1 be provided the City that such drainage facillties will be cwnpleted prior to October lSth. Necessary right-of-way for off-si te drainage taci i ities shol 1 be dedicated to the City, or the Ci Ly Counci 1 shal l have initla[ed condemnation proceedfn~s therefor (the c<~sts of ~rhich shall be borne by the developer) prior to the comrnencement of grading operations. The regui red dra i nage facl l i ti es si~all be of a size and type sufficier~t to carry runoff waters originating from hlglier prc~perties through Said property to ultimate di~posal as approved by the C(ty Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of constructlon and shall be ~ompleted and be functionai throuyhout the tract and fram the downstrearn boundary of th~ property to the ultimate polnt of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspectlons o~ occupancy permits. Dratnage 7/ 18/77 ~ MINUTES~ Af1AlIEIM CITY PLANNItJG COMI11SS101~~ July 18~ 1977 77~~+75 E 1 R NEGATI VE DECLARATI ON. VAR IANCf. NO. 2956 ANU TtNTAI I Vt MAN uE i KA~ T yy 33 (Gont i nued) _. . ~ .. .. district rolmGursemant ac~reements may be macle avallable t~ thc~ develnpsrs of said pruporty upon thcl r re:qu~st. 11. That gre~ding, excavation~ nnd al 1 other coi~structlon activ(tles she~ll F~e tonduetcd In sueh a rt-anner so as to m(n im~ e,~ thc poss it,i 1 I ty of any s i i t orly(nating from thls p~oJect be iny c~rrled into tl~c Sant~ Ana Riv~r by st~rm water originating from or flowinc~ tlir~ugh this proJect. 12. That al 1 prlvate strects sh~) I t~s developed in accordance wi th the Ci ty of Anaheirn's standards for prlvatc strcets. 1 j. I f permanont street narne sl~,~is have no[ been InstAl led, ternporary - creet name s i gns sh~~l I bc i ns Ca 1 1 cci pr I~~r to nny accupancy. th. That flre hy~irants shal l be Installed ancl c_hareJecl, as requir~~ci and determined to be necessiry by the Chl ~ f of thre f'( re Departrr~nt, pr tor to commencement nf structural fra~ning. la. That approprinte w~3tcr a55c55n~ent fees~ as dr.tcrr~ined t~y the Director of Public Utilitles, sliall be palci eo thc Clty of llnaheim prio~ to thr_ issu~nc.e of a a~ti~i~~~~ n~r~,ic. 1G. That the d~vcloper oF subaect tract shail en[~r into a Special Facilities Ayrecn~ent wi th the L i ty of Anahc im fur watcr tacl I i t i es i n the N lgh Elevatlon System, as requlreJ by Rule 15~ of tt~c W~t~r Utllity Rates~ Rules and Regulations. 17. That development of sub j cr.t property sf~al 1 be in accor•dante wi th the requi rements of Fire Zone l~ on f11e at thc Anaheim Fira Oepartmrnt. la. In accar:lance with the requlrements of Section t;.C2.047 per[alning r.o thc initial sale uf residential liomes in the C ity of l~n~fieim Planning Area "8", the scller siiall E~rovidc eaeh buycr with written infor•riatlon c•~ncerning thp Anahclm General Plan and the exi stiny :~on(ng wi thi n?n~ fe:cc rr thc boundaries ~f subJect cract. ITEM N0. 22 The subject req~,e~:t f~~ abar,dunmen[ of an easement EIR CATEGORICALI.Y EXEMPT-CLASS 5 for an equescrian trai! 1s submitted in compliance AHANDONMENT-EQUESTRIAN TRAIL IN with the provi~~ions of Section 50435 of the State TRACT NU. 9333 of California Government Code which requires that a vacation r.f an easement shall not be ordered within the area for which a master plan is adopted until tl~e proposed vacation is submitted to a~d acted upon by the Plann i nq Comm i ss ion. The staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 18, 1977 was presented. I t was noted the D i rector of the P 1 ann ing Depa rtment has determi ned that the proposed activity falls within the definitio~ of Section 3,01, Class 5, of the C:ty of Aiiaheim Guidelines to the requireRients for an Environmen:al Impact Report and is~ theref~re, categor i ca i I y exempt f rom t he requ i rement to f i 1 P an E I R. ACTION: Commissioner King off~red a motion, seconded by Comm:ssioner David and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim C i ty P 1 an~ i ng Comm i ss ion does hereby recnmmend to the C i ty Counci 1 of the City of Anaheim that the request for ab~ndonment of a portion of an existing ~~questrian t ra 1 1 i n Tract 9333 be approved. 7-18-77 77-~+75 N,iNUTfS. ANAHEIM C17Y PLANNiNG fOMMISSION~ July 18, 1977 77-476 ITEM N0. 23 ItPm ~- Request for EIR Negative Decldratian for Grading REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plan No. 626 ~t 4~36 Cerra Vista Drive The staff report to the Planning Commtssion dated July 18~ 1977 was presented. It wa, noted an applicat(on for Grading Plan No. 626 has been flled by Lee 8angerter to grade approximately 60U cubic yards of earth (no impart or export) for one RS-HS-43~000 (SC) single family lot at 4536 Cerro Vista Di~ive and thvt an initial Study of the pr~- posed grading plan by the Planning Department and the Engineering Division indic~tes that the grading would he in conformance with City standards, polici~s and ardinances and as a result there w~~uld not be a signifi~ant individual or cumul~tive adverse environmental in,pact. ACTION: CAmmissioner King offered a motion, seconded hy Conmissioner David and MOTION CARRIED (Comrnissioner Johnson abstaining due ta possible cunflict af interest) khai thc /lnahcim City Plannin~ r.nmmiti.i~n does herebv find th~~t pursuant to thc~ provisians of the California Environmental Quality Act, the praposed grading plari for lhe Sinyle family Ipt al 4536 Cc~r~ Vista Drivc will nnt havc a signi- ficant individual or cumulative adverse imnact because the Initla) Study indicates the project will involve only minor grading as mitigated by conf~rmance with City standards, policies and ordinances and that the Negative Declaration is approved. ITFM B•• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 697 - REQUEST FpR TERMINATION. The staff report t~~ thP P1~~nning Comn,ission dated July 18, 1y77 was presented. It was ~oted ' un January 3~ 1977, the Planninv Cornmission yranted Conditional Use Permit ~.o• ' ~~~ pe~rmit a drive°[hroue~h restaurant on the property located at thp south~~...,~ ~ ~~ of LaPalma Avenue ard Harbar Baulevard, One of the conJitians of ~pproval ri .~onal Use Permil Na. 1677 was a requirerT~nt that the pe[itioner su. t a wrict.en request for termination of Conditiona) Use ~ermit No. 697. AC'fION: Commissioner King offered a motion, second~d by Conrt~issioner David and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission docs hereby r~comrnend to thc City Council that Conditional Use Permit No. 697 be terminated. ITEM C- This item was approved carlier during the n~eeting. ITEM D- ORAN~E COUNTY FAMILY PL~+~NING CLINIC - REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. The staff rQport to the Planning Commission dated July 18, 1977 was presented. It was notPa that ~he brange County Gene~al Services llgency proposes to estabiish a family planning cl' ~c a~ 1842 W. Lincoln Avenue~ a medical office building on l.l acres, or a'[ 1655 w• Broadway, a medical office building on 2.4 acres, and requests a determination tha[ a Family Planning Clinic would be in conformance with the City of Anaheim Generdl Plan at one of the two alternate loc~tions. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a moti~n, seconded by Conmissioner Linn and M0710N CARRlED that the Anaheirti Cicy Planni~q Commission, in accordance with Section 654oz of the Government Code, doe: ~~~ereby find that the proposed Family Planning Clinic at 1842 W. Lincoln Avenue r~ at 1655 W• Broadway wauld be in conformance with the City of Anaheim General Plan. 7-18-77 17-476 MINUTES, ANAHFIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 1A~1977 77-477 REPORTS 6 RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) ITEM E- TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REQUIRE CANSTRUC710N OF A SIX (6) FOOT HIGH BLOCK WALL AI.ONG THE NGRTH ~ROPERTY LINE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 1138 The staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 18, 1917 was presented. Ted Bascue, 6216 E. Woodsboro, Anaheim, presented a peti•inn containing 69 signatures of persons oppo5iny the request to remove the 240 Eucalyptus trees located along the east property line. The reason stated on the petition fqr apposing the request was: "We, the undersigned, believe [hat it wauld disturb the ecalogical balance of the area. and :ause aesthetic damage to our tracl of hames. The trees provide a home f~r the birds and animals, as well as a windbreak for our homes. 'fhe inconvrnience ~f a few should not c~~use thc loss of the natural beauty these trr.es p rovide." Mr. Bascue incficated those persons signinq the petition live in the tract east of ttie subject trees. He stated [he trees du need some maintenance but they did not want them to be renx~ved s~ the residents of the tract would have to view the n~bile home park. Commissioner King s[ated the trees are to be trinuned and read the following statement from a letter da[ed July 8, 1y77 from ~bC Management Corporation to the City Council: "Friendly Village of Anaheim has recen[ly contracted with Sunset Construction Company for the topping and tr•irnming of some 200 eucalyptus trees wfiich are lhe responsibility of this project, (copy enclosed). Work will conn~ence on July I1, 1977 and sFiould be comoieted witl~in 60 ciays from the above." Mr. Bascue in~icated he was concerned abou[ the tr~es beinq trimmed to 30 or 35 feet high and Cornmissioner Barnes rnlated that slie has approxin,atEly 90 ~f these trees on her property and that trimminq them to 30 feet is no problem because they will grow right back to 70 feet in a verv short time and be strunger, better trees. Annika Santalahti, lS~t. Plar .~y Director-Zoning, reported this pe[ition was written by five property owners adjaccnt to [he row of trees~ but nat owniny any of thc trees, requesting t.hey be removed. ~he stated if the Commission felt the tree removal was appropriate, then a public hea~ing shouid be set. She indicated a number of peopte have expressed their oppos~ition and that the manag~ment of ihe mobile home park has indir_ated the trees are bc~ing trimmed at the present time and has indicated they would like lo retain the trees. ACTION: Chairman Tolar ~d a c~tion, seconded by Commissioner Johnson and MOTION CARRlED that ti "•ieim City Planniny Cornmission does hereby deny the request for removal of the 240 Eucalyptus trees located alony [he east property li~~e of property located between Esperanza Roa~ and La Palma Avenue, apnro;~~~~ately 960 feet east of the centerline of Impe~'~ Niyhway. Commissioner Herbst stated the only reason ta remove xhe trees would be if they are dangerous to life or property and Comrnissioner King pointed out there ~° iebris on the roofs of the eiyht homes adjacent co the trees. Regarding the request by staff that the conditions of approval be amended to require tonstruction of a 6-foot hiqh block wall aiong the north property line, Annika Santalahti explained the reasnn for this request. She stated the conditional use pe~mit was approvPd with the condit+on that a 6-foot high block wall would be constructed around the entire park. The petitioner came in later and asked that a chain link fence be allowed because of the trees and th~ Council approved his ren~~Pst for a chain link fence. Due t~ the clase proximity to the railroad track, with appr_ t.ely 25 trips per day, and the recently adopted Sound Attenuation Policy, staff rec.... .rnds a block wall be 7~~Oa77 77~4/7 ,... ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~S!ON~ July 18, 197? 77-478 REPORTS b RECOMMENDATIONS - Item E-(continued) required. She reported compleints have been recelved that ch(Idren are cutting holes in the chain IInK f~nce and crossing the ratlroad tracks and this is creating a hazard, Commissioner King stated he didn't think there was a place to build a wall and suggested berbed wire along the tap of the chaln link fence, Ms. Santalaht( stated the manageme~nt of the mobile hume park has stated the fence wiil be repaired. Chalrman Tolar was concerned whether or not tlie Corn~nission could tell the petitioner to put up a block wall after Council had approved the choin link fence. Ms. Santalahti stated if the Commission felt ~ block wal) wauld resolve the problem, perhaps a puhlic hearing wuuld be ap~ropriate. Commissioner Barnes feit the problem would be taksn care of when l•he proposed shopping center is constructed. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commission ,'inson, and MOTI~N CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Cor~mission wili continue the discussion regarding the fence along the north property line for six (6) months to see 'f the problem is resolved during che interim. ADJOURN - There being no further business, Commissioner David offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Linn and M4TION CARRIED, that [he mee[ing be adJourned. The meeting was adJourned at ~:?.5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~' j~/L t-c-i ~~~~ Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commissio~