The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1977/08/01,~ City Hall Anahelm~ Califnrnia August 1, 1971 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION RCGUTAR - The regular meeting of the Anaheim C(ty Planning Commission was Callcd to MEETING ordcr by Chalrmon Tolar at 1:30 p.rn., on August l, 1~77, (n Che Louncil Chamber , a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Tolar COMMISSIONERS: Barnes (arrived at 1:40 p,m.)~ David~ Herbst~ Johnson, King~ Linn ALSO - Jack White Deputy City Attorney PRESENT: Annika Sant~lahti Asst. Planning Director - T.oning Jay Titus O(fice Engine.er Paul Singer Traffic Engineur J.J. Id5hiro Assiylanl Fld~~ner Edith 4arris Ptanning Commission Secreta~y Rabert Kelley Assistant Planner Gordon Hoyt Utilities Oirector PLEDGE Of' The Pledge of Allegiance tu the Flag of the Unitecf St~~tes of America was led ALLEGIANCE - by Comnissioner David. APPR~VAL - Cammissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by C~mrtiissioner Jof~nson~ and af MINUTES MOTION CARRIED that the minutes of thc July 6 and July 18~ 19]] mee[ings be approved as submitted. RE~UESTS FOR CONT I."IUANCES ITEM N0. 1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: f,IIFFORD N. NAZELTGl4, EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATiON 1321 Garderia Blvd.~ Gardena, CA 90247. Agent: JOSEPfi RECLASSIFICATIUN N0. 77-78-Z H. PADELFOR~, 19762 Majorca Lane~ Yorba Linda, C~+ 9zb86. CONpITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 1726 SubJect propPrty is a rr.ctangularly-shape~ parcel o~ land consisting of approximately l.l acres located at the northwest corner of the Riverside Freeway and Lemon Sireet and further described as 1420 N. ~emon Street. Request iti ~or reclassification fram RS-A-43,000 (Reside--tial/Aqricultural) 2one, to ML(~ndustrial,Limited) Zonc and conditional use permit request to permit the ~ut- door storage of large equipment. Chairman Tolar reported the petitioner has requested this item be withdrawn due to problems with the acquisition of additional property and the potential signalization on Lemon Street. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a moti~n, seconded by Commissioner David, and MOTfON CARRIED Commissianer Barnes having not yet arrived) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate subject petition at the request of [he petitioner. 1TEM N0. 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: MYRON E KAY~.E SIMON, EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION STANLEY L. ROSEN, 1603 Chanticleer Rd., Anaheim, CA 92802. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-3 Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land VARIANCE N0. 2957 consisting of approximately 0.5 acre, having a frontage of approximately 133 feet on the sourh side of La Patma Avenue, being located approximately 1,320 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as ~334 West la Palma Avenue. Request is for reclassification from RS-7200 (Residential~ Single-Family) zone to RM-1200~Residential~ Multiple-Family) zone with waivers of minimum building sit~ area, maximum buiiding height, minimum floor a~ea, minimum s+deyard, 8-1-17 77-479 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANP-1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1~ 1977 71-480 EIR NEG. OEC „ RECLASSIFICATION 77-78_-3 b_VARIANCE N0. 2957 (Continued) minimum distance becween buildings~ minimum pedestrlan accessway width, and requtred block wall to construct an 18-unit apartment complrx. Chalrman Tolar reported the peiitioner has re~uested a continuance to August 29~ 1911, in o~der to submit rev(aed ~IanS. There was ont~ p~rson indicating hl~ presence and stated he owns property bordering subJect propcrty on the south. Commissloner King offered a motion that consideration c~f this i[em be c~ntinued to the mecting of Auyust 29, 1977, which was seconded by C~Rn~iS~,ioner David. Commissioncr King and Chairm~n Tolar felt if the petitioncr requested another continuance, the item should he withdrawn and a new petition filed when the plans are ready. Commissioner King stated he wished [o make that a part af his nx~tion. Chairmar Tolar suqgested the item be readvertised at the applicant's expense due to the size of the project and number of units; that he felt continuances were a tactic used by dcvelopers and praperty owners to alleviate opposition. He suqqested the pecitioner be notified that no further c~ntinuances will be granted on tt~is item. Cormiission Dav(d stated he wauld withdraw his second on the motion as he didri't feel the Commisslon should demand there be absolutely no further continuances, that continuances have been granted [o other petitioners and if the developer needs more time, then he should be given more time. Chairman To1ar felt the pet(tioner had been informed that his plans werP tno far out of conformance and should b~ modified to conform and that he did not want to grant further continuances in this particular case. and that he woulcf second the motion. Conunissioner King's motion to continue considera[ion of this item to the regular meeting of August 29, 1977, and that na further co~tinuances be gr•anted was secondeci by Chairman Tolar and CARRIED (Comnissioner Oavid voting no and Commission~r Barnes having not yet arrived). Chairman Tolar explained that this item will not be readvcrtised. 1TEM NQ.6 CONTINUE~ PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: TEXACO- EIR azo3~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-1, ANAHEIM HILLS, INC.~ 380 Anaheim Hills Road, VARIANCE N0._2 ~0~ TENTATIVE MAPS OF Anaheirr~, CA 92807. knqi~eer: ~IND S HILLERUD, TRACTS 1 1 , 1 17 ~ 9502 b 9~~- I NC ., 2065 Fiunt i ngton Dr i ve , San Mar i no, CA. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL Tract 9864) 911U8. SubJect property is an irregularly- AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER Of LOT LINE shaped parcel consisting of approximately 80.2 RE UIREMENTS OF HILLSIDE GRAOING ORDINANCE a~res having a frontage of approximately 3480 fed on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, and being located approximately 1300 feet west of th~e centerllne uf Roya) Oak Road. Request for reciassification from RS-A-43~000 to RS-H -10,000(SC) Zone and waiver of requiremE^t. that all lots rear on arterial h+ghways to establish a 173-1ot, 171-unit R5-HS-10,000(SC) subdivision. Chairman Tolar reported the petitioner has requested a co~tinuance for an additi~nal two weeks for the preparation of a topographic mode~. 8-1-17 77- 480 ~ MINUTES~ANAHEIM CITY pLANNING GOMMISSIO~ Au ust 1 1977 77•481 EIR 2Q3i RECLASS.77-78-1, VAR.2950, TT t16,~117,9~03 ~ 98b4 (c~nt(nued) ACTION: Cartmissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION - C1~RRIED (Commissioner Barnes having not yet Arrived) that the Anaheim City Planning Cortmiss{on does hereby continue consideration of the aforementioned item to the regular meeting ~f the Pl~nning Commission on August 15~ 1977~ in order for ~he petitioner to prepare a topographtc model, ITEM N0. 1) PUBLIC NEARING. Owner: SHASHIKANT M. b DAKSHA S. PATEI.~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2227 Calle De Gamma~ Anaheim~ CA 926b7. Agent: RICHARD RECLASSIF~~NTION N0, 77-78-a TIM9RE, 101E~ N. Easlside, Santa Ana, CA 32701. SubJect VARIANCF. N0. 29 1 property is a rectangularly-shaped ~~arcel of land con- sisting of 3pprc,ximately 0.2 acre, havinq a frontage of approx;m~;p1y 70 feet on the south side of Broadway, and being located approximately 170 f~et east of ihe cencerline of Claudina Street and further described as 212 East Broadway. Request f~r reclassification from the CL zone to the RM-1200 zone and waiver of minimum side setback and minimum recreational/leisure area [a construct a 7-unit apartment complex. Chairman Tolar reported Che petitioner has rpquested this item be tantinued for two we~ks in order lo advertise an additional waiver pcrtaining to strcet dedicati~n. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissloner David and MOTION CARRIED (Commissi~ner Barnes t~eing absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue consideration of the aforementioned item to the regular meeting of August 15, 1917~ ~n order to advert+se an additional waiver pertaining to street dedication. COMMISSIONER BARNES ENTERED THE MEETING AT 1:40 p.m. ITEM N0. 3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEf1RING. Owner: FRED H, b NELLIF J. RULE EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1222 W. Pea~rl Street, Anaiieim, CA 928G1. Agent: BILL pERRY~ VAKIANCE N0. 29 9 ~ 17121 McFddden,Apt. N13, Tustin, CA 92680. SubJect pr•operty is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the south side of Pearl Street, beinq located apnroximately 628 fee[ west of the cPnterline of West Street, and further described as 1216 and t222 West Pear! Stree[. Requqst for waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling uni[, minimum pzdestrian a~c~ssway width and vehicular acces~ requirement to construct a 6-unit apartment complex. There were approximateiy 12 persons indica:ing their oppos+tion [o this request and also indicated there were others in oppositian c,utside lhe ChamLer watching the children. Althougii the staff report to the Planning Comnissi~n dated Augus~ l, 1977, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. J. J. Tashiro reported that a petition was received containing 59 signatures of persons in opposition~ ~nd that this p~tition had been read at the July 18tf~ meeting. Bill Perry, 17121 McFadden, Apt. 13, Tustin, CA 92680, agent, indicated the request for waiver of vehicular acces~ has be~;n deleted by the revised plans. He stated the biggest concern of the opposition rEgarding parking has been eliminated; thr~re is no direct crossiny of the si~~ewalks; the size of the ~aen area has been enlarged. F~e stated the nnly variance requested is the minimum building site area per dwelling unit and is nscessary to develop the property to its best and highest use. He also stated that he felt the concern for [he two-story units was unwarra~ted; that other two-story units have been approved for the area, but this would probably be th~ first one built; that vacant properties on the street should be considered; that two out-dated homes exists on the pro~.erty and will have to be removed. He stated he would be willing to listen to any suggestions. 8-I-77 77-481 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1~ 1577 77-482 EtR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION b VARIANCE NU. 2949 (continued Steve Davey~ 1232 Pearl, stated the ~pp~sition felt the developer had not complied with any of the Commission's requests, cxcept to have the garage doors face the alicy; that thsy didn't feel this would solve the parkinq problem because they didn't think tenents would drive down a 14-foot wide~ unpaved alley. He sta[ed the athcr property owners alone~ the alley are not willing to dedicate their property to widen the ailey He voiced concern with the parking and traffic and p~~inted out there are a lot of children who live on this street. The opposition felt the Commission had reauested that the number of unit5 bE reduced and they ay reed the projcc~ was too dense for the site. Ne stated the people in the neighborho~d were upgrading their propertics and wanted to keep the continuity with sinyle-s±nry units. He stated the developer had come back in with almost exactly the sarr~e plans the Commission had turned down before; that he had talked to the develaper and had suggested sinqlc~-story units which would cut down the amount af traffic generated and not invadz the privacy. He asked that the Commission deny the request aU~in. Chairman Tolar explained the Commission had not turned dr~wn or approvrd anything at the last meeting; that the applicant can come back with any request he wants and that the revised plans do eliminate two of the variances and the only variance being requested ~s the 2~200 sq. ft. proposed per unit rather than the 2,40Q sq. ft. required. Mr. Davey referred to Mr. Perry's comment regarding the aut-dated existing dwellings on the property and stated the property has been poorly taken cire af since Mrs. Ru!e bought it, but these are nice [wo and three bedroom homes and can be fixed up; that there are dwelli~gs just as old in the neighborhoo~ that do look nice. Deverly Moore. 1243 W. Pearl, stated she thirks this is a nice neighborhood~ but they do have a p~rking problem; that alrrx~st every family has at lea,t two or more cars; that allowing morP multi-family units would create more parking problems and asked the Comre~ssion to be very carefu) with the nurnGer of units allowed. Mary Dunlap, 1209 Pearl Street, p~inted out homes in back of the proposed project valued at over $100,000 and fzlt these people wou)d not want apartments in their neighborhood and stated the people in her neighborhood have the same rights even though their homes are not as expensive. J. J. Tashiro, Assistant Planner,reported that tao let.ters of opposition had just been han~ed to him and read a letter from Sharon Brownlow dated July 31, 1977, and one from Bill and Doris Lattin. These letiers are on file in the office of [he Planning Department. Mr. Perry stated there is more to up-dating houses than painting and re-stuccoing, and that these houses have outdated electrical and plumbing which would have to be replaced. He poir~r:u out they cauld build a two-story unit without any variances. He stated these units will not be one-bedroom studio-type units for transients, but will be leased for a year or longer to families; that the parking proposed has been approved by the City. He stated ~~gain that even if this r~quest is denied~ they can build five units and apply for a variance to keep one of the existing houses wliich could be repaired, but is within five reet of the proper[y line; and that there is going tc•, be a two-story unit, regardless of the decisio~. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Tolar stated that Mr. Perry's last remark really concerned him; that ttiese people have concerns and that f~e did nc~t feel a hardship had been demonstrated and would not vote for approval for a variance on this particular project. 8-1-77 77-k82 ,~~ ~. MINUIES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1~ 1977 77-483 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION b VARIANCE N0. z949 continuedj Commissioner Nerbst agreed with Ch~irman Tolar and the people in oppositlan hecause ~f the p~rking problem; that the proposed parking i~ very minimal w(th a 14-foot allcy and only Four parking stalls in front of the property; that ~,eople who live in apartments historically park in ~he COSIPSt spot~ usually on che street; the park4ng st~lls seem rather in~ccess(ble and backing six of them out into e 14-foot ~~11ey is undesirable. He stated that if the variancp were approvr.d,automatic g~rage door c,peners would he required~ but that sincP the petitic~ner h.~d stated five units could be built with~ut a variance, he could not sec where any hardshin existed; that the only hardship seemed to be overbuilding of the property. He suggested th~e propertY br devrlc~Ued with two duplexes that conform to Code with ~rnple parking and that hP could see no justificatiun for a variance at this point in tir~e. Commissioner Linn ~sked the status on the trash storay~ are~ and Annika Santalahti, Asst. Planning Director-Zoniny, reported the Sanitation Division had been cont~cted and they havc becn callectinq fr~im the alley and thcy m~y b~ h~ving problems, bui :•~ill be ahlp to handle it. Commissioner Her!~st asked if the ~lley is schecluled to be widc~ned and Jay Titus, Office Engineer, replied that he was not ~~y~~r~ of any proposed widening of this alley. Commissioner Linn referred to the squar~~ foatagr for the recreation-leisure area and aske~' how 1,700 sq. ft. had bePn lost due to the revised plan and Ms. Sant:+lahti explained this could passibly be due to providinU morP on-site driveway. Mr, Perry siated garage c'~,r openers are planned for the -~roject ;~n<I fhat front entrance doors are only accessihle from the courtyards making it n cessary for the tenants to drive into the 9araye. Mr. Perry referred t~ existinq two-story privilege and that the petitioner ~s not to others in the past; that [he hardship been ~utdated for several years. Ne as four or five negative VQCP.S, wauld it be be granted a variance to keep one of the units in the area and stated thEy have that askinq for anything more than has been granted is beca~~se nf the 14-foot alley which has ked since it was obvious that he would receive possible to build four units at this [ime and houses. Chairman Tolar explained the Commission cculd nat discuss chat~ but coulcf only discuss the plans as submitted. Mr. Perry asked if a continuance could he qranted and Jack White, Deputy City Attorney~ explained the matter would have to b~ readvertised if the plans were changed; and Mr. Perry then stated they would be within the same variances as submitted the first time. Chairman Tolar stated the other Cormiis~ioners may support a c~ntinuance, but fhat he personally felt if he and the owner had listened to the concerns of the residents in the area and [he concerns uf the Commission~ these problems could have be~n alleviate.d. Corm~issioner Johnson stafed he felt the Commission as a whole was right in wt-~at they were saying and that in reviewing the minut.es from the last meeting that the Commission had indicated they felt the plans shauld be modified because the project was too dense* and that the developer had modified the plans, but had kept the density almost the same. He stated he would see if he could get a c~ntinuance; that the developer was afraid of losing the wholP project and he felt the street needs to be upgraded and the developer seemed to be going in that direction. ~-1-77 77-483 , MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, August 1~ 1977 77-484 ~IR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION b VAaIANCE N0. 2Q4q (contlnued) Commiss(oner Johnson offered a motian~ sec~nded by Commissioner King that the aforementloned ltem be continued for two weeks end thot the cost of readvertisement is to be borne by the petttioner. Mr. Perry stated the present design was what they hoped to bu(ld and didn't feel re- advertisement would be necessary~ but th~t thcy would meet th~ dernand, Gommissioner Barnes suggeste~l some sort of garden-type apartments more in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. She stated she understood that th~ petitioner wanted to get just as much as they possible could on the Froperty, but felt the developer was being very short-sighted; chat he had gottcn locked in somewhere ~nd hadn't look at other possibilities. She felt that the strec~t will loak nicc~ and property ~alues wili go up and the developer sh~uld re-evalu:~te and n~t be stuck wifh ihe same design. Commissianer Kinq statedthere was a motion on the floor for a two-~aeek c~ntinuance and Mr. Tashiro sfated thai staff w~ul~i likP t~ h~v~ f~ur weeks, tn August 29. if p~ssible, and Mr. Perry stated he would not be available and clidn't think the matter st~ould be stretched out as his client's interest was at stake and Chairman Tolar stated he would not be at the meetin~ on the 29th and would want to be presenc for consideration of this item. Chairman Tolar called for the question ~n the rnotion for a tw~ week continuance. The morion FAILED TO CARRY (Comrnissioners Barnes, Linn, Tolar and Herbst voting no.) Chairman Tolar explained the motion for continuance had Failed to carry and asked for a motion regarding the plans. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a moiion, seconded by Com~issi~ner King and MOTION CARRIEU, that the AnahE•im City Planning Commission has reviewed t`ie subject project. consisting of a 6-unit apartment wi!h v.~a~ver af minimum building site area per dwelling unit on a rectangularly-shaped parcel ton5isting of approximately 0.3 ~cre having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the sauih side of Pearl Street, and beino located approximately 628 feet west of the centerline of West Screet, and further described as 1216 and 11.22 West Pearl Street,and does hereby approve a Neqative D~claration fr•om the requirement to prepare an environmental impaGt report for the subject property on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designaies the subject proFerty for mtdium-density resid~ntial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that there are existing multi-family units in the ne~gborhood; that no sen5it~ve environrnen[al impacts are involved in the prop~sal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petiti~ner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental irnpacts; and that the Negative Geclaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the Office of the Planning Department. ACTlON: Conxnissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC77-161 and moved for its passage and adoption tl~at the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition for Variance No. 2949 on the basis that no hardship was demon~trated; that by ihe petitioner's own admission~ apartment hou~es can be built without variancPS by reducing the density and the size and shape of the parcel are not unusual. The foregaing resolution was pa:;~.•-d by the foilowi~g vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Barnes, David, Johnson, King, Linn b Tolar NOES: COMMISSIOId~RS: Mone ABSENT: COhMIS510NERS: None 8-1-77 77-484 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM GITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, August 1, 1977 77-4~5 ITEM N0. 4 CONTINUEO PUBLIC HEARING. Ownpr; SHELQON 6 CONSTANCE GOLISON~ F.la NEGATIVE DECI,ARATION 5855 E. Noples Ave., Long Beach, CA 90803. Ag~nt: HAROLD VARIANCE N0, 2955 G. M~REHEAO, 4341 Dirch Street~ Ste.221~ Newport Beach~ CA 9266. SubJect property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of lend consisting ~f approximately 0.8 acre lor,ated south and west ~f the southwest corner of Orange Avenue ~nd Magnalie Avenue~ and haviny a~,proximate frontages of 114 feet on the south side oF Orange Avenue and 77 fe~t on the west sidc of MAgnolia A~ienue. Request of w~ivers for minimum numt~er of parking s~aces and maximurn building height to construct two conniercial buildinys. There were three pers~ns indicatin9 [heir prFSence in opposicion t~ this request .3nd although the staff report to the Pl~~nninq C~mmission dated August 1, 1977, was not read at [he public hearinq, it is ref~erred tc~ and made a part of the minutcs. J. J. Tashiro,A~~iistant Planner, reported that a petitiun c~~nt~ininq 55 signatures in ppp~sition h~d bcen reccivcd and w~s re~d at the meetiriq of July 18th and he also re~!! a lr.tter he had .just recc~ived in opposition ~~iyned by 10 peoplc dated .luly 28, 1911• This letter is ~r~ file in t~ie office c~f the Planniny papartment. Harold Morehead, 4341 Rirch Stre.et, Ste. 7.21~ N~w~>urt Beach, re~crted the revis~d pl~~ns had taken into cor,:;ideration th~ concerns ~f the Con ,Sion and [hat a qrrat numb~r of residents had been cantacted;that the gros~ builJiny square tootaqe h.~s been reduced hy ~.4t;; and the reyuested waiver for buildirig setback has been deleted by revised plans; the landscaped buffcr has been increased to 10 feet wnith increases the to:al percentagc of landscaping to 16'x; and that if the 2G-foot wide buffer zone were reyuired,lt would he prohibitive for this development. He point~d out there is ~4.7'fi building coverage, 59z devoted tu drive- ways and parkin~ and 16x, [o la~dscaping. He stated the aarking waiver was reduced from 6 spaces to 4 which is considerably clos~r to ~Teeting the b~sic req~~irements. Barbara Vernengo, 2617 W. Haven prive, stated the Ictter read earlier containing 10 signatures represented ~roperty owr~~rs on the "L" portion of thc p~operty; that ttiere are stil) just as many pe~ple in oppositior~; that thcir opposition is to che two-story building; that the develnpars are trying to overbuild a small piece of property; that she is concerned that a fast-f~od husiness would be allowed and there wuuld be a high risk of robbery~ relatiny past problems with a 7-II Store one block away and was concerned thai burglars ~ould go behind tlie houses; and shc also asked about rear exit doors, and st3[ed she wuuld like to see the wall raised if the 10-foot landscaped huffer is allowed rathcr than a 20-foot buffer; and asked if' there would be sale of any wine, bee+^ or liquar~ and asked if [he number of parking spaces referred to in the requested waiver could be clarified. J. J. Tashiro, Assistant -'lanner, r•enorted on-sale of alcoholic beverages in a conKnercial zone would require a conditional use permit and if one was applied for, the property owners would be notified. Mr. Morehead stated he did not feel this would be overbuilding the property, that, in fact, r.he development represents a lower d~nsitv for the zone Lhan is allowed. He stated they were 5 parking spaces short and thls is due to the shape of the parcel. He also painted out tl~at no leases have b~en siyned and that rear exi[ doors are not required as long as individual stores are less than 1~~00 sq. ft. Mr. t~lorehead asked Ms. Vernengo wha[ she was referring to when she asked *hat the wall be higher and she pointed out the houses are raised abave the lo[ level. T~~E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 8-1-77 71-485 M I NUTES , ANAHE I M C I TY PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON ~ Augus t 1~ I 977 EIR NEGA7IVE _DECI.ARATION b VARIANCE N0. 2955 (contlnued) 77-486 C~mnission~r Linn stated he did not like this plan and suggested that the building could be bullt without eny varlances or walvers and have the sam~ syuare footage by extending thc two-story butld ing and moving it towards the gas statlon ~nd having an L-shaped structurc around the g~s station and all parking between the building and walls. Mr, Mor~head p~inted out that this was t'ie origin~~l des(gn, but it wAS decided this was not thr bsst plan. Fle stated if the building w~re moved out another 10 feet without -•edueing ihe depth of the bui ld(ng, the number of parking spaces would be reduced a~~d on'y paralle) parking would be possible, Commi ss ioner Johnson staked hA aqreed wi th the develuper's posi t ic~n; tha~ the Commiss ioners are not des igners and shuuld nut cc~ncern thernscl ve~ wi th what : s econornical ly v i able on thc market. He stated he was not de`endiny the product, but the developer's position. Commissioner Barnes asked about the mutual driveway and Mr. Morehead explained that it had exisled before they had become involv~~d in th~ ~,r~jrct; thit it was done because of the narrowness of tlie lot when tlie Arco station was built in 19h6 or 196ES. Commissioner BarnPS ask~d if the hardship was created at that timP because of 1he way the property owner had dlvided tl~e lot. Alan Adams, 4341 6~rch Street, NFwport Beach, replied that because of thP shape of the par- cel when the residentia) subdivision was madc, it was not quite adequate; that in the 1950`s they had smaller commercla) ~.:nters and sn~all~r properties were devPloped; that the p-•oblem was created by the res(dential devclopment by crea[iny ~ lot too small for a ful 1-size cc~mmercial center; that lhey had no way of knowinq [he size comm~rtial centers would become (5 to )0 acres now} ; chat he felt it was created when [he original ,ubdivision was done; that the develapers then co~~ld not foresee the 20-foot setback that has come about and ln order to make ~~ ecanomical ly viable center rn~re space is needed. Chairman Tolar stated he felt the problem had been created b~eca~ise these corner parcels werc left with the intention of Jeveloping them cornmercially. Ne stated he felt the owner was asking too much for the property, creating the demand to get more on the property than is allowed, and he should adjust his thinking. Mr, Morehead asked Chairman Tolar if he considered the 25', coveraqe too much and he replied he felt when the development takes away the riyht ~ of othcrs who have been there for a lony time, then it is too much. He stated he recognizes this is a prablem parcel and would like to see it developed, but was having a problem trying to justify taking rights away f rom one to g i ve to anothe r. Commissioner Johnson discussed the various waivers being requested and the need to establish a hardship, and Mr. Morehead replied that the narrow dimensions of the L-shaped ~,arcel are creat i ng the hardsh? p. Commissioner Herbst stated he felt this is an cdd-shaped parcel and the problem has been created by the people who owned the properties and kept out the cornsrs for commerciai use. He felt that since this parcel is abutting a residential area ai~d the buffer zone was creatPd to protect the peoplE adjacent to commercia) areas, that these people who own the homes deserve the protection of the Cornmission. He stated the requirement could be deviatPd from ta a~ extent, but n~t ca the extent being requested. Mr, Morehead stated he had been h i s feel i ng at the 1 ast meet i ng that i f the bu i 1 ding s i ze was reduced somewhat and more parking was provided and a 10-foot landscaped buffer zone 8-1-77 77- 486 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Au~ust I, 1977 77-487 FIR NEGATIVF DF'~•IARATION ~ VAHIANCF N0. 2955 (c~nt(nuAd) provided, tl~at thc pr~oJect would most probahly recelve a favarable react inn. Cf~airman Tolar asked if the petition cr would stipulate to addlnq two blr~cks to the wall and Commissloner Herbst pointed aut thfs would become a structural wall. Ch3lrman Tolar statGC1 he was trying to figure ouc some way to buffer tli~ visual effect for the houses and Mr. Morehead stated that sorne of the houses have provided extensions of fiberglass above the wall and tha t this could probably be done. Commissioner King pointecl ~ut this had only been done at one house he h~d seen, but didn't think it wauld be desirable on the south and west v+alls. Commissioncr Herbst stat~d if a hiq her wall is required~ the existing block wali will have to be removed and the City Code requirPS that the wall be measured from the lowcst gradc ~nd anything ovcr 6 fc c L h;yh will havc ta bc dcsigned sir ucturally. Mr. Morehead stated he thnught tf~e reasan for tl~e iandscaped buffer was to orovided that protection, rather than the wall itself. Chairman Tolar stated he was Chinking ab~ut the aestheti~. vr visual eftect and not sound attenuation; that he Nas concerned a bouc the residents being able co se e lhe back of the building From their homes. 11r. Morehead stated he had reviewe~ past records on this parcel and the re had been son~e recommendation from the Planninq !'~r.t-nission that the property be devcl~ped residentially, and that i f it w~.re devei~ped res. ' '~1 ly,they could bui ld much close r and that a comr~ercial building with a flat root II provide less visual obstruct ion. Chairman Tolar stated he was not in sympathy with residencial being de v elopC~ at this site and stated there would be more car trips witli a commerci~l develo prnent and stated he felt an agreement on some [ype o f landscapin~~ to screen the homes co uld be worked out. Mr. Adams stated he had spoken dire ctly with everyone abutting the pro perty, with the exception of one pers~~n on vacation an~i that all oF the people he had t alked with, in fact a couple of them on the petitio n indicatiny opposition~ once they we~e actually shown the documents, were totally in agre ement and eccept.ed and liked the pro ~osal. He s[ated that some of the people who have sig ned the petition in oppositioi~, ha v e since signed documents indicating they approved and liked the pr~Ject; that he haci e~ontacted 21 of tne people on the peLition and most of them aren't directly affecte d and about 1/2 of them just aren`t realiy that oppose d, but went along with the rest of t he peoplE in the neighborhood. He stated in talking with them individually, the propert y owners on the west pri~narily suggested some so~t of deciduous trees to affect a sc~eening from both the west and south prop~rty lines b ecause of the two-story building. H e stated Mr. Vista and Ms. Vernego didn't have a clear idea of what ',pe af la~~dscaping thev would prefer. He s[ated the petitioner would be w illiny to g~ along with s~ggestions t~~ provide the buffer and rec.ommended a Eucalyptus tree or cedar tree, and suggested a mansard rouf to enhance the view frum the back *_o make it as attractive as the frc,n~ . Corrrnissioner Herbst stated he recognized this as a hardship parcel and suggested surrounding the property with an $-foot high wa 11~ and planting the trees as stipulated, cutting off the length of the building taward L he south side and bringing the parking requirements within Code; providing the 10°foot landscaped strip as shown on the plans. Ca~rnissioner Johnson did not see any purpose for the 8-foot wall, pointing out a two-story building with no rear exits~ an 8-foot wall with 10-foot landscaped arca, r~sulting in an alley with some t~ees and didr' t feel thp landscaped are~ would be maintained. 8-1-77 77-487 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P4ANNING COMMtSSION~ August l~ 1971 77-'48a EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VAR_IANCE N0. 2955 <<pntinued) Commissloner Harbst suggested a sti pulation be Added that the water must be suppt led for the landscaping and trees and Annika Santalahtt~ Asst. Planning D(rector, 2oning, statcd th~ toning Code dues require that landscaping l~e maintained and that on accasion cttations have been issued for vialations. Mr . Morehead suygested thc bcst type nf IandscAping nn rhA a~~~th s i de would be trees, wi th automatic sprinklers, since m~ inta;-ing a tree is not nearly as difFicult as main- ta i ning ground cover. He also sugqested thet ~ vine be planted on the back of bui lding. A discussian was held regarding whether or not the height of the fence should be raised; wh~ther or not the residentsw~uld prefer a Fence or landscapinca, witr~ Ms. Verrengo polnting out she pre`err~d a fence and wauld~'t want small trees planted which would take a long tirne to effectlvely screen the line-of-slgn, or trees which continually lose their leaves; and the problem wlth trees heinq pl anted too close to a fence, with Mr. Adams pninting out certain types of Eucalyptus trecs which have deep-root systems and hpavy fol iage. Chalrman Tolar stated hc agre~d wi th M5. Vcrnenyo regarding the buffer zone p~oviding an easy way for burglars to hide in tt~e landscapiny and suggested wrouc~ht iron gates from the ends of each bullding to the f~nce, or some type of see-through gatNS to disc~urage unauthorired entry to the rcar of the buildin!~s. Commissioner Barnes was concerned th+~t a one-way driveway would not be suitable for a 7- 11 type store and Mr. Morehead pc~inted out that no t~ iants have been signed for this cumplex. Mr. Morehead stated the peeitioner would be willing to cansider incrf~asiny_ the height of the fence to A feet if that was what the Commission rec~minended. Commissioner Herbst asked if the petit+oner would be willing to shorten the buildinq [o el iminate the parking waiver and Mr. Marehead replied they would prefer reducing the space oci the second story. ACTION: Commissianer Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissione.r King and MOTION CARRIEU. that the Anaheim City Planning Cortxnission has reviewed the s~bject pro)ect~ eonsisting of two conxnercial buildings with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum building height and minimum building se[back. on approximately 0.8 acre located south and west of lhe southw< ~t corr~er of Orange Avenue and Haynol ia Aenue, and having apprc~ximate frontages of 114 feet o•~ the south sid~ of Orange Avenue and 77 feet on the w~st s i de of Magnol i a Avenue, and does hereby appro:~e a Negat i ve Dec 1 arat i ~n f rom the ~equi rement to prepare an envi ro~mental impact report for the sub ject properky on the basi s that there would be no significa~t lndividual or cumulative adverse environmantal impact due to the approva) of th i s Negat i ve Declarat ior s i nce the Anahe i m General Plan des i gnates the subject property for ger~era) eommercial land ~ses cortmensurate with the proposal; that this parcel has been zoned for co~rn~ercial use fo~ several years; that no sensitive onvironmental elements are involved in the proposal ~ and the Init ial Study su6mitted by the petitioner indicates no signi flcant individual or cumulative adverse envi rAnmental impact:s; and tnat the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the offlce of Planning Department. ACT iGN: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PG77-162 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Petition for Variance No. 2955 be granced, in part; that waiver (a) be denied subjett to the petitioner' s stipulacion to r•educe the gross floor ar~a of the comnercial buildfngs, thereby el irninating the need for this waiver; apprnving waiver (b) on the basis that the petitianer demonstrated that a hardship does exist in that a portion of the L-shaped parcel is narrow and difficult to develop without a waiver~ and said 8-1-7'1 77-488 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, August I~ 1 77 77_t~gq EIR NEGATIVE DEGLARATION. VARIANCE N0. zg55 (cont(nued wa(ver beinq qranted subiect ~~ petlti~~Pr'c cttr~,lA~inns to providc an 8-foot high bloc~ wall on the south and west prc,perty lines; to install a 10-foot wide landscaped buffer abutting the west and south proper~y lines and cons(sting of tre~s planted an 20-foot centrrs or less according to the type o f tree plant~d to effectively screer, the cflmmercla) buildings from th~ line-of-sight of the adjacent residentiel area; that the petftloner will provide adequate maintenence of the 10-foot IandsGaped buffer areas; that a monsar~- type roof be canstructed on the rear po rtinn of the buildinq ad~acent to the south prapercy line metchinq the raof•-design on the front of the buildinq; and that see-through tyNe gates will be provided at the east and west ends of sald building to the 8-foot block wal) to prevent unauthorized entry to the 10 -foot buffer ~rea; and that waiver (c) was deleted by revised plans submitted by the pctitioner; and subject to Interdepartmenta) Comnittec Recommend~tions. On rol) call, the foreyoinq resolutfon was passed by the fGllowinq vote: AYES~ rpMMISSlONEP,S: Herbst, t3arncs, D~~viJ, Jc~hnS~n, King, Linn, Tolar NOES: CUMMISSIUNERS: None ADSENI: COMMISSIONERS: None Cortmissioner Jahnson rcminded the petic~oner that the Commission's norrt-a) requirement is for a 20-foot setback and only in ce rtain ca5es have all~wed a 10-foot landscaped buffer with dense landscaping. Commissioner Herbs[ pointed out the 8-fc~ot wal) will ~rovide a sound barrier as wel) as a visual buffer. Ms. Vcrnengo asked if the type of trees to be planted had been deter-mined and it was explained that [rees with deep-rooted syst.ems and heavy foliage as recorrxnended by the Park and Recreati~n Canniission would be planted. (t was noted thaL revised pl~ns showing the reduced gross square footage would be brought before the Conxnission for their review under reports and recommendations. ITEM N0. 5 CONTIPlUEp ?UBLIC HEARING: Owners: WILLIAM P. b VIOLET EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION P. MIALL, AUBREY F,R, b CATHERINE HbLMES, 2740 W. Linc~ln~ CONDITIONAL U~E PERMIT N0. 1720 Anaheim, CA 9?.801. Agent: OGTOBER ENTERPRISES, 1303 Avoc ado Ave., Stp. a195, Newport Seach, CA 92660. Sub- ject property is a rectangularly-shePed parcel of land cansiscing of approximaiely 1.5 acres having a frontag~e of appr-oximately 190 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue~ being located approximately 690 feet east of the c~nterline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2740 West Lincoln Avenue. Request is to establish a recreational vehicle park in conjunction with a motel~ with waivers of minlmum building setback ~nd required blotk wali. There were 3 people in~icating their presence in oaposition to this rec~uest and although the staff repor[ to the Planning Commis sion dated August l, 1977, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mark Grosher, 1303 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach~ presented the revised plans, pointing out the developer had tried to compty with the Commission's desires in providing slated parking spaces, reduced the number of spaces from 51 tc+ 38, increased the size of the individual spaces making it easier to get inta and out of the spaces, and had included a block wall along the easterly property line. Gary Woods, 2726 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, s peaking for his father, voiced their concern because the subject property is at a much h(ghe r level than the adjacent property and showed photographs. He stated they would like to have the block wall 6 feet in hei~ght on the petitioner's si~e of the property at ce rtain locations• 8-1-77 77-489 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Au~usf 1, 1917 77-490 EIk NEGATIJE ~EGLARATION c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1720 (continued) Mr. Gru~her stated the developer is Fi,lly aware of the dlfference in the IevPls ~f thc propert(es and they have a drainage {~roblem anyway and the land will be brought up ta take care of~ the drainac~e and a 6-foot wall will be placed on tap of chat. Katherine Lively, 2726 W. Lincoln, a5kecl if th~ w.~ll would be locate~j exactly on the property line and it was explained the w~ll would be Elaced tc~ ailevfatc the drainage problem, and ir, usually on the property linc. Commissioner King polnted aut the four existing power poles and Joe Kitashino, 1920 E. Katella, Orange, explained the wal) may have to j~q around the poles ~nd that an ALTA survey had been submitted showinq thc~ exact location of the poles. Hc stated the wall will be on the prc~perty lir,e on the petitionrr's sidc c~ r'~c property; that the heiqht af the rear of the property is 2 or 3 fe~t higher;thr slope will be to drain to the front~ so the rear af thc propert.y will havc a retaining v~all, plus the 6-foot wa l l . ACTION: Conmissioner King offered a mc>tion, Secondcd by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIEU, that the Anaheim City Planniny Conmission has reviewed the subject proj~ct ~onsisting of a recreational vehicle park in conjuncti~~n w;th a motel with waivers of minimum building setback and reyuired block wall, on approximately 1.5 acres havi~g a frontage of approxi- mately 7~0 fect east of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2740 We~t Lincoln Avenue, and dor:s approve a Neqative Declarati~n from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report for the sub,ject pr~perty on the basis that there would be no siynificant individual or ~umulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of thi5 Neg~tive Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the sub- ject property for yeneral conxnercial land u5es conunensurate with the pr~posat; that no sensitive envi~'onmental elem~nts are involved in the proposal; and the Initial Study ~ubmitle~ by the petitioner indicates no sEgnificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental iripacts; acd that the Neqative Declaration SUbSiantiatinq thc foregoing findings is on filc in the office of the Plennir~g Department. ACTION: Con~n~issioner King offered Resalution No. ~C77-163 and moved for its passage and adoption, [hat the Anaheirr~ City Planning Conmission does liereby yrant Petition for Conditiona) iJse Permit No. 1720,grantiny waiver (a) on the basis that the previously established building setback on subject property is 30 feet and ali new additions will follow said existing setback line; [hat waiver (bj is granted, ir~ part, to permit a chain- link fence along the south property line only since the adjacent property is developed with a plant nursery a~d site screeniny in the form of a block wall is unnecessary, and s~bject to the petitioner's stipulalion ta provide a 6-foot high block wall along the east pruperty line, said wall height to be measured from the liighest portion of subj~ct property to ade- quately screen the proposal from the existing residences; and subject to property being substantially developed in accordance wich plans and specifications on file w~th the Cicy of Anaheirn markEd Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1 and Er.hibits 2 through S, and subject tu Interdepartmental Committee Recommendatior~s. On roll ca11, th~ foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, darnes, David, Herbst, Johnson, Linn 6 Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIOkERS: None Cortmissioner Herbst com;~~imented the developer on the reviSed plans. RECESS: A 10-minute rpcess was called at 3:~5 P•m• RECONVENE: The meetiny was reconvened at 3~35 p•m. with all Comnissioners present. s- ~ ~7> »-490 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM f.ITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, August I, 1971 17-491 ITEM N0. 7 PUBLIC HEARING. Owncr: IMPERIAI PROPEKilES~ P, EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 1 b 11 0. Box 125Q~ NPwport Beach~ CA )2663. Agent: CONDITIONAL USE PERMtT N0. 1735 BRENT SANDERSON, 16 West ~el Amo Blvd., Long Beach~ CA 90805• Sub.~ect property Is ~n irregularly- shaped pa~cel of land consi~ting of approximately II ~cres having a frontage of approximately 87Q feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, end bein9 I~cated approximately 415 fset east af the centPrline of Im~,PriA1 Hl~hway. Request 15 f~r a c~nditlonal use prrmif to pcrmit on-sale beer and winc in a proposed restaurant. There was no one indicating their presence in opp~sitian to this requesc. and althaugh thc staff report to the Planning C~mmission dated Auyu,t 1~ 1977~ was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Brent Sanderson, repr~sentinq the Sizzler Family Steak House, was present to answer any questions . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cortmissioner Tolar expressed concer•n that the business might change hands in the future, and Mr. Sande.rson pointed c~ut that their Icase is For TO yea~s. It was noted the Hill and Canyun Municipal Advisory Committee (NACMAC) reviewed this project at their meeting of July 5th and unanimously reconxnended approval of tF~is request. It was also noted the Director of tl~s Planning Departmen[ has determined that the pruposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.OD~ Clacses 1 and 11~ of the City of Anaheim Guidclines to the Requirements fc,r an Environmenta) Impact Report, and is, there- fore, categoricatly exempt from the requirernent to file an EIR. ACTION: G~mmissioner King offered Resolution No. PC77-164 and moved for its passage and adoption~ that the Anaheirn City Planning Cornmission does heret,y grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1135, subject to Interc~epartmental Committ~c~ Recommendatians. On roll call~ the foregoing resolutian was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, Barnes~ David, Herbst, Johnson, Linn b Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None AdSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ITEM NQ. 8 PUBLIL HEARING. Owner: E.E.S.A. INVESTMENT COMPANY, EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 915 N. Citrus, Hollyv+oad~ CA 90036. Ager,t. THOMAS RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7-77-4$ CARTER~ 10732 Riverside Drive~ N. Fiollywood, CA 9Z6o2. Subject property is an irregularly••shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres having a frontage of approximately 175 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 130 feet at the cul-de-sac terminus of 8ella Vista Street~ and being located appr•oximately 998 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street. Request is for reclas5ification of subject property from the CL(,Commercial, Limited) Zo~se to RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zo~e. There was no one indicating their pres~nce in opposition to the request and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated August i, 1q77, was not rQad at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Thomas Carter, agent, stated this request has been brought about by the owner and operator of the Amigo Restaurant on the same property because he was given parking at the rear of the restaurant, but in the meantime has been using parking near the street in front. Mr. Carter reparted this owne- has hrought that business from a loser to a successful venture S-t-71 77-491 ~ MINUTES ANAHEI!' CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. August 1~ 1977 77-49z EIR NEGATI~'E OECLARATION 6 RECLASSIFICATION N0. ]b-77-4A (rnntinupd) and h~s requested tli3t he be allowtd to keep the parking he has been using. Therefore~ the parking has been redesiyned ancl there have been no uther chAnges to the proJect. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Tolar congratulated the dcvelopers for brin~ing in plans wfthout ~ lot of waivers. Ne did xpress his concern with the fact that ingress and egress is taken off Bella Vlsta rather than Lincoln and th~t the Traffic Engineer had indicated there ~~ould be n~ problem. Mr. Carter pointed out there i~ ingress and egress on Lincoln and Paul Singer~ Traffic Engineer, revfewed the plans and st~t.ed thi~; was acc~~table. Cortm(ssion~er Johnson expressed r.oncern that Lhere miyht be some through traffic from Belia Vista t~ Linculn ancl Mr. Sinyei ~tdted I~e di~n't thin{. this would hc ~ pt'oblcr;. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner David, and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning C~mmission has reviewed the subject proposal to reclassify thc zoning from CL(Comnercial, Limited) Zonr to RM-1200 (Residpntial, Multiple-F.amily)Zone on approximately l.l acres having a frontage of approximately 1%5 Feet on the south side of ~incoln A~•enue and 130 feet at the cul-de-sac terminus of Sella Vista Street and being located approximately 998 feet east of the center{ine of Knott Street. and does hereby approve a Negative Deciaration from the reyuirem~nt to prPpare an environmental impact rep~rt on the basis that there would be no significant individual or curr~ulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Nec~ative Declaration since the An.3hPim General Plan ciesignates the subject property for general co~~rr-e~cial and medium density residential land uses :.ommensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive enviornmental elements are involved in ihe proposal; that the Initial Stuciy submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the office of the Planning Department. ACTION: Commissi~~er King offered Resolution No. PC77-165 and moved for its passage and adopt~on that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~n does hereby grant Petition for Reclassification No. 76-17-48. subject to the nroject being developed in substantial accordance with plans marked Exhibit No. I, and subje:ct to Interedepartmental Committee Reco rr~ndat ians. On roll call, the foregoing rPSOlution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMI!ISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMt11SSI0NERS: ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGAT~IVE DECIARATION RECIAS~IFICATION NQ. 77-78-6 VARIANCE N0. 2959 feet on the west side of the c~nte•line of Orange Agricultural) 2one. REQUESTEp CLA~SIFICATION: Laxore Avenue. Kiny~ Barnes, David, Herbst, Johnson, Linn~ Tolar None None PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: ROBERT MARVIN LAW, 224 N. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92$05• Agent: JACK S. TILNEY, 24462 Toledo Lane~ E1 Toro, CA 92630. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lard consisting of approxi- mately 0.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 185 Street and being iocated approximately 6b5 feet north of Property is presently classified RS-A-43,000(Residential, RS-7200(Restdential, Single-Family) Zone. REQUESTED VARIANCE: Minimum lot width. ( 70 feet required; 60 feQt proposed). 8-1-77 77-49z MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. August 1, 1977 77-493 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION No. 71-18-b t; VARIANCE_N0. 2959 ( wi~linucd) There was no one Indicating their presence in oppotiit(on to this request ~~nd although the staff report to the Planning Com~~iission datcd August 1, 1y77~ was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred tc~ and made a part of the ~r,inutes. Jack Tilney, agent, was p-'esent t~ answcr any questians. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSCD. AC710N: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by C~nrnissioner Linn and MOTION CARRIED, that the A~aheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the subject proposal to reclassify the zoning from RS-A-43,000(Residential/Aqricultur•al) Zone to RM-7200(Residentiat, Single- family) Zone on property consisting of 0.5 acre havinq a frontage of approxim~~tely 185 feet an the ~HPG~ ~1~p ~f l~x~rP Streei. havinq a maximum depth af approximately 133 fe~~t and heing located approximately 665 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue and witf~ waiver of ininimum lot width to establish 3 1c~t~; ~nd does herchy approve Negative Declara- [ion from the requirement to prepare an enviornmental impact reporc on thP basis xhat ther~ would b~~ no si9nificant individual or cumulative ~dvrrse environment~l impact due to the approval of this Negative peclaration since the Anah~im GPneral Plan designates the subject property for low-density residentia) land uses comnensurate with the pr~posal; tha[ the Initial Study submi[ted by the petitioner indicates no siynifican[ individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; an~i that the Negative Declaration substantiating thc foreyoing findings is on filc in Ch~~ ~fFice of the Planning Dep.irtment. ACTION: Coim~issi~ner King affered Resolution No. PC77-166 and ;»ovcd for its passage and adoption that [he Anaheim City F'lannin~~ Lommission does hereby yrant Pr_tition for Reclassi•• f;cation N~. 77-18-6, subject to Interdepartmei~tal Conrnittee Reconx~~endations. On roli call, the f~regoing resolution was passed by the following vote: tiYES: COMMISSIONFRS: King, B~rnes, David, Nerbst, Jahnson, ~inn E Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENI": COMMISSIONERS: Nane ACTION:Corirnissioner King of'fered Resolution No. PC77-167 and moved for its passage and adopt~on that the Anaheim City Planning Conxnission does hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 2959 on the basis that most lots in the area haviny the Same zoniny r•ange fr•om 60 to 70 feet in width and two of the propnsed lot sizes are greater than 7200 feet. in access of Cade requirements, and th~s allows the property to he used to its best and highest use, and subject to Interdepartrnental Cornmittee Recon,mendations. On roll call, the fo~egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kin~, Barnes, David, Herbst~ Johnson, Linn b Tolar NOES: C0~IMISSIONERS: NUr~~ ABSENT: COMM;SSIONERS: None ITEM N0. 10 PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: SENT-PAC CORPORATION, 7029 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 204 Paramount Blvd.. Pico Rivera, CA 90660. Agent: RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-7 -1 BILL Mc CULLOCH, 4320 Campus Drive, Newport 8each, VARIANCE N0. 29 0 CA 92660. Subject propercy is a rectangularly par- cel of land consisting of approximately 9•8 acres located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Bel Air Street, having approximate frontages of 131 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 280 feet on the west side of Bel Air Street. Property is presently classified as FS-A-43,000(Residential/Agricul- tural) Zone. g_~-77 77-493 ~. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August I, ~977 77-494 EIR N0. 20~-1 RECLASS. 77-7A-7 ~n~i VARIANf.F NQ. 2960 (continucd) REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-120t1(Residential, Multiplc-F'amily) ZonP. REQUESTED VARIANCE.S Permitted encroachments into require:i yardc; maximum building heiyht; rnlnimum structur~l setback and r•equlred block wall. There was no one indicating their pre5rn~e in ~pposition to this pro)ect ~nd olth~u~h thP staff report to the Planning Commission dated August I. 1977, was not read at the ~+ublic hParinc~, it is referred to and rnade a pert of the minutes. It was noted there was a considerable anaunt. of opposition when a pru;PCt had b~en proposed on this ~ite approxim~te.ly a year aqo which had not bPen mE~ntioned in the st~~ff report. Rlchard Bracamonte~ 7029 Paramc>uni E3oulevard, Pico Rivera, Stated mretinys had been held with ;hc rnobilc hc~mr pc~aple and re5ident~al n~i~hh~rs ~n both side~ and that their b.~sic concerns had bec~n satisfied with tl~is proposal. He nc~ted a decision had been rnade to completely renx~ve t.he re.:fuse dun~p tiite and bi~ild nK~re ~partmen[S in th~ h.ick r•ath~r than tsnnis courts. Bil) McCulloch. the architect. 4320 Cam~~us Drive~ Newport 8each, w~s present tci answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING ~IAS CLOSED. Chairman Talar asked about fhe h~rriers tc~ he pr~vided at both ends and the possibility of inethane gas escaping and goin~ over to the mobile h~me site, noting that the mc~bile home park is located on a portion of the dun,p sitc. Gerald Nichols, 40A W. lOth Street, Santa Ana, Geologist, explained the current projec[ calfs for remov~l of the refuse fill t~ an approximate depth of 30 feet maximum and [he refuse fill that will remain on the adjc~ining trailer park si[e is currently generating all kind5 of qases, including methane. He stated there is a definite advantage with the current project, n~t only wil) there be a trench and plas[ic sheet barrier system, plus a collection and venting system, but therP will also be a 12-foot wide compacted fill which w~uid make the abiiity for lateral transmiss~on of qases reduced by 5 to 10 times what it is under r.urrent condit~ons and wuuld allow methane gas to escane under cr~ntrolled conditians; th~erefore, both properties w~uld be cansiderably improved. Mr. Nichols stated he had me[ with the people at the trailer park last week and their primary concern was how this would affect them and if the fact that they ha~ an area for the gas to escape out of and into would make a difference. He explained to them that additional gas would be removed and no one is really sure which direction the gas has been moving back and for[li across the property, and are R~aking sure the yas beiny genPrated on the trailer park property is brought inta a gravel filled trench with perforated pipe that at regular spacings would have a vertica) venting system, and the system wil) be monitored for one year ~n a periodic basis to determine if a more sophisticated system would be required. Chairman Tolar asked Mr. Nichols what th~ chanr..es were of the methane yas settling in that lower area anri Mr. Nichols explained that methane gas will not settle in a poclcet that is not covered and that it is lighter than air a~d would rise rather than settle. Chairman Tolar also asked if there was a possibility the gas could escape and get into pockets in the apartments and Mr, Nichols explained that the apartments previously approved by the City were designed so there would be no placPS that would allow methane gas to become enclosed and result in a flare. 8-I-77 77-494 MINUTES, ANAHEIM f,ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AuUusl' 1~ 1977 77-49S EIR N0. 204, RECLASS. 77'7a'1 ANO VARIANCE NU, 2g6U (continurrJ) Mr. Nichols explalned the conditlons previously pr~pose~ Are actually less certain than the canditions now prnposed. The previously proposed system was for ~n appr~ximatPly 5 to 6-fee deep trench with grave~-fllled base and a pipe and drain system with a plastic sheeting cutoff be~ause methane rises, and there was a possibility t~ie tr~nch could h~ve been cut intn hy a trenching machine and in very unique situAtions, the methane gas cauld get through. Ne explained with the current proposed system, there would be a 30- foot hiyh slope with a 12-foot, fine-grain compacted fill material with plastir. sheeting ov~r the tntire face, plus a collection trench, gr~7vFl-filled basP, and perforated pipe w(th period(cally spaced vertical ventinq syseem. Commissioner Herbst asked ~bout the possibility of a fire in the venting system, if someonc were to strike a match. Mr. Nichols explained if someone were to climb up on top af a J or 8-fuul hiyl~ pipe and drop ~ match in51dP at a Specific moment whr_n the concentration of mwthane yas and air Es ,just riyht. then ther~e could be a flare at that spc.~ ~r within 2 feet af the pipe. Commissioner David asked the charact:e~~istics of the plastic sheeting and Mr. Nichols explained i[ would probably be 10 millinu~ter polyvinyl shceting; [hat it is n~t intended to prevent any methane from ever going through the system, but to reduce substantially the potential and at a smaller rate. Commissianer Barnes asked Mr. NiGhols to compare this project with one receritly approved at Irvine where 40-foot setbacks wer~ required. Mr. Nichols explained hH had been the consultant on that project and that the conditions [herc have warranced carport structures being constructed within 10 feet; thaE the individual ~oil conditions~ the nature of the refuse fill and the availability of land have made it possible to build within 20 fcet af the carport structures; there are 4U-foot setback, required for inhibi[able structures, but the sart-e system tis previously proposed here was •approved at Irvine~ which is lesser than that which is being proposed currently. Ne explained that the 40-faot setbatk was decided to be liv~d with there for this design, but that a system could have been designed for which they coul~ have built directly on the refuse fill. Commissioner Herbst asked if any refuss were found dPeper than 30 feet, would it be removed and Mr. Nichols replied that all refuse •~ould be remc~ved; that about 38 ro 40 exploratory excavations have been done and aeria) photogr~.phs indicate [hat the deepest portions of the refuse fill have been found. Conmissianer King asked if the residents on 8e1 Air who had complained about the previous proposal had been contacted and Mr. Michols replied that the same people had been con- taced as shown on the City's property owner list. Chairrnan Tolar asked if Dr. dutte nvorth had been contacted and Mr, N'.:hois reptied that one of the rneetings had beere held at Or. Butterworth's home. Commissioner Barnes had a question regarding Page 3, No. 3, of the Environmental ImpacC Report regarding foundations and asked Mr. Nichols ta explain the last sentence to her. Mr. Nichols read that sentence stating that any building foundation located within the setback zone will require special design consideration which would incorporate caissons into the foundation. He explained the reason for the fnundation caissons is to obtain uniform foundation support and a portion of the footings would be founded on the fill and in or~ier for those fontings to have suitable bearing support, they would 8-I-77 77-495 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY Pl_ANNING COMMISSION, Ausut 1~ 1977 17-496 EI~ N0. 204, RE~LASS. ~)-~8-] AND VARIANCC N0. 2960 (tontlnur~) need to have characteristics similar to those on natural 9round and it may be necessary to deepen thpm so they have a unit'orm rat.e of settlement. Commissioner Jahnson asked about the drainage provi~,ions and Mr. Nichols r~ptled that therp has to be a p~mp system (or both storm drain and s~wage. Conmissioner Johnsan asked if the City has any guicfel(nes regarding the size of those pumps and Jay Titus, Offic~ Enginecr, replied they wr~uld have lu be engineered and would be a private system not t.~ be maintained by the City. ACTION: Conrnissioner Johnson ofFered a rnorion, sec.onded by Commis~ioner King and MOTION CARRIEO that Cnvironmental Impact Report No. 204 For [I~e proposed c';velopR~ent of t98- unit apartrnent complex on a 9•a-acre site located northwest ~f the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Bel Air Street, haviny I,ren con;idcred this dat~ hy the llnaheim City F~lanninq Conxnission and evidence, both written and oral, having been presented to supplement draft EIR No. 204, finds that potential pruje.~t generatcd individual and cumulative a~fverse impacts havr. been reduced to an acceptable level by conformance with City plans, policies and ordi~ances, and draft EIR No. 204 conforms to the California Environmental Quality Act and to City 3nd Stale F.IR Guideline.s and~ therelore, based upon such information, thF Anaheim Lity Planninq Comrni5sion does cer[ify EIR No. 244• ACTION: Commissioner• Johnson otfered Resolution No. PC77-'68 and nx~ved f~~r its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning C~~~'~~n~S510n does ~~ereby grant Petit.ion for Reclassification No. 71-78-7, subject to the pr_titioner's sr~pulation to seek _yrading permits prior to any gradinc3 ar on-yite excavation activities on the project, and suhject ~o petifioner's sti~;~~lation to Comply with mitiqating r~easures conta~ned in the Envirr~n~ental Impact Report No. ?.04, and subject to !nterdepartmental Committee Re~.~nmendalions. On roll call, the foregoing resoiution was passed by tF,e following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Barnes, David, Herbst, Kiny, Linn 6 Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonc ABSCNT: CQMMISSIONERS: Nonc C~mmissioner Johnson congratulated the developers on alleviating possible problems and congratulated the Commission on showing that the democratic system can work. lie felt the Corm~ission was ~ticking its neck out un this particular project~ but felt with good planning and g~od restrictions imposed on the project, it will work. ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered Resolution No. PC77-169 and moved for its passa9e and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planniny Commissi~n does lier'eby yrant Petition for Variance No. 2960; waiver (a) was deleted by corrections the petitioner made to the submitted plans; tf~at waiver (b) is hereby granted on the basis that the twu and three story units located within tf~e propcsed excavated area are only one story in height as seen from the natural grade at Che property lines, and the two-story units are located within ISO feet of an RS-7200 zoned parcel which Es irreguiarly-sha~ed and which is unbuildable within said 150-foot distance; that waiver (c) is yranted for carports which are located near the adjoining property to the east which has a narroa~ width; and that waiver (d) was deleted by corrections the petitioner made [o the sub- mitted plans; and subject to the property being developed substantially in accordance with plans and specificatians marked Exhibits 1 and 2~ as corrected by the petitioner, and ore file with the City of Anaheim, and subject to Interdepartmer.tal Corn~nittee R~~commendations. 8-1-77 77-496 ; MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSIpN, August 1, 1977 77-497 EIR N0. 204~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-7 ANp VARIANCE N0._?960 (continued) On roll call~ the foregoing resolucion was passed by the following vote~ AYES: COMMISSIANERS: Johnson, Barnes, David~ Herbst~ King~ Linn b Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMHISSIONERS: None Chairman Tolar expressed his appreciation to the developers tor design(ng a project for one of the problem areas of ch~ City o~ Anahelm. ITEM N0. 12 PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: FDDIE FISCHER, 8615 Katell~a EIR CATEGORICALLY EKEMPT-CLASS 1 Av~nue, Stanton, CA 90680. Subj~ct property is a CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 173 rettangularly-sf~aped parcel of land consisting af ap~roximately 2.4 acres~ having a fr~ntaye of approximately 3Z5 feet on thc c~st side of Rr~»khurst Stre~t, beiny located approximately 335 fPZt south of the Genterline af Orange Aven~ae, and further described as 646 and G48 5. 8r~okhurst Street. Rcquasl is fur a conditional use permit tn ~ermit on-sale beer and wine in a restauran:. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition tu this request and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 1, 1917, was n~t read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Raiph Nielson, 2770 W. Westhaven,Anaheim, and Joseph Mitzel, operator and manager of the pizza restaurani, w^-'e present t~ answer any yuestions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSFD. It was noted that the L~irector of the Planning Departmenc has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01~ Clas~ 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirernents f'c~r an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categ~ricaily exempt from ihe requirement to file an EIR. ACTION: Conx»issioner Kiny offered Resolution No. PC77-170 and moved for its passage and aduption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Conditi.~nal Use Permit No. 1734, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a restaurant~ subjec[ to thie petitioner's stipulation that the hours of operation are fram 11:00 a.m. to I1:00 p.~n., seven days a week, and subject to tlie Int~rdepartrnen[al Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the fol~owinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, Barnes, David, Herbst, Johnson, Linn 6 Tolar NOES: ")MMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSION~RS: None 8-1-77 77-~'37 ~` MINUTES~ CITY PL,ANNING COMMISSION, A~gust ;~ 1~7'~ 77"49a ITCM N0. 13-11 FINAL MAP OF TRAI:T N0. 84G~ The stoff report from the Enginoering Dlv(slon to the Planning Conmisslon dat~d August i~ 1977~ was prnscnted. It was n~ted the referenced tract is lacated on tlie south side of Canyon R(m Rofld westerly of Serrano Avenua. Tlie tract conteins 13,5~3 acres di~idec: int~ 3~ lots In the RH-1Q~~0(1(SG) Zone; the fl~al tract map has been checked ~nd fuund to be technically correct and In substantial conformance witl~ tl~e tentattve mep ~s approved on August 2J. 197~~, and ls flled in conjunctlon with Varianc~ No. 25~'1; the dPVelopPr Is the R4bcrt P. Warmingtan Company of Irvine, with engincering heing pruvided by Willdan and Assoc(ates of Anoheim;the tr~ct fees were pAid on July 1~~ 1977; the troct Improvement bonds were p~sted on July 21~ 1.977; tl~P cfrainage is by street flow to an existing storm drain in Canyon Rim Road; EIR No. 11'l was certiffed on February 12, 1971~; thc CG6Rs were approved by the Clty Atc~rney's Office on June :3, 1~%7; and the speelal faci 1 i ties a~~rc~:~~~e:nt was approvcd by Counci l or July 2f~, ~c,~,. ACTION: Commissi~ner Kiny offered a motion, ser~ndeJ by Conn~issioner Uavld nnd --~- MOTI01~ CARRIED~ that thr~ Ananetm C(ty Plannlny Commiss(an does hereby approve the Fin~~) Map nf Tr~~ct No, S~~G5, ITEM N0. 13-U FINAI NAP OF TR/1CT N0. y4K~ The staff report from ttic En~inceriny Division to the Planninc~ Commissinn dated Auyust 1, 1`~77~ was presented. It was noted the rcferr_nced tract is located An the south sidc af Riverdalc Avenue west of Lakevie-+ Avenue. The tract contains 3.JG acres ciivided into 1G lots In the R5~72~p(SC) Zone; tfie cJeveloper is Garcten Park Homes of Newport Beach~ Inc.~ with englneer(ng beiny provided by Ilall and Foreman of Santa Ana; the f(nal tract map ii~is been checked and foun~i ta be techn-c~~lly correct m~d in substontial conformance with the tentative map aprroved on Marci~ t~~ 1)77. an.i ls fi1eJ in conjunction with Reclasslficati~n ~~o. G7-6$-13 and Yari~nce t1o. 2~306; the t~act fees were pa(d on July 25, 1`171; the tr~ct improvement boncis were poste~i on July 25~ 1977; drainAge is by streex flow to an existing storrn drain system in Rivr.rdaie Avenue; and Tract 40. 9t-82 was f~und to be cateyorically exempt from the requirement to file an enviro~mental irspact report by Counci) on March $~ 19;7. ACTI01l: Commi~siones' Ktng offered a moti4n~ seconded by Comr~i5sioncr David and ~~ MOTION CtiRRIED~ that the A~aheim City Pianning Commissior~ does hereby app rove the F i r~a I Map of Trac t t~o. 9~482 . ITEM IfO, ll- RF.PORTS A110 RECOt111ENDl1TIONS 11 A- E I R NEG 1 VE DEC I1R.4T I 0~1 - PART I ~ I Pl1T I Otl BY TNE C I 1'Y OF ANANE I M I N OWNERSN I~' OF SAN ONOFRE ~~UCLEAR GENERP~T 1 Nf 5TAT I ON ~ UN I TS 2 ANU 3. ~-` - _ _ - 7he staff report to tt~e Pla~ning Commission dated Auyust 1. 1977, was ~rescnted. Gordon W. Hoyt~ Utiltties Girectcii', was present to answe~ any questions. It was noted the City of Anaheim is negotiating with Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric to acquire a i.66$ tnte.r:~st in Sas~ Onofre Nuclear ai~~» »-a~s ~ ~~. MINUTES~ CITY PLANI~II~G CQMt1~~alON~ August 1~ 1977 ~~~4q9 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDAT IONS - 11'F.M A (Cont ( nued) G~~~eretln,y Stetlun Units 2 anJ 3; that t; participating in p.~rtlal nwncrshlp of thc facillty~ the Clty wo~ld be assured of rec~iving e su~ply of c'Actrlcity at less cost than tf It were to pu~chase the encrgy at wholeseln rates. ACTION: Commissloncr Ktng ~ffcr~~f a rnotion~ second~d by Commisstoner Harnes and MOTION CARR "'0. that thc Analie(m City Piannin~ C~mmissiun does hercby flnd thAt pursuant to tlie provislons af thc Californie Env~ronmental Quallty Act, the pr~posed particlpatlon by tl~c C(ty of Anahetn in pertlal owne~shlp of Sa~ Onofre Nuclear Gen~rating Statton Units 2 and 3 wtll nnt have a sic~nificant 1nJivtdual or cur,wlative a'verse envir~nmcntal ImpACt because the Inltlal Study Indicates tl~at no additton+~l foc111ttes would be constructed end any grow*_h-indur.(ng effect woulrl be +.(~nlficant. ITEM B- NOISE EIEMENT OF TIIC GENEML PLAN - WORK ST~TEN~~lT lhe steff repvrt co [he Plann' c~ Commission dnteci Auc~us[ 1, IyJJ~ was presenied. It was noted thc Planniny Departn-ent praposes to soliclt ccnsultant proposals for preparati~n of a I~oise Elcment fur th~ Anahcim General Pl~n; that the proposed Noise Elemen; will be prepare~i in u>rnpliance w~tt~ Section G;3~2(g) uf the State of Cel IforntA Government Code; tl~at Ct~e work statement was preparecl as a h~~s~s for solicit(ng propospls. ACTION: Co,.•.-~ssioner David of~cred a motion~ 5econ~ed by Com+nis5ioner Linn end MnTION CARRIEU~ that the Anah~im Clty Planntng CorKnis,lon does hereby reconxnencl to ttie Ci ty Wunci 1 lhat the 11or~. Statement for the Noise Element of the General Plan bc approved, ITCN C- COI~UITIONAL U~E PEP,MIT N0. 1414 - PRQPOSCD MOUIFICATION Tl~e staff report to tt~c Plannin~a Gor~mission dated August 1~ 1)7!~ was prQSented. It wes noted subject ~~ropercy i:, an irregularly-sf~aped parcel of land conslstiny of approxirtwtely 23 a~.res located on the cast side of Lemon Street betw~en Durst Street and the Riv~rs'~1e Frecwayti that thr.. prc~pcrty Is zoned ML and is parxially developed with a drive-in movie tt~e.~ter and expansion of cl facility is currently underway; that the petitioncr requests tleat Candttion No. 11 pertaining to site enclosure be modtfted to Allow chainlink fenctng with clc~sely -spaced landsca~ing alonc~ the east and south property lines. It was also noted that Canditional Usr Permit No. 141~i was gra~~ted March 1, ~)7G~ Resolution No. PC76-42~ specifyinc~ that redwood or cedar slats shall be lnstalled in the chainlink fence surrounding subject property; that Nortf~rup Corporation wlst~es to retain the existin chainlink fencing along the east p~opert~~+ line; that there is an existing 6-foot ~~r.de differential and landscaping adJacent to the River5lde Freeway to the south, The applicant has indicated that it is thetr intent co install the 5- foot wide planter with py racantha on 5-foot centers to suitably scree~ the ~ubJtct property. ACTION: C~mmissioner ~:ing offered a motlon~ seconded by~ Commissioner Linn and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commi;sion does hereby modify Condition No. 11 of Resolutio~ f~o. PC76-42 to allow chainlink fencing with clasely~spaced lan~scaping along the east and south property lines. 8/1/77 77-499 MII~UTES. CITY PLANNIt~G C0~'MISSION~ August 1~ 1~77 17 - SUO REPORTS I1ND RECOMMENQATIONS (Conclnued) -. ITEM b- COIIDITIOI~AI. USE PCRMIT N0. ly~f, ^ REQUEST F(1R F.XTEf~SION OF TIMC Thc staff rnport to the Plar~ning Cammission dated Auhust 1, 1977~ wes presented. It was noted that subJcet property Is a rectan~~ulArly-shaped parcel consisting of app~oximatoly 630Q square fcet located at 8G2 South Ilarhor f3oulevard; that pett tloner requ~sts an extenslon of tlrt~ for an officc in an existin~ rr.siri~nce; that Condlttonel Use Parmit No. 15;~i was qranted for a two-year nertod on Auqust tii, 1975~ subJect to stipulation that the oppl icant proYide the minlmum requtred landscapin~ along the east end south property lines and five parkin~~spac^s in confo~mance to Code~ nnd that these requlrem~nts I~ave been fulfilled hy the petttlonc~; that th~ parmft was gronted for a~eriod of two yeary sub,Ject to review ~nJ consideratton for extension of tlmc upon wrltten requcst by the petitlor~er and with cons(dcrati~~ heing given ~s to wl~ett~er property has or wi 11 becomc part of a redevelopment pro)ect area~ and i t has been datermi nrJ the sub~ect p~oper Ly i s not wl th i n thr nroJect area . Annika Santaloht(~ Asst. Planning Director-:.oning~ explalneJ in this case the permlt wos granted for a twa•yeAr pertod to revicw whether or not tl~e devel~per or awner of the prop~:rty did rr~ke the necess.'~ry Improvemer~ts. S~~e stat~ci (t appeared the condltlons have been sacisfied. The Commisslon discussed whethcr or not a•i indefinite time lfmit could be granted, and lt was yenerally felt they could not. ACTIO~~: Gcxnmi ss ione~ Kt n9 of fered a mot ion ~ second~d by Commi ss toner L i n~i and MOTIGN -- CARRIEU~ that an extensic,c~ of time for Condi tion~il Use Permi t No. 1~~6 be granted f~r a period of two years~ to expire August 1t3~ 197~• ITCM E- TRAGT NO 3~~56 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRECISE PL/~N5 The staff report to the Plannin,y Commission dakc~ AuguSt 1, 1~177~ was presented, I t was noted sub ject property i s an I rregul ar ly-shaped parcel of 1 and cans i st i ~g af approximately 13.1 acres located nurti,westeri y of the intersecttor. of Via Arbc~les and Canyon Rim Rr~ad and the appl icant~ Thomas L. Utma~i of Pace.r Deve'opment Corporatlon~ requests approval of p~ecise pians. I t was also noted that rreci se plans for Lots 1 througii 2~- were appraved by C i ty Council on July 27~ 197~• ~'1CTION: Commissioner E~arn~s offered a motlon, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and r- HOTI01~ CARRIED~ that the Anaheim C1 *_y Planning C~rnnission does hcr~b~or approve submitted fioor plans and eZevations for Lots 25 tt~rough 3- Tract No. 3456. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Commissloner Herbst offered a rr~tion~ seconded by Comnisstoner David and MOTIOt~ Cr~RRIEO~ that the meetinc be adJnurned. The meeting adJourned et 4:20 P.m• Respectfully submitted. ~~ ~ Edith L. Narris~ Secreta~y 8/t/77 77-500