The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1978/05/08C~ry Ilell Anaheim~ Callfnrnla r,.Y a, »~e REGULAR MEETING OF TH~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGUTAR - The reyular meeting of the Anahe(m City Plenning Commission was called to MEETING orde~ by Chatrman Pro Tempore ~~erbst at 1:35 p.~n.~ May 8~ 1~78, 1~ rti~ Counctl Chamber~ a quorum being pres~nt. PRESENT - CHIIIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Herbst C~MM 1 SS I Ot~ERS : Da rnes ~ Dav 1 d~ 1'.I ng Canmiss(oner Llnn arrived at 3:Q0 p.m. ApSENT - CI~AI RMA~1: To 1 er COMMISSIONERS: Johns~n ALSO PRESE~~T ~ Jack White Deputy City Attorney Pa~il Singer Traffic Engtneer Jay Titus Offlce E~aineer Phlll(p Schwartzp Asslstant Qirector for Planning Anntka Santalaht( Assistant Qlrector for Zontng Ron Smith Assoctatc Planncr Jay 1'eshiro Associatc Planner Edi:h Narrls Planning Commisstan Secretary• PLEUGE OF - The Pledge of AlleglancP to the Flag was led by Cammissioner Qavid. ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF - Commissioner King made a correctlon to the April 24~ 1978 m(nutes~ p~ge THE MINUTES 322- peragraph ~~~ which should read as follows: "Canmissioner King stated he thought the Irvine Ci ty Council had approved the tract subJect to the condition that scxne mode rate income housing be provid~d." Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commiasioner David and MOTION CARRIED (Commiss(aners Johnson, Llnn and Tular being absent), that the minutes of the mc:etings of April 10 and 2~~~ 1978 be approved as corrected. ITCM N0. 1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CARL L. ANR ~1~~ VE DECLARA710N MILDRED E. RAU~ OCRIS GIBSON, AND CIASSIC DEVELOP- RECLASSI CAYION N0. 77-78-46 MENT CORP.~ 1270U Knott Street, Suite B~ Garden VAR ANGE 0. 29 + G~ove. CA 92641. AGENT: SHALLER b LOHR, INC., RACT 366 San Miguel Drivc. Suite 311, Newport Beach, C/1 N0. 10254 i) (REVIS104 N0. 92664. Property descrtbed as an irregularly-shaped REQUEST F _ OR APPROYAL~F-- parcel of land conslsting of approximateiy 5.2 REMOVAL O F SPECIMEN TREES acres having a frontage of approximately $34 feet OUNClL on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ POLICY N0 . 538 having a maximum depth of approximately 440 feet, end bei~~~) located approximately 1800 fGet north- ease af the centerltne of Mohler O~tvt. Property prese~~tly classifled RS-A-43~000(SC) (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-5CENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE AND COUNTIf A1 (GENERAL AGRICULTURAL) DISTRICT. 78-324 S/8/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 1978 78- 32 5 EIR NEGATIVti DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 17-7a-W6~ VARIANCE N0. 2994~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 14254 (REVISION N0. 1) (continued) RE~,UESTED CLASSIFICATION: RS-7200(SC) (RE5IDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY-SCEtIIC CORRIDOR QVERLIIY) ZONE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIYCR OF (A) MINIMUM LOT WIDTi~ AND FRONTAr,E Ah~D (B) REQuIaEMENT TIU1T SINGLE•FAMILY STRUCTURES REAR-ON ARTCRIaL NIGMJAYS. TEtJTATIVE T MCT REQUEST; 1G•LOT~ RS-72~0(SC) SUliU1VIS10N. Sub.~ect petitl~n was continued fr~m the mretin~~s of Merch 13 and April 1~~ 1'?78~ for thP submission of revised plans. There was nne person fndlcati~g thcir pr~:sence in oppositlon~ and alth~ugh the staff report to th~s P1anning Commission dnted May 8~ 1~37~3 wa~s not read at the rublic hearing~ It is referred to and rnade a part of the minutes. I t was nottsd the !1 i 1 1 and Canyon Mun i c i pa I Adv i aory Commi t tee ( HACM/1C ) rev I ewed the ~vvised plans on April 25~ iq78. Wltli ~ine members present~ seven vote~! to rec~rtrr~nd den(el of the tract mt~p and vartance since the devrl~per did not prove a hardship; several of said mEmbers felt that it would be undesirable for common Lots A and B to be unmalntained and abut proposed lots, as well as tc leave a remant parcel east of the proposed tract (previously Incar•porated Into the tract boundary) whict~ would be very difflcult to develop. One member felt the tract could be approved if Lots A and a and the remnanC parcel tq the east werc not left undevelopeJ and unmaintAined, and one member felt the tract should be ap{~roved althou~h the tract w~s not desiqned particularly wtll. Don Lahr~ Civil Englneer~ representirg Classic Development Corpr~ratl~n, stated maJor revisions have been madQ tQ thr plans sincc the mceting of March 13th; that the stze of the tract has been reduced from 23 lots to 16 lots; thst modifications have been msde to the grading to consider the drainage problems, He i~~ficat~d a sound study had been submitted fnr the extension of the sound-attenuation walis along the aiverside Frceway and Santa An~ Canyon Road. Karen Shoe~hurgt~ 15J North Mohler Drtveo stated she was r~presenting the homeowners tn that area and pointed out she understoad the Riverside Freeway is supposed to be a scenlc highway and asked if the develope~ w~ould provicie ~lanting b~ys along the wall. She Indlcated (t appea~s it will be a._~nttnuous block wall witt~ weeds on the opposite side. She presented a map and pointed out homes on Camino Tam~ico and the corner of Via Copala and Santa Ann Canyon Road and stated there wil) be an extremely steep street off Santa Ana Canyon Poad and there are na left-turn pockets an~i no way to qet into the street without tying up traffic. She indlcated child~en are ridin~ bicyGles and skateboards on that street now and felt thls would be da~g~rous. She stated other conce~ns of the residents were that their privacy would be invaded with these homes befng 25 to 50 feet above their horties s~d that they would t~e looking rtght into their windows; that the access problems for the lots would be extremely dangerous; and they are alsa concerned about the floodiny probiems in the area rihen it is graded and painted out Santa An~ Canyon Road had been flooded during the recent rains and had to be tlosed off Just east of this area and the homeowners were concerned whether prapQr d~ainage would be provided since there is a dratnage problem atready. She referred to the original propc~sal including development of the entire area and wag glad that they had decided not to develop the entire site~ but was concerned about what would happen to the property that was left undeveloped. She pointed out the orange groves would not be taken tare of and wouid become an eyesore a~d suggested the developer deed that property back ta 5/8/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 197E~ 78-326 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARP,TION. RECLASSIFICA710N N0. 77-78-46~ VARIANCE NQ. 299N. I1ND TENTATIVE M11P OF TRACT N0. 10254 (REVISION N0. 1) (contlnued) ths City to be Jeveloped as a p~~rk which would be malntalned; that there a~e r~tLl~~nekes there currently and sevcral children have been b(tten. She i~dlcetocl they were dl.~~ concerned about the noise factor; thet there would be 32 addttianal vehlclcs com(ng in and out of the stroot; that there are no signs now a~d thst is a problem~ a~d suggosted that the corner could be cut off and the streat widene:d. She indicated the homeowners would like to know haw much dlrt Is qoing to be moved and whett~er or not the trees would be preserved. Mr. Lahr pointed out Santa Ane Canyon aoad on the plan and inclicated there wus e provision for left-turn pockcts o~ Sents 11na Canyon Road to VIe Copalt+. Regarding the dr~lnage~ he p~{nted out che tra~ct would be gra~led f~r dralnaqc and indicated the pad elevetlons arG abova the requlrements far a 1Q0-year storm and thaC thc Corps af E~gineers had responded that the a(ta Is frc:e from flooding for a 10~•~ear storm. lic indicatrd tl~ere is e storm drain proposed tl~rough thc adjacent property as part of the mostcr plan for thc Anaheim Hiils area and It would probsbly be several years before it Is constructed~ and that storm dra(n would carry a 10~-year storm througi~ ct~c site fn unAcrground ptpes from southeast of 5anta Ana Canyon Road. H~e felt that devaioprr~nt of adJacent property w~uld probably be iled to constructian of chAt storm draln. He referred tn the two lots which had baen a concorn of the Cornmission ac the rrevlous hearln,y and pointeci out xhe pad nlevatt~ns and the slopes. He stated the intent of tl~e map wes t~ show that there was ernple rc~om for the pad and the yard. fie indicated there would he a mason ry wall an tMis property hlgher than the lots. Comm(ssioner Barnes asked whlcti way the properties would drain~ wtth Mr. lohr pointing out they would drain to the west. TNE PUBLIC HEARING IJAS CLOSED. Commissioner David asked Mr. lohr to e.xplaln the plens for the block wail and landscaping. Mr. Lohr repl(ed that tt~e proposed sound-etxenuation barrier would ba a cort~binaclon of a $-foot berm and a 5-foot hi~h block wall. He stated the areas are landscaped wtth tr~ees, shrubbery and ground covPr, and the proposa) would I~e ~n extension of the cxisiing wall a~d landscaping. Chalrman Pro Tempore Herbst a~ked (f it would be up to the tiomec~wne:rs association to maintaln the berm on the freewey side. Mr. lohr replfed there was no homeowners assoclation irt tt~e exist(ng tract. Ctiairman Pro Tempore Herbst pointed out that when landscaping is requ(red~ lt is a requ(rerr~nt that it ue rnaintalned. Jay Tashtro~ Assoc{ate Planner. ~otnted out that the comnon area is to be maintained hy the homeowners assoclatlon. C„alrman Pro Tempore Herbst asked Mr. Lohr to ex~lain plans for lot 14 on the cbrner of Via Copala which is the steepest part of the slope. Mr. Lohr polnted out they would take access from Vla Copala and that they would raise the pad areo. Ne pointed out they have a dayltght point to provide for the driveway access; that th~ proposed development would set a unit on the lot with a side yard on Santa Ana siai~s ~ MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~~~ MAY 8~ t978 ~a-~2~ Elit N~~ATIVE DECLAMTION~ R~CLASSIFICA71oN N0. 1'7-78-W6~ VARIANCE N0. 2994~ AND TENTATIVE MJ1P OF TRACT N0. 102y4 (aEVIS10N N0. 1) (continued) Canyon Road and that they had not included It in the exhlhlt since they fe1C there w~s adequate accesa and adequate flat lot ~rea. Chairman Pro Tempore Ilerbst pointed out thst in Its present condition It loaked rether bed for a butlding site~ and he reelized a lot of ffll could be brought in~ but was concerned about the access fr~m Vta Copala and the drivewsy eccess. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst aslccd obout the developrtacnt praposed far Lot 5. Mr. Lohr pointed out Lot 5 In thelr original submittal was shown as a lettered lot simtlar ta a t~iengular lot ss pert of the adjacent tract~ with the Intention of combfnlnq ft with the development of the adjacent property. but that after discussions with the Planninq Dapartment~ they had included tf~e excess property Into Lot 5 with the inte~tl~n that maybe a lot llne adjustment could be sought when the adJacent property ts developed to incarporate the Irregula~ portton i~to the edjacent lat~ and that in the event the propr_rty (s not developeci In the near future~ thst portion would remaln ~s part of the lots. Chalrman Pr~ Tempore Herbst (ndicated he was concerned abAUt dead-ending a street without o cul- de•sac. Mr. Lohr indicated tliey were not opposed to provfding some temporary curn-araund; that this is a stub street t~ providc acccss to the Adjacent property~ but was (nformed it was not necessary. Chalrman Pro Tempore Herbst asked if the Engtneerin~ Oepartrr~nt was satisfied with the stub street rather than a turn-around area. Jay Titus~ Office Engineer~ replied that he dld not recal) a discussion~ but that normally they prefer a cul-do-sac or some type of turn-around for public use. Chalrman Pro Tempore Herbst asked about Vta Gop~la and Indtcated he understoc~d it would be widened ancl that curbs and gutters would be put irti, and asked thc ultimate width of Via Copala. Jay Titus replied that a condition of the t~act would be to improve the stre:et ta its ultimate width; that right now thore are two 12-foot lanes. a total of 24 feet~ but that it would be widened to the standard street wtdth of G4 feet, with 40 feet curb-to-curb. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst pointed out this would make their approach mucl~ beCter than it is presently, and Jay Titus replied that it would be widened but would not alter th~ existfng grade. Chalrman Pro Tempare Herbst asked 1f the one corner would be rounded with a curb s~ they wauld h~ve better visibility, and Jay Titus replied they would have a standard curb with a 25-foot raciius, but that it would not be desirable to h~ve a greater radtus because tt is p~eferable to bring trafflc into the street at right angles. Cortn-tsstoner K(ng referred to the lat stzes a~d the d~scussion in the Hill and Canyon Municipat Advisory Committee (NACF4AC) report concernEng the width of the lots and their stetement that they could not find a hardship. 5/8/78 ! MINUTES~ A~IANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8, 1~78 7~'328 EIR NEGATIVE pECLARATION~ REClAS51FICATION N0. 77-7E~-4fi~ VARIANCC N0. 2R94~ I1N~ TENTATIVE NAP OF TRACT N0. 102y4 (REVISION f10, 1) (contlnued) Commissloner Barnes tndlcated sl~• could see a deflnita IiarJsliip In chis case; that this was n~e of the most irre~lularly-shaped pieces of pr~perty sl~~ has ser.n I~efc~re the Commisslon end that It docs heve certain prablems. Shc st~led she llked thc flag I~~t erea~ even though the width was narrc~w~ because it yave the appeorance of a wide ex~anse alony Via Copala. She stated t~~e Planning Commissi~n has ~rr~nted s(inilar vartances in the Anahelm Hilis arca ond that thr,se lats are larc~c. ACTION: Commissl~~~er Uarnes uffered a riotton~ seconded by Commtssloncr King ~nd MOTI(?N CAtt ED (Commiss(oners Johns~n~ I.Inn And Tol~~r heing ahsenr), that the Anr~heim Gity Planning Commission has r~vtewed the praposal to reclaasify the zoning from RS-A- 43~000(SC) (Residenttal/Agriculturol~Scenic Corridor Overlay) a~d County A1 (Genera) Agricultural Discrict) to RS-72t1~1(SC) (Resident(A1~ Sinqle-Family-Scenic Corridc~r Overlay) un an Irreqularly-s~~aped ~arcel of lend consisttnr, of appr~x(mAtr.~y 5.2 acres havt~y a frontage of approximately 83~~ Fect on thc northwest side of Santa Ar.a Cany~n Road. having A maximum ~epth of appr~x(metely A~~'~ fe~t~ and being located aprroxirt~tely 1~i0~ feet northeast of tha centcrline af Nohler Orivc~ to estahllsh n I(~-lot. RS-720~(SC) subdlvlslon with waiver ~~f minlmum lot width and fror~taqs anci requl rer-~nt that slnc~le- famtly structures rear-on artert~~l highways; and does hereby ap~+rove the Ncgative Deciaratl~n from th~~ renuirement f.o prapare an cnvironmental (mpact repurt on the basis that there would be no siqnlflcant indiviclual r~r cumulitive a~dverse environment~i impact due to the approval of tl~is Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subjc~ct property for general open spac~/low density residenti~l land uses comnensurate with th= proposal; that no sensitive envfronmental impocts ~re involved tn the p~a~+osal; that the Initial Study subm(tted by the pctltioncr indic~tes no signiflc~nt indivtdual or cumulative adverse envlr~nmenta) impacts; and that th~ Negative OeGlaratlon substantlatinc~ the foregoing f(ndings is on ftle in the C(ty af Anahe(m Planntng Department. Commtssloner Barnes offcred Resolutlon No. PC7~3~9~ and move~ for its passage and adoption~ that thc Anaheim City Planning Gommissior~ does hereby grant Petltic~n for Reclassificat(on No. 7J-7ti-4F>~ subJect to ~nterde~artmental Committee recommendations. On roll cail~ the 4oreguing re5olutlon was passed by tl~e follow~ng v~te: AYES: COMMi5510t~ERS: BARNES, DAVID~ HERaST~ KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NQi~E A8SE11T: COMMI SS I ONERS : JOHNSO~i, L I NN~ TOLnR Jay Titus~ Office Engineer~ pointed out that all drainagc would have to b~ to the satlsfaction of the City Engineer and that the drainage would be into the existing strcet~ and that they would have to re~grade and nut in additlonal facilities tf the storm drain would not handle the dreinage. Commissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC78-91 and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Comnissir~n does hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 2~394 on the basis that the petitioner demonstrated a hardship exiscs in that the property is very irregularly-shaped and that ~ther similar~ nearhy lots have previously b~en appraved, allowing narrow lot widths and lots siding onto Santa Ana Canyon Road~ and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pa~sed by the foll~w(ng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BI~RNES, UAY~D, HERE3ST~ KING NOES: COMMIS510NERS: NOtdE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON. LINN. TOLAR 5/8/18 ' r ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOtI, MAY a~ 1~78 78-3?.9 ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ REClAS51FICATION N0. 77-7s-46~ VARIAFlCE N0. 19~34~ ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. ~n254 (REVISION N0. 1) (contlnucd) __ The pla~ting bays along the wall were discussed~ with Jay TaSl~iro polnting out that the property awners woulJ havo to matntain the landscapinq unless there was a hcxneowners assoclation~ with the rieveloper polnting aut this parttcular tract wlll have n homr.owners assoclation and the association w(11 see chat the landscaping is mainta(ned. Annika Santalahti~ Asslst.int Director for Zaning~ nointed out the previous tract was approved beforo the requirement tliat tha hOmCOWflerS associatl~n bc formed to malntaln the landsceping was put tnto effect~ and thAt the owners do have access to the back of thelr yards to meintaln the slc~pes. Jack White polnted out there ~~ a conditlon (r~cluJed thai the hameowners assoclatlon wlll be craated ai~d the covenants~ c~nditions and restrictions will be submitted to and approved by the Ctty Attc~rney prior to finol appr~val of tl~e tract mop. Comnlssioner Barnc~s offered a motion~ seeonded by Commisslon~r Y.ing and MOTION CARRIED (Cortxnissioners Johnson~ Llnn ~~nd Tolar being absent), that the Anahelm City Planning Commission docs hereby find that thc propos~d subdtvlslon~ toc~ether with tts desiqn ~nd impravement~ is corisisten~ witt~ the City of Anah~im General P1An~ pursuAnt to Government Code Section (~64J3.5 and dces~ therefore, approve Tentatlve Map of Tract No. iQ254 (Revlslon No. 1) f~r a lf~-lot, RS-7200(SC) subdivtsion~ subject to tl~e following conditlons: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 102~~~ (Revlslon Na. 1) is granted subJect to the ap~roval of Reclassifica[ion No. 1'J"7'3-46 and Variance No. 2994. 2. Yhat shoul~i thia subd(vision be developed ~s more tl,an onc subdivlsion~ each subdlvisian Ciiereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvat. 3. That in aceordance witt~ City Counc(I pc~licy~ a(~-foot masonry wall shall bc constructed on the southeast property line separating Lot t~os. f, through 18 and 1~+ throuqh 16 and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Reasonable landscoping. including irrigatlon f~cii(tles~ shall be installed in the unceme~ted porcion of the arcerlal hiGllway ~arkway the full distance of said wall~ ~lans fo~ said lanJscaping to be submttted to and sub-e:ct to the approva) of the Superintcndent of Parkway Maincenance. Foilowinq in5tallatlon a~~d acceptence, the City vf F,naheim shall ~ssume the resRonsibility for maintenance uf said landscaping. 4. That all lo[s within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. ~. That prlor to the introduction of an ordinance, a final tract map of subject property shall ~e submitted tQ anc! approved by the Clty Councl~ m d then be recorded fn Zhe office of tt+e Orange County Record~r, 6. That the covenants~ conditions. and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by Che City Atcorney's Office prlor to Clty Council approval of the ftnal tract map and~ further, that the approved covenants, conditions~ and restrtctions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. Said covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall include provisions for the satisfactory permanent maintenance of all siope a~eas located northerly of the block wall separatiny the tract from ihe Riverside F reeway . J. That street narres shall be approved by the City Planning Uepartment prior to approval of a final cract map. 8. 7hat the owner(s) of subJect property shali pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council~ sald fees to be paid at the time the building permlt is Issued. 9. That dra(naye af satd propcrty sh~ll be disposed of (~~ a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. if, in the preparatior of thc site, sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on groding will be permitted between October 15th 5/8/1a ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MJ1Y 8~ 1976 7g-33o EIR NEGATIVE DECLAR{1TION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-46~ VARtANCE N0. 299k. ANU TEN7ATIVE NAP OF T~ACT N0. 10254 (REVISION N0. 1) (conttnued) and April 15th unless all required off-site dralnage fac(lities heve been tnstalled and are operat(ve. Posittve essur~ince shall be ~ravided the City that such drainage fac:llitiss will be completed prl~r to October l~th. Necessary riqht-of-~cay for ~ff-site dralnage facilitles shAll be dedlcatod t~ [he Ctty. or th~ Clty Council shall have Initiated condemnatton proceed(ngs therefor (the costs of which shell be borne by the developt~r) prlor to the cornr-~encement of gredtng operatlons. Tho requlred dralneqe facflit(es shAll be of a slze and type suffitlent to cHrry runoff waters origl~atln~ from higher propertias throuc~h sald propertY to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engtneer. Sal~f cJrainage facllfties shatl I,~ the first Itcm c~f constructinn and shall be completeJ enJ be functlonal throughout thr tr~ct and from the downstr~eam boundary of the property to the ult(mot~ point of dlsp~~sa) p~i~r ta the issuance of any f(nal bullrfing Inspectlons or occupancy permlts. Drainage distr(ct reirr~ ursert-ent ~greements may be mede aveilable to [hc dcvelop~rs uf s~id property upon their request. 10. That grading~ excavat(on~ and all otlier construction activities sh~ll be conducted in sut~i a manner s~~ as to minimlte the nosslbil(ty of any sllt originating from thls proJect being carried into the Santa Ana River ~+y starm water orlgin}~ting from or flawing thraugh this pro)ect. it. That reasonable landscaping~ includin~ irrlgatlon facilitles~ shall be installed in the rnedion of Santa Ana Canyon Road right-of-way in accordance with the requirements of the Superlntendent o~ Parkway Matntenance. Followlny installation and acceptance, the City of Anehelm shall assurne the res~onsibility f~r maintPnance of sald landscapinq. 12. 7hat the developer shall obtain a fav~rable flood hazard IeCter, acceptable to the ~Ity of Anah~im~ from tlie Orange County F1ood Control District. 1~. if permanent street neme stc~ns have not becn installed, temporary strcet name s(gns shall be tnstallcd prior to any occupancy. 14. That the owner(~) of subJect property shall pay approprtate drainage assessment fees to the City of Anahelm, as determined by thc Clty Engineer, prlor to approva) of a final tract map. 15. That final spec(fic plc~t, floor and elevatic~n plans shall be submitted to the Plannina Commission for revieti~ and approval prior to the issuance of bullding permlts. 16. A left-turn pocket on Santa An~ Canyon Road and Vta Copala shall be constructed by the developer for east-bound traffic and shall he approved by the City Engineer. 17. That ap~roprfate weter assessment fees, as determined by the Oirector of Public Utllities, sf~all be palci to the C(ty of A~aheim prior to thC issuance ~~f a building permit. 1$. That V1~ :opala shall be designed so as ta providc adeGuate visibiiity for vehicles exiting Via Copala onto Santa Ana Canyon Road for a minimum distance of 30~ feet of the approach length~ satd design to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 19. That an adequate turn-around area shal{ be co~structed at th~ temporary terminus of Camina Tampico, subject tn the approval of the City Engineer. 20. That sound-attenuation measures adjacent t~ Santa Ana Canyo~ Road and the Riverside Freeway shall be provided in accordance with Co~ncil Pol(cy No. 5~+2. 21. That any specimen tree removal shall be subJect to the regulations pertaining to tree p~eservation in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. 22. In actordance wlth the requirements o` Sectlo~ 13.A2.047 pertaining to the init(al sale of residenCial homes in the City of Anaheim Planning A~ea "H"~ the seller shall Rrovide each buyer with written i~farmation concPrning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundarles of subject tract. Commissioner Barnes offered a rnotion~ seconded by Commisstaner David and MOTION CARRIED (Comcnissloners Johnson~ Linn and Tolar being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Conmission does hereby appr~ve the tree removal pian submitted for Tract Nr. i025~+, spe:.ifying that a maxtmum of three speciman trees~ as defined by the Scenic Corrldor 5/8/78 MINUTES. Ah1A11EIM CITV PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY t3, 1'178 78-331 E I R NEGAT I VE UECLIIRAT I ON, RECLAS51 F I CAt I ON N0. 77-78-b6 ~ VAR I I1Nf.~ N0. 2~94 ~ AND TkNTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1b2Z4 (REVISIOW P~O~ 1) (con~inued) __ Overlay Zone stendards pertaining to trce preservatlon~ shall b~ removed and replaGed on e 1:1 ratio wlth tr~es from tFie trea replacemnnc list. CommissionPr darnes offered a motiun~ seco~dcd t~y Commissionor uavld and MOTION CARRIED iCi~rtmissioners Johnsnn, llnn an~~ Tolar c~clny absent) ~ that the Anahelm Ci ty Planning Commission cloes hereby recommen~, ta tho Clty Councll that Cauncil Policy No. 53~ be walved in connectl~~n with Tent~~tive Ma~ of Troc[ No. 1~2'~~+ f~r Lots 1 thr~u,yli ~, Abut.tinq the R I ve rs i Jc F~•eeway . ITEM N0. 2 PUI~LIC ~IEARIII~. 041NCRS: FRl1N~: ANU MAR111 PA~~LIARf ~ EIR I~ ~EG~IVC UCCL11R/1TIQtl FRA~ICIS A~lD ~t~GClINl1 NAfICI ~ ANU JOSCF'tl MANCII~I, ECL SI C ION N0. 7l'7~;•:7 1027Z Pcrdi~~o Street, ARah~im~ Cl1 92~i0ti. Petitioners requcst reclassificetion of proper~Cy descrtbed as an irrcr~~ularly-sli~~ped F~arccl of land consistinc~ ~f approxln-ately O. J acre ~ocacrd .~t tl~e s~utheast corner of S~.~vanna Str~et and Marinn Way~ havin~ a~praxlmatc frontages of 1~+3 fect on tl~e south side of Savan~~a St~r.et and 178 feet on the east siJe of Marfan Way from thc~ RS-A-~~3,~~~ ~RESIDENTIALiAGRICULTURl1L) ZONC to the RS•J2(;0 (RESIDCNTI~L~ SIt~GLC-FAMILI') ZO'~ . There was no on~ indicatin~~ their Nresenr.r_ in opposit.ion to sut,jr~ct renuest, anci although tF~r, staff reporC to the Planning Comnisslon dated May ES~ 1`1~1~i w~~s not ~r.ad ~t tl~e public hcarir~~~~ it is referrcd t~~ and made a p~rt of the minutr5. Joseph Mancini~ pwner, inJicate~l ha i,i.:~is to buil~ threc slnylc-family units on this pro~~erty and fs re~ur.stiny a zont~ chan~;t~ and th~t the uni ts wi I I meet at i s[andar~is of the C1`y of An~helm cooes. T11E PUbll: HEARING WAS CLOSCD. ACTlUN: Commissioner Kiny ~~f~ered a nx~ticn~ secor~ded by C~mmissioner Uavid And P10TION CARRIEf1 (Conxniasionars Johnson~ Lin~~ and i.~lar l~ein9 absent)~ that tF~^ Anaheim Ci[y Planniny Commission tias reviewed the subj~ct pro~osai to reclasslf,~ .ie z~~inc; fror~ RS-A- 43,000 (Rcsidenilal/Agricultural) to RS-7~~0 (Residential, Single-Fa~nily) on an irr~gularly-shaped parcel of land cc~nslsting of app roxim,:tely 0.7 acre lACated at the southeast corner of Savanna Street and Marian Way~ having approximate frontages of i43 feet on the south side of Savanna Strcet an~ 1?8 feet on the ea~t aide of Marian Way; and does hereby approve the Neyative Ueclaration frorn tf~e requlre~-ent to prepare an environrnenta) im~~act renort on the basis tl~at there would bc no slgnificant individual or cumulatlve adverse Pnvironrnental inpact due to the approval of this Negative ~eclaratlon since the Anaheim General Plan designates thc subject property for low-medium denslty residentt~l land uses comrnensurate with thc aroposal; that no sensitive enviranmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Ir~iclal Study submitted by the petltfoner indicates no significant individual ur c.umulative adverse envirnnmental Impacts; and that the Negatlve Declaratian substantiatin~a ttie fore.~aing findings +s on file in the Clty of Anatieim Flanning Departr-ent. Commfssloner Ki~y offe~ed Resulution No. PC7a-92 and moved for its passage and adoptton~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslo~ does he~eby grant Petition r'or Reclasstftcatfon No. J7-7~3-57~ subject to Interdepartn~ental Commilt.~e ~ecomnendatlons. On rall ca11, the forey~ing resolutton AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID~ NOES: CONMISSIONERS: NONE AHSENT: COMhIIS510NEh5: JONNSON~ LINN~ was passed Ey t!~c fol iowf ny vate: HERDST~ KING TO~.AR 5/~/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 197II 7a-332 ITEN N0. j PUSLIC NEARINf,. OWNER; RODERTSIIIIW-FULTON CQNTROLS, EIR NE:GAT11r~ OECLARATIOtI 17~1 I3yrd Avenue. Rtchmond~ VA 232E1. AGEN7; VERNON CL .~•]d- ~ MONROC~ 2218 Sequols Av~nue, Anahelm~ CA 92a~1, P1 N N.~ Propnrty dcscrit~od as an Irreqularly-shaped parcel of land conststinc~ of apprnximately 6.2 acres having approxlmAt~ f r~ntages of 3i~~ feet on ~he sauth s i de of Arlo Way~ ;30 f~et on tl~e wc~st side of Mrncha~ter Avenue. ~i~iU fcet on the east side o~ Clementina Street. and furtf~er described as 1G01 ClementinP Street. Property presently clessified RS-A-43~pQ~ (RESIUEI~TIAL/AGRICULTU ML) IONE. REQUE:STED CLASSIFICl1TION: ML (INDUSTKII~L~ L{NITED) ZONE. kEQUESTEU VARIA~~GE: WAII~ER OF RC~UIRCO SITL SCREENING~ TO COfISTRUCY AN INpUS?RIAL COMPLCX, Tl~c~rA was nc~ one indicatiny the.r presence in oppositinn to subJect request~ ~nd althnugh tho staff repurt tn the Planniny Commissic,n date~i May ~, 1~7:; was n~t read at thr, public h•~arin~, (t is rrferred to and rnadc a part of thc mtn utes. Vernun Mc,nr~e~ ager~t, indicated this proverty is a G-acre pArce) presently occupled by Roberts~~~w-~"ultan Gontrols Company and is zoncA RS-A-43,~q0~ adJacent to an CJison easement a~id backs up to the parkiny lot f thr Granci Ilotel anci across thc: street from a fire station; that thc General Plan dcsic~nates ttie property for ccxnmercial-recreatl~n land us~es~ ond they prnpose to chanyc thc zone to ML (,Industrial, Limited) and d(d not consider it spot zaning because af thc adjacent zc~nin~. -ia indicated thGy have (nquired of se!veral fast-food services in Orange County~ the Sendman Motel~ et.c., and they have not been able to ~ievelop the property coim~ercially since the ~r.affic. dues not .lustify a mote) or a resteurant. Ne presented copies of the letter from Fast-Foc~d Services~ Inc, Ile indicated they plan an industrial park faciny che c3sement in back of tli~ Grand Notel and are requesting wa~~er of the G-faot solin bluck wali since the develop mcnt would face the tasement and ,,~holesale nursery use fias been approved for th~t property~ and felt that would be a nice grcen bel~ area. TNE PJf~LIC HEARING NAS CLUSEU. Corm~ ~ s s i oner Ki ng ask~d i f the concerns of tt~e S~+n I tat i ~n D~r~ortmen t for an adeyuate turn- around arca had been salisfied, and Mr, Monroc rcplied that thcy had. Cha ( rman Pro Te^+parr Herbs t po i n t~d out t~~e Trat f f c En~ i nee r fraJ as ked ab~ut the access on Ciementtne~ pointing out that would he ~ heavily tr~~veled a cces;way to the off and on- ramps to the freeway and that he wou1J ltke to have tt~at access desig~ed directly opposf~e existing accesses. fle point~ed ouc two parkirq spaces would be lost by conf~rm(nq to the Traffic Enyineer's recorrunendation. Mr. Monroe pointed ou[ the existing off-ramp an4 c:~signated off-ramp and noted the anly t~affic waul~~ he surface traffic fram li.~y anJ Altec; that there are not a Iet of commercial uses in this area. Cortmiss foner King resf~rred ~~:~e letter frc.m Raymnnd C. Smi tF~ of Sandman Motels~ Inc,, wliich is a suGsidlary of Dunn Properties i.orporatton, a subsidiary of Paclfic Lighting~ and pointed out he owns stock in Pacific Llghtin_y and asked tf he should abstain from discussion on this project. 5/8/7a ~ MINUTES, ANAlIE1M CITY PLANNING COh1r115S101~~ MAY 8~ 197a 78- 333 EIR N EGATIVE UECLARATI(1N, RCCLASSIFICATION N0. 77~78"5~ ANU VAaIANCE N0. OQJ (cantinucd) Jack ~liilt~, Deputy City Attarr -~ pulnted uut tl~at Uunn Propertles was not the applicant on this property and that hc i n~,t Icynlly havc tn Ahatain~ and thAt if he laft the Coune i l Chamber there wou l d not be e~uorum fur a ~utc. Ne i ndi cated thrre w~ul d be no leyal conflict c~f interest unlass tl~is Iecter wou'~i prciud(ce Conmissioner Kinq aqatnst tl~c p~o,ject. Mr. Manroe lndicated they could ct~an~e tlie access ~~oints r~ferre~i to on Clemantine Street. Paul Singer~ Traffic En~aineer~ ir~clicritr,d that if tl~is wcre a vac.int plece of property, ,here would not be ~~~y prc~bl~m~ but that Clamentinc is qoiny ta serve ~s A~~~aJor accessway to the frPCwvay ramns and th~t is why he woul~t l ike thc cu~1~ cuts to 1 ine up. M~. Monruc Indicaled he would agrec lo linc up thc curb cuts ~n f.it~mc:ntine Strcet. ACTION: Comrnissioncr Kiny offereJ a n~ati.~n~ seconded by Comr.Iss(oner DavIJ ~nd MOTI~N CARRILU (Gomnfssionc~rs Jc~linsun~ Linn and Tolar b~in~~ ~hsent). th.~t thc Anahcim City P~annlny Cvrnmissiun has re.viewed the nrnp~sa~ tc~ reclassify the zaninq fr~m AS-11-1+3~~~~~~ (Res identlal/Ayricultural) to ML ~InJustrial ~ Llm{teJ) on an irregularly sf~apeJ parce) of land consistin~ of appr~xirtwt~~ly G.2 acres havlnq a~~-~ror.imatc frontagcs of 3~+~ fcet on the sc~u[h side of Alr~~ Way~ ~3~ feet ~n the wes siJe of Manchester Avenue~ and 4~4(1 feet on the l:ASi side of Clementime Street to c~nstruct an industrial compl~x with wAiver of requirrd sitc screcniny; and does hcreby approv4 the Negative Declaratlon from the requ i r~m~.~ t to prepare an env i ror~mental impact rcport on the bas i s that thcre woul d be no s(ynificant indiviaual or cumulitive aJverse environMental impact dur. to the ap{~roval of this Neyative Uecla~ation since [he Anal~eim General Plan deslgnates tl~e suhjett property as a transitional are~~ between ccxnmr.rcial-recre~tion and 1nJustrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; tliat nu sensitivic enviro~mental impact~ arc involved in khe propnsal; that the Initial Study subml[te~1 by the p.:titi~ner indicates no sicanific~int lndividuat or cuma~lative adverse envirun~~~ental impac[s; and that the Negative Declaratior~ substantiatinq the foreyoing flndinqs is un file in the City af Anahe~m Plannin,y Department. Goms~issi~ner King offcred Resolution t~o. PC78-q3 and rr~ved for its passage an1 adoption, tha t th~ Anaheirn City Planniny Conimission does hereby yrant Pctitipn for ftcclassificatlon No. 71-73-5~~ subject to tl~e petitioner's stipulation to construct drlveway accesses on Clernentine Street in accordance ~~itl~ the requirements af the City Traffic E:nqine°r to p~~vide safe vQhicular circulation alo~g Clementine Street~ and subject to lnterdepartmental Cort~mittee recomnenJations. On roll call~ the Foregoiny resolution was passed by the followinca vote: AYES: COMMISSIO~~ERS: BAR!~ES. DAVIU~ t1ERBST, KING NOE St CpMN! ~5 I ONCRS : NUNE ABSENT: COMHISSIONERS: JOIIPISOII~ I.INII~ TOLAR Commi ss ioner Ki ng of fe red Flesol uti on ~~Q. PC7~3-94 anJ moved for i ts passaqe and adopt 1 on, that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does h,ereby grant Petition for Variance N~. 30~9 on the baais ~hat the petitioner demonstrated tt~at a ha~dship exis[s in that the RS-A- 4;,000 zoned property along which a block wall is required is a Southern Californla Edison ~oinpany easeme~t ~n which a conditional use permit has bee~ g~anted for a w}~ol~sale plant nur5ery and, furthermore, i t is unl ikely said RS-A-W3~000 zoned property wi 11 ever be develr ~ed residential ly and, therefore~ a block wal l is not necessa~y; subJect ta the st ipulation of the petitioner that the driveway accesses on Clementine Street wi 11 be realigned in aGCOrdance with the requirements of th~ City Traffic Engineer to provlde safe siai~a _ _ 4. ~ 4 MI~i~11'kS~ ANANEIM CiTT PLANN~NG COMMISSION, MAY 8~ 19~8 ~a-~3a EIR NECIITIVE DECL_ TION. R~CLASSIFICIITION N0. i1~78'Sa AND VARIANCE N0. 3009 (cantinued) vehiculer circuletlun elong CiQmontine Street; and subJect to Int~rdep~rtmental Canmlttee recommondatlons. On roll call, the fore~oing resalutlon was passed by tl~a foilowing vote; AYES; COMMISSION~RS: BARNES~ Dl1VID~ IIERBST~ KING NOkS : COMMI SS! ONER~ : NAI~E At3SL'NT: COM111SSIQNERS: JOHNS0~1~ LINtI. TOLIIR ITEM I~O. ~~ FUtiLIC NEA~ING. OWNERS: IaCNEO G. AyD EMELITA A. 7 GURIGAL E MPTIOP~-CLASS 1 MUNC~Z. 13~3 Jasmine P1ACe~ Anahelm. C!1 ~12801. VARIANCE N0. 3010 PPtiti~ner requcsts WAiV~R OF MINIMUM NUM9ER OF ~"- PARKINf, SPACE.S TO ESTAliL1511 A COMMERCIAL USE IN A R~S I DEt~T I AL STRUCTU~E on propc ~ Ly desc r( bed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel af land consistin~~ of ap~raximatcly 615~ square feet lo~ated at the soutlnaest corner of Lliicoln Avenue ~nd Dush Stre~t~ having apprvximate frontages of 50 feot on the soutt~ side af Llncoln Avenue and 125 fee[ on the west side of Bush Street~ end furthe~ descr(bed as 924 East lincaln Avenue. Property presently classlfled RM-1200 (RESI ,-~~TI ;L, MULTIPLE-FANILY) ZUI~E wiLh a res~l~~tion of intent to ttie CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMIT~U) Z4NC. There was no one indicating their ~resencc in opposlcio~ to sub.jPCt rec~uest~ and although the staff report to the Plannfn~ artmission dated May 6, 1y7~ was not read at the public hearing~ it is roferred to and made a part of the minutes. Ireneo Munoz. ow~er~ was c-resent to answer any guesttons. TH~ PUL{LI C NEAfiI f~G WAS CLOSED. it wos noted the Planning Director or hls author(zed representative has determined that the proposed proJect f'alls within the definitlon of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined In paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impact iteporc Guidellnes and i~~ thErefore ~ catego~ i cal ly exempt f rom the requ i rement to prepare an E I R. ACTION: Commt ss loner KI ng offered R;~sol ut ion No. PC7II-95 and moved for i ts passaqe and ado tion, that thc Anaheim City i'lanning Comr-ission does hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 301a n~ the basis that denlal of the requested waiver would be denyina a privllege enJoyed by other properti~s in the same victnity and zonc a~d that surrounding propertles are simi larly ckveloped with a simi lar ratio of parking spaces to floor erea~ artiJ subject to Interdepartment~l Committee recomme~datiares. On rolt call~ the foreyoing resoiution was passed by the followfng vote: AYES: COMMISSIOI~ERS: 6ARNES~ DAYID~ HERUSTf KING NOES : COMM I 55 ! OI~ERS : NONE ADSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSOti~ LINN~ TOLAR Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner, polnted uut that one of the conditions is that ktie petitioner would have to file a petitiun for ~eclassification of the zoning to commercial since the property is prese~tly zaned RM-1200 with a resolution of intent to commercial. 5iai~s MINUTCS. AIU111E114 CITY PLAt11~11~~', COMM1551c1N~ HI1Y 8~ 1~7U 7~%-33a iTCN r~~ .~~ rul~L I C li[~~c~i !~G. 01lNF Rs : rnr,r r. rn~i~~ i r.n, ~ R~r,cr, ~~~. EIR /1TE.GORICnL CXE11PT1'~'1-CLt~55 1 PA~~I~ICR~ ANb L~^RAI~IF: l1, r f_R, 12!,7'~ r,arden Gr~va 1~; tl. NO. 3~ fioulcvarcJ~ Ganlcn Grnv ~ 1.~~ `32~,r~3. ~1G~NT: TIIF- - RU~-CRT P. 41ARMI~~RTOt! C 111PANY, 1(~~,'32 I~ale Avenue~ Irvlnc~ CA'~271~~. Petltloncr requests WIIIVER OF (A) MIN IMUM EiU1Ll)ING SITE AHEA PLft UWLlLII1G UNIT~ (I3) FU~XIMU-t SITI ~OVf.RAr,E~ (C) MININU~t FRUIIT YARU SL7L'!1C',, (U) MIt11MUM REf.ftCAT10'1-LE.ISURE ARL'A~ (E) MII~IhUM DISTANCES (3ETWCEN DUiL~ING5. (F) t~UII,UING; FACING ARTERIAL HIGNWAVS~ tf~) MIIIIHU~1 NUMBER ANU TYPC OF PARK111f SPACES, ANU (N) MAXIMU-i UISTt1~Il:C E3L'TWECfI PARKIN(~ AND UIIITS~ TO CONVERT NN CXISTIIIG 116- UHIT APAR7MENT GOMPLEX INTO A C~Ni)dNINIUN PROJ:.CT on F>raperty descrtb~d as an ~ regular ly- shaped parcel of land consisting of arproxlm~tr. ly /• 3 ncres havin~~ apnroxirn~~tn frant+~~~cs of ~~?7 feet c>n the suuth sidc of Uall ftoaJ. ;~3,~ fert on the west sld~ of Palr~, ~~ay~ ~15 fact on the nortl~ sicle ~f Palm Lane~ and ~~h0 feet on thr_ ~~ast side of Euclid Street~ and further JoscribuJ as 123~~ Soutl~ Lu~_If:' Street. Pr~,perty i~resently cl~~syifie~l RIt-1^~)) (RI''iDC'~TIAL~ MULTIPLL•FAMILY) ZONC. There wt~, one person indicatin~~ their presence in ~~.pc~sition to subject r~~~uest~ ~ind dlCnouyli the staff report tc~ ['~c Plannin~~ Comni551c~n ~f~t~~~1 I•lay ~~, 1')7i5 w~s nut re~~l at ths publie he:arin~~~ It is refcrrPd t~ ~ind made ~~ part af thr_ minutes, Jlm Ch~ist~nsen~ 3~~2"l. Campus Drivc~ Newport tieacl~~ r~presentin~~ The Ro',~~rt P. '.~~~riain~~t~~~ Coinpany, pointc~i out th~ proposa) is the sam~: cr~ncnpt ~s Ghe devclnpment on Maynoli~ Avenue (The Pines). anJ [hat projcct has proven to be a go<~J p~o_ject ~nd a~lo_ytr.ed to thc Commissinn th~~t they had not had the opp~~rtunity to consiJer it. Nc (nd(~:ated this partie ular project has been looked upon for a lony cime for c<ynversion to a senior citizen complex; that with the orcilnances of tl~e Clty of Anaheim reyardin~~ converslons of apartments~ there ~~re no apartments in thc City tliai would fit into th~t category. He stated there is a tremendous need for stnior cltixen housiny ar~~~ pointed out tl~e federal government has a scnior citzen houslnc~ subsi~iy pra~ram fur apartr~ent dwellers~ but tf.~re are no state~ feJeral~ or county provisiors for cr.rnerst~tp ancl statr.d seniur cltizens feel they need to ~~wn samething they can passon to their ch(Idren; t-~at he average cost of condominium dwellin~~y In ()range Gounty is 58~,~OQ and that new construction cannot provide housing at a c~st that cen t~e afforded by seniar citizens~ that even the pr(ce of these units is considered high, S3~~~~!~~ t~ $55,O~G per unit. Conce rning the wa(vers requested, he indicated mc~st o6 thes~ were necessary becausc the buildings are existing. 11e fndicated [fiey had clx~sen thls particular apartment complex baceusc they felt it would be c~mpatible. Hle inJicated there Is a letter pravided fi•om tl~e homeawners association of the corr~>lex at: Magnol ia Avenue and Pine St~eet concerning the parkiny spaces. He pointed out he fclt this was probably the ~nly waiver which would be of major concern to the Planning Commission and pointed out parking ha~ nat been a probl~m at The Pines anc, ne has a report indlcatin~~ there is sufficient par~:inc~; that right now there are 5 available parktng spaces which could t,e used fur <~uest pa~king. H~ indieated ~t The Pa{m Vi 1 la there are tU spaces heing rente,. out for scora~~e and it was their feeltng, frrnn thelr experienze~ that parking would nat be a problem. 1!e indicat~d tlie federal governn~;nt rec,uirements for HUD apartments are 1.2 spaces per unlt. He ind(cated this ~.ro~ect is ~robably cme ~f the better apartment pro,jects~ ln Anaheirn and is loeated in an ~r~a central to the maJor shopping areas~ doctors' offices~ the downtown area which the Clt•y is rebuilding~ etc. He sta[ed tt~ey did not inten~i to do any more with this apartrr~nt complex than ~hat thc City is already doing in the redevelopment ere~. Ne stated the property ^wner wants to sell his property and they are buyin~ it with the idea of ~enovating it~ upgradin,y lt~ and putting it to a dlffprent use, and that is what the S/8/78 .~ '~ ` MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANN111G COMMISSION~ MAY f3~ 1a7~ 7~-33~~ EIR CAT~GORICAL f:XEMPTION•CLA55 1 AND VARIANCE N0. 3pll (continu~d) City Is doin~~ In the r~development area. lie stated the City c~n ~t provlde this houSiny by Itself, the feder.~l govc~rnment carnot do ik~ th~s s-atr, cannot d~ it~ but that prlvate entarprise with the C(ty's hcip can do (t. Ite stated Thc Pinr.s t~rnJect lias been very successful an~ felt this request deserves proper consideratlon frcxn ttie Planninq Cummissfon, I1~ Indlcetod Chey reolize there are apartrr~nt cfwellers currentiy Ilving at thls camplex who have to be displacecl and who `eel tl-is (s unfair to them and th~y would mnke tha~ same offer as made by Covlnyton Brothcrs~ ttiat they would qivc them thrce ~nths' f~ee rent~ rQturn thely deposits to be uscd toward tha dvwnpAymcnt If they wislicd to purchase a unit~ proyidc the lowest flnanciny av~ilable and do all tlicy can for thosc wha want to stjiy, but for those who do nut want to stay~ they wouid givc them une rnUnt'~~s frec rr.nt ar~~i 30-aay not(c~ tu reloeatF~ an~l retu~n thely depasits. Mrs. Eve Orris Indicat~;d she lived in the Apartments ond an~roved of senlor cltizen h~using~ but that the element~~ry scho~l Ic rl~~f,r n~xt t~ thl~ npartrrMnt c~mplex and the peopls wl~o live therr with children would huva~ a very difficult tfine finding o place to liw~ as close ta schools; thAt rr~ost apartn-ents are for adults only in this area and it is hard on the children tc~ have to walk sv far t~ sclwc~l and that it would not he right to s{~end tha City's money for bussinc~ when a school i5 ~hat close; and Chat the senior citlzens who live in thr_ apartmer,ts arc upset becausn they du not feel they can afford to buy the untts~ r,ven th~uqh they are rcasonably priced~ and it wouid be hard for ~han to move . Ed Lisafeller indicateU he fivec' in tt~ese units anJ asked a~out the 4; units which w~~:ld have to be moved in ordcr to make room for mare parkl~g s~aces~ and asked where the proplc I{ving in these units would be mc~vc~1. li~ stateJ he fcl[ the petitioner was trying to push these people out of the units and he did not feel senior citizens could afford to pay SSS~QOQ f~r the units; that the wat~r system is nat adC(~Us'1LP_~ th~.re is onty onp shut~off valvc far every four units and ti~at fdur units ~~avc to be shut aff in order ta make any plurnbing rep~irs~; that new watcr servicr would i~ave t~ be put All the ~~ay ar~und the buildings; that they have ~~ad a water main break in ehe alley and the water was shut off for five or six hours. tie patnted c~ut the water heaters on the second story do not have safety valvcs ana therc is •io place to Jr~in tl~c heaters unless the:y are dratned on the `loor. Mr. Christensen pointed out he has a list of itcrtts whlch will be taken care of~ some of which this ~7entleman has ~~entioned; tl~at it is thelr business to scc that thcy are taken care of because they will have to guarantee these units as being nev:; and that they dc~ not intend to sell them as apartmenis. Ne pointed out all thc land~capinn equipment and plping will have to be taken ouc and replaced .and that th~re will b~ a tremendous amount of ~enovation yaing on thraughout [I~e projCCt to bring it up to code. He read several Items from a list and ~ointed out all the water heaters and appliarces will b~~ replaced. N~ indicated they were v~ry sorry thay could not provide housing for cveryon~:; that they are the only conpany whieli has elone this type of thiny far senlor citizens and it had caken them ~ne and one-half y~ars to fill thc units. 11e inditated t:~ey would be providing a service to the senior citizens ancl was sorry they were not in *.he rcntal business anymare. Mr. Lisafeller asked where kh~se people are yoing to go whilc these units are being renav~ted. siai~~ ~ r. /~~~3~ M I NUTE S. A~~AHC I M C I TY P~AN1~ I NG CONM I SS I ON ~ MAY (3 ~ 19 78 kiR. GATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-GLASS 1 AND VARIANCE N0. 3011 (c~ntinued) Commlesloner Kiny suyqested the places whare the senl~~ citizens Aro moving from would be svallable. Mr. L~~afellcr asked hoN all ttiese unlts would he renoveted at onc tlme~ and Mr. Christeno~n Indicateci t~~cy dre tryin~ to upgrade the enttre arca and that an employe~ woul~' be provided full-tiric tc, try and hclp these people flnd a placc to Ilve. Ilc Ind) wted that the op+artments would be renovated a few at a time. TIIF. PUBLIC IIEARItIG WAS CLOSED. Conmisatoner Klny Asked Mr, Christensen hts definition of "s4nlar cltfxens," and Mr. Chrlstensan replied that seniar citizens are dnfinec! as 5C years of age or older. C~mmissioncr Uavtd askeJ wh th~ inf.~rmation was ottnined toiicernin~~ th~ demand f~r seni~r citizen housln~~ in Ar~.neim. Mr. Christenseti replle~f they hnd contacted the SPnlor Cltizens Co~Txnit~ee in Anaheim and it was decermined ;f~ere ore 20~000 senlor c.,tizens who nre reqlstcred voters in Anaheim and that at least 47.~b are not living in a liame they crwn~ and the project ~n Magnol(a Avenue had shawn thcrc is a necd for this cyp~ hou~ing. Cornmiss(oner David asked how it wauld be c~ntr~lled tfiat o~ly senior citizens could parttcipate in the pro}ect. Mr. Ghrlstensen replled that they wauld use a legal means throuqh the Attor~ey's Offlce through deed restricti~ns or whatever o:l~er legal vehicle is necessary~ and that there w~uld be no rESale Co ~nyane younyer tl~an 50 years of aye. Ile pointed out that in Tlie Pines project no one had been allowed to occupy :ne premises under 14 years of age, which had created problems with senior cltizens who still had a c~~ild Ic:ft at hame, and he would like to see that restriction left off this prnject. Coromissioner He~-bst pointed out he was concerned ~bout the d(sta~ce betwcen the unfts a~d the parking stalls. Mr. C'rirlstensen indicate~: there were peo~le who coulc~ cestify to the fact that It is not that bad and that th~ere is nathing tl~ey can do about the situatlon s~nce the buildincs are existing. He pointe~ out the parkinc~ had not becn a problem at The Pinps. Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ pointed out most of the uniis are closer than 240 fee*~ wl~ich is the maxlmum dlstance. Canmiss•oner Batnes asked if the welver conc~rniny bulldi~Qs facing arteri~l highways requlring sound and view screenir,g would be mitlqated by the items read from the list previously. Mr. Chris'ensen replted that saund studies have beer~ submitted to the staff a;id recommendations for attenuations were made; that they wil! be putting in dauble-panc windaws on Euclid Street and E3a11 Road and will be happy to make that sCipulation p~rt of the conditions of approval. Commissione: 8arnes indicatCd she was wondering about the view screening and thP type of landscapt~g planned~ especially along an arterial highwa~y. 5/~/7g ~ i MINU1'ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ MAY a~ 1~7f3 78-338 EIR,~CATEGOa1C~I~EXEMPTION-GLA55 1 AND VARIANCE NQ, ;OiI (conttnued) Mr. Chrlsten;an replled thore would not be any new landsceping added~ that thcy would only be addtny to the ex(stin~~ landscaping, t1a felt a b1o4k wal) wc~uld r~iln thc be~~uty of the pro,ject and folt thts was one of tl~e prr:ttiest projects ln Anahelm. tle palnted ~ut they could not put any structures wltlifn tl~e setback area. Jay Tashiru ~~olnted out tha~ properties fronttng on artcrt~il streets are permlttcd to have 8-foot hlgh wells. M~. Chrlstensen (nd(cated he felt an S-foot hiyh wall would make this proJc:ct loc~k llke a prlson; tliat th~u would be providiny attenuatinn rrwasures as called f~r~ such as double- panc windows and tol:ing whatever measures they felt werP necessAry ta make the praiect as comforteble ~s (~nSSihle for thu s~nlor citizens. ComnlSaioner Nerbst Indicate~ concern regardiny the waiver of minimum rec~eatlon-leis~re area~ and 11r. Chrlstensen pointed out th~t from their expertence w(th ather pro_jects, they wil) have sufflclent recreat~^^ arcA. tt~ pointed out tl~ey would be adding a Jacuzzi and taking out the wadinq poal. Lommissioner Ilerbst polnted out he ha~i earlier remarked therc mlght be teenagers who would live in ttiis project and ~aould need more rccrcatic~nal f~cilittes. and Mr. Ch~istensen replled that they have chtlJren there now. lie noted thac 1n e~~erv ~:ondom(ntum proJect thcre nre swirtming pools which are a beautlful amentty that is never used and there is a smal! quentity of pec~ple who are swlmmers and usc the pool. Cf1MH~SSIONER LINI~ ARRIVCU AT 3:~~ P.M. P1r. Christensen palnted out they had provided a shuffleboard court at other projects which were used In the be~atnning. but nuw are seldom used; that senior c(ti~ens seemed to like to have the open space rather than active areas; and that bart~ecues and p(crlc tables would bc providcd. Cammissioner Barncs poin[ed out that in the past when the Plan;~ing Commission has considered conversic~n of apartments to condominiums~ they have been ve ry concerned and that they liave Just recently turned down a conversic~n, but felt thi~ project is special because it is for senior citizens and there is a problem in Anaheim for la~-Income housing. She indicated she fclt there is no other way to provide iuw-cost houst;~i wiLh the higher cost of constructlon. She polnted out that the ratio in Anaheim for ownershlp dwellings versus apartments Is approximately 5~-~~ and that ic woul~ be doing the City a disservice ~to turn down this proJect. (t was noted that the Planniny ~~rectrr or his authorized re:presentativc has ~ietermined that the proposed proJect falls within the definltion of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as dafined in paragreph 2 of the City of Anaheim Enviranmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore~ categorically exempt frc~m the requirement to prep~~re an EIR. ACTIO~~: Co~nissioner B~rnes offered Resolution No. PC78-~fi and rtaved for its passaqe and a~opt~{'on~ that the Anaheim City Planning Go~nission doe3 hereby grant Petitlon for Variance Nn. 3011 on the basis that the proposal is specifically to provide lower cast hausing for senior citizens (persons 50 years of age or older); that _`ie structures are existiny and were c~,istructed for apartment use and met all City ot Anaheim bullding codes at that time for that use; that the Planning Commission has granted similar waivers in the past for development of seni~r citizen ~~ousiny; tt~at the proposed location would b~ in close proxirnity to suitable smenities for senior citizens, ~nd that since the occupa~ 5~8~~~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 19J~ 7$-33~ EIR f.ATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND VARIANCE ~~U. 3011 (cantinued) ani ewnership of thc propos~d units will be limitad tu senior citizcns~ the requirernent for recraat(ona) aroas and parking will b~ less than code requires, based ~n testlmany presentad at the public heariny; and subject to Interdepartmental Cormilttee rescommenda t t ons . Qn roll call~ the forcyoing resolu[(on was pesseJ by the followtny vote: AYES: COMMISSIONE.RS; E3ARNES~ DAVID~ IiE:REfST~ KIN~~ NUES: COMMIS",IOtICRS: NONE Al3SENT: COMf11 SS I OI~CRS : JOIit~S01J ~ TOI.l1R AuS~fAIN: COMMISSIUNkitS: LItIN (havirig not been prr.sent for entire hearing) Comnissioner Davld ind(cated he was votinc~ in favc~r of this project~ but he wanted the pctltioner to undcrstanJ that he f'~'.t this pr~ject is profit-mot(vatecl and that providing hc-uSiny Fc,r senlor citl~ens is pr~~hanly a vehicl~ hein~~ us~d t~ ~~x the ~r~Ject approved. ITEM I~O. G PUk3LIC HEARING. UWNCR: DELUUN PROPERTIES~ 9171 EIR I~TIVL" OECLARATI01! 4111shire Boul~varcl, Dr.vcrly Nills~ CA 30210. CONOITI~NAL ~~SE PFRMIT N0. Ifi2A Patitioncr requests permissian to ESTII4LISH A REPOSSESSEU AUTOMOUILE WfIOLESALING FACILITY on property de~~ribed as a rectangularly-shapeJ parce) of land consisting of appraximately O.y acre having a fr~ntage of approximateiy ly9 feet on r.he west side of Sherman Street~ having a maximu^~ ~feptl~ ~~f npproximately 242 feet and being locatcd approximetely 232 feet south of the cc:nterline ~,f Dal) Road~ and further described as 1231 South Sherm~n Stre~~t. Property presPntly classifi~ei ML (INDUSTRIIIL~ IIMITED) ZUIrE. Th~re was no ane indicasing their presencc in oppositior to subject requsst, and althc~u9h the staff repcr; to the Planning Commisslon dated May 8, 1~17-3 was not read rt the publtc hearing~ it is rcferred tc and made a part of the minutes. Fred Starn~ representing Wells F-~go Bank~ indicated the proposal was for the use of an industria) bullding which seems to mect all of ths specification• whlch they requlre and pointed ~ut Chey have two questions conccrning the staff report. lie indicated che Traffic Englneer h,as recommended a mEnimum ~f 100 edditional parkinq sppcea Ne provided and stated they had ~~iscussed the p~rking situation with the Planning Department staff~ and there are 27 parking spaces, ore more than code requires. Ne potntPd out the facilitv is for the wholesaling of automoblles; that there are two employees and there wili be no more than six to tan people comtng in at one time t~ loc~k at these automobiles~ and they hav~ stipulated to no more than 20 people ~t any one time on the premises because of the parkinq situation. He referred to t e signal asscssment fce and the d(fference between industrial and c~mmerclal use, and indicar.ed they did not feel they sh~ulcl be requirad ta pay this ad~itfonal feo. Tli~ PUE3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chainnan Pr.~ Tempore .terbst asked how they would control tlie number of people coming in to sec these cars. 5/8/78 MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Mar 8, 1978 78-3~+~ EIR NEGA1'IVE DECI.ARATION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PF.RMIT N0. 1828 (cnntinued) Mr. Stern re.pllCd that thc cars would be sold wholessalc to cRr dQalors throuyhout Calffnrnia; that they are notificd once or twicc a month of tha. repossesslons from the Wells Fargo Qaiti{; anc~ that ttuy send a representative to louk at thc c~rs. Chairman Pro Tempore 1lerbst asked if those eutonx~biles would be auctioned off~ end Mr, Stern replted that there would be ~~~ auctlon. He indicated Or~~no Reichstadt from the bank wes presen[ '.~ answer any questfo~s. Chairman Pro Tempore Nerbst eskel ;iow he cr~n detcrminc how mAny pe~ple will sh~w up when the notices are sent out~ anJ Mr. Reichstadt repltecl that was bASed on their past experlence. Ha indieattcJ tl,ey a-~• nuw lacatc~ un Anahelrn D~ulcva~•d. Chairman P~o Tenpore Herbst ~oi~ited out tl~err. 1s quite a c~ncern about this type of use and referrcd to a location whlch ducs prescnt serious traff(r. and parkinc~ pr~~bleMs, and the pet(tioner in that ca~ ~.ad indicated thc use wouid bc slmilar to the proposal. °hotiographs were s'• wn to ~:~~: Cortmission of this auc 'on location. Mr. Rei.hstadt palntsd out xhc pro~osal is not an auc[ian and that the automobiles will be sold to ~icensed dealers only. Jack White, Dep~ity City Attorney~ pointed out th~ C~nvnission could add a conditlon that tl~ere will be no auctions permltted at this location and tliat the cars .are co be sold to licensed automobile dealers only. Mr. Stern indlcated he had been to tne Anaheim Boulevard location se~ieral tirles and has never seen more than chree or four people at the entire facility. Mr. Reiclistadt pointed out the phot~grapt~s he had been shc~wn earlier were of the Anaheim Auctlon and the ca~s from Wells Fargo (~ank will be sold to licensed dealers only. Chalrtnan Pr~ Tempore Nerbst pointed out a Ietter had been submi[ted t~ tt~e Planninq Department that the business hours ~-ould be between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Frlday~ witl~ two full-tlme employees~ 1G to 17 visitors pe~ rrbntf~~ and that the numbc~r of prospective bidders would not exteed 2~ at any onc ~tiv~• ime, and that the word "~tdder" indicat~s to hirn this is an auction. Mr. Reichstadt stated these are sealed btds and the autort~biles are not sold at an auction. tte statec? they are turrently processing 2bout ~~0 unit5 p~r mor~th and ttoev do expect an increase of about 10 to 1; cars and -.~pd mc~re sFa^e, Commissloner Davld asked how these cars are brought into the facility~ especially wandar' q if they are drivable. Mr. Reichstadt repliPd tt~ac they are driven in unless they have been in an accident and that the car3 will 'ue inside the facility. He pointed out the wrecked cars wauld be inside a fenced area. Cummissloner I;ing referred to the property to the rorth with a gate and asked lf it ~~~uld be blocked ~ff. Mr. Stern replted that the rroperty avner has agre d to close that gate and is the same -+wner as the subject propcrty. 5/8/78 ~ ;~.- MINUTES~ ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 1978 7a'341 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO COND1710NAL USE PEAMIT N0. 1~23 (conttnueJ) Commissio~er King polntad out the propcrty owners wlthin 300 feec have bean natifled and no one has complained. Commissionar David ~o(nted out the owners of the properties are no~(fied~ but the tenants are not nottfled. ACTiON: Commissloner David offered a rrbt(on. seconded by Commissloner Kt~~y and MOTION ~RR `EO (Commfsstoners Johnson and Tolar being ab~ent)~ that the Anahetm City Planning ~ortimission has revlewed the subJact pro}PCt u~n~lsting of e renossessed autamobile wholnsaling facility on a rectangularly-shaped aerccl of lbnd consisting of approxtmately 0.9 acre havtng a fronta~e of approximattly 159 feet on the west s~de of Sherman 5treet, being located approxt~~~aCely 2a2 fset south of thc ccntcrlinc of Ball Road; and does hereby approve thc Negat(ve Dectaratton from the rcqulrcmcnt to prepare an environmental Impect report nn the basis that there wauld be no signlfl:ar~t indlvtdual or cumulatlve adverse environmental impact due ta the appr~val of this Negative Declaration since tha Anaheim Ge~eral Plan deslgnates tha suSJect property for generai Industrial land uses comnensurate with tha proposal; that no sensitive e;nv(ronm~ntal impacts are (nvolved in the proposal; that the Initlal Study submltted by the petitlonar End;cat~s n; stgniflcant indtvidual or cumulrtive adverse environrr~n!al imp+~cts; and that the Negat~ve Declaratton substantiattng the forcgoing findings !s on file i the City Af Anaheim Pl~n~tng Deprrtment. Chalrman Pro Tempa~~ Herhst askod Paul Slnaer, Traff?c Engineer, about the parktng sixuatlon, and Mr. Singar replled that if the parking needs are not exceading the parking available~ then he belleved aciditlonal parking would r~oc be n~cessary~ however. he still belteved the conditlon Por the 5ignai assessment fee should be requ(red. Jack White, Deputy City Att~rr~ey~ po(nted out the P1, ing Lommissian could approve whatever conditlons th~~ feel ~re justifled and tha• n applicant could appeal that condltion to chc City Counc-1. fanmisstoner Davld asked Mr. Singer the reason for requirtng e trafflc signa~ fee~ and Hr. Stngei replled chere is C(ty Council Policy No. 214~ whereby f.he Clty of Anaheim has established a traffic signal assessn+ent fee~ and pointed ~ut the crtteria for determining this fee. H~ pointed out the diffe.•ence betwee~ dwelling units~ commerclal~ ar Indus:rial uses: tha~t a cemmercial use is whnre customers come tnto the site on a contEnual basis. such as stores~ shoppiny centers~ or a~y place where tndlvidua~ businesses are conducted, and i~d~strial uses are warehousing~ storage~ a~d manufacturtng and dc~ not have cuscomers. Ha felt this u~e ~yould fall more ciosely into a corm~erclal use because it ..~es attract customers onto the premises. Commissic.~~r Gavid asked what signal the petitioner would be Naytng for, ar,d Mr. Stnger ~eplted the traffic signal system throughout the City, and Commissloner pavid painted out thls ~~n~ition would cast the petitioner in excess of S6~000. Mr. Reichstedti• indicated he feit it as the Traffic Englneer's positl~~ that they are gning to be daing something strr~ilar to what the photograph showed ear~ier~ but that they wouid only have 10 to 15 people that might show up, and they are not a retail outlet and in no way were they going to i;a~re thaL type of traffit. He lndicated they felt the flgure was high for the aROUnt of traffic they wauld generate. Cwnmissioner Barnes indicated this wss tt-.a fee being charged fc±r other comme~cial u3es and she did not remember any case where it had been an exception. In fact, she did not know of a~yone who had questioned it. s/s/~s ~ ~ ~ ~- MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM~SSION~ MAY 8~ 1978 78-342 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIOHAL USE PERMIT N0. 1828 (continued) Ch~irman Pro Tempo~e Harbst asked wh~t would bs the difference If thta were an Industri~) whulesale outlet rather than commerclal. M~. Singer pointed out Industrtsl uses ere cherged 534 p~r squ.~re fo~t and that the Traffic Department assumes that has been paid and they are t~iking about the difference. Commisslonar Barnes indicated she felt the paint to conslder is that other people have had to pey th~ fee and she did not see any reason for granting this pet(tioner ~ specia) ' ;~e . ~ a SantAlahtl, Assistant pi~ector for Zoning, ~~nted ou~ that al~ candilional use permits have been requtred to pay the dlfferenco where the bustness deftnitely attracts retail customers. Commissio~er David Indlcated he felt the dlfference here is that this Is an industrl~l use ana not a commercial use and ts not going to be a retail outlet and rtwinteins tha industrtal integrtty. and asked tf staff had changed thetr attltude after heAring the teatlmony of th~ petitloner. Commissioner Singer ind(cated he fett thts is stlll a cr~mmercial use, even though It ts a wholesala outlet. Commissioner Devid Indicated he would of'er a resolutlon for a~provai and would recommend that the petttlonar appea) the condition to the City Council. Ann(ka Santalahtl lndlcated ;he fslt Lhe petttioner was trying to say t~~ey would be attracting a select group of the general public and nat attracting ~etail trafflc~ and if the Pla~ntng Commission felt this was a suitable dlfference. they cauld approve the cond(tional use permit on the limited numbt~ of customers since the petitio~er wa~ wllling to stlpulate to a certa(n amaunt of people at any one time. Mr. Stern pointed ou~ they would not be putti~g up a sign ather than a 6-lnch sign for people who are looking for the site as thny did not want anyone to know the cars were b~.ing stored instde the facllity; and that thts is a 21~000 squere foot bullding. Commissioner King pointed out that the only source nf advertising weuld be by letter to dealers and that the petitioner could cnntrol the nu~-ber of custaners by the number of letters he sends out. and asked him to glve the averagc et his present place of business. Mr. Retchstadt replted that they presently move approxi,nately 60 ca.-s per month, but they do not have a datty flyure. Commissioner B~rnes polnted ou~ he had indtcated they arould ex~~ect te procass 1S more vehicles per month end chat (s why they are desiring to move !o this locatton. She asked haw often these announcements are sent out to the dealers and how often they came Ir~ to see the vehicles. Mr. Reichstadt replied they send out the notlces once or twice a mor,th and that people come in wlthin the next two or three days to look at the cars. Commissloner Bernes indicated she realtxed this craffic signal assessment fee was a lot of money, howe~er. thls is a comn~ercial establlshment and she dld nat see any reason why he 5~ 8/78 ~~ MINUTFS~ A~IAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 8~ t378 7A-3ti3 EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIOHAL USE PERM17 N0. 1828 (conttnued) should nat pay the fee; ti~at she falt very strongly abrut ~t and wauld not support the resolutton ~~~ approval 'f the condition was deleted. Commtasloner David IndiCated he would like to withdraw the resolutlon stnce he w~s c~nvtnced thls ts an Industrial usa and would maintain the (ndustrlal integrity of the nrea by the fact thal it is a business thet will deal with licensed c~r dealars onlv and by (nvitytlon oniy. He in~lcated he wished to uffer a resoluti~n for ac+orov~el of Candttlonal Use Permit No. 182a~ deleting Cundition No. 1 of the Interdepartmental Commtttae racommendations~ for a two-year perlod and subject to the stl{.:~'atlon: tiy the petiCinnar. Chairman Pro Tempore Nerbst asked Commissioner David cn add thst there would be no public au~tlon or public advertiseR:cnt or sale of cars to the general public, and that cers would be sold t~ 1lcensed dealers only. On rol) call~ the forogoing resolution failed to carry by the follaving vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: IIERBST~ DAVIO NOES: COMMISSIONERS: QARNES~ KING, IINIJ A45~NT: COMMISSIONERS: JOtiN50N~ TALAR Commissioner Barnes offcred Resolution No. PC7$-97 and moved for iis passage and ado~tlon~ thAt the Anahelm City Planning Commission ~oes f:ereby grant Petitlon for Conditlonal Use Permtt No. 1828 wlth a revlew at the end of a two-year period by the Planning Commissian to determine whether or not the use has had a detrlmenta~ effect on the surrounding industrtal neighborhood~ and sub)~ct t~ the follawing conditlons stipulatad to by the petitioner: 1) 7hat tt-e sale of repossessed autornobiles shal) be by sealed bids to licensed automobile dealers oniy, saici dealcrs having been notified by mail of the avaliability of the vehicley; 2) that there shail be no advsrtising or sale to the general public; 3) that no auction shal) be conducte~d to dispos~ of the repossessed vehicles; 4) that the proposed use as descr'bed by the petitioner at the public heari~g wili consist of whulesaling of approximately 30 to 60 repossessed vehicles monthly~ with a maxtmum of 4 vehicles stored outdoors in an effectively fenced-tn area; and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following •~ote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERDST~ KING, LINN NQES: COMMlSSIONERS: DAVID ABSENT: COMMISSlONERS: JOHNSON~ TOLAR RECESS: There was a tPn-minute recess at 3:35 P•m• RECC~_ NVENE: The meeting wbs recnnven~d at 3:45 p.m.~ with all Commissioners present excepk Johnson and Tolar. 5/8/78 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 8, 197a 78- 344 ITEM N0. PUE3LIC NEARINC. OWt~ERS: JOSEPN M. AND MARY M. ~cIR NL• IVE DECL~ MTION ANTON~ 1Q16 West Pioner.r 5treet~ Anah~im, cn 928c~5. 0 ~ MI N0. 182 AGENT: LANSDALE 6 CARR~ 1J622 ArmsYrang Avenue. Irvine, C.4 92714. Patltioner reques~s perinlsslon to ESTADLI51~ A TIRE SALES AND INSTALLATION FACILITY WITN WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM NUM9ER OF PARKI~JG SPACES AND (B) MII~IMUM SETDACK LANDSCAPING on property descrlbod as an trregularty-shAped parcel of lend conslsting of approximately 0.3 acre locat~d at the souCheast corner af La Palma Avenue end Harbor Boulevard~ having approxlmate frontages of 10: fect on the south side of Lu Palma Avenue end 165 feet on the east eide of Harbor Boulevard. Property presentty classtfled Cl (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) 20NE. Ther. was one peraon indlcating thai~ presence in opposition to sublecc request, and although the staff re~~ort to r.he Planning C~mmisston dated May 8~ 1978 was n~t read at the public hearing~ !t is referred to and madc a part of thc minutes. Bob liofmann~ represe~ting Lansdale 6 Carr~ agent~ o~inted out the proposal is for a retsil tire sales and Instailatlon facllity wlth 4000 square feet whlch wtll be open four days a week. He referred to the parktng and landscaping regulrements on La Palma Avenue and polntGd out La Palma Avenue is ded~cated ta the City of Anahetm ond (t would not make much sense to put In landscaping in that area. !le indtcated part of their pa~king is located in that dedic~t~d area, but that they heve 6 spaces Inside the building and feel they would have adequete parking. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst asked Jay Tifus~ Officc Engineer~ when La Palma would be wldened, and M~. Titus rc~lied that he did not know. Nr. Hofmann referrod to the Trafftc Engineer's recortmendatl~~~~ that the curb cut on La Palma Avenue is unnecessary and recdmmended that it be closed and the ailey entrance enlarged. He pointed out he did not feel it would be netessa ry to enlarge the entrance. Florenc@ Nickey~ 945 North Nelena~ Anaheim, tndicated her ga~age backs up to the south end of thls lat and tha~ with the service statlo~~ they had deleted a portion of the block wall so that she could back in and make a turn; that thts has been satisfactory but she was not sure what would bc worked out with the new development. She polnted out when there is an activity at La Palma Park. she cannot gec into or out of her garaga because ~f cars pa~iced there anc; it is very hazardous. Ch~irman Pro Tempore Hcrbst pointed out he thought that would be a pollce problem, and she ~eptled the police cannot do anything about tne parking on a private lot. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst polr,ted out he felc the praperty awner could post the property and t~~en the p~lice could take care af the parklnq problem. Mrs. Nlckey pointed Qut they tear the signs down; that she has a sign whtch she puts up~ and Jack White. Deputy City Attornoy~ polnted nut there are legal requirements co~cerning post(ng the prope~ty and it must be pocted by the property a~ner. Mr. Hofmann pointed out the petttioner ts awarP of this problem with the parking end they have asked that the zoning be approved withovt che block wall. He pointed out he fett the store would be an asset to Mrs. Nickey whcn chey are in operation and that tt ~~o~id be uetrimental to them to have people parking back thcre. but that they will only be open Wednesday through Saturday. He pointed out tlz~y would be putting in a lot of money (nto 5/8/78 «'~ v MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 1978 18~3N5 EIR NEGATIV~ OECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PEaMIT N0. 1829 (continued) ~aving the lot and did not want peoPle p~rking on it and that the prop a ~ty would be pasted for no p~rkiny~ snd he did not think there would he any prc+blems. TNE PUBIIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. Chalrman P~o Tempore Hrrbst Indlcated his concern was the mintmum number of parking spaces and atked tf csrs would be perkad Ins1Je overnight. Mr. Huf~~-ann replled that nnce thcy acccpt responsibility for in~trllation on an indlvidual's car~ they Iike to huv~ It out tha s~me dsy and they would be instaliing tires on ly ;*.hey weul d nat be dai ng any heavy repa 1 r work such as tune-ups . b ~ekes ~ etc, ~ but mostly tlre instailation and balanciny of the tires •nd basic altynments. Chairmsn Pr~ Tempore Herbst Indtcated he would llke to sec those c~nditlons tled Into the spproval since it is a~imtted oparation. Commissia~or Devid indtcated he fe;t the petitloner shnuld put in some landscaping s{nce he wil) be butldtng A new bullding and wondered if he was overbullding the slte, Mr. Hofmann replied they would provide landsceping alo~g Harbor ~oulevard, but he did not want to providz landscaping along La Palma Avenue. 1~e pointod out th ay have 27 stores siready and ti~ey carry a larger inventory thsn any othcr tire store, for a~arger selectipn, ~nd need this size building. Canmissloner Davtd asked the definition cf "ccmditlonal dedicetlo~ of right-of-way." and Jay Ti tus expl a) ned th~t I t i s condl t loned on the need by tt~e Ci ty to wi den a streat t n the futuro~ and It ts not known at Chis time NF1CR it wlll be wldened. Chairman Pra Tempore Herbst polnted out tt could be a few years in the future before La Palma is widened and that the right-of-way could be landscaped at lesst min{mally (3 feet) unt! 1 such timo as i t 1 s wt dened. Ha fel L landscaping woul d enhance and beautif;~ that corne~. Mr. Hofmann pointed out that when the City daes nced the rtght-of-wsy f or street widen(ng~ ~t~e pa~king spaces wlll ba affected. Ch~irman Pro ?empore Herbst potntcd aut that if the driveway is coordlnatPd with the alley~ a couple of parking saaces wl ll be pickr.i up and indicated even if the petitioner could not put in landscaping~ he could pl~int trees whlch would break up the vlew. He felt the City was m8kin~ thls a hardship parcel becausa of the right-of-way. J.~y 7ash) ro~ Associat^. Planner~ polnted out i: eppears there are 47 feet from the property line to the bullding es shown on the plans. a~d he would be required to have A4 feet. whlch would leave 3 feet needed for the l~idsceping. Commission~r David asked about the agreement concerning the drive-+ay. Mr. Hofman~ polnted out he agrees wi Lh the Traffic Eng(neer that the curb cut on La Palma Avenue is unnecessary~ but does not agree that the ~ear driveway should be widened. Commtssioner Barnes pointed out she thought the recornmendattnn of th e Traffic Engineer was because he would like ta sea the driveway incorporated with the alleyw ay. making a wtder entrance end would make it easier for cars to ger to the back. 5/S/7~ MI NUTES~ ANAHE IM CI TY PUINNI NG COMMI SS ION ~ MAY S~ 1~78 ]8-346 E I R N~GAT I VE DECLAaAT I ON AND COND I TI QNAL USE PERMI T N0. 1~29 (cont 1 nuecl) Jey T i tus ~ Of ~1 ce Eng 1 na~er, po i nted ~ut i t waa not the 7raf f i ~ Engt necr' S racann-esndat tan to widen the alley. Paul Stngcr. 7raffic EnglneQr, rointed out it wes the re~onmendation to enlarge the altey entrance ~nd move the c ur6 cut westerly tc gat it out of the left-tur~ pocket aroa; thet It would probably provi de fl couplc af par~,ing spacc:. and hc would have the same entrance~ but now have only ene eurb cut rather than two sid~-by-side end it would help the trafflc pattern. ACTION: Commissioner t3arnes offered e rnutiun~ s~sconded by Commissloncr David and MOTION IEU (Commissloners Johnson ond Tolar bein~ ah~Pnt)~ that th~ Arahelm City Planning Commisslun has revlewed tho subJect p~~JQCt to parmit a ttre sales and I,~stellation facillty w(th waivars of minimurn nurnbor of parkin9 spaces ond minimum setback landscaping on an irreS~ularly-shap~dpe~c~l of land consist(ng of approximately Q.; ecre loc~ted et the southea,st corncr of La Pa1ma Avenue and Narbor lioulevard~ hbving apnroxlmete frontages of 102 feet on the soulh sl de of La Pa ima Avenue and 165 feet on the east s 1 de of Harbor Boulevard;, ond does hcreby approve the Negative Daclaration from the re~quirement to prepare ar~ envlronmental impact report on thn basls that tl~ere w~ould be no signiflcant indlvidusl or cumulat i ve adve ~5e envi r~nmentAl Impact due to the approvai of thl s Negatlve Declaratlon slnce the Anaheim Gener~l Plan designates the sub}ect property for low density re~zidential land uses eommens urate wl th the proposat ; thst no sensi tive envt ronmenta) impscts are tnvolved i n the p ~oposal; thet thc Initial Study submitted by the petltloner indlcates no significa~t indi vidual or cumulattve adverse env(ronmental impacts; and that the~ Negative Declaratiansubstantlstl~g the foregoing findings Is on file in the City of Anahelm Pl~nning Depar tment. Commlss(u~er Barnes of fered Resolution No. PC78-98 and moved far its passags and adoptlon, that th~ Anahelm City Planni~g Comuiss(on dnes herehy granc Petition for Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1829 subjcet to the petitic~~er's stipulatlo~ that the minimum number of parkinq spaces and minimum stzback landscapin~ will be provided adjacent to the existing La Palma Avenue untll such tt -~ 85 La Palma Avenus (s wiclened to Its ulttmate width, a~d subjact to Interdepartmenta) Committee recommendatlons, On ro1) call, the for~going resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; dARNES~ DA`J10~ I~ERIiST~ KING~ LINN NOES: COMMlSSIONERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISS IONERS; JOHNSON, TOLAR Commissloner Barnes offered a nntion~ secanded by Commissioner Davld and MOTION CARRIEQ (Commisstoncrs Johns~ nnd Toiar being absant)~ that thc Anahe~m City Planning Commtssion does hereby grsnt the raques t for wa) ver of code requi rements on the bas is that said waivers result from Lhe i~:11 width designation of La Palma Avenue by the Anaheim General Plan~ dediceti4~ to seld wi dth excessively decr~:asing the useble size of sub,ject property and ~ therefore ~ es tab l lsh i ng a I-ardsh i p. 5/8/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY $. i978 78-;47 ITEM N0. 8 PUDLIC NEARING. OWNER: LA PALMA EAST PROPERTIE 5~ ~~RICAI, EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 1900 Avenue of th~ Sters ~ Sul ta 1700~ Los Angales ~ ~ . CA 90067. AGENTS: ROIAP~D TYACKE. 8249 Maple D~ ive~ ~'- ~ Buena Park~ CA ~0620 snd ALEXANDER MOTLAGN~ 260 7 West Orangothnrpe Avenue. Fullerton~ CA qz633. Petttloner requeats permisslon t~ ESTADLISII AN AUTOMOBIIE RADIATQa SNOP on property des - cribod es an irregularly-sl~bpad parccl of land con:isting of approxtmAtely 4.0 acres heving a frontage of approximately 3;5 feet an t;~a northwest side of La Palma Avenue~ having a maxlmum depth of approximately 762 feet~ being located approximately 1170 fee t esst of the centerline ~f Tusttn Avenue, and furth~r described as 3921 East La Pdlma Avenuo~ Unit H. Property presently classlfled ML (INDUS7RIAL~ LIMITEp) ZONE. 7he~e was one pcrson (ndlceting thn(r presenGe in opposition to subJect request. and although thc staff repnrt to Che Planning Commisslon dated May 8, 1978 was not read at the publlc heariny, It Is ~efcrred to and made a nart ef the minutes. Roland Tyacka~ agent, was present to answer any questions. Gloria Krump, representing Hen ry Deutsch Company~ 1191 Nawk Circle~ stated her employe ~ felt he had not r~cetved notice (n sufficient time to petitt~n the nelyhborhood ond th a t qulte a fe~w af the owncrs were ouC of town. She indtcated she had a petltion he had started ~nd would like to heve the he~ring postpaned for two weeks in order to get morrs signatu~es on the petitlon. She In4icated Mr. Oeutsch felt he had lnvested ~ lot of m~ney in the p roperty and dtd not want a lot of Cars parked all over and felt this use would brtng tn a lot of Junk cars and dawngrade the property. Mr. Tyacke pointed out this was not thG only autonx~tiva shop in Chis 75~000 squ~re foot centcr. Conwnissloner King esked if all work would be do~e Inside tha shap and would cars be stored Inside if left overnight. a~d Mr. Tyacke replied that they would and potnted out thts slte is twice as large as they need for a radiator shop and they have room for six cars ins ide the facillty. Chalrman Pro Tempore Herbst asked haw many employees the faciltty would have. and Mr. Tyacke ~aplted they would have two full-time employees and that 90$ of thelr aork is wholesale~ basically pick-up and delive ry(from Sears~ service siatians. etc.). Commissioner King i~dicated as long as Mr. Tyacke sttpulated to doing the work inslde, he was satisfied with the use. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Conmiss(oner Oavid asked what was behind the property aRd what separates this site f~osn Mr. Da utsch's property, and Mr. Tyacke pointed o~t there is a vacant fleld in the back . Commisst~aner Nerbzt esked why this location had bpen chosen~ and Mr. Tyacke replied th ere is a dire need for a radlator shop; that the closest radiator shop for thls area is i~ Yorba I.inda. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst indicated his conce~n was that this radiator shop would servicn the gnneral public and would be s tommercial use in this indust~ial area. 5/8/78 ~ ~~. r~ 78-348 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS ION. MAY 8. 1978 EIR CATEGORICAI. ~XEMPTION-CL11SS 1 ANO _CONOITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 1830 (continuQd) Commisslonar David askedhwiY ~sslstant iD) rector for~Zoning~f rePl iednthathstaff probably case~ and Annike rantala t, overluokad it in th!s particu'ar petit lon. It was noted the Planning Dirzctor of his authorized represe~tative has deteC~assd,th~s the proposed prnJect fa11s wit~iin the deflnitlon of Ceteqorical Exemptlons. def i ned i n paragraph 2 ioa, ihe~~;temY t~f ~oma them~equi rementt to pmepareRan~E I RGUI del i nea e~d ts~ therefore, catagar c Y P ACT I Otl : Commi ss i onvr Ki ng of fered Resol uti on No. PC78-99 end moved for 1 ts passage ++nd hercby hrant Petitlon for a opt an~ that the Anaheim City Plan n ing Comm{sslon does Condltlonal Use Permit NO~c ~he~Sacility~ +a~dcsubjectttonlnterdepartmentaltCommittee~rk wi 11 bc do,~e whol ly ns ~e~mme~dat I ons. On roll call, the foreyoing resolutios~was passed by the follawing vote: AYES: COMMIS510NERS: R~~RNES~ DAVt 0, KING. LINN NOES: COMMISSIONERS: I~EitBST ABSENT: COMNISSI~~IERS: JOHNSON~ TOLAf1 ITEM N0. CONTlt~UED PUBI.IC NEARING. OWNERS: JAMES P. AND EIR NE TIYE DECLARATIO~~ PHYLLIS J. CRAWFORD~ 1441 East La Palma Avenue~ ~ p. ~g26 Anahcim~ GA 92f~45• AGENT: DONALD B. BROWN~ 270 North Canon Drive~ deverly Nllls, CA 9021Q. Petitloner requests permission to ESTABLiSH A TENT CANP FACILiTY IN AN EXISTING RECREAT IO~~AL VEHICIE PARK o~ p~operty described 89 a rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2fi2~vi^9~a ~X`mumedeptht age of approximately 264 feet on th e east side of Walnut Street~ of epproxlmatclY 3f7rf~e~'describedease~3G3PSoutheWest StOeet~t Property presentlyrline of Ball Road~ and u th classified C-R (COMMERCIAL-RECREATIO N) ZONE. SubJect petitlon was continued from the meeting of April 24, 197g~ because of a tle vote. Jack White, Oeputy Ctty Attornr,y~ ~inted out thst the purpose of this hearing is to break a tie vote; that the public hesrin g was closed at the previous hearing; that thtre are ftve members prescnt for thls rr+~etir-g and the Planning Commission could either act on th~ matter without furCher informati~n' is~avai ablee ti~etpubliclhearingucould besreapened. present or, if Cc~nnntssioner Ne~bstdask~e~h~fhearinc; ~eandntherepwaseatrespons~eaf~omnone ladyalnathe ing ne~+ and different to ad t audience. CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE HERBST RE~PENL=O THE PUBLIC HEARiNG. 6otty Ra~coni, 1241 South Mlalnut Street~ ~lnaheim, indicated she dtsagreed wlth the statement made at the last rn~eti~g that there woutd not be much difference in the noise She felt people who created by a tent za~gro~~nd and a recreatlonal vehicle campground. are camping iro their tendsthaty eo~ledl~a~ecreational vehicles,manyntimeststaytingtheir absolutely necessary, P 5/8/78 ~~ -- ' ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 1978 78-349 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONA L USE PERMIT N0. 1826 (continued) vehicles beceuse of tho alr-conditiontng~ etc.. and she felt nolse croated at ntght by thoae people in the tent campground would be more than the nalse crea~ted by people In ~ecreatlonal vehicles. She Indlcatod she waa concerned about the intenckd use of the picnic area and the green area end what thelr hours of operation would bn. She tndlcated they would Alsa like to sae a spac(fic ~nd detailed elevation for the Walnut Street portlon and she was also concernod about the dog run. She i~dicated ~he felt the Commlaston was awa~e of the particular problems in this arca and that they were trying to preserve a ~esidential area~ and that in order to preserve It, they felt It would requlre considereble buffertng from this type ~f facility and did nat feel tt was the proper place for a tent cen~pyround. cvcn though t.here Is ~ need for it. Oonald Brow n~ 270 North Ca~non Driv~. Beverly ~Illls~ age~t~ indicated regarding the nolse that he dld not feel there would be any appreclablc diffcrence (n the noise level; that racreatlonal vehicles are confincd and people do stay outside; that this is a ftrst-class~ fAmily-orlentesJ recreationa) vehicle park and ther~ would be almost 30~ feet b~tween any of the campsitcs end the ne~ghhors. Concarning the Iniende~ use of the park area~ he stated thcv were simpiy trying to prov(dn open spaco; that therP is a demand slnce people ar~ closn together and there Is no public park and t,hey lika to provlde some place where peaple c~n throw frlsbees, picnic~ etc. He Indicated Chat maybe tl~e plans liad not ~eflected what they intend ta do and he cauld noc un~l~rstand why three Commisslc,ners had felt this developcrent with n~ structu~es would requlre an environmental impact report. He fclt the only reason would bo betause they did not understand what they were trying to accomplish. He patnted out they intend to operate the facility In accordance with the condltinns of the Planning Commission. Concerni~g the statement that they were presently using the faCiltty, he felt that needed to be brought (reto perspective~ especially concerning the doys. He indlcated that less than 1~$ of the people who use the park have dogs and as far as using the area presently as a place to waik the dogs, occasionally someone may take thely doy into the area, but they were not using the f~cility as indicated. TI~E PUBLI C HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairmen Pro Tempore Nerbst polnted out thc question had been asked concesning the hours of operation for the green area, end asked whethe~ or not this a~ea ia going to be 1 ighted. Mr. Brown indicated they have nut stipulated to any operating hours and that thcy do have minimel lightiny planned for safety and security. Chairm~n Pro Tempore 1lerbst asked Mr. B~own what operating hours he felt would be suitable. He indicated he thought a barbecue being held at 11:00 p.m. could be dlsturbing to Che neighbors. Mr. 6rown lndicated he felt the hours for the greenbelt area should be 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., but wou{d abide by whatevrr cond(tions the Cortmission feels are appropriate. Cortmissioner King ind(cated he felt tha petitione~ should stipulate to keeping all tents et least 191 feet away from the east property line~ and Mr. Br~wn stated he would stfpulate to that, in actordance with cha plans presented. Chairtnan Pro Tempore Herbst was concerned about a sound-attenuation barrie~ and asked if the 8-foot high wall abutti;~g the property was intnnded for sound attenuation. y/8/18 ~ ~,. MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 1~78 74-350 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA710N AND CONDITIONAL USC PkRM~T N0. 18?.6 (co~ttnuod) Mr. Brewn potnced out that in lieu of Condition No. 5 of the Inte~departmental Committee ~ecommendations~ requtring a;•foot berm end b~foot high well. he had stlpulated ta provtding an 8-foat high wall with a solid-typ~: gate whtch will be used far emorgency access anly~ sub}ect to approval of the Fire Despartment. ChAirman Pro Tompore Nerbst pointed out he would like for M~. Bravn to stipulate that th~ dog run would nnt go bark Into the par~ erwa~ Gf 17S feet from the enst p~operty line. Mr. Brawn Indlcat~d they need to keep that ar~a open as an access r~Ac1, Chalrman Pro Tempore Nerbst I~~Jtcated hc would like to see the wall on Walnut Street go araund thQ cornor to block th~e view from Walnut Street or. tl~c nort.h pr~perty Ilne. Mr. Esrawn pointed out there is naw constructfon on the adJocent praperty to the nor~h and t{~at a black wall is shown on the plans~ and that they arc now unJer constructlon. Annika 5entalahtl. Assistant Dlrectar for Zoning, pointed out that if the conditlonal use permlt is approved with the condttion thot ttis wall t~ pravided~ it is the petlti~ner's responsibllity to see that ii is providSdUSe~thL~icnltlienpetltio~eremustrconstruct the completed before th~. subJ4ct ~roperty , wall. Commisstnne~ Darnes asked if the area o~tside thr_ fence would be totally landscaped, and Mr. Brown replied th~t it would. Chairmen Pro Tampore fierbst ssked what is planned f~r tlie landscapinq (n fron~ of the wal l~ and Mr. Brarn repl (ed they ;~lan to fiave yround caver. Chairman Pro 1'errpore flerbst indicated ha was thi~~kfng of the hc^~evwners across th~ street and felt that trees should be planced un the outside of the wall~ and Mr. Brown tndicated they would be willing to plant tr~es. Commi~sioner Barnes recommended thac trees be planted on 10-foot centers~ which wauld accomplish the screenin9 ta the homeowners and might even help with the sound attenuation. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst recortmended that the precise landscaping plans be brought back to the Pla~niny Cortmis~ton for approval. Commtssioner Linn indtcated hc would Ilke to see a stipulation that the green area would be limited to d~ylight liours only since this would be right across from where pe~ple Itve and the lighting shc~uld be safety liyhting only~ wlth no floodlights. Chafrman P ro Tempore Herbst recommended that the lighting be kept belaw the fence line and be fncluded in the lendsc~ping plans to be approved by the Planning Commisston. Com~nissioner Barnes indtcated she was worried about tt~e people acrass the street wanting to go to bed and the people in the tent area being out at all hours of the nlght. Mr, Brown indlcated tt~ay would stipulate to operating hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and asked if a mddificetion couid be conYid~red under ~eports and recoimiendations. He askad for clarification on tt~~ pr~cedures~ whether or not there was a differenca between the petitioner's stipulating to the ~condition or the Pla~ni~g Commission makiny lt a condition of approval. siai~a ~.~° ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ NAY ~~ 1978 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CO~IDITIONAL USE PCRMIT N0. 182F, (continued) 18-351 Cholrm~en Pro Temporc Flcrbst polntcd out the petltloner would ~iave the rlc~ht to app~al any eo;~ditiona to the City Co~ncil. Mr. Braw~ ind(cated they are a 24-hour facllity t~nd were concarned about having to police thnt area. Commisslo~Gr Barnes pointed ~ut this is a recreational vehicle par4: acros~ from a residenttal nelyhborl~c~od~ and both partles have to give. Cnmmissionor Uarnes asked Mr. 8rc~wn to clarify thc dratndge stipulotlon anct whether or not tl~e drainaye wc~uld bc undcrUround. Mr. Elrawn IndicAted they havc a dralnaye gutter takiny Che surfclCC runoff to Wa~lnut Street; that It is undergraund on tlieir property and runs into the str~et, and Jay T'itus~ Officc Engineer, polnted r~ut that is pcrmiss(blc if (t does not flc~od the street and there a re no c1 ra I ~age p rob 1 en~s i n the ~ t ree t. Commissloner Linn Indfcatrd he wes sClll concern~d abouC the d~gs; tliat it is not very pleasant to live edJacent to an area used for a cloy run~ and he felt people hAVe a right to be pratocted anJ wbnt~d to kncnv wliat wes golny to be don~ about thc doq run. He fndicated he was concerned e5out the health ar,d safety of the people in the area. Jay Titus pointr.~ out ~ny healtl~ pr~bl ~ms are c~ntrollcd by the County tlealth Department. Ct~airman Pro Tcmporc Nerbst pointed out it ~~ould be advantagrous to the petitioner to keep the area clean~ anci if it does becomc a health hazard, the conciition~l use permlt could be withdrawn at any time In tlie future. A~TION: Comm(ssioner Qarnes offered a mciticm~ seconded by Commissi~ner Devid and MQTIO~~ CAkRiED (Commtssioners Johnson and Toler beiny absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commtsslon has reviewed the proJect to expand an existing recreational vehiclc park by establishing a tenC camp fecility on a rect~nqularly-shaped parcel of land consisxi~g of approximatciy 2.2 acres having a frontAge of approxlmatPly 26~~ feet on the east sid~ of Walnut Street~ being ic~cated apN;oxirna[ely CGO feet south of the centerline ~f Ball Ftoad; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from thG requirement to prepAre an environmental impact report on tF~e basis th~t therc would be no s(gniftcant ind(vidual or cumulattve adversr_ environmentai irnpact ~ue to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim G~neral Plan designates the subject property fo~ comnercfal-recreation land uses cummensurete wlth the pruposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are invo!ved in the proposal; chat tt~e Initial Study submttted by the pett~toner indtca~es no slgntfica~t indi~fidual or cumulative adverse~ environmental impacts; and that the Negative Oeclarat(an substantiating the foregaing findings is on file fn tl~e City of Anahe(m Plenning Department. ~Chatrman Pro Tempore Herbst indicated he felt 2ti spaces added to this usage (s probably the lightest type of use that could be put Into this area and there wauld be no traffic added onto ~lalnut Street~ and he felt the use would be compatible with the area. Conwnisstoner 9arnes offered Resolutlon I~o. PC78-10o and moved for its passage and adoptton, that the Anaheim City Planning Con~mtssion does hereby grant Petitlon for Conditional Use Permit No. 1826~ aubject to the follaring stipulations by the petitianer: 1) th~~t ~n order to visually screen the use from Walnut Street and adJacent prop~rties, an 8-foot high, concrete biock wall fence shall be constructed along the wescerly side of the 5/8/78 MINUTES~ ANAHLIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY $. 1978 7~'a5? ~ NE.~,j,IVE pECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL IISE PEaMIT N0. 182fi (continued) prc~perty snd shall bn aligned witli the exiating black wall and landsca~ed ~A~then berm on th~.e adJacent proper~y to tl~e sautti(Ten~(sland) ~ and that said wall shal l be extended around the northwest corner of the property and graciuaily reduced in lieight to h feet and cc-ntlnu~c± at tl~et he(ght for the remaf ~J+cr of the north prop~rty 1 inc; 2) that a sol id a<:cess gate for emcrgencles only shall be providcd at thc nnrchwest corner of the p~operty; 3) that safety llghttnq fixtures shall be provtded 1~ the open lawn eree and t~hall b~ no hlgher than the 8-foat hlgf~ wall along walnut Street; 4) that trees shAll be planted r~n 10-fcwt cent~rs (n che setback area outside the 8-foot high well ~lang Walnut Street; 5) tliat a precise lendscaptng plan cansisting Af plent spectes. size and spacing. and inclu~iny ths safety lighting. shall be submitt~d ta and approved by the Planning Commission; ~) that thP I,ours of use for thc aperi lawn ar~f~ shal l bc l imt ted to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; J) th~t the dog run shall ba located no closer than 14C~ feet fram the west prope~ty line; and subject to InterJe~artrt-er-tal Cammittee ~ecommendations. On roll call, the f~,reyoing resolution was pr~ssed by the follvwing vote: AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ NERBST, KING~ LII~N NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NdNE ABSENT: COMMISSIOtIERS: JO~It~SOr~, TALAR Annika Santelahti indicated tfie precise landscape plans should st~a~+ the Ir~igation facilitles~ fenc(ng materials~ specific landscaping materlals, and size and s~-actng of plants and trees lo be plantea. Mrs. James Pe~kins tndicated she lives across the street from Tennisldnd ;:nd would like to knvw whether or not tents are being providcd by the petitioncr or if the campers would have their own tents. 5he felt that compers pitching their a~wn tents during the night would be noisy. Mr. Brown po(nted out they do have s~curiCy li~ghts which wlll be on all night durin9 the sumncr and that the recre.~~tionel vahicle pa~k is allowesd to opera~e all night~ and that thcy would Iike to be ab~e t4 servir.e those pc~opie in the tent facility 2~+ hours a day. IYEM N0. 10 PUBLIG NEARINf. OWN~R: LLOYU E. KLEIN~ 210 EIR NEGATIVE QECLARATIr,;V South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. CONUITIONAL USE PERM17+N0. 1831 AGENT: IPS~ A GENERAL PARTNERS'fIP. 10~~ North DE QU R.M~~ Main Street~ ~D~ Orange, CA 92667. Petitioner r~quests permission to ESTADLiSN COMMERCIAL USES AND A RES7AURANT IN A PRQFOSED INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WITH WAIYER OF MINIMJM NUM~ER OF PARK{NG SPACES on property ciescrtbed as an lr~egui~rly- shaped parcel of land consistiny of approximately 21 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue betuueen White Star Ave~nue and Armando Strset. having approximate front- ages of 1498 feet c~n the ~outh stde of La Patma Avenue, 1382 feet on the east st~~- of Whtte Star Avenue~ and SOQ feet on thc west slde of Armando Street. Property presen~ly classifled RS-A-43,OOp (RESIDEtITIAL/A~GRICULTURAL) ZQNE with a resolution of intent to the ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) Z4t1E. 7here was one person indicating th~ir presence in opposlLlon to subject request~ a~nd although the staff report to the Planning Commission datad Nay 8, 1978 was not read at 'rhe public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 5/$/78 .......<,.-......w.~.v~,w.M+a+iw.v"_ __ ' _, MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ MAV 8~ 1978 EIR NECATIVE UECLARATtON AND CONQITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 1$31 (continucd) 73-353 Jay Tsshiro, Assoclate Planner~ ;~ointed aut a c:orrectlon to the staff report,, lndtcAting the waiver for Parc~t 2 r~egarding minlmuM nuni~a~ of p~rking spaces should reod 203 spaces ~enulred rathe~ than 279 s-~acas ~ec~uired. Dick L-roadd+ey~ ~epresenting IP`~~ ac~ent, indicated they agreed wi th the steff re~ort since tho number of parking spaces has been corrected. lin indicated the strucrure they propose will be of concrete~ ttlt-up ~~anr.ls with a sandblasted finish. wlth itb~eral use of rouqh- sawn redwood a~d cedar for accont~ a~d that since the topography is very flat, they would prop~se extensive meanderiny landscaping to give tlie proJe.t topographic rellef, Na indicated they are prnposing individual parcels for financing and lo~~g-term leasing ~,urpos~s~ but they did not anticipate selling any parcels; that they w~uld ~levelop this parc:e) resentstthe~reasons ,for thenpar4.in ~•variance'requcst oncPac'cel~?.bcrepresenting a wh i ch p i Ob reduc t i u~- . He indicated a team uf cansultants was presGnt to answer ~ny questions. i~cluding Dell laeReve~e~ Archttcct, Cal woolsey, Civil Engineer~ and a~y Olrn cheld~ Coldwell Danker. Car~ic Coykcndall~ 1;33z East La Pslma Avcnue~ indicated they have livcd in the are~ for a lonq time and felt the proJect would be fl~c, except they were concerned about the lack of parking spaces; that there has bean a parkiny prahlem ttiere for a She9felt~thehsshould,be block thei~ driveways~ etc, because there is nat enough park(ng. Y n~wired to furnish park(ng spaces necessary. She felt e~enerally there is a way to make ~.er~•e parking spacas by chanying th~ plans. She Indicated she did nat unde~stand about a ~-~. road cominy into Nhite Star~ but after revlewlny the plans~ d(d not thlnk It would be ~, prob lem. Chalrman Pro Tempore Nerbst pointed uut the new road would bisect thcir property to provlde circulation. Ray Olmscheid indicated he d(~' not ~now hcw+ to answer Ms. Coyk+cndall's problem because as far as parking is concerned~ tl~ey are over code requirement in the number of parking spaces by approxlmaCely Ei2 spaces~ and that the heaviest conGentration of parking would be on the other side r~f the proJect~ which is a multi-tenant proJect. He indicated he dld not feel that at ths highest peak of business they would ever usc all the parking spaces~ but that he could not guarantee that. THE PUBLIC HEARlNG WAS CLOS£D. Cummtssioner Linn asked for clar(ficatio~ of how many parking spaces are being required for the waiver~ a~d Dlck Broadway explained on the entire park they are 32 spaces over what ls required, but that on Parcel 2 they are 10$ short uf the requtrement, which Is 21 spaces; and that on Parcel 3 they have planned in excess of 37~ because of the various uses proposed~ but that the en;ire proJr.ct would have an excess of $2 spaces. Chairman Rro Tempo~e Herbst pointed out what cnncerns him is esta511shing a full-line comrt~rcial activity in an tndustrial zo~e; that this is the gatewey to the City of Anaheim's industrtal area and in his mind thls wauid have a tendency eo de3troy the industriai zone. !ie pointed out thcrc are commcrcial zones and i~dustrial zones, and in thts Pa~~~wi~~~haveatahdrivesintoYthetindustrialnerea.tand~heididtnot feel,thistindustrial custome zone ts the best place fo~ this use. 5/8/78 {~ MI~~UTES, ANAHLIM CITY PIAMNIMGi COMMISSION~ MAY 8, 1~78 78-35~~ EIR f~LGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAI USf. PERMIT ~10. 1831 (continued) Mr. Olmscl~nld pc~lnted out thl~a Is a cummerclal ua~~ but tt (s unique because It Is all furniture-o~iented. tle pointcd out those types af huslnesses llkc to be toqeGher beceuse It Is qene~•elly the new home t~uyers and they like to yo (~to a speclal aree to do the bulk of their shopping~ end {t is p~obably a one-ttme deal; end tiiat there ts +~ Ilmited number of people who ar~ buying furnir.ure~ unlike a clothing storc~ ctc. Chairman Pro Terrpore ~+erbst poineed uut it is sti11 a corm~ercla) acttvtty in an Industrla) zane~ and that alony La Palma ,4venue tl~ere is still e lot Uf ocraage Inte~ded for (~dust~ial zoning and (f this ~cortmerc(AI use Is allowed~ commercla) would conttnue rlght on duwn La Palme. M~. Olmschatd pofntud out the entire bulldiny is not dediGated to shc~wroom or dlspl~y a~ea~ but about one-tt~i~d of ttie I~ui lding wt I I show the wares of the bus(ness and the rest would bc utilized for warehouslnq~ for assembly~ and some would be for manufacturing. Commissionr_r Linn referre~ to t:h~ future Le Mesa Avenue and asked when La Mcsa Avenue is planned. Jay TEtus~ Office Enyineer~ polnted out it would be constructed as the property (s developed. Ne polnted out th(s property only touches La Mesa for a short segment; that tl~e~c Is a ~onditton that they dedicate and post bc-nd fnr development of that port(on of La Meaa that fronts this pr~perty. Commissioner Linn asked tf Armando Street is plonncd to be extended to intcrsect with La Mesa, Mr. Broaciway pointed out thc proposed street on the plens on the wall. Commissioner Barnes indicated she felt the same way as Chairman Pro 7emporc t~~rbst about the industrtal area~ but complimented tf~e petttionar b~ceuse in thts case he has been so truthful that I[ is hard to deny the request. She pointed out the Pianning Commission has been t rytng very hard to retain that area for industrlal development and that it does attract the type of uses as proposed~ and that she would be epposed to most conxnercta) devetaprtwnt because she did not think iC wauld service the users (n the industrlal area. She indicated she felt the restaurant is a guod idea since it does service the industrial area and she felt one was needed in that area~ but as far as the other uses proposad~ she would 'nave to oppose them. She indlcated she would like to sec Anahcim's industrial areas as nice as Irvine's industrial area end that the Chamber of Commerce feels the same way. Mr. Olmscheld pointed out one of the problems with the irvine industrial area ts they do nat have enough restaurants to service the industrial users. He tndlcated they were concer~ed about the acreaga faciny the freeway {n this proJect and that they had started -out with this development es a sxraight industrial dev~lopment, but since they are a larg~ organization and had started talking about the varlous uses and had aaksd ather brokers if they had tenants whn would be interested I~ this type af acreage witli freeway frontagc~ people in the furniture bustness tiad responded as being Interested. He pQlnted out that w(th the number of ncw homes being developed in the area. the~e are not enaugh furnitu~a manufacturers and distributors to take care of thase needs. He stated they do need son~ Identity anci they need warehousing for the large pleces af furniture~ such as sofas and beds; that they have a showroom and sell right off the shew~aom and like to save the purchese~ money~ if possible; that tt is a combination of conmercial use and warehousing; and that they look for some free~eay identity so people driving by cen identify wich th~em. 5/8/78 ~ h MINUTES~ ANAHCIM CITY PLAN~iING COMMISSION. MAY 0~ 197fi 78-35~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION At~O CONDITlONAL I.'E PERMIT N0. 1831 (canttnued) Commisstonor Linn indicated h~ agreed with Commissioners derne~ end Ilerbst~ that there ore so few acras left In An~helm far industria devcinpment end t~lmos~ every proposal that has come In has boen for a combination of warefousing and sales in an industrlal arCa snd he fcslt the Zommisslon has to start saytng no et some polnt; thet this devtlapnront Is beautiful~ but this la not the plACe for (}. Commissioner David pointed out staff has a.at~d this are~ fs in thc Alphs redewelapment area~ enJ Jack Whlte~ Deputy City Attarre~~~ ;~eplied it should not have any benring on tlie deciston mad~ by ihe Planning Cortmisslon. that it is for informatton only and should not he used as a bASls for thetr decislo~, Commissloner David reminded the Commisslon they lika to mix the ~ses when developing restdentlal ereas with apartments~ single-family~ etc. Ne (ndlcattd he thought thls concept of all furniture-oriented uses w~s very lnteresting and perhaps the Planning Commission should consider it; that he was not so sure it ls all had and maybe there should be a sprlnkitng of related type commerclal businesses in this whole area. Commlsstoner Linn indicated tl~e thiny brought to his mind was that the Kingsmen Orum .~nd Bugle C~rps were atlowed in an lndustrial arc<~. Ne referrcd to the complex at State Colleye and Ball Road which was supposed to be for industrial uses~ but there is so much selling gotny on there that it is a co mr~rcial development, and the manufacturing that was supposed co yo in ttiere iust is not there. lie indicate~ I~e felt that slnc~ there ts not much Industrial land left In Anaheim and 1lnaheim has enouc~h mix~d uses,such as State College and Ball Road, iie did not feel this use was right for chfs area. Ctialrman Pro Tempore Herbst pointed out the conflict traffic has to be considered when you mix industrtal with commercial In the same area; that they are not compatible; that you have khe bfg trucks coming in and out of the area and people wanting to get in for the commercial activities~ that is why thare are different zane,~ and ~his developer wants the best of both warlds. tle felt the industrial area would be downgraded by these ~..ommerclal activitles. He Indtcated the Commission has heard [his sartoe story of wl~olesala outlets before~ but they never work out that w~y; that if the cortxnercial establlshment does not proceed as it is I~itended, they will b~ coming back in a~d requesting a cha~ge and saying there is a cortmercial activity there already and they want another type of conmerclal activity. Ne pc~inted out that ance comr,~rcial activities are established along La Palma Avenu~~ then wil) continue r(yht on dawn La Palma~ anJ he is drastically opposed to that type of develo~+ment and felt this is not ths proper place for this type of development, and that the next person would say tf~e Commission has allowed this type activity here and he wants it also. Cortmissioner David indicated that what Chairman Pro Tempore Nerbst says makes sense. Ne polnted out traffic for an tndustria) activity is rather static~ that people go to work and they are there and manufacturing somethin~~ and tfiat maybe these small types of :ommercla) uses would permit stationary fo~ces which woutd take away from heavier traffic. He pointed out the signal assessment fee had not been included in this request either. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoniny~ pointed out since the buildings are not constructed, wf~en the builder comes fn for a bullding permit he would be charged the fee. Mr. Olrt~scheid indicated he appreciated eve rythiny the Commission has been saying and could not disag~ee. He pointed out when they had first designed xhe pro~ecL, they had the bu(ldings turned around with the rear of the industrial buildtngs to the freeway~ showing the open truck cioors~ storage areas~ etc., but that by turning the buildings around and 5/8/78 ~ ~ 4• MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMlSSION~ MAY $, 1978 EIR NEGATIVE OECLAfWTiON AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.~ (continuod) •-.----- with heavy landscapinq as proposed~ It would enhence that pert of a ve~y attractivo proJect~ but that If they could not use lt for uses along the f raeway and had to redes I gn 1 c. ~ they woul d lia~~e to aruund again. ~ 78- 356 the freeway and would be thc furni ture-rclated turn thc bulldings Chairman Pro 1'empore Nerbst stated he could not agree wltli that argument since the tndustrlal inttyrity is Involved and from his use of tnf OntAaP andithat~therekeows thura are freeway-orlented Industrlal bui idtngs wi th fre~rray 9- industrlal use~s who would Iikc to have that because they like that type of exposure for advertl si ng the) ~ prouuct. Cummisstoncr KI~y ~lmsch~ehd repllednhe didhn t~wlshbto d~opnboth thepcohmme~clal~uses`la) p~ojects, rnd M . Commissloner Barnes Indieated sf~e was familiar with this typc of business since shC hAd lived ecross the street fr~m one and she kncw tnc kind of traffic thac Is yenerated~ that it is a regular commarcial establishment with peo~le c~ming to buy furniture~ supposedly at discaunt prices~ but they are just like any oche~ furniture store~ and the fact they are rt-anufacturing In tl~e bulldiny does not mean a chtng. it ls a commercial furnlture store t~nd the freerray exposure is ve ry deslrahle f~r a commerclal establishment. She Indic~ted she wished the pe~itioner could chanye her mind~ but she could not vote for any commercial establishment in tl~is ~rea that does not serve thc in~iustrial needs of that area; that the Planning Canml:~sion has a duty to the citlzens of Anehelm to look ahead a few years. She stated she cou'd votc far the restaurant~ but that the rest of the uses would be a d~triment to anyone +vho wants industrlal prnpcrty there. DiGk Bros;~ ay polnted out he realized attit~ides chanye an~f la~d use patterns change, but thet in rnsearching this particular property he has found that in early 1970 there was an approved use f~r a motion picts~re related facllity and w cktail lou~ge~ ar-d there was anather use approved for an automoblle dealership; that whcn they had gone Into this proJect with thac background, they felt they were close to achleving the typ~ of use designated for this property and he wats a little confused. Chair'man Pro Tempore Herbst polnted out hc did not thi~k the Commisslon had approved those uses. that he, at least, clid not vote for them, but the Council approved them and the petittoner could appeal thp decision of che Planning Commission to the City Council. Ne indlcated Anahelm is running out of (ndust~ial ground to servlce the lndustrial users and h~ felt tt was the Planning Commission's intentton to protect the ground that is left, and this use wil) further break dawn the industria) area and in his mind it does not fit what is planned e°e established and oCherapeopleawauld expectacommercial uscs tosbe~approvedt precedents fo~ tNem. Chalnnan Pro Tempore Nerbst asked Mr. aroadway if he would like e continuance or a vote~ and Mr. Broadway repiled he wished a vote. ACT~pN; Cortimissioner David offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Batnes and MOTlON CARRIED (CommiSSioner Herbst voting no and Commissione~s Johnson and Tolar being absent), that the Anahetm City Planniny Commisslon has reviewed the propr~sal to permit commercial uses and a restaurant in a proposed ind~strial complex with waiver of min[mum ~umber of parking spaCes on an irregularly-shaped parcel of tand consisting of approximately 21 acres loGated on the south side of La Palma Avenue betwren White Star Avenue a~d Armando Street~ having approximate frontages of 1498 feet on the south side af La Palma Avenue~ 5/8/78 y~ r e~ MINUTES, AWIFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 1978 7a-351 EI~ NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1831 (continuod) 1382 feet on thA east sides of White Star Avenue~ and y00 feet on the west stde of Arm~ndo Street; and does hereby appravc the Negative Declaratlon from thc r~qulrement to prepare en envl~onmente) impact report on the basis that there would be no aignlficant individual or cumuletivn •dverse environmenkal impact due to the approval of this Negetive Declaratlon since the Anaheim General Plen deslgnales the subJect pro~er~y for general indu~ttrlal land uses commensuretc wlth thn proposel; that na sensitfve environmental Impacts eres involved In tho proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petltloner i~dicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse envlronmental impacts; and that the Negatlve Declaration substantlating thc fore,yoing findings is on file in [he C(ty of Anahelm Planning Department. Commisstcner Davfd offered Resolution No. PC7f3-101 and moved for its passaqe and adoptlon~ ttiat the Anahetm ntthePbasisnthatmthesuse wouldhbeean Intruslontofncomme~cIalcattivities Permlt No. 1f~31 0 and treffic into the tndustrial ~rea. On roll call~ the foregoing r~solution was passed by the foliawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. DAVID, NERUST, KING~ LINN NOES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: NONE ABSEWT: COMMISSIONERS: JOIIN50~I~ TOLAR Commtssioner David offered a moti~n~ seconded by Commissloncr Eiarne~ and MOTION CARRIED (Commissior.ec•s Johnsan and Tolar being absent). that the Anahetm Ctty Planntng Canmtsslon does hereby deny the request for waiver of rnlnimum number of parking spaces on the basis that It ls no longer necessa ry sinc~ the conditio~at use permit has baen denied on the basis it would be an intrusion of the industrlal area. 17EM N0. 11 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: SIOUX HONEY ASSOCIATION~ Anahcim CA 92805. R ME~GA VE DEGLARATiON 511 East Katella Avenue~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N~. 183[ Petitioner requests pe~mission to ESTABLISH A WAIVER aF CODE REQUIREMENTS LUNBER YARD WIT11 WAIVER OF (A) REQUIREMENT TNA7 - ALL LOTS ABUT A PUBLIC STRE~T~ (B) MINIMUM NUMBER OF TiaUCK PARKING SPACES. AND (C) MINPMUM SITE SCREENING on property desc~ibed as an irregularly-shaped parcei of land tonsisting of approximatel~~Vin earmaximumndept~roftege of approximately 715 feet on the cast ~ide of Claudina Way~ 9 approximately 39~ feet., being located approximately 470 feet north of the centerline af Katella Avenue~ and further described as 511 East Katella Avenue. Property presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITE:D) 20NE. There was no one indtcating their presence in opposition to sub}ect request~ and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 8, 1978 was n~t read at the public h~artng~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. F~ederick Krueger~ representing Sloux Noney Assoclation~ awner. indicated the ataff report (ndicates Lhis is an existing wholesale lumber yard, but it Is no: whQlesale. this is their own lumber and is not sold. H~ indicated the staff repart alsa indicates there are about 46 trucks per week, but that these trucks are their awn trucks and they are never stored or parked at this location. TNE PUBLIC ~1~ARING WAS CLOSED. 5/8/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ MAY 8~ 1978 78"3y8 EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AHO CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 18 2(contlnued) ___._.___.. Chalrman Pro Tempore Nerbst asked how the lumber comes into the lumber yard~ and Mr. Kru~ger ~eplled that It cor~~es in by ratl on boxcars. Chairman Pro Temp~rc Nerbst asked tho length of tirt~ the lumber stays at the yard~ Indicatlny hc felt zhere would be a prAblem wfth storage At somc point. Oick Narrls, representing Taylor l.umber Company, awned by Westland Constructlon Ccxnpany~ Anaheim, Indlcated he Ilves at 1031 Eest Rcseda Streat In Mahelm. Ne stated tho lun-ber is delive~~ed on trucks or brought tn by rail from the docks and ts never stored for rtare than two weeks; that ihey are changing thelr whole operetlon; that they used to keep a full Invento ry of lumber thero, but now thsy keep thr. lumber at thelr othcr lumbcr yard and bring It in to this area to be cut. Commissloner King clarified this w~uld be a continuous operation and there would be lumber on the premises at al) times~ and asked if thA Flre Department requirements had been satisfled. Mr. Harrls explafned he had satlsfied the Flre Department requirements. Fle indlcated the Fire Oepartment had asked that all lumber be movtd inside the fence by a certaln date, and this had been done. Chat~man Pro Tertpore lierbst explalned that any outdoor storage in the Indust~ial zone Is required to be scrcened. Mr. Harrts explalnad there arc tall buildings in ttie frunt and on the west~ with S(oux Honey Associatlon on the north and the railroad cars to the east~ and thet f~om Katella you could not see anythiny except In the easement area; that in case there w~re no railroad cars tn the east~ then you could see the site from the e~st. but there are almost always rallraad cars there. Commlssioner David asked if thls lumber was an averflow from the IJalt Taylor LumSer Company yard. and Mr. Harris explalned they had beer~ at this location for four years. Commisstoner King ssked the purposa of the traflers on the property, and Mr. Ha~ri~ replied they did not have trailers, but there are two temporary bufldings. He indicated there Is a large trailer they have been storing on the parking lot of Pler 1. Chairman Pro 7empore licrbst asked if permlts had been obtained in order to have tempora ry trailers for offices~ and Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained t'~P trailer Is permissible only while a building is being constructed. Commissioner King indlcated he had seen a trailer on the snutheast corner of the lumber yard~ and Mr. Harrts explained those are not trallers but t~mporary buildings. He indicated they would be willing co move them if they are a problem. Annika Santalahti indicated staff would take a look at the situation. Chairman Pro Tempora Herbst pointed out th~ Ganahl Lumber yard and the screening they use for Che stacks of lumber and tndicated he felt this was the problem here; that the Cocnmission does not have any obJectiAns to storing the lumber. but it should be done In accordance wi th Ci ty codes . 5/8/78 .,.r,~.,....~,......~w...~ ..~ ~. ~~, ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 8~ 1g7$ 78-3S9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONDITIONAt_ USE PERMIT Nn._ 18~2 (continued) Commissloner Davld asked if the trsffic sigr~al as~es~ment fee would epply In this situ~tion~ •nd An~ika Sa~talahtl replled that there Is no building e~raa botna discuased here~ and typlcally It is not requirad for outdoor storage. Chairman P~o Tcmpore Herbst aaked for further clartflcatlo~ regerding the walver for minimum numbar of truck parking spaces~ with Mr. Krueger replying there Are no trucks parked on the premises. Jay Tashiro~ Assnciate Planner~ pointed ouc stafF had lhought trucks wuuld bc stared at thts location, but that one I~adt~c~ sp~cP on-site would still be requtred. Mr. Harris indlcated they would be willtny to provide one parking spece for tr ucks. Chetrman Pro Tempore Ilerbst asked for clartflcation reyardiny minimum sit~+ scr~ening. Commissionar King axplained thc ataff report ts referring to the east sfde of the property; that you cannot see the lu~er yard from tha street becouse It ts hiddcn by tall bulld(ngs end raliraad cars~ and that the nortt~~ south and west property lines are fenced ~nd slatted and a porclon of the fence is 8 feet tall. Jay Tashiro pointed out the photoyraphs Indtcate thoy are stacking lumber high ~r than the 6-foot fence. Mr. Harris indtceted the ideal situatton would ba Ce be able to stack the lumbe ~ 8 to 1Q feet hi9h~ keeping in mind that they have screening from thc bulldings on the south , west •nd north. Commlssloner Ba~nes Indicated the petittoner is saytnc~ the buildings screen th~ site entirely, sa ho Is tndicati c~ he sees na reason for any additional screening. Mr. Narrls explalned~ to avoid confusion, that the south fence is slatted~ but the eaat and north fenccs are not slatted. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, secnnded by Co~nlssiener David an d MOTION t~ED (Conwnisstoners Johnsan and Tolar being absent), that tlie Anaheim Ctty Planntng Commtssion has reviewed the proposel to permit a lumber ye~d with watvers of r~qulrement that al) lots abut a public street, min(mum number of truck park(ng spaces, a~ d m(nimum site s creening on an Irregularly-shaped parcei of land consisting of approxims ~ely 6.0 Acres havtng a frontagc of approximately 715 feet on the east side of Claudin s Way~ being located approxin~tely 470 feet no~th of the centerline of Katella Avenue; and does hereby approve the Ntg~tive Declaratlon from the req ulrement to prepare an envtronme n tal impact report on the basis that there would be no signific~ant indivldual or cumulative adverse environmenta) Impact due to f' approvai of this t~egative Oeclaration since CF~e Anahelm Genera) Plan designates the s~bject property for general industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensttive environme~tal impacts are involved (n th ~ proposal; that the Initial Stu~y submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant in dividu~) or ctimulat~ve adverse environmental imp~cts; and that the Negative Declaration substanttattng the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning pepartment. Conxnissioner King offered Resoiution No. PC7$-102 and moved for its passage a~ d adoptlo~~ that the Anahei~ City Planning Coumisston does hereby grant Petitlon for Condi ttonal Use Pa~mtt No. 1332. in part~ subJect to Inter.Separtmental Commfttee recomnrndatio~s. 5/8/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANAfIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 19~6 78-3G0 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTlON AND COWDITIONAL USE PERMIY N0. 1832 (co~ti~ued) On roll c~ll~ the foragoing resolutlon was passed by tl~e foliowing voto: AYE~: COM111SSIONERSt BARNES~ OAVID. I~ERBST~ KING~ LINN N0~5: COMMI55IONERS: NONF. ADSENTs COMMISSION~RSt JOHNSON. TOIAR Commissloner Kin~ offerad a nwtlon~ seeonded by Commissianer David and MOTION CARRIEp (Commissloners Johnson end Tolar being abse~t)~ that the request for waive~ of code requ) rament that all lots ebut a publ i e straet bo granted on the bas is thar. en easemenC Is open ta the publ i c and servas thc pu~pose of a publlc street and has b~en traveled for years; that waive~ (b) is hereby denied an the basis that the petltianer has stipulated to provide o~e parking space for a truck as requ~rcd; that wetver (c) i s liereby yranted on the basts tl~at praparty is aiready screaned on all sides exr,ept the eest by tall bui' ~nqs and railroad cars . ITEM N0. 12 DEVEIOPER: MEO INVCSTMENTS Ar2R. 3723 Birch Str~et~ EI R NF.GATIVE DCCLARATION d23~ Newport Boach. ca 926t,~ _ ENGINf.ER: DONALD E. ~~ q N0. 10j~7 fTEVENS~ INC~. 1828 Fullcrton Avenue~ Costa Mesa~ -""--' CA 92627. SubJect prope~ty is proposed far a two~ lot subdivision as follc~s: Portlon A- A reetannularly-shaped parcel af l~nd cor,~tsting uf app~oximately 1.3 ac~e having a frontage of appraximatcly 224 fect on the esst sidP of Euc 11d Street~ !-~aving a maximum depth of approximately 250 fe~t, and be(ng located epproxlm~tely 258 fe~t south of the centerllne of Romn~ya Drive - One CL (COMMkRC1AL~ LlMITED) lot; and Portion B- An i ~regula~ly-shaped peree) of land consisttng of approximately 3. 1 Acres having a fronta9~ of approximat~ly 28 feet on tl~e east side of Eucl id Street and heving a maxlmum depth of approximately 7y1 feet ~ One-I~t~ 30~unit~ RM-400~ condominium subdlvision. There wes no one indicating their presence ln opposlt(on to subject request, and although the staff report to the Planning Cortmission dated May 8~ 1978 w~s not read at the public hea~ing~ lt is reforred to and made a part of the minutes. Nerb Redding, ~epresenting MEf~ Investments, indicated there was a questlon coneerning tht private street ~equlrement In the st,aff repart and poi~ted out they ar~ planning a 30-unit condaninium s~divislon which is yrouped around a perlpherel drive ap~on street. Donald Stevens. C(v(I Engine~r, pointeJ out the project will have a per(pheral driv~way to service each ui~i t varyi ng in wl dth f rom 2~ to 30 feet and that ehe fronts of the garages are on the edge of thls drive apron, and that the Engineertng Deparkment Is requt ~ing standara curb a~+d gutter section of eraw~ streets which would plae~ the curb at the front of the garag~s and would create a 6-foat jump into the garages; that when they had first underteken the project, they asked for an example of a tentatlve resap of thls type which met with Planning Commission approval and were given a copoved wi[fitthe.sameoe~nditionsh a streat depicted, and he would like to have this tract app Jay Titus, Offiee Englneer~ puinCed out that he had a copy of the conditions app~oved for 7ract No. 10102 and that Condition No. 9 states~ "That all private streets sf~atl be developed in aecordance with City of Anaheim standards for prlvat~ st~eets~" and that he alsa had a copy of the appruved grading plan. Ne point~d out that on occasi~n this type of street had bcen approved wi th th~ usc of rol led gutters in fror~t of the garag~es. 5/8/78 ~ ~ ,I MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 1~f18 18~3~~ EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10387 (conttnued) _..,------------ •- - Chairman Pro Tempare Herbst asked if thls proJect har~ been approved aub,Ject to revarsa) of the •gross to the proJect from Euc lld Street. ~ay Tashlra, Assoclata Planner~ po Znted ~ut thls w~s arlglnelly approved unde~ the reclasslficetlon and thet tha driv~way location was to be changed from the r,~~th to the south propnrty line. Jay Titua indicated tf~e private st reets were dlscuased ac the public hearing for thr.. reclassificat(on and a condition was included that they ba developed in accordanco with City standards. Chelrmsn Pro Tnmp~rc Nerbst indicated he would not be oppc>sed to approvtnq this tentativa tr~ct map wt th the prl vste streets to be developed In acco~dunce wi th the C i ty Eng(neer's approv.'. Jack Wf t te~ Deputy Ci ty Attorney , po i nted out the condi t i~n had baen i ncl uded In the Intera~spa~tmantal Committee recomRSCndations that the streecs wauld tia constructed In accord+ince wOth Clty of ~lnaheim standards f~r prlvate streets~ and that he understood rhis wea th~e Clty Engin~er's recommendation. I t was noted the Neget I ve Dec 1 ara r lon has al ready boen approved under Recl as s 1 fl cat 1 an No. 7~-78-47 end V~riance No. 2995. ACTION: Commissioner L(nn offered a rt~tion~ seconded by Commisstoner Devld an~ MnTION C RR ED (Commissianers Johnson and T91a~ bcing ebsent), th the Anahelm Ci ty Planning Commis~lon does hereby find that Lhe proposed zubdivislor- tognther with its design and improvement, Is consistent w(th the City of Anaheim General Pla~~ pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 and does, the~refore. approve Tentetlve Map of Tract No. 10387 for a two-lot subdivision. cons(sting of o~e CL (Comrtr.rclal, Limited) Iot (Po~ticx~ A), and a one-lot~ 30-unit. RM-4000 (Residee~tial, Muitiple-Family) condominium subdivislon (Portlon B), subJect to the following cond Zttons: 1. That should this subdivT~lon be developed as more than o,-~e subdivis ton~ each subdivision thereof shal l be subm itted in tentativn form for approval . 2. That all lots wlthin this tract shall be serv~d by underground utl l ltles. ;. That a flnal kract -r+.:o of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the Ci ty Councl l and then be reco rded ~n the offlce of the Orange County Reeorder. 4. That the covenents~ cond trions~ and restrlctlo~s shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Oft'i~e prior to C1ty Councii approval ~f the final tract map and~ further, that the approved cove~ants~ eonditlons~ and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently wi th the fi nal tract rt~ap. 5. That street nemes shall be epproved by the City Pl~nning Qepartment prlor to approval of a finat tract map. 6. That dralnage of subJec~ property shall be dlsposed of i~ a manner sAtisfactory to the Gity Engincer. 7. That th~ awner(s) of sub ject property shall pay to the Clty af Anahe(m the appropria"e park and recreation i n-lleu fees as determined to be! approprtate by the City Co~ancil, said fees to be pald at the tlase the building permtt is issued. 8. That al l private st~eets sh~l 1 be developed in accordance wi th the City of Anaheim's standards for private s treets. 9. If permanent strcet nam~ signs have not been installed, temporary strcet name slgns shall be instal led prinr to any occupancy. 5/8/78 ; ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiq~~~ MAY 8~ 1978 7~-36z EIR NEGATIV6 DECIl1RI1TION_ANO TCNTATIVE MAP OF TRAGT N0~ 10~8_I (continuecf) 10. Th~t fire hydrants shall ba lnstallod ~nd charged, as requireci and determined to ba necnas~~ry by ti~e Chlef of tho Ft re Department~ prior to commoncement of structural freming. 11. That approprtate water assessment fess ~ as determined by the Ot rector of Pub 1 i c Utlllties~ shall be naid to the City of Anaheim nrlor to the Issuence of a bulldlne~ perml t. ITEM N0. 1 ~U9LIC NEARING. Cl~culatlon Element to the Genera) ~,I tJ AL IMPACT REPORT N0. 212 Pt~n (roaclway w(dths, locattons and Cicy policles). GENERAL PLAN AMEWDMENT N0. 1 Ron Smith, Associata Planner~ sxplalned this neartng ~s f~~ General Plan Amendrnent No. 14G~ which is the L'Ity's Circulation Element~ and a su~lement to Envlronmental Impact Repart No. 212 was presented; that E I R No. 21 z had been cons t dP rnd prevl ous ly and the supplemont Is responding to a State agency which I~ad some cancerns involving archeological and paleontological envir~nment. Ne pointed out the Planning :or~mission would slmply be making a recommendatlon to the CI ty Gounci 1 and they would be taking the flna) action on the EIR~ and that tf~is is en informat;ional item sa that the Pianning Gommisaion would have cnmplete documentation. Wlth reference to the General Plan emendment~ he pointed out that on Apr11 10~ 1978, P pub I I c heari ng was conducted and the P 1 anni ng Cornnl ss ion ha d rewmmended ap~ro~a{ af E x h 3 bi t A and the y had requested ti~e propcrty awners get to~ether and fesolve somc of the concerns with regarcJ to Welr Canyon Road. He expla ine d t he mcee t ing h a d t A k ~ n p~ a c e o n A p r i 1 26th wi th Comnissioners Herbst and ffarnes in attenda~ce and that A sumewhat general agreement hsd bee:n reached among the property owners~ an d E x h i b i t A r e f l e c t s t h a t egreement whi ch shows Wei r Canyon Road moved easterly along the ~+roprrty : ir+~~ uF th-a Bauer Ranch~ thc aaptist Church property, and the Wallace ~~rof~ertv. ~nd Serranc, Avc.,~~e being extended northerly over the ridgeline, thcn extended easterly to the prapos~d Coal Canyon Road. Ne presented a calor overlay mao showing We~r Can~on R~aJ l,elny ~~'~cated wlth the intersection of 5errano Avcnue and Weir Cany~n Road beEng cvenly divi~:ed befween the Eiaptist Church ,7rqpP!t•~ e~1J the Anaheim Ni I ls. Inc. property. Ne explaine:d there are some additlon..l con~erns by tFe pro~..rty owne~'s Heipa(nted ou[ethenCitr~C~gineer~fe~ltt~ sight dista~cr:s, speed distances, afld c~rading. these concerns could be w~rked out. Ne explalned rhe City Engineer 'ead met with the County of Orange and tr~ey had arrived at a new designatlo~~ which they would liked place on the General Plan. that being the "scenic expressway deslgnatl~n which would replace "expressway" on the lege~d of the map wtth a standard of a six-lane, divided (74 feet of half-w(dth) deslgnation. 7his allows for amenity t~eytment of open ypaces and trails whYch normal~Y ~aTadedbto theinew designation right-of-wa . end that the recomr~end Wei~ Can on Road be upg of scenic expressway. Chalrman Pro Tempore Ncrbsc pointed out the questlon he would have about the road width is wheth~r the County designated wi dth dnes meer, the road wi dth they are using now and matches up. Ron Smlth explained the County on Weir Canyon r~ad has a prlmary highway designation, which is 148 feet; that the City of Anaheim's primary highway deslynation ~s only 118 feet. and the new designation +ould be in concurrence wlth the County's designatlon. He 5/8/78 ~~ ~.. - MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 6~ 1978 78-363 EIR N0. 212 AND CENERAI PIAN AMENDMENT N0. 146 (contlnued) expteined th e City of Anahelm wanted to knep the scenlc deslgnatlon and telt a scenic expressway meoting the right~of-way width of the County woulci be most acceptable and that Just Weir Canyon Road would be inv~olvod. ,leck White. Deputy Clty Attorney~ ex~lained thls Is a General Plan whlch fs being dlscussed~ v~rhich Is e c~eneral location as to any possible chanqes that might be made to any of the proposed streets or expressways,and tl~at nothi~g the Planning Commlsslon does wll) precis~ly elign +~ny particular prapc~sed street; thst the general locatlon and designetion s are to bu made on the General Plan and the precise locations will be determinod at a la tar date; and that regardless of how they li~e up on the map, It is not to be cons t rued by anyone as a precl se al I gnment. Dick 5chmid , repre senting the Wallace Ranch, i~diceted the Wallace Ranch was the smallest mlddls prop~rty Involved. 11e indicated he unckrstaad the EngSn~ering Departme~nt had recelved cri terfa from the County regarding roadway widths and i~eersectlon cr(terla nnd asked that that in formatlon bo presanted to the Plenning Commission. Jay Titus, Offlce Engineer~ ~Qad the letter from the Environmental Management Agency~ H. G. Oaborne , Direct or~ to Thornton Pinrsali~ as foilaws: "NeR,bers af EMA staff have met wi th your s kaf f ar~d have assessed thc proposed a liqnmen ts for Wei~ Canyon Road between Santa Ana Canyon Rood and the Irvine Company property Ilne. Whtl~ recogntzln~~ that this (ssue is related to your ei ty's s phere of influence plan~ I feel that several points do neod to be s t rassed . 1_ The en~a1 alignment proposed is accr_ptable to the County. 2. At present. Serrano Avenue does not connect with Wetr Canyon on ou~ MPAH. lt may wel) do so following our amendment based on the Nor theast Orange County ClrGUlation Study. That amendment is sch eduled for finalization in Janua~y~ 1979• Howeve~~ at this time we have no comment regardirig the locatlon of that connectlon. 3. On the County MPAN~ Wel~ Canyan is designated as a"Scenic Primary Highway". l1s such, it wi 11 requf re ~ right of way of app roxirt-ately 150 feet. (A copy of the County's pla~ is att3ched.) 4. We have two other concarns. as well. It appears as if the Weir Carryoh prafile indtcates a design speed ~f 53 mph. Our re eoimiendat(on is e dcsign speed of 60 mph. Additionaily, the grade through the proposed Serrano Intersectlon is 10$. Our re eommendation is for a maximum grade of 4$ through any such In :ersection." Jay Titus pointe d out the City staff gen~rally concurs wfth the County's recommendatlons. Qick Sch~ntd referred to Exhibit A and indicated they were fi~st involved In the vertlcal alignmen t, as ye~l1 as the horizontal altgnment of Weir Canyo~ Road~ and they are pleased the City has s~ c;~tved criteria fran the County on which a vertical alignment couid be establis h~d. r~Q ind(cated a poinc thay were concerned about is the fact could be establist+~d that Serrano Avenue a~d ldeir Canyon road should have an intersection, but 5iai~8 ~ ;~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 6~ 1978 E I R N0. 212 ANU GENEfIAI PLAN M1ENpMENT N0. 146 (cont I nuesd) 78-;64 Exhibit A shaws an Intarscctlon that would be unaccaptable and th~ Cicy agrees. Ne stated if we follaw the deslgn criterla with the amount of verticel change in the g~ado of the street~ tt Is gaing to be approximately 30 t~ 5(1 feet for a~ch Intersectlon. and if the Intersection Is flaitened out to 4$~ as recwmnsnded~ there is going to be a yrade change of ubout 40 fect; that you would be coml~g up the htll and you are at cldylight and qo through the Intersection~ then you wauld have about 40 feet of ~dditional cut~ which wAUld be the helqht of a fourste-y bullding~and each fntersection would requlre cutting the upstream proporty an additlonal AO feet~ or filllnq the downstream pr~perty. He indicated that across the Wallace property they have ~~lready got u0 feel uf flll which wlll requlre about 300~0~0 yards of fill basnd on th~ narrow roadway wtdtl~~ or appr~xlmately 450,00~ yards ~f fll) ba~ed a~ the wider roadwsy width. He indtcated they were saying they dre adopting a General Plan location~ but that once the intersectlon of Serrano Avenue and W~ir Canyon Road is adopted~ it wlil have ~n effect c~n the elevations and the amount of environmental changes gofng tv be requlred if the roadway is bullt at that locatipn. He stated they were saying that untll it fs pos{c(ve [hat intersection cen be put at that location~ they were not surc the City should adnpt a change ta the GCneral Plan; they felt the environnxntal (mpact would be so yreat on tl~elr property th~t th~ Plannin9 Commisslon should not adopt the location of the intcrsectian as part c~f this approv~l. He indicated they were not sure whether or not thcy had legally been given the oroper notice about the change in thc roadway wldth since this was the first time they h~d been made aware tliis was gotny t~ be cansidered. Ron Smlth p~inted out this hearing was legally advcrtised as a Circulatlon Element to thc Ge~~eral Plan regardlny roadway widcr,s~ locations~ anJ Clty policles, and Jack Whlte, Deputy City At±orney~ puinted out the notlce wa3 adcquate. Dauglas airJ~ 105> North Main Strect~ Santa Ana~ rcpresentina the 8apctst Church property~ indicated if~ in fact~ Serrano Avenue intersection is ~ot feasible. he did not feel the a~rcemcnt reached at the property c~wners' meeting would stand up; that essentially ~~ryone agreed on the basis that the intersection was feasible and that their con~ern is, ~.IChout Serrano Avenue coming through tf~eir properiy~ they would stil) b~r landlocked and would have no interest tn having We(r Cenyon R^ad on their property. Ne indicaced the compromise showed a more yeneral aliynment~ with Weir Canyo~ Road ~unning on t`~e inside of their property Ilne for most of the distance and the intersection of Serrano Avenue on t~elr property line~ and i~ there would be no Serrano intersectfon~ they would not want We(r Canyon Road on their propcrty. Chairm~n Pro Tempore Nerbst po(nted out the General Pl~n has shown the Serrano Avenue ~ntersection for a long time and that the purpose of the General Plan is to get some ~ecision with regard to the intersection, and that it will be shown on the General Plan and it will be up ta the engineerir.g people to resolve the exact location. He stated there needs to be a r~ad paralleling Santa Ana Ca~,ru~~ Road someplace and it does clrculate through their p rope~'~•. 11e lndicated if thz Ctty staff~ Coun*.y staFf~ and the pr~perty owners' engineers d~~errnine the intersecti~m has to be moved~ it can be moved~ but that this hcaring Is to get some type of alignv~~t that satisfies most tondittons~ and if the Engineering Department says tt cannot be ~~:.~a~ then it would have to be changed. Mr. Bird indicated that, in effect, they wer~~ accepting the proposal as shawn today. Dr. Glo ry Ludwick, representing the Douglass Ranch/Baptist Church property, asked if Exhlbit A shaws the alignments on the prope~ty line, and if it does~ that is the agreement reached at the Aneheim Stadfum. 5/8/78 ~- ~• M) NUTES. AI~AHE iM G I TY Pt,ANNI f~G COMMI SS I ON~ MhY 8~ 197$ 78-;65 EIR N0, 212 ANQ GENERAL PLAN AMENQMENT N0. 146 (continued) Ron Smtth pointo~i out the text contained on the General Plen would deftne the bounda~y aec be i ng belween tl~c p ropc r ty 1 i nes . Dr. Ludwick indiceted th~t If the W~ir C~nyon aoad alignment could be changeJ ouc to Gypsum Canyon Ruad. it would be a nwre direct route to the east. She Indicated they felt It would slmplify all thelr problems tf the expros~way were moved snuth oF thesc propert(es and out to Gypsum Canyen aoad; that it would go thraugh less Inhablted arsas and lf th~re is to be e 10$ grade all the w~y~ in order to get 4~ for the intarsection~ there would have to bc n~re cl~an 1Qb In some placus ~nd with the erta unt of territo~y And amount of elavations requlred to mePt the requlred grades, the terrain ck~es not pe~mit this~ and ~uggestod moviny the expressway and putting In a smeller roed which c.ould rneet the co~dltlons required for the Intersectlon. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst askad staff If tf~is posslbllity had been looked Into. Ron Smlth polntcd out that a varlety of olternatives have been consldered~ tncluding thr~t altornative. Commissioner k3arnes indicated tt was her ~'erstanding the sccntc axpressway. as we p~oposed with a 180-foot width~ J4 fo~t half-wl~fth~ would have a 55 mph deslgn speed~ end Ron Sml th poi nted out the des t gn speed has not bQen determi ned, but the County ~s say i ng they would Iike the City Cauncll to concur with thr.ir recommend~tio~ of 60 meph, Commiss(oner linn lndicated concern about the amount of flll requir~ed if th~r alignment is moved and fClt thc environment v~ould be ch~nged if a lot of clirt is moved. Jay Titus pninted out that Enyineering has said it could be done. It would b~ Just a rnatter of h av much cut-and-f(Ii and it could probAbly be shtftad to reduce that, but che City has not made thoae studles. Comrnissloner Linn indicated he wes conc~rned because one developer could cnd up wi~h a little cut-and-fill and another devel~per could end up with a lot of cut-a~nd-fill. Ne tndtceted he wanted to know before adopting a rr~ve what thc c~t-and-fi I1 prob lems ~+auld be. Ne reallzed it is an cngineering problem~ but th~t the Planning Cortmission would be creating ths problem when they ado~t the location. He indicated lt was his understanding the property nwners had reached a general agreeme~t that the road woutd follow the property lines and that the property lines are not going to move. Ron Smitl~ pointed out it will be followt~g the property lines southerly of intersection of Weir Canyon Road and Serran4 Avenue, a~d pointed o~t the locattons on the map and prlor Co that polnt vchere the road would meander. Ile pointed out Mr. Schmid's concern was that he waniad ta gtve the least amount of cut-and-fill as possible on his property. Commissioner Li~n indicated Mr. Schwartze's interpretatlon of the Ge~eral Plan was quite different than the Attorney's, and Philllp Schwartze, Asslstant Dt~actor for Planning~ indicated he did not realize there was a difference. and .'ack IJhite explaired it was his ~ecoilection that Mr. Schwartze had given a figure as what he would consider to ba a signiflcant thange~ but that a ftgure Is not concrete. Mr. Schsnld pointed out the problem is~ we are starting at pc~l~t A and trying ~o get to point 8 mnd it would takc Lhe samr, amount of fill ~across the property~ but that as (t goes tawarfs the west~ would reduce the impact of fill on their property~ and if th~ Serrana Avenue intersectlon is built where It is designated rlght nc~w. wtth the grade differe~tial 5/8/78 ~ ~ MI~IUTES~ Ar~AHEIM CITY PLANNINC COPlMISSION~ ~V1Y 8~ 197A EIR N0. 212 ~ND GENFRAL PLAN AMENDMENT H0. 146 (contl~ued) ~ 78- 366 out to tho south. it wouid add an additiona) 40 feet of flll to the property, creating an 84-foot ban~. which would mako It very difficult to ltve with, but that It is physically possibl~. Ne Ind{catdd they do not want to obJeGt to the locatlon of Netr Canyon Road on the Gena~al Plan as it i~ shuvn~ but they dc~ object to the intars~ction of Serrsno Avenue a~d Wei- Canyon Ro~d; that lf It were placed at the top of the h(11 close~ to wher~ It was origir. ,ly p~oposed~ there wauld be no problem wlch sdjusting tha grade. Ne Indicated it w~uld be I~eneficial to tho Douylass Rancn but would present problems far Anahelm ~lills~ InG.~ b~t with the new County criterla far the roect width~ it would be~ diffltult to eccept the loc~+tic~n of the int~rsQCtlon. Chalrman Pro Tempc,re Nerbst nsl;ed about tlie access~ pointlnc~ out thAt with Wel~ Canyon Road desi~nateJ as an expressway it wuul~l have very limited Access pu(nts, Ne pointed out if they have to have ~n 80-foot gracic thay wculJ not ba ablc to usc that for an access a~yway; Lhat they wauld have lu proviJr. circul~ticn on thpir own ranch. Mr. Schmld repli~d Cl~at with a GO-foot fill it would still be poss~ble to y~t access at the northerly end of the pr~perty, but increasing the flll by A~ feet wauld creAte a great hardship. Paul Singcr, TraffiG Engineer~ point~ad out t~ie expressway design~~tlon will carry a llmlted access and he would visualize it would bc served by Monte Vlsta and Serrano Ave~ue~ whlch would empty onto the sxpressway and~ hopefully~ there woui~! be ~nly one access between avery one of these to lJei r Canyon Road. M~. Schmid polnted out the 10$ grade requtred for Mc~nte Vista would compound the problem. Ile indicated tlielr positton was that ti~ey were in favor of Lhc adoption ~f the Weir Canyon Raad altgn~r~nnt but +yould like the Serrano Avenue intersection moved further to the south. Phillp Bettencourt~ representing Anaheim Nills, Inc.~ pointed out Lhis raad alignment discugsion has been going on for six months and he thought a legitimate, sincere effort had been made to reach en agreement. and the way ht understands it now is that if Anaheim fiills~ Inc. will make whatever sacrifices are necesst~ry on thelr praperty,which already has 8-1/2 mi les af arterial hl~hways wl th lu mi les of planned arterla) highway~ CF1P.f1 thc other c~wners wi I1 be satisflPd. Ne pointed out the Serrano Avenue aligrx~-ent as shown Is one which they have spent mo~ths and manths of study~ almast excluslvely at their expense, and regardless of deslgn speed through the intcrsection represents the RASt realistic locatlon, whtch waa the consensus of tht other property vwners two weeks ago. He (ndicated (t seems an understanding of the agreement between the property owners will sttck together for about 72 hours. Ne indicated they had gottcn into this whole thing aecause they wanted to come up with a more realistic alignment for Serrano Avenue. Mr. E3ettencourt indicated thet Anaheim Ni l ls. Inc. supports the staff exhibi t. Chairnan Pro Tempo~e Nerbst indicated he agreed with Mr. Bettencourt; that at the meeting he had atte~ded they had gotten the consensus of oplnion af the property awne~s that this w~s going t~o be a general plan but tt was the exhibit most everyo~e was satisfied with, even though it did have some p~oblems; that as far as he was conc~rned~ he felt this was a Genera) Plan amendment that sh~uld be adopted at this time. TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissionrr Barnes offared Resolution No. PC78-10~ and moved for its passage and ado t onp i. that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does h~reby ~ecomnend to the City 5/8/78 ~ '4' ~ J~ MINUTE5~ ANAIiE1M GITV PLAI~NI~~G COMMISSiON~ MAY 8~ 197~ EIR 1~0. 212 AND GENERAL PLAN t1MENOME:NT N0. 1~~6 (continued) ~ 78•3~7 Counci) that Exhibit A, as modifled~ indlcating Wel~ f.anyoi~ Ftoad to bc located w~sterly of its current proposed location, gener~lly in the vicinity of the current wessterly pr~porty owna~ship boundarfe:s of the N+~Ilace. Baptlst Church Loan Corpnration~ end Anahelm Hllls~ Serrano Inc. proNertios; tha designatian of Weir Ca~~yon Road to be e scentc expressway; Avanue is to be gcnerally loceted nortli of the ridgeline and extend easterly to proposed Goal Canyon itoad; and the scenlc expressw~y desiynatlon repldced with expressway on the map with a stAndard of six-Idne~ divided (1N feet of half-wldth) be adopted for Gen~ral plan M~endment No. 146 - Circuletlo~ Element. On roll call~ the for~yoing resolut(on wA~ passod by the follawing vate: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARI~ES. DAVIp, HERkiST~ KING~ LINt~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE At3SENT: C4MMISSIONERS: JONIISON~ TOLAR Ran Smlth polntecf out a public hearing would be co~ducted beforr thc City Council on ~u~c 20~ at 3:0~ p.m. IT~M NU. l4 ~ S N RECOMMEND-'1TION5 A. VARIANCE NQ. 7J3G ~ Request for termination. Tlie staff report to the Planning Commisslon dated May 8, 191ii was ~fES~hCe`.d~ not(ng subJect property is a rectanyularly-shaped parcel of land consfstinc~ af approxlmately 0.3 acre located at the southeast LOI'ne1' of Bell aoad and Wcsterr, Arenu4 a,~d tha~) in~ applicant~ Jnhn R. 7ownsend~ awner~ requests terminatian of Varlancc No. 273 accardance with conditions of approv~l of Conditional Us~ Permit Ho. 1808. AC` T~pN; Cqmmissioner King offered Resolution No. PC7~`1~~~ and moved for its passage and a~~ption~ that the Anahcim Gity Planning Commission does hcreby te~minate Varlance No. :736. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: [3ARNES, DAVID~ HERdST~ KING, LIt~N NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSCNT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON~ TOLAR 5/8/1a r~" MIIJUTCS~ ANANE{M CITV PLANNING CAMMISSIUN~ MAY 8~ 1~74 78-368 REPORTS ANO RECOMMENDIITIONS (continued) B. COI~UITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 170a - Rsquest for an extension oF tirr~. Tho s~aff rnpart to the Planning Commlssion dated Mey S~ 1978 wss prr.sentcd, noting the subJoct property is a rectangulerly-s~iaped parc~l af land conslstinq of approximately Q.7 acre having a frontag~ of app~~ximntely i~tb foec on the east side of An~helm Hills Road~ hevl~g a maxlmum depth of approximately iG4 f~et, and b~tng lacated approxlmi+tely 440 fQet north of thc cantarline of Nohl Rench Road~ ond that the appl(cent. ~lyde C. Carpentar of Clyde Carpenter b Assoclates~ Inc.~ requests a one-year extension of ttme for Condltlonal Use Permit No. 1JOa. Jay TasFii~o, Assoclatc Plann~.r~ pointed c~ut the recommendation to the Planntng Commisslon should reed the extension of time tc~ expire May 2S~ 1979. ACTION: Commissi~ner Kiny offercd a mc~tiori, seeonded by Commisslo~er David and MOTIO~~ CARRIED (Comm(ssloners .lohnson and Tolar bcing abscnt)~ that the Anahelm City f'lanning Commlesion daes hereby grant a one-year extension c~f [ime fur Gonditional Use Permlt I~o. 170n~ to expire May 23, 1979. C. VARiANCE N0. 1.075 - Requcst fc~r an cxtenslon of timc. 7hc staff report to [1~e Planninr~ Gorwnission dated May 8, 1~7~ was presented, noting the subJect property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consist(ng of appr~ximat~ly 0.7 acre having a frnntagc of approximately 9~ Feet on che west side ~~f liarbor Houlevard and being located approximately 6y feet soutt~ of the centerline of Anaheim Ilo.~leva~d; that the applicant, qonald J. tless, attorney f~r Terry Berzenye of Spec(alized Auto Repair~ requesks an extension of time to continue an automotlve repa(r service which include9 engine overhaul; and tl~at Variance NA. 2IIJy was qranted subject to the condltlons that wlthin a0 days the awner of subject property would deed to the Clty of Anaheim a strip of land ~~5 feet in width from the centerl(ne of Harb~r Boulevard. pay [o the City of Anahetm the sum of S3•50 per fro~t foot alony Na~bor Boulevard for strcet lighting purposes~ and pay to the City of Anal~eim the sum of 95CPar front foot along tlarbor Boulevard for tree planttng purposes; and that khe property owner has not corr~lied with said provisions. Jsy 7ashiro~ Associate Planner, pointed out that six rm~nths ago the Planning Camml3slon had approved an extension of time slntc thc avner was negotiating to acqulre Che preperty and he has had some p~oblems wltt~ that. Commissioner King pointed out there had heen no complaints recelved conce~rning thi~ business and the petltione~ wlshes to continue his use of the ~raperty. Jay Tashiro pointed out that the property is owned by one Indivtdual and the bullding is owned by another indlvidual~ and that che applicant leases tl~e building and his hands are tied. Annika Santmlahti~ Assistant Director far Zoning, pointed out that the petition~r could take care of Conditia~~ (b) and (c) for street lighting and street trees. ACTI01~: Commissioner Kiny offered a motinn~ seconded by Commissloner Linn and MOTIOti CARRIED (Comnissionars Johnson and Tolar being abser~t), ~hat the Anaheim Ctty Planning Correnission does hereby grant a 9~-day extenslon af time for Variance No. 2875 in order for the petitloner to cor+tinue his negotiations. 5/8/78 M I NUTE S~ Af~Al1E I M L I TY PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON ~ MAY 8~ 1~ 78 7a~ 36`~ REPORTS AND aECOMMEN0ATI0NS (cantinued) U. RECLI~SS I F I CAT I 01~ N0, 7y-~B-4~3 - Reryucs t for ~pnrova l of sprc i f i c p l ens . The staff rap~rt to the Planning Ccxnm(ss1o~ dated Mey 8~ 191d was presented~ notiny that thc applicsnt r~ ucsts r~pprovat of speciftc pla~~s for r part of Portion B af subJect pr~perty wi~ich is an Irregularly-shaped parcel of land conslstlr~g of appraximAtcly 11.3 acres hav(ng e frontage ~f epproxtmately 670 feet on thc west sidc of Rampart Street~ approxtrnatr.ly ~~2y fcet soutl~ of tt~e centerl ine of Orangewood Avenue. Jay Tashiro, As~ociate Planner~ pninccd aut staff has reviewed the rlans and recomrr.ands approvel. ACTION: Gamn-lsslan~zr King affered a motion~ ~econded by Gomnissloncr Llnn and MOTION GA~ RR~EU (Commtssloners Johnson and Tolar being absent)~ tl~at the Anal~elm City Planning Lommissian dnes hereby approve tl~e request for approvai of specific pinns for che first con~rructinn phase on Raclassification Ilo. 77-7ff-~~p. E. AIiANDONMENT I10. 77-1f~A - Requcst to abandon ~ publ ic uti I i t~ casemen~ west of Perelta 11 ls Drlve~ south of ~anta M a Canyon Road. The sLaff report to the Planning Gommission dated May 3~ 197t~ was presented, n~ting subJect request for abandonment of a public utility easement Is submitted for action by the Planning Commission (n compltance with the prov~slons ~f Section SOb35 af the State of California Govarnment Code and tf~at thc request has b~epn rev(ewed by all departments of tiu City an~.f affected outsicie agencies and approval is recornnended. It was noted an tnvironmental review of the proposed abandonment indicates the proposal is categorically exempt fron, tl~e requirement to file a~ EIR. ACTION: Connfssioner Kiny offerecl a motio~~ seco~ded by Commissfo~er ~avid and MOTIO~i CA-'RIED (Commissioners Johnson and Tolar b~ing absent), thal the Anaheim C(ty Plannir~g Commission does htreby recommend ta the Clty Council tha~ Abandanment Na. 77-iE~A be approvcd. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 110~ - Request for apprc~val of an alternate fenc(ng mater al. Chairman P~o Tempore Nerbst indicated he had conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Comm(ssion Resolutlon No. PC76-157~ ~dopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commtssion~ and Government Code Section 3G25 et seq., In that he is the manufacturer of the prr~duct being considered~ and that pursuant to the provisfons af the ebove codes~ he I~ereby declares to the Commission that he is withdrawing from the hearing in con-~ection with Conditional Use Permit Na. 170Q and will not take part in either the discussion or the votlny thereon~ and that he has not discussed this item with any member of the P I ann ( ny Commi ss i on. TI~ERCtlPOt~ ~ C~iA{ RMhH PRO TEMPORE HERBST LEFT THE COUNC 1 L CI~AMBER AT 6:25 P.M. ANU COMMISSiOt~ER KING ASSUMEU Tt1E CHAIR. The staff report to the Planntng Commission dated May ~3, 197n was presented~ indicating the subJect properCy is en irregul~rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5/8/78 ~ MINUTES~ AfWF1EIM CITY PLANNINti COMMISSION~ MAY $~ 1978 RCPORTS AND RECOMMEI~DATIONS - ITEM F(contlnued) 18- 370 2.8 acros locatnd n~rth and eaat of the Int~~sectlon of Romneya Orlve and Eucild Street end ths~ the e~plicent~ Aicx Fls~~~~~pn~ requests approvoi of en altern~t~ f~ncing meterlal. Mr. Fishmen palnted out the propo~od wal) has been approved by the State of Callfornla and the Federal tlighway Commisalon as a noise bsrrle~ for the fre~way. ACTION: Comm(sstoner Linn offered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Davld and MATION CA! RRIED (Comnissioners Jo~inson and Talar bCiny ebsent}. tha~ the Anahelm City Planning Commisslon dnes hereby grant appruval of an al[ernate fencing for CondltionAl Use Permlt No. 1700. COMMISSiONER NER~ST RETURNCD TO THE COUNCIL CNAM(fER AT 6:x0 F'.M. G. TENTATIVE MAP UF TRACT N0. C21 - Requcst for appraval of s(~ecific plot plan~ ~'Tc~o r p AnT-'s ,~ a 1~Tva t ~ns . The steff report to the Planniny Gommisslun dated May 8~ subJccr property is an irregularly-sh~pad parcel of land ecres located epproxlmatcly 345 feet south o~ the center approxirnately 675 feet west of tlie centcrllne of Solanon H. Coursen of The Robert P. Warmington Company, requests floor plans, and elevatlons. 197~1 was presented~ noting che c~nsisting of ~pproximately 8.9 I i ne of Noh 1 RancF~ Road o prive; thnt thc appllcent~ Walter approval of specific plot plan~ Jack Reevos~ representin9 the applicant, indicated tl~at waiver of the locat(on of the property llnes was necessary because of the caradiny which would place thN lpt lines at the top of the banks. ACTION: Gommission~r Kiny offered a motlon~ secondrd by Cortriissloner David and MOTION ~I~U (Commissioners Jot~ns~n and Tol~r bning absent), tt~at thc Anaheim City Planning Commission docs hereby approve the submltted plot plan. floor plens~ and elevatians as satisfying Condition No. 15 of ~ppfoval of Tract ~~o. ~821. N. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 50 - Request For app~ova! of specific plot plan~ ~Toor p .~ns, ~n~ eTevations. 7he staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 8, 1970 was preaented. noting su~iJect property is an Irregularly-sheped parcel of land consisting of approxtmately 23 acres locateJ between Im~eriai Hiyhway and Anaheim H611s Road~ approximately 870 feet south of Nohl Ranch Road~and that the applicant, Walter il. Coursen of The Robert P. ',~a~mington Company~ requests approvel of specific ptot plan~ floor plans~ and elavat(ons. Ccxnmissioner tiarnes point~d out she was concerned about a tract that was approved for a variance because of the wey thc ic,t was previously graded and ihat was not really the reaso~~ but it was assumed by some of the develop~rs ti~at wes the reason, and that she would like to make it knewn for the record that tn the future there would be no ,~ardshlps granted for the way the property has b~en graded. She indtcated she understood they are going to be same problems~ in fact~ some dcvelopers already have xhat in mind, and she would like them to know, as one Commissioner, she would n~t be voting for any variances 5/8/78 .. ~.. MINUT6S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8, 197$ 78-37) REPORTS MID RECOMMENUATIONS - ITEM H~cont(nued) where the property h+~s alrcedy been graded In a menner thet mekes the lot undevelopable wlthout the vari.~nce boiny granted. ACTION: Commission~e~ King offored a motio~~ sec~nded by Commissioner David an~i MOTIQtI ~b (Conmissioners John~on and Tolar being pbsent)~ that the Anal~eim Ci!y Plannl~g Gommission cfoes liereby approve tlic submltted plot plen~ floor plans, and elev~+tlons as satlsfying Condition IJo. 19 ~f condltions of approvel of Tentative Map of Tract No. 915~~ a~vision No. 1. 1. ADAWDOWMENT N0. 77•2_lA - Raquest to abandon a portlon af Oak Str~et lying between Na br or D~ulevar3~anallelcna Street~ 1~i5 fcet, mc~re ur less. a~uth of L(ncoln Avenue. The staff raport t~~ the Planning Gorm~ission dated May d~ 1~i/~ was presented, n-~ting this r~yuest h~s been re;vlewe~l by all departme~nts of the City and affected outside egencies and approvel is recornrn~ndecJ subJect to the reservation tnat tlie Ctty of A~ahelm have a 15'foot sanitary s~wer easement to accammodate existln~a facilities. It wAS noteJ an environmenta! review of the proposed abandonment (ndicates this proposal tv be cetQyoric~lly exempt from tfie requirement of ftllny en EIR. ACTI~N: Commiss(aner King offc+red a motion~ swcand~d by Commissioner Llnn and MOTION ~RR~':D (Comnissloner~ Johnson and Tolar beiny absent) ~ tl~at the Anahelm City P18nning Commiss(on does hereby recort,rt-~r~J 2o the City Cuunc() that the reques[ for Abandonment No. 77-21A be approved. J. VARIAI~CE t~0. 296~ - Reyuest by opposition for recansideration. Pexer C. Tornay, 111Q East Ci~apman Avenue~ Suice 200~ Oranye~ indicated the pu~pose of his letter is to reguest a reconsideratian of the matter of Variance No. 29~3, which was granted September 12, 197)~ Lo Mr. and Nrs. Nties Guichet~ 100 St~ada Place, Anaheim~ to construct a tennis court. on che basls that his client, Mrs. Joan Cain~ was not given proper notlce of the hearing. Ne pointed out M~s. Cain was aware someChing was afoot and tl*at she haJ called the Flanning Departmpnt and spol:en to a gcntieman who had inforrr~d her she should wr(te ta M~s. Edith 1larrfs~ Planning Commissian Secret~ ry. and that she would recelve a nottce of tl~e hearing. He pointed out a ietter was wrltten to Mrs. Harrts~ ob)ectfng strongly to the granting of the varfance. He pointed out the letter had been dlscussed at the public hearing and the Con~mis5lon had qranted approval and the matter had gone to the City Council and the tlme for appeel had run out. He pointed out Mrs. Cain had suddenly not~ced there were chalk lines drawn indicating the tennls court would be buliti and a laws~it had been filed~ and they had done what was necessary to stop construction and felt that in th~ spirit of fairness the matter should be gone over one mor~ time. ke pointed out they have not posted the bond; that his client feels she did nnt have her day in court and that a gentleman in the Planning Departmen~ had Informed her She would gat a notice. Ne requested that the ~notter be put back on the agenda for a future public hgering before May 17th in order to discuss the matter~ recogniaing the Pls~ning Commission may arrive at the same decision as before. 5/8/78 MiNUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 8~ 1978 REPORTS ANp RECOMMENUATIONS - ITEM J(continued) 18- 372 Chetrman Pro Tempore Hcrbst pointed out tho Planning Department~ in an effort ta reach all Interested portles~ dld post the subject proparty and advertised In the ncwspep~r~ in addltian to rtu~iling out notlces to th~e property uwners within 304 feet. tle indicated It wes hls feeling the partlas knew there was gc~lnn to be A public hearing ond she should have been cogntzant of what wns going on and did have an opportunity to come down for the public heariny. Mr. Tornay tndic~ted Mrs. Cain had heard from the neigtibor about the heariny and had called the Planning Departm~:nt ~nJ was told to write a lette~, which was one thing she could do to protect her Interests~ and tl-at st,e would bc sent a notice of the hearing. Ile indicatod she I~~d ylven her namc and a~ldress to the perty sh~• hACi spoken to, but sh~ nnv~r recelved a notice. Ile statcd she has filed a petition with tf~e Superlor Court with a dep~sitton under tl~~ penalty of per,jury~ and he believed she did not receive a nutice. Chalrman Pro Tempc~re Nerbst pointed out the only alternatives the Planning Commission has to get to tlie public is to advertise in Ctic newspaper~ pust ~he property~ and send out notic~s to the property owncrs and that bcr.ause of tfre mall or the re~orded tax roils~ somotimes notices do not get to the propcrty owners. Mr. Torney indlcated I~e felt ~~robably the notices had beCn sent as the law requtres an~! he was not makiny ony legal atlacks on anyonc~ but that in tlic spirit of fairness he was here to appeal for a reheariny. Mrs. Joan Cain indicateci shc would like to answcr the qucstions and painted out she dtd nnt know ther~ was guing to be a heariny as she was not notifled; that sl~e had called the Planniny Departm~ent after her neighbor t~ad told her he was applying for a variancc and haci asked her t~ sign a petition. She indicated she d{d not siqn the petition because she felt the tennis court would bc a detriment to her property; that sne had called the Planning Department to ask wl,at she sh%,uld do, and the ge~tleman had said she should write a letter to Mrs. Hdrris and shc would be notified by maii ~f the hearing; th~t he had told her she should come to tl-e meetiny~ but that afcer she did not receive a notice~ she cailed the Planning Uepartment and found out the heartng tiad been held~ and she felt she did not have an opportunity to voice h~r opinion~ that it was not the Planning f,ommisslon's fault but an ~nfortunate th(ng that happened, but she was not notified or otherwise she would have been at thc mee[ing. Commissioner Linn pointed out her letter had bee~ constdered a[ the hearing. Terry 0'Shea, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Guichet, indicated it was his understanding that on September 12~ 1977~ [hc variance had been yranted~ that no appeal had been filed~ and the actlon liad become final and the six-month period for appeal has passed and h1s client ls in the process of building the ten~is court and has spent over S30~OQ~ f~r design~ grading and preparation on the basis that the variance was granted properly, a~d even though Mrs. Caln has filed an action with th~e Supesrior Court and has a rest~alning order-, this is a civil matter and is not a matter the Clty should become involved in. He notc~ the Gulchets are in compliance with all the conditions of tt~e resolutlon and they intend to comply with all ~c.~iditions. He pointed out o~e other matter whlch he falt was relative was the fact that Mrs. Cain has a tennis court on I~er pro~erty which is more visible and more obvious t4 his client than his client's tennis court w{li be to Mrs. Caln~ an~i that maybe the tennis courts are equally offensive to earh party, and he did not feel the matt.~:~' ~houid be reconsid~~red. 5/a<78 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION. MAV 8r ~978 78-373 aEPORTS AI~D RCCOMMF.NDATI~NS - ITEM J(contlnued) Conmissioner darnes ~sked what ws~~f<~c~~~tbackf requlramentd++~dtsinceCthecfencedwould be Tash i ro pai ntod out th~ • was a 15 in excess of 6 feel higi,. it would be considered a structure. Commi::loner Linn discussed the statemont ca~ller thet thR tennls more vialble tl~t~n tl~e one being but lt~ and Mrs. Cain polnted out court would bc next to her front yard. Chai~man Pra Tempore ~le~bst lndicated he felt tho public h~arlna hed been held and the Planning Commission had received a latter of oppositic,n and did consider it at the puhlic hcaring and felt ~o hold another pub~~re`ntedile a111~encittls~petltion~Anli1os~cxpendedeth~ pos i t 1 an; that the var i ance liad bean g `~ y ra e rt owne rs and funds. and he felt ev~~rythin,y haJ beun d~~~u to notify the surraunding p p Y thc publiwase~efny filed~andcthedGltythadndone~its~JubcinegrantinclCthe varlance~ a variance 9 Commissioner Linn Pe'ao~e tot rt~tcctrtheSnCighborhoodhad bcen imposed on thc varia n ce to do whatever could b P Mrs. Caln polnted o~c `n~am~eement`wlthGtF~e v~rlance~Gbut'1thatewa9inot true,msheshadnnot tha meettn,y they we 9 agreed to it. Commissioner Barnes ppin~e~o°misslonvhadetrled5to gettthemfto puttin^dense landsca ping and (t there anyway; that th rn no 1~ghts wo~~lci be shinfng Into hcr proporty. ADJOURNNENT: There beinq na further business~ Commis4loner Linn offe~ed a mation. seconded by ~a~"nC51OthatKthe meetMnglbe adjaurnedC~~ssioners John son and Tolar b~in~ abs ) . The meetina adJourned at 7:00 p.rn. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ ~~~ Edith L. Harrls~ Secretary Anaheim Ct~y Planning Commisslon caurt next doo~ would be the nal ghbor's tenn 1 s ELti:hm