The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1980/06/16w t yr_ 1 ~ Anaf+al m, ~ Cr i l tornt a June 16~ 1980 REGULAR MEETiNC OF THE ANIWEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - Tho regular meeting of the An~h~tm Clty Pian~ing Canmisston was called MEETIN G to order by Chairwomsn Barnes ~t 1:30 p.m.~ June 16, 198G i~ the Council Chamber~ a quorum being praamnt. PRESENT - Chai rwom~+n: Barnas Commtssianers: Bushore~ Devid. F~y~ Herbst~ King. Toler ALSO P~iESENT - J~ck White Asslstant Clty Attorney Jay Tttus Office Englneer A~ni1:r Santalahti Asslstant Otrector for Zoning Dea~ Shercr Assiatant Planner Edith Narrls Pla~ning Ccmmlssion S~cretery PLEUGE OF - The Ple~ge of Alleglance to the Fl~g wae leJ by Cornmisslonar Fry. ALLEGI ANCE AP('ROVAL OF - Commtssioner Bushore offered a nation~ scconded by Cormissionor ~.~ng TIIL MlIIUTE5 and MOTION CARRIEO~ thet thc minutes of the meeting of June 2~ 1980 be spproved as corrected on Pages 317 ~~~ 319 to show the petitioner's neme, Mr. Priem~ rather than Mr. tihl. I TEM N0. 1 PUdL I C NEI1R1 NG. OWNERS : LYNDA LEA AND KEN 90GARDUS ~ ~'T'{~'~~ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 1130 Red Gum Street~ Anaheim~ CA 92806. Petltioner ~ requests WAIVERS OFt (A) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKI~IG SPACES, ~6) MINIMUM I.ANDSC/1PED SETPtACK~ (C) PERMITTEO FENGE HEIGN7 TO RETAIN AN EX151~ING OUTQOOR STORAGE YARD on property described as a rectangule~ly-shaped parce) uf lan d conststing of spproximetely 1.03 acres located at the southeast corner of Blue Ster St~eet and Red f;un~ Stre~t, having spproximate fro~tagea of 314 fect on the south side ot Blue S~ar Street snd 125 f~et on the east side ot' Red Gum St~eet~ and further described as 11;~ Red Gum StreeL. Prop~rCy presently clessift~.J ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE~ SubJect petitlo~ was continued from the meeting of June 2, 1980 i~ order for the applica~t to bE present. Ther~ was no one indtcsting thelr prese~ce in oppc~sitlon t~ ~ubJect request~ and although the s tef f report to the P 1 ann i ng Commi ss i on dated June 16 ~ i980 ~.+as not read at the pub 1 i e haar ing, it is referred to and made a part ~f the minutes. Ken Bogerdus, 1130 Red Gum Street, Anahetm, a+ner, explained the fence is four feet from the eurb and Code e-equtres it to be ten fee~; that it wes constructe~ at this location to alla~ adequate room for loading and unlo~ding trucks in order to kaep them ofF the stre~ts. He potnted out several neighbors do taa~ and unload their trucks in the straet, craating p roblems for eve ryone In the ~eighborhood. He did not feel the fence is a hazs~rd, potnting out it is chatnlink and is preaentty nat slatted, but will be slatted afttr approval. Ne also feit the lence I~ this lo..etton will help to keep the property c 1 eane r . THE ~UBLIC HEARiNG WAS CLO~ED. 80- 330 6/16/8o a ._.....,. ._ ... _.. . _.__..._.... ~ ~ MIt1UTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 16~ 1980 80-331 Ei Il CATEGORI CAL EXEMPT ION•CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE NO ~ 31~-_7 ~CONTI:IUEO) Commissioner ~u~hore asked ha,r meny pa~king ~pacr~ a~e allotted for emptayee~~ pointing out the staff report indicates 19 existing end asked thc nunber of employees. Mr. Bogs~dus sxplalned he hes beMeen 20 anJ 2~ ee~pioyees and was not sura of the number of parking spacas fo~ employees. Ne explalned there are severrl parking s~eces for~ campact vahtcles which are not recognizod as lega 1 sp~•ces by the City ~nd also thst sev~ral employees rlde bicycles and som~ ride tog~ther. Commiasloner Nerbsr notad original approval of th is proJect Inciuded a total of 46 parking spaces and Daan She~e~~ Assiatant Plenner~ potnt~d out tfe o~tylnal slte plans end also the plan shvwing the site as it h~s been altered. Mr. 9ogerduf~ expleincd the origlnal ~ ~n wAS for three ,mdll units with interior dividing walls~ but n~w he (s the sole user and the parkinq ~equlren~nts are not as high. lie edded thc+t this is one of the fcw bulldin9s In thn ~rea wt~ich has any parking fo~ employees~ nottng they have had a lot of trouble with others in chc area parking In the street~ etc. tle pointed out their neighbor across the corner t~as never had any parking and f~nced In tho outdoor areA immedlately and Is usin~ It fo~ manufacturing. Reaponding to Commt,s ione~ Herbsc's questtort, Mr _ Bogsrdus expl~ined he operetes a steel and dle manufacturing and cutting plant which is Ilyht manufacturing and he needs the fenced area for uni~adinn .~+n;t losdiny big semt-trucks; that they dle cut corrugated box matertal which Is very b•.~ky and otcasionally tt+ey need to set the msterial out in the parking tot before moviny it Inside ~t night. Commtssloner Bushore did not sec any need for fencing In the ~~roperty slnce the meterial is moved inside at niyht and the trucks can pull (nto the parking lot with or wlthout the fence. He felt if enployees are parking on the street beceuse not enough employee parking speces are pravided, a probl~m is beiny created for th~ n~',hborhood. Mr. Bogardus cxplef ned none of hi s er,~ployees Are parki ng on the~ street but neighbors are parking on the cul-de-sac and he has presented photogrAphs shawing golf carts al) over the cui•de-sac, Commissioner Bushare state~ hc had bcen to the a rea and has informed staff of other violationa and they v+ill be ckait with. Ne pot~ted out after the fence was constructed the 1 andscap i ng was not ma t n ta i ned and Mr , Boga r dus rep 1 1 ed che 1 andscap i ng w~ i 1 be improved and matntained, but hc did not want ta do any of that until he was sure where the fence would be located. Canmissioner Bu, ~ore suggeste~l the fence be moved uut of the right-of-way and fivc addttionel perktng speces Nravtdad because on a rainy day those employees who nonr-ally ride bicyctes wi l l drlve. Nn explained if this ~equest is granted, others in thQ area wil) be makiny the same request a~d wanted to know what the petitioner can do and sttll keep a reasonable amount of unloading and loading area. Mr. Bogardus wanted to keep the fence where it is presontly located because this is a fairly narrow area for loading and using thc fo~kllft •nd moving the fence would limit thei r space. t1e added they cou I d provl ~~e more parki ng spaces et the rear of the but i di ng and the gates ara open during the nonnal working hou~s so employees can use it for parktng 1f necessary. Ne added he wents to keep the fenca prtmartly because of vandalism~ pointing out they do havc a gasoline pump and have had the hose cut tn the past and trash barrels have bcen fi llec:, etc. tie expiai~ed thc fence wl ll be slatted and ts not a~n eye sore ~~d felt if they have to nave the fence, t= might as well be elimtnated. 6/16/80 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ r MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiGN JUNE 16~ 1~8Q $0-j31 EIR CATEGORICJIL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AN~ VAR~ANCE N0. 31 7~~D~TINUEQ) - - .~.-. ........ Canml:sione~ ~sho~o f~'t It will b~ e~sle~ for the trucks to m~nuever without ~he f~nc~ and thot th~ trucks would have to do ~ane fency manuevering naw It thers are any cers in the drtvrwey~ a~d Mr. 6ogardus axplatned with the getes open, ~here le a wide ~rea for the trucks to menuever. Mr~ 8ogerdus •xplatnad wood paliets are stored In the re~r. Commtastonar Harbst felt because of the size and shapa of the property end the fact th~ plani were origtnelly •pp~oved for Industrtal use with ~6 apaces. nnd 32 sPaces ar+e ~equired for thia uae~ thflt o vArlen~e ts not werr~nted. Ne felt it wc~uld be a bad po11Cy for the Commisslon to yrant d parking veriance especlally alnce th~rn is roam to provlde more pa~klny. HQ IndicateJ ha Is not opposed to tho fence locatton because he did not th(~k it croates a probiem nnd felt with propcr screaning~ It would bc appropriate. He addad a psrkiny varinnce would remain with tt~e property. Hr. ~ogardus steted he could add mora perking. Commissioner King polnte~ out the fenca i~ in thr rlght.of•way And Dean Sherer clariflod thet one portian ts In the right-of-w ay and another portion Is in the setbsck. Responding to Cafwnissioner Bushc~re's concern~ Mr. Sharer explained the St~eets and Sanitetion Depertment had not tndicated any problcm with the tra~sh atorage ereas. Mr. Bogardus ~xptalnad he i~ad prasented h(s plans to the Clty end had been told ortginally that he would need a varlance and then wea told he would need en enc~oachment pe~~tlt and has applled for both. Commiasloner Bush~re asked Mr. Ro~ardus If he would like the Commisslon to act on the submttted plans or if he wauld llkc to revtse ihem snd Mr. ~agardus replled he wAnted to keep tho fence where tt is and added that he wlli provide mere parktng. Commissioner Bushore notcd this problem wes setf-c~eated and if this request is g~ented~ It would be hard to turn dow~ anyone eisc's request for the same type thing. l1r. Bogardus felt ~;~ovtng the fence wouid create e wo~se hazard because the trucks would be losding or unloadiny tn the street. Ccxnm~ssion~r Nerbst felt approval of the parking variance ~nd fence encroschment wouid be setttng a drastlc preced~ent. Ne statad he would have no problem with the fence being o~ the property lina but dtd not th(nk ha Gould justify a hardsfilp. Mr. Bogardus esked why other buai~eases have becsn allowad with no parking and have been allare! to fCnce their sturage areas. Commisstoner Bushore stated that Mr. Bogardus is not betng singled out~ but unfortu~ately i~ the first one cited to clesn up the problem which exists. 6/16/Bc ~~ MINUTES. AHANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 16, 1 8~ EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA:,~~ 3~C VA;RIANCE~NO~,.~1~7 (CONTINUED) ~• 333 Cc~nmissioner Herbst added the Commiasion would not revlew businessss coming for ~ business permit for an indu~trial use IP they conform to Code. He stste~ he would apprav~ the ~equest for mtnimum landscaped sotb~ck and maximum fe~ce heic~ht~ tf the ~~nce is moved to the proporty ltne. but would de~y the request for mintmum parking spsces. Commissioner Buahore added he would want the sttpulation edded that the landtcaping wil) be m~intalned. He did not feel a;0•Inch hic~h fence woutd accompilsf~ anything. It was notad the Planning Director ar hia authorized repres~nta~ive h~s determined that the proposed project falis wlthln thc d~finltton of Categortcal E:cemptions~ Claas 3~ as deffned In paragreph 2 af the City of Anaheim ~nvtr~nmental Impact aeport Gutdellnes and is' therefare, categortcally exempt f~om the requ~~ement to prepare en EIR. ACTION; Commisaioner Herbst offered Rasolution No. PCt30•93 end moved for tts pessage and a opt on that the A~ehelm City Planning Cammtsston does hereby grant the Petltlon for Vsriance No. 3147~ in part~ denyfng waive~ (a) on lhe bests that the petttione~ stiputated to prnvlde the requirod number of employee parking spaces and g~snting walvers (b) and (c) on the basls that the petitioner stipulated ta remove the f~nr.e from the pubiic ~Ight-of- way ellmineting the need for an Rncroachment permtt. and subj~ct to Interdeqartmenta) Committee recommendatlons~ amendtng Conditiun No. 3 ta read as foliows: "Thst the extsting 6-foot high chslnl(nk fence be relocated out of the public right-of-way and entirely interwoven with redwood or cndar siats;" and subJect to the pettttoner's stipulati~n to provtde la~nds~aping in the five (S) foot setback and melnteln said landscaped area. On roll call, the foregatng resolution was passed by the follow(ng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARt~ES~ 6USItORE, OAVID~ FRY, NERBST~ KING, TOLAR NOES: COMh.I S510NE RS : NayE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NONE Jack white~ Asststant City Attor~e~r~ nresnnted the wrttte~ right to appe~) any portion of the ~aques t to tha petitioner. 6/16/80 lr.~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ CONNISStON~ JUNE 16~ 1980 g4~334 ITEn NO, 2 PUgIIC NEAitING. O~.~NERS: JEaPY L. AND BARBARA A. ~ ~~"~~VE DECIAMTiON PO~~ OElBERT L. ANU ELMA MAaIE POE~ 17032 N111wood Drlve,: V R 00 U a MENT Yorba Linda~ CA 926Q6 AND 8A~`+~ERS LIFE INSURA-~CE ~~_ . 2004 C~MPMIY~ Homa Otfice, lincoln~ Nabraska 685~1. AGENT: J. S. I. TRUCKING~ JIM 9. SAHDERS~ President~ 918 EASt Verm~+t Avenue, Anslielm~ CA 92P,05• P~titioner requests pern+tstton to PERMIT A TRUCKiNG yARD 1~~ TItE Ml ZQNE WIYII WAIVER OF' MAXIMUM F~t~CE NEIGFIT an p~operty d~sc~ibed as an irregularly-shepad percel of land cor,sistli~g af np~roxlmetely 2.0 acres having a frontege of approxtmstely 77 feet on the south sida af Vermont Avenue. havinq ~ maximum depth of spproximately 490 feet and being IocatcJ 750 feet west of the cente~llns af Eest Streat~ and further descrtb~d as 918 East Vermont Avenue. PropertY presently cla~sified ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITCD) 20NE. SybJect petitlon wes continued from the mecting of June 2. 19~0 In order far revised pla~!~ to be xubmitt~ci. There wss one person Indlcattng hls presence in oppositton to subJect request~ and slthough the s~~ff report to thc PlAnniny Commisslon dated June 1G~ 1980 wes not read at the public heering~ It ig referrRd to and rr~de a part of the minutrs. J!m Sanders~ President of J. S. I. Trucking~ 91f; East Vermont~ Anahelm~ was ~resent to a~nswer any questlons, C~1 Pebley, G09 Tudor Place, Anahelm, stated he obJects to this request becsuse property from Ea~t Street east lo State Colleye i~ al~ residentiai a~d all p~operty fra~ Olive Street west Is residenttal ancl the Clty yard is practic~ll~y across the street from subJect p~operty; that he travels the st~ect G to 12 tlmes a day and there are a lot of big trucks eominy tn and out and it is a crefflc he+zard. He exptalnod he has awned prope~ty on Arlee. Lacy end Vermont for a~proxlr-~tely 22 Ye~rs; and that he palnts :hc butldings every four ye~rs, but the dust from subject Rroperty Is a tcrrible problem. Ne did not think the property ts big enough~ nor (n the right arec= ,`~r chis h~evy use~ p.~tnting out thase •re biy trueks. Varmant from East Street to 0live -~ overcrowded wtth !~cavy trucks already and comtny over the high rdilroad is a traffic tiezard And he was afraid there wil) b~ an accident~ and wanted to be on record es opposad, Ne atated if the request la approved~ he wau{d like thc propcrty blacktopped to kee~ the dust dawn. 11e explained one of his buildtngs is leaaed to a food r~anuft~ctu~er and the prevalling wtnd Is west to east in the afternonn; and that thsr~ is a p~int shop ryn Lacy which has been there for 10 to 12 years. etc. Ne stnted he dta not think varlances should be granted for the blscktopping and slats in the fence. an~i felt che safety facto~ on ~er~nont should be carefully considered. Mr. Sanders steted there waa a dust problem but they h~ve been putting oli and yrsve) on the property. He stated the dust als~ comea from the strswberry fields in the area; that he does not want to biacktap the property becaus~ af the hetvy trucks end that otl and grave) works much bettor; that thcir trucka do not travel Vormont Street very aften and a~e in and out and are mostly out of state and return an thc weeke~ds; that they load four or five trucks a de+y and thare ere other trucking uxnpanies in the area. Ne stated thay wfll slat the tencc. THE PUE3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Raspo~ding Ro Commissi~ner Herbst's question concerning the n wrber Af trucks In and out or storec! on the property~ Mr. Ssn~iers expiained they heve 11~ pieces of equipment and on waekands they wi ! have 14 p(eces of equtpment come in snd ~uring weekdays will have en ~verage of 3 ar trucks and their hours of pperation are 8 a.m. ta 5 p.m.~ but th~re 6/16/80 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 16~ 1980 80-335 tIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDiT10NAL USE PERMIT N0. 2084 (CONTINUED) would be t~ane trucks arriving at night. He pointed out the gates are locked and the drivers have koys. Comml~sioner lierbst asked how this parcel was choaen for this heavy use and Mr. Sanders expl~tned that most of his customers are In An~heim; that hc haa been In tha City 27 years ~nd 10 years In hts own business. Commiasloner Nerbst did not feel this prc~erty lcnds it.self to tt~is heavy use although he ~ecagnlzes the City of Anehelm doea nee trucktng facilitles. the Commissian dlscusaed the wldth ~~ Vermont Street. with Jay Titus~ Offico Engineer~ pointtng out from right•of-wey to r ~ht-of-w ay ta (,G feet~ and Is one of the narrower steets In the Ctty. ACTION: Commissloner Klny offered a motlon~ seconded by Comm(ssianer David anJ MOTION ~D thet the Anaheim Ctty Plan~~ing Commissic~n has r~~vlcwed the propusa) to ret~ein a trucking yard In the NL (Industrlal, llmited) Zone wlth a walver of maximum fe~ce hetght on en irregularly-shaped parcel of lend conslatin~ of approximately 2.0 acre~~ having a frontege of approxtmetely 77 feet on the south slde of Vermont Avenue and having a maxlmum depth of approximately 490 feet and being locatecl approxtmately 750 feet west of the centerline of East Street; and does hereby anprove the Negstive Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no stgnlflcant (ndividual ar cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approva) af this Nega~.ive Declaration stnce the Anaheim Generai Plan designates the subje:t property fo~ generel tndustria) land uses coomensurat~ with the proposal; that no sensittve envtronmental impacts are invalved in the proposal; that the Init(al Study submttted by the petitt~nar Ind~cates no significant tnelividual or cumulative advorse environmental (mpacts; end that the Negative Declaratlon substantlating thc fo~egoing findings Is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Depa~tment~ Comnissioner King offered a motion~ sr.conded by Commissloner Davtd and MOTtON CARRIED, that the Anehetm Clty Plen~ing Commission daes hereby grant the ~equest for walver of Code requi~ernent on the basis tl~at a y-foot high block wat) c~rrencly exists across the street and a 6-foot htqh block wall currently exists abutting subJect p~operty and denlal would deprive property of a privtlege bcing QnJoyed by ather property under identlcal zanfng claasiflcatton ~n the vicinit~. Gams(ssioner King offered R~esalutton No. PC &J-9W and moved for Its passage and adoptlon that the Aneheim Gtty Plannir.g Commtsston does heroby grant the Petittan for Condttional Use Permlt No. 2QS4~ subJect to pctittoner's stipulatton to proviJe oll and gravel on the vehicular storage area and subJect to interdepartmental Commtttee reca~rnendations. Chalnranan Bernes suggested a tin,e lim~t be incorporated because she wanted to see something cione about the dust as soon as possible. Jack WhTte, AsslstAnt City Attorney~ noted It che canditions tmposed tu~n ~ut to be inadequate to control the dust, the permit cen be readvertised to impose additional con~itJons or reaoked enttrely at anytlme tn the future. Con+missioner Herbst statad he could not support the motton becas~se thts particular property ts inadequate for a heavy truck use because of the ndrrowness of the st,aets and driwewsy end the accessibilicy to t~e prape~ty and it is nat conducive La the people who are al~eady there. He suggested ~r~e ltmtt be imposed o~ the sttp~latton to oll snd yravei c; • parking erea bec~use shouid De done tmmediaiely. He pointed out thr uae b/ 16I80 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, JUNE ib~ 1980 80•336 EIR NEGATIVE OECLlIMTION~ MAIVER OF ~ODE REQUIREMENT ANO COHDIT101lAL USE PERMIY N0. 2A84 (CONTINUEO~ has bee~ thcre iitegolly fo~ some tin~ end has cause~t problems and f~it the Con~nisslon h~s tn protect the othe~ propertics in the areo. He suggested a 3A-duy tin~e ltmit. Canmts~to~e~ Devtd Agreed thAt this is not the right place tor this w e beceuse o~ the ne~ravne~s of Vermont ~ehlch is not adequate to nandie the blg trucks. Commisatoner Bushore polntad ouC the~ Gommission had approved a trucktng feclllty right ~ext door to the e~st rnJ also the City y~~d is Ic-catecl in thfs nelghbonc~wd er~u Conmissioner Qavid indicated he wauld th~n aupport this request. Commlasloner Busl~ore did not think 24 trucks leesed o~ o weekly basis to make trtps across the cour~try will create any probiems esp~clally If thcy come back in at nie~ht and on weekendt. On rol) Gall~ the foregotng resolutlon was passcd by the followiny vote: AYfS: CQMMISSIO~IERS; BARNCS~ BUShIOaE~ DAVIp, FRY~ KI~~G~ 'iryl.AR N0~5: C(1W11SSIONERS; HERpST ABSENT: COMMISSIONI.RS: NONE ITEM N0. ~ REAUVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST~O BY IR C, ~~ORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS TEXACO INC.~ 3350 4111shire Boulevard~ Los Angales~ VAR ANCE NU. 3151 CA 90010. AGfNT; JAIRO A. CORREA~ 3350 Wilsh(re Bouieverd~ Las A~geles. CA 90010. Petitio~e~ requests WAIV~RS OF PERMIT'fED NUMBER OF SIGt15 At~u MAXINUM SIGN AREA TO PEaNIT A GASOLIf1E PRIC~ SIGN an pro~er~y dnscribed as a rectangularly-si~aped parcel of land canststing of appraximately O.t~ acre having a f~ontaqe of approxinwtely 186 fRet on the eaat sicfe af Aneheim Hill~ Road~ havl~g A maximum depth of approxlmetely 189 feet and betng locat~d app~ox(netely SUO feat north of the c.enterline of Nohl Ranch Road~ and further descrTbed as ~~00 SoUth Anaheim Hills Raad. Prop,erty p~eaently clASSified CL(SC) (COM-~ERCIAL~ IIMITEO) 20NE. SubJect petttton waa concinueci from the meeting of .;une 2. 198~ ln order to +~dverttse an edditional walver. There wes no ane indica[in~ thetr presence In oppositlon to subJect requast, ~nd although the siaff r~port to thc Pianntng Gomnission dated Juna 16~ 19(i0 wa not read at the public hearing, it (s ~eferred to anci made a part of tha minutea. Rad H~nderson~ 25012 Hltiidon~ Laguna Hilia. rep~esent(ng Mr. Correa~ the agent. explatned the ve~~ance is rnquestnd for Texeca +o insteil d"ful! se nrtce"~ "aelf servlce" gasoline and dieso) prtca sign whlch wtll help the community end give custaners an opport~nity to cl-eck the prlcas before entering the station; that the sign is also an a•mpt to comply wtth Ctty Ordinance No. 401Q which mandate4 Che posting of geaAilne pfice signs 1~ A~ahaim. N~ stated this monument aign will be eesthetically pleasing and the slgn mee;: with the epproval of the A~chitectural Canmittee ot Anahelm Hi11s~ Inc. THE PUQIIC HEARING 61A5 CLOSEU. Chattwonw~ 9arnes asked why a sign this largc is naeded for posting prices. 6/16/80 ~ ~ MINUTES, ANAH~IM CtTY PLANNINO COHMISSION~ JUNE 16~ 1980 80•337 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE N0. 3151 (CONTINUED) .... ._.~.._ Mr. Henderson ~xplained basicallY four products are tnvolved (preMium, unlaaded~ ~egular ~~d diesa~` and also ~clf-sarvice ~r futl servlce ia involvcd and prices are currently throe dlgita~ plua tenths~ which requlrea a`arge algn area; also~ the gasoline is branded (Sky Chtcf, Laad F~ee ~nd Flrechief) and pcapie treveling un the st~eet nead to be abls to read the a I gn. Commi~stoner Bushore a~ked the size ot lette~s and Mr. tlenderson di~1 not knuw~ but polnted out that Un~on Stgn Compeny has been contracted to do the sign and tha slgn will blend in wlth the su~rounding area. Conmtssioner Dushorc dld not see the nced for a sign this bl9i palnting nut it ts three times l~rger than the shopp(ng centcr sign ,iext d~or. Cpamisstoner TolAr remfnded the Commiss(or~ that they have never allowed a sign beyond the ordinance~ ond stateJ he would ~ot sc:ppo~t anythtng ove~ whdt (s ellowed, but would ~upport the two signs because of the propesed location; thet this is the ~nly service stattAn ln Anehctm tillls and docs not really need any sianing; that he undnrstands the need to Gonform to Ctty ord(nance releting to posting of prices, but did not think a la~ger sign will benefit anyone. fie stated bccause of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone varlances havc not been ellawed. Ne clarlfleci the petittoner is atte*-pting to cumply wtth ths requirement relating to posting ~f the prlces where the custon~~ can see It befora entertng the pump~ but he was nat conce m ed with <<~~~~,tftv stgns sfnce he felt there Is no need. BI11 Trax, if~0~ 8eechwood Strect. Santa AnA~ atetcci the State law requtres thst signs be posted at a certain height; th~t this statlon has full-servica end self-servtce and the City requtras the hlghest prices be posted. fle expiained custanrrs have no choice a~t this particul~r station because when thcy make the turn~ they are in the service statlo~ and some peopie teel bullted or intimidated about icavir.g eft~r readiny the p~ices. fle explained the proposed sign co~forms to State gufdelin~s. Annika Sentelahti. Assistant Director for ~oning~ statrd the Sta•e ~~utdclines pertsin to the rninimum size of the letters and the faGt that every ktnd o~ gesci:ne fias t~ be i~'.~tifled and a price givnn and thought. the mi~inum lrtxer size was from ~+ to 6 in;,hes ..epe~ding upon the item to bc fdentified. Mr. Trax thought thcrc was also a visibility factor tnvolved tn the 5tate gutdrltnes. Gommtssioner Bushore want~ed Lo see the sign redrsigned w~th the minimum leeter size. .lack Whlte~ Assistant City Atto~ney, siated he would 1(ke to see a copy ..f the State requlrements before givin;~ an opii~lon. Chatrwoman Barnes su99ested a cont(r~uancc untl' he State guidelines ~ar, be revit~wed. Commissioner Tolar was concerned the Citv has created 3ts own p~oblem wlth an ordinance requlring service statior owners t~ po~t ar(ces and felt the metter should be rediewed ~ather than approviny signs three ttmes the size normally allowed. He pointed out only monument-type slyns hav^. p~eviously been a~liewec! tn the Can~o; and suggested if this ls~ga sign is alia+ed~ the dc~o~ will be apened for furthe~ req~~ests. Conmiss!aner Busho~e wanted to canply with :he price posting ardTnance~ but also wanted to see th~~ s1g~ designed mesttng the State's minimum {etter size re~qui~ements. 6/16/80 ~. ~ ~, { MINUTf~~ ANAHEIM CiTY PLIWNING COMMISS1011~ JUNE 1b~ 1980 a0-338 EIa CATE601l1CAL EXEMFTIOF~-C..ASS, 3 AND YARIANCE N0~3 51 (CONTINUED) Comml~stoner Hsrbst felt the propasad ~Ign could be too big t~ be reed and needs to b~ reduced. He st~ted this 1~ not an •rtertal highway and thts ststion serves the publtc in this ar~a. Chatrwoman Be~nes suggastcd this metter ba postponed unttl lt~ter in thc meettng so the steff cen supply furthar ~nformatlon regardtng the State yutdelir~es. Mr. Trax noted th~ 13'x a'2" is the overall size Includtng the monument. ACTiJN: Commissioner King offered a natlon~ seconded by Canmissf ~~d and MOTION ~t ED~ that consid~ratton of the aforertx nti~ned matter b~ past. nttl later tn the meettng. Fpllavtng cons(deration of item t~o. 7~ tl~e hear)nn on Vei•lance No. ~151 continued. Mr. Nendnrson recalled this aroposed sign hAS been apc~~oved by the Architectu~a) ~ommittee of Anahelm I~t i ls~ Inc, Commissioncr He~•bst offered Rcsaluti~n No. PCBO-95 and movr~d for Its passage and ndoptton thet the Anaheim City Planning Cornmisslon does her~by grant Petltion for llartance No. 3151~ (n pert~ denying watver of (b) maximum sign area rQqutring the stze of tht siyn to conform to the Stgn Ordinance rinco subJect property is In the ~cenic Overley Zone and app roval could set on unciesirable precedent and granting watver (a) on the basls that strict appiicAtion of th~ Zoning Code deprlv~s the prop~rty of prtvlleges enJoyed by other property in the s~me zontng classiftcation in the viclnity~ subJect t~ Interdepartmental Commt~tee recommendat{o~s. Commissloner Nerbst ctarlficd th~t th~ Planning CorrN.ission hae been very edame~t about signs in thia area and Corrrissionar fiolar pointe~i out oth~r service statlon operstors have been able to cfestyn thei~ signs to co~form wtth City and State gutdellnes. Mr. Nenderson asked if the sign area of the rnonumcntal sign must conforr~ to 20 square fel~t. Commissioner tlerbst felt thc proposed sign is totally out of place and is larger than any siqn in the whote shopping center; and that he recognlzes a need fa~ two s+gns as long as they conform to the Z(1 square feet requirement. Mr. Nenderson asked if he could b~inq (n revlsed plar for review and Commissic~ne~ Tolar d(d not think it would change hts apinion and p~lntea out the petltioner's rtght of appea'.. On roll ca~i~ thc foregoing resoiutton was pASSed by the fallowing vote: AYE5: COMHISSIONERS: BtlSNORE~ DAVID~ FRY, HERBST. KING, TO!.Aa NOES: COMM ~.,S I ONERS : NOt~E A85ENT: COMM I SS 1 ONERS : 9ARr~~S b/16/80 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLA~INfNG COMMiSSION~ JUNE 16, 1980 80-339 ITE N0. ~ PUBLIC MEARING. 041NERS: JAMES E. AND L015 A. ~~~~~-~VE DECLARATION NUNDLEY~ 91~ South Placentla Avenue. Sulte A, . •-40 Placentia~ CA 92(~70. Property da~cribed as an ~E+N . 2~ (rregularly-shaped parcel of land consisti~c~ of apF-roximetaly 0~~ acre located at 'f~,: northeast corner of Canter Street and Coffman Street~ heviny approximate fronteg~s ot 67 f~et on the narth slde of Center Stroet and a frontage af 206 feet on the east side of Coffm~n Street. REQUE~TEU CIASSIFiCATION: CO (CONMERCIAI.~ OFFICE AI~D PROFESSIONAL) Z01JE. REQUESTEO Vl1RIANCE: WAIVER OF MINiMUM LAtIDSCAPED SET6ACK TO CONSTRUCT A 2-S7URY OFFICE BUILDING. Thara was no one incilcatiny their presence in oppositlon to s~ibJect request~ enri although the staff report to the Planntng Cammissfon dated June 16~ 1980 was not reed at the public hearing~ it is r~f~erred to and made a part of the minutes. Rabert Langer~ 930 South Placnn~ia~ Placentia, CA.~ agent, stst~d th~y feel camiercial office use ia the highest ~nd best use of the property ~nd that the proposed zone ch~nge complles with the Clty's General Plan designatfon; that there aro three othcr offtce butidtngs with(n apprnxir~ately 200 feet of the property on CRnter and Lincoln and the proposed deveiopawnt would be compatlble wlth the existing offlce F~~ildtngs end also the cam~rcl~) uses in the area; and that RS-7200 is not the htc~hes~ +and best uae because it is not compatible with the existing offiGe~ motel~ servtce station and sto~ege uses tn the aree. THE PUBLIC NEARItIG WAS CLOSED. Commiss{oner Klny was conce rncd because the prop~sed bullding ab~ts th,• east property line. La~ Bike, 3617 West MscArthur~ Sante Ane, architece~ explained chey were trytng to get the maximum usc for the City and the awners by loceting thc buildtng on the east property ltne and to provide a better utilizati~n for a landscaped nrea on Caffrnan which would Rnhance the corner of Center anJ Cof1°man. Cvnwnisstoner David asked if any w(ndvws on the adJ+~cent butldir~,, are fecing that dlrectian~ pointing out the ncighbors would be looktng dire~tly tnto a soltd wali. Mr. Bike explained the adjacent butlding has a minlmum numh~r of windows on thelr west wall but was not pasttive of the nurnber and polnt~ed out that building is 10 feet f rom their prope~ty 11he. Dean Sfi erer, Assistant Planner~ stated all property aaners within 30Q feet of subJect praperty were nottfied of this hearing and of thi~ request for vartance. Commiasioner King was concerned because property awnera next door eaxt foilowed the City Codea in developing th~:ir praperty and Mr. Bike lndicated their property is conslderably srnaller than the neighbor's property 1n width with the teta) f~ontage an Center of only 67 feet and the adJacent proPerty ts approxir.-ately 13A fe~t. Commisslan~r Herb~t stated th4 adJacent building was designed with windows on that side and this property has the same privitege a~ith the proper setbeck. Ne felt the building could Se shiftBd with nat as much lendsc+~ping on Coffman, and did noi think the landsc+~ping is as important as the light and air circulation that wiyl be blocked by this 6/ 16/80 I~J ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 16 ig80 80•340 E!R HEGATIVE DECIA MTION~ itECLASS~"IC4TION N0. 79•~0-~0 ANG VARIANCE N0. 3152 (CONTINUED) w~.~r.~.~r buildtng pointing out thi, buti~~,~ will completely ahede the adJac~nt bullding In the af;arnoan. M~. Bike atated tha winu~wa extsting tn the adJacent structure presently do not have any erchitectural or solar proJections from the west axposure and perhaps thls pr•op~sed bulldtng would be A beneftt from an alr concfitlaniny strndAotnt In energy use. Cammtsstoner Herost cou1J ~iut see a hardship on this p~operty and felt the butldtng should be sht f ted awAy f rom the propcrty 1 t ne. Mr. Bike stated the buildtng could be moved 10 feet to thc west~ but the landscaping would be dtmintshed which would be vislbi~ fr~~m the carner~ and by relacating the butldtng and land~capln~~ there would be a 10-font landscaped strlp between th~ butlding and the east wali; hawev~r~ it wil) not be vtsibtc from che corner and Canmissloner Nerbst steted it would be vlatblo fram Cent~er Street and Ltncoln Avenue. Cormtsstoner Busharc p~intod ~ut Cente~ Strcct is one w~y at thet Iocatlon end the crafftc wouid be cor+ing Jirectly toward the wall and lanJucaping vrould be of no benefit to anyone trav~ling wcst and oniy pArtially visible to tr~ff(c c~otng east on Lincoln. Commlsslc,ner Ktnc~ was still concxrneci becausc the property owner to the east followed the Code and Commissione~ Tolar statc.' things have changed since Chat property to the east was developed anci pointcd o~it u~nmercia) devalopments are necded ~nd land costs are very high. Commissioner Ktng agrecd and pointed nut the propr.rty ownsr to the east was notifled and is not present. Cortmissioner N~rbst expiflined hc ls n~t askinc~ the ~eveloper ta reduce the size of the bulldfng or chnnye thc land use; but the property ts de~sl~neted CO a~d he felt the buitding would look: bctt~r landscapcd on bath sides and he could not Justify a hardsl~ip. Commissloner Tatar stated he also hos a problem t:ith thc harasf~ip~ but felt no ane F.nuld see khe 10-foot uead space Necween the butlding end wall and felt it wauld look bctter on Caffman with thE west property line and front landsc~pec~. Conmissiancr Harbst fcl+• it is a matter of how the butldfng Is placed ta maka it mo~e eesthettcally pleasing and notc~~ when driv(ng down Center Street oryty a soll~ blotk wall wi 11 be vlsible. Commissio~er Bushore indtcated he is els~ concnrned with a solid block wall but he was not too conce~ncd about the development to the praperty llnc. He po(nted out tha o-aner next door was natified~ but the notice was for a znne change and landscaping ~etback snd he was sure the property vwner did not reatize that a";0-foot high block Nail ts proposed on his property ltne. Mr. 81ka asked if balco~ies or other pro~ectlons could be designed tnto the setbeck~ nottng if the proJections cannot go Ir.to th~ setback, there wauld be a reduction in the squsre footage. Daan ~herer~ Assistant Planner~ ax.pl~inCd there is a flve-foot requlred setback adJacent to Wffm~n and 10 foet adJacent to Center 5treet and the o~ly sllawebie p~ojections would be si~irways~ baicontes~ etc. 1ir. ~ike pointed aut !f the building is nayed 10 feat to the west~ che 4-fook balco~les woutd proJect four feet into Lhe setba~k or o~e foat fran thn prope~ty lina. ~ ~ MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 16 19~ ~IR Ne,GATIVE OECLARATI~N~ RECL DSIFICATION N0. 79•~'40 ANO VARIANCE N0. 3152 (CONTINUE ) Bo-341 Cw~isslou~r Tolar ~wid not envt~lo~ ~h~t ~~+~~ 10 fcat wl 11 aoaoMp~ {sh ~ny•` '•~+! I~oat~N lMs~tali Mi11 b~~thatl~ ~ ty~ortprot~cttonf totthedbutld~~npttl0~est dMd ~~er It erpt Nii~p ai-~- ACTIaN: Co~+tssione~ To1ar offe~ed s motion, secand~d by Coim~i~sioner Davld snd MOTION ~D, that the Anahetm Clty Planning Conmisslon has revtawed the p~oposa) to r~classify subJect proP~rty from the RS•7200 (Residential~ Single-Family) Zone to the CO (Comme~cial~ Office end Professlonal~ Zone to constru~t a two-story offlce bullding with waivar of mintmum ~en~iscaped sotback on an irragulariy-shaped parcel of tand consisting ot dpproximately 0.5 acre located at the northw~st corr,er of Canter St~eet end Coffman Straet, heving a frontege of approximete~Y 67 foot an tho north side ot Center Street and a frontage of ?OG `cet o~ the et~st side ~f Coffman Street; +~nd does hereby ~pprove the Negattve Decleratian from the requirement to ~repAre a~ envlronmental tmpact rnport on the basis that th~~e would be no significant individunl or cumutetfve adverse environmental Imp~ct due to the approval of this Negettve Dnclaratic+n since the 1~naheim Genersl Plan deslgnates the subJect property for ~~r~~a~'P~~fesslonal land uses cam~ensurate w(th the pr~posal; that ro scnsitive environmcntat impacts are involved in +the propc~ssl; thet the Initial Scudy submittecl by the petitioner tndicnt~es na si9nlficant individual ar cumulatlvo adverse environo ^fileiin~thc~City of~AnahefinePlannin~ Depa~tmentsubstanttating the Foregoing flndings is Cemmtsslone~ Totar offered Rasolution No. P~~~ herebd ~ant PetitlonpforaReclassification that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does Y 9 No. 79-E;0~~~~~ subJect to Interdep~~rtmental C~mnlttee recon+m~ndations. On roll cal l, the foragoing resolutio~ Nas passed by the fallowinc~ vete: AYES : COMNI SS I ONERS : DARI~ES ~ BUSIIORE ~ DAV 1 D, FRY. iIERSS'f , KI NG ~ TOLAR NOES: COhWISSI0NtR5: t10t~E ADSENT: C~MNISSIONERS: NOI~E Conmissioner Tolar offercd Rasolutfon ~~o. PG80-97 anJ moved for tts pASSaye ~nd adopti315~ that thc Anahelm City Planning Commixsion doas hereby grent Petition for Variance No. on :he uasis of the unusual si~e and shape of the propercy and subJect to InLerdeQartmental Commi ttee reccun~r-andations. Commissioner Na:nst stated he tauld nrt ag~ee and felt the developer is over~ulidtng the property ~ ~hairwea+An Barneio^e~~Nerbstsfeltathe butldingwcouldhbehdesiwned wfthouttthe vsrlance.rty line and Commiss Mn~ka Sa~Celahti~ Assista~t Oir'~e°fiverfoonisetbackrwou~d pe~mit1ad2091n h,enc n.achmentd ancroach four inches per foot~ n Into the five feec. Cammissi~er King askeHerbstrnucinted~outfthe~developerbwouldtha~etmoreufiexibilityobecause faet ~d Commissioncr Po he would bc aita+ed to put windaws in the west wall. Qn ro~~ cail. the foregoing resalution was passed by the foila+ing votes AYES: COMMIS5~OKERS: ~oes: corwtssior~eas: ABSENTs CQMMiSSIQNERSs BARNES, DAVID, FRY~ TOLAR ~USNORE. NEFtBST, KING NuNE 6/ 16/80 _~..,..r._,.~.~ . , =~ _-._._._ ~,,.~~,~..-~. ~, ~: ., . . ~ ~ ~ NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1G~ 19~0 8 34z RECESS Thera wa~ e ten-minute recass at 2 t45 p.m, R CU ~NE The~ meeting wos roconvoned at 2:55 p.m. Z~-~oman Bsrnos left the moetiny snd Chairman Pro Tempore nssumcd the chair. i T~M N0. PUE3lIC t1~ARl~lr. QWNERS: NAt~CY ANQ OQN SKJERVEN~ E ~ Vf DEtLARATIOt~ 1213 Nawcll Strcct, Anahelm~ CA 92805. Property R L 0 ~~U. -~-41 describecl as a rectanqule~ly-shaped ~arce) of V rICE rTO. 3 5 `~'~' lend conststf~9 of ~~Pproximat~ly 0.~~3 acre having ~ frontago of approxtmately 100 fect on the south sicfe of Oranger+nocl Avenue, having e moximum depth of opproximetely 187 feet end b eln~ loc~ted approximately ~5 feet cast of the centerlinc of pella Lane~ and further d~acribed as 1628 West Orangcwood Avenue. Pr°~nresentlv clQSSi f l~d„~,RS-A-4 OQO ( NTIAI AGRICUL~URAL ZO~~E. RCQUESTEp CLASSIFICATION: aS-77.~O~RESIpE11 1 L~ I~~GLE- FAMI LY Of1E E ~'ffT:`"'"' Th~re were two perscros ind(cating *.hcir ~rescncc In opposition to subject requesL, and although the ateff rr,~ar[ to thc Plenning Commisston dated June 16, 19f3~ was not read at the public hear(ng~ it is referrcd tn and mAda A nart of tht, minutes. !t was noted the petltioncr was not pfescnt. Arthur Barnett, 211~ Sou[ti Loare Strcet~ wes glnci eo have this leryc parcal deve~loped and understood the plans shaw a single-story dwclling~ but wanted a restrictlon added to the apn~ovai that it stny single-5cory for privacy in the neighborhood. Sha~or Nokes, 1G31A West O~ongowood~ a•~ner of pro~rrty to ihc west on the corner of Della lane~ one of 5 Urig(nal awners of sr_ven Butler--larbor tlanes bui It 19 years ago, cxplslned one of the hcxnes has bcen so) d once ana one sol d cw i c~ wh i ch she fe 1 t adds s tab 1 I i ty to the neighbarhood~ the eommunity And the Ctty. Shc sc~ted they have zoninq rest~tctlons (n thls a~ea a~d at onc tir~e 6utics~-Narb~• had wonted tr, butl~: an eighth hause to Face Della; however~ the City would not giv~ then~ approval bccr~use of minimum square footege requirement per lot. She felt approvai af [h(s requcst would otoen th~ doar in this area because there are many prnpertics wi t~ excess l~nd whtch could be deve:laped. Also~ this r+ouid put them in a h(gher density ~rea and the C~des wi,alcf be changed and the Commission eould not dtsertminate egainst other simi lar requr.sts. She stated the occupants of th~ proposed structurC wiil have to look at a 9-fc~ot hlgh~ 5p feet iong wal l behind thcm bmcause her propcrty is appr~ximately three. feet htgher than subJcct property and wi tt, the dwc111ng tf-ere she Nould nee~f to build ~ six-foot high wall for privecy. Her nciclhbors to the rear wi 1~ nave to but Id a six-foot wal Z for prlvaey ~ecau~~ thair hause is only 12 feet from the propcrty iinc. She stated she realizes this is a beautiful pteco of propGrty~ hut also reait2es there are many innovative, creativa ar~Fsitects who could cievefop something In goocf taste whlch would relate Co what has already been developed. Sh~ fcit tf Cndes are c~ing to be changed~ the~c are meny prop~rtfes which c~nbe c!eveloped artd this w111 m~ke a higher density area and the present restrictions for the si ze af the lot wi i l b~e wiped out ~~hich wl ll de~reciate the value of Lheir homea and the arca. She statr.d she is against the reque;t. Don SkJerven, 1J71 Skylfne, Santa Ana~ awner~ statea this is a l~+rge property to rt-aintain and spl i tting tt~e pro~aerty and sel l iny i t to e proud homeawner wha wi 1 1 talce care of 1 t will be an (mprovener.t Lo the ncighborhoad. H~ steted there are no fences there now a~d none are proposed. Chai rnwn Pro Tempore Tola~ refesrred to M~. Bar~ett's concern regardtng a two-sr.ory structure snd M~. SkJerv~n explalncd the destgn is for tKa stngle-story struc~ures to accommadate the surrour~Jing residents. ~ ~~~~~~ ~- SY~- ~'D ~i~~ia~n ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE 16~ 1980 itE. CESS 7herQ was a ten-minute recosa et 2:W5 P.m. R~CO~ NVENE The meeting was reconvened at 2 iS5 p•m, 80- 342 ~ r~ ~+ `~ ,f'-L'` ~ ~,~tl~ -- ..~0" ,r~,, :~y, t ~ Chslrwoman Barnes left the mecting snd Cha lrman Pro Tempore assumed thc chei~. ~ITEM N0. ~" PUBLIC HEARItZG. 041I~ER5: NANCY AND D~M SKJCFtVEN~ EIR NEGATIVE OCCLARATIAN 121 3 Nowci) Stroet~ Ant~helrn~ C~ 92805. P~operty ~ ~ •ap.W~ dascribed es a recta~gutarly-sheped percel of ~ lAnd umsisting of ~p~+roximately 0,43 acre having a frontage of approx(mately 100 fe~t on the south siJd of O~angcwood Nvenue~ having a meximum dep[h of app~oxlmately 1Q7 Paet and being located approximetely 9; fe~et east oP the centerll~e of Del la Lane, and Furth~r desc~ibeei a• iG2u West Oranycwood Avenue. There were two persons Incitcating thcir p~esence in oppasition to subJect request~ and although the statf rc~ort tu the Planning Cam~fssic-n dated .~un~ 16~ 19P0 was not read at the public heartng~ it Is referrec! to and made a part o~ the minutes. It wes noted the patltioner was not present. Arthur Bernett. 2115 South Loa~a Stroet~ wAS glod to hnve this large partel develop~d and undarstood the plens shaw ~ si~gle-story ciwelliny~ but wAnted e restrictlon added to the approvsl that (t stay single~story for pr ivacy in the nelyhborhooJ. 5haran Nokes~ 163ti Wsst Oranc~ewc~ad. a~-ne~ of propcrty to the .+est on the ca~ner of Delle Lene, one of 5 original awner~ of SCVen Butlor-Narbor 11on~s bullt 19 ycars ago. explsined one of the homes has becn so 1 d once end ane so 1 d tw i ce wh i Gh she f e 1 t aclds s t+~b 11 i ty to tht neighbortiood~ the cort+munity and the Clty. She statcd the~- have zoning ~esirictions in this area and at one time Butler-Flerbor had wanted to but id an ~ighth hause to face Dc11A; haveve~, the City wauld not give them approval becausc oF mtn imum squar~ footage requirement per lut. Shc felt apprava) of this request would open the door in this srea because th~re are meny p~~opertles wt th ~xce~s land which coui d be dev~sloped. Also. this woui d put thcm i n a h i c~he r dens i ty area arnd thc Cocies woul d be chenged and the Commi ss ion could not disc~fmtnat~ against other simi le~ requests. 5he stated the eccupents of the ~roposed st~ucture will have to look at a 9•faet high, SO foet long wall behind them because her property is a.~proxlmately three feet higher than subJPCt property anc! wi th che dwei l ing there she wou-d nsed to bui id i stx-faot high wal l for prSvacy. Her neighbors to th~ rear w(11 hAVe to buiid a six-foot wa11 for prtv~cy because thair house ~nly 12 feet frwn the property line. She stated she real~ze3 thie is a beauttful piece .,f p~operty, but also rcalizes there are many innovAtive, creatlve arcfiitects wt~o could develop sc~mething i~ gnod taste whlch would relate to what has alrsrdy bee~ developed. ShG felt if Codes are going to bc changed, there are many properties which can be developed and th Is wi 11 make a high~r density area And the present restrictions for the sixe of the lat wii 1 be wiped aut which will depractate th~ vslue of their I10f1M=5 and thc area, She stated she is against the reqajest. Don Skjervan, 17`71 Skyllne~ Santa Ana~ awner, stated thts is a large property to maintai~ and splitting the property and selling it to a proud homea+ner wh~ will take care of IC wi I 1 ba an improvement to the netghborhood~ tie stated there are no fences there nc-w and none are proposed. Chairman Pro TA~*oore Toler referred tc the conzern regardi ~g a tKO•story structu~e and Mr. SkJe~ven expieined the design ts for two single-atory structuras to eccannwdate the surroundin~ residents. S/lb/8o -1 ,...~~_..,.~,,.,~.,~...,..~,.~..~ - -.~_ .~~ ~ . ~ MINiITES~ ANI-HEIM ~ITY PLANNING Ct3MNISSION~ JUNC 16~ 1980 E I R NEQATI YE DECLARAT I ON. RECLASS I F I CAT I ON N0. 79-E30-41 ANO VARIANCE N0. 3153 (CONTINUEO) 80-343 Cha i rman P~o Tempore Tolar statsd eprrc+val can be tied to suDmttted speci tic plans whichwould etiminete the po..stbility of any two-story st~uctures, Co~wnirsio~er Kiny asked abouc the wal) wt~ich w~s n~entione~t ard Mr. SkJerven stated he dtd not propase e wsll and felt the oxistiny trees and shrubs p~ovlde adequate protection alo~g th~ driveway on the wcst stde. T11E PUULt C FlEARif~G WAS CLOSEQ. Co~nissinner Busl~ore ~xpln(ncd t~ Mrs. Nokes that the sub)ect praperty is zoned RS-7200 and those: p 1 ans shaw ~he prope Yty does meet the Code re 1 a~ i ng to s 1 zo e~d botf~ lots are la~ger than 72~n squarc f~et. Dea~ Sherer, Asslstant Plnnner, explained that Mr,. N~kes property is zoncd RS-A-t~3~0~0 al though i t Is substa~dard. Commissloner Bushore asked Ftrs. Nokes If she would construct a woll and Mrs. Nokes atated two wnlls w i I1 be requlred~ anJ th~; occupants of the proposed ciwel l inya wl 11 be looking at two liigh walls. She indicated ctmcern ~-bout tha 145-foot long driveway which wl) l actually be a r~ad down the slde of her house and feit a well w(I1 be necessAry there because that ls where h~r bcdroor• is l~cated. She stated she would like to se~e the property remaln as lt 's or be devcloped with onc large single-family home. She felt one hvuse behi ~ d another huuse Is a"tacky~ sh~nty• town" a~~raaeh. Conrnlasfoner Busl~ore felt this dc~~ielopment wi11 enhancc the netghbarhao~ and witl be a mc~re att~aetlve lot because it oft'ers more pratcctian to the house in the rear. Ne po i nted out th~ need to create ho~s i ng for Lhose penpl e who are not fortunate enough to a 1 reody ow~ the 1 r own I~omc and i n order for them to be ab 1 e to af forci i t~ thtse 1 a~gnr 1 o Ls I n th e C 1 ty mus t be dgve 1 oped . Mrs , Nokes dl d not f~ 1 the re i s a need to pu t 1 aw cos t hous i ng i n th i s area because of the possibi lity af them becoming Ic~w-cost rental prapertles. Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar staceJ th~ flag lot aAproach to development of a lerge parcel has been used many times in all areas of Anafieim and is not t+ "tacky" approaeh and $200,AQ0 homns on flag lots have been found to be very d~si rable; that he understands her resistance to development of two housea on this property because she has en)eyed the privacy of the vacant land for many years. but realisticially he~ conce~n retating to low- cost housing ts not well-founJed be~cause with ths cost of land today, thes~ houses would pir-+cbably sel) between 5100,000 ~nd $1y0.000 minimum. Co~-~nissloner Bushore clarlfied he w,9s trying to say that the more housing created, means bettnr housing and f~lt that this wauld be better hausing; and that this would ope~ a house at the other end of the cycte; Chat we arP ~unning out of develepabie land and pcople a~e still caninc~ and it is g~tting more and more expensive to aer+ 9 single-fa^-t1y h C~rtle, Chalrn~an Pro Tempore Tolar statcd th~is ta not heavy density in this area and both of these lots wl l l be larger than the maJQr(ty of lots existl-,y ~~~ ~-~ec ares, recogniztng Mrs. ~lokes' lot is larger. Mrs. Nok~s explalned Lhe lat s~zes ie~ tfie area and asked if minin~um requirn~nents will be cFtanged. Cla.airman Pro Tempo~e Toinr repl ted th~e standards wiii n~t change and the variance ia re~qulrad to create the secnnd lot an~ the maJor difference is the d~iveway. ~. 6/16/80 ~ ~ , MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 16, 198A EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 79•80•41 Ar~D VARIANCE N0. 315~ (CONTINUEO) _~.~ 80• 3WW Canmissloner Fry polnted aut subJQCt prope~ty haa 1$~7~~ s~uere feot. Mrs. Noke~ steted when tt reins the subJect praperty floods end ChAirman P~o TQmpore Tolar explalnad ci~velopmont,will requlra thet~n~hdeve opmentbwltilatmprovemthat~fto dln9 requ) rements as sppro ec1 by the Ct ty ~ . altuation. Cammissioner Bushore polnta~l out Mra. Nokcs' property Is approxin~tely 11~OOn square feet and t~his property is lt+rger and he did not understand hcr conccrn. Mrs. Nokes Indicat~d her concern was that the house Is being put so close to her noighbors who are elderly and coul~i not attend. ACTIrpM; Commissioner -lerbst offered a motlon, sccande~f by Ccxnmissioncr King t+nd MOT{ON CARRIEO (Cnmmissioner Bernes br.lny ebscnt) ~ that the frametheCR5yAP43~,000~ Commlssion has rtvtewea tha proposal to reclt~~sify subject {~roperty (Residentit~l/Ayricultural) ton~Wi `'l w~iVes og~minRmum~lot'width,on'a rec~angularlytshaped estt-blish a ?.-lot subcfivis parcel of lar~d consistiny of a~proxim~tely 0.~-3 acre having a frontr~ge of approx~~maetely tQ~ feet on tht~ south side of Orangewoc~d Avenue~ having a maximum depth of ~pP 1Q7 fect and being tucated approxt~atety 95 fa~t east of Della Lane, and doea hereby approva the Neyatlva DeclarAtton f~nm the rrc~uirement to prepare an envlronmental impact report on the b asis that there wauld be na si~nificent indtvidual or cumul~tive adverse envlronmental impact duc to thc approval of this Negative aeclaration since the Aneheim Gencral Plen,desf9nates th~ fve~environmentalflmpactsdarc'involvcdulnath~ proposale that the proposal~ that no sensit the Inltial Stuciy submltteci by thc petftioner indicates no significant indlviduel or cumulative adverse envlronmen~;~~~i~aLhe~Gity afaAnaheim~Planning Oepartmentsubstantieting the foragoiny fi~dings is on Commissioner 1lerbst offered Rasolution No. FC60'9$ ~"~ ~~CdP~~ition forsReclassificaption that the Aneheim City Planniny Commission does hereby g No. 79' ~'G1, sub}ect tn Intcrd~partmental Commitcee recommendatlons. On ro) l cal l~ thn fara~~ot~y r~solutian wes p~+csed by the foi lowing vote: AYES : i.OWt l S51 Q!~ERS : EiUS~IORE ~ NOES: GOM~1! SS I GIILRS : NONE ABSEIIT: COMMIS510NEa5: DARNES DAVID~ FRY, HERaST~ K1NG~ TOLAR Commissinner Nerbst offcred RCSCI~ru~t`gst~'doesoherebydgr~ntdPetitian forSVarianceaNoPt3153 that the Anaheim Gity Planniny for a flac~ lot on the banio edab gother propertlesn ncierhtdentlcalCzoningpclassification property of privi leges e J y Y in ~he vicinity~ subJect to Interdepartmtnial Commttte~e recormrendations. On ~oll call, the fore9oing rasolutlon was passcd by the followin~ vote: AYES : COMM 155 I ONERS ; BUSt10RE, DAY I 0~ FRY ~ 1iERBST ~ KI NG ~ tOLAR NOES: COMMIS5IQNERS: NO~~E ADS~NT t COMM f SS 10t1ERS : BARI4ES Jack White~ Asststant City Attorney. presentod the pntitioner aith tha written right to eppeal the Planni~g Commisstor~'s decision within 22 days to the City Counctl. 6/16/80 ~~ ~ / ~~ MlNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 16~ 1980 80- 345 ITEM N0. 6 PU4lIC HEARIIIG. OWNERS: LEASE ALL-LA PALMA~ 159~+ i t~, f~NE D~CLARATInN South Anahelm Bouleva~d, "!1"~ Aneheim, CA 92805• ~ ~"'(~'~n~ ~p~(, AGEt~T: RODCP,T M. 1,~~'!ERTON (TIIE LEAV~RTON CQMPANY.) 15~4 South Anahcim Boulevard~ "A"~ Anahelm, CA 9280>. Petlttanrr raqu~ets permisai~n to PEaMIT INDUSTRIALLY- ORIENTEp SAIES AND OFFiCC USES It~ THE ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIM~T~O) ZONE on propa2SYacres clescribed as an trregularty-ahaped parcal of lend cons~attng of ~,~proximately ~. having a frontage of approximrtely 210 feet on thc nc~rth side of La Palma Avenue~ havtng a maximum depth of approximately 725 f~~t~ end be(ng located appr~xinu~tely 675 feet east of the centerifno of Ven 8urcn Street, and furthc:~ describrd As ~'Ja1-403~ East L~ Pe1ma Avnnue. Proparty presently classificd ML (INGUSTaIAL~ LIFIITEU) Za~IE. 71~ere was na anc tndicatin~ thcir presence ln on~osition to subJcct request, and aithough the staff rep~art to th~ ~'~88nJnmadenatpartnoFethc mfnutes, y9~~ W~s not read at the public hearing~ it is rcferra t 7ony Vitall~ Leaverton Company~ represcnting Leasc:-i111~ 1y~~+ South Anaheim Boulcvard, wes p~esent to answer ~ny questions. T11E PUaLIC NEARIMG WAS CLOSEO. Responding to Chafrman i'ro Ttmpo~c Yolar's questlons, Mr. V{iali stated basically they intend to yenara`n the inJus rlnl'rre~s thet'~ o'furniturenstoretoruconsumeratYpeiretat) tl~ere i s a need outlets arQ propnscd. Chairman Pro Temtwre Tolar as~ed if staff had made che petitioner awere of the commercie) uses which ar~EnnQmr~aa;i ~~iventa~,llstd~Deare verballysgivennthe'usesrwhi~chwaredconsideted peti tianers a Y 9 industrlally orianted by the Canmission. Chalrnan Pro Tempore Tolar inJicatod concern relating to sGVe~al of the uses proposed and explatned the Gity of M ahein has been ve ry wncerned about comn~ercial vlolations. Ne wRs particularly concerned about the proE+osad co~m~ercial sales office, a~d service and tonsultfng firms to commerce and industry- because they are very broad and also distributor's shnwrooms. noting the Conmisslon has had a lot of ex~erl~nce wTth petittoners sayiny theytoabe c~cx~mcrcialuvlalattonsein~en (ndustrial~park~ugNeifelt~~hsand then the uses turn out propased ltst has to be tight~ned up before -~e could support it. ~1r. Viteli stated it is difficult to describe the uses in advance wlth no particula~ tenant. Commissioner Herbst felt with the sixe and shape ~f the buildings, the glass fronts on the bulk of the buildinys-~e~a~ehouseGand~ahopispaces~tit doessnot appeareta him to beranA, uses and wi tt, the smal industrial complex• Mr. V~tmli stated the tnJustrlai bulldings have giass fronts to cnake the buildings more attractive. Cortimtssianer Herbst exptalned the Commission has baen undergoing studlas recentiy anu ere in the process of devQloping "isia~da" for these conn~rcial uses, but felt this would be s 6/15/SO ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL.ANNING COMMISSION~ JIINE 16, 19$0 I7~M N0. 6 '~'~~1~ D~CLARATION o, zoa~ ORIEf~TED SAlGS AND OFFICE USES IN described as an irr~nutarly-shapod having a froniagc of ~pproxtrnately maximum depth Qf approxlrr~taly 725 the centerlina of Van euren Street~ Avnnue. So- 3k5 PUBLI G HEARI IIG. OuN~RS: LEASE ALL•LA PAlMJ1~ 159p South Anaheim ~aulev~rd~ "A"~ An~hetm~ CA 928AS• AGE~IT: R09~RT N. LCAVERTQN (THE LEAVERT4N COMPANY.) 1~~4 Sauth Anoheim Baulavard, "A"~ Anaheim, CA 9280~. PetitlAner re~queste permisston to PERMIT INDUSTRIALLY- THE ML (INDUSTRIAi., IiMITEQ) ZANE on property pArcel of tand consiattnn of a~proximately 5•Z5 acres 210 fec~c on the n~rth sicie of La Palma Avmnue. having e Fact, and befng l~catcd a~praximAtely E~7S feet eaat af and furthcr describr.d as ~~OL1-b0~5 Ea~t Le Pslma Proporty presently classiftcd FIL (INpUSTRIAL~ LlMITEU) ZONE. There was no one (ndttating the~ir presenc~ in apposition to subJect raquest, and although the staFf report to the to~andn~mecle a'partnofethc ninutcs, ~~~a wAS n~t reed at the public hoaring~ iC is referred Tony Vikali~ Leaverton Comp~ny~ representinc~ Laasc-All, 159~~ SouCh Anaheim 8oulevard~ was present to answer anY questlons. TIIC PUBIIC NCARIt~G WAS CLOSCO. Rasponding to Chairman Pro Temporc Tolar's questions~ Mr. Vital) stated basicalty thay Inte~d to ye~~~ajn the ind~us~trtal,areas [het'~ o,furnlcure~storetoruconsumer~~+e`recall thcre ts a naed outlets a~e pruposed. Chairman Pra Tempore Tolar asked if staff had madc thc petlCtoncr aware of the cam~erct~l uses whtch are normally permttte~f end Deare Sharer, Ass`Ve^RthPiusesrwr-tch aradconsldared petltinnars are normAlly given a list ar are verbally g industrlelly ortented by thc Cnnmiasion. Chairrnan Pro 7ampc~re Tolar indicat~d concern relating to several of thc uses proposeN~an~ expl+elned the City af llnaheln has been ve ry cancernad n~out canmercial vToletlons. pArticulerly concerned about the propos~ed co~m~erclar saiGS offi b rosd~and~alsa ind consulting firms to con~++e~ce ~nd industry because they are ve ry distributor's show roans. noting thc Conmiasian hes had a lot af experience with petltloners saying th~y want Co put tndustrlally related users in the Indust~ial zone and then the uses turn outtt`,betccom~ uptbefore'heitauldnsupportuitrit~l park. He felt tho proposcd list has to b 9h Mr. Vitali stt~ted it is difficult to describa the uses in adv~n~e with na particulsr tensnt. Commissianer tierbst f'e1t with t1~Q sixe and shape of the bulidings~ the glass Pro~ts on tha bulk of the bulldings, }ewerehouse`anci~shoptspaces.` t t doe~s~not appeareto him t~rAne~ u s e s a n d w i t h t h e s t n a l industris) compiex. Mr. Yitel) atated Cfie industrial butldt~gs have gless fronts to r~ake the buildings more attrscttve. Canelssio~sr i:erbst explatned the Conwnission has bee+~ und~rgoi~g st~~dias recently snd are a in the process uf daveloping "islsnds" for tfiese cammerclai uses. bu; feft this wou d be s 6~ 16/80 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNINC COMMIISSION~ JI~IE 16~ 1980 80•3~~ E.IR NEGATIVE QECIARATION ANO CONDITIONA{. USE PERNIT N0. 208G (CONTIHU~O) .._...,.........,-------- - --- ~~iefinlte encroechment into s pura tndutit~ta) area~. No did not fQe) the integrity ot the l~dustrisl xane shoulc! be brok~n down any furLhcr. Nr. Yitali explainad tho fronts of the. units are ciesigned for offic~ ~pace and pnlntsd out the larfle ove~head doors which are spr.ciftcalty for inciustrial use. Commisslon~r Buahore st~taJ he is not 1~- disegre~ment that a~me of the proposed commercia) uses would actuelly servlce th~ inJustriai area~ but wa~ted to tiyhten the control end ~sked if questtonabic uses woulcl ba brourht back for Cor.mtsslon roview under Reports ~nd Recommendatlons. Jack Whtte. Assistant City Att~arn~:y~ ststed the Conmtssivn wnuld havc to 11mit the pe~mlt to certatn uses. Mr. Vitali state~d the reason for r~eques[ing this conditlonal ~se ~ermit was to minlmtza thc reqursts to the Comniasiun. Chairman Pro 7empor~ Tolar ask~sci about thc Ins{dc wills and M~. Vltall stated the walls are 2"x6" wc~od stuJs with dry~rall and are non-bearing and they could be removed. Comnisslaner 1lorbst stated thc Northeast Industrtal Ar~a has been studied and the "tsland concapt" ts beiny considered ta eliminate this type of abuse and could permft users wh(ch would serv(ce the industrial erca. Commisstuner Bust~ore state~i currcntly t~e cauld not ~hink of anythtng ~o~th~ south~ ea!~t or west which would cause people to want to come (nta the are~ to shop commerc(ally. Ne felt ccrtain types of uses couid go in un~fer a blanket type permit, which would be exactly what the Commissinn and Cicy ~rc trylny to avolu and referred apeciftcally tfl the praposed distrlbutar's shawrooms. Nr. Vitali tnJicated his. idea of ~ dlstrtbutor's showroom would be Fredericks Development an Rtchfield Road whic~~ has a showroom for new h~me buyers of accounts they are se~vicing. Chairman Pro Tempore v~olar stated the use becomes cbrrmerctal when the publlc starts coming in and that is the ma,jor cpnccrn of ~thc Cormissior~. Mr. Vitali stated acrjln thcir intent~on In making thls requcst is to generate those serwices wf~tch cate~~ to industrial develupment, not the pure consumer type retail. Corrmissioncr Bushore pointed out the Commission tries to protect the industr~al users from themselves as witnessed earli~r in the meetiny and bringing tn outside forces mskes it twice as bad. He felt this list is too broad and tno many things could go in withc~ut Con~+ission contrnl; that bus~r~esses say something entirely different when they get thei-r business license and then start puttiny up flags and apentng their business to the pub~lic. He did not want to giva a blanket conditionai use permit. Ne felt the petltioner s~Mo~Ad have a specific ltst and any other use wcauld have to come before the Commisslon a~il i~ was poi~ted out there i~ an extsting list. Commisstoner Herbst pofnted out the studies of the Northaast Industria) Area ind+~cate the desire 1a not to mix cortune~cial and industrial uses and the corm~erclal uses woNr~dl be i~n the "Islands". He felt this request should be denied and all reguesri f~a~ ao~cia~ ~e be reviewed by the Planning Comnission because this wo~ld b~ encroaching upon the Tast pure industria~l area in Aiiaheim. 6/t6f8a :,.~ ~ i ) , MINUTES~ ANRHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ JUNE 16~ 19$0 80'3~~7 fIR NECJITI~'E OECLARATION AND CONOITlQNAL USE PERMIT NQ. 2QBb (CQNTINUED) Chairman P~~o Tampare Tolar ecareed because tho uscs could bc tled to e time llmit~ noting a conditloiial us~ permit would go with thc property faraver u~teas it Is ttad to a ttme 1 tmil•. Mr. Vttei) asked if offica space would be consi:fered, Indicating he wes thinking about anylnerring offices •nd builder's offices~ and lt wAS noted thoae ty~r. offlces would be Allaveci withuut e umditional use peY-nlt. ~hairn-en Pro 7em~re To~ar statcd the petitianer wou1J be g{ven +~ lfst which he cauld ahow ';o hl~ potentiai tcnanti. Mr. Vit~li stAt~d nuto~•~obile uses would be those who cater to the larger automobila deAlers such as recnn~iti~~ning~ or transmltsio~ uses who do r~ot havQ a retall outlet. Chal~mt+n Pfo Temporc 'i'nlar stated therc is a prablem wtth thc desic~n of the unlts for lndustrial typ~ us~s bec~us~e of the size. Mr. Vita) I stated Ch,+t this ls a~rt(on of a 2;-acre si te wi~ich h~is Individual bui Idings; that they hove over 30~?~00!) square fcet in Anohnim of induscrlAl spac~; that the multi- tenant buildings ran~N frcxn G~000 ta ~~000 sr,uare fect ~~nd this is the second phase of the p rog ram , Cummtssioner Herhst stated hc will not suppnrt any ccx~mcrcia) uses in this particular araa until the "island ccm cept" has been resnlved; that with this type of structure and ortentation wtth glass fronts~ lt is sct up for purely comn~rcfal uses and if the Inteyrity of tfie Industrial arca is to be prote:cte~l, ihe Ccximisston must stick to the Codes . Commissioner 8ush~re ~akcd ~vhy the sign advertisinc~ the park indicates thls will be a business park and not an industrial anJ business parF:. Mr. Vltoli stated hc has a monument an Van 9urcn a~d that park has 12 individus) industrial butldings ~~d they all have ltght industrlat us+es and it is advertised as a busincss park because it is mo~e eppegitng than an lndust~lal park. Commissioner David was concerned about Cying the uses ~iawn and polnted out the appltcant is wtlling to lease to ftrms which meet the criteria of the in~iustrial area and it was pointed out a permit is not needed in that situation. Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar felt any users other than those previously established should be considered by the Planning Commission because a lot of developers have misrepresented their proposed uses ancl he felt this list is too broad a~d wished to see the uses constder~d on a case-by-case basis. ACTION: Commisstoner Herbst offered a motion, seccm ded by Canmissioner David and MOTION AL'R~~D (Commissioner 8ar~es being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit industrially-oriented comrnerctal sates and office uses tn the ML (industriai~ Limited} Zone an ar irregularlY•shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.25 ac~es having a frantage of approxlmatlay 210 feet on the north side of La Palmt Avsnue~ heving ~ rnaximum depth af a~proximatiey 725 feet and being located app roximately 675 feet esast of the centerline of Van 8uren Street; a~d does hereby approve the Negetive Declaratian from the requirement to prepare an envtronmental impact report on the basis that there would be no sig~ifica~L indtvidual or cumulative adverse environmentat impact due to the ~pprova) of this Negative Declar~tion since the Anaheim ~eneral Plan designates the subJect property for general industrial land uses caanensurate 6/ 16/80 =~} ~ ~~ ' i MINUTES~ Al1AHE1M CITY P1.ANa1NG LBMMISSION~ JUNE 16~ ig80 80-34A EIR NEGATIVE DEClAMT14N ANO CANOItICHAI USE PERMIT N0. 2066 (CONTINUED) with the propatal; that no s011bIt~VA envfronmentat imp~cts are involvud In the proposal; th~t the Intti~l Study submit~ed by thn p~tikia~ar indicet~s no st~niftca~t fndi~~idual or cumulatlve adver:c environmental fmpacts; hnd that thc Nec~ativa Decleratton tubstanti~ting the foregaing findinys ts on illc ln thc Clty of Anahelm PlAnnlne~ Qepertment. Commissioner Nerbat offered ~tosolutlon No. PC80•100 snd moveci fc~r its passage and adaptian thet thc~ A~ahelrn City Plannii~g Gommissl~n does herQby deny the Petitlon for C~nditlonr~l Use f'ermit No. 2Q8G ~~n the basis that the proposed uses ore not speciflc ~nd wauld possibiy bc an intruaton into the North~ast Industrlal Arca which is currently under atudy by thc Planniny Conmission and City Council. On rol) call~ the forayotng resolutlon was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: CONMISSIOIJEitS: BUSIIORE, DAVIU~ FRY~ NER85T~ KING~ TOLAR NDES: COMMIS510Nf:RS: NONE ABSCNT: Cc1MMl SS I ONERS : 9AaNES Ja~k White, Asslstont Clty Attorney, pr~scnted the petitioner wlch tha written rlght to appaal thE Planning Commisslon's dcctsion within 22 days to thc City Council. ITEM N0. PUk~LIC NEARItiC. OWNERS: PACIFIC NEIIPORT DEVCI.OPMENT ~VE DECLARATIOt~ INC. ~~~300 Catinpus D~tve~ t~ewport Beach, CA 92660. v~R_~NC~~ ~~ ~~~ ACEtJT : LANRLNCE R. G 1 Ll ~ 222 Fash i on Lant ~~'2A7 ~ Tustin~ CA 926R0. Patitioncr ~~quests KAIVER OF MAX i MUH STRUCTl1Rl1l HE I G1i7 70 CONSTRUCT A 10-UN I T APl1RTMEN'f COMPLEX on property descrlbed as a rtctnngulariy•shaped parcet of land consisting ~,f approximataly 4.35 acre located at thc southwest corner of Or+~~ge Avenue and Webster Avenue, haviny approximatc ffontrgcs of 9~ feet on the sauth ~tde of Orange Ave~ue and 1~0 feck on tha west side of Webscer Avenur.~ and furthcr described as 246a West Ort~nge Avenue. Property presently classifieJ RS~A-43~400 (RESIDCNTIAI,/AGRICULTURAI) ZONE. There wes ano pe~;on indicatiny hts prese~ce in oppositian to sub)ect request, and although the staff report to the Flanning Commtssion dated June 16, 19E0 was not read at thc pubi6c hhart~g. it is referred te and made a part of the minutes. Laurence Gill, ayent~ was present to ans~rcr eny questions. John I~Cing~ architect~ 12630 Brookhurst, Carden Grove~ Ca., presented a color rendering of tha proposed project. Ha stated he has worked wtth City staff on this p~oject for a long time; that he trted to keep the pro,~ect a~s ~'csidentiai as pcssible in character; that he tried to kecp the cars hidden from view wl~ich is the reason for the subterranean garages; that he tried to design a decent proJect thet is eppcaling to thc Ctty of Anaheim and a decent renta) untt and still be feasibl~; that the two outstde walls ~are single-story with two-story in the middle; that econnmic studies indlcated it is absolutely imperstive to add the second bedroom and bath; that the privacy of ~esidents across the straat to the north is protected by fiavinq no windows on that side; that this particular ~roperty is unusuai becaus~ it is in the northeast corner of basically an apartment area of the City's General Plan and th~refore. felt their requesC is reasonabls. 6/16/80 ,, ~,.~ ._ . _ _ ,~.~:, . . .~ ~.:.. .... .. . - _YSarsae~~e~Ge.•-aY._._ •S1^S~+°:1iYc6tT3Y1F?i:M14.} S' 11' 'Y .: d Y .e«„ .,.:' ~: t MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION, JU~{E lb, 1980 80'349 EI~NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3~5~+ (CONTIIIUEO) Cllfford 81ack~ 24F,-j Or~~yc, stated he has llvecl diroctly ~crosa the street for 24 yc~rs; tht~t ha agroos with the ptsn~ except th~~ the CodR cells for no two•atory dwellfn~a withln 1~0 feet of a restdence snd currently thc re are rx~ twa•story structures within 300 feet of the corner where he llve~ end hc Pelt this would be an enc.roachment and is agalnst the Code~ end ~i(d not foc) thu Pianning Canxnissian sh~uld ap{~~ove it. He stated thers is t+n spartmant canpl~x Just one block arr~y which wes bulit under the Cndes. 11e felt the Commission shuuld ablde by the Co~e. !ie dicf i~at thlnk the size of the property is ade,quata for this proJect but wanted to sce the proporty Improved. Ne pointed out he and severa) nelyhbors diJ not receive a n~tice af thc heoring; that the property was posted snd he understands it was advertiscd in the Anaheim Bulletin and he does not read thet newspeper. He sCat~d he haJ talked to his neie~hbors and they feci the sa+ne. John Kiny state~i they attemptcd to de+clop thc proporty in n decent~ orderly fashio~; that the steff report incllcates a nat density of 29 units ~nd the Cude permits 3~ units ~er acre; th~t thcy are not tryln,y to make a phenomenal profit and (n order to yet the number of parklny speces requireJ far thn number of u~its necessary to mal:e tf~e proJect pay for itself~ th~ unJerground gerage was necessary and lt became tmperative to add chQ extra bedrooms; that it was a real chAllenge to -~ork withln tha Anahei~,~ ordinances and the 15~' sctback presented Chc largeat problem and thcy were penalizcd on two sides. TNE PUaLIC NEARI,~c wns c~oseo. Commlssioner Kin~ explalned the Commission ts currently considering reduting the 150-fnot sekback t~ 100 feet and askcd hau thet reJuction wau~d affect this situatfon. John Kiny repited with a 1~~-fc~ot sctback~ they would have six two-story unita~ and 4 one- siory untts and thc front four units nearest Orange woutd be one-sto ry. Commissioner King referred to the singl~-farnily residence two lats west of the un(ts whicl~ is f31 feet from Che property ltne and felt denial of thls request would dcprive subJect p roperty of a privllege granted to the other praperty. Mr. Black explatned therp is a hc~me two lots west of subject property and ~ pre-schoo) on the next lot. Fle alyo explain~d tl~erc are na two-story units withln 150 feet; that the untts have vaulted ceil~nos and appear to be two-stories. Ne thought the two-story strucCure at the schaol is part of the school. Commissioner Herbst pointed out the Plan~ing Commtssion wiil be considering a reduction of the 150-foot setback later in the meeting, iR addition to a reductian in units sizes. Ne sugge~ted thts Item bc continued until afte~ that report has bcen reviewed. John King stated he egrees with Mr. Black regard(ng the frunt portion~ but the beck portion would be 150 feet frcxn the residences on the w~st side of Oranga and stated the apartment complex discussed does appear to be two-story units. Cammissioncr Herbst stated the General Plan designatcs the sub,ject property for med~um density anci many times the Commissfon has allowed a vartance from the 150-foot setback because the ad}scent property will tventuaily be devt!c+4ed as mutti•famity. John Ktng was con~erned because there are certatn bounds of decency as far as room sizes are concerned. and they want to make a decent and worthwhile proJect. Canmissioner Herbst stated the developer does not have to design to thc minimum allowed and suggested thls hearing be continued in order for the petittoner to submit revised plans in confarmance with the proposed ordinance~ if it is recommended for adoption to the Ci ty Counci 1. 6/16/80 ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' MIN~17~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMhiiSS10N, JUN~ 16~ 1980 80•350 EtR NEGATIVE CECLARATION ANQ VARIANCE N0. 3154 (CONTINUEO) ....~~..,. - John Kl~g Indicated he was anxious to move aheed with the praJect beceuse he has been wo~king ~n tt for 1-1/2 yosrs ~nd notad again they ere trying to ochi~ve n worthwhile pro)ect. Cc,mmissloner lierbst stnted he haa no problem with th~e proJect itselF~ but is cancerned about the vtt~lance since the Comrt~isslon is ~resently considering e reductlon. Commissianer Y,fng asked if a recluction to IOA feet would beneflt this pro)ect rnd John Kin~ repll~d any r4Juction woutd certainly be ~ benefit. Chalrmen Pro Te-~~ore Tolar stated (f the pr~p~sed ordinance ts adopted, this p~oJect could p rob ab 1 y comp 1 Y. R~!spondtn+~ to Commissioner Bust~ore's q~sii~tn, John King expla(ned the second story bedroom area is appr~xirnatcly 3~~~ square fcet~ and that tt would bc identical to the downstelrs bedroam. Corrm~issioner BuKhore felt en adequatc two-ticdrnom unit u~uld be 900 square feet and would p rovide a goad Iivable ~rea if the City ~rovides recreatlonal areas ancl parks in the area. Ne felt the project cou1J be reduc~d ancf still provide good houging units. John Ki~g felt the answer woulc! be ve ry negative in reduction of the unit sizes bec~use of current safety and saund rec~utren-ents. lie notecl the opposite sicie walls look identicel and the slde walis co+~e davn to one-story, ancf they respect thelr neighbor's prlvaty with no windows facinc~ them. Ile f~~it the 1;0-focyt setback is a hard cross to bear, espet(al ly whe~ a one•sto ry effect ct~n be achlevr.d. Chafrman Pro Temporc Tolar noteu thc petltloner has bcen working on the p•oJect for 1•1/2 years and neecls to proceed as rapidly as possible; however~ he felt it would be in hls best interest to cant(nue the matter for two w~eeks and revie,w+ th~ plan and with a 1(ttle redesign possibly eliminate thc need for the variance. John King requested a two week continuance. AC1'ION: Commissloner King offtred a matian, scconded by Comnissioner Fry and MOTION Rt p(Comnisstoner Barnes being absent). that consid~ratton of the aForementio~od item be continued to the meetlny of June 30~ 1980 in order for the Cortmission to further study th~ proposed ansenrlment to the RM-1zOc7 and RM-Z400 multi-family restdential xo~es pertatning to structural h~ight and ciwelliny unit stzes. 6~,6~ao ~~ ~ ' t MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 16~ 1980 80-35~ 1 TEM N0. 0 ~~~D RECOHMENUATIONS A. PROPOSED AMENdMEN7S TO TNE RM-17~~ And RM-2~~~~ MULTIPLE-FIIMII.Y RESIpENTIAI ZONES r r ~ 1 I t ~~ TQ w~ SubJcct petttt~~n was continued from che meeting of June 2~ iQ00. Daan Sher~r~ 1lssistnnt Planner~ presentcd the stoff re~port ta the Planning Commisslon dated June 1G~ 19(i0~ noting ~n June 2~ 1g80. the Planning Cortmisslon dlrectcd staff tn stuc~y and prepore amendments to the C~de regulAting structurel height and ciwclling unit sizes In ttie R~1-12Q~ end Rht-2ti00 tones. Prevtously~ the Cammisslon reviewed staff's survey of structur~l height restrlctlons (n other Jur(s~ictions rnd enalyzed severa) alternatlves ta amena current multiple-famlly sitc development stand~rds. Tf-Is rNport presents two speclfic Code +~mendments and an analysis oF each for Planninc~ revlew. The ordlnances pr~poac to ~mend Code standards regulatiny multiple-famlly structurAl helc~hts adjacent to stngle- famlly zones as well as reduce thc minimum size of cfwellinc~ units. These amendments pcrtain only to the RM-1200 and Rhh2~~0~ Zones~ ond do not (nclude the RM-3Q~0 tone. Code currently does not pr.rmit ?.-sto ry, multiple-frmtly structures when iocated clo~ter than t>~ f~~ec to a single-family zone boundary. The proposed amcndments would allaw for ~"graduate~" structural t~eiyht lfm(tati~n for mul[iple-famtly structures adJ~cerit t~ single-family boundaries. Watt Bewman~ J~36 Cerritos, Stanc~n~ aqent for Conrad Lctter, awner of property at 1216 Eas[ La 1'al-na~ stt~ted they had mec w(th staff ~nd mede recomrnendatlons wlilch were not tncluded In the final staff ~eport and their rtcommendation was for a 5~-foot setba~ck which ts consistent with the rest of the cfties in Orenge County. He explaineJ the City of Brea ordinence has a 35-foot height ltmit withir~ 10'1 feet singie-family, or a"o" setback after 10~ feet which is s 2-1/2 sto ry building. Fie Jid not fecl th~re is ~nny valtd basls for a 10~-foot setback anc~ felt reJuciny the setback co 100 feat would sttll be malntafning a"sacred cow" in th~ City of Anahetri. Ile stated the stze ot the building end cove~age of the lot are both involveJ and they would p~opose maxtmum uttifr.ation of the lot by haviny icwo stories whict~ ;,rould be more in line with other OrAnqe County ctties. Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar scated hc appreciAfed M~, Sowinan's conanents and as a land a~vner wou1J feel the same way~ but not at the cost of everything else eround~ that apartment r~wners generally do not ltve on the property; th~t he uncierstands changinq the Retback to 100 feet will not help Mr. Lette~'s proJect and point.ed out that property on La Palma is baunded on all sldes by residentia) uses. He feit the pro~osed ordinance might be very beneficiol to the City on other parcels end wi11 certAinly help the City get to whe~e they went to be. He polnteJ out the p~ssibility of land assembly together with redesign to provide additional units. Ne felt he could support this proposed ordinance; that ft is a balance and c~eatcs an inducement to che developer and that he re~lizes thsre are tradeoffs. Hr. Bowman referred to the comments relating to the La Pa1ma prope~ty and stated that they had an appraisol study done wf~ich indlcated there would be no material loss to the neighborhood; that they had checked into t'~ crime situatio~ and engineering situ~tion rQlating to iight and sir circulation and these are not valid arguments because they cannot be substantiated by fact. 6/16/80 ~ ~ ~-- ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 16~ 1980 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) 80-352 Chalrman Fra Tempore Tolar atated appretsals ~re opinlone end as a resl estate broker, it is his opinion that Mo-story structures would affect the market value of the singlerfamity dwelttngs. Normsn Keup~ 2327 Purita~ lana~ ow~er of property at 125~ Eest La Peima~ statAd he ha~ been tn Anahetm aince 131~ and hed his house built in 1948; that he and h{s naighbors to the east l8eckie~) and wa~t (Slater) havo a tata) af 1.87 acres wt~ich is naw In escraw, but wil) not close unless the City allaws more denslty; that they respect their nelghbor's rlyht and clestre for vlew and privacy, but feel as ptonaers, thay shauid have equai consideration; that h~ agreea with tha staff report and realizcs the err~unt af work and effnrC that went into (t, but thought height limita would be better than using stnry t~-~ms because a low- profile twa-sto ry structure ne~d bc no higher than a h(qh-pftched roof, single- story structure; ~~nct that the words two-story are cun,iclered t~ be naughty words. ~le felt the praposed or~iin~rtce Is a move In the right dtrection and wlll give the build~rs space thcy need an~i still give netghbors more privacy and view than enJoyed by neigt~borinc,• cttics. He raferred to Example Ncr. 1 and s~e~gested rothcr thrm 1-story~ 2•story~ etc. th~t the 6•starics bc 7> feet maximur~~ 3-stories wnuld be --; feet~ 2-stories would b~- j5 fe~t and 1-stary Z5 feet from 5(1 to 'i0:~ feet. Mr. Kcup stat~d he i~ not speaking just f~om a se{fish standpoint, but Is in the market to rnake money ancl sell hls property to its btst advartage for the highest proftt; that t~c intendcd to livc in hia propcrty whcn hc bought for the rest of his life and ~s inceresteJ (n Anahcim's ck velopment. having becn a resident f~r GO yea rs . Je~n Deckler~ 12~+2 Last La Patrna~ stated shc end h~r husband have lived there 34 ycars~ and La Palma w~s only a two-lanc road whcn thcy firsc ~noved there and during their 3~~ Yeefs have ded';ated prapcrty ta the City for street widaning~ and have paid for curbin~j etc. and la Palma is now a s~x•lane major higtn+ay. She stated they havc had to canform ta the progress ~nd growth of AnahetM and do not fe~l they ere being unreasonablc to their AdJolni~g singte-family nelgtibors in asking for a cha~ge from the pr~sent 150-foot setbock becausG Chey have been b~nJin~ for 34 years. She stated she is in support of the setback consistent with thc other clties In Orangc Courty. Commissioner Bushore asked Mrs. Beckler it she would a~rer Maheim is a unique City and Mrs. Beckler replled AnAhelm is unique~ ~ut they have been bendt~g fo~ 3!~ y~ars. Commissioner Herbst falt ihc City was been l~niant on that property; that the Commission had felt it should be multi-family becaus~e of tha widening of the street and the traffic and the Ganeral Pian designatton was changed end the increased density inereased values of the p~operty. He did not f~el the property owners havc been imposed upAr. because ev~ry property c~wner in Anoheim has contrlbuted tn the cost of streets end curbs and *,he wick~ing of the street was necessary~ but thc. land naw haa a much higher zo~ing anJ the b~nefit h~s not always been one way~ and the property owner haa gotten a lo*. in retur~. Ne steted the City has irr fill lots that wili be utilized for heavier densities and the property owner has ~fgl~ts~ but the renbining property awners must also be protectod. He steted si~gle-famlty a-~ners always oppose apar.trn~~t pro,jects and apartn~ent dweilars have baen clsss'fied as se.ond ciass cittzens~ which averyone 6116/90 ~ MINUTES, ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ .IUN~ 16~ 198Q REP4~tYS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUEO) 1 90-~5~ k~aws is not true; thAt the Comm(~sion rACOg~lzes ch~nge ts nece~s~ry snd 1~ trying ta madify the Code to meet the chanfling time: and this City is ehead of most cities, but the Code must alsa protect exltting homecwners. Commtsslane~r Ktng Incllcated he does nat ec~ree with Cam+tssionar Herbst b~cause land ts acarce and expensive and housinc~ ts needed for mad~r~te income people and he favors e 5~ or GO fc~ot sctback. Gn~don Slater, 125~~ Eest le Palma fa~ 11 yon~~~ felt with a proper plen~ the privacy of adJolning proRerty awnerR could be protected and felt a 50-foot sotback would be ad~c~uate. ConM,issloner King polnted out Gti2 of thc cit(es In Oranc~e tounty allaw 2•storles reyorciless ~~f tl~e sstback~ and he felt Iond shouid be utlllzed ta Its maxtmum. Tom Gi lrner~ developer~ conmenckcl staff for th~ research and report. tle atatod he would be in f~vor of 50 teet. rathcr then 1~c) feet but that ts strictly from ~n econom(c stanJpotnt end notr.d an apArtn~nt proJect at this tTme Is not feasible and any currrnt proJects were pienned probably two ycars e~o~ but with current land prlces~ it wlll not work, Chalrman Pro Tempore Tolar {ndlcated grdve c~nce~n that reduclRg the setback to 50 or 75 fuet is not yoinc~ to makc tt possible to I~evc more homea or fo~ the consumer to enJc,y a better Itfestyle~ but is )ust gotng to make It possible fo~ tl~e property a~ner to benefli fram increasiny densities ~nd increesing the v~lue end he will si+apiy want more for his property~ and thc proJects still wlil not pancil out. Commission~r Dush~re agreed thac rl<~t~c nav lt is ~ifftcult to mttke a proJect work. but also ch~~ property awner will brnefit because the developcrs are wllling t~ p~~y whatev~r tt~e land wll) support in denslty and h~ was also concarned that it will ~~t be passed on to the con~umer and costs will tontinue ~o go up. H~ painted aut to those interestcd propertY owncrs present that the Cortmi~sion is discussin!~ this becausc the Cc~mrnlsston ond Counci) realtte tt 1~ time to nwke e chanye because timr.s have chanc~ed; thnt Anaheim is d unique City and even though they are not always right. they alw:~ys cc~r:~ out a 1 ittle ahce~! 3nd he dtd not care if ali cities in Orange County have zero setback, f~e was not sure as an indlvidual that he could suvport a 50•foot satback and wants to do +vh~tever is bcsx for all of Anaheim; that he does feel h{ghcr dcnsity Is required to keep the cost of housing dawn~ but At the present ttme canno~t support 50 feet; that he wants to help the pe:rson who na+ awns his single-famtly home and would not wrnt to see a two-story butiding being built fifty feet from a single•family home without that homeowner having a say; that he has to ba convinced to reduce the 154 feet to lOD fe~t, but ~ot SA fert ,just because every ~ther city does. Tom Gllman stated Anahefm is an older City and there are properties which will be developed as multi•family and thef~ will be no more single-famtly homes consiructed. He dtd not think a glant step ~hould be tsken at this tlme. He point~d ~ut that the vaGancy faczar is "0" and people are do~+bling up (n apartmnnts ell over O~ange County. Commissioner 8ushore suggested .•+~ybe the 150-foot satback should be retalned end esch proJect revleM~ed o~ a caae by cafe b~sis. Ne canpared the Webster proporty with the La palme property and felt the Webster propGrty w~utd be a good ~andtdAte for Lhe change bacause of tts untque design~ streets on both sid~s ~nd Fi: ~.:. 6: ,, i~;r;- 6.~ tb/~-.J ,~.' ~ ; t, a MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSIQN, JUNE 16~ 198Q ~~'354 i~EPORTS AND RECOMMENOATIONS (CONTINUED) ~ il~~~~~~~ apertm~nts behind it~ but l.• Palma hss s~nyle-femily adJacent aith no buffe~. Ne wes sura morkat vslua~ would be affected if e homa was backing up to a two•story ~partment building. John Kiny ssked thn width of •~ averago ~treet, and Jay Tltua~ Office Enginee~~ rsplled G4 feat rtqht•of-w~y to right•of-way. John King fnit tf tho setb~ck Is down ta 75 faat~ m.~ny epartment developr~e~nts would be acrass the straet fram a resickntiel area and there would be en adequnte distanca. He AI30 agreed • graclous wsy of giving inconti ve to desiyn would be to have e footage desi~natio~~ ratl~cr than xtory d~slynatlons. suc~i es within 50 feet a 15-foot h~i,yht ilmit; 1(~0 feet o 25-faot hcight Iimit; 15n fe~t ~ 35•foot helght limit and 2()0 feet a J5 fect I~elghc limlt. Ile polnted out -I~Is wo~~ld pcrmit n~~e condominlums~ notlny hc has secn snmc nlcc throe-story concfominlums. C~n~misslaner Klny ~Inted out inJustr•(ea wili n~t move to Anah~tm with a houstng sl~nrtage, John King stated a) l of Southe rn Cal ifornla is In trouble in that regard wl th less th~n a 1$ vocancy factor anci rent cnntr~t threats. ile statrd AnahCtm ts o uniquc tity~ bec~uae of Dianeyland~ their water systern~ and most recnntly~ the Rams; that the Ca~u~~isslon has to deal wlth the far• raACh Ing ef fects of tl~eae th i~c~s and chot apartments ere neeckd I n Anah~lm. i1~ stated bui Iders e~e movlnc~ out of chc stnte; that the Commisston mNSt p~otect the homeowners and provicle mnre housi n,ri; that large tnrporatl~ns cannot tre~SfQr esrtplayees tu the West Caast b~cuuse of the cost of hausing; that bu(lders canstantly try to cut the cos t o~ c~nstruction~ but the price of unlts k~ep going up becausc of irnd costs. lie scated govcrnme:nt Is niready gettinc~ Involved tn hnuaing and referrecl to a rcti rcm~nt ~r~)ect In Iluntington Eleach whlch is a non- profit corp~ration and th~: y~vernment will o-+n th~ bullciing after 30 years; that last week th4 Federal Ras~rve establlshed fivc new rules whiCh w1I) mskR it n-o~c difflcult for the savinys and Inans to mointain funds for housing and the thrust ( s taward a n~w pub 11 c t~ous i nc, agency to take aver i n a~ 1 sectors . Mr~ Letter did r~at fc~) all the bli~me of hi~h prlces should be put on tha property owner~ and shauld be put on the bullder~ the banker; the a~chitect. cerpenter, etc. ~ommissioner Fry Itked thc id~a of che fnotage figu~ts being subscituted for the stortes. Ho stated he is not happy with thc 100 feet and would ttkr 75 feet better~ but rcalizes density .rould be incrensed. Cammisslaner Nerbst askeJ wt~st effect the change would t-ave a~d did not N~nt to be faoled by semetics and Mr. Gi lman stated it Ts possi6le to have a two-sCory structure within 22 to 25 fe~t. John King atated m~st City oirdlnances dlaCUSS n~xzanlnes as 1/3 of the flvor belaw and do not consider thcm a story~ A~ntka Ss~tsiahtl. Assistant Ole~ector for Ioning~ stated currently the tode d~acrtbes anythtng unde~ the ground level such ss a bssement sha11 bo counted as e story if i~ ts used for oceupancy a~d a g~rage ar laundry room woutd ~t be coRSidored a story. 6/16/80 ,.- ~_ ~ ~ ~~: ~ c ,) ~~-- 84• 355 MIHUT~S . ANAH~IM CITY PLANNIN6 COMMI4SION~ JUNE 16~ 1980 REPORI'S ANO RECONMENDATIqNS (CONTINUED) Commissloner N~rbst steted he wo~~ld hava no problem if th~ halght of a story is tled dawn. Chalrman Pra fen~ora Tol~r rtelt the CortKniss{on could be Acting hasttly a~d ~aayba it Nould be bestton would'rovlde,more multi-~femily•constructlorecause he v+as not sun this reduct P Cnmmisstoner Nsrbst potsted`{c~faltQthe~ordinr~ncehshould be chenged~,9but war+tedeto to justify the hards R see the storles tiod to e footaye. Annike Sant~lahtl atated both terms could be includod In the ordlnance as o++e story or 1S foet; kwo st~~tes or 35 feet; threo atories or 50 feet~ etc. The loft situation wes dlscussed ~-nd Ms. S~+ntatshti steted the ordinance oould read..."1S fcet or one-stary, including n+ezxanines r+ot excaeding 35~ ~d Pe~hApa no winclows~ wi thin 100 feet fran property llnes". Commissloner +te~citfEAtto~ney~~u gsatedttwocweeks~.~d be reviewed and Jaek Nhlte, Assistant Y AC71bN; Commissioner Fry ~ffered a mntion~ secand~d by Conmisstoner Bushors snd R$`;'T~A CAA~IED (Comnissloner 6arn~s being absant) ~ th~t the Ananeim City Planning Canmiasion doesin~o~er~foristaf~t4'P~o Id~ne~revlacdrproposed~ordi ence~ to June 3~, 19~ ~ 6-! 16/8t~ 2-°:~ ~_ , +~ , , ~ _ .~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING CQM!11SSIQN~ JUNE 16~ 1g80 SO•356 REPOftTS AND RECOMMENQATIONS (CONTINUEO) D. Ad~ Q1IMENT ND. '-21A - Rc~c~uest from Anahetrn Hi l ls , Inc. ~ to abandon an extsttng ftoryn rc~e~n easemant n retur~ for the conitructlun of n ~ew storm draln facitity and the cxecution ryf a ncw starr~ droin eaeament In the tsme ,qen~ral locatton at tlie Anaheim Nllis Professional Center at Nohl Rench Road ancl Canyon Rim Road. A~ anvtronmental reviow of th~e propo~el IncltcAtes i t co be ~cAtagorically exempt~ class 5, from tlie rec~ul rement of fi I ing an Envl ronrs~ntal Irr~,act Report. ACTIOtI: Commissioncr Kinc~ offered a inetlon~ s~conc~ed by Commisstoner Fry and M~TION CARRIED (Commisslone~ tl~rnes being ebsent)~ that the Annh~lm City Pla~ning Commisstnn docs hcroby r4ecx+xr-ond to thc City Counci 1 thet Abancionrr~nt No. 79-21A bc approvecl. sub~cct to the fc~ilowing eonJitions: 1. That a new storm drain bc constructed as speci fted by the City E~glneer within the new starm dratn ~asen,~nt prlor ta final approvat of thls ab ancivnnx:n t . 2. That the dr.eJ for the ~dw storm dr~ln eASemenc be record~d prlor to the final approval of chis dbanctonment, C. RECOMfIENUED COqL AMEItDME-IT - SCCTION ,~lf'.n,i~,.~~ r, - The scaff rep~rt to the Planning omm ss on dateJ June 1, 19 notc~! thc law tn Cal ifornln now pracludes any numerical llmlt~tion upon the nunt~er of personc ~relater! ar un~clateQ) who mey qualify as a"family" provi ded such persons arc ~iving together ~~ a single housekceping un(t; that th~ Codc currently ~efincs a"frwnt iy'" as "an individual Ar Lwo or more persons rclated by blood or marrl~,ye-~ or a group cf not ~~e Lhah f Ive (5) persons~ excluding servants, who er~ not relatcd by bloo-~ ar marriage livlnc~ loy~ther es a singl~ housekcepin~ un(t in n d~rf~llin~ unit'~, and the draft ordinance dcfincs "famlly" ln tonforr,anee with thr Cs'Xfornla :ar. ACTION: Conmissloner Kiny offnre~i a motiun. seGrnd~d by~ C~ iss~r~~~r Fry and MO ON CARRI~:U (Commissioncr Eiarnes beiny absent}. th~at the Anah~ "~,~ CitY Plenntng Commt ss ion d~es hereby reeoi+rnend to thc C1 ty Coune i I that thc accanps~yi ng draft erdtra^~.p be adoated amend i ng Sectian 13.01.~70. 0. AOAtlDOfiMEItT N0. 7~-14A -~~qucst from Thomas E. Nl~men~ to abanuon an txisling ~-`~t w d~ pub c c,~~x~+ent located Iy0 fect+~~ortheast of Na~ctl a~d 200 feet ~~ north of Katc~ia 1lvenue. An env( ronmental r~vTew af the proposal (ndtcates it to be cateyorically ~:xempt from the requtre~rant of fi 11ng an Environmenta) Impsct R~port. Class 5. ACTION: Cornmissioner F;ing offcrcd a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry And M0~ TIQN CARRIEO (Cormission~r ~tarnes belny absent), that thc Anaheim Clty Planning Cumntssion doez hnreby reconmend that Abandonmani ~lo. 79-19A be approved ss ~eccNnn~sncied by the Ctry Engineer. 6/16/~0 ~ MINUI'~S~ ANII~IFIM CIT1f PLJWNING COMMISSION, JUNE 16~ 1980 84-357 REPORTS AND lt6C4MMENt1A'fIOMS (CONTINUED) E. ABANDONM~NT N0. 7~-16A • Reque~t from Carl A. Anderton~ tQ abandon an existing - oot pu c aTTey Fegin~lny at the north 11ne of Sycenwre Str~et ~~d axtendtnQ ~orLh eppraxlmstalY 29N fset to the soutli line of Alberte Streec~ located pa~~llel wl th and approximately iW3.(~ fa~t ~+ast af the centArl ine of Lemo~n St~eet. ACTIONs Commlasi~ne~ Kinca offcrect a mation~ seconded by Commissioner Fry and Mb~lON CARRIEp (Commljslonar H~rnos being absant)~ thet tha Aneheim City Plsn~ing Cammission cioes hcreby recoavnnnJ to the Cf ty Councl 1 th~t Abandonment No. 79~ 16A be s~pproved as recommenJecJ by the Ci ty Engine~r~ subJect to the fol iowing reservAt tons: 1. Thet a public utiiity easamant bc reservc~l for existtng overheed electrical llnas. 2. That en easement for sanitary sewrr purpoaas b~ r~served. There is an axisCing sewer linc runniny thc longth of thc alley along thc centerllne. 3. Thnt an et~scmant for Ingross and egress bc res~rvecJ f~r sanitary sewer ma(ntenanca purposos~ I~cluding ro~dwAy impravement for vehicular ingress and a~ress net less than 10 feet in width for the entire length of the alley. 4. Tha~t a public uttlity e~sement Gr raserveci u~to the Psctfic Telephone b Telegraph Com-+amr tn accomnodate existing facillt(es~ cogether with alt reas~nable rights ~f ingress and oc~rass. Seid resc~vetton to ssld Tel~phone b Telec~reph Company to be subject ta prior rlghts af the Clty of Anahnim rasarvAtton As stAted above. ADJQURNMENT There bcing no further busincss~ Ca~nissloncr Fry offe~ed e rrbtian, ~econded by Commisiloner Kin~~ anci MOTION CARRIED thet tne meatlnfl be sdJourned. The meetiny was ~d)ourned at 5:05 p.m. Re~spectfutty suhmltted. ~4~ ~ ~d~~v Edt th l. Itarris. Secretary Aneheim Clty Planning Conmisaton ELN:Im , 6/ 16/88 :~~ ~ ,,,..- ,