The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1972/11/27~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California November 27. 1972 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE.ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGUL'AR - A regular meeting of the Ar.aheim City Planning Commission was MEETING called to order by Chairman Seymour at 2:10 p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Seymour. - COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, P.owland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Ronald Thompson Deputy City ~lttorney: Frank Lowry Office Engineer: Jay Titus , 2oning Supezvisor: Charles Roberta Assistant Zoning Supervisor: "Bill" Young Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLEGTANCE Flag. APPROVAL OF - Approval of the minutes of the meetings of October 30 and THE MIIiUTES November 13, 1972, was deferred to December 11, 1972. WORK SESSION - Chairman Seymour noted that ha was very anxious to discuss and undertake at a work session the items that were discussed with the City Council at a joint aork session. After discussion with the Commission members present, it was determined that December 5, 1972, at 7:00 p.m., would be acceptable !later in the meeting after Commissioner Rowland was absent and Commis- sioner Herbst was present, the date was changPd to Wednesday, December 5. 1972, at 7:00 p.m.)• The subjects to consider were condominiums, planned residential developments, and residential parking. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTIN[SED PUBLIC HEARING. UNION OIL COMPANY~ 461 REPORT NO. 61 South Boylston, Los Angeles, California 90017, Owner; ARNE C. BELSBY, Mini Warehouse Corporation, 5600 VARIANCE NO. 2430 Orangethorpe, No. 701, La Palma, California 90620, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS TO ESTABLZSH A STORAGE WAREHOUSE on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres, having a frontage of approximately 592 feet on the north side of La Paima Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 520 feet, and being located at the northwest corner of La Palma and Tustin Avenues. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of Auqust 21 at the request of the petitioner. September 6 and 18 for the submission of revised plans, and October 2 and 30, 2972. for the submission of an Environmental Impact Report. • Chairman Seymour noted that there was a request from the agent for the peti- tioner for a two-week continuance in order to readvertise subject petition to include waiver of the required setback. Commi~sioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by ComA~issioner 1Caywood and MOTION CARRIED, to concinue Environmental Impact Report No. 61 and Variance No. 2430 to the meeting of December 11, 1972, to allow time :.'or stai~ to readvert3se subject petition to include an additional waiver. 72-741 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLA,INING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-742 VARIANCE NO. 2451 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM EILLS~ INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES, INC., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, California TENTATTVE MAP OF 92806, Owners. ENGINEER: Willdan Enqineerinq Associates, TRACT NO. 8075 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, California 92805; requesting WAZVER OF (a) REQUIREMENT THAr SINGiE-FAMILY STRUCTURES REAR ON ARTERIAL H:GHWAYS~ (b) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, AND (c) MINIMUM LOT AREA TO ESTABLISH A 184-UNZT, SINGLE-E'AMILY TRACT on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 62 acres, having a front.age of approximately 2,600 feet on both sides of Serrano Avenue and being located approximately one mile northeast of Nohl Ranch Road.. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Chairman Seymour noted that the petitioner had submitted a request for a+o- week continuance ir. order to submit a revised tracl: map and to file an ~.iron- mental Impact Report. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED, to continue consideration of Variance No. 2451 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 8075 to the meeting of Decenber 11, 1972, for the submission of a revised tract map and to file an Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Herbst entered the Council Chamber at 2:18 p.m. VARIANCE NO. 2438 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. RIC;ARDO DU?2AN, 301 North Bluerock, Anaheim, California 92806, Owner; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, (b) MINIMt1M SIDE S~TBACK, (C) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND (d) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILD- INGS TO CONSTRUCT A 3-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING on property described as: A rectangularlq-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately ~37 feet on the south side of Sycamore Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 171 feet, and being located approximately 74 feet west of the centerline of Sabina Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 18, 1972, for the submission of an Environmental Impact Report. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public ::earing, it is referred to ancl made a part of the minutes. Mr. Ricardo Duran, tlie petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that because of the size of thr parcel, it was difficult to develop in accord- ance with Code, and he wis requesting +~aiver of the required parking; that if plans were designed differentiy, perhaps the develo~ment could meet the park- ing requirement, however, t.lzis would eliminate the open space which he was desirous of providing betwecn the front unit and the rear un1t; that revised plans wouid indicate an increase in the unit size, therefore, this waiver was no longer necessary; and that stnce staff had determined there was only one buildinq at the rear, waivers "c" and "d" were no longer necessary. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that the petitioner was trying to place too many units on this small parcel. Commissioner Herbst observed that one of the most critical points co consider was the fact that only one parking stall for each unit was proposed. and this was a problem which the Commission had experienced with other apartment com- plexes throughout the city, because most residents of these units had two vehicles, and the balance of the vehicles needing parking spaces then would be parking in the street; that the lot was not large enaugh to support four units because the required parking could not be provided, and the neighborhood would suffer because of this shortage propased in this small complex since vehicles from these extra units could be parking in f.ront of the residences in this area. Mr. Duran noted th~.t the architect had plr 3 to change the proposal, but the revised plan would have a11 of the q%..•-•:gee the ground floor and the units at the top, however, this would leac..~ ~ery llttle open space; that it was rather difficult to say that each unit would hsve two vehicles; and that the residente in the home in the front had only one •rehicle. .... ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-743 VARIANCE NO. 2438 (Continued) Chairman Seymour noted that the problem was compounded as he could recall the last time this was considered at public hearing, when the Commission suggested that the problem was created by the exiating residence, and the petitione.r was trying to build around the residence, which made it extremely difficult to comply with the City's site development standards for the zone, and it was his opinion that if the required parking were waived, this would be grantinq a waiver of almost 60$ of the required parkinq, creating a parking shortage in a highly developed area, which was very critical; that he could see some justification for th~ smaller size lot, but it became a matter of hoN much variance from Code should be granted, then some other alternative would have to be proposed; that perhaps the architect felt placi.ng the units on top of the garage was aesthetically pleasing, but the problem still revolved arour.d building around the existing structure. Commissioner Rowland noted that SO+k of the bedrooms had no windows and inquired what the petitioner thought of such a design; wher.eupon Mr. Duran stated this was the manner in which the architect had designed the project, and perhaps it might be necessary to have another waiver grantedj and that although he did not like the plan, it was something that had to be lived with. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer suggested that subject pet-ition be continued and the peti- tioner have plans redesigned wherein only two units were proposed for the rear portion rather than three units in osder that adequ«te parking could be provided. Chairman Seymour inquired whether the petitioner would consider a further continuance in order to redesign the plans for two units only on the addition; whereupon Mr. Duran stated he was not a builder, and he did not know the cost of rebuilding the property. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner would consider removing the existing home; whereupon Mr. Duran stated he could not consider it at this time. , Commissioner Herbst noted thak zoning of. the property to R-3 was not planned to allow building units around an existing home, but to tear down the old homes and build with sufficient units in conformance with Code, and the problem facing the petitioner wae the £act that he was trying to build around an exist- ing home, therefore, removinq the flexibility of design. Commissioner Gauer noted that the apartment complex adjacent to subject property had only three units, while those in the area having more units were also on larger lots. Mr. Duran noted that the lots with more units also did not have any open space, and he did not want to have this Entire lot covered with structures. Chairman Seymour then inquired whether the petitioner would be able to have revised plans prepared and delivered to the Development Services Department by Friday, December 1, in or.der for the Commis~ion to consider the item on the December 11 meeting, and if tnis •vas not p~ssible, then he would suggest a four-week continuance; whereupon Mr. Duran stated he would be out of town that date and requested a six-week continuance. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTION CARRIED. to recommend to the City Council that the Declaration of Exemption be e.pproved since it would appear this proposal would have no significant environmental impact. Co.~imissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer and MOTION CARRIED, to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Variance I~o. 2438 to the meeting of January 8, 1973, to allow time for the petitioner t•~ submit revised plans. e ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27. 1972 72-744 VAkIANCE N0. 2441 - CONTINUcD PUBLIC HEARING. ARTIE P. JEWf:TT, JR., 1835 South Lewis 3treet, Anaheim, California 92805 Owner; JESS JEWETT, 1835 South Lewis Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Aqentj requasting WAIVER OF (a) PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES AtiD (b) REQUIRED MASONRY WALL FOR SCREENING OUTDOOR USE TO ERECT A CHAINLINK FENCE AROUND AN OUTDOOR INDUS- TRIAL USE AND STORAGE AREA on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximat~Iy 117 feet on the west side of Lewis Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 209 feet, and being located approximately 515 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued fram the meeting of October 18, 1972, for the submission of an Environmental Impact Report. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Jess Jewett, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that everything pertaining to the request was set forth in the Report tc the Commission, however, he did not know he would need a fence on the west property line adjacent to the railroad track since there was one there already - this, then, would make the fence 11 feet hiqh. Chairman Seymour inquired whether the petitioner would object if the Commission required redwood slats in the proposed chainlink fence; whereupon Mr. Jewett stipulated to providing the redwood slats in the chainlink fence. Chairman Seymour noted that the manner in which the petitione_:;proposed to fence off a parking area would indicate that this could be used for storage purposes, which would reduce the amount o.f required parking; whereupon Mr. Jewett stated that there was an entry to the rear portion which was closed off. with a sliding gate, and the majority of the rear l~t was used for company- owned vehicles which were always parked there, and in addition there were 11 spaces in the front which was more thzn the number of employees for the company - their present employees numbered 8, not including he and his brothers, the latter using company vehicles which were always parked in the rear. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether any of the business wouSd be from the general public coming to purchase items on the property= whe"eupon Mr. Jewett stated this was all wholesale, not retail. Commissioner Rowland observed that he had visited the property several hours earlier, an3 he could not see how parking could be accomplished on the site because of the large brake stored there and inquired whether the petitioner had a considerable amount of flat storage of manufactured items. Mr. Jewett replied that the brake was located there because they had no place to store it, however, it was never used. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the outdoor dip tank was a cold or hot dip tank; whereupon Mr. Jewett stated it was a cold tank. Commissioner Herbst then inquired about fumes that would emanate from this operation; whereupon Mr. Jewett stated that the Fire Depar.tment at a meeting he had with them last week, requested he place a self-closing lid on the tank which would close automatically in the event of a fire - as to fumes from the tank, they kept the tank closed when not in use, and the paint mixture was a primer with a little thinner, and the Air Pollution Control District regulated the type of paint that could be used in the dip tank outdoors. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-295 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to grant Petition for Variance N~. 2441, provided, nowever, that the chainlink fence proposed shall be fenced with redwood slats as stipulated by ;:b~ oetitioner, subject to conditions, wi±h the added condition that the petitioner shall obtain written certification from the Air Pollution Control District that the paints used in the outdaor dip tank did not exceed the maximum approved for operation, and with the further finding that the Planning Commission finds and determines that the propo~al !vould have no significant ~ .~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-745 VARIANCE NO. 2441 (Continued) environmental impact and, therefore, recomm~=nds to the City Council that the exemption declaration status be qranted. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Ka~~wood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTTNUED PUBLIC HEARING. R. C. JEWETT AND DIXIE REPORT NO. 43 STEPHENS, 2111 East Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California 92631, Ownersi BOMAINE COR:., Louis Mann, VARIANCE NO. 2448 2121 South Bundy Drive, Los Angeles, California 90064, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF PERMITTED USES TO ESTABLISH A CAR CARE CENTER on property described as: An irreqularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 134 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, and being located approximately 196 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 20NE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 18, 1972, for the submission of an Environmental Impact Report. One perso:~ indicated hi.s presence in opposition. As:istant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the request for waiver of the permitted uses, and the proposal to construct a one-story building of approxi- mately 4440 square feet as an auto care center for the installation and balancing of tires, brakes and front end work, and installation of shock abso;.bers - in other words, a tire, battery and accessory type facility; that the building would be located 60 feet to the rear of the Katella Avenue property line. with the front 10 feet being fully landscaped; that the building would be abutting the service station property to the west and would extend to within 30 feet of the south property linet that agproximately 1110 square feet of the building would be set aside for a salesroom, and the remaining 3330 square feet would be devoted to service use, containinq 6 auto service bays; that vehicular access would be provided by a 34-foot wide drive from Katella Avenue opening into a 40-foot wide drive in front of the buildinc~ and a 30-foot wide drive behind the building; that 21 parking stalls were proposed behind the landscaped front setback and adjacent to the east property line= and that parking would be at the ratio of 4.7 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area, exclu3ing consideration of the 6 bays within the building as parking areas. r;r. Young, in reviewing the evaluation, stated that the development conformed with the site development standards of tne M-1 Zone, however, an auto service center was normally considered to be a retail commercial operation in the C-3 2one and would involve increases in traffic beyond that anticipated in indus- trial areas and could result in changes to Y.he land use pattern in this area. Mr. Louis Mann, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that the Report to the Commission adequately covered the requesc in that they were proposing a service facility to mount tires sold at the warehouse about one-half mile from this site, and the use would not be a competitive use. Chairmsn Seymour inquired whether this operation would be exclusively limited to tire mounting for this warehouse; whereupon Mr. Mann stated thia would not be an exclusive operation but there would be no sales of tires at this office. Mr. Phillip Quarre, agent for Hartman Corporation, owners of the property to the east of subject property, appeared before the Commission and noted he had submitted a letter of opposi*.ion which should be on file, outl?.ning the basis for opposing subject petition - the Commission Secretary then read this letter of opposition. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-746 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 43 AND VARIANCE NO. 2448 (Continued) Mr. Quarre, in response to questioning by Commissioner Herbst, stated his client did not have any plans for their property to the east, although a mo*_el had been approved for this several years ago, and they had not taken advantage of the use permitted. r.hairman Seymour inquired whether the petitioner planned to construct the motel ;ahich the Commission had approved for subject property; whereupon Mr. Quarre stated they had not planned when to develop the motel, but they still were planninq to have the motel. Mr. Mann, in rebuttal, state@ that since the opposition had been granted a motel use on the adjacent property, it would be a heavier commercial use in terms of traffic than the proposed use on subject property; that there already were other commerci<<1 uses in the axea, with a motel and restaurant being erected on the west side of State College Boulevard, therefore, he did not feel the proposed use would be downgrading the area, since it would be compatible with the existing and approved •isesj thst the o£f-street parking would be to the east of the lot, away £rom the traffia at the intersection of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue; that they would be glad to follow the rAcommenda- ~ tions for setbacks and xandscapinq; that all the work would be performed indoorsr that the airconditioning, water heater, etc. were placed above the dropped ceil- ing, therefore, were hidden from viewj and then in response to Commission ques- tioning regarding drop-in trader stated that they would not solicit the business, but they would accept drop-in work. Furthermore, they had a parking ratio of 4:1, which he felt was more than adequate for their needs because the normal time to service a car would be about 20 minutes, making this a very fast turnover. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts inquired of the petitioner whether the sales area was intended as a customer waiting room or as an actual sales area, 3nd if so, what were the other service items that would be sold other than tires. Mr. Mann stated that if a customer was having his tires changed and an inspec- tion of the car indicated a nee3 £or additional parts, these parts would be sold to him and installed at that ti~e. Mr. Mann, in response to Chairman Seymour's question regarding the ability to purchase a new battery, stated that they would sell a battc,ry to anyone coming in, but they would not be soliciting any sales. Mr. Roberts then inquired whether there would be any znventory of new tires on the premises; whereupon Mr. Mann stated there would be none, and the storage of old tires would be in the parts area and none of the old tires would be stored outdoors. Mr. Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the reques- before the Commission encompassed property that was slightly less than one-half of the original parcel, therefore, a parcel map would have to be filed. Mr. Mann advised the Commission that they had already applied for a parcel map, and it had been approved by the County. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-296 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 43 and recommend to the Cicy Council that due to the nature of the request made under Variance No. 2448, imcact upon the envisonment would not be significant and an Environ- mental Impact Statement would not be needed. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tk.e following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Fazano. s MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ~2'~4~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT_REPORT NO. 43 AND VARIANCE N0. 2448 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-297 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2448, subject to conditions, with an a.dditional condition that there shall be no outdoor storage of old tires and used parts as stipulated by the petitioner, and the finding that the petitioner stipulated that the only signing would be by a wall sign of approximately 23 square feet in area. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMI~SIONERS: Rowl~nd. ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP.S: Allred, Farano. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC AEARiNG. STEPAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, REPORT NO. 62 121i North Olive Street, Anaheim, California 92801, Owner; INDUSTRIAL PALLET COMPANY, P. 0. Box 2291, VARIANCE NO. 2450 Westminster, California 92683, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (a) PERMITTED USES, ib) PERMITTED OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES, (c) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK FROM SECONDARY HIGHWAY, (d) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK FROM LOCAL STREET. (e) REQUIRFD SOLID MASONRY WALL AROUND OUTDOOR US~S~ AND (f) REQUIREMENT TIiAT PARKIrG A}:EA BE IMPFOVED TO ALLOW OUTDOOR INDUSTRIAL USE AND STORAGE AREA on property 3e"cribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.6 acres, having a frontage of approximately 250 feet on the west side of Olive Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 455 feet, and being located approxi- mately 660 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified M-2, HEAVY INDUSTP.IAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 18, 1972. for the submission of an Environmental Impact Report. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referr.ed to aad made a part of the minutes. Mr. 0. D. Davis, 1460 West Elm Street, Fallerton, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted the request was tc_permit recycling of used wooden pallets on subject property for re-use by indns*ry and to permit use of the trailer for of£ice purposes; that the trailer was a very attractive one and was only three years old; that the proposed type of work was not practical indoors; that they planned temporary covered shelter for the worke:s; that the waiver of the requirement of a 6-foot masonry wall was being requested because no other industry in this area had masonry walls, and the work they proposed would be similar to existing manufacturing uses; that a playground presently existed to the southt and then reviewed the established manufacturing uses in the area, noting that they were also requesting waivez of the landscaping until the balance of the area was developed to City standards as it pertained to landscapir,?. Furthermor.., they could not meet some o£ the conditions because they were renting this property on a month-to-month basis and had no lease, therefore, they did not feel they could provide many of the improvements, such as completely blacktopping,but they would stipulate to providing dust-retardant materials for peeple parking on the premises; that the only noise they made was from driving nails into the wood with hammers, and Olive Street with the many trucks going and coming from three industries had more noise than their operationt that they tried to maintain the yard in good condition, keeping the storage down, and they could store 50 to 100 feet from the ho:nes to the south since they did not even use one-half of the 2.6- aure parcel, ther~fore, a boundary could be establis;ied by the Commission; and that there appeared to be a misunderstanding between themselves and the Development Services Department because when they moved into this facility, they thouqht the Development Services Department had told them thEy could operate this facility after having checked this use with them, but upon moving the operation or.to the property, they found theg were in error. Commissioner Herbst noted that staff perhaps stated this operation would be permitted if operated within the Code regulations. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ~2'~48 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 62 AND VARIANCE NO. 2450 (Continued) Mr. Davis stated that they thought that applied only to the masonry wall, and since there was a chainlink fence there already, thia should have been suffi- cient., however, he had informed staff that they planned to use a trailer for ofEice purposes and that they were requestinq the variance ttntil such time as the property around them was improved. Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the type of restroom facilities that were being provided; wherPUpon Mr. Davis stated they had chemical toilets. The Commission then inquired whether the petitioner would be aqreeable to pro- viding redwood slats in the existing chainlink fence. Zoning Siipervisor Charles Roberts noted that Code would require a 6-foot high masonry wall to enclose the outdoor use; but a redwood-slatted chainlink fence had been approved as a substitute, therefore, this would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gauer noted that an outdoor operatien on Lewis Street had a similar screening, and it appeared to screen the outdoor work very effectively. Mr. Roberts noted that that particular technique appeared to be very effective. Mr. Davis noted that the cost per foot for redwood slats was $1.35, and they were hoping to be able to provide the redwood slats where the property abutted a residential use because there were othes indu~trial uses which did not have t:heir existing uses enclosed, and if they were required to enclose the entire property, this would cost $4,000. Mr. Roberts, in response to a comment by Commissioner Herbst that there was a considerable amount of outdoor storage oa Lemon Street, stated that these had chainlink fences, and the uses had been established for some time and operated under the "grandfather clause", but if the pai.nt aompany on Lemon Street re- quested outdoor storage today, they would be reyuired to enclose the use with a 6-£oot wall. Commissioner xerbst inquired as to the height the pallets were proposed to be stored; whereupon Mr. Davis stated they were stored to a height of 15 feet, but the3e could be stored to a maximum cf 6 feet since there was considerable land on which to store the pallets. Chairman Seymour noted that it would appear the questi~n was whether or not the petitioner would agree to slatting the chainlink fence; whsreupon Mr. Davis stated that that would be something he would have co discuss with the owners of the property since they had only a 60-day notic~ agr:ement in which to vacate the premises, and if the owners would give them some written assurance that they could stay a given length of time, then he would c<~rsid~~r agreeing to the chain- link fence slatted with redwood. Chairman Seymour then stated he would consider a two-week ccnt~ai~3nce since he would not consider approval of subject petition without the s'latted fence. Commissioner Gauer stated he felt differently because they proposed to partially improve this property, and since there were many other uses in this area that needed improvement, he could not see requiring tha petitioner to spend $4,000 while others were not required to spend anything to enclose their operations. Chairman Seymour stated that this might be so, but the Code should be upheld. Furthermore, there were peaple residinq in single-family homes tu the south who should be afforded some protection which had been required by the Commission in the past, and he could not see why the Commission should prostitute the ordinance or bend to such a great degree since they were proposing to use a trailer for office ~pace, conducting an outdoor use - these things •.vtre already considered acceptable, and he could not see bending the Code any fart~er. Commissioner Gauer stated he would be agreeable to requiring redwoo3 slatting along the residential uses. • i MINUTE5, CITY PLP.NNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-749 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 62 AND VARIANCE NO. 2450 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst in.,uired how long the petitioner proposed to use the traiier as an officer whereupon Mr. Davis stateG cney hoped to purchase their own property, and the owner of the property did not want them to ~ai'.d a strv~ture because they planned to expand eventually. Commissioner Iierbst then noted he would be agsees~le to a~ea~?orary use, however, he felt some screening should be provided adjacent t~~ the homes and ad7acent to Patt Street, however, leaving the area facing the b.lanc~ of the chemital comgar.y to the north open since the chemical company was the land'~rd and sho•ald tu;ce care of the screening of their p'.ant; and that he saw a:~eed for thia type of operation in industry since pallets had to be repaired. Mr. Davis then stated he would agree to screening three sides of the ooeration aith sla~ted redwood fence. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Roberts noted that as additional inpu*_ on the matter of sanitary faciliti.es, in a conversation with the Suildinq Division, it wou;a appear in t11 likelihood that the State Industrial Welfare Department wut+''.d not p~rmit cri.:~ricrsl toilets because they r.equired permanent facilities for t~~ilets an3 ~~ashing of hands, there£ore, this could be one additional reqvir:me:.t, name]y, nermanent res•~.r.oom Eacilities. Mr. DaviS advised the Commission that he had checked with the Devrlop.aent Services Department and had been advised tk:at chemical toilets c~u"'•i!~e used, Commissioner Herbst noted that chemical toilet:s were permitted on ic;e premises where large buildings were being constructed for up to two years while construc- tion was being completed. Mr. Roberts noted that the Chief Suilding Inspe~tor had advised him that the State agency permitted these chemical toilets for a maximum period of three to four months, and any proposal fo. longer than that wuuld require permanent facilities. Chairman Seymour noted that the Commission could establish conditions o£ approval, such as some protection for the residents of the area, and still permit Mr. Davis to operate the repair or pallets. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC7:?-298 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the Cit~ Gounc~.l that Environmental impact Report No. 62 be adopted as a Counail statement, aaen c?.~~ug:i the report did not provide for a sound and dust attenuation methofl because it was considt.red to be of a temporary nature, and the Commission in their approval of the ~•ariance would require methods for dust retardation and sou,id atten•ua.+:ion. (Se? Resc+luiion Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passe~ by the i<~l~owing vote~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Aerbst, Kaywood, Seymocir. NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-299 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Pet:Ltion for Variance No. 2450 on the basis that the use would be temporary in nature; that the petitioner stipulated to providing a red- wood slatted chainlink fe~~~:e along the east, south and west property lines to protect the residential e»vironment from noise and dust; that the 7~etitioner stipulated to hours of op=ration of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; that tl:e petitioner stipulated that the pallets would not be stacked higher than the 6-foot nigh fence; that the unpaved area shall be ':reated with dust-retardant mate•,:ial to reduce dust emissionj that a one-year ~ime limitation is granted su:~ject to the option for an additional one-year extension of timet and that a:~y exEerior lighting be directed away from the residential parcels. (See Resolition Boc;~) , ~-, ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Nov~,mber i7, 197? ~2'~~~ ~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 62 §:JD VAliZ?~NCE NO. 2450 (Continued) On roll call the foregoing resolutlun Las passed by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer: '~1~~=;~~i:, naywood, Rowland, Seymcur. NOES: COMMISSICNERS: Tione. ABSEt7T: COMMISP:i:Vc^.RS: Al1rC!. ''e"'7.~• Eid`JZRC~??MENTAL IMPACT - CC,:NT:I%l.Ir~J) PUBLIC H~AP.ING. RTJSSELL AND HETTIE ?'UCKER~ Rr;POFT NO. 56 822 1.~~~'c't.h Anaheim BoLlevard, Anaheim, California 926~5, Uwne1'~s HERMAN AND DOROTHY GA7.LARDO, 17272 Meadowriew VARIANCE N0. 2h52 Drivi:, :lorba Linda, ~~aliforniW 926E36, Agents; requestina WAIVI:R OF (a) PERMI~rTEB USES e~.iVD (b) MINIMUM PARJ:xNG AREA TQ ESTABLISH AN AUTO SE;RVIC~ GARAGE ott p20ji~:;ty described as: A rcectangulacly-shaped parcel of land having a ~~..,;taq~ ::~: approximately 5'~ ,:eet an ::h~, east sid e of A: _'~ ~im Bovlevard, l:avin, ~i maximu:. depth of approxima'cely 15Z feet, and beir.q located at the soi~tneast .:~_ner of ::naheim Boulev.ird an3 Millri Drive. Proper',y presently c'le~sified C-2, ~i•NERAI, ~;OMMERCIAL~ ZONE. Subject petition :vas cantinu~d from the ~aieeting af O~:tober 18, 15 z, for th.~ submi: *r3.on of an Eh-:~.rona~ental Impact Rep~~r.t. Two persoi:s indicac.~3 ttieir pre;ence in op~~osition. Commissioner Kaywood ].eft the Council Chamber at 3:25 p.m. Assistant Zoning Su;ervisor Bill Young reviewed the location of subject property, uses established ir. close proximity, the reason for cont:.nnance from the meeting of October 18, anu the reque°c to permit an auto repais garage of approximately 4,133.5 square feet with o ac~i:ack of ~ f~e~:t from the frcnc nroperty 1ir.e, abutting the property line a:ong Mills Dr.ive, to~allr occupying the fra.*.:t 87 feet of the site; that pede~.ri3n access w•~~ From the Anaheim Bouievard fronta~;e with vehicular acces ; by means of a~6-fo. t ~+ide overhead door ^n 1:i~~~ '2~.lls Prive £ronta~3e and four 1Ox10-foat overhea ~ dcors in the rea:r of th : b~iilding leading to an une:.:]osed parking area where tandem parking :~es indicatc~d for 15 vehic:les havir.g alle} ac_ess; that a ~y-fo~~i. wide platiter v;as :~*own to extend alonq ttie Mills °~rive frontage from the reai ai ~he buiiding to within 5 feet ,: F ti.e %.lle.y; thz~t flooi. plans further indi~~`•sd the interior of the building to ~;e largely devo~:~ad tc~ workiny bays, with a pa•rts and o£fice area of approximately 150 nquare feet and a cuatomer lounge an~l indoor trash ~*.crage area wers shown aZon~ the =outti~ side of tk;e building; that the land use wa9 one ~f the primary qv.a~tions l>efore the Commission to consiueY as to its compatibi.lity with sur- rounding la~.nd uses where r.esidential properties wera loc~tcd acros5 a 2C-foot wide alley to the east; that the proposed garage wou:.d be located within 82 feet of said residences, with. the ailey being used for con;raercial traffic and access to parking, k,owever, there were other similar business~~s located a3.ong Anaheim Boulevard in this area; that vehicular parking and ac:ess indicated an area o:' 2565 square `eet for customer parki:,g, howeva:.; only 5 spaces would qualify as 1ega1 spaces aince 10 of the 15 spaces wez~s provided as tandem agaces, and ta:nclem ~arking sp~ces restricted use of the alley as a thoroughfare and for ].oa~+.ng of rervice vPnicles; and that the vehicu~ar dCC?SS to the building on Mills Drlve was a lE-foot wide overhead door at the property l.ine, un~a Mills Drive was ~. %1.-foot wi3e street divided by a 1G-foot a:.de median i~iand, leaving a ro«dwa.y widt:~ of 19 feet from the median i:~ i:i,ich to Lurn into thP propor,ed 16-foot wide dcor, and th.is turning radius waa cor,~i.dered inadequate for even passenqe~ vehicles. In addi.tion, the City Traffic Engineer had reviewed the glans and had stated that ::;,e proposed vehicular access to Mills Crive would be extremely hazardous, in fact, he had indiuated t:lat better sight distances shou~.d be provided, or the access shou].d not be permitted, therefore, it wvulc'. aFpear it would be difficv't to i~^;:ove t'~e sight distancen given the location uf the b~ildi:ig. 2cining Supervisor Gharles Roberts note.: that the Report to the Commission was not =r.ti~.:ly accurate sin.:e tti~ median island referrPd to in the latter part of che report, from visual inspecLion, would be far~her to the east a:id ~~ould not c;:aate the obstruction as set forth in the Report to the Cosmf.ssion. Com~:issioner Kay~,+aod return.d tu the Council Chamber at 3:29 p•m- 0 ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, C:ITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, November 27, 1972 72-751 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 56 AND VARIANCE NO. 2452 (Continued) Mr. Herman Gallardo, agent Por the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted he had been doing business at 930 North Anaheim Boulevard; that there were some discrepancies in the Report to the Commission and then proceeded to review these in conjuncticn with the revised plan he submitted at the hearing. Mr. Gallardo, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the area be- tween the two buildings was open. Mr. Roberts noted that the plot plan submitted at this meeting by the agent for the petitioner was different than the plan submitted with the application. Mr. Gallardo stated that the median island did not obstruct the main entranae ~:•hen one viewed the property in person; that he had talked with the Traffic Engineer and they had Aecided to eliminate the wall between tne two buildings, narrowing the drive to 14 feet - this would then increase the sight distance, and the Traffic Enyineer had approved these changes; that the diagram submitted indicated there were two separate buildings, and one of tne buildings had been changad to meet the recommendations of the Traffic ~ngineer; and then in re- sponse to further Commission questioning, noted that the front building had a 10-foot door with three work bays and four work bays were in ~the rear building, and the original plan submitted had one single building with £our large doors £aciny Anaheir.i Boulevard, howev~r, staff had suggested that all v?orking area be enclosed frcm view along Anaheim Boulevard, and after talking with the Traffic Engine~r, he had rec~mmended removal of the wall and decreasing the size of the drive, which would solve the problem of access to Mills Driva. E'urthermore, ne feit there were only two w:~iu~r~ being requested from Code since his type of business was automobile-oriented, and it was almost impossible to meet the rec~uired two-thirds of the total area for parking purposes since ihe bui'ldings aeeded adequate access, and when one traveled north or south on Anaheim Boulevzrd, one could fincl many automobile-related businesses; that the entire area was ~oned C-2, however, there were many C-3 uses on Anaheim Boulevard. Mr. Gallardo r.hen reviewed the various uses established between the 700 and 90~ blucks cf Anaheim Boule~~ard, indicating that the majority did not comply with the requirement of ta~-thirds of the area be used £or parking purposes, many not providing as much as he was pzop~sing. Mrs. Virginia Palmeri, 118 Mills Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition, stating she had resided thera since 1952, and `.he proposed use was one of the many use~ .snd busi'nesses in the area, w'_th a number of these businesses generating ^.raffic day anil night; that the median island had only one light at the westerly end ~•~hich had been knocked dvwn so many times uy vehicles comin; ~rom these commercial u3esr that cars fxom the automobile repair business »sed ?i:i:Lls Drive for testinq purposes, and the proposed use would not add a.:y:.ning c:, the xesidentisl ei~virc:.~nent but would be a detriment; that the retitioner had a similar request be:ore the Comr~~.ssian in August, which was denied by both the Pianning Comntission and City .._ur.-~il; and tiiat use was for a iot just south of subject propert;+~ that the u_~, as proposed. would add to *_he already-nunerous wrecks ar:d a.:cidentu occurrin~ on Mill~ D.rive, a street i.ntended for residential purposes; that although her !io:ne was near the commer- cia~ area. there were a number uf. r-sidential taxpayers whc maintained very attra.ctive homes cn Mills Drive; that the area also had a number of elderly people who used che street to wal:: to and from the conmErcial aroperties, and the street was not intende3 as a spr_ed~.iay ox street for ~:esting cars that ha3 been repaired; that r:othing was st ~Y.C~i zegarding trash s•toraye areas, which should be of some ~oncern; tha~ siic waa very much opposea to the proposed use because ~chere was a deficiency of parking, an3 emplayees would be using the area in front of th:: residences for parking their cars, which would prevent the streetsw~epec from :lea:ing the street; and that th: residents of the area wanted to meinta.in their homes as attractive and clean as possible. Mr. Paul Hallidz;~, 114 Mills Drive, a~peared before the Commission in opposition and noted that the Rep~rt to t:ze Commission vras a very comprehensive one; that he was very concerned with the waivers requested and suggested that a more harmonious re~ationship betwe~n commercial and residential uses should be maiatz.ined, and t:~e pzoposed a^e would be contraLy to that harmony; that accord- ing to the Env±ronmeatal Impact I:eport, the Review Committee expressed concern • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ~Z-~SZ ENVIRONMENTAL IMs~ACT REP_ORT NO. 56 AND VARIa.NCE NO. 2452 (Continuad) that the use would be incompatible to the residential uses and would havF a detrimental impact; that there ware a number of very adverse conditions which staff had indicated in the evaluation - which should be considered by the C~mmission - which clearly defin~d the problems the proposed uce presented in askinq waiver of uses from the C-2 Zone; that although the business might fzont on Anaheim Boulevard, the street tY.at would be affectEd primarily by the impact of the proposed use would be s residential street, not a commercial street; that the firm of Rutan & Tucker had advised k:im approval of the pro- posed use could have a detrimental effect on the resEdential uses in the future in this area since the use would be gaining access to the building from a resioential street; that pedestrians would be affected by this injection of commercial uses onto Mills Drive; that a precedent would be established by approval as the Commission indicated when the previous request by the petitioner for the same u~e on a parcel to tlie south of subject property was con~idered; and the City Council concurred in this statement of the Planning Commission by also denying the reqcest; and that the opposition expressed at that time ~aas also applicable to the present petition as it pertained to the use and the aaiver of the required parking. Commissioner Herbst noted that the intersection was a commercial corner, and some C-~ uses might be more objectionable than the proposed use. Mr. Halliday then noted that automobile repair was a permitted use in the heavy industrial zone, not a C-2 use. Commissioner HE bst noted that many other C-2 uses could be using Mills Drive Erom this property. Mr. Halliday noted that many of the existing C-2 uses had access to the alley behind their property, and since there was a curb cut just opposite o£ the light, this light had bzen knocked down and broken so many times that people living in the area dio not have proper street lighting at that corner. Mr. Gallardo, in rebuttal, stated there would be no change in the *.raffic pattern for Mills Drive since at his present place of business at the other end of the block they used La Palma Avenue and Mills Drive to check ou= their repaired cars; that he was leasing the ex9.sting facility but wanted to purchase subject property and build a structure that wou13 more adequately serve his needs; that their hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and they would close Sunday and Monday, there.'.ore, they would have a rather normal hours of operation facility. Mr. Gallardo cited specific parts of the staff report, and he hoped that points of discrepancies as set forth by him and in his revised plans would be considered by the Commission. Chairman Seymour then inquired of staff that since ther.e were two buildings, what would be the square footage of the structures and what would this do to the minimum parking area. Mr. Roberts nc•ted that alteration o£ the size of the building would have little effect upon the required parking si.nce Code calculated parking on the site it- self, requiring two-thirds o£ tlze site to be devoted to parking purposes. Mr. Gallardo noted that staff had indir..ated only five of the parking stalls were legal. Chairman Seymour noted that one exterior of the build3ng structure indicate3 four garage dooss on the east alley; whereupon Mr. Gallardo stated these ~our doors would be the ent~ance £or ttie rear building from the alley and would also provide access to i.he westernmcst parking stalls. Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the purpose of having two buildings; whare- upon Mr. ~allardo stated that origir.ally he had one ~uilding wherein four doors would have access from the alley and three doors to Anaheim Boulevard, however, staff had noted they dic'. not want ~eople along Anaheim Boulevard to be able to look through these doors and suggested a solid wali, and that they could provide either a chainlink fence or block wall along the south property line. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-753 ENVIkONMENTAL IMPACT_REPORT NO. 56 AND VARIANCE NO. 2w52 (Continued) Mr, Gallardo, in response tc furr.her Commission questioning, stated that thep worked on automobiles only; that they had reque~ted another variance earlier far property to the south *ahere an existing structure was located, and they were unable to work around the exl.sting building to provide adequate parking, there£ore, he felt that starting with a new building on this corner lot would give them adequate a.ccess and parking would still be the same; and that they needed a way to get these cars into the buildiag - this was his reason for asking for waiver of the required parkinq. Commissioner Kaywood stated she could not see how reducing the wi4th of the driveway from 16 to 14 feet was safer; whereupon Mr. Gallardo state3 that the Traffic Engineer was concerned about the vehicles coming out of thP garage not having sufficient siqht distance, and by decreasing the width of the build- ing, then there would b~~ better sight distance because the drivers would have to keep the car in the c~enter of the driveway between the two buildings, and this would be both an exit and entrance drive. Mr, Roberts noted that he had talked with the Tr?ffic Engineer regarding statements made by t9r. Gallardo regarding reduction of the driveway to 14 feet, and tra Traffic Engineer had olarif9.ed this by stating that with the elimina- tion ~f the wall along the north property line, i:here would be a full 25 feet, and by reducing the width of tha driveway to 14 feet, this would provide better sight distance. Commissioner 7owland observed that it was apparent that the ~lan presented at the hearing by Mr. Gallardo had not been •reviewed by staff; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that staff had not seen the revised plans prior to the hearing. Mr. Frank Galloway, Associated Brukers, realtors, Orange, appeared before the Commission and stated that Mr. Ca1laLdo had a very successful operation and had the ability to communicate with the Spanish-speaking people and had done a very good job in this connection; that these people had turned to him with their car problems; that the present facility which Mr. Gallardo had was not large enough to take care of his businesst and that he was rather proud of the fact that Mr. Gallaido was able to establish his own business, which would be an asset t~.o the community. THE HEAR. G WAS CLOSED. Commissi~ner Herbst inquired whether the revis~d drawings were adequate, or woLld s:aff need more time to evaluate them; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that the sight distance problems had been resolved to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer, but the other problem of whether an automobile repair busi- ness shu~:ld be permitted in the C-2 2one had to be resolved, although there were other similar repair operations on Anaheim Soulevard south of La Palma Avenuep that the C-2 2one required two-thirds of the area to be devoted to parking; and thai: if the Commission felt the 25-foot space between the two build- ings was suitablp For parking and for vehicular access purposes, then perhaps the petitioner was providing close to the two-thirds of the required parking; that Mr. Gallardo had indicated on the plans that the trash storage areas were inside of the bui.lding as they appeared on the original plans, but the revised plans now indicated outdoor storage area; that the Streets and Sanitation Division Mad reviewed the original plans and indicated accessibility to the trash was inadequate because trash people could not get into the building to pick up, and, therefore, there was a need for either outdoor pick-up of trash or placing the trash adjacent to the alley, which ~vould eliminate one parking space proposed adjacent to the alley, therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether the use proposed was appropriate in the C-2 Zone and whether there was adequate parking. Mr. Roberts. in response to Commission questioning, stated there were some C-3 uses immediately adjacent to La Palma Avenue on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard. Commissioner Gauer inquired in what zone was the Volvo dealershig; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that this was C-2, although there was some repair and service, the primary use was sales. • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, November 27, 1972 72-754 ENVIRONMENTAL 7::PACT REPORT NO. 56 AI'vy VARIANCE N0. 2452 (Continued) Mr. Roberts also ~toted that if parking requirements for ~etail uses were based on the ~loor area for subject petition, the total parking requirement would be 12 spaces, while the applicant indicated 10 outside ani 7 inside spaces. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 56 and recommend that this be the Environmental Impact Statement of the City Council. After lengthy disc~:ssion regardinq this moti n, Commissioner Herbst withdrew his motion. Commiseioner Herbst offered a motion to accept Environmental Impact Repo2t No. 56 and recommend to the City Council that because of the trivial nature of the proposss use on the environment, no Environmental Impact Statement was necessary. Commissioner Gauer stated there was sufficient problems with this prop~~sal that this should not r,e considered "trivial", this being a very heavy 'use; even thouqh there were some similar uses in the area, the proposed use would ,,e ;,,,moa; ara~o aa;acent to a residential area. On roll call the foregoing motion failed to pass, Commissioners Herbst and Rowland voting "aye" and Commissioners Gauer, Kaywood, and Seymour voting "no". Commissioner Rohland stated he could see nothing ~trong with the Environmental Impact Report, although a point could be brought out that it was adverse in nature, howe~er, this did not preclude this being an accepcable repart. Chairman Seymour then noted that perhaps the Commission could consider this report to be insufficient= wher~_upon Commissioner Rowland stated the use might be incompatible, but this did n~~t preclude that the report was not adequate. Chairman Seymour noted that the i'eport was insufficient in answering the use of the propezty and its effect upon the neighboring residents regarding noise from the standpoint of use and traffic which the use wou13 create. Commissiones Roe~land stated he did not feel an EIR should be filed on a small area of a map as this was, but any deficiency should be considered as part of the Commission's resolution reyarding site development standards. Continued discussion was held by the Planning Commission regarding whether or not there were deficiencies in the EIR. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-300 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impaat Report No. 56 notbe adopted as the City Council statement until an addendum had been submitted that would orovide mitigating means for sound attenuation to protect the residential uses to the east. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CGMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ABSENT: COMMZSSZONERS: Allred, Farano. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-301 and moved for its passage and acoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2452 on the basis that the pro- posed use was too intense for its location adjacent t~ residential uses; that severe vehicular and pedestrian conflicts would be caused by the location of tYe vehicular e..try off of Mills Drive, and even though the Tra£fic Enqineer had sugqested removal of a portion of the wall to provide vehicular drivars more peripheral visicn, the vehicles would be over the public sidewalk before pedestrians or ~ther vehicles would be visible to the driver exiting subject property onto Mills Drive; that although the petitioner had submitted revised plans indicating two builainqs with parking between the two buildings, this access would be necessrry to maneuver vehicles into the repair bays, thereby n~aking these parking areas ineffective; that unmitigated noise Erom operations would be detrimental to the health and general welfare of nearby residents; 0 ~ ~z-~ss MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ENVIRONMENTAL IidPACT REPOkT NO. 56 AND VARIANCE NO. 2452 ~Continued) and that the size and shape of the lot was inade,uate to develop the proposed use without creating an undesirable living environment sor the adjacent residential uses on Mills Drive. (See Resolution B~ok) On roll call the foregoinq resolution was passed Y,ry the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Kaywood, ~~Wland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst. ABSENT: .:OMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. RECES~• - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting ' at 4:25 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Sey~our reconvened the meeting at 4:35 p.~•. Commissioners Allred and Farano being absent. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLZC HEARING. COLUMBUS AND MARIE WALLS, 601 PERMIT NO. 1344 North Lemon Street, Anaheim. California 92805, Owners; HARRY KNISELY, 1741 South Euclid Street. Suite 8, Anaheim, California 92802, Agent; requesting permission to ESTASLISH A BOARDING HOUSE FOR SIX SENIOR CITIZENS on property described as: A rectangu- larly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the west side of Lemon Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 151 feet, and being iesentlyaclassif'~iedhRelt ONEnFAMILYLRESIDENTIAL.aZONElberta Street. Property p Subject petition was continued from the meeting of October 18, 1972, for the submission of an Environmental Impact Report. Two persons indicated their presence in opposition. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Bill Young reviewed ihe location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the request to permit the use of the one-story, four-bedroom, two-bath residence having approximately 1684 square feet as a boardinq home for six senior citizens; that the applicant had requested exemption from the requirement for filing of an Environmental Impact Report on the grounds that the proposal would have only "trivial" impact; that site development standards for a boarding house were not specified in the Anaheim Municipai Code, therefore, adequate parking area for boarding house purposes remained to be resolved by the Planning Commission since a total of two parking spaces was proposed to accommodate the caretaker, boarders, and guests; and that if occupancy o£ bedraoms was interpreted as livinq units, then six parking spaces would be required. Mr. Harry Knise~,y, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and petitions signed by people within 300 feet in favor of subject petition, and read a number o£ letters submitted from families of the elderly persons residincj in this facility, as well as 3etters from the County of Orange Welfare and Licensing Department, noting that he would like to make a distinction between thzs pr.oposal and what he h~d seen presented in the city before, because this was for six senior citizens, 71 yeazs and older, who were ambul.atory and did not require care, such as one could see in a child care center where cars would be delivering and picking up children several times a day; and that Mrs. Walls, the petitioner, had been doing this work for fifteen years, a+c~ she loved this kind of work, and her tenants were very happy. Mr. J. S. McKenzie, 627 North Lemon Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that petitions of opposition had been submitted; that letters read by the agent for the petitioner WouldfbeminefavoreofUthehproposal; dents of this facility, and, naturally, they that he had lived in Anaheim for thirty-five years, and in his present home for twenty-four years; that the petitioners had purchased their home about one year ago, and before he knew it, there were elderly people going up and down the street, some in walkers and others in wheelchairs; that ofnthesetresidents~had knew or had been advised of what was going on, and many been in their homes for thirty years; that some of the people signing the petition in favor did not own the property on which they resided; that the ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-756 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1344 (Continued) petitioner had closed up his garage and was now parking his truck on the street; that there was inadequate parking facilities, and if one parked a trailer on the propezty, the open space or recreation area would be taken; and tliat when he moved into his home, the area was entirely R-1 with people living theze and maintaining their private homes. Mr. O. L. Wilbanks, 622 North Lemon Street, aopeared before the Commission and stated that 95$ of the people living in this block in which subject property was located were old and retired, but he did not want every home developed as a rest home; that the more elderly people got together, the less they seemed to qet along; that he had tried to convert his garage into an apartment for him- self and rent his home, but he had been advised this would not be permitted because the area was R-1; and that he did not know how the petitioners were allowed to have these elderly people living there since Code did not permit more than five unrelated persons in one home. Mr. Knisely, in rebuttal, stated he did not know how there could be 35 persons within 300 feet in opposition since he had quite a number signed in favor; that he did not feel petitions were of any importance; that reference made as to parking, none of these elderly residents would have vehicles, and there was adequate parking on Lemon Street and Alberta Street for visitors to park when they visited several times a months that there was more than 300 square feet in the rear for recreation or open space purposes, and he was sure a trailer would not take up that amount of space; that there were other similar operations in the area, but he wished to emphasize the fact that the use was very quiei and what was presented in the plans wou13 be the manner in which this property would be developed and operated. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry noted that Code would permit three additional persons to the Walls family to occupy this structure without having to have permission from the City, therefore, the potition before the Commission was to permit three additional persons, or a total of eight persons on the property. Commissioner Herbst noted that the single-family homes could board up to three persons, which would not be elderly persons, and each could have their own cars. which would a3d to the traffic, however, these elderly people did not add to the tra£fic. Mr. McKenzie stated that the petitioners would have to have some help with these elderly persons since some were 79 and BO years old, and what irritated the residents of the area was the fact that this was a two-bedroom home when pur- chased, and when he purchased his home, he had been advised that one family only could reside in the home. Mr. Knisely noted that Mrs. Walls had done this work for fifteen years; that residents of this home had access to each part of the home, and living in the home as a family provided them with a very homey-type living environment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the possibility of granting the use for two years to determine whether there would be any detrimental effects to the neighborhood and the fact that those siqning the petition in favor were almost as many as those ayainst the use, and if only one family with as many or more children as elderly people living in this homa resided there, this coulZ be more of a problem than elderly geople. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-302 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1344 for a period of two years for the requested use, and upon request of the petitioner an addi- tional peri.od of time may be granted upon approval by the Planning Commission and City Council, and subject to conditions, with the finding that the Planning Commission finds and determines that the proposal would have no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends to the City Council that exemption declaration status be granted. (See Resolution Book) ~n roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. ~J ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1912 ~2-~5~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARZNG. JOHN M. SCHLUND, ET AL, C/o REPORT NO. 23 Frank Schmehr, Referee, 450 Wells Fargo Building, 2323 North Hroadway, Santa Ana, California 92706, Ownerst CONDITIONAL USE BUCCOLA COMPANY, 4501 Sergh, Newport Beach, California PERMIT NO. 1345 92664, Agentj property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 19 TENTATIVE MAP OF acrea, having a frontage of approximately 1300 feet on TRACT NO. 4001, the north side of Orangewood Avenue, having a maxi.mum REVISZON NO. 1 depth of approximately 640 feet and being located at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and West Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED COIJDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A 221-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- MENT WITH WAIVER OF (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (b) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, (c) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET~ AND (d) MAXIMUM SUILD- ING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TENTATI~/E TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: VTN, 2301 Campus Drive, Irvine, California 92664; proposing to subdivide a 19-acre parcel into 221 R-3 zoned lots. Said petition was continued from the meeting of November 13. 1972, for the submission of revised plans. Three persons indicated their presence in opposition. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, previous zoaing action on the property, and the reason for continuance of the petition and tract. Mr. Young noted revised plans had been submitted which indicated the petitioner was now proposing a 221-unit planned residential development comprised of 162 three-bedroom units, both one and two-story, ranqing in size from 1093 square feet to 1382 square feet and having eithzr one and l~i-2 or 2~i baths; that additional revisions from the original plan indicated elimination of the drive- ways adjacent to the east property line by substituting stub drives, terminat- inq approximately 29 feet from the property line, maintaining a setback of at least 20 feet for all living units from the east property line and the setback fully landscaped; and that the revision also indicated more uniform dispersal throughout the area with three "tot lots" and three recreation areas. Mr. Young, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that the revised plans attempted to resolve concerns expressed by the Commission without substantially decreas- ing the original density - 226 dwelling units, and 221 were now proposed - while the planned residential developments approved in Anaheim in the past had a maximum of 12 dwelling units per net acre, and the proposal was for 14.7 units per net acre, thus the Commission must determine whether the project proposed would provide the amenities desired in a PRD at above normal densities; and that the originally-advertised waivers were still applicable to the revised plans, although waivers of the minimum lot frontage, minimum building site area, and minimum building site width were typically waivers that had been approved in the past in conjunction with PRD's in AnahAim. In addition, waiver of the maximum heiqht within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone was being requested because the petitioner still proposed two-story construction within 110 feet of the sinqle-family residential across Orangewood Avenue to the south and within 130 feet of the single-family structures across West Stzeet to L-he west, both in the City of Garden Grove, while the Commission, in the past, had not required the 150-foot setback £rom single-family residential structures in an adjoining city where said city had no such requirement; and that the getitioner was maintaining the 150-foot setback for two-story structures adjacent to single-family structures to the east in the City of Anaheim. Mr. George Buccola, the developer, appeared before the Commission and noted that all except Chairman Seymour were present at the last public hearing, therefore, he would like to review a few of the comments made at the last public hearing, name].y, that they had purchased the property on which they were c:+r~mitted to build multiple-family residential uses; that they were of ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ~a-~se ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 23~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1345, AND TENTATZVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4001, REVISZON N0. 1(Continued) the apinion that the proposed development w~s an excellent buffer between the single-family homes to the south and the parking for the Convention Center or any commezcial-recreation uses to the north; that several of the adjoining resideats in the City of Anaheim had indicated they liked che proposed develop- ment but wanted the 20-foot setback retained from their side yard and to main- tain the single-story height limitation within 150 feet of their property; and then posted colored renderings of the proposed development on the wall for the Commission and aay interested persons to view. Mr. Buccola noted that they had widened the alley so that the alley would be 31 feet to provide acces:t for opening of the garage doors of the units; that the revised plans also indicated very few people would have to walk across vehicular drives to get to the recreation area; and that he was available to answer any further questions. Mz. Bill Noonan, 2049 Eugene Street, appeared before the Commission and stated his property abutted subject property to the east, and while they were not strictly in opposition, they wanted to be present to be assured the revisions proposed were in conformance with recommendations of the Planning Commission; and that, in addition, they would like to be assured that the 150-foot, one-story height limitation was maintained adjacent to the single-family homes to the east if waivers requested were con~idered to be granted. The Commission noted that the plans as revised still indicated single-story, and 3f snbject petition were approved, the approval would be tied into these revised plans. Mr. Noonan then noted that the developez had stated that several of the property owners in the tract to the east were in agreement with the proposed plan, but he knew of only one person who had made such a statement; that they also had looked at the possible alternatives that could be considered for the property because the property would be sold to somebody someday, and the alteznatives proposed by any future buyer might not be as good as this proposal, however, he would like to reiterate the concern of the residents in the tract to the east that the one-story height limitation would not be waived from these properties. Mr. Robert Bailey, 2067 Euqene Street, appeared before the Commission and inquired as to what was proposed as buffering between the proposal and the single-family homes to the east; whereapon Commissioner H.erbst stated that the petitioner proposed a 6-foot masonry wall and a 20-foot landscaped setback. Chairman Seymour noted that the market analysis made by the developer must have indicated there would be a good demand for family-type development since almost 808 of the development had three-bedroom units; whereupon Mr. Buccola advised the Commission that most of the purchasers, from their analysis, would be "empty nesters" who would buy a three-bedroom unit, using one for their own use, another for a guest, while using the third for a den or sewing roomJ that in their market analysis it was found that developers with many two-bedroom units really suffered and these could not be sold - this was his reason for the three-bedroom units; that it was his understanding that a development of this type would have 2.9 persons per unit, while the average single-family home had 3.9 persons - in addition, there was a movement for single people to purchase the units rather than renting, and even those persons were not buyinq two~bedroom units; and that this development would not be strictly child::en- oriented. Mr. Buccola noted that they were providing many amenities for these units, with fireplaces, where possible, patios would have some kind of masonry material, and that they had hired a fine architectural group to do the design of this development. Chairman Seymour inquired whether it was planned to sell these units with government financing, and what r~as the price range of the units; ~hereupon Mr. Buccola replied these would be sold by conventional loan and at a price range from $25,000 to $35,000. Furthermore, the CC&R's would be submitted to the City Attorney's office for approval, and they were in concurrence with the recommended conditions. • ~ s MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, November 27, 1972 ~Z-~59 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 23~ CONDITIONAL ZISE PERMIT NO. 1345~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4001, REVISION NO. .l (Continued) Chairman Seymour inquired why the developer was proposing the density for a planned residential development when he knew the established density for similar units in Anaheim was a maximum of only 12 dwellinq units per net acre; whereupon Mr. Buccola stated that they had pu:chased the 19 acres and from his calculations, there were only 10 to 12 units per acre; that they would have to have the number of uni±s they were proposinq becausa of the cost of the land; that their original plans had indicated 268 units, but in the final refinement with the plans now before the Commission, this was reduced to 221 units; and that they would have to ieake some decision because this property was in escrow, which was about to close. However, economically, it would be necessary to have the units they now proposed. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether the street pattern was satisfactory for trash truck turnarcund because dead-end streets were proposed now; whereupon staff indicated this was acceptable. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the R-3 2one had been approved in 1961, and conditions of approval had not been met, therefore, the time limitation must have expired, however, the City Council had seen fit to grant an extension of time 10~i years after the expiration time limitr whereupon Mr. Buccola stated that one of the conditions of the sale of the property was to re-establish the R-3 zoninq and limiting development to a maximum of 25 units per acret that no commercial .uses could be established on the property, therefore, it was in- cumbent upon the developer to bring the zoning to currant st~.Cus, then they had to decide whether or not they wanted apartments or c,ondominiums or town- housea, and they felt the townhouses were a better. method of using the property. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the General Plan depicted subject property as being appropriate for commercial-recreation uses, and with the traffic noises along Orangewood Avenue an8 West Street, she would assume the noises and fumes from the cars would be affecting the people on their patios; whereupon Mr. Buccola stated that in addition to the wall in the front of the patio, as well as the walk and landscaping, there was still another wall alonq the street side which should block noises and fumes. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the Environmental Impact Report submitted took into accov.nt the peak hour traffic decibel reading when these walls were considered. Mr. Dave Kaylor, Consultinq Engineer, appeared before the Commission and stated that the sound inside was computed with the huffezed walls and the gradient varied; that the intericr was different than the exterior; that the first report was low, and the addendum was computed for sound inside based on HUD's require-• ments, and this did not include the exterior wall on the patio and on the street which would reduce the amount on the first floor; that both the interior and exterior dBA reading fell within the upper lev~: of what HUD accepted, however, he did not know the actual figures that the barzier reduced the sound, althouqh he knew it fell within FHA's acceptable figure, and this was based on peak hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays. Commissioner Kaywood inquired why the decibel readinq was set forth for 160 feet; whereupon Mr. Kaylor stated that HUD's tables were established at 100 feet, and the number must be adjusted from the building to the centerline of the street, which was 70 feet from the exterior wall to the centerline and did not take into consideration cars parked adjacent to the street, which wauld add additional buf£ering. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the developer had taken into consideration the possibility of providing extra insulation for the ~alls and floorst where- upon Mr. Kaylor stated that they were proposing to have s•tandard construction. Commiesioner Kaywood stated that the Federal GovernmEr.t was now requiring better insulation in the military installations in order to conserve heat and eliminate sounds, and this requirement appeared to be a very good criteria. Mr. Kaylor noted that the developer had constructed other units and also provided an outside wall for this development, however, he did not know if a double-wall construction would have extra insulation in it. ~ ~ MINUTES, CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-760 EN`IIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 23~ CONDITIONAL OSE PERMIT NO. 1345~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF 'rRACT N0. 4001, REVISION NO. 1(Continued) Commissioner Kaywood noted that people considerable could possibly t~~rx~ up the in order to offset the outside noises, whereupon Mr. Kaylor stated thdt wneze create some problems. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. living in units where the noise wb's volume of their televisions and stereos and extra insulation would be helpful; units had their windows open, this could Mr. Roberts noted for the Commission that staff had expected a representative of the Parks and RecrQation Department to expres3 the department's views on the revised plans, and some of the Commission k~ad been exposed to these view- points earlier in t;~e day. Howaver, since no one was present, he would state that the Parks and Recreation Director had stated that where facilities were proposed that were pr+.marily for adults, then the recreation facilities should be clustered in one large facility or in one area rather than as pioposed; and that they were very concerned that these £acilities were as dispersed as nroposed. Commissioner Gauer noted that the developer had :~~.~. the recreational f~cilities at the suggestion of the Commission, and he did not agree with the Pa:cks and Recreation Director because as formerly proposed it would mean too ma,ny residents of the units would be required to walk too Far, and he could s~e no reason why these recreation areas could not be dispersed to various are as . Commissioner Kaywood observed that if a recreation area were separate, residents ,f~ m o~~ea t~ her, thereby creating possible parking problems. Commissioner Seymour noted his greatest concern regarding the proposed develop- ment was that although it was a very attractive development, and he could appre- ciate the developer's concern regarding the economic situation, it was also difficult to state what the market would do, but when one considered the fact the proposal would have over 80$ of the units as three-bedroom units, he could not but help feel there would be a considerable number of families with children attracted to this project, which could be a considerable increase in people count, even though the developer stated many of the "empty nesters" wanted three-bedroom units, and when these factors were combined with the fact that 14.7 units per net acre was proposed, the next thing that would face the Commission would be a request for 17 units per acre. Commissioner Rowland noted there had been testimony presented at the hearing on many projects regarding the resale potential of townhouses in the area; that the Commission had heard testimony that was not all neqligible; that sociologists talked about people living in the core area of a city were trapped, and to a certain extent this could apply to condominiums or townhouses. and he would personally prefer a multiple-family residential setup that would conform to the site development standards of the City of Hnaheim, which had been found to be desirable and adequate for the community, and the City had also found that if PRD's were held to 12 dwelling units per net acre, that would also be desirable because of tne amenities proposed; that the proposal was very skill- fully done, but it did not meet the City of Anaheim's community values - there- fore, he still would make the same motion he wanted to make at the last Commission public hearing two weeks ago, which was that the density projected for this type of development was not desirable and that the market today might be moving toward single people and "empty nesters" moving into these units, however, these units would last thirty to fifty years, and this would change the concept as it had changed on Lemon Street; and that he did not want to look at an environment which he found to be very undesirable. Commissioner Gauer observed that although similar developments were being developed in other areas, Anaheim did not have any with this type of density. Chairman Seymour noted that the City of Anaheim had the Village Green, the development at Brookhurst and Ball, which had held the line to approximately 12 units per net acre, or less, while the one at La Palma Avenue and Dale Street was less, and as Commissioner Rowland had ~tated, those that were proposed for Anaheim Hills would be considerably less than 12 units per net acre. Furthermore, although he felt this project was very attractive and a ~ ~ MINUTES, CITi PLANNZNG COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-761 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 23~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1345, AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 4001, REVISZON NO. 1(Continued) lot of thought had been given to it, particularly as to the configuration of the traffic problem, the basic problem was still that of density. Commissioner Herbst stated that he would not ~qree with statements made by Commissioners Rowland and Seymour because th: dc~veloper had done a remarkable job in trying to meet the concerns of the Ccmmission, although he did not reduce the density, but he had spread the recreational facilities, providing double-wall protection for the people in their rear yards, giving more ameni- ties than others did, providing wider streets, and providing the 20-foot landscaped setback along the single-family properties east of subject property; and that although the density was not reduced much, the proposal was a very good concept. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-303 and moved for its passage and adoption to acce~,t Environmental Impact Report No. 23 and addendum and recommend to the City Council that said report be the statement ~f the City Council. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Kaywood, Gauer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Seymour. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. ABSTAIN: COMMISSZONEP,a: Rowland. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-304 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1345 on the basis that the density of the proposed development exceeded the standard of a maximum of 12 units per net acre used by the Planning Commission and City Council for planned residential developments; that the residents of 408 of the units would have to use vehicular accessways rather than pedestrian ways to get to the recreation area; that there would be an additional 20$ site coverage for build- ings for the additional 40 units above that permitted under the 12 units per net acre in addition to the paving that would be required to provide access to these additional units, which would be in excess of that required in normal planned residential developments as established by the guidelinest that the extra density forces a less-efficient vehicular traffic pattern; that the pro- posed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it was proposed to be located; that a maximum density of 12 units pez net acre has been determined as being the density that will provide the proper living environment and amenities for planned residen- tial developments since a comparison of this living environment with standard apartment complexes cannot~be made because in planned residential developments the units would be purchased, which made it less likely that people would be relocating if the environment is not suitable, while apartment residents would have the opportunity to find a more amenable living environment since they would only be renting the units. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Hezbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood, to deny Tentative Map of Tract No. 4001, Revision No. 1, on the basis that the conditional use permit establishing a planned residential development was denied, therefore, the *..ract proposed could not be developed under the existing zoning. On roll call the foregoiug motion passed by a vote of: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONEkS: Gauer, Herbst. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Farano. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ~2'~62 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. BURGER CHEF SYSTEMS, INC., 1348 West REPORT NO. 47 16th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, ownert B. W. WATTERS, 1118 Highland Drive, Newport Seach, California CONDITIONAL USE 92660, Agent; requestinq permission to ESTABL=SH ON-SALE PERMIT NO. 1354 BEER IN A PROPOSED RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land havinq a frontaqe of approximately 158 feet on the west side of Srookhurst Street, hawing a maximum depth of approximately 2fi0 feet, and being located approximately 132 feet south. of the centerline of Colchester Drive. Property presently classified C-1, G~:NERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearinq, it ia referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Robert Ray, representing the agent f.~r the petitioner, indicated his presence and avaiiability to answer questions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-305 and moved for its passaqe and adogtion to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 47 and recommend to the City Council that because the impact upon the environment would be trivial, it was recommended that the City Council find that an Environmental Impact State- ment was not necessary. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foreqoing resolution was passed by the follo~wing vote: AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer. Herbst, Kaywood, Roal3nd, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-306 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1354, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followi~:a vote: AYES: COMMISSYONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMIS~IONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. Commissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 5:55 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -?UBLIC HEARING. J. EARL TALCOTT, 1198 North Euclid REPORT NO. 53 Street, Anaheim, Chlifornia 92801, Owner= C. C. & F. COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., 2182 Dupont Drive, Suite 201, CONDITIONAL USE Irvine, California 92664, Agent; requesting permission PERMIT NO. 1356 to ESTABLISH PRIVATE RECREATI9N FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH 11 PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app:'oximately 9 acres having a frontage of approximately 500 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 790 feet and being located at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Romneya Drive. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report t~ the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Knowlton Fernald, representing Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, agent for the peti- tioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that they were the lessees of subject property for 75 years, and then presented a small model of the proposed medical building, noting that this would be a commercia.l condominium; that in the Report to the Commission one of the recommendations appeared to gresent some problem, and then submitted an alternative regarding Condition Nos. 2 and 3, which would require that the final tract map be recorded in the office of the Oranqe County Recorder prior to final building inspection and ! • ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 19?2 ~2-~63 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 53 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 135G (Cont'd the approved covenants, conditions and restrict;ons be recorded concurrently with thie final tract map prior to final building and zoning inspections, however, that the tentative and final tract map be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to issuance o.f a building perm`.L and the covenants, ccnditions and restrictions submitted to ihe City Attorney's cffice prior to issuance of a building permit. Chairman Seymour noted that there appeared to be a drainage problem at this intersection, but it would appear from information provided the Planninq Commission the hospital to the west had been permitted by the City to drain storm water to this intersection, therefore, this would be the City's respon- sibility to resolve the drainage problem; and that the Environmental Zmpact Report by Gruen Associates was an exceptional one~ Commissioner Herbst noted that there were R-1 residences to the east, and the petitioner was proposin9 only a 10-foot setback, however, he would like to see that the Commission adopt a 20-foot setback, particularly since taere would be cars parked abutting this area, and where there was considerable car circulation, the Commission had been requiring that apartment units set back 20 feet, therefore, he felt this proposal should also set back 20 feet and trees should be provided, together with other landscaping adjacex~t to the wall to break up the blacktopping. Mr. Fernald replied that it was their plan tc pro~ide more landscapiny in the parking area, but he would like to subm`~t a final plan for approval rather than establishing a criteria, and as to the 20-foot setback, they were now providing a 6-foot high wall with 10 feet of landscaping and inquired whether the Commission was desirous of having an additional 10 feet of landscaping; whereupon Commissioner Herbst stated that he felt because of the circulation element proposed, it would be necessary to provide the additional 10 feet of landscaping to afford some form of protection for the single-f'ami2y homes already in existence to the east of subject property; whereupon Mr. Fernald stipulated they would provide a 20-foot landscape: setbac3z along the east pr~perty line adjacent to the single-family residences. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-307 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 53 and recommend to the City Council adoption of said report as the Council's Environmental Impact Statement, except that page 16 of said report be amended to reflect the Engineering Department's statement regarding drainage. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Rowland. Commissioner Seymour o£fered Resolution No. PC72-308 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petiti.on for Conditional Use Permit No. 1356, subject to conditions, with the added condition that a 20-foot landscaped strip adjacent to the R-1 properties to the east shall be provided and the final landscaping plan be submitted to the Development Services Department for approval, as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrec~., Farano, Rowland. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the petitioner wo;.ld consider termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1135 since it was app~rent this would not be used; whereupon Mr. Pernald stigulated this could be terminated. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-309 and moved £or its passage and adoption to terminate all proceedings of Conditional Use Permit No. 1135, as requested by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, :Caywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano. Rowland. s MINUTES, CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ~2'~6~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUSLIC AEARING. OTIS AND FRANCES BROWN, 2225 East REPORT NO. 51 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92806, Owners; JAMES H. SAULS, JR., 137 Glendon Street, Anaheim, RECLASSIFICATION California 92806, Agent; property described as: A NO. 72-73-26 rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontaqe of approximately 56 feet on the north side of Lincoln CONDITIONAL USE Avenue, having a ma~imum depth of approximately 238 PERMYT NO. 1355 feet, and being located approximately 1190 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZON~'. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-O, COMMERCIAL OFFICE~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH A REAL ESTATE OFFICE IN AN EXISTING RESIDENCE, WAIVING (a) MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND (b) MAXIMUM WALL HEIGFIT WITHIL: THE FRONT SETBACK. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Repert to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Chairman Seymour noted that the primary concern of the Planring Commission was whether or not the front facade would be remodeled immediately or within one year. Mr. James Sauls, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted thht in'the Report to the Commission, Finding No. 17 regarding the alteration of the exterior facade, rather than having it completed immediately, they would prefer that they be allowed to complete it within one year from the commencement of ope,,,ations. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the recommended conditions must- be met before the pet~tioner could begin using the property. Mr. Sauls stated that he still would like one year in which to refurbish the property rather than as staff had suggested. Commissioner Aerbst noted that one opposition he had to this proposal was that the petitioner was using a residential home, which would give him a privilege to use a single-family home without benefit of renodeling. and if this site did not prove successful, then the petitioner would abandon future use of the property, therefore, he felt that if the petitioner wanted to use this home for a business, he could see no reason why the facade could not be completed imm~diately, and one of the reasons why Anaheim's downtown was not being converted for office purposes was becauae the City was allowing too many homes along arteiials to be converted, creating strip cosmercial use. ' Mr. Saal~ note~ that his proposed plans of re£urbishing the property would involve considerable expenditure; that the building would louk like a commer- cial building. Chairman Seymour inquired whether it was intended to complete the interior immediately and the exterior within six months. Mr. Sauls replied that he would prefer having the exterior completed in about a year rather than within six months. TiiE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Considera~le discussion was then held by the ~ommission regarding w:ether or not Lhe petiti~^~r should be allowed to have a six-months' delay before com- pletion of the exterior facade or whether the exterior facade should be com- pleted within six mon~hs or within one year. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-310 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 51 and recommend to the City Council that because of the natuse of the request, the impact upon the environment woul.d not be significant and would recommend to the City Council that there was no need to mske an Environmental Impact Statement. (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ MINU'rES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-765 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 51~ RECLASSZFICATION NO. 72-73-26~ AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1355 (Continued) On roll call the fosegoiag resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ~au_r, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. Farano, Rowland. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. ~C72-311 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition for Reclas- sification No. 72-73-26, subject to conditions, with the finding that the petitioner stipulated to providing the required height of a block wall in conformance with Code requirements; that the completio:: of the exterior facade modification shall be completed withi.n six months from date of approval of the reclassification; and that a 6-foot mason~cy wall shall be constructed in con- formance with Code requirements, as stipula•ted by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution ~vas passed by the £ollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbs~, Kaywo~.d, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: A12red, Farano, Rowland. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-312 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional 0„e Permit No. 1355, in part, granting waiver of the minimum site area since the petitioner withdrew waiver of the height of the block wall adjacent to a residential zone boundary, sti~ulating to conform;:ng to Code requirements, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resoZution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Rowland. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. DALE FOWLER, 1430 South Grand Avenue, REPORT N0. 50 Santa Ana, California 92705, Uwner; ELLIOTT R. LEVENSON, 2100 East Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California 9280fi, VARIANCE NO. 2456 Agent; requesting WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED 6-FOOT HIGH, SOLID M1ISONRY WALL TO ENCLOSE OLiTDOOR STORAGE AREA, PROPOSING IT i~ITH A CHAINLINK F~NCE on propPrty described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appr.oximately 10 acres, having a frontage of approximately 425 feet on the north s3de of Coronado Street, having a maximum.depth of approximately 1024 feet, and being located approxi- mately 455 feet east of the centerline of Jefferson Street. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Two persons indicated their presence in opposition. Assistant 2oning Supervisor Bill Young reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, the previous zoning action on the property, and the proposal to construct a chainlink fence, wood slatted, in lieu of ~he required 6-foot masonry wall to screea outdoor storage ~nd minor repairs of mobilehomes to be manufactured in a structure under construction; that said fence was proposed to extend along the west property line and 20 feet from the east property line to the front of the building, with a 6-foot masonry wall along the Coronado Street frontage to the sides of the building, with entry being by means of a 20-foot wide, sliding chainlink gate; and that parking for 150 cars was proposed on-site, with 31 in front of the building and 119 to the rear of the site behind the proposed storage area. Mr. Young, in reviewing the evaluation, noted that screening of the industrial storage area with a slatted chainlink fence had been approved on other indus- trial properties in the city ia instances where adjoining prop2rties were zoned and/or developed for industrial uses, provided that extensive industrial opera- tions involving excessive dust, noise, odor, etc. were not conducted outdoorsj and that in the event the Commission granted subject petition, they might wish ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-766 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 50 AND VARIANCE N0. 2456 (Continued) to require the petitioner to stipulate t:~~at outdoor operations be limited to storage and minor repair operations in order to prevent possible objectionable uses being conducted outdoors. Mr. Elliott Levenson, representing Viking Corporation and agent for the peti- tioner, appeared before the Commission and stated they would like to correct one thing the Report to the Commission stated because it gave the impression that they were only proposing to have 1:i0 feet of the fence to enclose this outdoor storage, but, instead, they planned to fence in the property to within 130 feet of the rear property line because they did not want to enclose the employee parking area; that they proposed a 6-foot ma~onsy wall along the front anri a portion of the side, with the chainlink fence and redwood slats for the balance of the storage area; that the aesthetic value between a 6-foot high masonry wall and a chainlink fence with redwood slats was debatable; that when properties on either side were developed, this fence could not be seen; that a considerable amount of money was involved in a 6-foot masonry wall; and that they would have between 60 to 100 employees who would be parking to the rear of the storage area. Mr. Larry Garrett, representing the Hemphill Spring Company, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated their 7-acre parcel was adjacent to subject property on t.he west, and they felt that a 6-foot masonry wall should be re- quired; that they planned to develop their property in three or four years and had purchased the property three years ago at the time Councilman Pebley was Mayer, and the reason they became interested in the property was because of Code requirements which afforded good protection, and the masonry wall was one of the best requirements for the M-1 Zone. Chairman Seymour inquired whether Mr., Ga._rett felt a masonry wall was better than a chainlink fence that had redwood slatting; whereupon Mr. Garrett stated they were so confident that the Code would be maintained that they had installed curb and gutters along Co:onado Street. Commissioner Herbst noted that a block wall did not give industry the protection they desired because a block wall could be scaled very easily, ard the redwood slats provided some screening while still providing the protection the chainlink fence gave; and that as an industrialist, he found that block walls did not offer the protection industry needed. Mr. Vic Peltzer, 5061 Stone Canyon Avenue, Yorba Linda, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting his property was north of the northerly portion of subject property and also to the northeast of subject property; that he would disagree with Commissioner Herbst that a chainlink fence was better, particularly since sooner or later these chainlink fences would not hold up - did not stand upright very long - and a block wall was usually repaired immediately; that when he was present at the public hearing on another item two weeks ago, the Commis- sion required a 6-foot wall on the property to the north of subject property, and since two other properties in the area were required to have the block wall, the petitioner should also be required to construct the wall; and then in response to Commission questioning, stated that the chainlink fences were never repaired or maintained because motorists ran into them an3 bent the poles, and gave, for example, the Cor.-Rock Company, a sand and gravel corporation which had some of the worst fencing he had ever seen, even though it was covered up with all kinds of shrubbery. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the petitioner was not proposing to store anything within 150 feet of the north property line, nor a distance of 130 feet from the east property line, and that Code would not require enclos- ing the employee parking area which was proposed for the northerly 130 feet. Commissioner Herbst then reviewed the plans with Mr. Peltzer. Chairman Seymour declared a five-minute recess while the plans were beinq reviewed at 6:27 p.m. and reconvened at 6:32 p.m. Mr. Levenson, in rebuttal, stated apparently there were two causes for v:orry: Mr. Peltzer was anxious that the breaks in the chainlink fence be repaired, and he wished to assure Mr. Peltzer that because they were a divison of a major corporation and maintenance was under his supervision. this maintenance ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ~Z'~6~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 50 AND VARIANCE NO. 2456 (Continued) would be taken care of, particularly since the fence was needed for their own protection and they did not want hreaks in the fence since they had expensive appliances stored in the yard which prohibited any possibility of breaks in the fence. Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not the petitioner conaidered an 8-foot high slatted fence because mobilehomes were high and exposed a lot of the roof- line, while the 6-foot wall nozmally required was to limit the height of the storage to 6 feet; whereupon Mr. Levenson stated that the mobilehomes were 12-3/4 feet high. Commissioner Herbst noted that an 8-foot wall would cover the bulk of tha homes. Mr. Levensor. noted that all of the repair work would be done in the atorage yard, however, it would be done within the unit itself, and that the storage of mobilehomes would be no different than the exposure of these mobilehomes in a mobilehome park. Commissioner Herbst noted that a mobilehome park had a considerable amount of landscaping. Discussion was held by the Commission and the agent regarding the possible height of the wall and exposure of the storage facilities to adjoining properties. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the petitioner would stipulate tha~ the outdoor storage and repair would be only minor repairs; whereupon Mr. Levensor. stipulated that this would be only minor repairs. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-313 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Env3ronmental Impact Report No. 50 and recommend to the City Council that due to the nature of the request made under this variance, the impact upon the environment would not be significant and that there was no need to make an Environmental Impact Statement. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISS20NERS: Gauer, Herbat, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Rowland. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to approve Petition for Variance No. 2456 provided, however, that an 8-foot high slatted fence be constructed. Upon roll call the foregoing motion lost by a vote of three to one. Continued discussion was held by the Commission regarding the heiqht and upon its conclusion, Commissioner Seymour affered Resolution No. PC72-314 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition Eor Variance No. 2456, providing for a 6-foot high, redwood slatted chainlink fence, and that any outdoor repairs in the storage area shall be minor in nature, as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. , NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Rowland. ~ .~.. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 72-768 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. HANS AND THERESIA MAHOTKA. 619 South REPORT NO. 22 MacDUff, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners; requesting WAItIER,OF (a) MSNIMUM SIDE SETBACK, (b) MINIMUM WIDTH VARIANCE NO. 2457 OF PEDESTRZAN ACCESSWAY, AND (c) MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS TO PARKING SPACES TO ERECT A 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING on property describad as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 44 feet on the west side of Illinois Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 155 feet, and beinq located approximately 290 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearinq, it is -eferred to and made a part of the minutes. Ms. Paul Miller, 1661 East Chapman Street, Fullerton, designer of the project, appeared before the Commission to represent the petitioners and st3ted there were several items in the Report to the Commission that he would like to have clarified, one beinq that he did not believe parallel parking required more than 17 feet of space; that although this lot was less than 70 feet in width, it had 6867 square feet in area, which would allow five apartment units on the project, and they were proposiny only four; that staff indicated the area immediately around this project had two and three-apartment units, however, he had checked and found they ranged anywhere from three to five units; and then reviewed various lots on which each type of units was located, further noting that if they were required to reduce the number of units to three, there would still be five spaces for cars required, and they would still requize the turning radius into the parking area since the back-up space still would be one foot under requirement width of a four-unit complex; that the~same side yard still would be requested= that it would be economically unfeasible for less than four or five unitst that he had designed four two-bedroom units of 990 square feet each, and there was 2550 square feet cf exterior living area with three of the units having an outside patio area; and that it was hoped to upgrade the area with the p.roposed development. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst inquired why the petitioner could not relocate the carports an additional foot, thereby giving a 2S-foot turning radius, which wou18 also permit better maneuverability for parking of the car; whereupon Mr. Miller stated this could be done. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that some of the lots referred to by Mr. Miller in the immediate area were wider than 44 feet, with the narrowest onp being 50 feet wide, and the lot across the street had five units on it, however, there had not been zny variance grante8 and it could have been con- structed prior to Code requirements presently required. Commissioner Kaywood inquired what would happen if some of the renters of these units did noY. have small cars - would the lessor refuse to rent the units? However, it was her feeling the proposed development was overbuilt and there should be one less unit because one of the proposed parkin~ spaces was unusable. Commissioner Herbst noted thst many projects assiqned specific spaces with apartment units, and this could be done in this instance. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC72-315 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that due to the nature of the request made under this varianae, the impact upon the environment would not be significant and that they would recommend there was no need to make an Environmental Impact Statement. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Rowland. 0 ~ e l9INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ~Z'~69 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT_REPORT N0. 22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2457 (Continued) Commissioner Herbst of.fered Resolution No. PC72-316 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2457, subject to conditions. plus the condition that the support beams of the carports be relocated and a reduction of the length of the carport wall be provided in order that the required 25-foot turning radius into the carports from the existing alley could be developed, as stipulated to by the petitioner, which would mean a portion of waiver "lc" was being withdrawn. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed hy the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Seymour. NOES: COMi•IISSIONERS: Kaywood. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Rowland. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - PUBLIC HEARING. HUMBLE OIL AND REFINING COMPANY~ T. S. REPORT NO. 52 Hotsey. 500 South Main Street, Orange, California 92668, Owner; HOLM, TAIT & ASSOCIATES, 900 Orangefair Lane, VARIANCE NO. 2458 Anaheim, California 92801, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF (a) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SZGNS, (b) MZNIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (c) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE-STANDING SIGN~ AND ~d) MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FREE-STP..NDTNG 3ZGN FROM ABUTTING PROPERTY TO ERECT THREE "SELF SERVE" SIGNS on proF~erty described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of epproximately 150 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 150 feet, and being located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Ken Martin, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions. Commissioner Herbst inquired what the large sign was going to look like on the fascia; whereupon Mr. Martin stated that the plans would indicate what was proposed. The Commission then reviewed the plans, and upon its conclusion, inquired why it was necessary to have both the double-face sign and the two portable free- standinq signs; whereupon Mr. Martin stated that this was to direct the traffic to the self-serve pumps. Commissioner Seymour noted that after the meeting with the City Council, he would be agreeable to pe•rmittinq these self-serve siqns, but the proposal was somewhat r~diculous wherein signs were located 10 feet from each other, and inquired what justification there was to consider approval of a variance for this; whereupon Mr. Martin stated there was a need for it. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC72-317 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 52 and recommend to the City Council that due to the nature of the request made under this variance, the impact upon the environment would not be significant and there would be no need to make an Environmental Impact Statement. (See Resolu~ion Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSZONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Rowland. i ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ~2-~~0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 52 AND VARIANCE NO. 2458 (Continued) Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 2458 on the basis that the temporary signs were not needed, and signing with the center pole sign indicatinq self-serve pumps was adequate. After further discussion and the stipulation by the agent for the petitioner that they would withdraw the request for the portable signs but request that the large sign be approved, Commissioner Kaywood withdrew her motion. Commissioner Kaywood o£fered Resolution No. PC72-318 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2458, in part, on the basis that the petitioner had withdrawn his request for two portable free-standing signs, therefore, the request was for only one additional free-standing sign advertising the self-serve island which ha. been granted by the City Council in the past; that waiver "lb" and "ld" were also withdrawn when the petitioner requested withdrawal of the portable free-standing signst that the petitioner had modified his request in waiver "lc" by withdrawing the request for two portable free-standing signs, therefore, the request would be for the distance of one sign within 80 feet of another existing free-standing sign; and subject to conditions, provided, however, that the portable free-standing signs shall be eliminated as stipulated by the petitioner and that the only additional signing that would be permitted were the lighter box siqns under the canopy. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Rowland. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - DEVELOPER: KLUG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; property located REPORT NO. 54 on the east side of Sunkist Street between Underhill Avenue and Ward Terrace. Subject Environmental Impact Report was filed 3n conjunction with Reclassifica- tion No. 72-73-21, Variance No. 2436, and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6569, Revision No. 2,pending before the City Council. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the Environmental Impact Report No. 54, noting that the EIR Review Committee was of the opinion that the report was adequate as an informative document, and that this project would not produce a significant impact. Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. PC72-319 and moved for its passage and adoption to accept Environmental Impact Report No. 54 and recommend to the City Council that the report conformed with the City's interim Gui.delines for the Preparation of an Environmental Zmpact Report; that the EIR Review Committee was of the opinion that the report was adequate as an informative document, and that this project would produce no significant impact and, therefore, the Planni;:q Commission recommen3s that the City Council adopt said EIR as their statement. (See Reso].ution Book) On roll call the foregoina resolution was oassec: by the tollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONF.RS: Allred, Farano, Rowland. ~ ~z-~~i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1063 - Request for an extension of time - Property located on the north side of Katella Avenue immediately west of the Katella Avenue-Santa Ana Freeway overcrossing. Assistant Zoninq Supervisor Bill Young noted the location of subject propeLty, uses established in close proximity, and the request fcr an extension of time for the use of the property as granted by the Planning Commission on October 25, 1968, to establish a hall for variety shows, lectures, meetings, dances, etc. with an on-sale Iiquor establishment in the existing structure; that a condition of the Planning Commission's approval was that the use be reviewed yearly to determine compatibility of the use and the associated parking, at whi~h time the Commission could then determine whether a public hearing was necessary to approve continuation of the uses or whether the use could be continued on an extension of time; that a field trip was made to determine any lack of parking, and no 1.ack of parking was observed; that the Police Department had indicated to the Development Services Departm~nt that there had been no police problems at this locationt and that three one-oy~o~+e~x29n- ~ions of time had been granted in the past, the latest expiring 1972. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, to grant a one-year extension of time retroactive to October 29, 1972r ar.d to expire on October 29r 1973. ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. N0. 1131 - Request for an extension of time - Property lor.ated at the north- east corner of Broadway and Loara Street and is developed with a building material facility with outdoor storage yard. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Bill Young reviewedtheeactionltaken bybthet property, uses established in close proximity, Planning Commission in their review for a five-year extension of time on October 30, at which time staff had reposted that the matprials were being stored in the yard at a heiqht in excess of the wallt that this material could easily be viewed from the adjacent street; that the landscaping was poorly maintained, and the chainlink fence into the property had many of the plastic interwoven strips missing, and based upon discussion, the Commission determined the item shculd be continued for thirty days in order to allow the applicant time to correct site deficiencies noted. i'urther- more, a field inspection on November 22 revealed a substantial improvement had been made in the housekeeping of this site, however, some ~at~ rials, although neatly stacked, still exceeded the height of the nortY~l~~block wall (Mable Street) by approximately three to four feet; and that staff would recommend a one-yeas extension of time subject to further a:~:roval by the Commission subject to their appraisal of continuing conformance to conditions for approval of said conditional use permit. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and MOTION CAa~ithe northeastacornereof Bxoadwaynand LoarafStreet.usaiditime property extension to expire October 20, 1973. ITEM NO. 3 VARIANCE .10. 2257 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 7426 - Request for modification of conditions of approval - Property located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 900 feet east of Lakeview Avenue. Zoning Supervisar Charles Roberts noted that the request for modifi~dtion of conditions of approva2 regarding a 6-foot masonry wall adjacent to the lots on the south side of the tract had been held over from fi.he meeting of November 13, 1972; that the R-1 tract was im~heideveloWert hadVappeared Rio Aigh School; that Jerry Klein, representing P before the Planning Commission requesting that the one con3ition be amended ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 27, 1972 ~2'~~2 ITEM NO. 3 (Continued) so that they would not be required to construct the masonry wall along the south troct boundaryt that one of the property owners had also appeared at that time, expressing a desire to have the wall constructed as required, however, the Commission did not want to make a determination until they had viewed the site. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowzy noted that he had also promised to give an opinion on the proper procedure on the condition since this condition was imposed at a public hearing, and it was his recommendation that if the Commission desired to amend all or change the conditions, this should be done at a duly advertised public hearing, and if the Commission decided at that public hearing to require the condition, then no further action would be needed. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the 6-foot masonry wall would be required if no action was taken, to which Mr. Lowry replied affirmatively. Mr. Lowry stated that if the Commission decided to consider this, it should be done at a public hearing. Mr. Earl Welk, representing L. A. County Land Company, developer, appeared before the Commission and stated he did not understand that a public hearing was necessary for a tractt whereupon Mr. Lowry stated that this tract was considered together with other items at a public hearing, and this was the reason why he ctas recommending that the waiver request should be considered at a public hearing. Mr. welk further noted that another item to consider was whether or not the tract was approved prior to the adoption of the SC, Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone; whereupon Mr. Lowry stated this was true, but he felt the only procedure was to set this for public hearing. Mr. Roberts noted that in reviewing the Report to the Commission it was apparent the tentative tract was considered in November of 1971, at which time the condi- tions were imposed prior to the adoption of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Mr. Lowry noted that he would like to accommodate the developer, and also the people in ogposition, but the only way the City had and still be in a~^ordance with the law was to establish this at a public hearing. The Commission noted that they had not had a chance to view the property. Commissioner Herbst noted that it would be necessary to hand-carry the blocks to build this wall, and perhaps the wall would not be the best thing to constrssct since there were other methods to do this. Three persons pzesent in the Council Chamber indicated that they were property owners and wanted the 6-foot masonry wall constsucted. Mr. Welk noted that they would have been in to see the Commission a long time ago, however, they had been led to believe that the wall would not be required, and Jerry Klein, who had appeared before the Commission at the previous meeting, was more knowledgeable about this condition than he was. Commissioner Herbst then stated this would be set for public hearing, and the developer should present plans for both the masonry wall or alternative plans to be considered at public hearinq, and the Commission could view the property in the meantime. One person in the rear of the Council Chamber indicated her opposition to a chainlink fence, even though it was slatted and landscaped, because it wae difficult to irrigate any landscaping, and the existing sprinkler system would have to be changed. Furthermore, they would not have the privacy a masonry wall would afford them, and that they had had several police reports regarding prowlers in this area. Commissioner Kaywood noted that if the residents of the area wanted the 6-foot masonry wall and this was a condition of approval, she saw no point ia setting this for public hearing, therefore, if the Commission took no action this date. then the wall would have to be constructed. ~ .~, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANN7NG COMMZSSION, November 27, 1972 72-~~3 ITEM NO. 3 (Continued) Mr. Lowry noted that perhaps ~ore of the Commiesion would be present at the next meet;.•~ ... .:ause there was a possibility there could be a split vote - if the r.: ~°:.••: u~. ~~s made today, thi.s then, again, vrould continue the item to the ne~:•~ ~-~ ' the three absentee votes would become very important. Commis~-:.'• . _.~ :.. :ffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood and MOTiON ~:.. _.... ,?et for gubl3c hearing consideration of Variance No. 2257 ar.,d Ten~;::'r: ~f 'rract No. 7426, scheduling it as the first item on the agenda f~:; " ~.-;~•:.?~:,: 12, 1972. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further ius;ness to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to December 6. 1972, at 7:00 p.m. for a work session. Commissioner Kaywood seconded,the motion. MOTION CARRZED. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. AK:hm Respectfully submitted, ~i~~ ~'~~' (.f.µV ANN KREBS~ SECRETARY Anaheim City Planning Commission a ~• / 0 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERVICE, INC. 101U l;icy A:~~. 7'6~3220 Anahir.m. Ca'~~hirni,~