The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1974/11/250 R C 0 MICROFILMING SERYICE, INC. . .,, ~ ~ ~ ~ Cily Ball Annheim, Ca.lifurnia Novc+mber 25. 197~- RF.GULAIt MI;I:TINC OF '1HG AP~AH~TM CITY 1'LANNYNG COMMISS[ON RE:ULAR - A regulnr meQting oE thc~ Anaheim City P1IInning Commiesion wae cal.led to MEFTII3G ordar by Chnirman Harb~C st 2:U0 p.m. in th~ Cauncil Chamher, a quorum bcing present. PR~?SENT -- CHAI.RMAN: Herbet - COD41I5SIO;VLftS : Cttuer. , Johnson, King, Mor.ley, Tol~r ABSENT - CUN4rtISSIONNRS: i'ucano ALSU PRF:SENT - Asai.stnnt DevelopmenC Services Director: Rni~ald Thompeon Trafflc Bngin~er.: Puu; Sing~sr Streel Deai.~n ~~igiT-eer: Arthur Daw Of f icc F.n~ineer : Jay 1'itus Zoning Supervisor: Charle~ Roberte Asaie~nnt Zoning Supervia~r: Annika SunCalahti Assaciate Planner: phillip Schwartze Coramission Se~retary: Patricia Scanlan PL~DGE Or - Commiseioner Johnaon led in the Yledge of A1].egiance to the Fl.pg of the ALL~GIANCE iJnited Sl•Ates af Americn. APPROVAL OF - c.ommiseioiier King offered a motion, seconded by Commisai.ot~er Dtorley and THE MINUTES MOTION CARItIED (Commisaioner Farano ~.:-ing absent), to approve the minutes of the meezinga of ~ctobr~r 30 and t7ovember 11, 1974f as aubmitted. L~NVIRONMENTAI., It~ACT -.JUKN D. LUSK & SON, P.O. Box 2140, Newport Beach, Cx. 92663 REPOAT N0, 13'L (DEVe~cper); HOPEN~ HEDLUNll 6 llARBY, INC., 3030 WesK Main Street, Alhsmbra, Ca. 91801 (Engineerj. Sub~ect property, consistinB of TENTATIVE MAPS OF appruximately 87 acres having a frontage of sl~proximately 3209 TRA~"T NOS. 8418 feet c~n the north side of Nohl Ranch Ro~d, having a maximum depl•h k1ND 86~i7 of approximately 18Q0 feet, and being locaked approximately i810 feet eee~t of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road, is propoaeu for subdivis:on as followa: TrACt No. 8418 - 40.6 acres - 104 R-H-iU,000 lota; and T'ruct No. 8647 ~- 46 Acrea - 97 R-H-10,000 lots. Sub~~cr. peCition~ were conCinued £rc,m the meetings of August 19~ September 30, October 14, ar_d Noveniber 11, 1974, as requested by the peCitioner in ~rder to permit preparation of revised plan~. AesiatanC Zonin~ Supervisor Annika Santalahti noted for th~ Planning Commiseion that at the time the Staft Report wae prepared, the petiti.oner. had not submitted revised plans Slldy therefore coasideratlon for an additiona'_ conti.nuation would be in order. Commisaioner iCing offur~d f~ motion, seconde~d by CQmmiesioner Joiinean and MaTION CARRI~D (Com-ni.asioner Earano being absenC), to f.urCl~er continue consideration of Envtronmental Impack Report No. 137, an3 ienestive Maps of Tract Nos. 8418 and 8647 to the meeting of Aecember 9. 1974. Tt~e Planning Commission generally concurred that Sta£f be directed tn notify the petitioner that if revised plans wer.e not eubmitted in Ci.me for coneideration at the D~cember 9, I974 Planning Commiasi~n maeting, Che eubject matCers ~ould be taken off the agenda. 74-525 ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S, CY'1'Y PLANNtNGI C()1~41ISSION~ Nov~mber' 25~ 1974 74-529 'RECLASSIFICATTON - CON'~[NUED PUBLIC HLARTNG. J~SF,YtI A. MARTINE'L~ 815 Gaet Barkley Avenu~~~ N0. 74-'15-15 Qrange, Cn. ~?667 (()wner). Prorer~y dc~crit>ed ae: An lcregularly- shdpe~d pnrcal of land consisting of approxlmate.ly G.86 acre having a VARIANCG NU. 2640 £KOnt$g~ o[ gNproximatel.y 82.69 faet on Che north aid~ nf. Ball Road, h+~v4n,~ e muxlmum dopkh oE Appruximately 432.72 fa~t und bcing ].ocated upproxi.mataly 106U feet wQet of the centerlit~e of Kr~ott Aveiwe~ and furCher deacribed aR :3629 Weat Ball Hoad. Property presently claAeif.iec! C-1 (GENERAL CUtR~1LRCIAL) ZONE. REQUES'TFp CLASSIFICAT'.[ON: R-3 (M111,7'TPLG-FAMILY RF.STDCN'CIAL) 'l,ONF REQUESTI:D VARIANCis: V7AIVE~17 UF (A) MAXIMUM RUILDlNG HFI(:H'f, (H) MINIMl1M FRONT YAlID SET$AGK, i;C) M'.(NIMUM SIDf; YA1tU SETBACK, (D) MINTMl1M WIDTH OF PL~UESTRIAN A.CC~SS- 41AY, I;E) REQUI1tED SOLT.U MA'.iONRY WALI. AD.IACENT TO R-•A OR 5INGI.E-FAMILY Z.ONL~ ANU (l~} REQUtRCD kGCP.LATION-LEISURE ARCA, TO CONSTRUCT A 20-UNIT !RL~VI5ED TO 18-UNI7') 7'WU-~'IORY APAR'CMENT COMPLF.X. Sub~e:ct petitianr~ were continued frum tlie meeting of. October 14. 1974. f.or. revised plane. No one indicated their pr.c~sence in oppoei.Cian to sub~ect petitione. Rltho~:~h th~ Staff ltepurt to the Pla.r,ning (:ommissian d~ted November 25, t974, wns not read st the public liearing, it ie referred to R11d wnde n pnrt of r.he minute3. Mr. Joac;ph Mai~inez, the pc:'ltioner~ appenred before r.he Ylanning Cnmmi~sion to anawer questiuns regarding Che proposa7.. ARSistant 2or-ing Supervi.aor. Anr~ika Santr-lahti noted for the Plc~nning Cammission ~hAt f ive of Che six requeated waivera ha3 been revised, four of whicl~ Fiad be.en Flimir,ated by ~aid revision. THE PUBI,IC HEAItING WAS C1,OSED. Th:. Planning Commi.saian ent.~:red into diacussion regarding the revi:~ed pl~ans f.or tha aub~er_t propoHnl, during whic;i i: w~.s generally concur.red that the revieions cc~r. t:~inly made a better pruposal. and tt~at ti~as an ind•ication that projects cauld usually geC closer to the ordinances if effort was niade to do so. Commissioner King offered ,a motion~ seconded Uy Commissioner Johnaon and MOTION CAR}tI~D (Conunissioner Farano being abaent), tliat the Planning Cammission recommends Co the City Council that the sub~ect ptoject be exempt from the requirpmenC to prepare an Environ- menCal Impact Report p~~raua~C to the provisions of. the Califoritia Environmenkal Quality Act. Commissioner King offered Reso~ution No. PC74-227 arid moved for i.ts passage and adoption to grant per.ition for Reclast3if.ication No. 74-75-15. sub3ect to conditions. (5ee Resolut3on Book) On roll ca11, the foregoing r:solu~:ion was passed by the fcllowing vote: AYGS: COMMI5SIONERS: CAUi3R, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOI~AR, HERBST NOES: CUI~4SISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FAF:ANO Commissioner King off~~red P.~aolution No, pC74-228 and moved for its passage and adoption~ that petition for Varlance No. 2640 be and hereby is granted i.n pxrt, slnce the request fer waivera of minimum fcaut yard setback, n-.inimum width of pedeatrian accesaway, required eolid wasonry wall ad~acerit to the R••A ~one, and required recreational-leiaure area were eJ.iminated by revised plane; grant'.c+f: waiver of maximum building height withln 150 feet of aingle-family zones on th~e basio a: ~he unusual shape 8nd size of the sub3ect property and Che Planning Commiasion having gr+~ated similar waivers i.n the paat; granting wniver of the minimum side yard setbxck on the b+~sls that the requesr is minimal due to the ahape and siae of the e~ub~ecX pr•operty; said variances bein~ granted to conatruct aa 18-uni.t, two- stury apr~rtment camplex; subject to condi.tions. (See Resulut:.on Book) On roll call, the foreqoing xesolutiun was passed by the following vote: AYES: COI~iI5SI0NE~iS: CAUL~R~ JQHN5QN, KING~ DIORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: COMMISSIONcRS: NONE ABSENT: CONIDiIS5I0NERS: FAP.ANO ~ ~ ~ MxNUTrS. CI'f'l PLANNI.NG COA4~11S5IAN, November 25~ 19'14 1t,-530 VAK~ANCE N0~ 2GG5 - CONTYNUED FIIBLI(; N~A1tING. L. V. BU3TWIl:K, 200 Weet Mldwny Drivw~ ~ ' Anaheim, C:a. 92805 (Owner); requoeting kA1VER OF (A) PF.RMI'PTED U3ES, (B) Nf:QUIEiI:M~IT TFtAT US1;S BE ('ONDUC['FD WITHIN A BUILDINC~ (C) MINI.MUM IlU1LTiING SETJACK A1IJACGNT TO R-A 7,ONING. (ll) MAXTMUM 13UIl.D'L~iG HEIG'.~T~ (E) MT.NtMUI~ N1Ml16R OF PARKING SYACES~ ANU (r) fti:QUIRG-D BL~1CK WALL ADJACrt:~ TU R-It ZQN.TNG. TO PERMTT THE CON'CINUED USE OF AN LXISTTNI: TMT.LLR SALF.S AND SNRVICE FA,CILY'~Y on property dascribed ae: An irr~gularly-sliaped parcel of lnnd conaiating af approximakely 1.2 acree locatc~d at tha northwest corner of Midway Drlvc and Maheim Boulev~:rd and having eppraximate frontagee of 165 faut o~• ~hij no-.•th et.Je ~f Midway A>ive nnd 315 feet on the wesC sida of Mahoiw Doulevard. Property prr±sently clneeicied G1 (~1?NGRAL COMMERCIAL) 20NE. Sub~c~ct ~eti.tion wa~ continued from the meeCin}; of October 30~ 1974, for. reviaione giving adJitional informati.on. It wae noted thnt the aubject petitioct wae originally heard at a WeJneeday Planning Cumml~sion meeking und~ apparently. it wne not clear to the petitionpr thnt the next meeting wo41d he held on a Mon~fay. Consequeiitly. th~ petiti.oner wae not ab1Q to be ~resent ur. this meetin~ anri wa~- rc~ap~etiully requesting a continu~-nco l•o th~~ meeting of December. 9, 1974. Commis5loner .lohneon offered r. motion~ eECanded by Cummissioner Morley and MO'fION CARRIED (Co:mniaeioner FArano being u'.,s~nt), ko fur.tt~er continue Chp public hraring and coneidert~Cloi~ of Var.tance No. 2645 Co t}.~ meeCing of December 9, 1974~ for the petitioner to be present. VARIAIQCi; N~J. '1648 - C~`NTINUED PUBLZC Hk~AFtINC. LAWRENCE A. t4llCKENTHALER. 153U Avolenaie Dri~Q~ Fullerton~ Ca. 92635 (Owner); CHARLES '... YOUNG, 62k North Poinsectiu S`reet, Se~nta Ar,a, Ca. 927~1 (AgenC); requesting WAIVI:R OI~ (A) Pi:RMITTED ~~SES, (R) MINIMUM SETBACK AREA 1,I~lUSCAPING~ (C) MINIMUM PARKING °REA LAND- SGAPING AND (D,l PI~.RMITTED PRTrW2Y USES ON A SERVICE STATION SITE, 'TO ESTABLISH AN AUTQMOBTLE PA1tTS AND ACCESSORI~S SALES AND INSTALLA'1?.ON FACIL,ITX AT P.N EXISTING SBRVIi:E STATION SITE on p~uperty described as: A rFCtangu].arly-shaped parcel o.f land conaiating of approxitnately 0.5 ncre located ~t the northwear. corner of Crescent Avenue and L~arn Street, having front- ages of. appruximnlely 150 feet on the north aide of Creacent Avenue and approxim~tely 150 feet on the west aide of Loara Street. Property preRently claseified C-1 (GENE~tAL COMMGRCIAL) ZONE. Sub~ect petition was continued from the .aeeting of October. 30, 1974, for reviaed p1~ns~ No one indicated their presence in opposition to sub~ect petiti.on. Although the Staft Report to the "lanning Cummission dated Nov iber 25~ 197G, uas not read at the public hearing, it ia refeir,~d to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Bill Pearson~ repreuenting the petitioner, apneared before the Commisaion to anawor quest~ons regarding the propoeal. THE PUBL?;, HEARING WAS CI,OSEA. In reapoiise to questioning by Coancisaioners t4r~rley and Tular, Mr. Pearson stated they wished to retain the canopy slnce ~alesmen stood next to the cars af approximately 95X of their c~xstomers while doing busineea and, by having the canopy, they would be ouC of the sun or rain. Commisaioner Morley not~d that all of the canopies and islanda ahould be removed snd that he would agrae that the 2Y. minimum parking area landecaping was not n~cessary for this p~rticul~r appllcaCion. Hs further •~ot~d that he liked the landacaping plana to cloae off the extra driveways. Chairman Her' th~n noted that there was no argument regarding w~iver of [t-o '?% landscaping requi~~ment. ~ommissianer Tolar noted that with even one canopy, as wss being propoaed, the site would etill have tha lmage of a service atation :-nd, therQfore, it should be removed. Commissianer Ga.uer noted that if thP petitioner. reaiiy wanted [o convert the ex'sting aervice station aite, then it would be betier to terminate all aspects of the previous use. ~ ~ ~ MTNUTT:S, CITY PI..ANNINC COI~Q4IS5ION, Novembar 25. l9; 4 VAIt:ANCE N~~. 2648 (Continuad) 74-531 It. wae noted that thu Uirector of Dea~lopmant 3ervl.cee~ had determined thet the propoRed sctivity fell wlthiu the defiaition ok 5octiun 3.U1, Claea 1 of .he City nf Anuheim Guid~lines to thc~ EteyuirPinente tor an Environmei~tnl impnct Repor.t and wes, therefc~rc, cateRorically exempl• trom the requlrn~ment to filc nn ~IR. CommieNioner Morley offered Reeolueion Na. PC74-229 and moved for il•s paseage and adoptlon khat p~titi.on for Variance Nu, 2648 bu granted in ~art, grnnting wuiver of: tlie permit• tr.d uses in the C-1 Zona to al.lot; inett-llatiun uf' sutomobi.l~ parte and ac~esROries; thAt the petitioner withdrew the x'equesC for waivi~r oE l•he minimum selhack area lnndscr~pi.ng or- the baeis oE the reviaed plane wlyir,h were eubmltted Alimi:,uting enme; grar.ting wnivcr nf the minimum parking aren landscapi.ng on the bneis thr~r. a hardship would be cre~e-ted lf eaid waiver wae n~t granted; r.t~at wP'.ver u! the permittcd primary uses on 4 aervice stat ion aite was eliminuted einae tha P1ann.Lag Commission required that all of tt~e ca~ ~pies and pump islando and gaeoli.ne Canke be .removed nnJ. in effecC, tl~e property would no longer be r~ acrvice etatlon aite; sub,~ect [o conditions. (See Rseolution liouk) On roll c~ll. the furegoing resol.ution was paeaeu by c.he following votu: AYES: COt~41ISSION~RS: GAUER, .TOHNSON, KINC, MORLEY, TOI.AR~ H~RI~5T NOES: COhII~t1SSIONCRS: NONF, AB5~NT: COMMISSION~R5: FAItt1N0 VARIANCF N0. 2652 - COliTINUED PUBLIC HEARINC, WILSH'IR~ WOOD~~ INC., ~24 Westwood Boulevard, Los Ange.lea, Ca. 90024 (Owner); COLQNY REALTY, ]:tiC., 1400 North i~aruor TENTATIVE MAP OF Boulevaxd, Suite 240, Ful.terton, Cm. 92635 (Agent) . Pr~perty deacribed TRACT N0. 8683 a~: An irregulnrly-ahaped pnrcel of land consisting of approximately 3.6 acres loca~~~d northwest~rly of the intersection of Wilshire Avenue and Pearl Street, having frontagca of approximakely 34 feet on ttie north side of Wilatiire Avenue flnd approximately 151 feeC on the west eide of Pearl Street, having a maximum deptt~ of approaimaCely 616 feet~ being located approximately 42Q feek north of. the center].ine of Wi1~V~ira Avenue. Property preaently classifi.ed F-3 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. RGQUESTED VARIANC$; WAIV~'R OF (A) MINIMIJM BUILDING SITE AREA PF•R DWELLING UNIT, (II) MAXIMUM I3UI'LDING HEIGI~T, (C) MAXIMUM SITE COVERAvE, (D) MINIMUM STRUCTURAL SETBACK, (E) MINIMUM RECFtEATIONAL-LEISURE AREA AND (F) MINIMUM OFF- STREET PARKING, TO CONVBKT AN EXISTING 115=JNIT APARTMLNT COMPL~X INYO CONDOMINIUMS. TENTATI7G TRACT REQUEST: ENGiNEER: RAU3, BEIN, FROST & ASS~CIATES, P. 0. Box 2590, 14U1 Quai.l Street~ Plewport Beach, ~'a. 92663. Sub~ect property is proposed as a one-lot, 115-unit., R-3 subdivieion. Sub~ect petitions were conl•inued from ~he meeti.ng of November 11, 1974, at the request of the petitioner. No one indicated their pressnce in oppoaition to sub~ect pel•itions. Although the Staff Repo rt to the Flanning Commission dated November 25, 1974, was not read aC tt~e public hearing, it ia refer.red to and made a patt of thE minuCes. Aasiatant Zoning 5upervisor Annika ~~:-+:alahti read a letter of oppositi.on received from Harold U. LaBue, ].400 Birchmont Dxi:e, Anat~eim. Mr. 811.1 FrosC, reprea enting thP nPtitioner~ appeared Uefore the Commission and st a ted th~t the RM-4000 Zone wae new +to the City and to thr petitioner; Chat the aub~ecC petition wae submitted on Msy 30~ 157~ however, ttie City SCaff was unable to accept i.t until October 22~ 197 4; that the pt~itioner hed attempted t~ adapt the proposal to the nEw ardinance; that regarding the requeat for waiver of ths minimum building afte area per dweJ.ling, or 4U00 aquare feet, he atate3 that the actua'1 net acreage was more than indi- cated in the Staff Report and there was present?y 1356 square £eet per dwelling un it instead of 1296, which sCi11 would not meet the new requirement; that approximately 62Y of ~he units werQ one-bedroom, which would explain why th~re were more units on the property than Che 4000 square f.eet wou11 allow; that the one-bedraom units would offer an o pportunity to have moderate, low- priced housing which was presently in demand; that the price xan~e for the condominiua-a w~uld be from $19,950 to $32,950~ with the higher price being for tha two-bedroom and den unit. .... ~ .w. e MINU1'LS, CITY Pl.ANNINC; CUtQ1TSSI.ON, Novembcr 25~ 19/4 VAItIAN~G NQ. 2652 AND_'fENTATIVI: MAl' OF TItACT N0. 8683. (CunCtnuecl) 74-532 Regardi.ng the requc+At for waiver of r.he maximum pcrmitted builcling holgh t, requiring thnt all etructur~» wi.thin 15U Ieet. of any agricultural or one-Enmity rec~idant inl rone Ahel:l. not excaed one r~Cory~ Mr.. 1~coaC ~t+~ted that requlrement ohould noC uppl.y to thc eub~ert devalopment xinc.a the properky to Che s~uth ~rne xaned R-A and hud not be en £armed for. mriny yeare; and thut th~ T~roperty tn the south fronted on Wilehire Avenue und wne indic.i,~e~d on the Anaheim Guneriil k'lun for C-U, or ~ffic~ uae. Regarding Che requesr for walver. ot Che minimu~a site covex'age, Mr. Froet sr,+~tel the c;ode permirted 40X covernge, the SL•aff lteport LndicuCe:d 47.4X ~ctuel coverage , iind Lheir survcy u[ the proporty indicar.ed approxlmately 42.6X coverage on the aite; and that, ~ince the devc~lopment had ma~ty other ameniti.ae especlally related Co rhe gnrage~, parking~ uiid gr.ceci r~rea~ thie wai.ver should be granted. Regardirtg tlle reyuest for waiver of kl~e minimum etrucL•ural aeeback when condominiume Ab~lC single-fami'ly residentiaL devel~pmenCH, Mr, FroeC ytated that: a11 -~f the unfte ~3jacent to the R-0 Zone trbce were one-story gnrcien-type 5ce baclc 16.5 feet wich goo~, l.andscnpi.ng desigre; that tt~e development wtte upproximately two year.e :~ld and had b~e-~ conetructed with ample l~uffering caneiating of un ndditionul 6-foot wull~ tree:~, foliage, e~c.; ~nd tl~at since privacy wae already an umenity, fFiv~ ~, hle conei~~ieral•ion ehould re given to the re- queated waiver, RegArding Che requeaC for waiver. o£ miiiim~m~~isable recreational-leieure space for the dwelling units, tlr, rrost gtated that Che overall net acreags ehould 'oe used to cumpute the , r dwelling area as it per.tained to thie waiver and using said figu re, they had arrived at 830 aquar~ feet ralhE.r than the 603 square feel• indic~ted in the Stfiff ReporC; and that~ in h{ :~~~inion, 830 squaxe feet was not criCically ahort of the 1200-aquare foot requirement Regarding the requeat f~r waiver of the minim~m off-iCreet parking, Mr. Froet stated tha t historical_y they had noC experienced a parking pr.oblem for their. tenan ta; that l-he garagea had bec~n ~cnstructed undergruund to allcw for more green area; that one-bedroom units would not need 2.5 parking spaces as required b~i i.he new RM-4000 or.dinance; that the proJect was ::ithin walking dietanc.~ of khe A:iaheim Plr~za which was a ma~or ahopping center and was one block fr~~m an ~CRTD bur~ stop; that rather th~n an adverse irnp~c.t, the park:l.ng spaces were adequate; and that the use of. hikes would promote a healthi er environment. Regarding the net density, Mr. Frost etated tiie pro~ect exc~ ed 12 un i tR per acre Uy a large margin, however, they were providing quality-built h~ Lng that wae worthwhile; that if thP project conformed to 12 units per acre density, the sales pxice would be between $57,U00 and $65~000, making the units difficult to sell; that the pro,je ct would serve to prov:~de pet•manent homes for Anaheim reai.dents at reasonaule prices; r.hat the City of Anaheim appeared to be ahead of other citie~ and that the right of rev i ew of conversions of apartments to cundomintums was undersxandable; that thia conversion would provide bad ly neednd housing; that the amenities that were being pr.ovided inc?uded an indoor gym and recreation area, ~aunas, billiard rooms~ and lounge with card-playing a zeas, c.tc., and very fe.w people couid afford those amenities. Mr. Frost continued by atipul.~ting to compliance with all of the condi t ione of approval ae set fc~ ti~ in the Staf.f Report and, thei _upon~ presentad photograr'~s of the sub~ect devel- opr~ent for review by the Planning Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In responae to questioning by Commissioner Gauer, Ms. Juanita Hagupian , representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commfasion anct stated th e smallest unit would contain 777 square feet of sp~xce; that they had contacted the Federal E~ousing Admi.ni- sCration and the Veterans AdministratLon and were advised that the sub ject development would comply with those requ{.rements for lendi.ng purposes; that J~94 pa zking spacea were marked off in Che garage area, tiowever, some of thoae apaces ~aere for compacr cara and they were taking credit for only 189 spaces for the purposes of subjec t peCition; and that although they had two •tirface parking spaces, they preferred not to have any. Coc~i.asioner Tolar noted that the propoeal provided approximately one- foureh the lttnd area required under the RM-4000 Zone for the exist3ng unite, or 129E s quare feet i.natead of the required 4000 square feet per uwelling unit; that the City woul d be considering ~ ~ MIi~UT~S~ CI'TY PLAtJNING COP4~tIS5IC~N, Nuvemb~r. 25, 1.97~i ~~~ ~3~ VARIMICL N0. 26~'l ANll T1:N~'ATiVL MAY OF 'TRAC'P d0. $683 (Conrinued) many cunvordlunK ii~ ;.ha future and although Che sub~~ct dt~velupment wae be+~utifu2~ n hnrdehlp could not be found to ~uE~tify approvul of thu r~questecl conver~ion; and thnt if the sub~~r.t requeHC wne upproved, r.he Ci.ty would hnairrxl.ly be Mbnndoning the ItM-4000 orcilnance. Me. Nugoplnn then ~stntad ihc~t thc undergraund parking gnrtigea repreaented epproximatc~ly 73~6Q0 equarc f.cet of lund areu c~nd i.f said pnrking was ahuveground, in odditian to the cuXrenl ucrunge, the d~~neity would be approxi.mntoly 5.2 J.welling unite pe.r acrA. Miss Santalahti noted for the Commiaeion thr~t if the parking had been provid~d on--grade, Chen the land areu wou1J be camputed minun al.. uf ttie drlveways and tho resultdnt dquara fooCage per dwellin~ unlt wou.ld be s11g1itly higher but not markedly so. In response to queBtioning by Commieaioner~ 7'olar nnd Johnr.~n, Me. Hngopian dtc".~J cney were propoAi.ng •~n udult community; thut the~ ~:nita were pree~r.ntly being rented to adultH only and they li:3d be~n very c~r~ful i.n ycre~_ning their tenants. C~mmissioner. Johnaon then noCed that it would eeem reasonablc th~t c~~ntr.ol to keep the pro~ect ull adult could be loat, and Ms. Hagopiun stuted thut would Le cover~d in the rulea for the ~levolopment. Commiseioner Tolar then noted that t~omeownere Aseciciations were questionab7.c as to their validity according to Che Ciky Attorney's Office. Ms. liagopian then stuted ~hat .Eamiliev wi':h childreu would not be invited Eor n one- bedroom unit, and that in the event there were ctiildren in the pro~ect, th~~ popul~-tion would be qutte low. Chairman Herb:it noted that iG was hard to jusCi.fy Che sub~ecr. conversion with 33.8 d~weliing units per ~cre, bac~ed on the new kM•-4000 ordinunr_e and on the ~.1Cy's pol.icy for a maxamum of 12 dwelling units per acre for condominium deveJ.opments. He further noted that there was a distinct difference between an apartment house and a co.:dc:ninium, witt~ more congestion in apartment pru~ect~ and in that situation~ a tenant could move out if ti~ did not like iC. for any reason; that the subject development was a beauliful place anci a fine Jevelopment for apartments; that peoplP who owned their o:~n lwellitiga usunlly had mo:e personal poases- sions and needed morE living space as well as the 2.5 parking spaces; t1ia4 t}ie project did not meet the currc~nt standards fur an apartment h~use rega~~ding parki.n~ sps<.ae, altho~gh it wrsa constructed Co Code standards two years ago; that the amer~itik~a for. the condomini.um conversion were lacki.n$~ the density was far too high, and the parking was deficient; and that i.f young married Qeople purchased the condominiumo, the.re wo~ld pr~~br~bly hp ctiildren. In rebuttal, Mx. Frost atated he was aware of what the City tfad g~n~ Cbr.augh to ~'.~velop Ch~ new or.dinance, however, he submitted that the sub,ject p~ti~tion waa filed un >fay 30, 1974, when the new law was not in existence; that previoust5 co:,doni~n.'~ume wtr~ a.ll.!>wt~d as long as the property was a one-loC subdivision; that they fe~t ppr;i~.; s the Cicy cu~i._., "granddaddy" the propo~Kl throuah because ~~£ its amenities and the ar~a in whicti ic waa located, since it had l~een filed prior to the new ordina~xce. Chairman Herbst then r.>tPd r.:,a~ ti,e sub~ect ~.ro~ect hac~ gone Co under~rround parking to accompli4h ~.~re apur;.ment ~inits pPr acre, h~wever, the average apat!:men[ p:o~r:c~ mec•ting all of thf. Code req~lrement, ver; e~ldom ever exceeded 26 dwelling units per .icre; and Chat. in. his opinion, Che undery,c ~~~ud j~arking took away from the homeowi~~r-ty;~e develop- ment. He further noted that the ;:r.~ ject should be allowed ta rema~n beautifi,l a.parr_ments. Mr. Fros*_ sta ted they would .io everything in their power to make th~ proposal an adult community. In reaponse to comments by Chairman Herbat~ Ms. Hagopian stated the underground parking was not an item of interest at the time rhe project was cunstructed; that three plana were presented and some o~ th~ ad~acent property ownera did not like the at,oveground parking eo it war~ improved ~ipon by placing the parking underground but not increasir,~ the density; and that the complex was so constructFd for the City to be proud. Chairman Herbst noted tliat the aub~ect develoFment remained an apartment project in concept and did not ~ueet the qua]ifications of a c•~ndominium; that the pro~ect wae so far from meeting the Condominium Ordinance it co~~.id not be ~ustified; and thet tt~e new ordinance was brought about because apar.tmentR we:e being converted fooling tl-.e public. ~ • MINUTI:5~ C1:TY PLAtiNTNC COMMISSIQN, Nnvember 25. 197G 74-~i3~~ VARIANCG N0. 2652 AND 1'~NTA'fIVE MAI' OF TRACr r~o.~8683 (ConCi.nueJ) Mr, Frost thun atatoJ khet r.hu catmnunity nmeded tha pro~e~:t; end thr+t alCiio~gl~ hE wae looking ut thc prupoeal fram hie Hncl u: iC' with all of tha ahortag~e thi!y atill falt r.hey w~re pravLding ~ v.itnl t-ousl.ng pra~rct in the (:ity; and Chat hi~ own di-ughterR could not afford a home of thQir tiomo on today'a market and tl-Q Prapoanl wo~ild ha +~ beglnninq for tham. Commiaeiuner Johns4n notod that he ccmcurred thIIr. the eubject pro~ect was ~ beautiful Rpur.tmeat comp7.ex for An~heim, howevar, the ordinance of the City was created ut grent expense and wns for tl-e pxotection of the citizene, and Lt would be f].suuting the C1l•y Counci.l +ind ~.ndicuting tli~t lhp ordinrince wae of no v~lue wt-c-teoever if r.he propoeal wne granted, Il• was noted tht-t tl~e Direckur oE Development Servic~~ liad det.Prmt.ned thaC the proposed activiky fell witl~in the definition of Saction 3.01~ Claes 1 of the City of AnahPim Guideli.nes eo the Requiremerita for ~n ~nvironmental Impact Report and wae, thern_fore, catEgorically exempt from the rec~~iirement to filc~ an FIK. Commiaeioner 'Colar offered Resolutlan No. PC74-230 and moved for its passage and adoption that pet i r icn for Variance No. 2652 b~ and liereby ia de~.i.ed or the basis tt~at the waivcrs are Coc~ numerouc~ and too c:xtreme and do not conform Co any ~'.::p,ree to the newly-adopted site deveJ_opment st,lndurds of Che RM-4000 'l.one, as p~rrn.ins tu the convezaion of exintent apnrtments Co condominiume. (See Itesolution Book) On roll call, the for.egoing resolutl.on was pasaed by tlie fol.lowing vote: AYLS: COM?~IISSIONGkS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLFY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: CUI~iISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COI~IISSIONERS: FARANO Comm~.ssioner TolAr offered a moCion, seconded by Cotmnissioner Morley and MOTION CARRI~D (Cownissioner rarano being absent), that 'Pentat.i.ve Map of Tract Na. 868~ be r~nd hereby is disupproved c-n Che basis that aince Variance Na. 2b52 was der~ied, the sub~ect tract could not be developed ay propoaed. COP~DITr.ONAL USE - PUBLIC HGARING, THE WILLIAM LYON COI~AN'_', 366 San Mi.guel Drive, YERMI:T N0. 1500 Suite 201~ Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 (awr-er). Property described ~s: Ai~ irregularly-ahaped parcel of l.and concisting of apprcximately 2.2 VP.RIANCE N0. 2655 acrea locatEd at the northwe:~'•: curner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Oak - Knoll Drive, having frontages o£ approximately 100 feet on the north TENTATIVE MAP OF side of Orangethorpe Avenue and approximately 1070 feet on the west TILACT NO. 8828 slde of Oak K~oll Drive. Property pre.sently clasaified R-2 tMULTIPLE- PMIILY RESIDENTIAL) ZQNE. FEQUESTEI? CONDITIONAL USE: PERM7.T A TG10-UNIT MODEL HOME COM.PLEX WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM SIGN ARi:A. ItEQUESTEll VARIANCE: WAIVER OF RF.QUIREMI~.NT THAT SINGLE-FAMII.Y STRUCTURES REAR ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS. TF.NTAT.IVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGINEER: TOUPS CORPORATION, 1010 North Main Street•, Santa Anrs, Cx. 92701. Subject property is propased for aubdivision into 17 RS-500C lote. One perso~ indicated hi.s preaence in oppos~tiUn to sub~ect petitiona, pending further infarmation concerning the proposal, and waived the readi.ng oi the SCaf.i R.:oort. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commiasion daled November 25, 1974, was not rer~d at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minuCea. Mr. Jamea Bailey, representing the petitio•ner, appeared before the Commission and eaplained r.he previous zoniag action~ on xhe sub~ect property. He atated that the p~.-oposal was to conRtruct a?7-lot single-family eu'udiviaion under the kS-5000 Zona site developmen[ Atandard~=. and also to conakruct two model homes prior to rerordation of the tract and erect a~`~•~••s.~uare foot f.ree-standing sign Co advertiae the subdivision. Regarding the sign~ Mr. hailay sta;.ed the proposed size was needed because of the short street frontage alo*+c Orengethorpe Avenus, and they would hav~ ,just one major ~ign for impact to draw at' `'on to the tract. • ^1~~ ~ MINU'I'GS~ CI'I'Y I'I.ANNING COF4IISSION~ Noveml~cr 25, 197G 74-535 CONDITIONAL US~. PEftM11' N0. ] 50U, VARIANCI; N0. 2655, AND 'fL'NTATIVI; MAP OF '1'RACP N0. 8828 ConClnued~ - --- .~..~._____• -------------------...___----------------~- --____-._____ Mr, Willlam Snyder, an ridjacnnt. property uwner~~appeared before tho CommiKelon r~nd re- quaHCed to review the prupcsn;. Hc ec.cttecl hi.e~ property mlght hnvc noise and lightl~g, prableme if Che proposul wne con~tructed. He quef~tic,ned the eer.hacky, c~nd Chnirmnn IierbRt: advlsed that Che devel.c~pment wnw prc,poeed to Ue constructtd in compliance wlth the netbrx~•k requiremenCe of the Codr.. Mr. [iall~~y ~.~dded thak nlthaugh the Codc~ permllted S-fuot enl- backc~ c~d~acenC to eingle-f.ami.l.y trncte, Che fivera~c entbnck proposed wae 20 feet, with ~ome b~ing c~t 18 fec:t and ~+omu ~C 33 feet lrom the tx~.eting 'alock wnll. Mr. Snyder then staC.ed thnt hie conc~rn was from nn encr.oachment stnndpnint and thut hE: httd >>een led to Uelleve thnC the propasal was an extension cf the c~ndomin~.uma in the Lyon d~vel.opment . Tn reaponse Co quest.ioning by (:ommiqr;ioner Kicig, Mr, liailey stipulaeed r.hut the l~~t siding an Orr~ngeChorpe Avenue wou1J ab:aolutely rc~main one lot. Chairmpn HcrL•~t then noted that h~: wcis pieased ehat the propor~ul wus for aingle-family homes on the aubject pr.oper.ty. Mr. Snyder withdrew his objecCi.on on thc bflr~is of Chnl.rm~n ilerbst's XemnrkK. Mr. I3ailey tndicated that the propoaed sign would be tcmpc~rary nnd~ ther.eupon, Uepuey City Atturney Frank Lowry ndv~.sed thr~C s~ch a sign would be permitr.ed on-siCe by right for ~i period of one year~ sub~ecC to renewal. Mr. Bailey tVien withdrew ti~e requeat for waive~- of the mr~ximum aign are~ on the foregoing busie• Asgistnnt Zoning Supei•visor. Mnika Santalahti nuted for the Commission that Environmer~tal ImpacC Report No. 33 was previou3ly f.iled in ~on~uncl'ion wi.th zoning actions on the suUject property and that said Flit was certified by the City Council on November 7, ]972; that th~ peti.tioner had aubmitted a letter stating Chat the prorooed deve].~ovedtl:IRegthat, ~ince~ Che Cor.unission would have no adverse effect on the previously-gPP~ roved develo ment on the density of tt~e current ~~roposal wus less than tt~e previously-•app P subject praperty (an 18-unit dupl.ex subdivision) the petitioner. indicated the environ- mental effect would be a positive one; and thuC in view of the foregoing, Staff had pr.e- pared a Negative I~eclaration for exemption from the requiremenC to file an T:IR. Com-nissioner .Tohnaon offered a motion, secotided by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Earano being absent), that the Planning Commissio~,t recommends to Che City Council ChaC the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an F~ivironmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quttlity Act. ~ Comr.-isaioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC74-231 and moved for its passa~e and ado~tion ~ that pel-iti.on for Conditional Use Permit No. 1500 be and hereby is granted in part, since the petitioner withdrew the requef3t for weiver of the maximt:m sign area on the basis thaC the proposed sign is per.mitted on-eite by right for a perlod of one year., sub~ect to re- newal; subject to couditions. (5ee Resolution Iiook) On ro~l call, the foregoirig resolu~ion was passed by the foll.c~wii~g vote: AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, 'TOLAR, HGKBST , . ~ NOES: COI~4~1I5SIONERS : NONE ~ ~~ ABSENT: CONIlrlISSIONERS: FARANO Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC74-232 and moved for its paseage and adoption that petition ~~~ Variance No. 2655 be ancl he'.~~:r ia granted, aub~ect to conditi~ns. (See Resolution B: On roll call, the foregoing reaoluticn was pasgFd by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSI~NI:RS: (~AUER, JOHN~,._,, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HF.RBST NOES: CONff~fISSIONRRS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO Commisaioner Gauer offered a mot•lon, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commiesioner Farano being absent), tt-at Tentative Map of TracC No. ~'828 be and herebq is approved, sub~ect to ehe foliuwing condiCions: ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PI.ANNINC COhiMI55'LON, Novomber 25, ].974 ~~~~~'~~' CQNQI'CIONAI. USE PERAILT N0, 150(1, VAKIANCL N0. 2655, ANU TGNTATIVL' MAP l1F TRACT NO. 882.8 SContinu9d) - ._,..~ ~ .._._____~_...__w. .------ ---- (1) That the approvxl of 'Penkntive Mnp cf Tract No. 8828 iH grunCed euh~act. tu i:li~~ approvxl ot VAr.tanca Na. 265.5. (?) ThnC ehaul.d thiec eubdivieic,n be devc~loped ~N more than onc c~ubclivieion, c~r~r.h aubdivieton thereot ehA~l be euhmittcsd in Cental'ive form for nppr.aval. (3) Thnt in accnrdance with C1ty Counc:ll policy. a eix-foot aute~~nry walJ. ehfill be conetructed on the aouLh property line sQparating Lot Nu. 1 and Orungelhorp~~ Avenue except that f~r corner 1.oC No. 1 said wn11 ehall be KtF~ppecl dowii to tt t~eight of :hirty (30) lncties ln the reyu lxed f runt yard aetb~-ck. lteaaotinbl e landacaping, lncluding irrigation fac:ilities, ehall be inecalled in the un- cemented porCion of tlie arr.erial higt~way pArkway tlie Eull dic~ance oE anid wull, plnna for eaid landscaping t~ Ue submitCed to ar-d sub,~eck to the approval of t.t~e Superintendent of Par.kway tdriintenanc.e. Following inetall~tian ~ncl accept~~nr.ep ths City oE Muheim ehall a~ssume Che responeibility for to~iriCP.n1~~r,E.~ c,~ a~+id landecaping. ' (4) Thut al.l. lotR wi.thin this tract shall be. served by undergtound ~~tili ti er3. (5) That a final tracc map of subject property ehall be suUmir..Ced tu and ~pQrove:d by the City Council and then be recorded in the officr_ of ttie Or~nge Co+mty R~c~order. (61 T'nat any proposed covenants, condiCions e~nd restrictions ehall he s~hmi~~ed r~~ and npproved by the CLty Attorney'e Offic.e prior to City Counci.l nppruval ot tlie final tract m~p Flild~ f.urther, Ciiat ti;e approved r.o~venanta, c~nditi.on~ nnd restrictions oha21 be recorded concurrently with the final Cract map. (7) Th~t pr.ior Co filing tVie fi.nal tract map, the applicant shall s~il~mi.t. [o thc Citv Artorney for approv~l or i ial a complete synopsis of the proposed `.unct'^n~ng of the operating corporati~n including, but not limited to, the arcicles of' incorporation, bylaws, propo~ed methods of managemenC, bonding t:o lli~ure rc~~ln•- tenance of conunon property and buildinge and euch other inf.ormac.Lon aQ the City Attorney may desir.e to protect the City, itP citlzens, and thc~ ;>>ir.c:hase~r~a c,f tt-e project. (8) That ~i-e owner(s) of subject property shall gay ~~ Che C:tty of~ An~h~im th~ appropriate park and recraation in-lieu fees as dc:termined t~> 17c~ appropriaCe. by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the C.ime L•he building per.n,i.t is issued. (;; That drainage of sub~ect property sha11 be dlsposed of in a manner ~liat is satisfactory to the City Engineero CUNDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HRARING. M.4URICE NAGBY, 1020 East Linculn Avenue, Anaheim~ Ca. PERMIT N0. 1501 92805 (Cn~mer); llUANE J. SCHNEE, Amerco, 8hU South Flr:~aatil A~enue, Place.ntia, Ca. 92670 (Agent) ; requeating permissi.on ~~ T:STAIiLISH TRUCI~ AND TRAILER RENTALS IN CONJUNCTION WITIi Av E:C:CST'~";~ SFh~-ICT's SIATION WITH WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM FRONT S~TBACK, (B) PERMITTED DISPLAY tiRF..A IOCATIGN, (C) MIrNIMI.'M LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TU STREETS AND (D) MINIMUM LANDSCAPII~G AU.TACENT 10 INTERT.OR BOUNUARX on properCy deacribed nc~: A rectangularl.y-shaped psrcel of Land cnnsis`it,~ o£ approximatelv 12,500 aquare feet located at the southweat corner of Lincol.n Avenu~ nrd Ro~e ~treet, h~ving approximate frontages of 100 feet on Che south side of Linc~ln .Avenue and 125 feet on tiie w~st slde of Rose Street. Property preaenCly claseified C-1 (GI•,NERAL COP4~tERC1AL) ZONE. No one indi~ated their preaence in opposition to sub~e~t pet:ttion. Althaugh Che Staft Report Co the Plann~ing Commission dated November 25, 1974, was nat read at the public hearing, it is ref.erred to and made a parc of the minutes. Mr. Maurlce Nagby, the petitioner, appeared before ~he Commission to angwer questic~ns regarding the proposal. THE PUBL~C HEARING WAS CI,OSED. ~ ~ MCNUTC.S, C11'Y PLANNLiJG COMAt15SLUN~ Navombar 2`_~, ]~114 ?~,-5-~? CUtiDITIONAL USI: "~RMI'L' N0. 1501 (Cuntinuvd) Uffl.cc Bttgiueer Je.y Titue revlewed the J<~r.,~cion cf. the Pole at the nor.theust corner of Chc kubject property~ at Roc~e und Ll.nculn, whlch nppcared to be encroacliinq into the 15-foot propc~rty 11.ne rekur.n rit l•hnt 1nCc~rse~.Ci~n, i-nd Nt~Ced the City wuN requReting o 15-L'oot pro~er[y .llne return to mnhcli the rudiue on Che curb ut t~.hnt corner; and thnt an encroach- m~ ~~t pctrmit would be rey~ired. Hc~ n~~r.ed [h+it lf nnd when the sidewal.kta wcre can:structcu, ~,e Clty wuul.d need to r.~zk~ ;~utd ~ndiuH, nl chnugh thc i~nprovements wera not pl.timi~d ln the n ~ir f.uture. EtoN,rding the c~ddir.io~~al dc~diciitlon f.or nli.ey-wlden.ing purpo~c~s~ Chui.rman Herhet explained thn the Gity w+se i~sktng the petJ.tioner tu decltcute .-n additional two [eet to make tha nllcy I.G fe~t widc~, r.ondl.tioned upon when the CLty would take aAid dedic:ation. He noted t~,i~t Che dedlca[ion would ~.horten the dub~ect propFrty by two feet r~t the nll.ey llne~ and Chuk l~y m~-king dectJ.cation at this polnt in time, tt~c: varinnce f.rom Che permitted diapluy ~reai LOCAC~OTI would bc el.•lminur.ect. Thereupon. Mr. Nagby atipulated to the conditional. dedicntlo~~, ~s reyueyted, and wlthdrew the appl.icahle waiver. Tn cr,epnnaN to qu~Kttoni.ng by Chai.c•man F{erbst regnc~dl.ng landsePping~ Mr. Nngby indiceted thzt t~e wo~il.d hnve nc~ ob.jectioriy to inetulling lnndecaping as required, however~ he would rr.que~k some tlme to do so for f.lnuncial reneons. CQMMLSSTONER FARANO C~;NTisRCD THf: MFE'fING AT 3:25 P.M. A~sl~txnt Llevelopment Servlc•ea Director. RonAld Thompaon noted for the C~ammiaeiaii thut tlie St.~t~~ rc~gulr~tiony for ~~is ~~~:n~s migh~ r~quirc~ cerrain dimensions between the pumps und Che proper.t)' lines ~-nd, in th~t~ ev~.~nt, khere mighk not be roam for planters in the lorAtion genernl.ly specifi.ed by the City, and l~e rc~qi~ested that Staff be allowed to make a deter- minatton fur. placement of said addirional landecaping in~smuch as the ex.istinR etruckurea may preclude lFindscapi.ng being installed in exact compliance with Code requirements. Ir waH nated that the Director of Development Setvices had determined that the propoaed activiCy fel]. with:in the defin-.tion of Section 3.01, C13ss 1 of the CiCy af ^~aheim Cuideli.nes to the Requtreuietits foc an Environmental Impact Report .~nd ~~as, therefore, ~:ategorically exempt from the requirement to file ~.n EIR. ;,ommissioner Tolar ofEered Re3olution No. PC74-~33 and moved for ~C5 passage and adoption thttC petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1501 be and het'eby is granted, in part, granting waiver of the minimum front setback abutting an arter.ial highway on the basis thet t~lie caaopy etructure which overhangs into the 10-foot setba~k area was constructed in 1961 end cumpliance with tlie cu.rrent minimum aetback requirement~ would create a hardship fur Clie petitione~; that Ye~uest for w~iver of perroitted display area location wa~ with- drawn by the petitloner with the stipulation tu dedicate a strip of land 10 feet in width irom thc centerline of r.he alley for ulley wi.dening purposes, said dedication to cause the propcsed display area to be relocated in compliance with the ~ode rFquirements; grunl•ing waivex' of the minimum landscaping ad~acent to etr~et frontages for a period of one year with tlie determinatior. for placetr,ent of said landscaping to be made by the Developmene Services Uepartment, inasmuch as existtng s[ructures tnay preclude landscaping being in- skulled in exact comptiance with the Code requiremente* ~ranting waiver of the minimum landscaping adJacent to inr.erior boundaries on the basia t}iat the siCe was developed in ~pproxltr,ately 1961 and compliance with the current minimum landacaping requirements for service atations would create a hardahip for the petitioner; aub~ect to the condition th~t the owner(s) of subject preperty sh~11 obl•nin from the City an encroachment permit for the po~,e sigri wtii.ch encraac}~~+s lnto the 15-fooC property 11nE return at ttie northeast corner of subject pr.operty; and sub~ecC to conditio~s. (See Resolution Book) Ou roll cal.l~ rhe foregoing resolur_ion wag pasaed by the following vote: AYES; COI~4~IISSIONERS: GAUCR, •IOHNSON, KINC, MORLEY, TULAR, IiERBST NOGS; COA4[ISSIONERS: NONG ABSI:NT: COMtRISSIONERS: NONE ADSTAIN: COt+Il~fISSIONERS: FhFtANO Cammisaianer Farano noted that he wa~ ~bstaining from voting si.nce he was abaent for a ~a;iJ~~r portion of the public hear~ng und discusaion regarding the aubject petition~ ~ ~ MINU'CN;S~ C;I'fY PLANN`NC COMMISSION, Novembcr 25~ 1g7~~ 7G-538 ~ONDL'1'Wtv,'.I. ~~^I; - PUBL'IG iIL'AItINC. TEXACO, INC. ~ 335(1 WllshiX~ 13oulever.d~ Loa Angeles, PERMIT N0. 15U'L Ca, 90005 (Uwnar); .JOHN MORRISSBAU~ 1001 North State Cc~llege Bc~ulevat i.~ ~~ ~ Anrahei-n~ C~. 92a0G ~~pt~nt); rr.questinq permiasion to RSTABI,I5H 'fRUCK ANU 'fRAILER RGNTALS IN CONJUNC'1'T~N W]'TH AN F.XISTING S1,RVICC STATION WITFI WAIVtiK Ol~ (A) R~QUIRCD BL~CK WALL~ (B) PGItMITTHU Ul.:it~;,AY AFCEA I.OCATION AND (C) MINIMUM LANDSCAPINC ADJACr".NT TO ZP7TCRIOR 130UNDARIf:S on pruperty deKCribed ne,; ~ rccCnng~+'arty- eheped parcel ot lnnd c~neisting of t~pproximute~y U.9 ecre tocr~tec! nt the iiorthwer~t corner of State Collr,g~ Boule~rard and La Pnlma Avenue, I~aving approximate fr~~ntagte of 274 feet on tl~e n~rtt; Hlde of Ln Y~ilmr~ Avenu:.~ c-nd 150 feet on the west eidn of State College Aoulevard. Froper.ty preeenCl.y classifir_d lt-A (ACRICULTUKAL) AND C-1 (GENERAL COr4ll:RC'tAL) 20NES. No one indicaCed thelr presence in oppoeiCi.nn to aub~ect petitioTi. Altt~ough the StaEf Report to ttie Planning Commiseion dated Novomher 25, 1974, was nQt read at tiie publlc hearing, it is referred Co and made ~~ parY. uf ChP min~iteR. Mr. John MorriaReuu~ the agent for the peti.tioner~ uppec~red before Che Commiseion to answer quQAtiona concerning L•he pi~posal. TNE PUIiLIC HEP•".TNG WAS CLOS~D. In responae to questloning by Chuirman Herbst, Mr.. Niorriyse~~i eripulatel that the ~aesterly portion of the subject property which wnr~ originully included in hi3 lease was no longer included and, therefore, he woiild noC be util.izing thnt portion af. the pr~perty in con- ~unction with the aervice atation nor for the atorage or diaplay of tne rental vehicles. Chaizman Herbst inquired if Texaco would r_onetruct L•he requirFd 6-foot wAll to sep~rate the property, nnd Mr. MorriASeau stated it was ~uubtf~il at the prespnt time and that ~he wall +aoulcl probably b~ a condition of sal~ of the we~terly porCion of the sub~ect property. In reaponse to further questioning hy Ch~irmun HerbRt, Mr. Morrlsseau etated that the re~ntal~ would probably comprtae SOo of his busineas; that the atation had been pumping about one-half the usunl. amount of gasoline; and that the U-Haul r.entals would be a tremendoua help. r,hair.man Herbst noted that there had been many violationa of the Code at the sub~ect location and that the petitioner had a large enough site to operate without violationa. Cc~mmiasioner King nuted that the sub~ect aervice a[ation was probably one of the most attrucT.iv~ in the City. It was noted that the Dfrector uf Development Servicea had determined that the proposed activity fell withi.n ttie definition of Section 3.01, Glas3 1~f the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Envi.ronmental Impact Report nnd wae, therefore, categorically exempt from the rPquirement to file an EIR. Commiesioner Tolar offer~d Res+olution No. PC7G-234 and moved for its passage and adoption that petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1502 be and her.eby ls granted, granting waivers of the required block wall au3acent to a reaidential zone and the permittecl dis- play area location on the basis that the owners of. the ad~acent R-A .:oned property to the nor.th and o.f the westerly portion of the subject property have indicated an inCerest in developing with cam~ercial uses; granting wniver of the minimum landscaping adjacent to interior boundaries on the basis that the site is currently developed with a service atation and surfaced with a permanent material, and compl.iance with the current minimum landscaping requirements for service stations wou.ld create a hardahip for the petitioner; t:iat a parcel map ~o record the approved division of sub~ect properly, for the purpo~e of sale, lease or f:l.nancing, shall be aubm3tted within ninety (90) days for appruval by the City of Anaheim and thzn be recordeJ in the o.`fice ~f the Orange County Record.°_r; Chat the petitioner stipulated that the westerly portion of sub.ject property which is currently zoned R-A wou.ld not be utilized in connection with the service atation nor for the storage or diaplay of the rental vehicles; subject to c~nditions. (See Resol.ution Book) On roil call~ the foregoing reaolution wns passed by the fc~iorri~g vote: AYGS: CdMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER~ JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAF., HT:itBST NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSBNT; COhQytISSIONERS: NONE ~r~Egg - At 3:40 p.m., Chairman lierba[ declured a recess. RGCONVENE - At 3:50 p.m., Chairman Herbst reconvened *_he meetirig with all Commissioners present. ~ ~ MINUTI:`i~ CITY Yi.ANNING CONR"tISS'iON, Novemher 25, 1974 74-539 VARIANC~ N0, 2637 - 1'UD1.ZC H[:ARING. }~OWAftll AN~ VICTORIA LOUDON. 3Q07 Carob srrezr., ~~ Newport Deeicl~~ Cn. 92660 (Own~ce); JOE COOPLR, 1$00 Adame Avenue~ 5u1C~ 205, Co~tu Mcan~ Cn. 92627 (Agent); requeeting WAI.VL'R Or (A) MINIMUM FLUOR Alt~l~ Pf:R DWBL,LING UN1.T, (l1) MAXLMUt1 BUILDING HEICtIT, (C) MINIrtiiM OFI'-STREET PARKINC~ (D) MINIMUM NIIMBGR OF CUVLRtiI) PARKINC Sl'AL'ES~ (F:) MINIMUM 9U11.UING SITE ARf~A PEK T)W~LLINC UNI'f ~(F) MAXIMUM C~)V'F.RAC%F AND (G) MT.NIMUM REsCKLATIUNAl~-LEISURF. AR~A, TU GONSTRUCT A 64-UNIT APAKTMGNT COMPLI:X FUR THI's I:I.DEKLY ~n property Jescribed ae: A recCangul$r~' - sliaped pnrccl of lc~nd con~iating of approximntely 0.61 acre tinving q fronCage of approxi- mnl-ely 200 fec~t on Clie ~:ast side of Lemon Street, hnving a maxitnum depCh oE approxlm~.tely 13S fent and bc~ing locuted npproximately 128 feet aouth of Che cenCerlin~ of 5ycamore 5Creet. Property preeeqtly clasaified R-3 (MULTIPLE-l~AMILY RESIUL~NTIAL) 7.ONG. One pereon indicnla4i hls presence in oPpoeition tu suh~ecl petition and wr~ived the r.eading of the Stuff Report~. Although thc StaEf Reppr~ Co the Pl.anning Gonmiixeion dnted Nov~ember 2:. 197G, w~s not read at the publ.ic heuring, iC is rel'c~red to uud made u part oE the minutes. Mr.. Joe Cooper, the agent Eor the peti.tioner, appe~ared before the Commies.ion ~nd ytated they wera A profit-nriented company and would not he subatdi::ed by the government; tl~a~ they were trying to work wilhin the sy~tem to provide a place for elderly people to live; that the propoaed structure would be ap;~roxi.matcly 38 fePr, 3 inches from ttie pr~perty linea abutling the nei•glibor.~ and no win~owa were proposed on the sides of the buil.ding; that the faci.lity would be managed professionally; that nu me~ical servtces would Ue provided a~ ihe fncility with tt~~ exception of a Visiti.ng Nurae each morning; and that each pereon would I~ave their uwn docCor. Mr. Glenn Fry, one of the owners of the 8-unit pro~ect abukting the sub,ject property to the riorth, appeared before the Commisaion and stated he was not vehemently oppoaed to the sub~ect proposul; thot he ha~l been oppoaed to tllP 17 storiee p~reviously proposad but at that time he had indicaC.ed to the Planning CommisRion that he would not ob~ect to 3 or 4 atori.ea; that he thought the sub,ject propusal would be a f.antastic development which was needed and long overdue i.n the City; however, he took exception to the p~rking epaces being proposed yince th~ assumption apparenCly wxa Chat older people did not need places to park; that, in his opinion, it would be ridiculous to inyiot on Che req~iired 96 spaces, however, 26 spaces wou].d probably not be enough. Mr. Fry took further exception to tlie layout of the rooms indicating that many of the units had connecting doorways which could easily make some of the uniCa inro luxury apartmenta. He continued by statinK he was in favor of room and care for the elderly at the suU~ect location. In r°_but;.al, Mr. Cooper stated tt~ey had r.esearched every facility uf this type in Southern California and all of the parking lcts were empty; that the average age of the peaple tu he housed was 72 yenr~ and they did not own automobiJ.es; that sometimey an Sundays [her.e was need for some parking apaces; thaC if parking wae needed, they would provide it; that regarding the doorways which coul.d bc~ opened up to increase the size of the units, he aCated there were 10 such units, however, tlie propose3 structure could never be successful as an apartment hou~~~; that since they made their announcement of the proposed Lacility, pPOple had been telePhoning wanting to make reservatiana to live there; that th~~ facility woulci he conatructed more like a hoiel and the caokin~ facilitiea in the rooms would be entirely inadequate for three meals a day; and that to remodel tfie facility to make ir sultabLe for an apax'tment h~use or other use would require a new variance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to questioning by Chaf.rman Herbst regarding the balconies, Mr. Cooper stated no balcontes were proposed to the rear ~f the bui.lding ~ince it wnuld be overlooking a parki.ng lot and, fur[hermore, they needed to have less expensive rcoms for thP people who w~uld be rer_eiving Stat~ aid. Chnirman Ylerbst noted that he agreed there was not a great amount of viaitors to auch a facility, and Mr. Cooper stated that the proposal was not a cor.valescent home and people were less inclined to vi.sit their folks when they were well. Commissio-;er Farano ttoted that during the past weekend he had visited the Luther T~were in ~.~ Di.ego and he observed that most of the people at that facility were n~t at home and, Eor that reason, he would agree that auch faciliti.es were more like a hotel tF~an a con- valescent sLtuation; that he would agree that the parking requirementa were lesa than ~ ~ ~ DtINU'TisS, CI'l'Y P[.ANNI.NC CON4lISSTON, NovemUer 25. .191/i VARIANCI: N0. 2637 (CantinuQd) 74-SGO for an oXdinnry resiJential eCruckur.e, howeve~r, he wae not 5~.+re ~hut it w+iK on.ly one- fourtt~ eince tiiere werc u lot ~f cnre parked on th~ etr.eeta aC chc San DieQu facil.ity and it wus u very busy p.lncc and hc~ did not get the impreaeian tliat the parkinF, wsa nnywhere near one-fourth o[ khP reyuired nmount; and thut: wil•h the people being ir the reCired time of li£e and acti.vcly engaged in living, Ch~n there would be more need f~r curH l.h~n waq being suggested by tlie peti.tlo.~er. 'lhereupon~ Mr. ~ooper etated thc mAnagement would pt'ovide mini-bus traneportcttion for tlye resi.denta uf the fecility for shopping and recreationxl r_ours. In reaponse to queHtioni.ng by Commisyi.oner Farano~ Mr. Fry atated his ob~ectiane to the aub~eck facilit,y being turned into r~ conrtominlum or apartment pro~ect was t}~at lt would noC meet tt~e Code requirements for £loor space per dwelling or for parking apnces; and thnk he wna not worried about competition but the pro~ect would be unsaC.tsfac[ury f.or other usea ae ~~r ae Che Code wr~H conc~rned. Commisaioner Farano then noted tii~t l~e would heve rhe eame ob~ecti~ne ay stated by Mr. T'ry. Commis~ioner Tolur noted that two ad~olning rooma would be of poasib:le benefit for rela- tivea living aG tlie facility; th~t the City would tiave n handle on the pro~eck poesibly through the parking requirements; ac-d, thereupon, Commiesioi~er rarano withdrew his obJPCtiona. Mr. Coope.r added that there were otily 10 units wiCh doors that coiild b~• opened up to othsr units and, tl~ereupon, Mr. Fry withdrew his ob3ections. Chairman Herbst noted thut if thc~ facil.itq was locnted closer to ahopping tt~ere would probabl~ be lesb need for parking spaces, however, if a real need for Epaces Uecame evident, he was coucerned what t:he soluti.on to the proUlem would be. In reply, Mr. Cooper skipulated that lf a parkl.ng problem :~came obvious, thc~n they would work out an ag1eement with the Elks Club in the vicinity ~u use some of Cheir parklr~g. Co;nmissi~ner I'arano inyuirQd if it would be a problem to increaAe the pnrking to app.rox:l- mately 40 spaces, and Mr. Cooper stated that would be a].moat impossible with~ut going underground and then it wc,uld be a ques~~on of ecoc-omics. In response to questioning by Commissloner King, Mr. Cooper reviewed the different pro~ects that had been snrveyed regarding parkir.g, ~,~hic.h •Lncluded the two Casa IIonita pt'ojecCs -ln Fullerton. the WesCbrook Royale in Garden ~rove and the Tuatin Hacienda in Tu~tin, etc. Mr. Coaper stated r.hat thp different projects varied with respect to parking and that the proposaJ. was well within the parking provided by the other projects. Commis~ioner Farano noted that the matter of parking for the type facilir_y being pr.oposed shuuld be pursued scienti£ically since, based on what figures were made avai.l.~able at this meetir.g, it was conceivable that t:~e amount of parkin~ proposed might even exceed what would '~e adeqate. Mr. Edwin My~rs, the archiCect for the proposal, appeared before the Commisnion and stated the proposal was patterned after a project constructed ln La Jo113 which he desi.gned in 1968; tliat the La .iolla facility was 5 atories high with 73 units, was approved by the Department of Social Welf:lre, and yet provided only 20 p~~rking apaces; that the propu~al was to have 26 parking s; ces and 64 units, with 3 of the ~paces to be utilize~ by the kitchen help; and thar. the La Jolla iacility provided 'limousine service in comparison with the mini-bus transportation that would be providea at the Anaheim facility. In responae t~ quee~ioning by Commisatoner Johnaon, Mr. Cooper stated there would be approximately l.0 etaff inembers, however, that did not mean enere would be :~0 a~tomobiles to be parked; that x similar facili`y in Santa Ana had no cars parked at the facility since the help did not live on the ~remisest including the manager. Commisaioner Jolinson wondered if ttie Commission was adequately prepared at this meEting to determine what amount of parking would be adequate and noted that the Commission owed it l•o the cittzens of the neighborhood nc*_ to burden the on-str~et parlcing with the propoaed facili.ty. He further noted that if any of the Commisoionera were knowledgea"r,le as to what the parking ahoul~' be, then he would be ln a positi.on to vote for the proposal~ but that did not appear to be the case. ~ ~ • MINU'fl'sS~ CI'fY PI,ANNINC CUh41ISS1UN. Nov~mbc~r 25, 1974 74-541 VARIANCL N0. 2637 (Continu~*.d) Commloeloner I~nrano n~t~u chut mobil.ehomc parke were o~:~~ni.~a most:y by retired people and tliP parking bnys were us~aally full of cara. In responae to queation:ng by Commie~c~loner Ki.ng, Mr, Uouper otated ChaC hia surv~y r~gnrd- ing parking included wee;cend pnrki.ng. and thut any notieQahle parking wae around 2:OU p.m. on Sundays. In reaponse to question.ing hy Coiamiaaiorier 1'olar, Mr. Fry reitc~rated thnt he wnt~ ~vitlidraw- ing his ob~ection~ to the praposal. The Ylunning Commi~aion further di.scuased what would bc~ udequate parking for the proPosed facillty, during whlch Chairman Herbst noted l:hat he was reAKOn~bly confi.dent that ehe 50 parking spaces pr~vtously coneid~red for the 194-unit, .17-eCury projecr or- khe eub~~cC properCy was udequate ut that time, whlch wax one-f.ourth of the Code requirement; that the proposal wae offering approximaCely one-third of ths reyulred pnrking; nn~i ~hat becauae consGruction casta were rioing c3aily, he would be in favar of granting the requested variance to ullow the project to get underway. Commiseioner Morley r_oncurred that hc~ would be in £avor of grnnting the reyuested varianc~. Cutnmissioner Johneoi~ wiChdrew lils earlieY• comment which auggested a continuance ox tlie mntter. Commisaioner Gauer noted that when the previoua applicatlon was made, the Council f:hamber wae filled with citizena in oppositlon and that no oppoAition was present at thle time; al~~l that, in hi.a opinion, it was ti~ne the City had a pro~ect af this type for its ~lderly citi.zens. CommiESioner Farano noted that li~: liked the concept; thaC even 1E the parking was adequate for the previous appl.icntion, he did not feel those £igureo woul.d be vali.d aeven yeara since that time; and that he would llke a more comforCuble feeling about the parking situation. Chairman tierbst noted thut I~e had a more c.omfortable £eEling about the parking proposed at Chis time than he had previ.ously since public. transportation waa iiow available; that therP was m~re on-street parking available for gueste at this :locatian than possibly uny other place in the City because nf the park acrosa the street. Commisaioner Fara:io then noted that if Che Commission was desirous of proceeding with granting the sub~ect petition, then the Development Services Departmant Staff shauld be directed to survey si.milar complexea and present data coacerning parkicig for thia type develope~ent to the City Counci.l prior to their review of the aubject petition. Assistant Z~ning Supervisur A:~nika Sancalahti notpd for the Pl.ic-ning Commisaion that a condiCion uf approvll had been inadvertently omitted from Che Staff Report, being "That fire hydrants s}iall be iTiatalled and charged as required anc: ,;r~t:'^i.ned to be necessary by the Chief. of the ~ire Department, prior to commencement of structural framing." Thereupon, Mr. Cooper stipulat°d to compliance with the foregoing c.ondition of approval. Commias~oner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Cc+romi~sioner King and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Comcnission recommenda to the City Council that the subject pro,ject be exempt from the requirement to prepare an ~nvirotimental lmpact Report pursuant to the provisions of the Cali.fornia Environment:al Quality Act. Commissioner Morley offared Resolution No. PC74-235 and moved for its passage and adoption that petition for Variance No. 2637 be and hereby is granted or- the basis thAt =he proposal is a new concept •ln the Ci~y and the waivers do not appear to be exceasive or extreme for the proposed type of development; and the Flanning Commission generally concurred that a need for such a co~eplex for the eldecly extsts in ~he City; sub~ect to cunditiona; and that the Development Sexvice~s Department is hereby directed to survey aimi.lar complexes an~ present data concerning parking for this type developn•ent to tne City Ceuncil prior to their review of the sub~ect petition. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing rESOlution was passed by the following vote: AXES: COIIIyIISSIOyERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORI~EY, TOLAK, HERBST NOES: COMMISSIONFRS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ~ ~ ~ M]:NUTE:i~ CITY I`LANNI.NC COMMI5SIUN, Nav~mber '1S, 191G 7G-542 VAKIANCE N~. 26~i3 - PUI~LLC kiGARINC. ARTHLtR N. 1~1}~IZIN~ 12029 Irebcll Way, Studia C:ty~ Cn• ~"-- ~ 91G04 (Owner); PACI:SGTTER l{OMCS~ INC., 4540 Campus Drive, NewporC Ileacl~~ Cu, 91.660 (Agent); requnating WAIVER Or (A) PERMI'f'f~ll US~S IN 'CNE R-A ZONE. (Fl) PLRMITTED US~•S IN THE SCENIC CORktI00R (SC) QVGRLAY 'LONE AND (C) MAXIMUM SIGN AItFA~ TO PLRMIT A TItAILER 'CO AC USED AS A'fEMPORARY OFFIC)i on proper.ty deacribed ~-s: Ati Lrregularly-ehuped pr~rcel. of lc~nd coi:Hl.eting of approximat~ly 2.9 xcres having n frontnqe of ;ippr.oxlmatcly ?SU fee~ on ttie s~uth ~lde ~f Sanka Ana Cnnyon Koad~ having a m~uimum :fe.pth of approximfltely 4?.3 feet and being locnted oppoAiCe F~i.rm~nt Iioulevard. Property presenCly c:l.aesifled R-A(SC) (ACRICULTURAL AND SC~NIC CORRIDOIt OVL~RLAY) ZONE. No one indicuted their presence in opposition tu aub~c:ct petiti.on. Although the Staff Report to the 1?lanning Conuniseion duCed November 25, L974~ waA not rend aC the puUlic hearing~ it ie referred to and made a part of the minutes. MX. Terry Crowther, representing [he agent for the pc:l•itloner, appeured before the Commiesion and reviewed L•h~ conditions of approval as set fortl~ in the Srnff Iteport. He stated regard- ing t•he dedication of the righr-•of-way required for. th~~ extenslun of Fai.rmont 9oulevnrd, that Pacesetter Homea was leasi.ng tt~e subject pro~~rty ~~.ith no intention to purcl~as~ and was~ rherefore, noC i;i ci position to make the dedication; xnd~ furtheL•more, thnt thie r.ype of condition waF usually requirecf in connection with a tentntive tract map rar.her tt~nn for a variunce request. ftegnrding the condi~ton requiring congtruct~on of sep~ic tanks, he stated that would ba A very expenai.vt~ icem. Regarding the cor-dition requ:ring street 1lghting facilitiea, he stated the propuaed facillty wauld be in operation only during the dayliZht hours and, furrher.more~ such ,~ conditiori was usually required in ~unr.eckion wilh a suUJivislou. ReRarding trash ~torage areas, he etated thut althougn he did not know what the requirementa were, r.here wo:~ld be very little trash gPnerated from the operatioc- and they could require the people to czrr.y r.he trash away. Mr. Crowther contlr-ued by stucing tl~at their trr~cte (Nos. F3(180, 80a1 and 80£32) were located aouth of the River3~de Freeway and their aim was tc ottract potential purchasere who would be able to get into Che area by a more direct route than they were presently using and to generate sales~ since they were preser.tly having hard times and neede~ some help. Mr. CrowCher then offered to answer any ques[.ions regardin~, the proposal. THL PUBLIC H3:AftING WAS CLQSCD. In re~ponse to quegtioning by Commissioner Ki.ng, Mr. Crowther stated they intended to leave the existing abandoned strur_turea ln place at the subject locatian. Coromissioner Farano noted ~hat one of the items pr.esently being diacussed by Cl~e City Council and Che community was the use of signs in the Canyon area; that he was not par•- Ciculurly in favor of the proposal bec~use, in his opinion, if this wba aJ.2owed, other developments in Anaheim Hil.ls would be requesting to have this type facili.ky and there would be a n~imber. of informationai. mobilPhon-e3 throughout the area; that he did not fee]. the proposal should be an alternative to a billboaxd sign in the Cany~n; and that the sales factor would not provide sufficient 3ustification for granting the request, in his opinion. He further noted thar temporary, movable buildings, similar to what the Lu3k Corp~ration was usin~ in the area, might be suttable; however, he would not favor use of the mobilehome, especially considc~ricig that the City was tryirig to abatr_ the unsightly billboards an~ since a mobilehome, as such, would not be co~ieistent F~ith wtiat the City was trying to accomplish. ;Zr. Crowther clarifiEd thac they were thinking more in line wi.th a temporary-type building aud would have no ob;jections to movable buildings; and that the word "trailer" wae mis- leading since they had in mind an architectur.slly-treated mobilehome. Commi.ssic~ner Farano then noted that perhaps an architectural rendering would have been appropr.iate for viewing by the Commission in cons~dering the s~b~ect petition. Chairman Herbst nuted thac there appeared r.o be a need for off-site advertiaing f~r all of the developers and he auggested that perhaps they r.ould parttcipate on the same s'_te with an informational facility and no~ allow each develaper to have his own. Mr. Crowther acknowledged that the homeowners in the Canyon area had a legiCimate gripe regarding all of the signing, etc., and he stated he wae in favor uf the group efforL idea suggested by Chairman Herbst. Co:nmissioner Farano agreed that a ahared central locatian would be a good idea for the area. ~ ~ ~ MINUTGS~ CITY P1.ANMINC COMMISSLUN~ November 25~ 1974 74-5G~ VARLANCE N0. 2653 (Continued) 'flier~~upon~ Mr. Ccowthar r~qu~etud thnt the sub~ect petitlon be contlnuod for Cwo waeke to Chc m~etinq of UEr.emher 9~ 1974 for furtbe.r etudy. Cummieeionnr King offered e motion, suconded by Commieeioner Fareno and MOTION CARRIE:D~ to rceupen th~ public henrin~ ~nd continuu considc~ration of petltton far Variance No. 2653 to the mQeti.ng c~f DPCember 9, .1q7G~ ua roqueatpd b~ th~ petxttoner. VARIANCI: N0. 2l'~5<< - P:IIiLII: EI[;ARINC. S& S CONSTKUCTI.ON, 8383 W11Ahire Boulevard, Bevorly ~ Hillr~~ (:c~. 90211 (Uwner); rWquesting WAIVER OF (A) R[?QUIkLMENT THAT SICNS NOT B~ LUCATFll ON YUDLIC PRQI'ERTY. (A) PEEtMITTED S1GNS~ (C) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS AND (D) MAXIMUM SIGN AR~A, T~ CONSTRUCT 7 FREE-STANDING STGN5 AND 7.4 T'LAC;S ~n property clescr.~ibed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land conais~ing af npproximatelY 6G ucrea 1~~ceted north and east nf tlie intereer.tion ~E Sexrano Avanue und Nohl Ranc:h Roed~ hnvi.ng appr:~:cimatc frontnges of 4200 feet on tli4 north side of Serrano Aveuue and 710 feet on ti~~~ ~~~at aide o.f Nohl Ranch Road. Property pr.esently classifled R-1 (ON~-FAMILY RGSIDENTTA:,i ^•ON~. No une indicnted tlieir preaenr_e in opposition lo subJect pc~tition. Although the Staff Report Co the Plaiinii~g Commir~aion claked November 25, 1974~ was not rend ut tiie public hearing, it ia raferred to and made a par.k of tt~e u~inutes. r1r. George Putna~. repreaentiag the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and inquired if they would bp atlowed to proceed with advertisement on the eaeterly side of the Grinnell Street right-of-w~y prior to ubtal.ning an encroachmenk pexm~t as set forth in ~he condi.Cions of Approval, THF i'UBLIC HEARING WAS CLGSF.D. e. ~s.'.~tant 7,oning Supeivisor Anniica SAntalahti reaponded to Mr. Putnam's quesCion Lhat if it was not for the waiver, the et-croachment p~rmit would not be raquired und, tt~erefore, compliance wit}~ the condition would precede the activity l~eing authorized. Discussion puraued regarditeg the size and heighC of ~h.e proposed slgn, during whic.h Mr. Putnam stated that the sign would be a aaximum o: 12 feex high frcm the ground up. In resnnnae to questi~~ning by Chairman Herbst, Mr. Putnam atxted that the flags were relat ~e t~ the property whtch was topographicall.y gituatPd iTt a hole and they needed to catch the eyes of their proapec.tive purchasers; and that they would probubiy use some other direckional means of gettin~ the pe~ple to the modela if the terrain had been different. Liaciission pursued regarding che directionat signing, durin~ which Commissioner Farano noted that hc would lii;e to see a directianal sign off Serrano Avenue dane in good t~ste, rather than the proposed flags. Mr, Putnam described the other developmenta in the area and atated there was no other aubdivision immediately ad,jacent to the subject site and that a person could go right by the site without nuticing Lt; however, the va~•ant territory was a marketing tool. He furtner atated that he was not willing to stipulste to flying the f1agR enly oti weekends; that C.he sutrounding area was unimproved and the flags would be put in Lhe ground; and that they a~intained what they felt was a satisfactary and deairable image with respect to the houaing they were selling. Chairman Herbat explsined that the flying of flags had been a problem :ln tt-e Ci[y for a long time, particularly with the ahility to make reai estate eales ~nd rentals; that if the proposal was spproved, then alY of. the apartment projecta would also want ..o have the f lags. Mr~ Putnam stated that their sales were minus nine (-9) for the whole ranch and they would not be asking for the adverLieing media if it was not needed; and that if they could get the signs and flaga. they could get the traffic. Commissioner Farano noted that Che flags :nould nut be approved at lhis particular time, and Chairman Herbst noted th~t a apeci~l use permit could be obtained to fly the flags for the grand opening, or four weeka, and th+~t a aice U.S. flttg could be flown to dra~~ attention to the development. ~ ~ ~ MINU'PES, CT'tY PLANNINC COP4y!ISSTON~ November 25~ 1974 VARIANCI; N~. 2654 (Contin~ed) 74-54h ~n raeponse Co quedtioning by Mr. Putnam~ Commiesion~r Farano indicat~~d thaC the f Lege could not be permittod even for a etipul.ated period of TIMF~ nincc~ tho petitioner was indi.caCing kliat Chey wanted them fr,r a period of 30 mo~~tl~s. Chnirman Herbat noCed that Che directional eigntng wrae preeently being ekudie~i by the Ce-nyon Aree Ceneral Ylanning Tawk Force in cuopecation with the developcra. Mr, l'utnam etateci ~hat if they were unnblc to huve ttio taol to c+t lmul nte aalex, lt wo~ld be disaetro;,a to their development. Dlecusaion puraued regsrding the 'fask Forc~ stuciy of tl~o sign pr~~blem, tollowing which C}iairtaan H~arbst inquixed if r.he de~-eloper could etand a two-we~k de?ay on the eub~ec~ petikion nnd by ttiat time Cl~ere might be something more uniform regarding tl~e flag r~pproach. Th~reupon, Mr. Putnem ~~tnted he wuuld accept action on L'he subject petiti~n at thia meeting wir.t~ the provision that if etandardc~ were developEd or m+tde xvailablt~ by the City permi.tting the temporary diaplay o£ flage Co advertise devel.opmenCe for eale t}ien he woul.d bP abl.e to apply for eame. In regpcnae ta queationing of Commiasi.oner King, Mise Seneulahti noted tha~t Che appltcation wus to f.iy 24 flags and not ~i flag~. It was noted that the Dir.ector of DevelopmenC Setv•cee hyd determined that the proposPd activiCy fell within the definition of Sectio~i 3.01, Gluse 3 of the City of Anatieim Guidelines to the requirementa for an Fnvironmental Impnct Report and waa, therefore~ categorically exempC f~~m thP requit~em~~r~t to f 1.1e an GIR. Cammisaluner Farano offered P,esolution No. PC74-236 end~noved for. its paseqge And adopti.~~~ that petition for Variance No. 2654 be and hereby i a granted.in parr, granting waiver of. the requirement that si~na not be located on public property and permiCCed eigns, in part, to permit the conRtruclion ci 7 free-atanding eign s, suid waivers btinR granted., in part, for a period of one year, after whir_h time and subi ect r..o requeat by the prupert.; uwn~~r, conaideratinn may be given to an extenslon of +cime; thet waiver of the maximum nt:~;~ber of signa wsa determ•i.ned to be not requiz•ed for the ~.roponed eigcing; granting w.~iver of the maximum eign area for a Qeriod of one yP.ATy after which time and aubject to request by Che property owner ccnaideration may bN p,iven to an ex t eneion of tiae; pro~~ided that no flaga ahall U~ permitted exce•pt thst if atandar.de are develuped or made available b,y tYie City permitting the temporary display of flaga to adver r.iae the lnitial sale of residential ~inits by the developer, then thoae standardK shall apply l•o the eub~ect development with- out further conaideration by tha Planning Commieai~n; a~~b~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the fo*~e~oing resolution was pabaed by t}-e ollowing v~te: AYES: COMMISSIONER5: rAkANO, GAUER, •JOHNSON, KINC, MORLEY, TOLAR, HEREST NOES: COI~IIY(ISSIONERS: NONG A.~3S~NT: COhQYfISSIONERS: NONE GENERAL YLAN AMENDMENT Nn. 135 -INITIATF.17 BY THE ANAHEIM CITY rLANNING COMMISSIGN, 204 FBSt Lincolti Avenue. Ai~aheim, Ca. ; to conKider an amend- ment tc the Circulation Element ~ liighway Righte-of~Way and Arterial Streeta and High~aays Map of Lhe Anahe im General Plan to rea~.ign auZ/or re- clasaify Meata Avenue/Lakeview Avenue and Via Eeco ll.o and t~: ~:elete portions of Eucalyptus Drive and Coal Ca~yon Road And to establi.sh Monte Vieta Drive. No one indicated their presence at the public hearing concerning the aub~ect GEneral Plan Amendment. Asso~iate P~anner Phillip Schwartze presented tt~e Staff Reporr, to che Planning Commisaion dated November 25~ 1974, and said Staff Report is referred to as if set furth in full in the minutes. Mr. Schwartze noted that the subject Amendmer.t pr oposed tc ahoa amended alignments, changes in clasaifications, $nd deletions of some porlion~ of aeveral propoKed :~rterinls in the Anaheim Hills area, which included (1) rev 3aed alignment of Meats Avenue; (2) revlaed clasa{=lcation end alignment of Via Esco 1 10; (3) deletion of proposed Eucalyptus and Coal Canyon Road; and (4) adoption of alignme.nt and claesification of proposed Monte Viata Drive. He f~irther noted that said amendmen tewould update the City of Ar.aheim's General Plan Co conform to the Orattge ~ounty Mas t er Plan. ~ ~ MINUTF.S, CITY PT.ANNINC COMMISSION, Nuve+mber 25, ].974 7G-545 G(~.NCItAI. P:~At~ AMN:NDMFNT' N0. l35 (ConCinued) Gommiselaner Frirano noted thc~t it wac~ dleCreseinR thnt no one wc~a presant in the audienco concerning the sub,joct umendmente~ eirico in his opinian .lt wns a serious matter, . Mr. Schwartze then noced thnt ~he amenJmentH werc~ etricl•ly minor and of a housukcepin~ naturc~; that [he proposed .~LIF,~iment of Mei-ts Avenue wae hased on topography und wus not. related tu the axCension ~~f l.~~keviow Avenue; tlint Via l:ecullo wae proposed Co Ue upgruded to n~vecondary highwny b,~~~~.~d - the trnffic circulation due to the density i.n the aree, ~ccording to [he T:{iffi~. uSvtciton; khnC the a].lgnmen~ nnd claseificat:ion of Monte Vletu Drive w~a bnAUd on th~ tui,ugrmphy, ug well ao its r~~ ..lonehip tu a propo~ed pnrk outeide of Ctie City's ,~uriydlcc loi~; and the ciinnges would conform to the propo9ed plnn of the County. Mr. SchwnrCze r.~~vicwed the letters submitted to che Planning CommiyHion, one beirg from M•^:~eim H111;:, Inc. ancl ttie other betng f.rom the JoinC Committee of el~e cities of Anahc~im~ Orung~ and Villa Park, thc County of Orenge~ and the Orangc~ Unifiad School Diq~rict. Coaanidsioner Tolar rn~t~~d that the sub~ect matter wcte nn engineering document which had been eCudied by the Staff, nnd he could not txll; for il• or against it eince t-e did not undersr.and it. Com~niasiuner Farano noted thak with all the questiane thXt could be raiaed regording the proposal~ he was not sure l•hat the amendmenta were a ho~isekeepLnF tnntter. Chulr.man tlerbsC inquired if rtaf:f had considered the am~unt of cut and fill. that would be involved in making the street ali~nmenta, and Strcet Design Engineer Arthur Daw adviaed that the Engineering llivieion hnd not attempted to make a detniled etudy on the eub~ect n~:~~rec ~nd that the proposals were being niade based on an engineer.ir~g atud,y made by _. ;~~ 9, Tnc. of the tc~oqraphy. Mr. Daw further ndvised ti~rr ~~ Qra1. Plan A*~~~~~3- menta `4~'<<= ;...SrRl und not dpe '' ~: in nature. ~ •m< n Herb~t inqu! z~ ~' ~~rha[ Ch~ r- -son wa 5 for *.he r.Y ~i~¢^•= a M~ i~aw : uv ~ .~ ~he,y L~u,:. ~. up nT'imnr'~ ~;,y .n~helu~ Hi11;3, ~r.,.., since thr ~,~ .:.;~., did nc~ • ~th ~heir ~copne n'. ~~^~ woul • hc more lcgical f rom a topograptiical c.tundpo~.<<. :.:~~.rman HsrbaC then <<oted C.hHt ~he reas.~~s for the proposals needed to be based on what was best for the r.ity nttd r.^t un what was best for the ~.natielm ~iills company; and that he would als~ question why the changeg were being pr ~posed without preciAe alignmente. Commisaioner Gauer rend frcw the letter re c eived from Anaheim Hills, Inc. which atated reasons for the ali.gnmenCs. In response to questi.or.ing by Commissioner Farxno, Mr. Daw .~~lvised that~ based on uv~a.il- able ir-fnrmation, Via Eacoll.o warranted becoming a secondary highway and the riew align- ments could vary bue atill be in conformance with the General Plan. Comm~ssioner Faranu tt~en ~ioted that there mighC be ~ome aignificant effect on the propcsed Grading Ordinance by the proposals a~.td tha t he woul~i suggeyt that the proposed 3mendmento be postponed until r~uch time Hs some of th e sr_udies preaently undeYway were completed, inciuding the grading st•udy and the p:opo s ed Grading Ordinance. Zoning S~lpervisc.r Charles Roberta noted f o x the Commi~9ion that there had been aome actual development prnpoeal.s in one or two of the areas w}~ere r~alignmente were being proposed rela~ing particularly to Meata Avenue, in._iuu;.~~g four tracta which depicted the proposed alignments, and I~e discuased the terrain involved, being vcry precipitous, and the need for the 111gnments~ ch~nges, and deletion s. Chairman Fa~rbst reiterated that tha Commi s sion needed to know why the changes were bei.ng propoaed anc: wha~t effect they would have on the areu, i.e., would more or less of the hills be cut up by the ~hanges. He noted that he was opposed to having the queations answered by developers but wanred Staff t o be able to aupply the infarmation to the Commiasion. Commisaioner F~-rano noted that the alignm~nt of Mests Avenue appeared to make aenae aince four tracts had been npproved i.n that ar es, eccording to Staff; however. the other changea wer~. not definite enough and the atudies referred to would provide easential additional information. ~ ~^~F ~ MINU7'F:S. CITY PT.ANNT.Nc; CUMMiSS[ON, November 25, 1974 74-54b C~NI?I~AL PLAN AMh:IrllMi:NT N(3. _135 (Cunrinued) CoaimlBel.onex King noteJ that tha proposed amendmonte w~re n g~snernl cuncepti.on only. 'fHE PUIII.IC HEARINC WAS CLOS~Q. Commiesioner King offered a r.eaolution to recoromend to the City Counctl thnt C~nernl Yla:l Amandment No. ].35, be approved yimt~ndtng rhe Circul.ation Flcment~ ao set f'orth ln the StnEf Report. Chairmr~n Herbst noted khut hc~ w~~~ld be voting c~gninet the motion until such timr. AH the Grading Ordinance wna prepared; thnt he realized that ll~e General Plan was n£lexible document, hawever, auct~ matter~ as etreet alignments, ekc. ~ became tt~~ tt~ougtite of many people to be exacC; and~ in I~ie opinion, tt~e maCter r.~eded itirther etudy. On roll ~.$11, the fozegoing resolu[ion failecl by the following vote: AYCS : CQt~41ISSI0NERS : GAUT:R, KING NOGS: COMMISSIONGRS: rAR.ANU~ JOHNSON~ MORLEY, 'P~LAR, NERBST ADSENT: COMMISSiONERS: NONE COAQ~iT.SSIUNGR GAUEIt LFFT THE MEETING AT 5:30 P.M. Commissioner Farano auggeeted thAt the sub~ect matter be consi.dered aC u Work 3esoion with more dreai.led information avAilnble from Staff, ~nd that th~ public henring be conrinued He noted that more basic phi.looophles were nPeded by the Planning Commisaion irom the Canyon Area Ganeral Plr~nning Task Force which wus operating at ~he instructioua of the ~ I r~~ Council. Commiseloner Farano then off.ered a moti.on, seconcied by Commiasioner Johnaon and MO'PION CARRIED (Commis~ioner Gauer beicig absent), to reopen lhe pub lic hearing and conr~nue consideration of General Plan Amenciment No, J.35 to the meeting of 1)ecember 23, 1974, for additional information. REQUEST FOR ~IR NEGATIVE BGCLARATIOtI FOR GRADING PERMIT FOR INDU~TRIAI. SI'I'E AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA PALMA AVENUG AND FFE ANA STREET It was noted that the applicant applied for a grading permit iri connection with the devel- oNu~ent of an induatrial project at the sub~ect loc~tion; that said grading would consist of approximately 100 cublc yarda of. cut and 2800 cubi.c yards of fi11; thut iseuance of a grading permit for this type of project would uaually be categorically exempt from the requirement to f.ile an Envirur~mentdl Impact Report, however, the pro~ect was located wi.thin tne Scenic Corridor and, therefore, could not be granted categori~ul exemption; and that it would appear that thete would be nc significant env ironmental impact. Commissioner King of.fered a motion, aeconded by Commissi~ner Johnaon and MOTION CARRIFD (Commigsioner Gauer being absent), that the Planning Comcnisaion recoromends to the City Council that the subject pro~ect be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Fnvir.on- mental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the Californiu Environmeiital Quality Act. For information, Assis[ant Director of Development Services Ronatd Thompaun notad for the Plann•ing Commission tnat there were approximately 4U0 acres of undeveloped property remaining in the Northeast Industrial Area, said acreage being in the Scenic ~orridor; that the current Stata 1aw dealing with the Scenic Corridor requir.ed any grading to have an individual Environmental Impact Report or an individual Negative Declar:~tion; that, oince nioat of the land in khe Northeast ?.ndustrial Area was flat and would be developed with industrial uses in conformance with the site development standards of the ii.lustrial zones~ graded to the sAtiefaction of the City Engineer and in conformance with t ~ City's Master Plan of Drainage, a study was presently underway by the City Attorney's Of.fice and Development Services Staff for a master EIR for grading and filling oE land fn the North- east Industrial Area; and that auch a master EIR would prevenl many time deluys and uddit.ional paperwork. -- - - - -I ~ p^1 ~ MINUTI:S~ CITY PI.ANNING CUMMJSSI()N~ Novemboz 25, 1974 74-5~+7 RFPORTS ANU - LTEM N0. J. RECOMMFNDATIUNS OItANGE COUN'fY FI.OOQ CONTR(1(, DISTRIC'C - 1'RUPUSLD ACQUI5I'~ION ~"'~ OF R'iGH'f-OF-WAY AND iMPROVF.~IE,NT Or EA4T RICHFIELLI STURM CtIANNBL. It was noted that Chc Urnnge County Flood ConCrol 1)istrict wae propoaing to en_arge und improvc the Faet Richf.iald Storm ChanneJ. Co reduce potPntl.ol flnoding in the area west of Impariat Highwny, euuth of Ornngethorpe Avenue; that~ in a~:cordance with the pr~vielonN of Sect.ion 654U2 of the Covernment Code, tlie Uietrict wa~ req~ioeting the Analielw Planninq Co~mnf.seiun to rep~~rt ~n Che proposed project'e conformance with the City of Anaheim Cpnernl Plan; and thaC the Dietrict t~ad flled n Negative Declar4tion in compllAnce with the California Rnvi.ronmenttil Quality Act, Commiesioner Morley of£ered Resolution Dlo. PC74-237 and moved for il•s pnenago and adoPtion, findinE that the proposeJ Ornnge County Flood Control DiatrlcC pro~ecC to acquire ad~i.tional right-of-wny and improv~ the Enot Richf.ield SL•orm Channel iR in conformance witti the Clty of Anaheim Genernl Ylan. On roll call, tlic foregoing resol~ltion pae~ed by the tollowing vote: AYES: CUr41ISSI0NERS: FARANO, .10}iNSON, KING, MURLEY, TOI.AR, HERBST NOES: COhQYtISSIONERS: NONi: ABSENT: COr41ISSTONERS: GAUEP. ITL,M N0. 2 CONDITIONAL USE FEItMIT NU. 1348 (Hallcraft Homee~ of L.d Angeles, inc.) - Raquest for extenaion of time for ~~mplelion of conditione - Property conaiating of ap~roximate].y 36 ac:res located on the south side of 5erran~ Avenue, appr.oximately 1235 feet east of Nohl Ranch Road, and curr~ntly zuned R-A wi.th a reaolution of intent to R-2. It was n~'.ed that the sub~ecC Fetition was granted by the Planning Commission on Uctober 18, 1972, to establish a 220-unit planned reaidenCial r~e^4~opment with waivers of th~ requireci ~~t frontage, mi,~imum building site area and width, an~ maximum building neight; that on M~.~ ':"~, 1472, tt~e Cit•y Council anproved R-2 zoning on subject property uncler Reclassifica- tion No. 71-~72-44, said zoning being not fina].ized tc date; that one previuus exterision of ttme was granted by the Planning Commieaion which expired October 18, 1974; thaC the petiticner was requeating approval ~f a onP-year extension of time due to problems incurred with the delay in conatruction of cerCain downstream drainage facilitieo and the unavail- ~bility of financing; und 4Y-at the petitioner indicated they had recently procured commit- ments f.rom their lender3 and intended to start ^onstruction of the tract within the next year. Commissi.oner King of£ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIGD (Commisstoner Gauer being absent), that a one-year extension of. time be snd hereby is granCed for the completion of~ conditiona of approval of Conditi:.nal Uae Permi.t No. 1348, said extension of time to be retroactive to OcCober 18, 1914 and to expire October 18, 1975. ITEM N~. 3 VAItIANCE N0. 2295 (Anaheim Hills, Inc.. )- Requeat for exter.aion af time - Property consisting of approximately 39 acrea, locat~d nort.hwest of the future interaection of Avenid3 de Santingo snd Hidden Cunyon Road and c~outherly of Serrano Avenue, being zoned R-A and ~urrently vacant. It was noted that Variancp No. 2295 was granted in part by the Planning Commiasion on October 18, 1971, to establish 39 R~A zoned lota with waiver~ of miciimuv lot area, minimum lot width, minimum front yard and the requirement that lots abut a public stL~eet; tt~at Tract No. '1587, conaidered in conjuncT.ion with eub~ect variAn~ s approvsd by the City Council for the 39-lot, R-A subdivision atid, subsequently, ~. t expiLed on November 9. 1974; that no previous extensior.~ ~f time had been reques rhe sub,ject variance and the petitioner was presentl.y requesting an exteneion of ti~ expire October 13, 1975. • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COt~IIMISSZqN, Novambe.r 25, 1974 74-54ft ITEM N0, 3 (Continuad) Commisei~~nc~r Kinq offered a motian~ ec~conded by Crnnmleaioner Mor'ley und MOTION CA1tKIED (Cammiesioner Cauer. ~~~,ing :~baeilt) ~ Chat ~n extension of tlmc bcs and herEUy 1s ~ranted for Vgriance N~. 2295~ eaid axCeneion of Cim~+ l•o bQ retr•oacki.ve to Uctober 18~ 1y72~ and t~ expire un October 18~ 1975~ ue requested by thc pel•iCioner. I.TN:M NOy G VARIANCG N0. 2583 (C. Norman Pu111am et a1) - Request for npproval of revioed pl.ane for un npartmenC r_omplex - Property conslating of. approxiwat~ly 0.88 acrr, lncated between Rcmneya Ariv~ and Ludge Avenue~ upproximeCel.y 365 feet east of Che centerline of Weet Street, further deocribed aa 918 Weat R~mneya D~rive, end zoned R-3. ABB~StBIlC Zaning Supervieor Annika SanCalahti pree~ented the Staff Report to the Planning Co~lssion dated November 25, :974, and eaid Staff RPport ie referrQd to arid made a part of the minuteR. She n~ted ti,at ttie Cotnmission grunted Variance No. 25b3 oxi March 4, 1974, to permit canaCruction of. a 25-uttil• apartmpnl complex with five w~ivere from the R-3 Zone c~lte development standarde~ aubject to the condition that the sub;ject property be developed substanCially in accordunce with plana And ~pe~ific~tiono un file with the City of Anal~ei.m; thal• the appllcant had submitted revised plane f.or the apartmeiit compl~x, increasing the number of unite to 32 and decreasing ttie number of waivera to one; tl~at the r.eviaed Flana fndicated 32 one-bedroom unit~ rather than 25 two-bedroom untte origi.nally propoeed, besed on a survey of the area made by the new owner; that each of the unite would be construcked over a aubterranean gArage; lhat the denAiCy would be increaseJ from 3S to 36 dwellinR ~miCa per acr~; however, all of the waivera previously granted were being eliminsted by the reviaed plans, with the exception of waiver of the maximum building height wi.thin 150 Eee: of the R-A Zone since tt~e revlaed aparhment complex ~ Y two etoriea high and located approximatel.y ]00 feeG from the R-A property to the weal. The Planning ~ommi»sian entered into discussion regarding r.he subject revised plans and ;~nerally concurr.ed that lhe nP~•} proposal was an improvement over the ariginal plan, eapecial2y si.nce four of the five waivera previously granted were being eliminated. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commiasi.oner Johnson and MOTION ~ARRIF.A (Commiasioner Gauer being absent), tnat the revised plans, ag submitted, are in ~ubstan- tial conformance with the Planning Commiesion's original approval of Variance ~Io. 2583. LTEM N0. S CONDITIONAL USE PERNII'T N0. 1463 - Request e~ substitute vinyl slats Eur redwood or ced~r A~BI'9 in a chuinlink fence enclosing an uutdoor use (request changed to subatitute textured "111" plywood) ~ Property consiating of approximately .8 acre located between Mable Street and Braadway, being located approximately 840 feet east of the centerline of Loara 5treet and ~urther described as 2524 Weat tiable Stre~t. Althuugh the 5taff Report to the Planning Commission dated Nc,vember 25, 19i4, was not read at:ehe meeting; !t is referred to and made a part of the minutea. Mr. R. D. Hampton, Che petitioner, appeared before the Planning Commiasion arid requeated that tr~eir requeat reflect their deaire to substitute textured "111" plywood, rather thAn the vinyl slat~. I{e ataCed ktiat the plywood would be used as a panel on the cha•inlink fencing and installed lengthwise; that the plywood proposed to be used wus an architectural grade; ttiat he was not con~erned as much al~out the cost involved as he was the aesth2tic value; and that redwood required 3 x 5-inch holea for ina.rtion and chainlink had 21/4 x 21/4-inch holes; and that there was 201 linear feet of fencing on Mable Strpet. In response to questioning by Commisaioner Talar, Mr. Hnmpton st~ted ha was a painter and the fence would be maintained in good cond~.tion. ~ ~ ~ MiNUTE:S, I:ITY PT.ANNINC COMMISSI.ON, November 25~ 1974 74-5G9 ITEM N0. 5 (ContinueJ) Commiasionar King note~ that~ i.n hie opinian, the new acrc~ening mAtarial. b~~~nE prnponed shouLd be tried out ut Che sub~ect l.ocation. Zoning SuperviQOr Chnrles Roberte noted for the Commi9r~.ton tha~ the effecr. oE Klatti~~g~ when u mutoriat wae puseing by r. approxlmxtQly 4~-45 mph, wns prACtlcall.y nil with rcapecr. to ~creening; nnd that if thc Commi4ai.on wuuid cuneider the proposed muterial, ~P_YIIa~N the pe~itioner could inetall n sttmp7.e 1'or vi.ewing ~f the efPect. Comml.asioner Morley ~~ated that he wouJ.d be willing Co go Along with th~ propoanl ae an experiment for futura pr.ojects elnce he did not feel it would be detrimental tu the subJect area; nnd Chairmnn Herbst noted that becausa of the .tength of tl~e fence, tiaing 201 feeC on Muble Street~ use of the proposed mAt'erial. miglit make a better looking fenc~_. Commissioner l~arano noted that t;l~e Plnnning Commieyi.on had worked a lang time to get chainlink fei~cing with elats as a aubetir.utc for corir_rete block wn11s; howev~r~ he would }lAVP_ no ob~ectionR to the proposed screeni.ng material on a tri.al basis; and that he would requeat SCaff to repor.t tu the Comm-gsion regat~ding it~ c:ffectlvenese, etc., pt a later dc~te so th~t if Lt was Hatiefactory, it could L•hen be m~de avail~xble to other~. Mr. Hampton then ~tated he would 11k~ L•o have wroi~ght iron gates with Che same plywood treatment as wus being dlycussed for the fence. Commiasioner King offered a motion, saconded by Commi~Hioner Johnson and MOTION CAKRIED (Commisaioner Gauer being absent), kh~t the proposed aubstitution to install t.extured "111" plywood as scree.ning mnterial over ciiainlink fencir~g ineteud of redwood or cedar slatr~~ be and hereby is approved as being within the intent of the origl.n~l approval. of Conditional Use Permit No. 1463. ITEM NU. 6 CONDITIONAI, USE PI:ItMIT N0. 1317 - Request to exp~nd uae tn operate a convenience food market i.n con3unction with an existing travel trailer park - Property located on the east side of West Street, approximately 330 feet ~outh of iia11 Road, developed with the Anaheim Junction Travel Trailer Park and zoned C-R. Zoning Supervisor Charles R~beres presented Che Staff Feport to the Planning Commisaion dated November 25, 1974, and said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. He r~oted that Conditional Use Permit No. 1317, to establish a 124-apace travel trafl.er park for recreational vehicles was approved by the Plannin~ Commiasion on June 26, 1972, subject to the stipulation tt~at there be no conveni~nce marke*_; that Che pptitioner had gradual:y made convenience items avai].able t~~ the customers of the park and this developed into a type of market; that the market occupied a por~ion of the ]_obby of Cl~e office at the park and there was no direct accesa to the market area from West St:reet. Cha.irman lierbst noted thlt lie would hav~ a hard tir-e finding that Che prop~sal w~s in conformance with the oriqinal intent of the Planning Commission's approval since the caatCer of the market was discussed and dented and, furthermore, couls] nor. be declared a misunderstanding of the approval taken. Mr. John Krajar_ic, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and ex- plained the type of ltems betng offered Co the~.r customers, being toil.et tisaue, mill:, ~tc., and stt~ted without the convenience items he would go out of business. In response ~o queGtioning by Commissioner Farano, Mr. Krnjacic. stated L•here was no sign identifying the market to "he public. Commissioner Parano then inquired if permission could Ue granted for Mr. ura~acic to continue to have the market until a variance agplica- tion could be Eiled, at which time the Commission could consider the market in pub'lic hearing. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry adviaed that if a petition was on £ile, the City Attorney's Office would Cake no f.urther action on the zoning vialatioi~ pending the outcome of the public hearing. The Planning Coczmisc~ion generally concurred that the sub~ect re4uest ahould tie considered through s publlc hearing procedure, ar-d that application for same would havE ro be filed by the petitioner within two weeka of the dRte of this meeting or zoning requiresents would be enforced. ~ ~ MT.NUT~S ~ CT'PY P1.ANNINC COr41ISSIUN ~ Novembcr 25, ].9?4 7/--550 ~~TGM N0. 7 VARIANC~ N0, 2542 (Shapell I.nduetrf.ee~ Inr..) - RequeHC :or ruc~~~nelderution of a coi~ditlun of approv~l - Propert.y consieCing of ~pproxl.mNtel.y 6'].7 acr~es, located on ttio norCl~ eida oF 5err~no Avenue ~nd approxlmatel,y 53U feet onet of thc~ centcrline c~f Nutit Raitch Road. nsKidtant 7.oning S~p~~rvir-or Annika Santnl.nhti read the Staff Report to tho Plnnning (,ummisslon d3ted November 25, .1974, nnd e~-.id Staff Repart ie reEErred to uR i~ set forth in fult in the minuCee. Shc noted l•hnc rhe petition~r was rcyueHting ttiot. the Plnnning Conuuiasion raconaider on~ o[ Che. conditi.ons of r-pprov~l fo~• Var:~.~nce No. 2542, "That t~ll building pnd ureus Rhnll be ln conformance with tlic: formula aatabl.iehed for pad areae in the RS-5000 Zone, whercin for each additional bc~room over three~ a miriimum of 850 aquare feet shnll bs provided~ c~s stipulated to Uy the peGitiuner"; thnt [he pecitioner wns indicating thnt "sCricr. adherence Cr the conditlon reyuires the aF-me untt to be replotted over and over in a rowti udversely affecl•Lng the architecturr~l atreet ecen~ thereby bring- ing monotuny to the neigt~borhood"; and that r.he five-bedroom unit had two ~tories and, therefore, thr_ aite coverage wus less cLan for. the one:-Ktory unite. Mr. George Putnam, repreaenting the petitioner, appeared be.fore the Planciing Commisaion and str+ted Mr. John Carcig had represented the petitioner al• the origi.nal public tiearing a[ which the Commiesion had in~-ui.red if the petitioner woulc9 comply with the RS-5000 Zone si.te development etandards, rather than requiring a vur.innce from the lt-1 Zone (7200 ~-quare feet minimum lut size); that at that time Mr. (:ar.^•[:~ was not totall.y familiar with the RS-5000 Zone and more ap~cificully with the requtrem~_,nt ztiat a minimum of 8.50 aquar.e feet shall be provided in cl~e pad area for each of thu fourr.h and fifth bedrooms; th~t, an their opinion~ there wAS an inequity in the Code si~ice three-bedroom homea requtred more pad azea for lctual construction than four and five-hedroom homea that were two ekoriea; ~hat they were .Looking ~or an acceptable solution [o provLding more open spnce, which could Ue accumplibh~d l~y having Mare two-erory homes; and that he was awflre that the request might. req~iire .~ public he~Y'ing procedure. He continued by staCing that in some instances, there would be an addition~l 200 qquare feet of living space; howeve~, hy havi.ng retaining walls at the expense oi the purchasers, the pad area requirement could be met. Chairman Herbst noted that the nubject developer had etarted rhe RS-5000 Zone becuuae they were overbuilding their homes for the 1ot sizes; ih$t tlie request could not be granted without an additional public hearing; that he woul.d be oppased to granting the request since there was a need for open space on the lots and thr>_ pad atea wa~ the usable space for children; that the intent of the ordinance was to have more open spnce for the n~mber of residents; and that the RS-5000 Zone was a r.ool for the devel~pers so they did not have to go tu the atandard 72Q0-square foot lota requiring a lot of variances. The Planning Commisaion generally concurred that the sub~ect request was not in conform- ance with Che intent of the original approval rocedurenat the requestnoftthe petitioner. consideration would require a public hearing p ITEM N0. 8 RECLASSTFICATION N0. 71-72-Z1 AN]) VARIANCE N0. 2310 (].mperial Proper;.ies) - Request for approval. of si~.:e plan and elevnt:ons - Property conaisting of. approximately 870 f.eet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road an~i located approxi.mately 36: feQt east of the cenCerline of In~p~rial Hfghway; and znned C-1(SC). Zonin~, Supervisor Charlea Robztts read the Staff Rer~rt to the Planning Commlesion dated November 25, 1974, and said Staff R.eport is refc~red to •~s ir' ~et forth in fu11 in t~- minutes. He noted that the approximately 12-acre parcei immediately to the west of tne sub~ect property was owned by Che State Division of Highways at the time of the reclasei- fication of Kub~ect property; that the Plac:ning Commis:zi~n recommended denial of Reclassi- fication No. 71-72-21 and Vartance No. 2310 ,artly b~cau~2 of the uncertainty o£ the ultimate di~position of the parcel to the west; that the developer had ori.ginally expresaed a desire to have the parcel to the west incorporated into the sub~ect development proposal but at a la:=r date that parcel was withdrawn ftom the application; that the City Council approved Reclassification No. 71-72-21 and Variance No. 2310 on Apiil 11, 1972~ grantinz waivers of the permitted signs, location of the servire atation at Ct~e inCersection of two art~rial highways, minimum building setback fxom a freeway, and minimum dimension for l~J u ~tTNU'fGS, CI'PY PI.ANNINC (:OM`~1S5i0N, :Vovember 25, 1.974 IT~M N0, 8 (Cun~inued) 74-551. pl~nters in u parking urea; that Area Development Plan No. 109, L'xhibit B, was n.leo np- proved by the CLCy Council on Apr11 11~ 1972~ designuting the meane by which v~h.icular c~ccese from sub~ect property might be achiaved to Santn Ana Canyon Koad, and establiehing nn additionul accE~sa poinr. to Santa Anu Ganyon RoaJ, which waa to be locnted at tho euet- erly end ot sub~ecC property; ttiat on Novembnr 20, 1973, tl~e Ci[y Cvuncil grnnted pecmiaeion, sub~ect to conditione~ tor Hn addiCional uccea:~ t:o Sa~itn Ana Cun;ron Road in the form of u t~nipor~ry drivewuy located approximately 674 feet eneC of the centerline ot Imperial H~gt,w.iy, and an eusemenC agrec~ment Was filed in tl~~ City Attorney'c~ Office; tl~at on January 21, 1974~ the I'lanning Commissio~~ reviewed aite plaiie and el~vatioti~ aud determined sniS plans wcre subetantially in conformance with the original concept pl.ana, however, eaid plan3 were not epecific enough, in thE~ir. opi.niun, ~:o be deemed as the final precioe plcins and, tl-ereforr.~ recommended thnt finul preciae ptAns for the develoNment be approved by t,he 1'lanning Commleaion and Citv Council; t:h~t c+n February 12, .1974, th~ Cil•y Council approved the preciye aite plany and elevations eubject to the requix•ement thne f.inal building plans be rpvic~~aed And ~pproved by the City Planning Commiaeion and City Council prior to issuance of u building permit; and that the petitioner wae preaently proposing a aecond preciae plan for approval, whict- aubetantially modif.i.ecl the orientation of biiildings and parking fuci.llties within the propoyed ~hopping center, Mr. Roberts then reviewed the d.iff~.rencea between l-he two preciae plans~ as set for.Ch in the Staff Report and~ Jn re~ponse tu questioning by Chairrnan Herbet, he advised that the property to the weat appear~~~ not to Ue landlor_ked since a 30-foot wide access easeme• _ was indicated on thc~ ~1nns nlong the northerly boundary of the aub~ect properky to provide access to the parcel to the west; thaC one of the condition:: ~f appruval of the original C-1 zoning was a blanket licecise to be approved to provtde accesa to tha parcel to the west of the sub,ject pr~perty; that the {~eti[ioner d~d aubmit the blm~nket license which was approved by the City Attorney's Office, etaCing that a mini.mum 30-foot wide driveway would Ue provided to gain ~ccese to the r~arcel to tlie ~.ae~t; Chat il• was Staff's understanding that there were no access riglita from the parcel Co lhe west to either Imperial Highway or Sun[a Nna Canyon Road, however, Che State llivision of Highways just rPCently sold the property and it was found that a 20-foot wide accesa existed at the southeast corner of that parcel. Mr, Roberts continued by noting that when the City Council granted the additi.onal access to Santa Ana Canyon Roaci on NoveIDbet• 20, 1973, there w~3 a atipulation Cha* when the traffic volume exceeded 25,000 ADT the devel.oper would install a rui.sed median to preclude tt-e posaibility of traf.fic exiting frum the subject property and crosa- ing over the center dividfng line of Santa Ana Can,yon Road, creating traffic conflicts. In r.~sponse to questioning by Chairman Herbst, DepuCy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised rhat the access poiT-t for the pRrcel to l•he west wae based on a Super•lor Court Coridemnation Order, ordering tl~at the 20 L-eet be reaerved for t~at access; and that although the access was existing, no one had been aware of it until the parce]. wag recently sold. Thereupon, Mr, Roberts noted tli:~t the developer3 for the pro~:erty to the west would be seeking access in addition to the i0-fo~t access. In response to further questioning by Chairman Herbst, Office Engineer Jay Titus adviaed that addiCional access points would make an impossible CrafPic situ~tion in the subject area. The property owner for the parcel to khe west indicated his preaence nt the meeting and, thereupon, Chairman Herbat indicated that with 11•mited accESS for both of the properties being discussed and in view of the fact that 65,000 ADT was anCicipated in the area, then the access problems should be ~olved now and not downstream; that if the sub,ject property would be filled in level with the highwa~~~:here would be no great problem, however, that was n~t the case and the access would be terribl~ at best; and that the two praperty owners should present designs following a study of the conditions ~o that adequate access would be available for botti properties. Commissioner Farano interjected that the original representationy appeared to be no longer valid. Mr. Warren C. Lefebvre, representing ImPerial properties, the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioii and stated they had f~~:nd themaelvea in a very unusual p~siCion relating to a situation involving an a~ccident in timing; that they had owned the aubject property L•oc a number of yeara and ha3 worked over many plans with the City's Planning Staif; that based upon approval of theix plan and agreements Chat had been previously reached, and fultilling all of the conditions attached Co the rezoning petltion, they had gone ahead with r.ather specific arrAngements for construction of a ahoppi.ng center on their. property; ~ ~ ~ tdINI1TES~ CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, November 25, 1974 I1'BM NU, $ (Contlnued) 7G-5S2 that tt~c propoead eite I>lan wae, in thc~ir opini.an~ an impYOVed plan wi.thout regard Co extra~ieoue matCers; thnt Cheir ol.d plan could be regar.ded a~ a stxJp commercia.t~ however, ~hr. new plan wAS more neel:hetically pleaeing; that if th~ State had not put the ad~ac~nC parcel to tF~e west up fax eale whan ttaey did, the quesCione beit~g rnieed would hflve bean n~n-exietant; and that, thPrefore, t-~ey were not willing to ahnre their driveway on Senta An~ Canyon Ruad. Chainnun Herbat aR~ured Ct1e petiCioner thxt had the City known that an ar.cess point exiatad~ the additional flccess would not have been granted ln November, 1973; that those acceases would cauae the City probleme for yeare to cotue; that, at best, Che patitioner's acceAe waa bnd and~ it beat, Lhe nccess £or the parcel to th~ west was worae; that ir appear.ed there wa~~ ~in opporCuni.ty to correct th~ situaCion to muke lt better and he cauld not underatai~~ why the petilioner was nol wllling tu cooperute• Mr. Lefebvrc: sCated rhe CiCy hud a long-c~tanding policy to presexve the traffic-carr.ying capability of Santa Anu Canyon Road; lha~ there was a limit to the number of acres of commer.ci~l development thut could be aerv~~d by unf~ driveway; tt~aX, in hls apinion, the ?lan~iing Commieaion wou1,1 be hardpreased t~ iind t.hae one driveway could serve so much acreage; At1Cl tt~at tu share the driveway wo~ld be a tremendous detriment to the sub~ect property. Chairmnn Herbat noted thal many hearings had been held c:.ncerning developa~enl• of the aubject property and he was sCill aware of what the discunsiona were at that time; and that unkil the property ownera sat down with StaPf to review and diacuse other plana Co resolve the accese point problem~ then he would not vote t~~ approve thE aubmitted plans. Mr. Rubez~t S. Lewin, Attorney, representing the rr~perty owner of the parcel to the weak of 3ubject property~ appeAred before the Planning ~:ommission ancl presented photographe of their property. 1~~~ stated they be].ieved there neec'.ed to be some coordination from a traffic welfarP standroint and he offered eome suggeatione involving the exis[ing bus atop on Imperinl Highway ad~acent to their pr~perty and the fire hydrant at the aouthwest corner of thei.r property which had been knocked dowtx by cars rouncting the corner. He cuntinued by staCing they were in the process of presenting development plana for their property and sh~uld be ready to file within a week or so; and thcy certainly did not oppose the s«b,ject development, however, they would agree to coordinaCian of accesG RA diacuased. In conclusion, Mr. Lewin atated the 20-foot acceas waP unknown until tt~e property was purchased by them, Mr. Jnmea McGirr of Willdan Associates. the eagineer for the parcel to the weat of aub~ect property, appeared before the Commisaion and atated they intended to fill their siCe to street level Chairman Herbet reiterated that until such time as the Traffic Engineer approved the access points, which would require ~ome coordination of the two parcels, he would not approve of the submitted plana; and that he would like a report from the Traffic Engineer regarding same. Mr. Titus then advised thaL the Enginc~ering Staff had not review~d ehe plans beic~g proposed at this time. Mr. Lefebvre ~hen atated that Ctieir property sloped to the renr; that he would ~udge from the comments of the Comwissian that the site plans were not acceptable becauae of the access, and Chairman Herbst noted that a.t the time of the original public hearings, the Commisaion was very conc~rned aboul the ad~acent pr~perty to the west, owned by the State Division of Highwape at thaC time; that the Commission did not want to ]andlock any of the parcela and Mr. Rinker was going to try to purchase that weaterly parcel; that the possi- biliti.es were discussed in depth and the additional. accer~s was granted with the thought of helping to serve the properCy to the west, or, in hia opinion, that accese would have never been granted. Mr. Lefebvre then r.eqi-ested the Commiasion ~o deny or disapprove the plans being submitted at thia time, and continued by st~ting that the proposed plan was what they felt was b~tter than the plan originally apptoved; and Chat the proposal did not preclude access ta the proper ty to tl:e west . Chairman ilerbst then noted that he was Aware of the length of time the petitioner had owned the sub~ect property, :iowever, the two properCy owners shauld work together for a joint access plan at mutual expense and, thereupon, the property owners agreed to work together as requssted. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 2S, 1974 IT~M N0. 8 (Continued) 74-553 Mr. Titua then advier~ thut ae ~oon :.a informat:on wae provided to the ~ngineering Staff, a report could be formulated and coul.d be brought to Che Commieeion under Fnporte and R~commendationa, eaid informatiun to Ue n~~ailabl.e by December 2, 1974. Coamiesioner Johneon not~d thut the potitionar t~nd epparently gone nhdad in good faiCh w1Ch praparetion o£ Cheir plana nnd were ready to procc+od, and that iP tne ad~acenC property owner did not ~r~vidc rho nece9eary lnformation so that o muCual accese cauld be evaluated~ then ac the ond of two w~eke~ Che Commieaion ~i.ght be hardpres~~ed in favor of the petiCioner. Mr. S.ewin then indicated they would get together with tho concerned pc~rties on Wednesday, Novemb~r ?7~ 1974, which appeared C^ be agreeable with xhe petitioner. Cammisaioner Morley offered u mottan, seconded by Cor._:..iesiuner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED (Commiesionex' Gnuer being absent), to continue coneiderntion of ttie eub~ect request tu the YJ.annfng Commiesion mecti.ng of December 9, 1974 i~ order. for the petitionar to mest wlth Che adjacant pr~perty owne:~ to the west and City Staff Co resolve the acce~s pointa problem in the beat interest uf Che CiCy and all parties concerned. ADJOURNML~NT - Tl~ere Ueing no fur.ther busineae ta discusa, Commiac~ion~r King offered a mutlan, sa^anded by Commis9loner Johti~on and MO'PION CARR.IED (Commissioner Ca~ier beir.g absent), to ad~ourn the me~ti~~ to Becember 5, 1974, ~:c 7:00 p.m. for a Work 5eseion. The meeting adjoiir.ned at 7:10 p.m. Reapectfully ~tubmitted~ ~~~~ ~~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commiasion PBS:hQ.