Loading...
Minutes-PC 1975/02/190 R C 0 PAICROFIIMING SERVICE, INC. ~ ~ • L'ity Hu11 Maheim, Cnl.ifornia rebruar.y .19, 1975 RECU:.AR MI:ETtNC OF THG A1~N~~IM CITY PLANNI'NC COMMI:SSION R~CULAR - E+ requlur meeting of ttie AnKh~im City Planninq Commlesion wuR called to MF:tiTING order. by Chairmfln Herbat at 1:3U p.m. !n the Council. Chrimh~~r~ ~ quorum being presenC. PRESGI~T - CHAIRMAN: Herbst - CUMMISSIONERS: F~ri-no, Gnuer, ,iohnaon, King, Morl.cy, 'I'ular ALSO PItESEN'1' - Asetatant City Engineer: Willic~m G. Devitt D~.~puty Clty Att~ ~iey: ~rank Lowry Traf f. ic Fnginr.er : Pc~ul Singer Off:ice Bngineer: Jay Titua 7.,oninb Supervisor: Charles Rob~rts A~eistnnl Zoning Supervisor: Ar.nilc~t SnnCalahti A~aociate Planner: Hill Young As6isXant YLanner: A1 Daum Commission Secretary: Pitrtcia Scnnlan PLEUGE OF - Commiasioner Gauer led in the Pledge of A__ giance to the Flag of the ALLEGIANCE UniCed SCates of Amer.icn. APPROVAI. pF ~ Commissioner. King ofEered r~ motion, seconded by Commissionex L~019C and THE MINUT~S MOTION CAEiRI~D, to npprove khe minutes of the meetings of. Jan~inry 2~ and February 3, 1975, ~s submitted~ R~CLA.:3IFICATTON - CONTINUGD 1'UBi.IC HGARING. ROBERT M. CROS~, 469-A Wes[ ~alenci.a Pri.ve, N0. 74•75-22 Fuilerton, Ca, 92632 (Owner); RAY DE CEI~L, Anaheim I,inco ln C~nter, ~ 4941. Orange Avenue, Cypress, Ca. 90630 (Agent); requesting that properr.y described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cona.iat- i.ng of appruxiieately 1.7 acres locatzd at the southeast corner of Lincoln A•~en~.e and G£i~i Street, having approximate frontagas of 35a feet on Che south side of Lincola Aveniie an~i 210 feet on the east aide of Gain Street be reclassified from tne CL (COrII~iERCtAL., L:MT'1'c,b) AND CO (COhII~43RCIAL, OFFIC~; AND YROr~SSIONAL) ZONES to the CL (COM~ffRCIAL, LIMI'~ED) LON3. Sub~ect petition w~s continued from the mseting of February 3, 1975~ far rev3sed plr~». No on~ indicated their preaence in opposition to sub~ect pttition. A2though the Stnff Report to the I'lanning Coaauiasion dated F~bruary 19, 1975, w..?s nut r.ead at the pub.lic hearing, it is refprrF~ ~ ~ au i made a part of t'ie miiiutes. Mr. Roy De Ce11, the a;en•_ for the property ~wnea, xppeared before the Planning Commis~ion and stated the revise~! ;~ians indicated a 10-foot l<.ndscaped buffer ~trip abutting thN adjacent re;3identLal zone~ THE PU$LIC NEARING WAS ~LOSED. The Planniug Couunisaion entered intu diacusaion regarding the proposal to have deliver.ies made to the back of the stores ad~acent to the single-family reaidenCial zone, during which Commi~sioner Morley noted that said deliveriea should be made, as proposed in tiie rear, for cuatomer conveaience, etc., air.ce a minimal noise factor would be involved with the deliveries probably bel.ng made by the Uuited Parcel ~ype truck, and Commissioner Tol~~r noted that deliveries via large trucke would be restr.icted by the size of ehe delivery access snd the nature of Che buatnesaes, since he did not feel that there was a busineae putential at the sub~ect location for very large atores. In reepunae to questioning by the Flannin~ Cotamiesion, tSr. De Cell atated the smeller tenants would be a~ewelry store, an ice cream parlos~ a floriet, ete.; that he did not. have any particular Cenant5 lined up for the larger etor~~~; and that he wae not too surey nt preaent~ whether there would actually b.~ a r~ataurant oz not. 75-83 ~ ~ ~ MINUTI:S~ CI'rY PLANNSNC COh4115SI0N, Fobrur~ry 19~ 1975 7S-8G RGt;1.ASSINL::AT10N N0. 74-75-22 (Cnnt~nu~d) Chalrman ll~rbet not~d th~t ha had eamc r.eservatlnn ragnrding eha eiz~z uf' the trucke that would l~e mxking deliver.too ko the eub~c~ct commQrcinl developm~~nt and that any heavy trucke would tnake a grent denl of dleCurbing nolse to the ad,~acent aingle-furoily prapertte~. In rQaponse to questioi~i.ng by Chwirmnn HerbeC, Mr. lle Cail etated the free-eCnnding aign at the Eront of thc pcoposed commercial center would meet tlic ditP davel~pment c+tandards of the C-1 7.on~~ nnd Chnt eaid elgn had been diecu~s~d with tho 7.oning DiviAlon. Commi.~r~loner Tulnr c>Cfered n mation, seconded by Cort~a-1Aeioner King and MO'PION CA.itRTF•D. ChaC the P lnnnlug Commisalon recommendA to Che Gity Council khat the aub~ocC pro~ecC bA exempt from ti~e requirement to prepare an T:nviranmental Impact Report, pureuAnt to rhe provieions oE tt~e (:c-1•lforniu Fnvironmentml Qual.ity Act. CommisAioner Tol.ar. uf.[ered ReNOlu tion No. PC75-32 and aioved £or ite pbssage and udoption r.hat the P lenning Commiaeion recommends to the City Cauncil nppruval of Petition for Reclaasificution No. 74-75-22, aub~ect to conditions and provided that the minimum number of parking spuce~ for thc~ pro,~used gx'oss floor areu ehnll be provided in accordance with Code requi.rementK for gerier.al ret ail stores and aervice huainesaes; and that u finding ie hereby made that ulthough the Planning Conunlaeion snd Clty Council policy iA to require a 20-foot wi~e landecaped buffer etrip for commercial development abuttinSanted~dueito the zo~~es, a lU-foot wide 1c~ndacAped buffer strips as proposed, i, hereby q h+~rdship cre.ated by the size u~id shape of the subjecl• property, and ainre deliveri,ec~ would be limited to smuller and leys no iey trucke CllIItl diesel-type trucke. (See Reaolution Rook) On rol~ ca11, tite furegoi.ng x'eeolution was paesed by the following vote: AygS; COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, ~(ORLEY, TOLAR, LiERBST NOES: COt~i1SSI0NERS: NONE N1S~NT: COI~II5SIONL:RS: NONE G~NGRAL Y LAN AMENDN.ENT - CUNTINU~D PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TH.~. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC to conaider 92805 C N0. 138 ; a. COI~tISSION, ?.04 Gast Li.ncoln AvPnue, Anaheim, e area generally o t t i ~ : . ng t nmending the Anaheim General Plan relat locat~d between Romneya Drive, State College ~io~alavard, La Palma Avenue and Acacia Street. Er~ •.~,IFNTAI, Il~'ACT ~ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GEORGE J. HELTZER COMPANYAL7~NGINF.ERING 90038 (Owner); C NO. 14i. `-'~` '- a. La Brea Avenue, Loa Angeles, P. 0. Box 3668, annhei~-, Ca. 92803 (Ag~'~-t). Propert;~ l'pMpAPTY ATION ^ , descri.b ed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of . kc.~ . ~0. ,4-i5-23 approximately 33 acres located Uetween Romneya Drive und La P~lma south side h e Avenue, having approximate frontagea of 562 feet on t VARIANCE N0. 26i~ of Romneya Grive and 1435 feet on the n~rth si.de of La Palma roximately 1320 feet and th of a d pp ep Avenue, having a maximum being located approxi.mately 483 feet wPSC of tt~e centerline of St$te College Boulevard. Prnperty presentt.y classified RS-A-43,060 (RESxDENTIAI./AGRICllLTURAL) ZONE. REQU~STED CLASSIFICATION: RM-4000 (RGSIDENTIA:.,, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE ftLQU~STED VAKIANCE: WAIVER UF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A 252-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DFVELOPMENT ENVInONMENTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED PURLIC FIEARING. GEORGE J. HELTZER COMI'ANY, 740 North INC., 3922 XACO 9Q~38 AND TF C R~PORT NC. 1G2 , . a. La Br ea Avenue, Los Angelea, Ca. 92660 (Owmera); AN~.:A.L ENGINEER- ort Beach N TION , ewp Cum~us Drive~ P. 0. Box 3668, Anaheim~ Ca. Q2803 (Agent); requesting that ING RECLASb 1FICA 74-75-24 0 , property deecr.ibed as: An irregularly-ahaped parcel of land . N " consi sting of approximately 7 acres located north and west of the nortYiwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State Cullege Boulevard, having approximate frontages of 2G5 feet on the north side of La p a lma Avenue and 783 feet on the west side of State College / 00 (kGSIAENTInI . Boulevl~~-~ b~~ reclassified from the RS-A-4'3,0 ACRICUL'3'• ~AI.) ZONC to the CL (CO2rIIY[ERCIAL. LIMITED) ZONE. Subject p~[itfona were contin ued from Che me.~ting of February 3, 1975, in order for Staff need for f th to seek clarificution e frnm '•• Ctr,y Co~incil ti~ertaining Co their opinions ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MLNU'P1,5~ CI'fY "I.ANNrNC CUMMISSION, FRbru~ry 19, 1975 /5-85 C;RNT:RAL PL,AN AMENUMEN'I' NU. 138; IsNVTRONMk:NTAL I.MPACT R1;PORT N0. lkl, Rf;CLASSIFI(:ATYON N0. ~4••75-23~ VARIANCI? NU, Z670; AND liNVi.RONNIsNTAL IMPACT RGPUR'P ~0. I.~~2~ RECI.ASSxF1GATI0N Nc?. 74-75-24 Continucd _ ~,~,...__^ _._~ __...___ _._~.. - uncl economic: fenelbility of expniie-lon af the Edieon Park sile nnd thc axteneion 4f eaxter Strr.et~ ko Rer.ve na gul.deliiiea for the Planning Commi.seioa's conaiderntion in their determination of upproprinte l.and uKe designgtion f.or. the sub~c~et Cenerul Plc-n Miendmunt, etc~ Associate I'lanner Bill Young prosenCed the Staff R~porl to thc Planning C01~11A~HH~011 date~ Februury 19, 1~75~ c~nd s:~id Stnff Report ie referred to and made a part of tl~e minutea. Mr. Y'oung noted thnt Mz. John Cullier~ Director of rhe Parke und Recrc:ntian Department~ had fippeared Uef~re the City Council At their meeting on February ll.~ 1.975, to obtain the information requeated by the Planning Comm:lseion regnrdi.ng the acqui.eition of addi~ tional 1~nJ Eor the expnnaion of Gdieon Yurk und also regat•ding the need for the extensi~n of iinxCer SCreet beCween Romneya Drive und La Palma Avenue as A LOCIIL colJ.ect~~r street, nnd the City Council expreAaed their opinion char. acquiaitlon of ndditi.onsl. land for the expaneion ~f l;dison Parlc wms etill economicall,y infeasible and lhut the original ctecieion by the Coun~il not to acquire addi.tional land tnr the p3rk expaneion when tl~e property was declared aurplus b~ the Anuheim School DieCrict was partly predLcc~ted on their Aseumpti.on tliat residcntiuZ development of the proper.ty would moet probubly be l.n some form of condo^ minium or Cownhouse clevelopment which would provide it~ own sy~tem of privr~te recrear.ionnl- ].eisure open space ar.eas esnd~ thereby, nat place signl!:icantly greuCer demande un tlie pub.lic open space in thc~ areu; and lhut the City Council was URAR~riIUUfl in thei.r opinion that BAxter Street ahould be exten~.ied beCween Romneya Dri.ve and La Palmfi Avenue ae a dedicated public atreeL•. *1r. Young then displ.ayed six alt:ernative exhibitn (Exhibits "A" through "F"), and noted tha~ ~xhibit "C" relAted to the nppli.cant's propoc~ul to have a 7-acre commercinl parcel on SCate College Boulevard nnd the remalnder to be r.esidential; and thaC Exhlbit "D" was the sam~ ~a rxhibit "C" with the exception of tfie sytnbo.l.ogy for ~ ~ommunity park si.te. Mr. Cal Queyrel of Anacal Engineering~ represeiiY.ing the developer of the sub;Ject pruperty, appeared bef~re the 1'lanning Cownissi~n and atated that in addition to the General tlan Amendment on Che suUject property, they had submitted separate applications for the resi- dential and commercia]. lpnd use on l•he property; that~ in his opinion, the requested variance of the maximum huilding i~eight was technical in natur.e since they intended to hold to the 150-Loot diatance for two-story development, except adjacent to the RS-A- 43,000 zoned propert~.y for which they were requesting ~ome l~titude; that they would maintaiu a 20-foot building setback on La Palma Avenue, ho~aever, they were requesting encroEChment for 8 parking stalls within said setback; that since the 20-foot aetback would be landscaped, they felt the request to encroach was ~ustifiable; that regarding Bnxtez Street, they did nut fee.l there was a need for the 6-foot wall along the park boundaries if the SCY'E'.°_?' JS9 to be a public right-of-way; that the proposed density was we11 within the 10 t~ '~~nits per acre for the proposed residential portion of L-he prop- erty, as suggested in :.~~e. letter dated *1ar.ch 26, 1974, from the Planning Division; and that development of ~ome a~artments could be justified on Che basis that thc prvp~:rty abuts that type of development to t}ie east, north and northeast. Mrs. A~a Sharples, Pre~ident of the ~dison Elementary School P.T.A.~ appeared before the P].anntng Commission in opposition and indicated concern for the safety of the existing park; Chat there were ~.~venile d{=.turbauces since the apartments were constructed in the area; that when cli••~'~bances occ.urred, the Police Departm~nt had to go to the school for the key to enter •~.rk and by ttiat time ~he truublemakers were no longer to be f~und; and that it was ,~~:ive to the neighborhood that Baxter Street be oper~ed up as a public street through the ::unject property. THE PUBLIC HEAkINGS WEKE CLOSED. The Planning Commi~ssion commented regardtng tl~e drainage of the sub~ect area, thu~ the density allowed would depend upon the dreinage aituation; and that ahotographe had been taken of the area during December which showed the severe drainage ~~ blem in the :irea. Mr. QtieyreL stated that generally the conditiun imposed fo: drainage ~aas to be "as sati~- factory to the City Engineer" and not apecifically determined by the Flanning Commisaion; and that they d:id n.ot have a drainege plan ready to be considered. ~ ~ ~ MINUTI:S ~ CITY FI.ANNING COtMit55I0N, F~bruary 19, 1975 75••86 CL~NGRAL PLAN AMENDMGN'f N0. 138; ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPOlt1' N0. 141., RF.CI.AgSIFICA'f10N N0, 74-7~>-23, VARIMI(:6 NU. 2670; AND FN'JIRONMBNTAL iMi'ACT REPORT N0, 142, R~CLASuII~ICATION N0. 74-75-24. ConCinuc~d _~_____. __..~._ ------- --- C<~mmidaioner Ta'nr note.d Chat Che developer wae prupoaing medium deneity nnd tlu+t t:he resolution of int~nt wae to low deneity, And the proposal wauld probably m~ke. a much tieuvier drainage probl.em und not juet n Elood coi~tr.ul proUl~m; howevex~ he w~a not againat the propoped dPneity~ ns auch~ Mr. Queyrcl then Atated that they t~nd diecuHeed tl~e drainage with the Engineer.ing Divieiun; tt~nf they w~re propceing thfiC nppraximntely S0~ of the praperty woul.d be l.andRCaped; and In a eing.le-family residentiAl ~evelopment thcre would be more oidewalka, rooftops, bnck- top~ Qtc.~ ~-nd the proposal would have Less. Commissioner laruno tcok ex~.eption to Mr. Queyrel'e commente r~garding gr.ound coverage and Mr. Queyral furtlier atr~l•ed that. the differ~nce betwean eingle-family and RM-400U develop- ment was minor Ae far as water runoff w~~e concerned~ rind Chat he did not feel a determina- tion shoula he mr-de regr~rding drain+~ge ut rhie t~me. Chairman Herbst an~l Camrniasioner ToJar noked that it would be difficult for them to vate on a proposal If ~n flgr.eement was noe r.eaci~ed on tlie dr.ainage c~nc.urrently; thaC tlie drai.n- age should not be prc~vided at the tar.payere' er.penae, esper_ially einr.e the propoaed devel- opment would causE~ much ~ldditional flooding of the a~reets in the area. Mr. Queyrel atated they cuuld work with the City Engineer regardlnF, tt-e draluage and thae it was unuaual for r.hc Planning Commission to request an agreement sub~ect to the zoning. In response to questioning by Commisai.oner Farano~ Office Engineer Jay Titus adviaed thaC any dev~lopment of the sub~ect property would create additional drainage problems; *_1~d~ with higher density there would b~e greater ground coverage nnd, consequnntly, greater wa~er runuff; and that ~ aoluCion to the drainage was imperative. Commiseioner rarano then noted that he was not enthueiastic about any of the exhibits propoaed ~inder General I'le-n Amendment No. 138, although he would vote for ~xhibit "A" if the dra'*+age problem was r.pgo]ved by agreement by the developer. In response to further comment by Caimnissioner Farano regarding Che proposed denyiCy on the subject property, Mt. Queyrel. stated the proposed zoning was ~uati£i.ed on the basis oI reasonin~ rather than common sense, since there was commercial. deve.lopment just east of the propused commerclal and apartments to the west, and any combination of zoning would seem rpa~onabie; therefore, the propoaed zoning pla^P^~°.it between apar.tments and coumiercia.l was good planning. ?'hereupon, Chalrman Nerbst nuted that in place of the co~nmercial, aparr.ments might be ~:easonable also, and that the devel.oper had taken the very highest zoning talked about in the Letter dated ~~arch 26, 1974, from the Planning Division. Mr. Queyrel Chen stated that the p:opused denait;~ was considerably less than the density suggested by the Zoning Division; th3t they wa:re proposing 8 dwelling u~nits per gr.oss acre, or 9 dwelling ~ini.ts per net ac':e, and that the allowable density would be juat under 11 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Tolar ~oted that alChough he did not necessarily agree tliat i.t would be bad plattning for RM-400U deve?opment, he could nc+t come to any conclusiou until the drainage proble.a wAS taken care of. Yle further nuted that therE,was 30~ absenteeiam in the SCI.10019 during the rainy season. In response to queationing by Mr. Que~+rel, Mr. TiCu~ adviaed that the condition regarding drainage, ae aet forth in the Staff Report, was ve:y general 3nd the Engineering Division had propoaed that the developer install the storm drain to Acacia Street on La Palma Avenue and then t}is City wotild install ttie atorm drain from Acacia Street to East Street; that thua far the develop~r had not agreed to the City's proposal, however, if the Plan- ning Cotmnission felt that the Engineering Diviaion's proposal was acceptable, then Chat could be nn appropriate condition for the development of the property. Tl~ereupnn~ Mr. Queyrel s:ated the developer had a tentative arrangement to build a etorm drain to the extensi~n of Baxter Street with secondary on-site 3rainage to pick up the commercial drainage and that arrangement might be acceptable *.o the City Engineer. Commissioner Farano then noted that the drainage aituation was not resolved as of this date; however, if. it was resolved the Planning Commisaion could act on the tYiree petitione for the develupment of the property at this meeting. Chairman Herbat noted that he lived in the aub~ect area and kn.ew that the minute blacktop and hot~ses were put in, the sub~ect ac.reage wauld create more problems than any other parcel in town~ and therefore the drainnge proposal did not make sense. ~ • O M1NU1'[;S~ C1.'CY E"I,ANNiNC :'OMMISSIUN~ rebruery 19~ 1975 75-87 CLNI;RAI, PI.AN AMENI)MF:NT NO 13H; I:NVIRONMI:NTAI~ IMPACT RKPOR'T N0. 141, RI:CI.ASSIFICATION Nb, 74-75-2;i~ VARI~1NCIs N4. 2(i70; ~1NA 1?.NVTRONMGN'TAL IMPACT K[:YOR'f N0. 142~ RE(;LASSIFTCA'fIUN N0~74;l5-24 . Cunc1_nued~.~.___~,___._._..»_.._.._._____.._____.r _ __.~_ .r____. Mr. ~U(-'yCC'L Ktnted Chere was iio dis~agr~emcnt on anyone'R parC na to the drainag~ condiCiun thac prasently e.r.ieted in tl~e sub~~ct aren, and thcrc Nhould have been u drninage ~ietrict formod yexre a~o eao thwt cnae developer would not hnve th~ entire burden Eor it, wherflupon, Chairmnn Ncr.bet notced Chat the gc~ncr.ixl plaa f<~r the aree had itiicluded u echool Hlte £or lhc eub~ect propurty wirh ~ lok of open ypnc~; and t.hnt the devc~loper hud purchused the pruperGy wlthout p~rh~pe checking lnto LC eie nuch eis he Ahould hnve. Mr. Queyrel th~n etuteJ thr~t Mr. Heltz~r lixd :heckc~d out the sicP thoroughl.y And hnd only the opinion of the Plunntng Division to go by; ancl that it cae~~med pru:ticnl that the propuaed uses of the l~nd wcnjld l,t~ accepC~ble~ includ;ng the densit:~ and haaed on the adJoining use~ uf the propeet'y. Commiae~ioner Morl~y uoted Chs~t he .~greed ,~ith the propoaed denaity~ however, he was cun- r..erned for rhe wuter runnff pr.::~lem thnt wou.l.d be created f.rom the development. Comml.es~l.oner 7'olar noted thac lie wns ve-~~ emph~tic xb~ut the draiiiage problem; that the $27.~~,UOQ E!9C.LI11ACt(~ by the developer to i.uC in the approprlat•e drainnge would be leas than $.1,G~~U r~dditional cost per unit and he would find it ht~rd to believc~ Chat that coat would nc}t b~~ ~899~(S ~n to the purchaser» Lf the .tnatall.utian would impr.ove Che quallty of the r~rea; and rh:.t he did not th.lnk the clev~aloper wuul.d take the $226,U00 out of hia own pocicet. Aselet.t-~t City Englneer Wi.llir~m llevi. ndvised the Plnnni.ng Comtnission tha[ the l:ngineer- ~.tig UiviN~ion clid ti3ve u discus~iun wf.lt~ hlr. Queyzel LAAC week a~id ~l~d ~<i~ecifically nsk him if khere were ~r~ plans for on-~ite ~rainng~; th~t Mr. Queyrel had indlcated the.re ~oere no plana for on--site drainUge dnd it wa:3 ~ro~osed to take thc~ drainag~. ~nd atreet flow to Ln Palma Ave.nue; rhat wit~~ no plans for dralnage it would be the L'ngi.neering Division's position ar this ti:ne th~C the dev~lope~ st~ould be required to buil.d the drain from State ~~ollege Boulevurd tc~ AC1C~Q Street, howtver, if ttie~ developed plans to handle drainage to L~:t Palma Avenue an~? ko some po ~ nt westerJ.y of St+~te Coll.ege Boulevard, sumething could probctbiy be aur;.ed out; and that there had been no pl.nn:~, evidence or i.ndicatiot~ that the developer war.ted to work anyehin~ out with the City for the drain~ge. Commiseioner Morl~y questloned whether t}ie druinage could be handled properly in the manner Mr. Queyrel wus suggescing with on-~siCp drainage from the commercial development to Baxtex Street, and Mr. Devitt advi~ed Lhat plans would l~ave Co be submitted and the matter would t-ave to g~ before ttie C'ty Co~:cil; that Che developer had pcepared a cost estimate of $226,Q00 from SCata Co'llege Boulevard to Ac~ci3 S~reeC, however, the Cit; developed a cost estlmate for t:he drainug~ of the entire properCy which was to drain to rast SCreet; that in diacussions with the Floori ~oritrol Distric:ts [hey hac' estimated the draina„e to coat approximat.ely Y990,000. Mr. Devitr contintied by noting Chat each year the City submltted a list of thrae priority drlinage projects to rhe Orange County Flood Control Diatricl• r.o be constrc.ctGd +_n coordination wi.th the C2ty; that atorm drains were installed in SLate Co11E~ge Boul.evar.d betweeu South Street and llndei'tiill Avenue at SO% af the cost; that no drainage facilitias wer.e i.n State College Boulevarri north of Undertiill Avenue; that the City's lasC subm~ttal to tti~: Orange Ccunty Flond Contr~l District was for La Palma Avenue irom che l~aymorid Re*_arding Basin L•o Acacia Street; that the City generally was granted one pr~ject wiCh Orange Cou^ty F1ood Contr.ol lliscrict participation each year and each peoject Cook approximatel~ three yeara to bring it to the construcCion atage, h~wever, nume Frc~jects cuuld r.ake longer than three years for construction to begin; and thak if the de.vel.oper wxs to construct Che drainage to Acacia Street, for obvlous reasons [ht City woul.d mrike Lts completion to the Raymond Ketarding Besin a priority. CommissLoner Cau~r noted r.ha~ t}ie Planning Commiseion did nut nee~' Co act as engineers; that he did not helieve ~~1 the .irainage coets could be saddled on the developer although he was not interested ir, helpin~t deve?opers a11 tihe tim~; thAt there was a need for Baxter Street to be a r.iarough put.lic streeL and the developer had to dedicate for that; that ttie (:ity received aasist~nce fror~i the Orange County Fload Control Diatrict for its drainage pio;jecCS and, rherefure, in his opinion perhaps the eu>>~ect storm drain ahould be 50-50 witn the developer huving Co pay only one-half; that l•he property was design-~ted ss a high school site und a park, e~nd now the developer was trying to develop it residential; that he believed in trytng to get Lt~e beRt dezl, but as fnr as Che engineering was concerned, it wus up to tt~e City Engineer to ~vork th:~s~ ~ietails ouC; and that the drainage should be to the City Engineer's satisfackion. ~ ~ ~ MLNl1TI~.S ~ CITY PI.ANNINC C01~1IS5ION, Fc~bruary 19. 1975 7S-SB CEN~RAL YLAN AMI:NQMF:NT N0. 1:38; ~NVIRONMEN'PAL INII'ACT REPORT N0. 141, R~CI.ASSIFICATION N0, 74-75-23. VARIAN(:E N0. 2670; ANn ENVIRONMGNTAI, IMl'ACT RFPORT N0. 142, RECI.A3SIrICATIOt: NQ. 74-75-24 ~ntlnued _,_ - ~ ..~. . - Commiesionar 'Tolr~r not~d thc-t it was questionable. whether Che developar w~uld pay 50-50 witl~ thc City if tiie total coet w,is $990,OQ0~ and Ctiairman Herbet n~ted Chat he did noc. want to see the pr.operty devel~ped r~t the taxpnyere' Qxpenae; and that the d~veloper would be mak.l.ng the pc'of:lt. fram the development. Chnirman l~erbst then questioned what would happc+n lf Che C1ty wae unable to inet~l.l the b~lance of the et~rm drai.nage fram Acncin Struet und Mr. Uevikt advised that the City would have a legal end moral obligation to complete the installukian to ChQ poi~it of di.spoenl; and thut. in thio r~rtic~lar case~ it wa~ quiCe nbv:ous tliat the iidditi~nal imp~eition of runoff onto La Pulms Avenue cren.l•ed a problam witli backup into the arene that wexe already f.looded. Mx. Devitt further no[ed for information khat for many yQare the City had indicated to the voter.s in the bond ieaues that ct~~~ r~torm drains wou].~ be conHtructed in La Palma to the retarding bxain. in response ~~~ 1:urch~r questioning by ^•hairman HerUat, Mr. Devitt advised Chat if the aCorm draine were i~iyCaLled to Acacia SCreet, any pr.ocrAatinaCion to complete it to the r~tnrd- ing basin would create u problem to auch An exrent that the CiCy would have Lo find aome menna to complete r_he drainage system or the Clty would have deftnite liabilitiea. Mr. Queyrel stuted that drainage was preeently fr.om the eaet and thc~t they hud diacudsed bringjng the drainuge to the vicinity of Ilaxter Street nnd picki.ng up on-site and dumping it into the drain at some point on La Pa1ma Avenue. The Planning Couunisaion clarified that tlie developer's proposal was not to bring the drainage to Acacia Streek but to Bc-xter. Street. Mr. llevitt noted that it was itir~icaCed at the meel•ing that the N;ngin=ering Diviaion had with Mr. Queyrel earlier that if the developer had local area drai.nage p.l~+na and a etorm drain could be bro~igt-~ out on La Palma Avanue, approval would depend on what the local drainage plana were. Theceupon, Mr. Que~rel stated thaC baged on the previous meeting with Engineering, there appeared to be r.o problem and the drainage would be provided in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. Chai.rman HerbsC then noted that he did not 11ke to yee the problem of. draina~e for this entire pro~er.t dumped on the baclc of che City r~u~r~.neer s~nd, furthermore, the Planning Commission would like to know that the drainage woiild be satisfactory. Mr. Queyrel then stated thxt if the properCy was not developed at all, a storm drain would still be required, and Mr. Tolar noted thaC Che proposed deve~.opment c~mpounded thc protlem. Mr. Queyrel stated that since the aituation was critical, then it ahould be possible Co condition tl~e proposal "that the drainage h~ in confurmance with the City's Master Ylan of Drainage and installed fr~m Ar_acia Street to a point east along La Palma Avenue satis- factory to the City Engineer." Mr, Devitt then noted that the City would have ro take the drainage from the point compleCed at Acacia Screet, and auch a conditton would be acceptable if there was an underatanding thaC the required drainage by the developer could be tied to approval of. the petition for reclass•ificarion of the property. Commisaioner Tolar r...ted that hE was in favor o£ the proposed RM-4000 development, since it would create lower cost housing and was a good use down from the existing apartment develupment. and t~ere was a need for the developme-~t. He further noted that there was no question that Baxter Street had ro be dedicated. Chairman Herbst added that Ba~cter Street should be dedicaCed at the dev~]oper's expense since every developer had put in public streetA as a responsibility. Cotumisaioner Gauer noted that he waa not in favnr of the developer altogether, however, Che County had the developers in a di].emma al.l the time; that Chere was a lot of drainage that did nut relate to this pro~erty at all; however, he agreed with the proposal for RM- 4000 development. CommiRSi.oner King added that he alse was in favor of the proposed RM-4000 develapment. In reaponae to qtiestianing by Commisaioner Farano, Mr. Queyrel atated the price range for the RM-4000 development would be from $40,0~0 to $47,000. ~ u MINUT'r:3, CITY P1,ANNING C01~4~tISSION~ Fabrupry 19, 1975 ~ ~ 75°89 C~NERA1. PI.AN AMENDMENT N~. 138; I:NVIRONMENTAI. IDiPACT RCI'UKT NU, 141~ P.ECi.ASSIFtCAT10N NU~ ~4-75-2:~, VAftIANCE N0. 2610; MIll ENViRONMCNTAL TMPACT REPOC:f N0. 142~ RisCLASSIFICATION N0~74~75-2G ~Continuad _ ~,_______._________.__ ---- Cl~uirman tier.Uet noted that the propoeal wae for two~ three und four-bedroom condominiums and he we~e queet.laning iche number of children thnt would be generated, notiiig Chat Mr. Queyrel had indicul•ed th~lt the propoBUl would noC huve ae much lmpact un schoole ae un R5- 7200 developmant; and, thereupon, Mr. Quoyrel etated that the two zonae were about the same or Che RM-4000 would hEVe elightly l.eae childr.en. , Mr. Queyrel etnCed lie rQCently attended a eeminar at tlic Quality I~tn co~iccrr-ing low-coet tiauaing and the government: repreaenCative indicated he did not aae how Anaheim could hava any low-coc~t houeing. He than ntated that the p~ropoenl wad ln conformance with ~xtiihit "C" of the Gen a1 Plttn Amendment No. 138. , Mr. Ai11 Rc~inhnrdt~ Preaident of Newport Bench Aevalopment Corporation, uppeared before Che Planning Commis~ion nnd etated his firm ~peaial•lzed in development• of aliopping centera; that when they first found out about the aub~ect property, it was u echool site being sold at ~uction; that lhey had irivestigated th~: posai.blp usea af: the property with the City und had the Zoning Divisian'e letter dHted l~rch 26, 1974, in which it wa~ indicated thak the Sl'ate Cullege Boulevurd frontage wua suitnble ae a commercial si.t.e; that they did maYket researcl~ atudies and fo~end a very severe need 1'or a good ahopping center nt the aub~ect loc~tion since there were run-down shopping centers in the area; that the Newport BeACh Development C~rporution constructed, held and managed tiieir shopping centera nnd, there- fore, were mor.e concerned Chan the typical developer; that approximately 95~000 ~quare. feet of gross floor urea w~s proposed, which would conform to th~ Ciky of Anahe~lm develop- ment ~tandar.ds, with the pxception th~t they were requesCing aome consideration for the landscaping through a v~riance; that they had aounded out their prospective tenants and f.ound that several mnrketa and yzvings and loanr~ were not represer-ted in Anaheim but wexe going elsewhere and, therefore, the City was looin~ sales tax revenue; that follawing diacussions with City SCaff, the Corporation cau-e up wiCh the prapoaed Vi.ntage Squnre mnd the rendering being ahown wae something they were proud of; t~-at the prupusal would prob- ably be the nicest shopping center t'~at would ever be in the City of l,naheim; tt~at the detai.l shown in their plans was to show what. they did with a developnent to provide niceties; that the reaY of [he shopping center would also have u good appearance; r.hat regardtng landscnping, Chey t-ad tripled the requirement; and that they had a aigned lease with AlUertsons Merket and letters of intent from the other cat:egori.es mentioned at the Last meeting, with 95% of the floor space bpin~ spoken for by AAA tennnts. Chairman Herbst noCed that the bank which wns referred t~ at the last P].anning Commin~ion meeting by Mr. Reinhardt had turned down the aub~ect loca~ion due to lack of sufficient people in the area to s~ipport the bank, and this concerned him. :Ir. keinttiardt then read a letter from Security 'PaciEic National Bank dated February 10, 1975, said letter decli.ning the L--itial intere~t of the bank to locate on the sub~ec.t property on the basi? *_ha.t although they felt thi.s was a good potential site, their charter was for State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue and, therefore, they woul~.i have ~u pursue Chat area. Mr. Reinhardr then Btated Chey had a letter of intent from another 1ar.ge battk for the site, which he would make availabla to Che Planning Commisaion, if. desired. Ct~airman Herbst noted that Mr. Grant had spoken in favor of the proposal at the last Planning Commission meeting on the basis Chat a banlc woulci be located on l-he site. Mr. Reinhardt then stated that a letCer from Albertsons i.ldicated their interest was based on research in the area. Thereupon, Mr. Queyrel requested approval oi precise plana for the proposed commercial eite. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC,'S~33 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommen~ to the City Council that General Flan Amen~ment No. 13f3 be approved in accord-- ance with Exhib~t "C", indicating a commercial portion along the Stat2. College Boulevard fronCage ard the remainder of the property to be low-medium density residential. (See ltesolucion Book) Commisr~ioner Gauer not~d that he was in favor of the residential. and c~mmercial develop- ment, as propoaed, howet~er., Ba.xt^t Street should be constru ted as a ~hrough public atreet by the developer and ttie drainage ahould be taken care of as diacusaed. • ~ ~ MINUTLS, CITY P1.ANNING COMMI.SSION, F~brursry l9, 1975 ~~-~~ (;f~I~i~ItAl. PI.AN AMENDMENT N0, 138; ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPi~C'f REi'ORT N0. 141, 1t~C1~15SIF'1CATION N0. 74-75-23~ VARIANC~ NU. 2670; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RI:I'URT N0. 142, KFCL,ASSIFICA'1'I.ON NO 74-75-24 SConti.nued) ~.~.._,_,~_ _._._ . 1n responae to questioning by Chairman tlerbet~ Mr. TituN Adviaed thnk Che Hnxt~r Street improvemenke and tr.affic xignal inetn.il~ti~~nd at Baxtar SL•raat and Lu Palmn Avi~nue would be appropi~lnte r.onJitions for ReclaKeificntion No. 74-75-23 1~ appcoved. Mr. Tltue clnri~ied that Exhibit "C" indicuted Bnxter Street ae a lhrough public etr.eet. neputy City Att~rney F~rank Luwry acided rhut kh~ cirainage for the pro{~erty would be en appropriate condition undcr eaid recluseificntioc-~ if uppxoved~ and ~iot n purt of the GenerAl Plan Amendment. Chairman Nutbat •aoted that he would euAEest thnt tlie Plunning Commiseion r.ecommend to the City Council that pxior to finnl conaideration ot thc propoeal by the Cily Counci.l that tlie City Council coneider wf~ether it was desirable for the petitloner to dedicate +~creage for park purpueea rathc~r than pay perk i.n-lieu fees, and that the Purks and Recreati~n DeparCment be requested to prepmY'e a report thereon for Clty Council con~iderati~n of the mat[er; und that in the City Council's coneideration, the public would be al~le to provide input. 'Phereupon, Comunission~r. Gauer n~ted that this matter I-ad been bi'ought up at a Purks end Recreation Commiaeion meeting and there appeared ro be no way UY which the City could increase Che park eite area. Chairman Herbst then ref.erred to tl~e park lanci made available to the City in the Anaheim Shores developmenk. Commissioner Tolar made an obaervAtion that based on the prir_e per acre of appro:cimaCely $87,U00, Che in-lieu fees could not purctiase an acre of the land. Chairman Herbst thEn suggested that the PlanninR Commiaeion ahould leave an opening so that the people in the area could go before the City L'ouncil to expresa them~e].vea regard- ing additional park 1and, tsince thoae people did not have the Apportunity to $o before che City Cuuncil when the park land queation was coneidered on February 18, 1975; and Chat if any land could be added far park purposPS lt would 'nelp the area. Thereupon, the PlanninE Commission generally concurred that Chairman Herbst's sugge~tton be furwarded to the City Council as a recommendati.on in connection with Reclassificurion No. 7G-75-23. Commissior.er Tolar noted ttiat he would be in complete agreement Chat any park in-lieu fees be spenl iii the genPral srea, whether on the echool site or the existing park, for improve- ments; and Mr. Lowry advised that Cowmissioner Tolar's comments were a re-statement of the State law cor~cerning the use of said fees. In response to yuestioning by Commissioner Johnson, Chai.rwan HetbeC noted thaC although he did not aee the need for additior~al commercial development at the sub;Ject location, and there might be a tendency to downgrade existing commer~ial development in the area, the etibject develupment mig}it cauae an upgrading of exi.sting coum~ercial development in spite of the fact that the Security Pacifi.c National Bank had indicated to htm that the:'e were not enough people in tlie area for another bank. Commisaioner Farano entered into discussion with Sta~Tedeghedpropusedadensityewouldigenerar.e for the property, durin~ which he noted Chat it a~i a Cotal popllaCion of approximately 756, as opposed to 720 if developed under RS-7200 and, thei•efore, on that basis he was aot opposed to the proposed density. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution (No. YC75-33) was pussed by the folLowl~ib vote: AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: FAItANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, 1'0'LAR, HERBST NOES : COA4IISSIONERS : NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ~,lmniasioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Com'nissioner Y,ing and MOTION CAItRIED, that En~ironmental Impact Report No. 141 and a Supplement thereto, having been conc~idered this data~ by the City Planning Commisaion and evidence, both written and or.al, having been presented to supplemenC said draft of EIR No. 141, th~ City Ylanning Commission believes *_hat said draft of r,IR No. 141 d~es confurm to the City and State Guidelines and the State of Califoruia Environmental Quality Act and, based up~n such information, doea hereby recommend to the City Council that they certify said EIR is in compliance with said Environ- menCal Quality AcC. ~ ~ MI1VUTlsS, CITY P1.ANNING (:UMMI55YON~ Fabruncy l9, 1975 ~ ~ 75-Q1 GENEltA1, P1.AIJ ~~MF.NDMENT NU. 1J8; [sNVIRONMF.N'TAL IDII'ACT REPORT N0, 1G1. RBCI.ASBIT~TCATIQN N0~ 74-75-23, VARTANCE NU. 2670; ANU I:NVIRUNMEN'fAL IMPACT RrPOR'P N0. 1.42, RF.C'LASSIFICAI'ION N0. 74-75•~24 ~ConCinuod) ____~ ..~._...._ ----------•--- In 1~+Bp0'.1H8 t~ A ruquce~t by tho Plunni.r.g Commie~gian for clarif icAtion of tha additional condit:one regarding thc+ drbinage~ dedicution for atreet iM~rovemente~ etc., Mr. Titus adviRed Chat (:ondition Nu. 1 ne aet forth in the Staff Raport for ReclaeelEication No. 74-75-2~, Nhould h~~ corrQCted to staCe: "Tl~at Che owner(p) of eub~c~ct property ahall. deed t~ Che CiCy af Anaheim a etrip o£ lund 53 feet in widti~ from tho centertine of the street nlong Ln Ynlma Avenue; u strip of lund 32 Eeet in widkh from the centerllne of the Atreet along Romneya Urive; o etrip of land 32 feet in width from the cencerline of the street elong Baxter Street from Romneya Drtve Co the south properCy line of Gdieon Park; and a atrip of lai~d 64 feet iti width from the soutii prup rCy line oE ~dison Park to La Palma Avenue." Mr. Titus further advised r.hxt an additional condiCion ~hould Ue added for Reclasaification No. 74-75-23: "That the petitioner ehall conatruct draiiisge faciliGies in I.a Palma Avenue b°tween State College IIou.levard a[~d Acacia Str~et in accardance with tlue Cit•y of Anaheim's Maeter Plan for Drainage and as approved by the C1ty Gngineer." Mr. Devi-.t noted that it may not be neces~ary to construct the storm drain all the way to State Co?.lege Houlevard, however, that point was undetermined at the present time. Chairman Herl~at notec! that the drainage condition stiould be expanded upon to include the .rorda ".,.and/or a point agrc~ed upon by the ci.zy r~ngineer." Mr. Titus adviK~~f that Conditiun No. 11, as set forth in the SCaff Report und~r Reclasei•- fication No. 7G /5-23, was no longer required; •~n~ that an additional condition should be added; "That the property owner(s) shall inatall traffic aignals at the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Baxter StreeC as approvPd by the City Engineer." In response to questi.oning by Commissioner Tolar, Zoning Supervisot Charlea Roberts not~d Chat it might be appropriate to provide c~oma flexibility with r~apect to the requixed fence along the extension of Baxter Streez and Edison Park, and that he was suggesting the folluwing wording for that condition: "That a aix-foot masonry wall shall be constructed alon~ the west property ltne of the southwesterly portion of the property and along the east property line, and also along the r~orth cind west property lines ad~acent to Iiclison Psrk, if ` determinPd to be neceasary by the Dlrector. uf the Parks and Recre:~tion Department." Mr. Roberts clarified that since the property was being developed sPparately with residen- tial and commercial developments, tt appeared that rhe commercial might be under construc- tion first; however, if the residential development was constructed firat, then the developer would want r.o canstruct the waZl. Mr. Lowry adviged that the developmerit that was conatructed first sh~uld conatruct the wall between said development. Mr. Lowry advised thaC Condition ho. 13, as set furth in the Staff Report for Reclassifi- caCion No. 74-75-23, should be amended to state: "That final specific plans to include a preciae site plan, floor plana and elevati.ona, shall be surmirr.P9 ro the Planning Commission and City Council for approval." Chaitman Herba't queationed the need for the variance from the required 20-foot mini.mum front setbeck~ and Mr. Queyrel stated that 3f the developer could caunt nn thar waiver, [hen they would use it in thsir precise p1anR; and that according to the design, the setback area was a convenient place to put parking spaces. TherPUpon, Chairman Herbat noted that no ~ustification was being presented for a hardship, due Co the oize of the pi~operty. ~ ~ ~ MINU'TCS, C1'PY PI.ANNING CUMMIS5ION, Fabruary 19~ 1975 75-y2 (;rNRItAL P:.AN AMI?NT)MGNT NU. .138; GNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 141, RECLASS[FIGATION N0. 74-7°-23, VARIANCIs N0. 2670; AND F.NVIRdNMFNTAG TMPACT REPORT N0. 142, RGL'LAS3II~ICATION N0. 7k-~75-24 (Contfn~eJ~ ____.____~ .-.- ------ - -~._~~" Commisaioner Morley offered Resolutlon No. t?c75~3~i nnd maved for ite paeeauge~ and adoptlon~ to tecommend to the CiCy Counci~ tliat Petltlon for Reclaeatflcation No. 74-?5-23 be npproved. eubjec[ to the Intr:rdepar.tmenlnl Commtttae recommer~datlons, ~e amended ebove~ and eub,jNCt to the faregoing udditionnl conditlone. (See ReHOlukion Book) On rol.l. cnl.l, el~e foregoin~ rc+soluti:~n wus puesed by Che fol].owing vote: AYES : COhQ1ISSIQNGKS : FARANO, GAUER~ aQ11NSON, KIl3G, MOkLEY ~ TOI.AR ~ HGRBST NOES: COMMISSION~FtS: NONE ADSENT: COMMISSIONFRS: NONC Commiae~ioner Morlc.>.y ~~ffered Resolution No. r~75-35 und moved for iCs paseage Aiid adopti.on. Chnt Petition for. Vuriunce No. 2670 bc und hereby i~ gran~ed, in part, granting wniver of the maximum buildi<<g heighk ad~acer~t to the RS-A-43,000 zaned property on~.y nnd not for the Romneya Str~et side of the property, and denying walver of the minimum f.ront setback on th~ baeis Chal• because of ~he size of the pr.~perty, no hardship cuuld be dem~netrated; and su~jece Co condikfons. (See ResoXution Aook) On roll call, the foregoing resolution we~ passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMIS5IONF.RS: FARANO, cnurK, JOHNSOiV, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOES: COIYQ~tI3SI0NERS: NON~ ABSENT: COhII~1ISS10NERS: NONE Commissioner Morley offered a motion, seconded by Commiesloner King and MOTION CARItIED, thBC EnvironinenCal Imp~ct Rnport No. 142, having been considered this date by the City Planning Commiasion and evide:tce, bath written and oral, presented to supplement eaid draft EIR No. 142, the City Plaiining Commission believes tliat sz.id dreft EIR No. 142 does conform to the City ~nd State Guidelines of the 5tate of Caiifornia ~nvironmental QualiCy Act and, based upon guch tnformation, doea hereby recommend to the City Council that they certify said E'LR t~o. 142 is in c~mpliance with sai.d Environmental Qualit,y Act. The Planning Coma-ission and Staff entered into discuesion witli Mr. Reinhardt regarding the bu£fering proposed to protect the residential development to the west of the commercial. development, during which Mr. Reinhardt stated the proposal wa.s to provide a 20^foot buff~r on the north and west sides of. the com~nercial d velopment, howEVer, the tree acreen was propo3ed to be actually planted on the reaidential property an~j c.oC on the commercial site, and the reason for this was to provide maximum benefit for the residential development. In resp~~nse to questioning by Chai.rmnn Herbst, Mr. Roberta noted that the impact of res•lden- tial property would affect the number of dwelling units that could be conatructed along that h^••`'-"ry and, additionally, that toward the southerly end of. the properCy there would not be a driveway separating the dwellings f~om the commerc~al property and the plan did n~>t reflect a full 20-foot wide strip. Mr. Reinhardt then stated Chat they were proposing to leave 20 feet of space between their bu:ildings and the burfer strip. Chairman Herbat made an observation that the proposal would not meeC the Code r.equirements if the property was sold off, since all the landscaping would be on the residential prop- erty; and ehar ~e would more prefer that at least 10 feet of landacaping be provided on each aide of ttie wall, since a commercial site needed landscaping to add some besuty. In response to commenta hy Mr. Reinhardt, Mr. fcaberra clarified that City SCaff had con- sistently indicated to developer~ that wherever commeicall dreeuirednaS20bfootdwideglund- familp developments, then the Planning Commission typ y 9 acaped buffer strip; that although the Planning Commission had in a very few inetances approved 10 feet, rio iadication was offered by Skaff that the Planning Commisaion would approve any'.hing less than 20 feet ad1acent to the proposed RM•-4000 devel~pment. Mr. Reinhardt then stated that becttuse of the elongated site along State Collep,e 9oulevacd~ they had a hardAhip in p:oviding the required buffer in urder to take c-dvantage nf the frontage. Mr. Reinhardt further atated their proposal had many advantageb, being they were proposing no air-conditioning on the roof~ that the mansard would extend around the entire roof atructure, that their tenants on I,a Paltna Avenue needeu as mLCh frontage ae poasibl~ eince their buginess would be com~Lng from thaC direction, and that tt~e landscaping for the fronC.age was t~ipled and they had thought their proposal far the rear of the buildingr~ was the right approach gince thoy did have somewhat of a hardahi.p• ~ ~ ~ MINUTL3~ CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 19, 1975 75-93 CEN?RAL PLAN AMENDMEN'I' N0. 138; ENVIRONMGNTAT. TMPACT REPORT N0. ].41. RF.CI.ASSIFICATION N0. 74-'15-23~ VARIANCC N0. 2610; AND FNVIRONMI:NTAL IMPACT REPOItT N0. 1~i2, RECLAS3ZPICATION N0. 74-75-2~i Continued _ ,____..._ Chairman Horbet nnted that the praposal for buffering of the residen~ixl developmenC wex uneatieFactary and Mr. Queyrc+l utated hie opiniUn that the intent of the 20-fooc l~t-d- ocnped buffer strip was for single-family rasi.dRntial detielapment thak w~ne in pla~ce anJ not propoeQd, nnd that presentl.y the ad~dcent praparty wae vdcunt., whereupon~ Chair.mnn HQrbst noted that lf the proposed rPSidentJ.nl daveloptnent was for apartmente he mlght be inclinc+d ro go along with a 10-foat buffaring atrip~ however~ in his apinion the condo- miniume were no differenk from sinqlo-faroily homee ae tar as ownerehl.p wae c~ncarned eince the people could noC ~uet muve out if they had bufferi.ng problems, e~tc., especially eince there would probably b~ d1e~e1-Cype trucks maki.ns t.-e del.iverlae to ehc~ rear af the coauner- r.ial bui.ldinga, Mr. Reinhardt responded to further ~omment by Chairman Herbat by etating ttiak it ReemQd ludicroue to p~~r in all ttie required I~ndscaping nd~acent to the exieting development Co thE~ north. ~ince snld development wae in bad nend of repatr. Commiasioner Morley offered a reAOlution to recommend to the City Council lhat PetiCion fc~r Reclassificati.an No. "14-75-24 be appruved~ Kubject to the coiidltion r.hac a 20-foot wide landecaped buffer etrip be pr~vided un the wQ~terly boandar.y on the east eide of the: proposed wall, eub~ect to c~ndi.tiona. Commi.eioner Faruno noted thtiC if n etipulatian ~aas made by the property owner fur develop- ment of the properCy to Che weat that [heir setbsck from the subject wal.l w~uld be increased 20 feet on the resi.dential side, then he woulr~ agrea to the pxopoRal eo have the heavy landacaping l~cated on the outaide of the wall for tYie cownercial development. Mr. Reinhardt stated Chat the developer wou].d atipulate to settir~g [he reai.dential struc- l•urea 20 feet furtl~er away from the wall with the are~ being either landscaped or improved with a srreet, whereupon Commissioner Morle,y wlthdrew his reaulution to recommend approval of Reclasaificatioti No. 74-75-24 eo that the Plannin~ Commieaion could entertain a motion to continue consideration of sub~e;:t reclussificatian to a future meel•ing. Commiaeionex' Farano offered a mot:ton, aeconded by (:ommi.Raioner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED, to reopen the publfc hearing and conti.nue conaideration of Reclueaification No. T4-75-24 to Che meatitig of Mai-ch 3, 1975, f.or the petitioner to present a proposal for buffering satiafactory to the Planning Commisston. RECESS - At 4:15 p.m.~ Chairman Herbat declared a recesa. RECONVENE - At 4:25 p.m., Chairman Herbat reconvened Che c~eeting with all ~ Commissioners being present. (Following the receas, Commissioner Farano auggested that the public hearing £or Reclas- sification No. 74-75-24 be reopened on [he basie that he had discusserl the buffering with the petitioner during the recess and the petitioner for the reaidentir~l development under :~claesi£ication No. 74-75-23 had indicated a wi111ngneAS to etipulate Chat the daellings would be a minimum of 60 feeC from the wall separating that development frnm the commer- cial development, so Chat there would be the equivalent of 20 feet of landacaping betwepn the fence line ~nd the driveway in the reaidential development. Thereupon, Mr. Reinhardt Htsted the petitioner was willing to atipulate to a minimum of 5G feet, rather tlian 6Q feet~ and Commisaloner Farano indicated in that case the matter should be held over, as ordered in the foregoing motion, to the mezting of March 39 1975, so thut the Planning Commisai~n could review plans ahowit~g the buffering.) ~ • MTNUTfS. CITY P1.ANNINC i.OMMISSIUh~ February 19, 1975 7S-~'~i VA(tIAN~ Nq. ?.bb9 - CUNTLNiJED PUE~I.IC Ii1:ARING. OCCIDENTAL LAND, INC. ~ Y. 0. Iiox 8~ NuwpnrC ~i~ ~ Eench~ Ca. 92660 (Owner); 'dALT KP.USD~R, ~69~ Ketturing cCt•enC, Irvinc~ ~:n. 92705 (AgonC); requescing WA,IVER OF (A) MINTMUM FLOOR ARFA, (B) MIN1MlIM WID'Pkl OF l~inF^TR7.AN ACCI:SSWAY, (C) R~QUIRP.D FNCL09URE OF CARPURTS. ANU (D) VENICLF. ACCE5^ RF;QULRGMEN'..,~ TA CUNSTRUCT A 31b-UNI: Al'ARTI~NT COMPI.F.X on property dascri.bed ae: M irregulnrly-shaped pr~rcel of land consier~.ng of approxlmately 12 n~ree lacated :-orkhorly of. Clie Rivereld~ Frceway nnd Mirulomu Wuy~ hsving a fronkaga of approximatoly 250 faet on the iiorth eide of Miraloma Way, hgving :+ maximum de~tii of gpproximately 610 feet, and being loc~taJ npproximaCely 375 f~et west of thc: centorline oE Lawrence Avenue. ProperC.y pr~:uently cln~;sified ML (INUUSTRIAI., LPIITEU) ZON~. Sub,~ect aotition wba continued from the meeting of rebtunry 3~, 1975~ for tho petit.ion~r ta c~ubmiC un t••ironmental Impact ReporC. Ir. wne noted that appr<~ximut~~ l.y five. persone were present in the audienc.e in conn~ction with the sub1ect petitian. Aesietant 7.o~ing Supervi~or Anni!ca Snntalc~hti noted l•hnt the petitioner had indicated the Ec,vironment~l TmpacC Report wae not completed in timA for considerat:lon by t}~e FIR Revi.ew C.ommittee pr.tor to thi~ mecting nnd, therefore, nn ~dditional. t~ao-~apek conti.nuance was be.ing requeated. Commissioner Tolur ~f:fei•ed a moCion, seconded by Commi.seioner Johneon and MOTION CARRIF.n, thuk the rublic he~rink .',r Fel't~ion for Varinnce No. 2669 be further po^tponed tc~ the meetinR ~f March ~~ :"~ ~. ° r~,aeated by the petitioner, (No~t. ':~.' • !~~^•,~ ::. ~~ - ,•~' at th~ beginning of the meet~Lng.) EpiVIRONMENI'AL IMPP~CT - PUBLIC iIGARING. SACHIKO NISHlNO, F,URIKO NISHINO AND ;tEIKO ~]ISHTNO, P.P.PORT N0. 144 c/~~ Ruriko Ntahin~, 151 5outh Jear~ine Way, Anaheim, Ca. 92805 ~r '~vners); RALPHS GROCERY COMPMIY, Attn: James A. Wood, 3410 West R~CLASSIF'ICA'PIO'r~ .n~rd Str.eet, Loy Angeles, Ca, 9l!020 (Agen!:); requesCing that Nc). 74-75~2E~ property described as : An irregu.larly-ahaped parcel of lsic-d con- sisting of approx~.mately 4 acres located at the southwest corner o.f Lincoln Avenue and Sunkiat Street, having approximate frontages of 630 feet on the south si.de of Li.ncoln Avenue and 220 Ecet on the west eide of Sunkist ~treer be reclassifl~d from the RS-A~43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE to the f,L (COMMrFtCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. "Lr. was noCed that approximate.; aia persans were pr.eaent at the beginning of the meeting ~n oppoeikion to the sub~act petitLon and that only two were remaining to be heard in o~,~position at khi.~ ti.me. AssisCant 2oning Supervisor Annika Santala.hti read the St•af f Report to the Planning Commieaion dated February 19, 1975, and saici 5::aff Repurt is referred to +~s if set ~ortt~ in fu].1 in the minutes. t4r. Eugene Walsh, Chairman and C.t?.0. cf the Rsslphs Grocery Compan~, appenred before the Planning Commiseton and revie~aed the growth hi~tory of L•he company. He stated that t}-e president of t7alpha G:ccery Cumpany had bePn a resident of the City of An~heim and, for thuC reason~ ehe propoaed location was of great concern to them; and that Ralphs Crocery Score was the number one preferred ~upermar.ket, according to the Los Ange7.ea i imes. Mr. P.rt Garcia, repreaenting Che developer, appeared before the Planning (:ommission and sr~ted their renaons for selecting the subject l.ocation for a supermarket were based on che pro~ected trade area aupp~rt for another market in the area; that th~Y were proposing a modern auperm~rkak th.at wauld be Iarger and of£er a broader varieCy of tnerchandise and more personalixed aervicea than exieting markets in the area; thaC the proposal was ~+ free-standing store and not a ahoppirig center; tha.t the property was ldeally suited for a neighbnrhood markeC u$e; that in addition tu the aupernwrket building, they were proposing another eeparate building near the northeast corner of the property whict~ would be for a financial institution; that they were not requesting approva~ of the corner building to be used for ahops or food take-ou;:, but strictly for a banking facllity; that the locat.ion of ehe bankii,.; EucLlity being closa to a ma~or interaection was to more ..onveniently service the reaidente in the area; thut preeently the sub~ect property waa the remaina o~ an old orchard which was not being cultivated c~r harvested; tliat the eite was close to two good feedsr streets and a freeway; and that since the proposal was a r eighborhuoc~ type commer- cial. uae, the majority of treffic would be a divergence ot existing traffic in the area and~ therefore, the traffic imUact on the surrounding area wnuld ne n~inin~al. • ~ ~ ~ MINUTE;i, CIT": PLANNI.NG COMMT.SSION, Febr4ary 19~ 1975 15`9'~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT_RFPORT N0. .1G4 AN1~ RL~CI~ASSIi~LCATION N0, 74-75-26 (Continued) Mr. Carcin aontinued by er.ating that the impacC of. Che propoenl ~n tt~e exietitig adjncent eingle-familv residencAd wae taken inl•o cone-ideretton it- planning Che proposul and, thr.ough work.i.ng c1.osNly with the City Stuff, they had more th~n met the City'e etnndsrd raquire- mente foc n com-nc~rcial developm~r.t. Mr. James Wood. also rap~~esenting Ralphe CrocQry Company~ appe~rEd bafore the Planning Commi9sion und mada o Alido prQOentntlon to indicato tha typa serviceA and merchaudiee that wuuld be provided in the propoKOd tnarkek~ aM ch wne more or les~ typic~l i.n l•heir newer etores. Mr, Wood sc ~pulated that the devel.oper wuuld comply with ull conditio~is of appr~vnl~ as eet forth in th3 Staff Report~ und furCl~er etipulntRd that the truck a„ceas to the propert;+ would be limited tn Lincoln Avenue; tt~nt delivcries would be between the houry of 7: UO n.m, r~nd 10:00 p.m. ; tl~at all refrigertttlon nnd uLr-conJitic,ning wou'ld be located on tlie inFide ot Che building, notinE thnt Chnir faci.litiea used hea[ raduction as na energy source; that the traes would be evargreene with cadsra, at ~ive-year heigl~t; that the lighti.ng •!n the parking 1ot was deeigned to liave a ninimal effect on tl~e ndjacent neighbora. since Kuld light.s would ehine dowiiward; thaC Htudiea r~garding sound had been made acul tht~y were propoain~ a bc~rmed are:a and wall which wau.ld provide n minimol impact from eound on Che ud~xcent reeidentinl propprcies. In conr_lueion~ Mr. Wood etutPd t•hey would be. a good neighb~r Co the adJacen;: property ownera and would provide a neceaenry, coroplete superm~rkCL ii~ the areu. Mios Snnta]nhti read n petitlon aigned by appruximntely seven ad;~acent property ~~mers in. opposition to tl~e subject petition, on the ~nsis that the propoea.l was not neceKe~ry n~r compat.ible with L•he area. Mre. Pat Bluml~erg, 2453 6a~t P~whatan Aveniie, appeared before the P1ani~ing Commiseion in oppoaition and etAted ~evernl oth~r property owners had be~n preaent earlier in the meet- ing in opposittun to the subJect petition but had to leave, arid ChAt she hoped they would have another opportunlty to be heard. Mrs. Blumberg atar.ed ChaC. some of the reaidents did not r~ceiv e noCice of the public h~aring. THE PUIILIC HEARING WAS CLOSrD. The Plann ing Co~nisaion entexed intu discussion with 5taff and t~e petitioner r~garding the proposed type of ligh`.:~ng for the parking area, during which the Sinff indicated tt~at the lowest height approved was 6 fP~t, which was not alwxya eatiafactory d~.~e to vandalism; that 8 feet had al.so be~n approved; and thst a max~mum height of 22 feet tiad been approved for the 1 ighting standxrds at the Yorba 5hopping Center. There~pon, the pe[itioner st1(•u- lar.ed that the proposed li.~hting would nc+t axceed a maximum heighC of 22 feet nnd wau].d be doM~nlight e.d and directed nway from the ad,~acent pxoperty linPS. In responss to q~iestianing by Cammisei.oner Mor].ey, the petitioner stinulated tliat tl,«~ hours of operati~n would be from 9::0 a.m. to midnight. In respon se to questioning by Commiosion~r King, Mrs. Blumberg stat~d heY reaaona f~r oppoaing the proposal were that there were already markete in the area, as well zs banka, and she d id not feel there was a need. She Further stated that somc oi tnQ market~ hnd closed within a b.lock away Irom th~ subjecC aite. The Planning Commisaion inq~' ~ed why the ottier markeca in the area had faile~l and Mr . Woo~i replied that Cheir own company took a great deal of time conducting studies and th•y did no*. feel thP four or five stores combined in the area provided the sei•vlces ur beauty that they were hoping to provide; that many of the exietina markets were very old and some had financial problen~s; and ttiat they felt they wo:~ld do we11 at the proposed location. Commissioner Gauer iioted that, in hia opinion, th2 proposed store would be an asset to tha City of Anaheim. Commiasioner King noted that approval of the p:opoaed commercial building would be aub.~ect to the precise plans as gubmitted, and sub~ect to the sr.ipulations by the petitioner. Commissioner Johr.son offercd a motion, seconded by Commissioner FaY•ano and MOTION CAF.RIED, that Env ironmeretal Impact lteport No. 144, having been considered this date by the City Planning Commisaion and evidenae~ both written and oxal~ preaented to supplement eQid draft of ELR No. 144 (including a wriL•ten cormnunicaeion from the Santa Ana River Santiago G..eenbelt Coimuiasiun), the City Planning Cotmniseion believes that said draft of EIR No. 144 does conform to the City and State Guideli.nes and the State of Ca.lifurnia E~viron- mental Quality .1ct and~ based upon such information~ does hereby recommend to the City Coun~il that they certify eaid EIR is in compliance with said ~nvironmental Q~iality Act. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINU'T'CS ~ CI'TY I'(.ANNINC COMMISSION, Fehrunry l~, 1975 >>'y6 I:NVIRONMGNTAL IMI'ACT REPUR'l._NU. .1a4 ANll RECLASSII~ICA'TION Nc). 74-75-26. (ConCinu~~d) Commtxeioner .luhneon oPf~ ed Rc:8olutiou No. PC75-36 ancl mov~d for itN pr~eKage nnd +~dopt I~m to r~~cr~rtunand to the City ('ouncil Chat Petition for Reclaseification Nu~ 74-75-26 hu upproved, sul~J~~t Co the scipul.atiuna of the petitioner ~nd eub~e~~t t<~ condltione. ('i.+~ Rc!eolut ian Book) On rull cal]., the faregoing resolul•!on was piissed by the follc~win~; vot~: AYCS; COr41ISSI0NGRS: I~AItANO, CAUEIt, JOIiNSON, KTNC, MORi.i'.", T~1.~.R, N~RBS:' NU~S : COt~l1SS IONGRS : NON1; nIISEN'f: CO*~lISS~ONGRS: NON~ Chairman Herbat cumplimc~nted the de:v~l.up~:r on eheir approacf~ co the Codc~ requtremente foc [he eub~ecl• propoell, eepecir~lly airice the develupment wne Nropoaed without u variane~. COMMISSZONER 1~ARANO LF:r'f THF. M13tiTINC A'C 5:.1.0 P.N. COiJDITiONAL US[s -• PUfiLIC HL'ARINC. RAYMOND G. SPENAR, 913 Paloma Plnce~ F~~llerton~ Ca. PCRMI'T N0. 1492 92635 (Owner); CARL KARCHL~R ENTF1tPKISLS~ INC., 1200 Norch Hurboc ~ L~oulev~rd, Anuhclm, Cu. ~2803 (Agent); xequesting permieoton to F.STAIi1,I5N A DRIVF-TNROUC(1 RESTAURANT WITH wAIVERS OF (A) PERMIT'f~D SI(~NINC, (B) MINIMUM llIS'TANCE III:fWrBN FItLF.-STAIVDTNG SICNS, (C) MINIMUM NUMAER UF PARKINC SPACF.S, (U) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED i'RON'i' 5I;TAA(:K, (ti) MINIMi1M LhNDS~AYED SGTliACK MJACENT TO A RL'SIOf:NTIAI. 7.ONE. (F) MZNIMUM TREI: LANDSCAPING, AND (G) PROHIBITED ROOF-MC;JN1'6D F.QUII'MRNT on property deacribed as : A rectangularly-eh~~ped parcel of lund consiaring ot approximAtely 0.9 acr~ located ut the nort.heast corner uf La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, hnving e, proximate froatuges of 250 feet on Che nortli side of La Yxlma Aver,ue nnd 140 feet on the ~ast side of Imp~rial Highwuy. Praper~y prr.sently clasei.fied CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL, L?MITED)(SCENIC CORRIAOK) ZONIi. No or.e indicate~ L-heir prPSence in opposir~nn to aubject petttion. Althougti the Staf f Reporc to the Planni.ng Commissi~~n dated r~bruary 19 ~ 1975, wae not reud at the publir_ hearing, it ia referred to and :nade a pair of the minutea. Mr. Dave Garriso^. Chief P:ojecT. Adm~lni.stral•or for Carl l:archer Enterprises, Inc., appeared hefure tl~e Plnnn_ ~mmission and sr_stad the proposal, if approved, would be their four- teenth food uperati~ the City of Anaheim; that they were propoaing t~ have indoor seating for upproximat~.ly 188 people and also a. drive-thro~.~gh window which would comprise abaut 10% of their business; that regarding che parking requirement, they could live with 35 parking space~ and, tlier. eEore, ttieir propoyal Co provide 47 ~.arking sraces was 12 iti excess of what they felt was adequa~e =or their operation; that they ~~ere proposing to adhere to ~t~e 14-foot wide lands.:aping requirement along La Palma f,v~nue, h~~~rever, they were requesting a waiver to allow a 12'~-foot widP landseaped arec- along Impc~_iaJ Highway since they were trying to mairitain as many parking spacea us possiblp, and with t_he parking adjacent to Imperial. Highway, they were needed as much backup space as possible for the cars since tlie parking siCuation was dead-end. 'Phereupon, Mr. Garrison sti.~ul.ated that tne landscaped area along Imperial Highway could be increaeed by 1~ feet t~ meet t'he Code requirement ~ Al1C~ said waiver was therefore withdrawn. Regarding the requested waiver of u~tnl.mum landscaped ~etback ad~acent to a residentia? zor~e, Mr. Garrison s*.ated the~r proposal was based on sn effort tc provide aQ many parking apacea as possible and to meet the referenced requirement they would lose one parking apsce, since :.he r.rash storage area would have to be moved out of the encroachment area~ Fie further star.ed khat the sub,ject property was a partion of a larger commercial de-,-elop- ment which inc~.uded praperty to the east; that i he development of the easterly portion was presently at a standstill and the ~ ish pickup area for the entire commercial development was planned at the proposed iocatiun; however, if the propo. 11 i~- t;~at reg~rd was not satiafactory to the Planning Commiasion, than tF.ey would sti~ulate te delete on•~ par~cing apace and meet the Coae requirement concerning the loca_.:~n of the trash atorage area an3 the aetback requirement theTe. In response t~ qtiestioning by the Plannfng Conunission, Assiat?.nC Zoning Supervieor Anniku Santalahti noted that if rhe ad~acent parcel to th~ east developed with a comc-ex'cial uRe, they would al.so be.• requ~red to comply with the minimum landscaped set' ack adjacent to a residential zone~ or request a waiver. Thereupon, Mr. Carri.son stated thut eome re- evaluation of the ~lacement of the trash atorage area may become necessary when Che property to the east dev~loped. ~ • ~ MTNUTIsS , CITY PLANN~.NG COhP1ISSIQN~ rebruary 19, 1975 ~S'~~ ('ONDTTIONAI. U51: PGRMI7_„NO, 1492 (f,ontinued) Regard~.ng th~ requaeted waiver cyf minimum txHe landscaping, Mr. Garrie~n Htated ehe eub- mitt~d plana hnd inndver.tentlv amltted tLe requirQd treee and Che eama would b~a pr~vided, in eccordance with the Co:'.e requircmente. Rc~garding Che ruyucsted waiver uf the requirement prohibiti~ig r~of-mounted ~quipmant~ Mr, CArr~eon etated the prupoa~l was to provlde A p~rupQt with either of tvo heighte, either 4 feet. 4 inchea or 5 feQt 4 inchea; an1 rhat they wc~re endeavor.ing to cancer~l the roof-mounr.ed e.quipmc:nt, THF PUBI.IC tl[:ARING WAS CLOSGD. Comn-issioner Caucr noted that ~ letter hf-d been recelved from the Sr,nta Anu itiver/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Comm.[ssion recommending denial of l•he s~xb~~ct petition on the baeis ehat thr waivers would lntPrfere wLtti the 5cenlc Corridor 'I.one-Uverlay reqUlrementa. Suid leCter wus rexd Eor the l.nformat:lot~ oi l•hose present ~nd r.hc sume ia referred to And made a part of the minutE~e~ Mids SanCalahti noted far Ct~e Planning Commiesion that all of lhe waiver~~ except the wniver of the minimum number of pac~.ing epttr..es~ was dArectly related to the Scenic Corridor 2ane-Overla,y, wtiereupon Commiaeioner Cauer noted thac, in th~t case, said waivers shuuld be cler.~ed, ue reyuested by the Greenbelt Commissian. Chairman Herbst noted thr~t the propoeed parapeC ecreening did not conform to t.he Scenic Corridar Ordinunce and Mr. Garrison clarified t:~at tlie aubmitted plans were not Pina~ in the st~ictest aenr~e, since they would be acremning tt~e vents r~nci sai.d plana were a proto- type. Chairman Hczbat further noted that th~ pa~ition~er would have to work towarcia the Code requ:rement t:liat equipment "shall not be Neen" nnd Mr. Garric~n then made An ob~erva- ti~n tliat it appe~red the proposed screening wae not an acceptable plun~ Mr. Garrison furt~ier atated thaC .in the restaurant Eteld it was difEicult to satisfy the Mechanical Cude and atill provide for circulation of air for the eyuipment, and Ct~uirman HerbsC yugg°sted that the architectural desl.gn of Cha building atiould probably be revi.ewed in order that the Scenic Corrid~r Ordinance would not be defeated e~tirely. Chairman Herbst noted ttiat free-atanding eigns were ncat allowed in the Scenic Corridor ?.one-Overlay, whereupon, Mr. Garrison atnted cheir bueiness depended on the motoring public and impulsc buy:ing, and without signing Chey woulcl not be able to stay in busir-ess. Mr. Garrison further stated that a vnriance for signing had been approved for the service al•aC i on acrosa the street. whereupon~ Chairman Her.bst noted that the reterenced variance Wa8 p robably one that could not be duplicated in the Scenic Corridor since neither the Planning Cocnmission nor the prtsent CfCy Council granted eaid vari~nce, and that if the prcpo sal wuuld tend to Ureak down the Scenic ~orridor Ordinance, che location was probably wrong for the uae anil Chat everyone ahould abide by th~ aAme r.ules to develop property. The P lanni.ng Commission entered into diecuesion regarding the propased waivers, during which Miss Santa].ahti noted that Staff's evaluntion of the proposal was based on a drive- through type operation ar~d that f.or an entirel.y enclosed, :~i~-down restaurant, the require- mEnt wc~lld be only 24 parking apaceo and, therefore, Che 46 parking spaces might be inCerpreted as fairly adequate for the proposed u~e, as atated by ttie petitioner; there- upon, the Planninq Coanmisaion generally concurred th~t the requested wuiver of the par'•.ing requirement shou .1 be ~ranted. Comm issioner Morley offered a motion, aec~nded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRTED (;;ommissioner Farano being absent) , that the Planning Commission r~comi^ends to the City Council that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepure an I:nviron- men t al Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Qual.ity Act . Commisaioner Mcrley offered Resulution No. PC75-37 and moved f or it~ paseage and adoption tha t Petition for Conditional lJse P~rmit N~~ 1492 be and hereby ia granted, in part, deny ing waivere of the permitted aigni.ng, minimum distance between free-standing signs, and permitted roof-mounted equipment an the basis that the sub~ect property is located in the Scenic Corridor Zone-(lverl.~y and approvAl of said waivers would set an undesirable pre cedent; granting waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces to allow 4b spaces, an the basis of the stipulution of Che pel•itioner and rhat the proposal ie reasonable for the prop~sed uae which conaista of a restaurant with butti sit-down and drive-thz~ugh facilities; ~ • MINUTGS, CITY PY,ANNING COMMISSION~ Fabruary 19, 1975 CONUI.TTONAL.USi; PERMIT N0._1492 (Contiaued) ~ ~ 75-98 t1iaC l•he petitianer etl{~ulated to withdrawal of w~lvere of the minlmum .Lnndecaped ir.ant eerback~ miwimum lattdscaped eetback adJaaont to u reaidential zone~ r:nd minimum tree 7.andecaping; o~id condiCional u9e permit Ueing gr.anted eub~ect to the etipulatlons of Che petitioner, snd sub~ect to condi.tiona. (See Reso.luetoi~ Bnok) On roll call, th~ forego'ing reoolution was pasaed by the fc~llowing vute: AYF.S: COhQ1iSSI0NGRS: CAl1CR~ JOHNSON, KItiG, MORLEY~ TOI~AR, HER$ST NACS: COT4IIS5ICNERS: )NE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: )'AItANO CONDITIONAL, USE - PUBI.IC HEARING. WILLIAM REMLANU, 636 L'aeC Chapman, Qr.angp, Ce. 92667 PERMIT N0. lSl.3 (Uwner); MICHAEL AVIRAM, 502 South Beach Boulevard, Annheim, Ca. 9280~- (Agent); requeoting permiseion to have ON-SAI.R BEF.R AND WINE JN CONJUNC- TIUN WITH AN F.XIS'fING RESTAURANT on properry deKCribed as: M irregulurly- shaped parcel of land consisting of upproximxtely 1.5 ar.Yea located north c~nd east cf the corner of. Orange Avenue nnd Beach Boulevard, having approximate front~ges of 103 feet on !:he noYth eide of Qrange Avenue and 221 feet on the east side of Beach BaUlPVard. Froperty preaent'.y clr~ssified CL (COMM~RCIAL, LIMITED) 7.ONE. No one indicated their presence in opposition to subject pekition. Although the Staf£ Report t~ the Planning Commisaion ~aCed February 19, 1975, was not read at the put~lic hearittg, it ie referred to and msde u part of the min~iCea. Commisai.onera King, Morley and T~lur noted they had reviewed thc sub~~'r_r property in the f.i.eld and the property was well kept and attractive, and the proposal c~ have on-sale beer. and wine in con~uncti~n wiCli Che existing resl•auranl appeared to be an appropriate uae ut the sub~ect ].ocation. Tt1G PUI3LIC HEAR'iNG WAS CLOSED. It was noCe3 that the Director of Development Services l~ad dsCermined that the propoaed activity fe~l within tha definition of Sectlon 3.01, Class 1 of the City of. Anaheim Guidelineg to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Reporl• and was, r.herefore, categorically exempt from the requirement ~o file an EIR, Commisatoner King offered Reaoluti~n No. PC75-38 and moved for iCe passage and adoption that Petition for Conditional. U~9e Permit No. 1513 be and hereby is granted, subject to condiCions. (See Resolution Bouk) On roll call, the furegoin~ reaolution was pasaed by tl~e following vote: AYES: COI~iISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST NOCS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO:ZMISSIONERS: FARANO CONDITIONAL USE - PUHLIC HEARING. R. LAWRENCE CALLEGOS, 2100 West Ball Road~ Anaheim, Ca. ?ERMIT N0. 1514 92804 (Orrner); HOWARD BELL, 2100 West Ball Road, Anaheim, Ca. 92804 (Agent); requesCing permission to ESTABLISH A MAS5P~E PARLOR IN A STRUCTURE ORIC;INP.LLY INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES on property dESCribed se: A rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9420 square feet located at the aouthweat corner of Ball ltoad atid Empire Street, having approximate frantages of 60 feet on the south side of Batl Road and 157 feet on the west si.de of Cmpire Street. Property preaently claasified CL (COhII~RCIAL,, LIM~T_ED) ~ONE. It was noted that the per.itioner waa requesting that the public hearing £or the sub~ect petiti.on be postponed to the meeting of March 17, 19i'S, in order that he might be repreaented. Mrs. Eugene Eckes, 7~6 South Echo, appeared before tt~~ Planning Commisaion, representing the parenta of the children who attended the St. Just:in Martyr School, in oppoaition t~ the sub~ect petftion, and stated that a number of those school children paesed the subjPce location datly. as well as other achocl children in t:he area. Chairman Herb~t noCed that the Pl~nning CommLasioTi uf~uaYly granted the firat requeat for a poatponement on a petition, and ti,at aince the petit:loner was not praser.t~ it would bP appropriate to grant said request. Commissioner Johnaon offered a motion, seconded by (:om~isaioner Morley and MOTION (:ARP.IED ~E~is~ianer_:Farxno being abaent), that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1514 he an.9 hereby ia poatponed to the Planning Com±niasion meeting of Mxrcl~ li, 1975, ae requested by tl•.e petitioner. • ~ ~ MTNU'CFS, CITY PI.ANNINC (:OMMI.SSION, Februnry 19, 1975 75-99 VA.RIANCL N0. 2657 - PUDLIC tIEARINC. UGW CONSTRIJCTION COMPAN'1 ~ TNC. , 4620 East l.n pol~nn f Avenue~ Anahaim~ Cn. 92807 (Owner); OMI~.GA BOATS, ING.. 4640 Caet La Palma Av~n~ie, Angheim, Ca. 92807 (A$enC); raqueeting WAIVER OF (A) MiNIMUM rRON'l' SBTBACt: AND (B) (tFQUIftFD ENCLOSURE Or OUTAOOR USC3, TO PFRMIT TtIE OUTDOOK STORAC(: OT~ BOA;S un properky deacrib~sd Ha: An irr~gularly-eh~-p~d parcel oE 1:~ud c~neit~tinq of ~ppr.•oximntely 1.25 ucreH t-aving u frantag~ of approxim~ately 167 feet on the eauth eide of I~~ Pulma Avenue~ hnviiig u maximum depth of approximat~ly 347 feQC, And being located approxime~te.ly 95~ feet. ea~k of ttie cen[erline of LakQView Aven~e. Pr~perty presently clasyified ML(SC) (INUUS'PRIAL, LiPtITrD)(SCGNIC COItRIDOR) ZONF. Aeaistant Zoning SuT~ervisor Anniku Snnt~lahCt noCed for the Planning Commiseion that two udditl.onal waiver.~ which wauld be requir.ed under the sub~ect application had n~t been advex'tised~ being the fronl setbnck for Che propoaed 4-fooC f'ence und the parking apace requircmenC; ~nd~ r_herefr~re, tl~~ subject- varinnce would be readvertised for public hearing to be he.l.d Mnrch 3, 1975. CommiasLoner. 'Polar offerect a rriution, seconded by Conuniaeioner Morley and MOTION CARRIEB~ thal nc~ public hearing for PeCition for Varianr_e No. 2657 be and hereby ia postponed eo the meetinQ of htnrcii 3~ 1975, in ordei• thr~t the fore~o~ ~g additional waivere could be ndverttaed. (Note: 'fiiis item was conaidere.d at tl~e beginning of the meeting.) VARIANCE N0. 267.1 - PUBL,IC H~IUZING. JONN MOLINARO, i'~50Q Fi.restone Boulevard, i.a Mirad~, Ca. 9063$ (Owner); DEL PR~PERTIES, Attn: Fred Walters, 730 South Cypreae SCrE:et~ La Habra, Ca. 90631 (Agent); requeating WAIVER OF (A) MAXiMUM NUMIfER OF FREE-S'PANbING SIGNS, (B) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, (C) PERMITTED SICN LOCATION AND (ll~ MINIMYJM NUMBER OF PARKiNG SPACF.S, TQ CO~1STRllCT A MINI-WAREHQUSI: on property deacribed as: An irregular:ly-ehaped parcel of laiid consisting of approximately 2.4 acres located weat of the Santa Ana Freew~y and Rivereide Freeway ~xchange, and having a maximusn width of approximately 582 feet and a maximu-n depth of approximaCely 250 feet. Property presently clasaified ML (INDUSTRIAI.,, LIMITED) ZONR. One person indicated hie presei~ce ln opposition to subj ~etition. Deputy Cil•y Attor.ney Frank Lowry pres~nted the Sl•af£ Report to the P:lanning Commisslon dated rebruary 19, 1975, anri said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minul•es. He noted that the ~ub3ect property was located in the ~phere of influence of the City af Buena Park; thaC Anaheim would probably not be able to service the property with utilities without tunneling under the freeway; and that it was Staff's recommendation that the property be recommended for de-annexatiun to the City of Buena Park. Mr. Fred Walters, repreGenting the agent for the property owner, appeared before the Planning Gommission and stated he did nor_ uelteve they would have to go to the C:ity of Buena Park for rsny of their utilitier~; that they could probably have sewer line hockup wiCh the County, and watPr from the City of Anaheim tf they were able to obtain an ease- ment from the Southern Pacific Railt~oad Company to run wr~ter along the track; tllat the installation for the utilitiea wou~.d be more expensive rhan if they were serviced by the City of I3uena Park, however, they hacl attended a Buena Park ~iCy Council meeting several weeks ago and their proposal was r.urn.~d dcwn; that the aiee was properly ~oned for what they would like to do and they would p~-efer to w~ke the additional expenditures for the water hookup from a di.stanr.e and any othei neceasary utility expenditures, and be able to proceed with ttieir prc3ect. He further atated electricity was right at hand. Mr. CaZvin Gr.o~s, one of the owners of E-Z Storage, 8251 Orangethorpe, Buena Park, appeured before the Planning C~mmission in ogpasl.tion and stated they were granted a conditional use permit on October 15, .1974, to conetruct a mini-warehouse; Chat tltey i~ad made a rather exhaustive marlceting study which reveuled that the City of Buena Park had no mini-warehouses and eherefore their own proposal was relativel.y secure; that the financial institutiona felt that very ahortly the market would be overbuilt and some of the warehouaes w4uld run into diificulties; thaC they were diaturbed about the pr.oposal to conatr~ict another miiii- warehouse aince there was another auch facility located about 2.5 miles away on Common- wealCh; and that in the Planning Commission's consideration of the requested waiver of the parking requirement. he would auggest that since there wae a posaibility that the narket right become saturated very quickl.y, ~ome conaideration ahould be given to an alternate use af the property. ~ • ~ MINUTES, CT'TY PLANNIN(~ COMMISSION, F~bruary 19~ 1975 %5-1U0 VARIANCC N0, 2671. (Continued) The l~..dntting ConunlaKion ci~Cered lnco dlscuedion regarding dapnr.tmentql lnput ae to wl-ethc~r the servicing of utilltisa~ ne outll.ned by tho petitiuner, ws~ legal and poselUla~ and it wae suggeeted that r.tie petlCloner ehould obtain eom~thing in writing regarding :he servlc- ing of water., etc., to tiir. duba~~ct propert~. Commisaioner Toliir offerc±d a moti~n, s~~onded by Commi.seioner Murlay and MOTLON CARRIED (Co~nmiesioner F~rnnu Uetng uboent)~ that the public hearing nnd coneiderntion of Petition for Vari.ance No. 2671 be conl•in~.~ed to the m~etit~~ of Mnrch 3~ 1975, in order f~~r the petlCi.oner and Staff to ohtatn more definite i.nf.ormation regarding the aervici.ng of uti.litiPe to the eub~PCt properCy. VARIANG'G N0. 2673 - PUBI~IC HEARING. WILI,IAM T. MESSENCAI.~, 2168 Mchor Streek~ Anehetm, Ca. 92802 (Owner); requesting WAIV~R OF MAXIMUM COVFItAGE TO CONS'rRUCT A I3L'DROOM ADDT.TION on property described aa: A rectangularly-ehaped parcel of l.nnd coneieting of approximately 5400 equare feet having n frontage of. appr~xi- mately 50 feet on the east eide of Anch~r Street, having a maximum depth ~f approxlmately 109 feet, and being l.ocaCsd appror.imately 382 L•eet north of the centerline of Simmons M-enue. Property presently classified RS••5000 (RL'SIDEN'iTAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. No one indicated their. predence in oppoaition to sub~ect pet.iCion. Althougn the Staif Report t~~ the Y.lanning Com.~iission dated February l9, 1975, was not YEEIICI at the public hearing, it is refnrred ta and mnde a part of r.he minutes. Mr. William Mesaengale, the petitiuner~ appeared before Ciie Plr~nning Commisaion to anewer questions regarding the proposal. THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSLll. Commissi.oner I:ing noted that he and Commissioner Morley had vtewed the sub~ect property in the field and found no problems; und t~at the aub~ect petition for the variance wae en- dorsed by the immediaCe neighUors to the north and south of the sub~ect property. Thereupan, Co„unissioner King offered Resolution No. PC75-39 and i~~oved for ita passage and adoprion (Commissioner FarAno being absent), that Petition £or Variance No. 2673 be and hereby is gr~nted, on the basis that the proposed variance from the Code requirements is minimctl; aub~ect to conditione. (See fiesolution Book) On roll c~ll, Che foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COtrAIISSIONERS: GAUFR, .JOIiNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOI~AR~ HERBST NOES : CUA4IISSIONERS : NONN. ABSEN'T: COMMI.SSIONERS: FARANO VAItIANCE N0. 26i5 - PUBLIC HEARING. STUART D. NOnLE, 321'l6 Paseo Sanchez, San Juan Capistrano, ra, 92675 (Owner); request:ing WAIVER OF PERMIT'TED USES TU ESTABLISH A YHU'TOG1tAPHY STUDIO on property deacribed as: A r.ectangularly- shaped parcel of land conaiating of approximately 6~00 square feet havinq a fruntage of approx~vately 64 feet on the south si.de of Ball Road, having a maximum depth ~~f approximately 94 feet and being located appro:;imately 920 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. Property pre3ently classified r0 (COA4IERCIAL, OF'FICE AIVD PROFESSIONAL) ZONE. No one indicated their presance in opposirion ta subJect peCition. Mr. Stuart D. Noble, the petitioner, appeared before the P.larining Commiesi,on and atated he had owneci the subject property aince 1968 at which time it was reclassified ro the CO Zone; that since that time moat of the t~lock had become commexcl.al, sub~ect to variances; that a portion of the block had been rezoned to commercial and a hotel had been constructed; that 'vacan~ land across the street from the sub~ect pz'operty was for sale and advertised as commercial; that Chey had previously requested to have a real eatate schoal at the aub~ect location and the request was denied on thp basie o£ the parking requirements; that the propoaed use of ~h~ property for a photography etudio, wduld not create a parking or traffic problem; that Mr. Griffith's work was done by appointment on2y and either in the ~ ~ ~ MINU7'ES, CI'CY PI.,ANNING COPII~IISSION~ February 19, 1975 ; :~-101 VARIANCE N0. 2675 (ConCinued) studio or ~n IQCAtiOll~ ae tn the cnse of weddir.ga; that re:garding paragrapii l.l of tho Staff kepoct statinq thera would bQ "incidantal sales uf photograptiy equipmnnt~" the only iteme Mr. Grifflr.h would b.: eeJ.ling wouJ.d be picture frameA ~nd th~ phutographo; tl~at it waA not inrended to eell film or camerae and. in other words~ Che bueinees woutd not ba fur wulk-in tradN; that Mr. Crlf.fith had been in tlie photogrephy h~ieinees for approximntely twelv~ yeara and was prosontly locuCec; on Katella Avenue in Orange; that Mr. Griffith was lie~tc+d in the Yellow Ps~~e o~ a photograFher~ special.izing in famil,y groupe, c:hildrs~n and in industriaY photography. Mr, Noble continued by ekAting that the u~~ of the building as a commor^ial photogruphy etudio would not increase the traEfJc in the area, incrensE the parking ueage nor otherwiee b~ dekrimental to the other buildings in the aresa. THF 1'UgLIC tICARING WAS CLOSI?D. 1'he Pianning Commieeloa enCerod ic-to diecussiun regarding the propoaed ude and genorally concurred that, although they were not oppoaed t~ thiA particular application, if the ownerr~hip ch~nged somP prohlems could develop. A time limiCatian wae diacuseed, during which the peCiti.oner indicated rhat a fiv~-yoar t~me limit would b~ desirable, and the Planni.ng Commiseion indicated that two years would be more appropeiate, gubJect to review; and that if ne prohl~me developed~ the use would be allowed to continue ior addittonal perioda uf tim~ thereafter. In response to qiiesti~ning by Commiasiot~er Ki.r-g, thP petitioner etipti.lated that there would Ue no modeling or nude studio work conducCed at the suUject location. ~t was noted thae the DirPCtor oi Davelopment Servlcea }iad determined that the proposed activity fell within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of- r.he City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impuct Report and w~s, therefore~ categorically exP_mpt from the requ•lrement to file sn ~IR. Commisaiuner Tolar affered Reaolutior. No. PC75-40 and moved for its passage an~ aJoption, that Petition for Variance No. 267°. be and hereby is granted for a peri.od of two years, at the end of which t~me and upon writxen request by the petitioner, coneideration may be given for an extension of time by the Plunni.ng Commiasi~n and/or City Cuunci.l; subject to the .!tipulations of the peCitioner and aub~ect to conditiona. (See Resolution Book) On rol.l call, the Coregoing resoluCion was pasaed by the fallowing vor.e: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUL',R, JOHNSOV, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, H~RBST NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AFSENT: COIYII~'[ISSIONERS: FARAIVO $NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0, 140 - PertEining Co an appllc.aCi.on by Che City of - Anaheim for a grant under Title 1 of the Houeing and Community Development Act o£ 1974. The Staff Report to the Pl.anning Commiasion dated February 19, 1975, was presented and made a pare of the minutes. It was uoted that tl~e City of Maheim ~aas apnlying for a federal grant under Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; that the funds would be used for re- habilitation ~f houainB ~nd improvements to public facilities in Che area bounded by the Riverside Freeway on the n~rth, Eaat Street on the east, Sasita Ana Street ta the south, and Harbor Boulevard to the weat; thak Environaienta'1 Impact Report No. 140 applied only to the grant application and~ consequently, no deacription of ~he pro,jects to be perfoi'med was be.ing specified, however, said work would conaist of maintenanca, repair and rehabili- tation of exiating facilities; and that it appeared that Xhe only significant environ- mental impact would be temporary inconveniences auch as duet, noiae and inCerference with traffic. Tt wae further noted that each ~ortion of the project would be aubject to evalu- ation of th;~ environmenCal impact when a portion was defi~ied, and supplementary~ environ- mental impact reporta~ negative declarationa, or categorical exemptione would then be prepared as required. In reaponae to quextioning by the 1'lanning Commission, Deputy City Artorney Frank Lowcy advised t'.~~t action on an environmental imp~ct report wae required by State and Federal lgW prior to procesaing a State or Federal grant. ~ • MI.NUTF.S. GT'I'Y PLANNING C()A4IISSION, February 19, 1975 75-102 F.NVT1tONML'NTAI., IMPACT REPORT N0. 140 (Contlnued) Commiesioner 'lolar. nuted thal• he had atkended the one-day semin~r on Fabruary 6, 1915~ regnrding the nvailnbi.lity ttnd uee uf lha eubJect F~sderal funda through W~B~ev+~il.able and tionp; and Chat lilc~ under6tAnding of the program wus Chat eo m~ch muney would be g:ei~ted~ and thut if tha City of Anaheim d1d not apply for Any of the funde~ they would n~~t anve money far thcs government or themac~lvee. He further ~loted thnt he ~ae in cumpl~l•e ugreem~nt witt+ the gxunt pr.ogram; ttnd that <~f purr.icular inter.~eRt to him wne ttie fa~C thet the Ciky oiould not have to utilize all of th~ ari.da the~City~mi ln b~inbleato funde were grar~tecl, and that over a thre~ ~r four yo~r p.. Y B dpv~~lop a.low-cost houaing c.omplex; howevee, euch fundn could not be used to build a city hall. or any uther rype municipal buiiding, but cou?d be used for houaing in blighted areas. Ln reeponse to questioning by Chairman Herbat~ Zoning Supervi~or. Charles ItoberCa noted that several public meetinRe, ii~cluding two City Council public hearinge, t~ad been held ovec the paet manth or sa to gxplain the grnnt to khc people living wi.thin tl~e boundaries of the affected area (primarlly the da~antown area); ChaC the City was entitled to receive Rpproximately $9 mill.ion over an exCended period of time, beginning next year, and part of the funds wuuld be for the purpose of providing pubYic works Uro~ectR in the ~riginal pro~eck area. Commisatoner Johneon noted that qome of the ~'unds would have to be uaed for epecial p rpu~es that may ~r may not be desirable for t'ne City. He further noted that it was hic~ ~~~-daretanding that rent for a moderate apartmenC in tl-e City of Anaheim would be approxi- mately $267.00 ppr month. Com~aisaiuner Johnson offerzd a motion. seconded by Commiseioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commiseioner Farano being absent), that Environmental. Impact Renort No. 140, having been coneidered this date by the City Planninp~ Commie~i.on und evidence, both written and ornl, presented to supplement ~aid draft ~IR No. 1.40, the Clty Planning Commiasion believes thbt said draft EIR ~10. 140 d~ea conform to Che City and Stste Guidelines and ttie State of Californi.a Envi.ronmenta.l Quality Act and, based upon such infortnation, does hereby recom- mend to the City Council ttiat they certify said EIR No. 140 ie in compliance with eaid Environmental QualiC,y Act. Chairman Herbst clsrified that hia yes vote for the foregoing motion was not with xe3pect Co a speci.fic project. REQU~ST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GRADING PERMIT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY H~NiE SITE AT ~zn PR12Ai.TA WAY _- It was noted that applicatian had been made for a gradl.ng permit for a sing~.e-family home aite a~ 23Q Peralta Way; tha: tliE project was located in the Scenic Corridor and, there- fore, an evaluation of the environmental impact was required since pro~ecte located within Che Scenic Corridor cannot be granted categoxical exemption from the requirement to file ~-n environmental impact i•eport; and that the Engineering Di~~i.sion had determined that Che propU~ed grading woul.d have no aignifica.nX environmental impac.t. Commi3aloner Talar of.fei•ed a wotior., seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Cummisaipner Faranu being absent), that the Planning Commission recoc~ends to the City Council that the sub~ect pro~ect be exempt fram the requiremenr to prepare an Envir.on- mental Impact RrPort pursuant to the provieiona of the C~lifornia Environmental Quality ACt. itEQUEST FOR NEGATIVE DECLARA'PION FOR A GRADING PERMIT I~OR A SI1tTGLE-FAMIl~Y HOME STTE ~4.T 233 PERALTA WAY ..._ - !t was noted that application ha3 been made for a gtading permit for a single-family home site bt 233 Peralta Way; that t~~e project was located in the Scenlc Corridor and, there- fore, an e~~aluation of the environmental icapact wae r~quired since projecta located within the Scenic Corridor cannot be granted categorical exemption from the requirement to fi2.e an environmenCal impact report; b j that the Engineering Division had determined that the propoaed grading would have no eignificant environmenkal impact. ~ ~~ MINUTES, CiTY PI.ANNINC COMMISSION, Februnry 19, 1975 ~ ~ 75-7.Q'~ REQUrST FUR NGCATIVi DLCI.AH/-TTC1N FOR A GFtADING PCRMII' FOR A SINCL'c;-FAMILY HOME SI'rL A'T 233_ PF.RALTIL WA1 Continued~ _____~ ~ - -_~- •-••-------~ -- Cummioeio~or Gauar offer~d a motion, seconded by C~mn-iasioner Morlc+y r~nd MOTYON CAR.ItIEU (Commir~eiunpr Farano being nbyent), that tho Planninq Commiesion r~connnende to the CiCy Cou~ic.ll that th~ eu~,ject project be exempt f.rom tho requirement to prepare an Lnviron- mentnl Lmpact Rep~rt pureuant t~ the provlRians ot tl~e Californin ~nvir~~nmental Quality ncc. RGQUES'1' FOR ~iR NCCATIVF. 1)ECLAfL1TI0N POR A CRAD'iNG PF:RMI'C FOR A SINGLE-FAMLLY RUML SITE AT 7U1 PER/'~I._fA HII.LS URIVI3. _,__..~. .... --- -- Tt wao not~~d that application hAd baen made for a grading perwit for A single-fnmily home eite at 'I01 Pera.lta Hi.lle ilrive; that the proje~t wae 'located in the 5cenic Corrirlor. and, therer~re~ an evaluation of the environmental impact wae required eince projecCa lucated withi.n r.he Scenic Corridor cannot be granted categorical er.emntion froia the requirement to fila an Environmental ImpacC ReporC; and that the Engineering Di~-ieion had determined that the propoaed grading would t~av~~ no eigni°icant environmental i.mpact. Conaniaeion~r rlorley offered a mot.ion, aeconded by Commiasioner K.1.~ig and MOTZON CA[tItTED (Commieoioner Tarano being r~bsent), that the Planning Commieaton recommenda to the City Cosnc'1 that the sub,ject pro;Ject be exempt fram the requirement to prepnre an Environ-• menCal Impact ReporC, pur.sunnt to the ,~rov~siuns of lhe C~lifo;:nia Environmsntal Quality Act. REQUEST rOR ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARAT.ION FOR A GRADING PERMIT FOR AN INDUSTRI.L SITE AT 48~0 L'A3T LA PALMA AVENUE. • ].t wA~ noted that application had bee~1 made for a grading permit for an industrial build- Ing ~ite ~it 482U EasC La Palma Avenue ir. the ~+ortheast Industrial Area; that the pro~ect was located within the Scenic Corridor and, therefore~ an evaluation of the environmental impact was required ~ince pro~ects located within the Scenic Corridor cdr^~t be granted cateRorical. exemptiun fron~ the tequirement ~o file an Environmental Impact ReporC; ~^d ;.haC the Cngineering Division had determined that the pioposed grading would have no significnnt environmentai impact. Commissioner Gauer offered a motiun, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTIUN CARRI~n (Commissioner Far.ano being absent), tl-aC t•he Planning CoAUnission. recommEnds to the City Council that the subject pro;ject be exempt from the requi~rement to prepare an Environ- mental Impact Report, pursuant to the pruvisions of the Califurnia Environmental Quality Act. REQUEST FOR ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GRADING PERMIT FOR A DISpOSAL SZT~ AT THF SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SERRANO AVE:NUE AND HIDDEN CANYON ROM . It was noted that appl:I.caCion had bpen made for a grading permit for a disposal si.te at the southwest corner of Serrano Aveuue and Hidden Canyon Road; that surplus earth from a project west of the site would be depositPd on both sides of the rietropolitan Water. Diatrict easement whi.ch ran through the sub~ect property and the quantity of fill would be approximately 9,1U0 cubic yards; that the alopes on the property exceeded l0Y and, conse-- quently, an evaluation ~f the environmental impact waa required; that gradin~ on land with a slope of 10% or m~re may not be granted categorical exemption from the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report; and that Lhe Engineer:ing Aivision had determined that the proposed gradi.ng would have no aignificant environmental impact. Commisaioner Tolar offered a motion, seco~ded b,y (:ommissioner Morley an:l MOTION CARRIED (Cummissioner Farano being absent), that the Plannin$ Commtssion recommends to the City Council that the subject pro~ect be exempt from Ctie requiremant to prepare an Environ- menCal Impact Report, pursnant to the provisione nf the California Gnvironmental Qnality Act. ~ ~ • MINI~TE;S. CTTY PLANNING COI~tISSiON~ February 19, 1975 75-1U4 REPORTS AND - ITEM NA. 1 RBCUl~U~1ENDATIONS REQUCST F'~R EIR NCGATIVI's DECIJ!(tA'CIUN FOR A CRMING PLItMTT FOIt A SINCLE-FAMILY IIOM~ SL'1~ AT 6475 MOIiLCR llRIVF.. It ~~aR noted that application hud been made for a grnding per.mi[ at 6~i7S Mohl~r Drf.ve. Co cor~etruct n einglu-family residence; that, einc~~ the alope of. th~ land would be at leeot lOX~ an evuluatlon of the enUi.ranmental impact of grading at khe sub~ecC location wgs required under the proviainns of the Cali.furnia Environmental Quality Act and :t~e State E1R Guidelinea; nnd that a study of tlie propoaed grading by the ~ngineering Diviaion and Chr bev~lopmen,t Scrvicea Department indicnted that a~id grading would huve no eignifi.cant envlroi-m~nCnl impnct. Commiesioner Morley offered a motion~ aeconded by C~mmissi.onor King and MOTION CARRIED (Commtesioner. Farano being absent)~ Ch~t the Planning Commissi.on recommends to the City Counci]. that the aub,ject project be exempt from the requirement to prepure an Environ- ~nenCa~. ImpacC Reporr, pureuant to the ravis!.one of [he California ~nvironmental Quality n~t. Commi.3sioner ,iahnson noted that he lived in the aub~er_t area and it app~ared th~t the grading was being accomplished and the homes constructed pri.or t~ applicati.on being made fax' gradlag permits; and he requested that the matter be itivesti~aCed by ~•Lty SCaff. ITEM N0. 2 REQUEST FOIt EIR NEGATiV~ DECLARATION - T[tACT N0. 8678 It was noteci Ch3C the final map for Tzact No. 86"/8 had been sub~nil•.ted and that, eince an evaluation of the ecivironmental lmpacC and finding thereon was not made prior to L•he tentat'.ve tract map being appr~ved by the City Council on June 1.8, 1?74, SCaff was recom- mendin,~ that an FIR Negati.ve Declar.ation be proce~sed at thia time. It was further noted that tlie petitioner was propueing to construct a multipl.e-famil,y reaidential dev:lopment conaiating of 77 units in ].0 structuree on 3.47 acres of land located northwest of the intersectian of Mtralom~ Avenue and the Orang~ Freeway; thaC the property was zoned R-3 and indicaCed as appropriate for medium density residQntial development. on the City of Anaheim Generat Pla,1 and, therefore, the proposed development was in conformance with the zontng; that the surrounding land uses consisted of multiple-f.amil} residential on the west, limited indusCrial across Mir.aloma to the south and across che Orange Freeway to the east, with residential development in the City of Placentia to the norCh; and that it appeared that the proposed development would have no eignificant environmental impact. Commissionex King offered a motian, seconded by Commisaioner To11r and MO'TION CARRIED (Commissioner Farano being absenC), that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the ssb~ect pro~ect be exempc from the requirement Co prepare an Environ- mental ImpacC Report, pursuant to the provisi.ons of the Califo~rni.a Gnvironment~l Quality Act. ITGM PiO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1470 - Request foz extension ~f time - Property consisting ~f approximately 0.$ acce located on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard approximately 1~4 feet north of the centerline of Vermont Avenue and being further described as 887 South Anaheim Boulevard. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberta preaented the Staff Report to the Planning Commisaion dated February 19, 1975, and said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutea. Mr. Robertx noted that on June 10, 1974, the Planning Commission granted Conditinnal llae Permit N~. 1470 to continue operation of u b~ard and care facility for the treatment of alcoholics in the CL Zone; that said use was authorized for a period of two year~ (with possible time extensiona) and was granted sub~ect to four canditiona bping eatisfied with- in a period of I80 days; that one of sai.d conditiong had been satisfied, being payc-ent of street trez fees; that two of said conditions pertained to street dedication along Anaheim Boulevard and alley dedication along the west property line; and that the fourth condition specified "That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standarda of the IIniform Building, Plumbing, Flectrical, Houaing, Mechanical and F'ire Codes, as adopted by the City of Anaheim for an H-occupanc~l, said corrective work to be commenced iimmediately ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMI5Si0N~ Februxry 19~ 1975 75-105 LTBM N0. 3 (Continued) and comptetc!d within 180 daya; nnd that ehould eaid correctiv~ w~rk n~~t be ~ompleted witl~- in the afor unenl•4onRd tima achddule, the petitioner mey request ai~ axteneion of timP tc, do sa und~ upan approval hy the Plaiining Commiseion. an additional pertod of timP may be graat~~~l to camplete thie condition~" Mr. Roberts furthex n~~tecl tl;ut the petiti.aner wae requa:~ting a eix-monCh timc~ extension tor completiun oE r,he coriditione nnd to u11ow time for rec~ipt of c~ financin.l grnnC trom Alcoholiem Progrnm ManaRemec~t; eaid requesC was a result of invc:xtigation by t.he Zoning isnforcement Officer, whlch indi.catad ~hat as of Dacember 5, 197G~ npplic~tion for. Che neceseary permite t~ad not baen made nor had any in~ipectiony besn mttde; that the 7.onin~ Enforcemenk Offi~er had further nr~ted that A goat wae being kept on the premi.aes and the Code did nok per.mit tt~a keapii~g of goats e•ccept on residential parcela larger th~-n onc acre i;t eize; that, edditionally, the petitioner originally atipulated that t-ia basement nnd attic would not be used for sleeping or 1:lving purposes, and the 7.oning Enforct~ment Officer indicated thaC beds were located in tt~e base- ment, ~-nd ttiat the petitioner was currenCly plumling Co improve Che bnacment for use as an office. ~ ~ In response :o yueationing by the Planning Commltieion ra to why funds were not available to make tlie necessury improvemente and what the purpose of Che gont on the premis~s wsa, etc.~ Aeaietant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalat~ti noted that tl-e petitioner had applled fnr another aimilnr f.ACility on Lemon SCreet and said app]ication w4s acheduled f~r public hearing on March 3, 1975, at which time Che petitioner. ahould be availuble to anawer quNatione regarding l•t~e requeated time extenaion, etc. The ~'lanning Comnl.sHion generully concixrred that conaiderat'ion of request for extension of. time for completion of. conditions for Conditional Uae Permit Na. 1470 be poatponed tu Mi~rch 3, 1975, in order that the petitioner could be present to anewer questians cuncern- ing said request. .LTGM T~O. 4 TRACT N0. 851.4 - Request for ap~roval of fence ptans - Property consistiu~ of appLoximately 1U.6 acres loc.ated ad,jacenC ro the southeast shorp of the Walnut Canyon Reoexvoir and northwest of the intergection of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti presented the Stuff Report to th.~ Planning Commisalon dated Fehruary 19, 1975, and said Staff Report is referred to nnd mase a part of the minutes. She noted that Tentative Map uf Tract No. 8514, proposing subdivision of sub~ect prc+pertiy into 41 RM-2400 lo~s, was appro•~ed by Gity Council on January 22, 197G, and approval was subject to the coadition, "That prior t~ approval of the finel tract map, final apecific plans sha11 be s~~.',,mitted and appr~~ved in accordance with provisions of the PC, Planned Community, Zone"; that all of Che items normally required under final spec[fic plans had been previously approved, with the pxcQpti~n of the fence plans for the develop- ment. Zoning Supervisor Charles Robc,rts noted for the Planning Commission that the submi.teed fence plans illu~trated fence locations along the Walnut Canyon Reaervoir and that said fence would rnnge in height from 30 inches to 6 feet, the lower fence height being to unobstr.uct any desirabie view. Cou~misaioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRYED (Commiasi~ner FaYano being abaent), that the fence plana, as submi.tted for Tract No. 8514, be and hereby are approved. 'LTEM N0. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1142 - Request for termination - Property coneisting of approxim3tely 8.9 acres, located at the northheak corner of Blue Gum and Coronado StrPets, a~d zoned M-1. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the Develepa~ent Services Department memorandum Co the Planning Commission dated February 19, ].975, and said mem~randum is referred eo anJ made a part of tihe minutes. fle noted that the property owner (Mr. Bick Taormina) was requeating that the sub:ject conditional uae permit be terminated since he had no ~se for ~ • ~ MINUxGS, C1'PY t'LANNING COMM'LSSI~DI. Fobruary 19, 1975 I'1'~M NV. :i ~i.vui.:.Gu::u; __.....-.---.~ 75-LQ6 the verwlt at Cli~ present Cime and Che Cenunt wh~ originally wanted euid permit had r.an- celled their l.ease on July 1~ 1970; thut at khe timc tiie eubJect property wr~e annoxed to kha City of AnuhQim, the Plnnning Commiseinn approved tlie conditional. une permit to permit the ex~nnsion of thQ existing nonconforming trnnei.t and transpor,taticm equipment storage yard and the future eRcablietiment of an encloKed restauranC wi.th waivc~r of the required 6-foot mesonry wnll and parmitted, in 11eu ttiereof~ a 6-foot hlgh cheinlink fc+nce inCer- woven wiCh aliiminum Alats for the west und n~rth property linee~ etc.~ •~nd aubsuquently the Planning Commleaion canai.clere.d and approved cerksin requeBte for modificntion uf kheir original approvnl oC the condltional u6e permit; that City Staff hnd met: wl.Ch the owner of the property and the uper.ator os' che tr.ucking facility on aeveral ~~ccaeione in an utt~mp*_ to gain compliance with thp co:•~ditiona imposed by Che condiCional uae 7ermit and~ to date~ many uf the conditione remAined une~tiefied; ~hat cumplainCe had be~n received f.t:om i.ndua- trial property owners eurruunding the aub~ect properl•y expresei.ng their concern over the uneightlineas of the property snd requesting the City to rAquire compliance with the conditions of approval, and such uttempta hnd been unsucceaeful; ond t~iat Che pr.operty owner had indicated a deaire to reverC the facillty Cu ita aCate at the t~me of. annexatio~l to the Clty in order lhat no furChex improvementa would be required unti.l Ruch time ~g elther iie or fln operutor desired to exPand the £aciliti.ea. Mr. Roberts further noted that granting of the req~iea~ to terminate the condiCionIIl use permtt wo~ild probai~].y not improve the condition of the. property with respect to ita ~inaightl.ines~. Mr. Cnr1 Sntor, 9361 Hazel Street~ Villa Park. appearpd before the Plenning Com.~uiASion as a cuncerned property ownsr in tha immedlat:e arsa, and etated the sub~ec[ prc,perCy hnd been a continuoua problem aince 1969; that he owned two industr.ial buildings in the immedi.ate area and employed approximately 250 people, ar-d hia oper:ition was in conformance wit~~ the Gity's Codea and rules. Mr. Sator continued by staCing that he had written to the property owner und the City requesting to have the aub~ect: ~^roperty cleaned up; thak treea, par~rs, etc. were br.oughC to the properCy of£ and on which were prubably ~old because they woiald later disappear; and that if the c~ubje~t property owner continued to operate he should be required to confor.m to the condition~sl use permit which was issued. Commisaioner Gauer noted that the City should be able to take an action ~u clear up the matCer througl~ an additic,nal publ.ic hearing on the conditionul use perrait. Chairman Herbat noted that the aub;ject area was growing wiCh induetrial buildin8s; Chat he could see norhing wrong with the Cruck site as l~ng as it c^nformed to the zonir.g atandarde; and that if the property owner did nor. wish Co conform, Chen the use of the prapercy should be phased out since it wn~ ver~ unsightly and should not be allowed to run down the area. AT E:25 F'.M., COhR`lISSIUNER GAUGR L~FT TIiE MEETZNG. peputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that a nonconformin.g use should be terminated hithin three years following annexation, accordinE to the City Ordi.riancc~. Chairman Herbst then noted that tlie property owner should be requested to appear before Che Planning Commisaion undPr the Report and Recommen~datlon section o~ the agenda, and then, if ner.easary, a further p~:blic hearing could be held; and in no event ahoulc; the present situation be allowPd to continue at the expense o£ the other people in the area. The Planning ~ommission generally concurred that Staff be directed to contact the owner of the subject property to appear before the Planning Commission to discuss the subject condI.tional uge germit at the earl.iest possible time. ITEI4 N0. 6 PROPOSED l~"VISIONS TO TH~ HIZLSIDE GRAAING ORDINANCE AND HILLSIDE CfZADING STANllAR.''i.i FOR CUNTOUR GRADING. Off.ica Engineer Jay Titus noted thaC the Planning Co~mnisaion had indicated concern regard- ing the average slop~ of two to one and the Engineering Diviaion had proposed that "...the steepe ~ permissible ra~io of a contoured graded slope shall be one and one-half horizontal to one vertica.l; and a minimum of fifty percent of the horizontal length of the tae of the slope rshall have a alupe flatter than two horizontal to cne vertical" and Anaheim Hills and the Task Force did not agree with that and recommended that satd requirement be deleted £rom the Grading Ordinance (see last aentence of Section 17.06.110 - Excavation ia) and . ~ . MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING COMMT.~SiON~ Febru+~ry 19. 1915~ 75-1U7 ITEM N0. 6 (ConCinued) 3eGtion ~7•06.120 - Fills (b) of tt~e Grading Ordlnence); that regarding the Hilleide Grading Stanclards fur Contuur Grading. the Tnsk ~'orce rNCOmmended thet paragraph 1 on page 2(Curvud Linear Sl.opes) be amended~ adding the worda "top and/or tue" where appropriate~ said puragraph to reud: "Curved Linenr S1oLeR. Whore a cut or fill glope exceede 20b feat in horixontul lengCh~ the t~p and/or [oe of the s].oFe al~al.l be curved in a convex or cocicuve mcinner to provide a v~tr~.pty of eiope ratioR. The rNk~o ~C the top and/or toe of slope nh~ll. be i~o gxer~ter ehan 300 feet. A minimum of 50 percent of ttie horixontt~l length of the slope us meaeured at tho Coe of the slope ahall havo a slope ratio flat.ter tl~an two horixontal to ~ne vertlcal." Aseis~ant Planner A1 Dr~um noted for ehe Planning (:ommissi.on thnt the Tusk F~ice wae alao recoc~ending thut ti~e Gradi.ng ~rdlnance eroeion cQ11trol measures be amended to require the plantin& of annual r,ye or appro'•~ed blade gras~ oc~ the slopes~ eaid eiecti.on to re+~d: "17.06.141 - Erosion Centrol Measures - Pr.ior to final inepection of grad.'_ng operaCione as provi.ded in Section 17.06•180(b), annuul rye or approved blade grags ehall be planted on a11 cuC or Ef11 olopes which require nlanting~ tiinlesr~ final .landscaping plane i~ave been eubmttted and. approveci~" Mr. Hcrat Schor~ represenCing Anaheim Hille, Inc., appeared Eefore the Planning Commiasion and indicated they would like to see the Ta~k :orce recnmmendal•ions adopted and given a try; and thxt~ in this respect, Mahein~ woul.d probably aet a model for other citiea to Pollow. Cha:lrman Herbat noted thut ~he c~operntian displayed by Anaheim Hills, developere and the homeowners r•orking toward a mutually-acceptable Gradin$ Or.dinance fur the City was very much appreciated t~nd that, i.n his opinion, Che recowmer.dattons ehould he udopted. Commiesioner Tolar offered e motion, aeconded by Commi.asiouex Morley and MOTIOt1 ~ARRIED (C~maniasioners GauNr and Farano being ebaenC), that the Plunning Corumiss~ton doea herpby adopt and x•ecommends to the Clty Council adoption of the foregoing ~cuendments -:o the ~rading Ordinance and the Hillside Grading Standarda £or Contouc Grading, as recommended by the Car.yon Area General Planning Task Force. ADJOURNIMENT - There being nfl further buainess to diacusa, Commiesfo::er.• Morley offered a motian, seconded by C~wulssioner King and rIOTIUN CARRIED (CommlaeionEra FP.rano and Gauer beirig absent), to ad~~urn the meeting. The meeting ad~ourned a` 6:40 p.m. ResPectfull.y submitted, ,r.~.~~~.o~.~/~ ~~~"~c-Qa.~~c._/ Patric~a B. Scanlan, SecreCary Anaheim City PZanning Ccmmission PBS:hm