Loading...
Minutes-PC 1975/03/03p~ C n MICRGf IL~ING SERVIC~, iNC • ~ ~ Clty Ha1l. Anahet.m~ CAlifarnia March 3~ 1975 RF(:,ULAR MI:F.TING OF THis MIAl1CIM CIT't ?1.ANNING COMMISSION RCCGI.AR - A r~gulur mecting of the An~heim City P1z~nni~ng Commta~~ion wne cnlled to MEI'sTxNG or~i~r by (lhnirmnn NerbeC at 1:3U p.m. iu thc C~uncll ChnmbQr~ n quorum bai~~g pre:~cnt. I'RGSIsN'I' - (:HAIRMAN: HerbxC - COhIIdISSIONI:RS: ~nreno~ Gauer, .1~'•naon~ King A13S1:NT - COI~tiSSIONH,RS: Morley, 'folur ALSU PRGSENT - Development Services Uepartment Director: Rannld Thompaon Deputy City Attorney: Fr~nk Lowry Office Engineex: Jay Titus 7.oninp, Supervi~or: Charles Raberta A~sa.erant 2oning Supervisor: Annika Sentalahti Commiesion Secr~tary: Patricia Scanlan PLI?D(:E OF - Commisc~ioner King led in :he Fledge of Allegiance to the !~'las of the ALLLGIANCE United Skntc~s of America. ENVIRONMGNTAL IMPACT - CONTINUED YUBL]C HEARING. GEOkGE J. HELTZER CUha'ANY~ 740 North R~PORT N0. 142 La Brea Avenue~ Las Angelea, Ca. 90038 AND TEXACO, INC., 3 9 22 Cr~mpus Drive, Newpurt Beach, Ca. 92660 (Owners); ANACAI. ENGINEERING COMPANY, RhCLASSIFIC~~L'ION P. 0. IIox 3668, Anaheim, Ca. 92803 ~A~ent); xequeyting tha t property IvO. 74-75-24 described as: An irregularly-ahaped par.:el of land cniisisting of "" -" ~ approximately 7 acres located nortt~ and wesC of the northweat corner of La Pa1mA .Avenue and State College Boulevnrd, tiaving approximaee Frontages of. 2G5 feet oa the north side of La Palma Avenue and 783 f.eet on the west si.de of State Coi].ege l3oulevard be reclasaifled from the RS-A-43,000 (R1iSIDENTIAI./AGRICULTURAL) ZON~ to the CL (C~MMERCIAL, LIMITED) Z~NE. Sub~ect petition was continued from the meetin$s of. Febr<<ary 3 and 19, 1975, to aeelc clari- fi.cation from the City Council re.gardtng acquisiCion of ~sdditional. land for Edison Park and fur revised plans, respe::tivel.y. No one indl.cated their preaenc2 in opposition to subject petition. A1~tiough the Staff Report to the Planning Conuaission daL-ed March 3, 1975, was not read at the public he3rinU, it is refPrred to and mAde a part of the minutes. Assietant Zoning Supervi::or Annika Santalahti read a let~er dated March 3, 1575, f~ om rtark A. Smith, Attorn.:y-ae-Law, representing the owner of Che Granada Square commerciul deve1op- ment across the street, said letter addresaing General Plan Amendment No. 138 which con- sidered a lsrger parcel including tha property made the sub~ect of Reclassification No. 74-75-24 and further addressing Environmental Impact Report in con~unction wir.h Re cla9si•• ficaCion ~o. 74-75-24, and requesting a two-week continuance of the public hearing. Thereupon, Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that since tt~e General Plan Amendment No. 138 and ExR No. 142 had been acted upon by the Planning C~mmiesion ar, their meeting of February 19, 1975, Mr. Smith should be so notified and adviaed that he could a~tend lhe City Council public hearings on those matters. Mr. IIill Reinhar.dt, representing ttie Newpor* Beach Development Corporation, appear Pd before the Planning Commission ~nd stated that although they ware pr.oposing to provide the 20-£oot lundacaped buffer at the north and wesc property linea with 15-gallon tree s on 20-fooC centers, thev were respectfully requesting some relief, if posaible. tie explained rhe re•~isions made to the plar_a since the meetin3 of the Ylanning Comnission on F ebruary 19, 1975, being that they had reduced the gross floor area by a few tho~:sanr equar e feet in order to meet r.he laldscaping requirement; that they had slso moved the atore building forward toward State ~Cu] lege Boulevard; that the building had b~en furtlier reduced on the north end to accomn:~daCe the turtiing radi+is; and that th~: driveways had bec~n redu~ed and buffering provided as si-~wn on the revised planc~. 75-106 ~ ~J w ~ MINUTGS, CITY Pi.ANNING COMMIS5ION~ Mar~:n 3, 1975 75-109 F.NViRONMGNTAI. TMPACT k1:PORT N0, 1G2 AND t2EC:.119SI~TCATlON NO.. 74-75-24. (Contlnuad) THE PUnI.IC H~AkTNC WAS CLOSCI). Commi.er~ioner Furanc~ inyuired J i tlia p~ttttaner ~~ould l>o willing ta atipulate thnt thA proposed ~AVQlopment wo~ild bt c:onetructed preciaely l.n accardunr.e wiCh pl~ne and yp~rci- flcnti~nr~ eubn-iCted nr outllned at tliie meetinB, wt-e+reupon~ Mr. Reinl~ardt etotod tha design n.levacions would '~e axeclly ne sh~wn on the plana, however, the re~duction of the building to al]ow Eor th~ turning radiuA~ thu ceducC~on oE the resluurant by npproximnkaly 300 squarc~ teet~ und cer.tnin other amull changea were not ehown wl~icli wnuld not conetil•uta aubstnntial or e.levr~kion changeR~ hawever. Commi.se~.~npr E~nrano than notec! that 1£ Staf £ fe1C aiiy of th~ changea made ware very sub- dtanCial or conetitut~ed fi ma~or deviatior~ from t'ne submir_tad pl~ne~ then the matt4r could be braught back to the Planni.ng Commission for revi~w. Ic wa3 noled th+~t ut their meeting uE FebrusiY 19, 1975~ the Planning Commieelon coneidercd F.nvironmentnl Impact Report No. 142~ and rec mmended to the City Council thet said CIR b~ certi£ied as in compllnnce with ltic; i:nvir~~;t~enta~ Quality Act. Commiaeioncr Farano offered Reealution No. pC75-41 ~snd moved for its paeaage nnd Adoption lo recommend Co the City Council opproval af Petition for Reclaesitication No. 74-75-7.4, sub~ect to tl~e condition that the sub~ect pro~~rty aii~sll be developed precieely in accord- ance with plans and speci[icatior.e on file with the Ciky o£ Anaheim msrked Exhibit Nna. 1, 2 and 5(Revisione Nos. .1) and 3 and 4~ as atipulated to by the petitioner; and aub~ect t~ conditions. (See Keaolution 8ook) On roll c.all, th~ foregoing resolu[lan was pasaed by tlie following vote: AYES: COMt•tISSIONERS: FARANO, GAU~R, JOHN50N~ KINC, HCRBST NOCS: COMMISSIONER5: NONE ABSEN'1: COMMISSIOP~ERS: M(?RLi:Y, TOLAR ENVIRONMEI~TAL Il~[PACT - CUNTT.NLIED PUIILl"C ~IEARING. OCCIDENTAL LAND, INC. , P. 0. Bax B, REPORT N0. ].47 Newport neach, t;a_ 92660 (Owner): WALT KGUSDER, 1691 Ketl•ering - ~ Str.eet, Irvine. Ca, 92705 (Agent); requesting WAIVRR OF (A) VARIANCE N0. 2669 MINZMUM FLOOR AREA, (B) MINIMUM WIDTH OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY, (C) REQUIRED ENCLOSURE OF CARPORTS, AND (il) VEHICLE ACCESS REQUIRE- MENT3, TO CONSTRUCr A~i6-UNI'r APAR7'MENT COMPLEX on px'operCy described as: M irregularly-ehaped parce 1 of land consisting cF approximately 12 acres located nort.herly of t' Riversile ~reeway und Miraloma Way, having a f rontage of approxi- mately 250 feet on the noxth side of Miraloma jday, having a maxim~uu depth of app:oximately 610 feet, anri being located approximately 375 feet west of the centerl tn,e of Lawrenc:e Avenue. Property pres~~ntly classifie:d ML (INDllSTRIAL, LIMITED) 20NE. Subject petitiun was conticiued fr~m the me eCings of February 3 and 19, 1.975, f~r the peti- tioner to submit an Environmental Impact Report. It was noted tha[ Environ.mental Impuct Rep ort No. 1G7 wa~, submitted b~' the petitioner, however, du~e to the fuct that said EIR, a s reviaed following EIR Rev:ew Committee xecom- mendations on February 25, 1975, had not been further reviewed by s3id Commiteee, and therefore, the Pl.anning Commission may determine that the eubject petition. ~und EIR be continued to the Planning Commission meEt inP ot March 31, 1975. Commissioner Farano offered a motioa, aeconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioners hiorley and Tolar being abs ent)~ that consideratior~ of Envir.onmental Impact Report No. 147 and pub]!c hearing for Var iance No. 2669 be further con tinued to Ghe Flantiing Comn:ission meeting of March 31, 1975. Following the Planning Commission' a cons iderati.on of Item 4(Vari, nce No. 2671) ~ Mr. Richard Mo:tte~ 4462 Paloma Lanet Yurb a Linda, repzesenting apprax imately ei~~c persona presant in ~npoaition to EIR iio. 147 and Vuriance No. 2669y appeared b efore the Plann3ng Commiseion and indicated that h~ and seve ral other persons had been pr eaent on four differ- ent. dates when the aub~ect pEtition was s cheduled for public hear~ng by the Planning Commission; that they were opposed to the oub~ect petition because ~f the traffic congeot~nn that the propoaed apartment complex could create aince there was only one accesa for ingrese ~ • ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY 1'LANNING CUMMIS3IC)N. March 3, 1975 75-1J.0 i:NVIRUNM~NTAL IMPACT RL~PORT N0. 147_AND VARIANCG~ N0. 26b9 (Contlnuad) nnd ogreeN to tl~e area. Tharoupon, Mr, Monte etated tl~at tl~ey wou1S be preaont nt tho meoCing of Marcli 31~ 1975, to vuico t1~Qir oppoei.t~lon to che var.lance Aild not to the zoning, as euct-. Deputy City Attornc~y Frank Lowry ndvi~ed the oppoeitian th.3t the Planning Commie- elon could not. :ict or- the sub,jecC variuncc: unril thr. completed is'IR waN r~ndy f.ar Plenning CoumilHeion cor-slclerntlon. VARIANCE N0. 2bS7 - CaNTINUGD YUHLIC HEARINC. dEW CONSTRUCiLUN COMPANY~ II~C.~ 4620 f:i~Bt ~READVBRTISEU_._._ La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92807 (Owner); OMECA BOATS, ]NC.. ~640 Eaet La Palma Avenue, Anaheim~ Ca. 92807 (Agene); requaeting WA[VF.R 0~ (A) rfINIMUM FRONT SGTDACK, (B) MAXIMUM FENCE HI:IGH7~, (C) MINIM~~M NUMBER OF PA1tK1NG SPACES AND (D) (tl?QUIKEU GNCLOSUItG OF OUTDOOR USCS~ TO P~RMIT TFIE OUT~UOR STOItAGE OF 90A'fS on property descri.bed ae: An irregularly-shc~pad parcel of land c~~,.,~et- ing of apprnximately 1.25 r.icrea having u frontage of approximately 167 feet on tho eouth side of I.a Palma Avenue~ tiaving a ~uexim~un depth of approximately 347 feet, and bNing loc~led approximately 950 feeC eaeC of tl~e centerline of Lakeview P_venue. Property pre~ently cluesif ied t~,(SC) (INDUSTRIAI.~ GIMITCD) (SC'ENTC CORRIUOk) ZONC. 5ubject petiti~n wus continued from Che Planning Ccmmisaton meeking of February 19, 1975~ for. readverCisemPnC to i.nc:l~ide additic.nnl wnivers. No one inclicr~ted their preaence in oppooition to suUject petition. Although the Staff Reporr to Che Plunning Commiseion dated March 3, 1975~ wna no~ reud at the public heuring, it is referred t~ and made a par.t of the mi.nutes. Mr. Richard Donald, Attorney, represenCing the petittaner, appeared h~fore the Planning Cotnmioaion and stated the subject property had no sidewalkA and apprv~imately $30 a month wa~ being spent for ~i gardner to keep the landscaping nice; that th~s grase was not worn down bec~~use of foot traffic and, therefore, they would Cake exception to the condition set forCi~ ln lhe SCaff Report requiring Che installation of sidewa.lka. Office i:ngineer Jay Titus noted for the Plar.ning Commiesion that Staff would recommend that the referenced ~ondition requiring the inatallation of si.dewallcs be retained as a condition. He advised that the owner would have the optton of r.equeating a waiver from the City Engineer so that in the evenC sidewalks were not required at the pre~ent time bu't were needed a~t a later date, said waiver c~uld be revoked. He further adviaed that the authority to waive the requ•lrement for eidewalkg had b~en vested in the (:ity Engineer by the City Coui.cil. Mr. Donald cont.:~ued by stating regarding the r.equired setback and Che use of the property that they were a mar.ufacturing company and made the boats and sold them, and also did wazranty work; that 90% of the Uoats lhat would be parked in the frontal ar.ea woLld be there for warranty work; tnat cara were allowed Co be parked in the gtreet for 72 houra with no problem; Chat most of the boate would be in and out very rap~dly; that they were not proposing to etack boats or park bor~ta in the frontal ar.ea for extendQd pericde of time; that the 16 parkin? spaces would be for 16 trailered boats, leaving appccximately 35 parking spaces for the stx employeea en~ customer parking; and that the requirement of 49 parking spacea seemed to be ouC of the o~dinary foz the proposed use. THE PUBLIC HGARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman tierhat noted that he had reviewed the sub~ect property in the field arid the parking areo was blocked off by a fence in kront uf the property; that in the industrial zone~ the 50-foct aetback area was allowecl to be used for parking of automobilea of emplayees and custoroera, buc not for bueinesa atorage; and that tt~e other businesses in the aub~ect area had 50-f .t aetbackA in accordance with Code. Ne further noted that when he viewed the property, the parking area was almost completely utilized by boats and it appearod that the ~customers had to park in the etreet. in reeponse to queationing by Commisei~ner King, M:. Donald etated the space inaide the building was used almost entirely for manufac:turing and the boata were then atored cr parked or delivered; that duxing off-~eason~ appxoximately eix months a year. the boats would not be moved~ and use of the ftontai area for c.}eat L•ype parking would be neceeeary; and that rhe area ~o the rear of the huild ing w~s used for atorage of c,lder molds and waste. o • MINUTGS~ CITY PI.ANNING COP4dI3STON, March 3, 1975 VARIANCE N0. 2657 (Gontinued) ~ ~ ~s--~.ii Chairman H~rbet made a~1 observnCion Chut ti~e e~b~er.t properry app~ared to bQ Coo amnll i.f the use could not be cunductad without ~tilizing the setbnck erea for etorage~ and Mr. Donuld ~oncurred i.n that et~-tement. Mr. llone~ld iurthar etnted they would stipulate that e minimum of 16 parking 8pt1C8/3 would b~ sec nnidr. upacifically for c~mploysc ancl cuatomc• pnrk~ng. eaid parking apuces being mo-e than aufficienr for Choir needs~ in hie opiniun. Ne etated the properl•y next to tlie oub~~ct propAr.ty lo the e:xet appeared to be in violation nf the Code~ ei.ncF t~ales weze stored in the aetbnck Area nnd, to his knuwladga~ ChAt property did noC have a varl.ance npproved. In responee ~o quefltiuc-ing by ~ommisaioner Johneon, Zoning Supgrvisor Charles Roherts ndvised Ctiat the use of tlie property to the eaeC :~ad been in exiatence for a number of years prior to annexar:ion Co the Gity and was a nonconforming uae; ~I~aC the ordinance was conetructed in such a manner that: nonconforming ueae could c~ntinue but could not be expnnded or eignific~ntl.y altered. in such caye it would have to be brought up to the minimum RtAndards of L•he City. Chairman Herbst added thut the eaeterly property hr~d "grandfathex" rights. Commiseianer Johnson noted tliat to approve the st~b~ect variance would be giving license to sCorage which would be oppoai.te to the i.ntentton of the ordlnance. Mr. Donald atated that n].1 0£ the boata to be stored in the frontal area would be on trailers, rPmoved fairly quickly, and ~aould sarve as advertising for the bu3lness; that the bouts were sold nationall~ and internatlonally and "Anaheim, California" was on ea~h boaC; and Chat ~ilthough Chey d id not wish Co change ar.eas, if Che aub~ect location wna determined Ca be unauitable for the use, then they would liavc; to move. Chairman Herbet noted that he could aee nn di.fference between manufacturing boatr: or cardboard hoxea~ since if the front setback was used for etorage it would be in violation of the ordinance; that approval. would ~e granting a privilege not being enjoyed by othere in the area; and that La Palma Avenue was the main arterial through the induatrial. zone. Mr. llonald st~ted that eny vehiclE licenaed by ttie State of California, wher.her it was a motorcycle, wotor hame, or a boat, wuuld have to be checked by aomeone if ic was parked for nore than a 72-hour period of time; that ir, was quastionable whether a Crailered boat, parked for an 8-hour period of r.ime, would be interpreted as etored or parked, A2nce it would be on wheels. He further atated that he was trying to justify that the req«est for the variance was reasonable anu would not be detrimental to the area. Ghairman HerbsC then noted that ttiere appearpd to be no ~uatification for the variance; that although the ~andr~caping wa3 besutiful, the area behind it did not look so good and that a reasonable use of the ML Zone would he behind a 50-foot Retbaak. In respunse to queationing by Cocnmissioner King, Mr. Aonald stated that 209~ of Che boats parked in the frontal ~rea wer.e awaiting r'elivery, and the other 80y were licensed to be dri.ven on SCate highways, and ahould not be considered as atored be~ause they probably would not be there 72 houra and, addttio~all,y, they would be parked on pz'ivate praperty, which was another question. Tt~ereupon, Deputy CiCy Attorney Frank Lowry adt-ised that parking wue not allowed on private property if it violated t~~e Zoning Code, regardleas of the length of t•Lme, how- ever, automobiles were automatically exempt; and Chat boata were not vehic.l.es, as defined by Code. Ln responae to questioning by Commissioner Farano, Mr. Donald atated that the boats were enti.rely manufactured at `he sub~ect location, including lamination and any air impact operati~na involved in the manuf.actur~. Cot~-iesioner Gauer noted that he would consider a boat a vehicle, aince iC wae u ed to travel from place to place, although it was a marine-type vehicle. Hs Eurther noted that a boat was very attructive oppoaed to a dilapidated ~alopy; however, approval o~ the eub~ect varianc~ would proLably set a precedent. Commiesion,er Johnaon noted that the proposAl had reusonahle aspects, however, approval would be a bending af the Code requirements and, therefore, he would be oppoaed. A 0 ~ MiNl1Tl;S, CI'CY FLANN7NC (:OMMISSIUN~ Mnrch :ti. 1975 VAItiANCL NU. 2657 (Continued) 75-1.12 Mr. Donald inquired if the Plnnninq Commiseion w~uld approve th~ variance if he stipul+ited the parkinq would Ue restricted to boute on 11cenAed trnil.era only, nnd h~ ACatad they were not e dealor And ha~.d no licenee plnted of. their own. Thereupon, Chairmnn Herbst noted that Cl~e setback aren would etill be used for etoragc~~ wl~ich was iiut ullowed in the suL~ect zune; t1inC othore in the zone could conetruct a f~nce and hicl: atorago ln the enme manner xe wna beinq proposed; and that would be conducting buainede ir~ r.hu 5~0-foot setbn~k area. Mz. Dunald etated r}-nt the Code, which epecitiied u vehicle ue an nutomobile, wae in violatioti of. [hc equal protection rights~ whereupon, Chnirman llerbst suggeated t:hat the matter b~ fuxt.her didcusaed witli the City Attorney's Office. It wae notad that the Uirector of DevelopmenC Se:~vicea had determined thak the propoaed ac4lvity fell within khe definiCton of: SQCtion 3.01, Clmes 5 of the CiCy of Analieim Gui.delinQs to the Requiremente for an Environmental Impact Report nnd was, tt-erefote, categorically exer~pt £t'c~m tha requiremer~t to file at~ ~Ilt. Commis~ioner Johne~n offered Keaol.uti.on No. P(;75-42 and moved for ita pasange and adoptlon, tl~at Petition for. Varian~e Nn. 2657 (readver[ised) be and liereby ia denied on the basis that the pc~rking af the boata in the required fr~nt r~eCback would be construsd ae outdoor storage and~ therefore, wo~ild seC un undeai.rable pr.ecedent in the ~ffected zone. (See Resolution Bcuk) On roll call. the foregoi.ng r~ioli~kion was paa~ed Uy the following vote: AYES: COP4ylISSIONERS: FARANO~ JOI~NSON~ KING, HERB5T NOES: COMMISSIONGRS: GAUER ABSENT: COA4~IISSIONERS: MOkLEY, TOLAit Comraisaioner Cauer noted fur Che record that his "no" vote wa3 based on h.ta opinion char parking of ttte boats aiid the licensed trailers should be allowed in the rnanner stipulated to by the petiti.oner.. VARIANCE NQ. ?.671 - PUBLIC HEARING. JOfII1 MOLINARO, 14500 Firestone Boulevard, La Mirada, - Ca. 90638 (O~,ner); DEL PROPERTIES, Attn. F'red Walters, 730 South Cypresa Streel•, La Habra, C~. 90631 (Agent); requeating WAIVER OF (A) MA}LIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDTNG SIGNS, (B) MA}CITNM 51GN AREA, (C) PERMITTED SIGN LOCATION AND (L) MINIMUM NUMBER OF P~IiKING SPACES, TO CONSTRUCT A MINI-WAREHOUSE on property deacribed se: An irregularly-ehaped parcel of laiid ~onaisting of approximately 2.4 acres located west of the Santa Ana Freeway and Riverside Freeway Exchange, and having a maximum widkh a£ approximately Sf~2 feet and a maximum depth of approximateiy 250 feet. Property preFenCly clnesiiied ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) 20NE. Subject peCition was continupd from the meeting of February 19, 1975, for udditional informatior regarding the servicing of utilities to the sub~ect property. One per ~r. indicated his preaence i.n oppasition to ehe bub,iect petition. AesieCant Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti read the ~taff Report to the Plann~ng Commisaion dated March 3, 1~975, and said Staff Report is referred ta as if set forth in full in the minutes. Mr. Fred Wnlters~ repreaenting Che agent for the property owner, appeared befor.e the F~launing Commission and stated that aithougt-~ the proposed manner of acquiring utilities was not as economical as being service.d by the City of Busna Park, they were able to bring the necessary utilitiea to the property without that City's help; that Chey had obtained the neceaeary aignatures on a letrer to substanttate that they would be able to have the water made available over the ad~acenc property owned by Dunn Properties, that the Anaheim City Fir.e Department wauld provide fire protection, that sewer hookup would be available through Che Orange County ~anitation District through the City of Anaheim, that electrica~ power would be prov~ded by the 5outhern California Edison Company through the City of Anaheim. that tl~e Pacific Telephone CompBny would provide telephone oervice, thnt trash pickup would be provided Uy the Sanication ~ivleion of the City of Anahaim~ however, eince the property did not ltiave direct etreet access an extra charge for the trash picl:up aervice might be required. Mr. Welters further indicated that there war~ no need for gae to be ~ • ~ MINUTES~ CITX PLANNINC COMMTSSION~ Alsrch 3, 1975 VARTANCG N0. 2ti71. (ConCin~ed) TS-I1.3 servicod to ttia property and ttint the r4ferenced lettei hKd been eubmitked to Staff; that they iiad enterad the propoeed pro~ect knuwi.ng what their problemR were; that the property wao .Located withln tl~e City uf Anuheim boundarius and t}~e pro~ect had ba~n pureued ~n that baeis; that thr~y hed very littie street fronCage and, therefore, the pertnikted aign area would cr.ente n hardet~ip; thar r.he ma,jor Aign~ approximAeely 300 Aquare fe~t in eize et~J doublo°fnced, we~ proposed ~iear the Ereewe~y in order foi• peaple t~ kncw the use waw there and, in c~ddltlon~ t:hey werc req~.~eeting a emaller ldenCific~tion sign on Dale Stree~: which they would be satiefied to hnve 30 c~quare feet in eixe nnd double-faced. Regnrding park- i.ng, Mr. Welte:ra etat~~d there were other mini-warehouse activitioe in the City and Staff sliould be able to eubetantiata ftcom those exieting nctivilies that there wae ueu~lly c~nly two or tt~ree vehic].as parked on the premises at a tima, and the tenant parking was Co unload or load to and from the etorage u~its and~ therefare, 67 park.ing spacee would r.~ally be unnecessary aince they would not have use for that many. ML. Calvin Groae. one of the owners o£ E-2 Storage~ 8251 Orungethorpe Avenue~ Buena Yark~ appeared before the Plr~nning Commisaion in oppaeikion to the sub~ect petition and stated they were presently developing u comparable facillty a ehort distance away from the sub~ect pxoperty; that their finuncing wa~ firmed up a~d they were in final workir~g druwinga for the pr~~~ece~ which would be built as soon ao pnse3ble; that they were deeply concexned thAt thetr own pro~ect would be locaCed just across the street from the eub~dct project. since it may not be prudent to have a compet.itor so close by; ~iat lenders were concerned that so many of the proposed type developmenta were being r_onstructed, aince if the urea wae overbuilt then many mny fuil. In conc].usion, Mr. Grosa urged the Planning Conunisaion to conaider the ~ropoeal prudently and to conaider alternative uses in cnne the type bueinees was noC succesaful at tl~e proposed lacation. In rebuttal, Mr. Wtiltera atated the oppoettion was because of compptiti.on that would be generar_ed; that the subject proposal was probably at the eame stage in development as Che E-Z Storage pro~ect; khat he would queetion Mr. Groas' atatement that their financing we~e firmed up; and ttiat the E-Z Storage facility had been g anted a parking waiver also, from approximately 200 spaces reqsired to approximatel~ I2 grant~d, whict- was a waiver far in exce~s of that being requested f~ the aubject proposal. Mr. Peter ~.elgado of Tait f~ Aasocia~es. Inc., appeared before the P1Rnning Commission and stated the electri.cal power would be provid~d by mi~tual agreement With the Southern California Edison Company; that the cloaeat power was on Magnolia Avenue; and that the understanding was that if the current bond isaue was paeRed by the City of Anaheim~ then the City would probably service the praperty at ~ later date. THE PUBI.IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commisaioner Johnson noted that the Plunning Commisaion had queattons regarding the park•• ing if the use was converted at a luCuXe date, and he made an observation that it appe3red that many of the propoaed unita were garage size and could probably be converted to be used for parkiiig apaces if the use changed, whereupon, Mr.. Waltere indicated that the ground floor uni~s were 22 feet by 12 feet wide mtnimum a:~d could very easily be converted to parkin$ spaces. In response t~ queationing by Chairman Herbst, Mr. Walterg ~ta~:ed the aecond-etory metal units would be very small, roughly 5 fee[ by 6 fee:, and wo~i13 be utilized mainly for etorage of records, books, small boxes for hUbb,yists and other container~ that c~uld be stacked into Che ema11 areas; that the stairwells would be in excess of 6 feet in width and would have a nice overall appearance; that the company owned a eteel company, etc., and was in a position to do much of their own work; that they had construcCion experience with aeveral two-story apartment buiJ.dings and, ther~fare, tiie proposed stairwell treat- ment, etc., had the advantage of their firet-hand knowledge; and that they were proposing to have much landscaping uround the atairwell areas. He further responded that the secor.d-flour unita would have eteel partitions and wo~ild be much cleaner and neater than drywall conatructed units; and that if, the proposed use failed, then the unita or any combinxtion of the tinite would have unl~mited potential. Mr. Delgado added that the buildinga could be converted into very large units~ with minor m~difications required to do ~o, since the buildinga were basically of modulRr design and c~nstructed with steel tubular supporta. 'The Planning Couu~ieaion enterpd into diacuesion with Lhe petitioner regarding parking epacre which may be required if the ~iee changed, during which Commiesioner Farano noted thut he euapected that ri~e propoaed variance from tt~e parking requirement wae probably dieproportionate from wh~t had been previously allowed for aimilar usea, whereupon, ~ ~ MINUTFS, CITY PL~WNINC COIQ°(I5SI(1N. Harch 3~ 1975 VAKIANCG NU. 2671. (C~nti~iued) ~ ~ 75-114 Mr. Wnl.ters etated Cliut tiia approxi.mat.Aly 635 aCoragu unita wae prnbably coneidered to be nn over~bundanr.e of unita~ howaver~ the decand story wne all vory small units and, if not for thoee~ the project Would hava nppr~xiwately 400 to G25 uc~itn; und thnt e~mA of the perimeter uniCe, at gro~~nd level could be converted to gurages iF the use chang,e, eince tt~ay ware purpoeely made very large. Zoning Supc~rvisor Charles Roberta noted for the Planning Camn-iRSion that appruximal•ely tw~ ~t~vious mini-wsrc,hnuAe nppllcationc~ had been appxoved by the Planning Commiseion with wuiver of the pnrking r~quiremec~t; t1iaC ~~i the caee ot the rwo other facllities~ he re~ called tt:ue botll came iri originally with about 1 parkint, e fc~r 1U00 syuare feet oF grose floor aren but at a loter date they cflme back to ti~e ~lanning Commiseion for n waiver to ba pNrmixted tu use some of the parM.itiR for outdoor atorage; that tho wai•vere were grenGed by the Planning Commiesi.on primarily on the basib that, if the buildinge were converted, the par.king apricea would be there for use at that tiwe. Commiesioner Fn:aiio fi~rCher notPd tha[ accorJing to hiR cal.culations, the rroposed parking apaces nmounted to approximal-ely 1.2Y. of the number of storage Ull~tB available~ and he dld net be~ieve char thN Ylanning Commiasi.on had granted a var~iance that gubstnntial; that iC apneared same criteri.n or formula should be developed for the proposed type of uae e~~~l wich speci~l emphaeie on the ratio of unite to parking; Chat. in his oplnion, i£ the ~uil~.inga were converted to other uaes, the parall 1 parking around the perimeter would n~t be acceptabl.e or permi3aible at all, since cara would be parked parallel right in f ront o£ tt-e ~~c+ea, Mr. WalCere r_oncuzred in Commisaioner Farana' 8 opinion and clarified that he had lntended tti~t if the uee changed~ the perimeter buildings Chemaelved would be uRed for parking. Mr. Lowry adv~~ed t}~at a previouo appl.ication for a aimilar uae was approved in the North- ea~t Induetria] A*_-ea and the approval limited the use tu a mi.ni-werehouse only with the proviaion that i.f the u~e changed, then the parking requirementa for ttiat development wou.ld have to be eatisfied. Commisaioner Farano made an observation Chat if converted, the mini-~tarehouses might become commercial warehouaea at the sub~ect lccation. Thereupon, Mr. Walt.ere stipuluted they would reatrict the ~lse of the faci.lity to warehoueing only. Mr. Lowry then advised that the Code probably did not differenti.ate between mini-warehouaing and commercial warehous- ing. Chairman Herbst noted tliat the perimeter buildinga ahould be designed and designated as garagea so that any conversion wauld not hav~ built-in har~lehips. In reaponse to questioning by Commiasianer Farano, Mr. Waltera sripulated there were no pians to inatall electrical outlets or water in the proposed unita, however, there would be an electric light in the larger unita, with 110V linea. The Planning Commiasion enCered into further diacusaion with Staff regarding the use of the perimeter buildings for parking epacea in the event the use changed at a future date, during which Mr. Roberta notad that tha petitloner wae proposing to have 8-foot 6-inch maximum width doors on the larger ground floor unita and the Code provided that if garages were enclosed or covered, the doors would havQ to be a minimuII, of 9 feet wide to qualify as a parking apace, whereupon, Mr. Walters atipulaCed that the unita along the southeast and southwest property lines would be conaCructed with 10-foot wide garage-type doore. Commissioner Farano 'then noted that uae of the units in quesCion for parking would provi.de an additional 45 parking spaces when needed, or a total of 43 spaces, which would be reasonably close l•o the requirement. In reaponse to questioning by the Planning Commisaion, Mias Santalahti clarified that the required parking spaces was based upo:~ 1 parking space per 1000 square feet of grosa floor area~ and nut 2 parking apaces per 1000 square feet of g~oss floor area. Commiesioner Johnean not2d that, in his opinion, it wauld be better ta allow the use with a low number of parking spaces xaither than to inai.et on a laxger number atid :~ave buats, etc., etored in eaid apaces on tlie outside of the buildinge. Commiaeior~er Farano noted that the City of Buena Park had requeaCed that if the aub~ect proposal was granted~ that the properCy be dev:•loped in acct~rdance with the Buena Park Code, and Chairman Nerb~t noced tiiat c.i~e C~ty of ~~_;.~ °~.:'' raa ^== ~°'-'mit metal buildinge. Chairman Herbat furthar noted that the proposed vse was ~bout ae light an industrial use as poseible anfl th+-t a heavier industrial use would not be app:o~riate at ~he sub~ect location. u ~ MINLITES, CITY PLANNING COP4IISSTON, Marr.h 3, 1975 VARIANCF. N0. 2671 (Continued) ~ ~ 75-115 The 'Planning (:~mmieAioit antered inl•o diacuaeion with the petitinner regard'ng the proposed location for sagning nnd tha aizca of ~uid Higna~ during which CommiReioner Farnno noted thnt the harclehf.pA wiCt~ developm~~nt of Che sub~act property were known nt tlie ti~ne~ l•he petitionar purr.hneed Maid pruperty; c-nd Chat there waa no hardehip Co ~usCify tlie sign to be adjacont to tho freoway~ or fox freewAy-ori.entad advesrtiaement. Commineioner Farano further noted that eome fre~eway remnan~ pzoperlirs ehould nevar be devQlopad nt all. ti1r. Wultere Ktated Chat they wanted prope~. identification for khe proposed bueinesg in order for it to r+uccocsd; tt~at another eimilar. storagu facility in the City of Anaheim~ was able to have c~~~ appruximatPly 200 to 250-aquare foot yign right on ttie Riverside Freeway ufE Krnemer Bouleverd. In respocise to q~nstioning by Commiseioner Cauer. Mr. Robert~ advieed thut a property ~n tlie sublQCt zone was all.owed by Ccde to have 2 equAre fe~t of eign area per lineal foot of atreet frontage~ provided thot the aign wae back a minimum of 25 feat from the righ[-of- way line, for a mnximum of 350 aquare feel:, and it appeared th~-t the referenced pxoperty off Kraemer Baulevard had approximately 200 feet uf. frontxge along LE Mesa Street. Miea Santalahti ft~rther noted that with no fronCage, the develop~i would be alluwed a muximum oE 30 eq~~'~re feet. Chaitmun Herbat t}~en noted there were aoms iiiequities to the Sign Code und th ..~b~ect parcol~ comprised uf approximal•ely 2.5 acres of 1and, etiuuld be entiCled to son~e substantial signing, alChough there was limited local street frontage and abouC 500 feet of freoway frontage; that~ on tha*_ basis, the petitioner woald have a hsrdship and should be e1.lowed Co have a sign comparable to si.gna ullowed for other properti.e~ of equnl size. Cocmnissioner Farano took exception, noting tt~at. th~ sub~ect property had no more of a hardehip than any other parcel wtiich wae located in tt~e middl.e of a block with limited street fruntage (AaYe Street), and that it appeared the petitioner was intereaCed to i~ave freeway signing. Commfaeioner King noted thaC he agreed with Cha~lrman Herbst and, thereupon; Chairman Herbst ~~ugge9ted that one f.ree-standing sign be approvad for Che aubJect ;roperty~ said aign to be a maxi.mum of 200 aquAre f.eet in aize. Mr. Roberta noted that ii the intent of the Planning Crnnmisaion wae to approva the aub;Ject variance, tlien a condition should be added, "That the prnposed meta'1 buildi.ngs shall be construc~ed in accordance with the City Council Met~l Building Policy." Tn response to questioning by Chairman tlerbst, the petitioner ~tipulatec~ tnaT. the free- aCanding aign would be located a minimum of 45 feet from l•he ad~acent State of Californih property line. The petitioner further stated that they would have no neighbore in the area of t}~e sign. In response to queationing by the petftioner, the Planning Commiasian adviaed tl~-at wall signing would be permitCed, also. It was noted that the Director of Development Services~ had determtned that the proposed activity fell within the definiCion of Section 3.01, Clasa 11 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Envtronmental Impact Report and was, Cherefore, cateEorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Commiesioner ~auer offered Reao.lution No. PC75-43 aud moved for ita pasaage and adoptian that Petition for Variance No. 2671 be and hereby is granted, in par.t, denying waiver ~~f the maximum number of fre~-sCandtng signa oi: the basis that the proposed mini-waret-aus~~. can be adequaCely advertised through the use of one free-etanding aign and such WAll ~;na as permitted in the ML Zone; granting waiver of the maximum sign area for a maximum si~~~ area ~f 200 equare feet on the basis that said sign diaplay area is no*_ unus~al For the aub~ect property whi.ch exceeds 2 acrea in size; granting waiver oF the pexmitted ~sign location. in part, for one free-stnnding sign to be locnted a minimum of 45 feet from Lhe adjacent State of California property line, as ahown on khe exhibit and as etipulated to by the petitioner; granting waiver of the minimum nambet of parking apaces on the basis that the petitioner atipulated that the mini-warehouse unite along the so~itheast and southweaC ptoperty lines will be canstructed with LO-foot wide garage-type doora and, in ti~e event the proposed mini-warehouse use of the property changes, said unita may be converted into additi.o~tal parking spaces in accordance with Code requirementa; that the use of the sub~ect property is grantcd for a mini-warehouse use only, howevpr. if at a future date a chang~ in sa3d use is propoaed, then the propoaed use ~iill be sub,ject to approval by the Planning Commisaion and/or City Council, and the struct~:ea will be required to be brou~ht up to tiie minimum standards of all Codes adopt2d by ttie City nf Anaheim; subject to the etipulatione of the petitioneY• and sub~ect to conditione inc~uding that khe proposed metal buildings ahall be conatructed in accordance with the Citu Cou~ncil rtetal Yiuilding -'ulicy. (See Reeolution Bouk) ~ ~ ~ MINUTGS~ CITY PLANNINC COt~fISSiON~ Murch 3, 1975 75-116 VARLANI;E N0. 2671 (C~ntinued) On roll call~ the Loreginq reeolution wge paesed by the fullowing vote: AYIsS: COI~PIISSIONERS: GAUER~ JOHNSON~ KING, HEItBST NOES: COI~tISStONrxs: Fn[tntao ABSENT: COr4fISSIANERS: MOKLEY. TOLAR Commiseioner l~arano noted thAt he hnd vated "no" qainet the resolution eince he wae opposed to ~1lowing mora than 30 equare feet of e;.gn area at the sub,ject location. At ttie auggesti.on of Commiaeiocier Farano~ Che Planning Coanmiaeion generally concurrF:d that S~aff be directed to underCake a eCudy te analyze the use of freeway remnant property in an efforC Co form~~laCe some development criteria for same. RECLASSIF7.CATION - FGBL;.C HEARIr1G. JOHN A. AND GRACi's C. STEFFY, 9535 Anaheim Boulevard, N0. 74-75-27 Anaheim. Ca. 9'1805 (Ownere); SANTA ANITA AN~VELOPMENT c;ORPORATION~ -r'-~~ Attn: Robert W. Johnson, P. Q. aox 1880, Newport Deach, Ca. 92660 (Agent); requesting that praperty described ae: A. recCangulRrly- shapad parcel of lend cor~sisCing of approximakely .44 acre ].ucated at the aoutheast c~r.ner of South Stre~t and Anaheim Bourevard, having approximate frontages of 144 feet on the south eide of ~outh Street and 134 feet on the east side of Anaheim B~ulevard be reclasei- £ied from the RM-1200 (1tESIDENTIAI,, MULTIPLE-FAMIT.Y) ZONE to the CL (COMMERCIAL, L'lMITED) ZONE. Nu ove indicnted their preaence in oppoaition to subject peti.tion. Upon reques~ by the petitioner, Assiatant 2oning Supervtaor Annika Santalahti read the Staif Report to the Plaiining Commisaion dated March 3, 1975, and said 5taf.f Report is referred to as if aet forth in full in tl~e minutes. Mr. Robert W. Johnson, the agenr for th~ petitioner, appearEd before the Planninb Commission and indicated he wae aware of the condiCione ~f approval as set forCh in the Staff Report and, ttiereupan, presented a drawing for review by the Planning Commission. He stated that tne proposed bc~sic buoinpss would be convenience f.ood with a amall delicatessen and produce; tliat the pr~poeal wo+ild be a departure from the uaual convenience markeC operation, since they wouZd offer more it•ems and the store would be approxi.mately 50~ larger; that he would take exception to thz recom.mended condition of approval requiring a 6-L•oot masonry wall alcng the south property line, etc., since aaid wall did not appear reasonable on the basis that the ad~acent property t~ the south was paved and would ultimately be developed with other rhan residential and~ furthermore, there ~ust might be too many walls placed on the aub~ect property. Mr.s. Mildced Bohling, 114 Eaet South Street, appe~red befure the Plannin.g Co~maiasion and indicated she was preaent to find out what was being proposed, since her famiYy had lived acresa the alley from the sub~ect property since 1941. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Planning Commission entered into diacussian durtng which it wae pointed out that no fet~ce was proposed along the property line to the east abutting the a11ey and the peti- tiot-er atatEd the building along that property line would be set back 10 feet, and the trash storage area would open tawards Che alley. T.n responae to questloning by the Planning Commiasion, the petitioner sta[ed the huurs of operation ~aould be an a 24-hour basis, if the busineas warranted iC. Mra. Bohling stated thst presently the subject property was vacant ana full f trash and that the proposal would upgrade thaC situation and she was glad; that, in .~:idi.tion, the ad~acent intersection and the a:ea in general was very noise and if ahe could move she would; however, her fnmily i~ad spent a lot of money fixing up their home. In reaponae to Hrs. Bohling commenCs, the petitioner stPted there would be sir-conditioning F~nd refrigeration on the roof which would be enclosed by a parapet, whereupon, Chairman HezbBt nated that the Code required that the sound reading at the property line not pxceed 60 dbA. Deputy City Attcrney Frank Lowry noted that the newer marketa had found that they ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, C1TY P1.ANNING COMMISSIUN~ Marcl~ 3~ 1975 RECLASSIFlCATION N0. 74-75-2_/ (Continued} 75-1).% had to place all o£ tliQir air~•conditioning and rafrigera.lon equipment on the i.nsido of thc+ir bui.ldings bacauee of the imposeibility to meet the Code reyuirQmc+nt oGlic~rwise~ wtiereupon, the petitioner etipulated thaC the propoeal would meet the Code requiremant regnrding noiBe nnd~ addiCionally, tliaC any such machanical equipment wo~+1d be buf£erad ~nd ecr.eened Erou~ vtew, Commiesioner. King amphaeized that the City Bullding Inepector would make an inspection and that th~s peritioner shoulci ba eure that the dound requiremenC could Ue mPt prior to ineta2lation of any of the refer~nced equipment. In responae to further questioiiing by the Planning Commiseion~ thc+ pe~:it•lonar atipulated that any parking area llghting would be dawu-lighting from a maximum hetgl~t of 1'l feet~ and said lighting would be direcced awny £rom the property lines to proCect Che residential integrity of the F~''08~ thaC the del.iveries to the dub~ect property would be restricted to dayllght houre Dc ,:en 8:00 n.m. and 5:00 p.m.; and t}iat a 1etCer of agreement would be aubmitted to the City Attorney's Office for ~pprovat and then f.iled and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder~ BA~cI agreement Co ineure that in the avant the ad~acer-t property to the south was develuped with a residential use, the.n a 6-foot hi~h masonry wa11 would be constructed nlong the aouth propert,y line by the sub~ect property owner and sai.d wall would be reduced to 3~ inchea wi.thin the aetback area ad~acant to Maheim Boulevard; And that the eubject p'roper.ty would be developed precisely in accord- ance ~aith the subMitted plana and specifications. Commisaioner King offered n motion~ seconded by Commisai.aner Farano and MOTION CARRIED {CommisalonerE Morley and Tolar being abaent), that the Planning Commission rec~mmende to tlie City Council that the sub~ect projer.t be exempt. from the req~iirement to prepare an ~nvironmental I-npact Report, pursuant to t:he provisiona of the C~~lifornia Envirunmentel Qu~11ty Act. Commisaloner King offered Resolutton No. YC75-44 and moved for its passage and adoption, to recommend to the City Caunci]. tliat Petition for Reclaseification No. 74-76-27 be approved, sub~ect io the sCipulations of the petitioner and siibject to condttior.s. (See Resolution Sook) On roll c;all, [he foregoi.ng resolution wae paesed by the fnllowing vote: AYES: COP4IISSIONERS: FARANO, N0~5: COA4~IISSIONERS: NONE ABS~NT: COI~AIISSi0D1ERS: MORLEY, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, NERBST TOLAR RLCESS - At 3:40 p.m., Chairman Herbst declared a recess. RECONVENE - At 3:5Q p.m., Chairman Herbst recvnvened the meeting with Commissione:s Morley and Tolar being absent. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ~ PUBLTC. HEARING. c1NAHEIM HILLS, INC., 3$0 Anaheim Hills Road, REPORT N0. 14S Analieim, Ca. 92807 (Owner); HORST J. SCHOR, 380 Anaheim Hills Road. Anaheim, Ca. 92807 (Agent). Propert~~ descrihed as: An RECLASSIFICATION irregularly-ahaped parcel of land conaisting of approx~.mately N0. 74-75-28 38 acres having a frontage of approximaCely 570 feet on the west 5ide of Hidden Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approxi- TENTATIVE MAP OF inately 2900 feet, and being located approximately 7~0 feet south TRACT N0, 7587 of the centerline of Serrano Avenue. Pruperty presently claesi- (REVIS~~iV N_0, 1) fied RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RS-H5-22,000 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE- F?,MILY HILLSIDE) ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQiJEST: ENGINEER: WILLDAN AS~OCIATES, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92805. Sub~ect property is propoaed for auhdi- vision into 34 RS-HS-22,000 lots. No one indicated their presence in opposition to sub~ect petition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dateit March 3, 1975, wa3 not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a pazt of the m~nutea. ~ ~ ~ MINUTGS, CITY PLANNINC COMMT.SSION, ~t~rclt 3~ 1975 75-11ti F.NVIRONMfsNTAL IMPACT RGYURT N0. 145, RECLASSIF'ICATION N0. 74-75-28 AND TGNTATIVF. MAP OF TRACT N0. 75$7 KI;VISION N0. _1) (Continued) ___~ ,__.,___..___._. ~ ____ Mr. Horet .1. ';chor~ khe agent for the peti.ti.oner~ appear~d Uefore the Pirxnning Commie»ion and etnted n grading mnp h~d been aubmitted which wae ecaled 1 inch Go k0 [c~et. He ex- plai.ned that the propoAed devolopment would cc~mply with th~ new Hillstde Gr+~dlnq Urdinrince and, in soa:e indtances~ chey tiad improv~d upon said ordinance as bost they could and uaed r_ontour grading wherever poselEle; thaC the proposed density averaged l+ :~~.~~~ per uniC; that approximately S1X of Che total arr_a wne in ita natur~l etnte ei~,~:e they had blended tiie nutural tec•rain usi-~g tlie same elope ratios; and thot nll of th~• slope bnnks had besen curved to adhere ns close aK possibl.e Co nutural to provlde for interesting home Aitea for the prapose~t custom Ilomee. Mr. Schor taok exception to twa of the condi.tiuns det~. forth in the Staff Report and ~Catcad they wuulcl like the Planning CommiAeion to coaeider either waivit~g the requirement that the l0-EouC riding and h~king trail be constructed on the n~rth slde of Aveni.J~ Ue S1t~tiago ur nllowing said trair to be c~natructel on tl~e eouth eide of enid street; that presently Chere was a trail ayetem on the ranch that would duplicn~e the referenced truil in subject traCt; thnt originally nu definite trail eyetem had been proposed by Mahelm H111s, however~ tralls were now physically r_reated and being uaed; Ch$t 7 mile~ of Che trail syr~tem ~~ae comp.l.eted ar~d 3 additional mi.les would be completed within a few days. Mr. Schor took exce~~tion to eh~: condf.tion requiring a 6-foot decoraCive wa].1 along several. of the lote. Thereupon, Zoning Supervisoc Cl~arlea Roberts entered into diacuseion with Mr. Schor following which Mr. Schor concluded that he had misinterpreted said conditinn since hlr. ~oberts indicuteci ~hat the basis of said condition was to insure uniformity of the fence materinls uaed to encloae the back yarda of thoFe cex'kain lote which could be viewed from an arterial highway. THE PUBLIC FIEARING WAS CLOSEU. Iii response xo questioninF by the Planning Co~ission, Mr. Schor etated some of tlie resi- denta in r.he tract would have to use the roadway to reach the riding and hiking trail; however, the majority of the peopl.e were no ~anger desirous of ha~ing their own tiurses but were interested only in the type home being offered; tt~at they suapected that the people would hire horaes from Che equestr.ian center; that they were proposing to have the trail on the south si.de of the roadway ~ince ehar propertq was in the County of Orange and woul.d not be developed for at least four ~~+ five years; that if they placed the trail on the south side of rhe roadway there would be some flexibiliCy, however, if i.t w1s placed on Che north side they ~aould have to move the slope; and that the s~~bject tract was awaiting construction until the completion of construction of ttie reservoir in the area by Ct~e City or about six to eight months hence. The Planning Commission expressed concern that the riding and hiking trail should be e condition for approval of the aubject tract, however, said trail could be prnvided as shown on the submitted plans and if the placement of the tr.ail changed, then the matter would automatically be r~~viewed by the Plsnning Commisaion and/or City Counc 1. Commis~icner. C;auer offered a motion~ sc~conded by Commissioner King and MOTI~ ~V ~AItRIED (Conunisgtoners Morley and Telar being sbcent), that Environmeiital Impact Repurt No. 145, having been considered this date by the City Planning Commission and evidence, both written and oral, presented to supplement said draft of EIR No. 145, the Ci.ty Planning Commission believes that said draft uf EIR No. 145 does conform to the City and State Guidelinea and the State of t'alifornia Environmental Quality Act ^, based upon auch information, does hereby rzcommend to the City Council that they certify sa3.d EIR is in compliance with said Environmental QualiCy Act. Commisaioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC75~•45 and moved for its paseage and adoptiun to recommend to the Ci~y Council that Petition Eor P.eclasaification No. 74-75-28 be approved, aubjecC to condirions. (See Rasolution Book) On r~ll cal.l.~ the foreg~ing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COr~IIYtISStONERS: FARANO~ GAUER, JOFIl~ISOtd, KING, HERBST NOES: CCN@SISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: C01~41ISSIONERS: MORLEY, TOLAR Commiasioner Gauer offered a motion, aeconded by Commisaioner King and MOTION CARRIED (~ommissionera Morley ~nd Tolar being abaent), t;~at Tract No. 7587 (Revision No. 1) be approved aubject Co the fol.lowing conditions: ~ ~ MINUTGS. CTTY PLANNT.NG (:OI~II1ISSION, Mnrcl- 3~ 1975 ~ ~ 75-119 ENVIRONMLN'fAI~ I.MPACT ItF.POR'f NU. 145, IiIiCI.ASSIFICATION NQ. 74-75-28 AND '~CNTAT'iVE Mt1P 0~ TMCT N0. 75f17 R13VI~ION N0. ].) (Continued ^„_~_ _ .~_...~. (1) Tt-nt tI1P, approvnl o[ TenCative Map of 'Pr~ct Nu. 7587 (i a^i~ion No. 1) ie grnnted subject to thc upprovnl of Iier.laesification No. 7G-/ -1t3. (2) That dhaulci this eubdiviai~~n be developrc~ aR more thun c~ne ~ubdivieion~ eaeh suhdivieton thcroof r~hnll I~e submitr.~d in tentative form for spprovnl. (3) That ull lute w~thln thie tract ehall be served by ur~derground utilitl.ec~. (4) That a flnal tz'act map of r~ubject property ~vhall bc~ submitted to and upproved by the City Council and then be recorded in tl~o Of£ice of the Oran3e County Recorder. (5) Thut. any proposed cov~nacete~ conditione ~nd restrictiona shall be aubmiCted to and upproved Uy the City Attorney's Office prior to City Counr.:.l approval of the fin~l tract map~ nnd~ further, thar the approvpd covenanto, candltioiic~ and restrictiona st~all he re~:o.rded concurrently with the f.inal tract mxp. (6) Thu[ a firebreak(s) ~~e conelructed aubject to the review and approval of the rire Chief. (71 Thr~t street nameR ah.all be approved by tt~~ Cir.y of Anaheim prior tu approval of a final tracC map. (81 That the owner(s) of sub~ect pruperty shall P~Y to nc~~ .._=y of Anaheim the ~ppropriate park ~~nd recreAtion in-li~u fees se deturmined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be pai.d at the time t:he building permit is issued. (9) That drainage of said property ehall be dispused of in a munner satiafuctory to r,he Ci*.y ~ngineer. If, in the preparation of the site r~~ifficient grading is required to neceKSitaCe a grading perm~.t, no wurk on grading will be permitted between October 15th and Apri'1 ].5th unless ~11 required off-aite dratnage facili- l•ies t~av~ been installed and are operative. Positive nesurance ahall be pravided the Ci:y that such drainage facilities wil.l be completed prior to October 15th. N~~cessary rigY~t-of-way for off-site draiuage fuciliti.es shall be dedicated to tiie City, or the City Council shall hav'e initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the cosCs of which shal.t be borne by the developer) prior to the cormnencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities ohall be of a size and type aufficient to carry runoff waCers originating frow hlgher l~ropertizs through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by ~hP City F.ngineer, Said drainage facilities ahall be the first ite~n of. canstruction a»d shall be completed and be functional throughout the trach. and from the downstream boundary of the property tc the ultimate point of di.sposal prior to ~he issuAnce of any final building inspec~ions or occupancy permits. Drainage distric:t reimbursemPnt agreemenls may be made available to the dc~velopers of said property upon their request. (lU) That grading~ excavarion and all other conatructiou activitie.s shall be conducted in such a manner so ~s to minimize the possibility of any si1.t originating from this project bein~ carried into Lhe SanL~ Ana River by aCOrm water originating fro^~ or f.lowing through thia pro~ect. (11) That the alignment II:1C1 terminal point of storm dcains ahown on thin tentative tract map shall not be considered final. These drains shall be sub~ect to precise design con.sideraCions and approval of the City Engineer. (12) Jf permanent street name signs ha•:a not been inatalled, temporary atreet name signa shall be installed prior to any occupancy. (1:3) That the pruposed 10-foot riding and liiking trail ahall be conetructed on the south side of Aveitids Ae Santi.ago, and rhat said riding and hik.ing trail be maintained by formulaticn of a maintengnce diatrict. (14) That Lo~~ Nos. 23, 24, ~5 and 26, aerycd by the ZO-~foot wide private acceasway, ahall r~corn a wutual ingresa and egress easement to ttie owner of each lot, wt~ich mutual ingress and egresa easement shall p,:ovide that said private accesa- way shall be mainteined by each sai-d property owner, Said perpetual easement agreement ahall be ~ubmitted Co the City Attorney's Office for review and approval; then be filed anfl recorded i.n the office of the Orange CounCy Recorder concurrently with the finnl tr.act map. (15) That a 6-foot decorative~ openworlc wall shall be construcCed at the top of the slope adjacent to Hidden Canyon Road on Lot Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. Reasonable landacuping, including irrigation facilities, ehall. be installed in the uncemented purtinn of the arterial highway porkMay the full distance of said wall, plans for enid landacapitig t~ be eubmitCed to and subject to the• approval of the Superinten~ent of Parkway Mr~int~nen~e. ~ ~ ~ MiNUT~S, CI.TY Pi.ANIvINC COtR~7ISSI0N, March 3~ 1975 ~S~lZ~ F.'NVIRONMEt~7'AL IDQ'AC'P REYORT N0. 145, RGCLASSTFICAT]:ON N0. 7~+-75-28 ANll TENTATIVG MAP OF TitACT N0. 7587 (RCVISION N0. 1L ~ContinuedZ_ _„_,_ ____ r _-_. (16) Tl~at pxior to npproval of Che final trar_t mnp, thcs peti.tioner aha'L mnke eome pr.ovision~ ec~ept•nb]e to the Cir.y Council, for the landecaping nnd mi:inLennnce of the slopes wlthin and/or ~re:ated t,y thc do~~elopmont oE this pr.uperty. VNtIANCI: N0. 2295 - Kr_quest for termination - Property coneieting of appcoximately ~9 acrea lo~ated nort•hweal• of tha fuc~~re interaection of Aver~idn De Santiego and Hi.dden ~anyon Roud end eoutVierly of Sarranu Avenuc. It wi-d nAted chaC Che f~r.egoi.ng petiti.on fur Reclneeiflcation No. 74-15-2$ to rezo-ie eubject property to the RS-NS-22.000 7.ot~e to establieh s 34~-].ot subc~iviaion, was recom- ~nended for approval at tliia meeting and, th~refor.e~ the petitioner wae concurrently r~~questing to termin~t~ nll proceedi.ngA of Varia~ce No. 2295. Commiseioner rarano offered Resolution No. PC75-46 aiid moved far ite passar3e and adoption~ lhat xll. proceedinqa in connection with VAriance ho. 2295 be and hereby nre terminated, as requested by ~.he petiCior-er.. (See R~soluti.on I3ook) On ro11 :~-1..L, the for.egoing resolution was p~ased by the follawing vote: AYES: CUtR~1ISSIUNER5: FARANO, CAUER~ JOHNSON~ KIN~, HERIIST t10ES: COMMISSIONERS: NONF ABSENT: COMMISSIOPIERS: MORLEY, TOLAR C~TIDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HGARINf. R. S. MINNICK~ 12269 Skylane, Bel Air, Ca. 9UOG9 P~RMIT N0. 1515 (Owner); ALBERT MANSOUR, l5U Weat Orang~thorpe Avenue, Anuheim, Ca. 92801 (Agesit); requeating permission to CSTABLJSH TRUCK R~NTALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SERVIC~ STATION WITH WAIVER UF (A) MINIMIJM LANDSCAPING ADJACI:NT TO STR~ET FRONTAGES AIID (B) MINIMUM LANDSCAPING AD.IACEi~T TO IN1'ERIOR BOUNDA.RIES on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped pa~cel ot land consisting of approximately 0.45 acre located at the aoutheast corn~r of. Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street and having anproximaCe frontager~ of 1.40 feet on the south sidP of Orangethorpe Avenue and 140 feet on Che east s~de of Lt:moii Street. Property presently clas:~ified CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. No one indicated their. presence in orposition to subject petition. Although the Staff Repor.t to the Planning Commission dated March 3, 1975~ was not _ead at the public hearing, i.t is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Asaistant Zoiting Supervisor Annika Santalahti resd a communication in opposition from Mr. and Mrs. William W. Bradford, 6Ji NorCh Lemon Street, and said communicatiun ie referred to and made a part of the mi.nutes. Mr. Jerry Thomen, Attorney representing Mr. and Mra. Mansour, wtio leased the :ub~ect property from Texaco, WttO in Curn leased from Dr. M:.nnLck, appeared 1~efore the Planning Commission to answer queations concerning the propasal and Co requsst exception from the condttion requiring street lighting, tree planting feea, trgeh storag,e araas, und repair- ment of ~~'~~, sidewalka elong Lemon Street~ on the basis that the income lerfved from the property •~nd the investment re~uired to ~ake the referenced improvemer.ts would noC warrant doing businesa at that Zocation. THF PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLOSED. In connection with the request for exception from the condition requiring tree planting f.ees to be paid, Mias Santalahti noted that if said fees had been paid in the Fast, they would not be req,uired to be paid again; and that Che tees set forth in ~he Staff Report were incorrect and ehould state 60C per front foot instead of $2.00. Mr, Thomen explained that the aubject proFerty was already developed and paved and, ther.e- £ore~ any landecapi.ng would be very difficult. Chairman Herbat noted i:i~a~ ~he Piaa^a::o C'nmmiaainn ~aa concerned about ~he parking of the rental vehicles~ ~ince it appeared that the vacan~ property to the ao~ith of the subject aervice station site was presently bein~t uaed ~or thaC purpose and more than two auch vehi.clea atored on the sub~ect site would block Che tra£fic circulation. Tt~e petitionQr ~ ~ MINUTL+3, Ci'PY NI.ANNINC COP4dIS5IUN, Mnrch 3, 1975 ~5"121 CONUiTIUNAL USL~ PL;RM11' NU. 1S1S (Coni~m~edi atnt~d [hic4 thQ e+ubJQCC preperty owner clid not own thH nd~ncent prc~porty to the eouth, liaw~v~r ~ Ur. P'~ i nnick hnJ a~nde an aCtompt to acqu l re thnt propext ~~ hut wne unubl.e to do eu; ln~t the othor +id~ncent parcel.e hed many dlfF~rent ownere; tlimt ha~ cllcl not know who ChP trucke balong~~ to thut were beiiq er.ored on the ndaacent proporty lo the souC.h; r.hnl• a~ tim~r~ there wzres uwc~ thnn ~~~o rentiil vehiclaN on tt~A eub~ect proporty, and purticulnrly on weekendK~ eincN }~f?U~IL~ who rent~d one-wnY vehici .~H nooded n pl Arc l~~ :-ture c.hem near ~}~Q polnt of thrir deatinr~Ci.on; that elnct~ the eervlce nta[l~m wcsH eloyad on Snturduyn nnd SundayN~ Che Rydar Truck Rentn7. Compnny uyunlly ~,lcked u~ tho ~xtra vehiclea on Mondny folluwing thc+ w~ekend. In response tu yuuet.luning by Commiac~ioner King~ Mr. Muneour HCAt(~lI 1I19C he wou.ld '~~~ willing to crnfin~~ thc~ rentul tx~ucks to thc oub,Sect site. ThQ PlannJ.ng Comn+ly!~Lon entered l~~to dlscueaion regarding nn approprieC~~ condit!.on f.ox ].im~ring the number ut rental truckb tu ba stored nt the Rub.~~ct 1~caCion~ during which a represr~itative for Ryder Truc;: Re~it~l etipul.ated an behnlf of. the puti.tionAr that the aub,ject lucetian ~~ould not be used nH a kerminal poinc for c~ne-wriy rcntAl tru~{.a on SaturdayH ~tnc~ Sundny~, if sa~d sCoruge wuuld result in more tht-n two rental truckN beir.g stared on the property n[. any ~ne time. DepuCy Cit,y ACtor:iey Frnnk Lowry noted f~~r the petitioner'8 informnCi~~n ttiut pri~ate tcaslt pickup ~t the suhJect LocAr.ton wcul' ~:onstitute a miadenieanor. Commise loii~r H'arnno noted that it ~ppeare~3 the sub~ect site was nu more thRn adc~qunt. ~ for use ae a sexvic~ stat ion only, and tliat thc parkin~ of the renr ~ 1 t, ucka would be very diffir.ule; a~id~ upon questioiiing by CommieRioner Fareno, t~1e peCitioner atipulated that ~he maximum length of the renl-al cruckg sCOred on [he sub~t~ct Proparty would be 22 Eeet. 'fhe petitioner fur~~h~r gtipalutect that Ii1A preHent uae for the sub~ect property would expire i.n ~pproximately one ~n~l one-half yelrs. The peti.tioner f.ur ther L.idi.cate.i the need ~`or the add.lt ~ ma1 income Chat would be deri.vecl from the t~.•uck rental.. Comrniosioner Farano noted ~.hat u~ie t: the financial hsrdship that would be incurred to the petitiuner if the subject uae wns not gruncc3, hc u~u~d LC wiliing ~~ a~.;.rovc it f:or a m~ximiim of two yeara, sub~ect to r..vtew and thP provlaion thr.t if thP petil:i.oner requested an extension of Gime for the use, then a~•11Ci~~~+a1 ad~aceuh property msy be required eo in- crease Che ~ize of Che site Co :~oYe adeGuat~ , liandle l-he use. niscussion pureued regarding Che conditions of aphr.oval set forth in the S~.~Ff Report, during whicti Niae Santalahti noted that ~I~e City policy was to reyuire that t'~e street lighting be installed ic rhe street fr~r*3ge exceeded 1~U linea~ Eeer_~ and that fees w, r~ a_cepted in li~~~ oi inatallation for srreet frontage of 100 linea: feet or le~s. c:onL.~is- sior^c Farano noted that t:he f'?anning Commissi.on w~s not authorized to waive Ch~ stree[ li.gh:'~ng condition, howevar. It was noCed rhat tlie Director of Levelopmeat Services had der_ermined thst the propoaed activity f.etl within the definition of Section 3.01, ClASS 1 ~f Che City ~f Anahei.m Guidellne~> to the Requiremenks far. an Envtronmental L~pact ReFoxt end was, therefore, categorically exempt from the requiren,~nt tr ~tle an ;.Ikt. Cammissioner Farano offered [tesolution No. PC7:i~h7 and moved fo~ iCa passage nnd adoption to grant '~etition f~r Gonditionai Use Permit• "o. 1515, granting waiver u~ .e minimu~ landacapi:-g ad jaceiit to the street frontage a: ~ mi.nimum ].and+~caping ad~acent to interior boundaries for a ti~ne ? imitation of Cwo yeare, subjec~ to review '•ld coneideraCion for an extension af time~ up~n request by the petitioner; Chat if the petitioner should requeat an extensiun of t:ime for ~~~r prop~aed use, then .i~dit~onsl adj acent pio~.erty may be acquired to increase the size of the site f.or said aise; subject to the stipulatluns by tl:e pPtt.tioner and aubject to conditi~na. (5ee Resolution Book) On roll c311, the foragoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: COt~tISSION~RS: FARANO, GAUER~ .JG1~ISON, KING, ?~1RRBST rOGS: COt~4~1IS ~~QNERS: NONE ABSENT: (:UMMISSION~RS: MORL~EY, iOLAR • ~ ~ MINUTCS, CI'fY I'LANNINC CONQtISS1UN~ March :~~ 1975 75-122 CONDT.IIONAL USL - PU(iLIC HLAR[NG. KOBERT HOS'PETTER ANU WAftltBN C• :~CTQR. 413 S~uCh p~[tM1T N0. 1517 Arc~:,khur~t SCreet~ Anah~im~ Ca. 92801 (OwnPrN) ~lF COLONIAL MANOR u~~ ~~ FIAI.FWAY F10U~E5, INC. ~ AtCn: T'rank7.in D, Roee, 703 Norch l,emon Streek, Anah~im~ Ca. 928J5 (Agent); requescing permieRion to G5TABLI5H A 130ARD ANU CARl3 FACILII'Y FOIt TH[i 'fRE:ATMF,NT OF ALCOHOI,LCS on pruparty descrihed ea; A rectangularly- HfIrPE!tI pai'C~1 of lnnd r.oneier.ing oE approximately 7700 equrre ir.ot l~cated at Che n~rthwe~t corner af Wilhelmi»u 5tro~t nnd L~mon Street, hnvi.nq npprcxime-ta frontaged of. 1Q9 feet on Cha n~rth eidP r~f Wilhelmina Stcect r.nd 7.l feet on the weat eide of l,emon Street. Property presec-tly c1a~s1£iad ItM-1200 (KES-~)GNTIAL, MULTI.PLE-FAMII.Y) 2UNE. One peraon i.ndicated hie preAence 1n O~~Onj.L~Oll to the sut,,~ect petition. AselAtnnt 7.~ning SupervtKOr Annik~ Santalahti r~ud two lettera rec.aived in apposition, belnQ from E~rl and Wanda Birchard, 61.8 Norrh l.emon Stre~t~ and Mr, and I4re. William W. Br~~dtord, 6.14 Nortti Lc~mon Street, a~~~l eai~i l.etters are referred _o and made a purt of the minutes. 'Phereupon, Miea Snntulahti read Ch~~ 5taff Report to the Planning Commissior. dated Mnrch 3, 1975, and eciid Stnff Iteport ie reFerred to aa if. aet forth in full in the minutes. Mr. Frunk RoAe, the Aireckor of Lhe Cul~mial Manor HA.lfway Housea, Inc., appenred b~foi•e thc: Plunning Commi~sio~~ anci reviewed th~~ previous uae of the sub~ect property. }le otated the p:operty had been uc:upied by "hippies" flnd the Anaheim Police Department coul.d verify r.h~t there were many prohlsais~ incluciing A death from un avei•doe~~ of druge, at that lnca- tion; that previously approximntely 20 people ocr_upied the bui.].dinE and the proposal was to hAVe xp~roximat~l.y 12; th~t the fecility would be used for the recovery of wowen iilc~holics; thal- ti~e wamen would be without any ~our.:e of money for trentment of their illn~ss aiid the faciltty would give them a aet of clean clothes ~o wear. which would be Ahn,1t the exCent of wt-at wua referred to as "treatmenta"; that he did not underal•3nd why tlie people in the area would cumplain abo~•': the ns~v use of the property, knowing whar. exibted there previnusly; ChaC what ttiey were propoeing to do was not wrang, ir~ hia opi.nion, since in PsRence th~y were ta',cing care of the sick; that approxim~tely $40,000 had been al.located i.y the 3tate of California to bring the aub~ect building up to Code, -io::ever, if th~ suUject L`L~~_:'ng was not up to Code (~lPCtrical), then every building o~ that etreet was not up to ~~,dP; and thut che new use of the property was a definite improvement over the previous use. 'rlr. Car~ Karcher, 700 North ClemenCine Screet, ~,pear~ed before ~he Planning L:ommisai~~n and stated thal tt~e subject property had been cleaned up tremendously by the petitioner, h~wever, there was a lot more to b~ d~ne to the property: rhat he had lived in the area for approximately 26 yeaxs; khat prior to the pstir.ioner coming ln, the property was unrefll and z diagrace to the City of Anaheim; tliaC, in a secise, he was not protesCing bu* was only concerned sinr_e the nei.ghborhood was developed witn singLa-family reaidences; and that he wuuld question whether there was adequaCe room for parking of 17 cars at the eubject location. Cliairman HerUst noted t1 ~t the subject ptoperr.y waa z~ned p:~; °*'ty for L'he pr~~posed use, subject to a conditional use per.ni!: b~ing grant~~d; and !:hat the Building Divislon had pre- pared 3 l~st of violati.ons to the Code and thr_• conditional uae permit could on?.v be approved sub~ect to compliance with the Co~l~ requirements. Mr. Karcher i,,rther s;.ated ~nat he was ~urprised that tae property was allowed to go un- noticed for :,uch a'long period of L•i.me and that he wondered if a junk y.ir~i was being opex'atea there pr.evlously; that the changea to the proper.ty were certnin_ly an improvement; and thnt ha would probaL•1y be more concern~3 if more than one of t~~e proposed u~ea was allow~~c~ cloae by. In rebuttal~ Mr. Rose atated Che proposed faci~ity was oF~rated as a not;-profLt corporAtion and they did nut puy salu:ieg; that the people ~~ho neec':d help did not have money ~nd cne of the activitiea at the si.te wa~ a vegetable garden; thak t?~e people wer,: allowed to stay as long av they needed~ however, er.other facility in Ora~ge ~:ounty cr.ly allowed them to stay for 30 dnys, and after that ti.~ne t:~~ kome: usua?.ly fell ~lctim Co ttie oppoeite sex, alth~ugh that was not u pretty ~hing ta think abot.t. THE ?UBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSGD. Commission~r Gauer isi ;uir~d c•~c~cerning the status of ~,onditlo~al llae Per~~;t No. 1470 which ~ae granted for a similar facility opeieted on Anaheim Boulevard !~y the petitioner, and i~ir. Roee explr_ina3 thaC it appeared th~y~ may not be able to centinue at that locution aince they hsd 7ot been able Co nc~gotiate an extensi;,a of the'r leuse; gnd thar tt~e prop- erty on Mnheim Boulevard wxs an aGre of land and the isnCloxd w~nted n~.ot oF money for the leas~. ~ ~ ~ MTNUTES ~ CITY PLMIN:NC C;OMMISSION ,~:+~rch 3, 1975 ~~-123 CONDI'I'IONAL IISI: YI:RMIT N0. 1517 (c;onClnued) In reaponse co questioni.ng by !:ommidsioner Farano, Mr. Rose ~atated Cliat ~~ne of tlie euu~'cee oE fundy came from the people uft.c~r thcy left t.h~ faciliry und that, in aJdition~ he had a gaod income arid support:ed the fa<• ili[y to un axtent. M~ . RoKC~ fuc~hei• etated that thn ,:CRCC uf Cnllfornl.~ hf;~! ndvieeJ thi~t th~ Anahalm floulevard fncitity wuuld be Rr.anCe.i $50~000 t~~r upgzt~ding~ ete., hc~w:•var, the g~'~nt funJg werc~ nrt avatlable if [hey ctid nut hovc n l.suee l~r~ger thon one year; that L•hey hud a let[cr uf intent from the landlord at one time but ~~resencly they were~ having difficultie~; nnd that the gr.nnt wua pending nnd they hAd ulso bec~~~ l.ouking nt the Pickwick Notc~l ae a posalble lc~cattcn. Commidsloner Jolinson not~J that t~.ore w~s no nr~ument aA to tlie motivati.on or purpoea for Che nropo~ed use; however~ tiie p~tiCioner ne.*.ded to benr wlth the Cily also •~ince Chere wae :~n order for clcciding where cc~rtain uaeR helunged; and that the peCi.tioner did not have licenae to proceed in the manner in which he hsd. Mr. Rose eCatc~d they had proceeded tn guod f:a+~h and l~ad exper.ienced aome difficulty cort- cerning the lease and the funda wlii~ti were ~ ~d !u comply wf.th Che requlremente nf Cunditional Usc Permit No. 1470. He urged tl~~_ Plnnning Cummiasion ;~ grant the use £or the i.emon Street locntion and further stnted Chey would L~~lu~•e the unber of occupunte Co ei.x by requea~~ing some uf l•h~n t~ leave, however, the p~ople wet ~ far hetter off in the sub~QCt houae i:han on Che streets. l:haixman Herbst noced ttiat the P1Anning Commisoio~i was concerned fur the he~lth~ safety nnd welf.are of the occupants af tt~e fnci.tities; thAt ther.e were many unsafe conditiona at tlie Anahe:lm P~ulevard locatiun and Lhe same uneafe conditiona were 4xiating ait the praposed location nn I,e~on Street; and L-hal the Anaheim Boulevard facilir.y had been occupied for approximately one year 1nd the continuauce of the occupancy was ~eopnrdizing tl~e lives of many people. Cocamieaioner Flrano mAde an observattcn rhat Co bring r.he Uuildings up to Code depended on th~ grant f~nds and tti~t tt~e matter ehould be continued sc, that the petitiuner could investi.gate tt~e status of the 3rant £unds and to try to resolve the problems connected witti the le~+ae for tt-e praperty on Anaheitn Boule~ard and be in a position ta n~ake n poei- tive pres~~~tation. Commissione r rarano noCed that to his knowledge the lease for the Anahei,n Boulevard p~operty was granted for ~s uae not per.mit[ed by the City of Anaheim, and nat for the purpoae for whi~~h Mr. Koae obtained it; and t hat i f t he Ai;aheiun Boulevard property waF not brought up to Code, then the condizional use ~ermit for the use could be revc~ked. Chairman Her1~5t noted ~nat neither the Planning Catnmiasion nor the City Council co~aid waivc: the BLi.lding Code reyuirerisnts. Gommi[~siur~er Farano offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Jonnson anc' MOTIQN CARRIED (Commissioners Morley and Tolar being absenC), to reopen the public hearing nnd ccatinue consideration of Condit ion~l Use PermiC No. 1517 to the P~anning Comraission meeting of Atay 12~ 1975, in ordNr tn ?rov~de s~me time for the. ~~et~ltioner to obtain funds for the proposed use and, thereby, be in a poaitinn to comply with thp CodF requirements for the pruposed location, a~ well as for the location on An3heim Boulevarci; and that khe petitioner should take immediate steps to "c].aan up" both tacili.ties wt~ere p~ssi.ble. CONllITIUNAL USE - PUBLI(; HEARIPiG. SROWN-AEVIS INDUSTRII~L EQUIPMENT COt3PANY, 6550 East PERMIT N0. 1518 Washington, Loe Angeles~ Ca. 90022 and THOMAS r'. AND CATHERIN~ T. BRADY, 125 South Narding Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92804 (Ownera); DMSI., Attn: Alec Osacttof f, :t848 ~ampus Dri.ve, Suite 7.] 0, vewport Be~ch, Ca. 92660 (A.genC); requeati..lg permission to ES'fP.IiLISH r1tJ INFPNT DAY CARE AND PRE~SCt:OUL FAC~LI:Y WITY WAIVER OF (A) PER.MITTI:il LJ3BS IN REQUIRE;D YAItDS, (B) MAXIMUM F~NCE HEIGNT, MIU (C) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA on proper*,y deacribed As: An ir~•egularly-shaped par.cel of land consist- ing of approximately 0.9 acr~ located between Topanga Arive and Harding Avenue, ha•~ing xpproximate frnntages of 25^ feet ~n t`-e east side of i~~atiga Drive and 50 feet on the west side of Harding Avenue, having u II..,ximum depCl~ of approximately 267 feet~ and lseing located approximately 170 feet so~zth of the c:enterlin~ of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently clasaified RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FMtl"t) ZONE. No one indl ~.~t~d their vrec~ence in oppoaition to aubject petitiun. Although the S~aff Report to the Planning Coa~miesion daCed March 3, 1975, wae not read at Che public h~ari.ng~ it is referred to nhd made a part of the cainutes. ~ ~ ~ MINUTGS, ~,ITY PLANNING CUc1MiSSIUN, Mnrch 3. 197~ CONDL'PIONN. IISI? PL'R;~I1T NU, 1518 (Continued} %5-124 Mr. Al.ec Oeachoff~ tne agent for thw {~etitiooc~r, e~{~peared befare t2ie Pl.nnning Corunlseion and stnted the propos~l wa~ to providc a dny care and pre-echoo] facl~.ity Eur a maxlmum of 176 childrer between the ngea of 2~nd f~ yeare and 24 children, i~fants through 1 year of age; r~nd that the fncility would opFrate daily witli Che r_tiildren arriving from ~pproxi-• mntEly ~i;30 to 7:00 a.m. and tenving npproximat~aly 5:3U to 6;00 p.m., nn~i l.unclies would Ue served at noon. THE PUBLIG HEAkINC WAS CI.OSED. In response to c~ueationing by Comm1K„t~,,er King, Mr. John Chrletiar.son, r~~pr.•esec~ting Mini- Skools~ appe~red fl~ ~1 :. ~ited the waiv~ of thc mn~: [mum fence helghr wae Ueing re.queeted to ~rovide for thc r~nfaty of the chilcli ~~n. The Ylennin~~ Commiasi.on entererl in~u d•lscuesion re~arding Cl~e waiver of the permitted uaes in the requlr~d yards and Mr. Ct-r:lar:ianaon stated therE would be a a~~~ximum of 21 employees and ttiey wcre propoaing tu hnve 29 parking spac:es; a~d that I:here would be p].ay atructurEs ~n the play are~ f.or ttie c~hildren to use, however, eiid Qquipment would not be the typical equipment found at elemenCary sclioole aince the childrtn would be generaily much smaller an~ younger. Mr. CFr.!stia:~oon further eCated two othdr Mini-Skool operationx were ].ocnted in Orangc County in the Citiao of MiAeinn Viejo Hnd Fountain Vulley. Commiaeioner Furano expresaed his concern regarding the proposal to have the parking ~rea and exit c~nto a residential r~ereet ~nd ~one, aince the propoeal caould be prc~ecting the buainess onto Hnrding llrive which wa~ a rasidenti~l atre.et. tie furCher indicated that he would be more in Eavor of the project if zdditional pr~pexty could be acquired on Topanga Dr.ivP for thP pArking facility. 5.n reapons, Co queationizig by Commlaeioner King, Mr. Chri.stianson etated a 6-foot. wall wae proposed alung thF property lln~s abuCting the R-1 Zor,~. In responae to questiot~ittg by Chuitcman HerbaC, Mr. Christianaon Htated the su~~Ject ar~:a wua selected for the propo~al mr~inly becauae of the uvailability ~f the property; that they had sturtEd out with the prop~~rty on Topanga Drive and, since it was noC large enough to provide the needed psricing, they had acqutred the property on Hard'~ng DL'i~~~_' which was avxilable also; and that the ~ rfic impact would be dependeut upon the proacam in which each ~hild was encolled and u~,un tre working hours of the parents, etc. In reepcnse r.o queationing hy Commieaioner Johnaon, Staff adviaed tli;~t all of the propertiea withi.n 300 fe~~t of the sub~ect property hxd rpceivr~' legal notice of the sub~ect p~sblic hearing. Commiseioner King offered a motion, se~•~nded by Commissioner Gauer and MOTION C~RRIr^.D (Commiseionerg Morley and ;olar being absent), that the Planning Commission recommenda to the City C:ouncil that the sub~ect pro~e~~t be exempt from the requlremenL to prepare an Environmental. Impact Rc_port, purauant to the provisiona of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commicaianer King offered Resolution N~. PC75-48 and moved foY its passage and adoption, to ~runr PeCition for Conditional Use '_~ermit No. 1Slo, grd~illiig w~•~ver or tlie permi.tted use~ in req»ir~d yards on the basis th3t tne proposal is not unrea:~~nable, since the aubjecC Area is in a etate of transirion; gra-iting waiver of tl-e maxi.m~un fence height or~ the basi.r~ that the propusal is for th~ 4afety of the children wliu wil.l be cared for on the premisea; granting waiver ~~f the maximum ,lgn areu on tt~e basis that- the praposed size of the oign is not objectionable, primarily because th~ sub~ect area la in a aCata of transi- tion; subject to the condition that in the evenC the sub~ecC ~roperey is to be divided for the purpose uf sale~ lease or financing, rs parcel map to record the xppr.oved division ~f subject property shall be aubmitted r-o and approved by r.he City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the C,.fice of the (lrange Co~;nty Recorder; and sub~ect to the Interdepnrtme.:.tal Committee recommendationa. (See Resoluttun Book) On roll call, che foregu~ng resolutior was passed by the following vote: AYES: COIrIl~4ISSI0NERS: FARANO, CAL'F.R, JOHNSON, KING, HER$ST NOES: COt41ISSI0N~TtS: NONE ABSL•'NT: CONII~1iSSI~NERS : MORLGY, TOLAR ~ .... ~ ~ ~ MINU'1'ES~ C:1'1'Y PLANNING C'c3MMiSSION~ Mnrct~ 3, 1975 75-125 COIVUITIONAI. USR - PU3LTC HEARINC. llAI.L ~. ANU SARAkI ANN FOWLFR~ 1430 South Grarid Avenue, PERMIT NU~ 1519 Snn*.a Ana~ Ca, 92705 ((h~m9re); DOIdA1.D F.. FOSTI:k, 1525 Faet Alpl~a Lane, Annt~oim, Ca. 92805 (Agent); r.equesCing permi.esiun t~ F.STABLISH AN AUTOMOIiILE AND TRUCK WNEEL ALIGNMLNT, B[tA1CE AND FRAM~ RC;PAIR SERVICF. on propor.t.y deacrlbod as; A rect~ngularly-shaped parcel of l.and conetsting of epprnxi- ma[ely 3.2 ucreo lncatod ac the aoutheaet corner of Mirsloma Avenue and Red Gum Straet, hAVing upproximul•e frontag~s of 298 f~et on the south eide of Mira2.oma Avenue and 475 Eeet on the eRSt A~dH of Red Cum Str.e~t. Yroperty presently claesified MT, (TNDUSTRIAL, i,14ITF.D) ZONG. (Vo une indicAted thelr presence i.ii oppoaition to sub~ect petieCon. AlthouAh the 5tnff K~porC to ttie Planning CommisKion dated Marcli 3, 197i, wa6 nut r.e~d a: Ct~e public henring~ it is referred t~ r~nd made ~ part of khe minutee, Mr. Dale L'. Fowler, the property owner~ appeared before l•he Planning Commisslon to enswer question~i regarding tYia proposal. THE PU3LI~, HEARING LJAS CGOSED. In response to quesCioning by the P1Rnning ~,ommiosion, Mr.. Powler stiNulared that all eervices and/or work would be performed ic-side the building; that the automotive vehicles on the premi.ses for aer.vicing and/or rep~ir work would park in Che pnrking ~pzcea in the renr of the Uullding and wuu:ld not utilize the parking spnceR provided alo--g Red Gum Skree[; and that ti~e maximum size of tY-e sutowotive vehicles to he sarviced and/~r repAired would not exceed 1~ tnna. Mr. Fowler _.irther stated that uauall~~ the automoti~ie vehicles would be in and oul• of the pruperty the same dny they werP brought for servici.ng and/or repair work. It w~:: isoted tt~at the Director of Development S~>.rvi.ceo I~ad determined that tl~c ogose.d activity fell wiChin the deflnition of Section 3.01, ~lass 1 of the Ci.ty of AnU~~eim Guidelines to the requiremente for an F.nvi.ronmental Impact Rep~~rt and w~a, kherefore, categorically exempt from the req~ilrement to file an EIR. Commtssioner Parano offered Resolution No. PC75-49 r~nd moved fo•r irs passage ~nd adoptior. that k'etir.ion for Conditional Uae Permlt No. 1519 be and hereby ia granted, sub~ect tc> the ~ti.pulationa of r_he petictoner and aubject to cc~nditiuns. ~~ee Resolution Book) On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was paRSed by the following vot~: AYES: COI~AlISSI~..,uRS: .ARANO, GAUER, :iOHNS~N, KING, HERBST NOES: CUMMISSIONFRS: NONE AIISEN'T: COhII~fISSIUNERS: MORLEY, TOLAR CONDITTONA.L USE - PUBI.IC HEARING. STATL~ INDUSTRIES, AtCn: Arthur E. Haskell, 3383 East P~RMIT N0. 1520 Gage Avenae~ l~untington Par.k, Ca. 90255 (Uwner); requesting permi~sion ~ to ES;A}3LiSH A PRI`JAT~ TENNIR FACILI.''Y WITH WAIVER Or (A) MINIMIiM Fl:~.~NT SETBACK. (B) MINIMIiM T,ANllSCAPrD SP.TBACK l1PID (C) MAXIMUM FENCE HL~IGHT o:: property described as: A rectangularly-shaped par.r.cl of land consiating of appror.imately 3.2 acres located et thP ~iorthweat corner of La *tesa Strecc and Kraemer. Place, having app:c::imate frontages of 252 feet on the north side of La Mecs Stxeet and 506 feet on the west side of Kraemer Place. Proper~y presently classif:ied ML (LNllUS1RIAL, LI2•;IiEDI ZONE. No one indica.te~l their presence in oppoaition Co sub~e~t peCition. Although the Staff Itepurt to the Planning Commisaior dated March 3, 1975, w~s not rend at the publtc hearing, it ia referred Co and made a pa~t of the minutes. Mr. Arthur Haskell~ representing the pet~tioner, appeared before the Planning Commission and Rescribed the propusal, stating that the property hf b•.en laid ouC for. ma~ximum use; Lhat the tennia courts l~ad to be a certain aize and t:~e prepoaed n~v~ber o£ courtr~ had fik perfectly into their epace, however, use of the aetback area was required to do so; that the sub~e : araa aeemed to be nverbuilt with induatries and, in g~neral, businesE every- where h$d •.LOwed down tremendously and there wece many vncai~ciae L-i L~~e «~:g`bo~i:e 3c:'~l~r' ment; that thc conatruckion of the Ramada Inn to the north of the sub~ect property was being delayed by decieiona basecl on the economy of the country And he ~-:~uaretoad that • • ~ MINl11'CS~ CtTY PLANNING COPiMIS~ION, Mnrch :3, 1.975 CONI)I'CIONAL USIs P('sltMlT N0. 1520 (Continued) 75-1.?6 Ramuda Inn'S 3.6-ecre parcel wne for enle; that tenuia courr.e t~r~d been inveHtigated ae x pu~~ible uee of the eub~eck pr.operLy c~nd they had becume very enthuniaetic; khat the courte would be operated cummerciully und plny~rR woul~l be charged p~r hour and pe~ court; chat ti~~~ courts would be ~leluxe~ wiCh gceen pl~stic wir~ and gre~•n cnnvne net~i.nP~ hcwev~r, r' Pl..~nning Gommiselon mlght f.ind the green canvc~e ob;~ectinnublE; t.hnt therP woulc{ hc a . ' clubhouse; that the petiticaer wae i.n the manufc-cturing buainePe and opcru~ing at a . ~ubetanti~l luss ~~vax the past feti• monthe; that. hlivlnt~ ~~ren eucceseful tennia court operalions~ tre uae seem~d appropriat~: tor the aub~ect , ropecty; '_I~nr th~ 10-foet ni:~'l.es c•.uuld probably be rec:~ce~i e:o 9 f.eet; that the pnrltiu~ need for the use eppeared open end City SCAff. wu~ suggesr~ng 6~ spacea and the petir.ioner wna eugg~~eting 4?. epaces or 3 ep~r.Na per court; ~~.t thc~ra ~~ould probably not Le more thun an r,veraga of. 2 car.e per ccurt and, in tl~e c~ae of twosumes~ only 1 perking epac~ would probably be uaed; that providing t:he aetbackK wou.ld decrease the fe~sibi.l.ity of the project atuce the number oE courta would he~ve to be reduced; that, from rhe City Counci.l's viewpaint nnd thut of the taxp~yers, ~hey wauld be ~ ovtdln~ arnne relief fron- the burden of recreati.onal fucili.tiea which were needed in tlie C~ity; thc+t they had canducted u survey which concluded there were thousands of tennie pJ.ayers in the Clty and very few tenniH courte ta provide a type of recre~tion that was very ;~pular; thnt, concerning their ugrcement with RamAdn Inne, Chey had applied for ;ir-d was grant~:d exempti~r, from tF-e 7-year no--competition c.lause rc~garding the sale of f~,od, etc., and they would~ therefore, be aUle r.o i,ave an 8-At.all f.acility to serve breskf~tyk~ soft drinks~ etc., in the proposed cl.ubhouse. THE PUBLLC NI:ARING WA5 CLOSI:U. Commi.esioner Gauer noted that the Parks and Recreation Commis~ion wac~ being requested re- peatedly for wore courts; that in the Gity there wer~~ only two ]ighted r_ourts, at LoAra School Park and Katella School Park, and thoae courts were used to ttie absolute maximum; that a tennis club in Phoeni~c had been conaidering devel.opment of courts in the Cit.y of Anaheim; and that a tennie club uae~ wi.th a pro ehop, lessona, etc., ~uld be somewhat si,n~lnr to a gol.f course. T,n response to qt~eati.or.ing by Commisr;toner King~ Zoning SuperviROr Ch~~rles Roberts noted that thc subject property was not lo~ated within the Scen~c Corridor Zone-Overlay. I~ response to quesrioni.ng by Commlc~sioner Johnaon, Mr. Haskel.l aCated the proposed l.igh[- ing would be hooded and would not be obnoxious to the area or to the acljacent freewuy; that a comman pole would t,old the fences and the lighte unleas they switched to a newer tupe of lighting Chat wa~ being produceci by the General Electric Company, said light.ing b21ng very expensive to install, b~h ~c;0i1<)G'11r_~tl to operate; and that the li.ghting would be about 2 feet above the height of the f.ence ~nd tihe bulbs would be fluorescent and hooded to abo~it 8 inches below the bulhs. Chairman Herbst questioned whether there would be problems develop for tne traffic ~n the :i.l~acent freeway, with the area Ueing so well Zit up; whe:reupon, Mr. Roberts nored that if the sub,jece petition was ~ranted, the Planning Commis~ion could imnoae a condition, "That the pEtitioner shall submit rhe propoaed tennis court lighting system plans to CalTrans (California State Department of Tr3nsportation) fur approvul." Chairman Herbat no~.ed that by er-croaching i~~to the aerback axeas, the ltghting caused more preblems; and Mr. Haske?1 indicsted thac there would be more view rounding the corrie: than was ahown on the aub- ;nltted plans. In reaponsc tc furthar questioning by the Planning Commiasion, Mr. Haskell 3tflCP.d that if they had to comply with the setback reouirements, then they would lose 2 courts or 17Y. of their income; that the f_nce height of i2 feet was required for playing tennis and the cou~t3 c~~~~id not be ad,justed in any other direction since theY had Lo be nort~--south; whereupo~~, Commissioner Johnaon noted that :he petitioner was havin~ a difficult time ~ustifying the propoaed placement of the fence. Mr. Haskell etated that the Parke and Recreaiion DeParcment was ver,y enthuaiastic about the proJect~ and he clarified for Staff that onP of the tennia courta wns larger, being 66 feet wide and 130 feet long~ which was official size. Chairmac~ Herbst noted t;~aC by the petitioner's own admiesian, the induatrial 3evelopment was overbuilt and if everyone wi~:~ that Cype hardship requested to be able to encroach into the setback areas to make development of their property profitable, ther. the Zoning Code would be worthlesa; and that, in hi~ opinion, ttie petitioner could not jus~ify a hardship and, furthermore, granting such a reque3t would create an undesirable precedent f.or future requeaCs of a aimilar nnture. ~ ~ MINUT~S, CT.'TY PT.ANNING COMMISSION, Marcli 3, 1975 C~"' 'CIONAI. USE PF:RMIT NO 1.520 (Contlnue ; ~ ~ %5-127 Commiaeioner Fnrano offered n motion, Heconded by Commiecsioner King and MUTION CARRIED (C~mmic~sionere Murlcy und Tolar being nbaent), that the Planning ConunLeaLon reaommonde to the City Caunc~i.~, thfit r~ubject pro,~e~~t he exempt from the reyuirement to prepnre Hn ~nvlron-• mental Impact ReporC, purkuanC to the provielone uf the r,glifor.ni~ I:nvironmenl•A1 Qwility Act. Comr,~sataner raruno ofFered Resolutton No. PC75-50 und moved for. its passa~e nnd ndoption~ tlif~ Petiti.on far. Conditionnl Use Permit No. 1520 be and hereby i.e ~runted, in part, detyLng tli~ rcqiieated ~aivers of the minimum front sethack~ minimum landecaped c~etback~ ar~. maximum fence height on the bnsia t'ut the petitioner did not demona[race that n ha~-dohip would b~. crutir.ed if. gat~i wnivers arere r.ot granted; R~id ush being granted f.nr the proposed tenniR court racillty, 9ub,jec` lo the condiCion thak euid facility sha11 be conetructed Ln accordan~.e w t t.h the ait~: development otand~rde of the ML 2~~ne, and that ~.tie petitioner shall HuUmit cl~e proposed tenniA cour~ iighCing syat.em plnns to Ca1Trt~ns (California St~te ue~,artment oE Trans~~nrtalion) for npproval; nnd aub~ect ta Interdepa:~- mentll Cominitte~ recomwendaLlons. (S~~e Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolutiar. WIIb pasaed by the f~.llowing vate: AYFS: C~~M."'ISSTONERS: FARANO, GAUCR, JOHNSON, KING, H~,RBST NOGS : COMM ,~ S IONF.RS : NQNE ABSENT: (:OhR4LSSI0NERS: MURT,EY, TOLAIt VA' 111NCE N0. . - PUBLIC NEARIN~. MARTHA K. SCHllMACHER, 27.3 North rleleria Stree[, Anaheim, C~i. 92805 (Owner); LIaONARU SMTTH, 125-D South Claudina Street, Anaheim, ~;a. 92805 (Agent); requestinK WAIVER UP' (A) PGR'•1LTTED USES AND (B) MINIMUI4 OFF•-STNEGT PARKING, TU ES'TABLISH AN AUT~~riOBILF. RIsPAIR AND DY SHUY WTTH PARTS 5ALES on ~roperty described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land ~sisting oi npproxim,`ely 7800 e,quare fe:et, having a fr~~ntage of approximately S'l zest on thc: eaet side of Maheim Boul.c.vard, having a maximum dr~ptli of approximstely 150 feet, and being located approximately 337 feet south of tne cenCerJ.ine of fdorth Street. Pruperty presently clasai.i~i CG (:~MhirR~IAI,, GF,NGRAL) ZONE. No one indicated Cheir prESence in opposition to sub~ect p t~.tion. Although the St.aff ReporC to tt~e Planning Commi.ssion duted March 3, 1975, was not read at Che puL-lic heari.ng, it is referred to and made a part of the minutea. Mr. Leonard Smitli, the agent for the property nwner, appeared be~ore the Plann'ng Goiacuission and sCated they were requesting to have automotive and parts sales in additio^ to repairs at the aubject location; that the repair work would be done inside the building and ~i~iy atorage of vehicles would be related to insurance claimr, for whi~h they may be encitled to ~ell the vehicles and said vehicles would b~ retailed inside the bui].ding ana not display~~l for sale on the outside of the buil~.i.ng; and that the proposal was t~ot to have an automvi~ile sales 1~r_, but to l~ave an occnsional vehicle Eor sale. Beputy City Artor.ney Frank Lowry advised that although there had been some confusion regdrding the actual use proposed. the Iegal adver.tisement was suff.icient to cover the propoeal, as outlined 'r~y Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith continued ~y sr.ating that a two-st~ry apartment building was located across the alley to the east of sub~ect pruperty and, therefore, he did not agree that a 6-foot wall ahauld Ue constructed along the easterly property iine; and thaC the L-rasti storage area wac~ existing and abutted lhe alley, aet back approximately 3 feet. TF1E PUBLIC HEAItING WAS CLOSED. Cammiasioi:er Ki.ng noted thttt other properties in the block had no ~,ra.11s along the tJeBr side of the alley and, thereupon, the Planning Commission conci;rred thaC said fence would not he requ~~ed. Mr. Smith further stated that rhe purchaser af the property was TUl~b Auto Paint and liody Shop which wae preaently locaCed on AnahQim Boulevard north of Broadway; that their p*esent lease was about Co expire gnd thc City was prPSentZy talking about taking that entire CJ • MLNU'1[:S, CITY PI.ANNT.NG COMMTSSION, March 3, .1975 VARIANCG N0. '1.b7b (ConCinued) ~ ~ '15-128 block for a ne.w city t~t~ll; t}~at tliey were }iemmed in at tt-eir An~heim Doulevnrd locatian and necileJ more epu~:e; th$t at tha sub,~ect new loc.aCi.on r,hay would hnve to inetall truck dourH ~l tha rcnr to fucilitate movem~n~ of vehl~ c~ inside th~ builJing; and that the purchacaer hnd s[ipult~ted that he woul.d not have a paint b<>oth nt the subject locntion and w~uld bc doir~~ ~;pnt pai.nting only, fnrming ouc the maln pe~nC work. Commiaeioner King nated thut in the subject xrea there wAS n m~turcycle shop, u rndiator ~iliop, and o~:her eimilar «ses. In r.espu~~~e to questioning by Commisaioner Cnuer, Mr. Smtlh etipulsted that the hours of oper.ation wou.ld be from 7:30 a.m, to 5:30 p-m., ~nd thr~r. i:o noise would be emitted Lrom the sub~ect property during a11 other houra. It was n~~~ ed that the Director of Development Servi~:eF t~ad cletermined that ~.ue propoeed activity fell within the definition of Section 3.01.~ Clase ] cf the Lity of Anaheim Guidelines t~ the ReyuiremenCa for an ~nvlranmentul Tmpact REpor[ tind ~vas, thereForp, cate~orically exempt from the r.equirem~nt to file an EIR. Commiesioner I;ing uffered Itesolution No. PC75••51 and moved for ita pansage nnd adcption, that PeCition for VarlAnce No. 2676 be and hereby ie g~anted~ granting waiver of the permitted uAea on the basia thut other similar aur.ornoti:~e factJ.ities curr.ently ex.ist aloiig AYiaheim Boulevard, providpd, t~owever, that the petitione: stipulated tha~ tliere w~ll be only an occnsionnl automobiJ.e for sal.e and said nutomobi.le will not be di.splayed aa a for-sale vehLcle outside the huilding; granting walver of the minii..m ~ff-atreet parking on the hasi.s that other similar w~ivers have been granted previously in tl~e sub~ect :~rea; and subject r.a the :~ripulations by the petitioner and aub~ect to conditions. (Se: Reso.lucion Bcok) On roll call, Che foregoing reaolution was pasaed by the followicig vote: AY~S: CO[~41ISSIONERS: FAItANO, GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, IiERBST NO~S: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABS~'NT: COI~lISSIONCRS: MORLEY, TOLAR VARIANCE N0, ^677 - PUBL.t: HEARING. ANNETTA CASELLA, 3030 Butterfi.eld, Orange. Ca. 92667 (Owner); S. M. ROBINSON, 847U Garden Grove. 9oulev~rd, Garden Gr~ve, Ca. 92644 (Agent); reque~r.i.ng WAIVGR OF (A) MLNIMUM FRONT SETBACK, (B) REQUIRED TREE I.ANDSCAPING AND (C) REQUIi•.cU ENCLOSllRE OF OUTDOOR USES, TO PERMIT THE CONTII~l1ED OPEItATION OF AN EQUIPMF.NT RENTAL FACILITY on property described as: A rectangular.ly-shnped par.cel of land conyisting of approximately 0.6 acrp lo~ated at the nortliweat corner of Miral.oma Avenue and Kraemer. Boulevard, having aPpr.oximate frontuges of 150 feat on t},. -+orth side of Miral~.ia Avenue and 175 feet an Che west side of Kraemer Boul.evard. Prapert~ ~~esently classified r[L (LNDUSTRIAL, LTMITED) ZON~. No one indicated Cheir pr~sence in opp~sition Co subject petition. Although ehe Staff Report to the Planning Cummiasion dated March 3, 1975, wds not zead at the public hearing, it is -eferred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. S. M. Robin4nr.; rhe a~,nr for the property owner, appeared before the Planning Commis- slon and explained that Che su'~Jert property was in probate, since Mr. Casella had passe9 away, and Mrs. Casella was ~~"~ed tn seek the subject variance at this psrt3.cular time since the property would be in pi..'ate for approximate.ly another year; that he would take excepeion to the condition aet forth in the Staff Report r~auiring that the exi~ting pumpc, tanks, pump islar.d and canopies be removed, since they had a letter from the Fire Marshal statin~ that t?:e Ghree tanks could be locked wirh h~aay locks a.nd remcved fron~ tt,e gr:iit11C1; that the pumps hPd been removed; that Mrs. Casells had no plans to remove he tank islands and canopies, however, that condition ~ould be met r.t some futur~ date; that anothec service sCation to the east of sub~ect proNerty had been a-~~ndoned for aome time, ~ut had now been reopened and that might hapoen eventually to tr,~ sub~ect property gnd for ttia' reason thev did not wish to deatroy the tanks no_ could they ivetify destroy'ng the C31.opiea aL the sub~ect locatior~; that they would na~~ no problem -omplying with the condition regardin~ tiie trash stotage areae to bE pr~~vided in accordance w'th approved p.lans on file wi_th the Office of r.he Director o~ Public. Works; thut regnrding the condition ~ ~ ~ MINUTCS, CITY 'I.ANNINC COMMISSI.UN~ Mnrch 3~ 1975 VARIANCE N0..2677 (C~ntlnued) 75-129 requiring the remnvnl of thc ea~terly drlvewny on Mir.aloma, to he replaced w•lth a differ- ent curb and gul•ter~ etc.~ they may huve ro revecse thnt ik~m lC [tre Aervice etation use was raacti •t~ted at a l.ater dnte; and thn[ regarrling pnrking th~~~~~ wnc ample parking opuce oii the prrmic~e:+ f~•r upproximately 12 vehicJ.es. TH~ PUIiLIC 11EARINC WAS CLOSF;D. Chnirmnn Her.bat uoted Chat th~~ ~ubjcct proper.ty wua in violution of L•h~ '~~ning Ordinunce perCaining to set.L•ucka, etc.; that the property owner.e had previ.ouc~ly u, ued to remove the pwnp isla~ids. etc, ; and r.hat, in the past, the Plaiini.ng Comnds:ai~~n hud inaigted thnt. the building be brought up to Code requiremente for similnr uses, Mr. Robinson atated thfaC the Cnsella~ hud owned Che properry since 193G; and that Mrs. Crisel.la wo~~ld derivc funde only from ehe rental of rhe sub,~~~ct pr.operty. l:hnir.mun Herbat noted that the use seemed appropriate; however~ there had been timee wl~en the property wns ovnrloaded with rental c.rucka, with eome of the erucks being parked in the frunt. setback ar~~~. Cammlaeioner King nuted that when he viewed the sub,ject property in the field, Chor~ ~re approximntel.y thr~e erailera purked in bnck of thP fence nnd tw~~ trucks parked und thFS canapies, and there ~•~us not enough room for that type usage of the property. Mr. Robinson ipuJ.atecJ tliey would comply with the conditions o1: approval, whatever the~~ were determ{ ~d ko Uc hy tt~e Planntng Commi~3ion. lie further atated ~hat the Atlantic Richfie.ld ' ase on the Property had been cancelleci. Chairman •.erbst then noted that the variance could ~nly be g~anted for a time limit noC tu exceed : year; however, he did nol• wish to p1acP a.. ~xtreme hardsh•lp on the proper.t~• owner. In respon~e to queationin~ by Commis~ioner Farano, Mr. Robinson stated the prubate had bE.gun approximately six monttis ago and he did nok know huw much l.onger lt would last; and that ne was not an attorney, but a consultanC to Mra. Casella. In respanse to questioning by Commissioner Johnson, Mr. Robinson stip~~lated that there would be no outdoor storage or display :~nder the canopies no~ within the required 50-foat min{mum front setback ar.eas. It was not•ed thaC tl~e Director of Development Servic~~s had determined that Che groposed activity fell within the definition of Sectian 3.G1, Clasa 1 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an ~nvironmental Impact Report and was, therefore, categorically exempt from tlte requirement to f11s an EIR. Commissioner Johnson offered Resolution No. PC75-52 and moved for its paasage anci adopti~n, that Petition for Variance No. 2677 be and hereby is granCed, granting waivera of the minimum front ~eCback~ req~~ired tree landscaping, Erd ;~quired enclosure of outdoor uses for a time limitation of one year, subject to review, on the basis that ttiE ,,etitionez demonstrated that an extreme hardship would be created if said waivers were not grmnted; sub~ect to the r..ondition that subject property shall be developed substantially in accord- ance with plans and specifications on fi.le with the City of AnahPim marked Exhibtt No. 1.; prov.ded, h~wever, that the trash storage areas shall be relocated and provided in accor~?- ance witn pl.ans on file with thp Office of t.he Director of Public Works, as stipulated Co by the p~titiuner; that the foregoing condilion shall be complied wi.tti within a period of 90 days from date hereuf or such further r_ime as the Planr,ing Commi~sion may grant; that there sha11 be ,~o outdoor storage or disp~ay permitted und~sr the c~nopies nor within the required 50-foot minimum front setback areas; and subject to cunditions. (~ee Resolution 3ook) ~n roll ca~l, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~ute: AYES: COMMIS~TONERS: FAFtANO, NOES: CGhII~tI5SI0NER~: NONE ABSEIvT: COhL*iTSSIONERS: MORL~Y, GAUER, JOFIIdSON, KING, HER$S'~ TOLAR ~ ~ ~ MIIrUT1;5, C1TY PI,ANNINC COMMIS5ION, M~rc}~ .~ . 1'~75 75-130 VARIANCE N0. 267(i - PUBLLC IiL"ARING. WALKEk & Lt?t?, INC. ~ 1~i17 Saul•h Mc-ncheoler Avenue, Ananeim, Cn. 928~13 (Owner); LL?VITT CONSTRUCTION SYSTC:MS, INC~~ 10800 Kal~mfl P.iver Rof-d, Fountal.n Vn~ley, Ca, 92708 (Agent); requesring WAIVER OF (~) PlsKA1i'f'fED US~S AND (B) tM.XIMUM SI~ :~ ART:A, 'f0 COh75'IdUGT A MODIJLAR HOME SALRS ANn UISPLAY COMPL~X on prope.xey de~crlbed us: f.n .Lrregularl~~-ahaped parcel nf: land r_oneiHt in~ of npproximaeely 9 ncren h, vi.ng a fronr,age of app ~xt -tel.y S80 Eeet un thc southweHt dld~• ot Mnnch~~H~er Averiue, huving a maximUm depth oI~ approximutely 55Q £eet, nnd heing locr+~~~a upproximakul.y 66U ft~et east of the centerline of Harbor I3oulevurd. Property pr~~aenrly classiti ted ItS-A-43,000 (RESYnEN'fIAI,/AGRICULTU~AL) 70NE, Two pcreons indi~ated their presence 1n oppoei.tion to sub~ect petit.ion. Aseielant 'l•uning Supervlnor Annika 5anhalahti reAd Lhe Stai Report t:o the Plan~tng Cominie- eion datnd rt,arch 3, 1975, aud suid Stc-ff Report Ls : ef~~r.red tu ae if set forth in fu].1 in the minut~~~. Mr. Tlm Unger, representing Levitt Construction Systema, Inc., thp :~,~nt for tt-e property owner~ nppeared before the Planni.ng Commiseion und atat~d u eita pl~in i~r the propased madel complex had been submiCCed; t.hat rhey were in tha business of. constructing mobilE>. and modul.ar homes and had puraued various alternutives to market their product and deCer.- mined that ~heiL uest method was to tocete .in ri commer.cial and highly-travc~led az~ea, ~~1 have a typic~tl R.-1 model cc~mplex; that they had floor p1Rna wict, f'lexibility to inCer - change the models; that the moclul.ar huuses would be sold on the sub~ect site to purc,asera with their own lot~, with the yi:e work IInd transportation of the houses included i,. t.he price; that Walker & Lee, Inc., were lntended to be the salea agEnt Ior the houaes ~~nd F.H.A. financing would b~ availab].r; and that the huuses were constructed wir..h 2 x 4~tnch stud walls throughout and built in a manner that would enable them to be ~aove~. MrN. 3oyce 'Purrentine, r.epresenting J. P. Edmondaon 1'roperties, F'ranchi~ee of khe Huward Johnaon's Mator Lodge fit 1380 South 'Harbor Boulevard, appesred before thc Plrinn'lg ~ommis- ai.on in opposition and stated r.hey were opposed to the ~ign variance but not ~ the prunoded model complex as such; and that since they hxd been required to camT~ wi[n the Sign Ordinance, said Ordinance 3houlu be enforced for i'~e suU~er.t uae aiso. Mrs. Mary Jones, representing Disneyland, appeared yeforc~ the Planning Commission and stated they did nor oUject to the proposal~ however, they did wish the Planning Cotamission tu understand th~t all land designated u~ comntercial-recrcation ahould be 3evc~loped wikh commercial-re~reation uses; that the development proFosai as fer. a ahort-time use, seemed well done, and wae compatible; howeve~r, they mig~it ob~ecr. to other requeRted variancea of a short-term nar.ure if Disneyland felt auch usea were incompatibte witl~ Che area; that they felt the Plannin~ Commissi.un had the best intereat of the City of ~naheim at heart and would make a:~ound decision regarding the maeter, ~.owever, they hoped the propoaed use would not set a prer.edenC in the area, if approv:'. In rebuttal, Mr. Unger stated a 60-square foot sign had been arbitrarily reauested and he was not awar~- what sign requirements had been placed on the How,~rd Johnson's Motor Lodge. Thereupon, D!~puty City Attorney Frank Lawry advised that to hia cecollection three sign vaziancea had been approved for Eioward ,Tohnson's. THE PUBLIC HEARINC WAS CLOSED. Mr. Uny~r acated regarding the 6-foot wall to acreen thp display area~ tha~ they were propusing the fence ~o he al.ocig the rear yard arp~~s of the complex and not i.n the front, for obvious reasons; whereupon, Miss Sant~laht~' notP~i ttiat the sc:reening would be no problPm even if it was provided in the front, as loug as it aas behind the 25-foot setback :~ine. In reapunae ko q~ ~stianing by Mr. Unger, Chairman Herbst noted that trash bins, in accord- ance wi.th the req~jrements of the Sanitation Di~-ision, were requireci. Regarding the t•lme limit for the use. Mr. Unger atated ~y were anticipating thac tl-~ ground lease would aot 2xceed two years (one year with an option for o~e addiCiona? year) and, therefore, et~ey were requesting approval for two yeara and ninety days, the ninety days being to pre~~re the Yround lease; and that when the urte was terminate~, they would remove the proposed .~tructur.es and reatore the property to at least its existing condition. Mr. U,iger queationed the 45-fooC right-of-way required nlon„ Mancheater Avenue, whereu~~n, Zoning :'upervisor Churles 3oberts ~oted tha~ it appeax2d the structures st,ould be s~t back an additional 5 feet sinee. an addltional 5 f~et wae re.~uired to meet the right-of-way requirement. ~ ~J ~ ~ MINUTLS, CLTY 1'i.ANNINC ~OMMISSION, Marctt ~, 1.9!'~ VARIANCE N0. 26iB fC:ontinued) ~ ~ 75-131 Regarding the paytnon~ c,f feea far et.lcwr~lke~ et:c., Mr. Unger ~tated therP wae no an~etreet parking allowc~ nt r.hu aub,ject l~~c+it t ~,~, there w.is n numb~~r uf urivewny ~ute at the curb l ine, nnd the ~ae wae eumawhet tempoi~:iry a~iJ U~.:y did not antfcipute nnyrne parking on th~. 9Lr~~ct and~ Cherefot'e~ hud not ~~rovid~•~I f~~r aidewalkd or nnything in respect to landacap- ing de~ign. H~ questioned if it woulci be prudent tu inetflll sidewalke no~ lcnowing exactly wtie:c an.c', when the etroet widening would tnke place, whereupon~ OEEice Rngi.~eer Jay 'PiCus advided that the co~Ydt~ion, ae aet forth in l-he StafE Report, wa~+ requircd and t.hat the City Engineer would hAV~ the option of graneing a sidewnik waiver r~o that if the City wiahed to have the sidewalka in tha fuCure~ the waiver could bc revoked and the eidewalks inatulled. In reapo,ise to further queati.onin~, t~y M*_. Unger, Staff noted that tt~e tree plnnti.ng feea would npply tu the antire oub~e~r. property and thnt c~aid Creee would be require~i regard- Leas of what on-aite Lundscaping was p:oposed; aiid, further, that the condition regarding £i.re hydrantr~ could not be waived Uy Chr Plnnning ~:ov~mieyion, Mr. Ui~ger then stated tt~ut the houae~ would be conKtruct~d on conventional foun~ir~tions and werP c+pproved by kh~ California Department of Hous~.ng. :si-d +t,at each phase of the inetall.a- tiun would be submitted to the City f.or builcitng permite, na required. In response Co ~uestioning by Cha:Lrm«n Nerbet, Mr Ut~aer st:h:ed the atructures would be Uuilt r.o exceed the Uniform nui.lding Code and the rest of thc deeign would be in conform- nnr.~ with the City Codea. COIrIIy[ISSIONER GA~IER LF.cf TIIG M~ETiNG AT 6:40 P.M. Commissioixer Farano made an obaervation that the petitioner had not gtven a reasor for the hardship that must he f~und in the granting ~f. a variance; and~ thereupon, Mr. Unger sCated they wer.e in retail sAles which wac~ ~~:onunercial use; and that nl.though the sub~ect property wae close co the freewAy, the use ~as not far-reaching aince it was for a short period of time or an int~~rim use only. Mrs. Turrentine ap~eared again before tlie Planning Covanisaiun and etated that even thougt~ they we~e opposed ro the aign vnrian~~:, ~.hey were intereated in tt,e product as i.t would bring people in[o the recreational srea In response to questi.oning by Chairman Herbsr., Miss SantalahCi note3 that the reason the appllcation had been made tnroiigh the variance procedurE was based on the fact that ncne of the homes would 'be constcucted perman.ently on the site as in a subdivi~ion. Chairman 'r-~rbst then noted that ina4mur.h as the use waa temporary and the pr.c3uct would be displayed we.ll, and locicing at it from the marketability etandpoin;., the petitioner wss trying to £ind o~•t if the product was marketable and I:hat a variance was the on1•, tuol in which to be able to process the applicatiun. Commissioner Farano furCher noted ttiat the Code required that an xpplicxnt must maks a showing tha~ he is being denied a right en~oyed by othera; ~ah~reupon, Mr. Lowry advised xhat the £inding required referr~., ~o the difficulty of a property to develop, a use which other camp. ~'abie propertics weuld be ent{.t1ed to eniov, ar.y f~r~n of hardsliip pertal~~ing tu land use or physical use of the prooerty, etc., ~th~r than economicai; and that the sub~ect sa;:uatian was general:y referred t~ as ~ use varis,ce and processed as euch since it was not apprapriace under che condi.~ional use peL~mit proced~re; an~d that Dis~eyland was approved under a use variance. Conimissianer iCing of.fered - moti.on, ~. ~~~nd~d by Gommissioner , hneo:i and MOTION CA!tRIEA (Commissionera Gauer, Morley and '.fo_ r being abaent), that the Planning Commission recom- menda to the City Coun~il tha[ the bJect pro~ect be exempt ~rom the requtrement to prepare an Environmental Impact R ~t, pursuant t~ the provie{ona of t,he Califoznia Fnvirunmental Quality Act. Chairm.~ Fsrbst offered kesolution No. PC75-53 and moved ~or ita passage and adoptlon, that Petition f~r Varianc~ Na~ 2678 be and hereby ;.s granted, in part, ~ranting waiver of the perm~tted uses for a timz limitation of two y~;~rs and ninety days aubjec:.*. to review ~O ~ ~ ~ MTNUTES, CT'l'Y PLANNING GUPU~IISSION~ March 3, i975 ~`~-~~? VARIANCL ~~U. 2670 (Conkinued) And consiJeration ~ur exteneion of time upon written requeat by Che petitioner; denyi.ng wAivur of the mn::imu~ sign area on the bnr~ie that r.he petitioner did not demonstr.Ate ~1 hurdet~lp ~~rould bca created if Buid waiver wne not grnnted; sub~ect to tha condition t}-at u Uo-~d in and amount nnd form satief.nctory to the Cir.y of Annheim ehall he poKted [u guarnntee the removul of the propoaed atructures and re~c~~rstion of the ~~xuperty to a~t leaot its p~esently axieting cordition~ sai.d removal und restoration to be accompliehed when the use granted Uy thie vr~riance terminates; +~nd sub.j~ct to ~he. stipulatl.one of the petitioner a.id Alih~'CC tu l.nterdepartmental Cortanitte r.ecommPndations. (See Reooluti~n Bo~k) Gn rull. c~.ll, the f~~regoing resolutlon was pa~aed by r.he foilowi~-g vote: ~~YFS: COAII~IISS~IUN'~:R5: JUtINSON, KINC, 11ERBST NOI:S: COtM1ISSI0NIiRS: FA,Ke1N0 i~BSENT: COMMI.`'SIONIiRS: CAUER, PiORI.~Y, TOLAR VAktIHIVCE ..J, 2680 - PUALI:C HEARING. CHARL~S K. PATTERSON, President, Orangc~ County Volvo, ~ Inc.~ Y. 0. IIox 4446, Anaheim, Ca. 928G3 (Owner); requestinq WAIV~R OF FGRMITTLD USES TO ESTADLISiI AN AUTOMOBILF. BODY AND Pt1Itv7' RFPAIR FACILLTY an property de:~cribed as: A rectangularly-ehaped parcel of 1nn~~ ~• ~-~~:.ting of approximately 0.4 acre located nt the southwest corner of North Street : ~a Boulevgrd, having r,ppruxi.mate lrontages of 120 EeeC ~m the 4uuth oide ot Nor~ e and 156 feet on the west s•lde of ~~nahetm Bouleverd. Prorerty presently claesif i~~ (~:Jt~tEKCIAL, GENG1tAL) %ONE. No one indicated cheir preaence in oppo:;ition to sub,ject petitio-i. Al.though the Stait leporl to the Planning Commiasion dated March 3~ 1975~ was not read at the public hearing, il is referred T.~ und mAde a part of the minutes. :9r. Cl;arles Patterson, the petitionerr appeared before the 1'lanning Commisei~n and srnted the aub~ect area had been vacated by automobile agenciea a~d that the proposed use wa:~ be:.ng sought to maintain the economic value nf Che pr~perty. THI? PUBLIC HEARING WAS CJ.OSED. in response to questioning b; the Planning C~mmisaion, Mr. Fatteraon atipulated that the hours of operation would be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:OC p.m. and that no noiae would be E:mi.tted from the sub~ect property during al.l other hours. In response to questioning by Commissioner K.:~g, Mr. Fatterson statEC~ ~:here would be a paint spray booth oti the propert~ and that che front of the pruperty might be rented ~or a u3ed car operation at a later time. It was noted that the Dtrector of Development Services had determined ~ti•at the propoaed activity fell within the derinition of Section 3.01, Class I of the City uf Anaheim Guidelines to the Req~iireraents for an Environmental Impact Report and wae, therefure, categorical!.y exempt f.rom the requi.rement to file an EIR. Commi~sioner Farano of~ered Res~lation No. PC75-54 and m~ved for its pagsage and adoptiun, that petit~~n for Vari.nce No. 2680 be and hereby is granted to permit an autuuiobile body and painC repair facility i.n the CG (Commercfal, GeneraZ) Zone, on the basia that other simi?ar sutomotive facilitiea currently exist ong Anaheim Boulevard; sub~ecC to the stipu.Lati.ons of the petitioner and subiect to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, th~ foregoing reoolution wae passed hy the fo'llowing vor.e: AYE.~.: CO(rII~1ISSI0NERS: FARANO, JOHNSON, KING, HEF~BST :~OES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABS' !': COMMISSIONERS: GAU~R, MORLEY, TOLAR I ~ • A MINUTES, CI7'Y PLANNING CUMMISSION, Dturch 3. 1975 ~5-~~.33 REQUIsS'1' FOk GIR NGGATP/G DECI.AItRTIUN FOR CONSTRU'CTIJN (1F A STORM DRAIN ON F.UCLID STRFE'f $E'TWEI:h OFtANGI'sW00D AVENUE AND ANAHI:IM BARAE}t CITY CNANNCl~. r _.__,___r,w _ _ It wns noled that khe City of Annheim Publir, Work.s Departme~.tt wt~s prn~oNing to conp=ruct a sr.oxm dr.ain on Guclid Street between ~rungewood Avenue and Anahcim ~arber City ChAnnet; cl~nt: the City of Garden Grove would pay 5~)X of. the conet.ructi~n coeta £or snid sCorm drain; .ind lhet Che Inil•fal Study of Envf.ronmontnl Impact conduccect bv ~'hc F:nginF^ring Div~ei.on ~nd the Development Services Ucpartment incUcuted that there wosld be nc~ edvcrae euvlrou- mental lmpact~ other than temporAry •inconv~niencee aseociut.ed k~lth cor.~•[r~~ction nctlvi.ties. Commis~ioner Fnrano c>ffered a motion, aeconded by Commiesioner ~C.tng ~-nu M(1T1 i CARRI.ED (C~mmissioner~ Gauer., Morley and Tolar being absent), that 4he Planning Commiesion recom- menJa to the City Council that Ch~ eub,ject pro,iect be exempt fr.,m the requirement to prepare an Environmertal Impa~t Report pursu+.nt to the provisi.ony uf the Callfornia Envirurmental Quality Act. RGQUL~T FOR I:1R NtiGATIVi; DECLARATION FUR CONSTRUCTIUN ~F A S'f~RM DRAIN ON PLACrNTIA AVENUT: URTWEEN LA JOLI.A ST[tI~:ET AND CARBON CREEK CkiANNET`. _ _~ _ ____. It was noted Chat the City oi Anuheim Pubiic Worke Departn~ent was proposiag to conolruct u sLOrm lrain on Placentia Avenue between La Jolla Street and Cu:bon Creek Ch~~~~nel; chat the CiCy of Plucentin would pay 307. of the constructior. costs; ~nd that th~ Tnitial Study o[ Gnvlxormental Imnfu:t conducted by the EnginPering Divisioa nnd the Develo~:ment Services Department lndicated thet ther.e would b, no adverse environmental impact other than the temporary in~~~iveniPnces aes~ciatPd wieh the constructio:: activitiPa. Commissioner Faruno ~ffered a motlon, seconded by Commigsion~r KinR and M!lTION CARRTED (Coam~iasioners Gaucr.•, Morley and Tolar being absent), that tl~e Pl3nning Commiseion z•ecommends to the City Council Chat the subject pro~e~:t be exempt from the reQuirement to prepare an Environm~ntal Im,1ct Report, pursuant Co th~ ,rovistons oE the California ~nvironmental QualiCy Act. REPCRTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOIyIldENDATIONS CONT)T.IIUNAL USE PEf2MIT N0. 1018 - Itequest far re~minatton Property conaisting nf Fippruximately 0.7 acre and lceated on the west side of Beach Boulevard sou~h o.t" Orange Avenue nnd further described aa 711 Sotith Beach B~iilevard. Tt was noled that on April 8~ 1968, the Planning Commission grsnted Con~litional Use Permit No. 1018 in Resolutioti N~ YC68-8$, to establish a watk-up restaurant i:. conjunction w:Lth sn existing amusement f~i~ility, with «aiver of the maximum number aT,~.l area of permitted free-standing sigus; that on April 17, 1961, the Planning Commiss+~~~i granted Conditional Use Permit No. 112 perinitti.ng the establishment of the exit~ting baseba].]_ batti.ng cage wit'h automatic pitching mact~ines to the rear of the aff3ce buildiiig and pool dtsplay area on the subject property; ~:~id that the applicanC had submitted a written request to terminate Condieional Use Permit No. 10J.8 inasmuch as the rsataurant was no longer opera[ing. Commissioner King offered Resolutton No. PC75-SS and moved for •~ts passage sud adoption, tha~ all proceedings in connect~.on with Condi.tional Use Permit No. 1018 be anc~ hereby arp terminated, as requested by the applicant. (See Kesolution Book) On r.oll call, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the f.ollowing vote: AYES: COA4tISSI~NERS: FARANO, JOHNSON, KTNG, IIERBST ~10ES: COhQ•fISSIONERS: NONE IiBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, MOLtLEY, TOLAR ITEM N0. 2• RE~J~ST FOit EIR NEGATIVE BECLARATION FOR A GRADING PERMIT F'~R 5141 CRESCENT ~RIVE. It was nc~ted that an ,spplica;.ion for a grading permit had been fi12d in connectian with ~he addition of two rooms and a patio for an exiating gin~le-family residence at 5141 Crescent Lrive; that an evalu~tion of the environmental. impact oi grading at the subject location was required under Che provisj~~a af the California Environmc~~tal Quality Act and ~ ~ ~ MINllTG5~ CT1'Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ March 3~ 1975 ITI:M NU, 2 (Continued) 75-13k the StnCe BIR CuidellneH. becxuA~ the pro,~ect wae 'locat.ed !.n r.he Scenir. Corridor; citid that a atu~ly of the proposed grading by thr t~ngi.nceri.ng Diviel.on c~id the Devc~lopmenC ~ervices U~nartment indicated Cl~ut: ir would have no significant environmental impact. Commisai^~er. Johneon oftered a mc~tlcn, Necunded by Commi.e~ioner King and MOTIUN CARRIhD (Coaunie. .~ners Cauer, Morley Mnd 'I'~lar beitt$ abaent)~ that the Planning Commiasi.on recommends r~~ the Ciky Councll rl~at rhe sub,~ect ;.olect be exemnt from Che requir.ement to prepare an Enviranmental Impact It~~port~ ~ursua~.C r~ Che proviaions of the Californin Environmentvl Quuli.ty Act. T'frM N0. 3 CONDITIONAL USG PtiR1NI'1 N0. 14i0 - Requc~st for exteneion of time • Pruperty conai8~ing of ctpproximately 0.8 nc:e locatcd on thEr wes'- aide of Anahclm ~ioulevard~ approximutely 154 feFt north of the centerli.ne of Vermonr Avenue, an~l bainK Further described ~s 887 Sour.h Ani-hHi.m B~uleeard. It waK noted that ~arlier. tn the meeting, Che P].r~nning Commission cuusi,,ered CondiCional Use 1'ermit No, 1~'.~ L-o p~~ 1.t a b~nXd and c~re tacility for the treatment o.f. alcoholicA at 7U3 ;Jorth Lemon St~-eet, ar~id applic:ation being simi.lar to the use ~:ropos~~d under Con~iCional Use P~rmit No. 1470: ~nd Che following n~~~~ ~on o~as ndopted: Gom~air~sioner Fara~iu utLeres a moti. ~~, seccnded by Cuuunissi~ner Johne~on and MO'['ION ~ARItIED (Commissioners Morley snd 'T~lr~r bei ~g ab~eut) , to reopen th~ public hearang and continue conaidera;:lon of Conditional llse Permit N~. 1517 t~ the Plnnninb Commt~siun meeting of Mriy 12, 1975, ic~ order to provide sc~me •-i~e far the pc.ti.tioner to obtain funde for the propused use and, Chereby, be in u posikion Co comply with the Code requitements for the proposed loca- tion, as well as for the location on Anaheim BoulevsLd; and that thE petitt.oner ehould take lminediate ~teps l.o "cl~.an up" botti facilities where possable. Commissiotier Farano offered a motio1~, aeconded by Commiasioner King and MOT10N CARRTED (l;onunissi.oners Gauer, Morley aad 'Pc~ar betng absenr), to continue consider.ation of the sub~ect request tor extension of t~.me for Conditional Use Perm2t :Vu. 1470 to the meeting of. May 12, 1975. ITEM ^l~. ~ CONU7TIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1063 ANL' 1072 - Raquest for extension of. time - Pr ^exty c:onsisting of approximat~.ly 5.2 acres, 1~caCed at the southeast corner of Haster Street and Manchester Avenue, currently zoned RS-A-43,000 with a Resolution of Intent to C-R. It ~aao nQted that the appZicant wa3 requesting one-ye:~r timP extenciors for Cor-d.kionai Uae Permi~ Tos. :106? anJ I072 at~d was suggesttng that ei~e Planning Commisaion '.nitiate proceedings co chinge the n~me o,`. Haster Street to A•~aheim Boulevard since he f~ad heard tt~at tlie State Divisi.on of Highways had beer- granted funds for the const•ruct.un of the Anaheim Bo:levard-Haster SCrePt bridge over the Santa Ana Freeway. It was i~ote3 that Conditional Use Permit No. 1063, to esrablisn a hall for variety shows, lectures, meettngs, dances, etc., with an on-sale liquor establ~~hment in an existing atructure a~ 1721 South Manchester Avenue, was granted by the Planning Comaisaion on October 7, 1968 sub~ect to the condition "That the petition is granted for a pertod of one yenr, after which time it sha11 b~ reviewed by the Development Services DeparCment staff to determine what effect the uses of the property have had on the area, whether parkin~ has been adequate, and whet~~er furth~r puUlic hearings should be scheduled to determine wheCher the incerim uses should be continued. If n~~ public hearing is heid and L•he peti- tioner desirea to continue the use of the p~roperty for the puxposea requested, he m,.y requeat an additional one year f.or the use from Che Planning Comtnissfon"; and that five previou~. e~i-enaiona of time h~d been granted by th~ Planning Commiasi.on, the last one expiring Oci~ber 7, 1974. It was furt;ier noted that Conditional Use Yermit No. 1072, to establish a b~ts 3epot in an exiating atructuce, wjtt~ waiver of ttie maximum permitCed proiection of a wal] sign, at 1711 South "rlanchester Avenue, was granted by the Planning Coma-ission on Nov~~n~~~~r 4, 1968, subject to the condition "That the petiti~n is granted for a period ~f one year, after U ~ ~ MINU'I'I:S, (:ITY YWWNING GOr41ISSI0~, Murch 3, 197.5 75-1:i5 ~TI'sM N0. 4 (ConLinu.~d) ~ whicti time it elic~ll bQ revlewed by the Dc~velopmc~nt 3erv icee eCaff to determine whal• ef t ect ~:he ~iRea of the property have hnd on the areu, wl~ether parkinq hae b~en e~dequute, whether. dedlcatim~ fur. FlaeCer Strc+et is naeded, and whether further public heaxlisge ehould be echeduled to deturmtne whether the use c~huuld be continued. lf no public henring ir~ he:ld, ~nd tho Netit:ior:er dueiroa to continue the use af th~ proporty far the purpo~e r.equested, he may roquest an addi.ttonnl one year L•'~r Ch~ us~ fro~e the Planntng Commie~+lon"; nnd that tl~~e nrevi ~us extenal.ons of timc hn~' betin grnnted. Cho l.ast otie expiring Novemb~r 4, I974. rurther, conr~tr~lcClon of. rhe Mah~im Boulevnrd-Hneter Street overpnse wna presently sched.uled f<,r 1976 +uid 1977 +~nd~ ulthough che City did not currently have pr~cise plene for the allgnment of Ac+id overpase, preliminary p1Ana were recnived by the Trnf.f.ic Engineer~ ~atd plflnn i.ndicaCing the Sttste wo+ild be O~JCA~I1'~ng right-of-way '.ong the entire frontage of sub~ect properCy ad.,acent to Haeter StrePt nnd aloiig Che northerly two-tliixds along Manchester Averiue; that: c~ed.lcation would lnvolve a etrip ~f land ranging to approximntely 10 feet in width and wouid be ubtained by the State Division ~f lii.gh~rays: und that since conRtrucr.ion of th~ overp~usb wae th~ reaul.t of courdinated efforts hy tr~e City and State, the City's policy lln zc:ning petitione involvin6 ~rap~rty affected by simi.lur State pro~ects) was to include a:^n~~tion Chat wo.~td req~ii.re dedication by the owner t.o th~~ Ui~rision of l~ighways. The Planning Commiauion entered lnto discusr~ion rcgarding the preaenl unoigh~:~y condition of the aub,iecC property and thnt it would be s~pprepri.ate as +~ condition of appr~~-al o.f the tima exr~n:~ions, thnt the property be cle~ned up r~ince man~ people werc~ expoaed t~~ the bus depot at tt,e subJect locntion. Commisaioner F'i>.rano ~ffeced a mutiun, 3ecor.ded by Commlasioner :Cing and MOT1uN CARP,IED (Comminsioners Gauer, Morley ~nc~ Tolar being absent), thar. a one-year time exteneion be and hereby is grunted for Conditiorr~l Use Pe.rmit No. 1063, eai.d time exten3i.on being r:etr~active to October 7, 1974 and to expire on October 7, 1975, subject to the pr~perey being cleaned up immedialely and sub~ect to the condition "Ttiat the owner(s) of. gub;ect proper.ty shall dedicate Co the Star.e. of Ca].ifornin Divlsion of Hi.ghways a strip of land along l~usker StreeC and '.anchester Avenue for street widening purposes, as determin~d to ~e necessary by Ciie State Divi~ion of Highwaye a:~d up~n demand of ao.id Uiviaion of liighways." Comcuissi.oner I'arano off~xed a motion, seconded by Commic~aioner King and MOTION CARRI~D (Coimuiseioner.s (;auer, MorJ.ey nnd Tolar bQing absent), that a one-year time extenaion be and hereby is granr`d for Conditional Use Pei'mlt No. 1072, said time extenaion being retrc+active to November 4, 1974 and to expire on NovemUer 4, 1~75, sub~ect to the property bF.ing c'eaned u~ imrnediAtely and aubject to the conditiun "That the owner(s) of eu'uject FroperCy ehal~. aedicate ta the State ot California Division of Highways ~ strip of 'land along Haster Street und Manchester Avenue for street wi~ening purposes, as detennined to be nec~ssary by the Srate Division of Highways and upon demand of said Divieion of tlighwaqs." IT~M .10. 5 TRACT N0. 79i8 (I~EVISIUN N0. 1) AND RCCLASSIFICATTON N0. 71-72-4<<(7) - Request for appr.ovul of final. sUecific plans - Property conbi.eting of approximately 25.8 acres, having a frontage of a,~proxi-uately 2100 feet on the norCh side uf Serran~ A~~pnu~ and being located approxi- mately 1760 feet- east of t~~e ~enterline 4f Nohl Ranch Road. Mr. Ge~rge Putnam, Pro}ecC Caorditiition Jirector of Shapell Industries, In~., indi.cated his presence to answer queations xegarding the proposel. It was nuted that o~. August 20, 1974, tt-e City Council approved the Tentative Map of Tract No, 79].8 (Revision :?o. 1), s~ibject to the recommendations of the Planning Commisaiun, said tract to consist of lote in accordance with Che RS-5000 aite development seandards; and that the applicant was propoeing to use the madel homes approved for the sale of housea in Tract Nos. 8375, 8316 and 8377. Cammissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Cammiasioner Johnson and MOTIOP7 CAP.RIED (Commiasioners Gauer., Mor.ley and Tola~ being absent), that the finai specific plans as aubr~itted in connection wi.th Tract No. 7918 (kevision No. 1) and Reclassific:ation No. 71-72-44(7), be and hereby are approt~~,: for 83 lots. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PL.APINYNG CUMMISSIUN, Mar.ct- 3~ 1975 75-136 REPORTS ANU 1TLM N0. 6 ttEC0I~t1:N~ATiUNS TItACT N0. 8075 AND ItECL~SSIFICATION N4. 71-72••44(12j - RequenC ~ for approval uf 1':tnal specif.ic planr+ - Proparty zoneieting of spproximately 60 acrea. havinq frontaRee of approximately 2600 Feet qn both eides of Serrano AvQn~.e nnd luca[ad apprnximetely ona mil.e northeaet of ~he intereecCion ot Serreno Avenue and Nohl R~nch Rond, it wae note~d Ch At Tentati.ve Map oF Tract Na. 80'-5 (Rtvision No. 3), propooing aubdivieion aE the subJect propc+rty into 180, RS-720U zoned lo~s. was approved by kh~a (:ity (:ouncll on I~'ebruery ?.0. l.9 73. aub~ect cu cQnditiuns; ttiar the suf>~ect. property wao currant].y z~ned RS-A-43~UU0 wi t h~ reealution of inCant to PC und~r Reclxseiaication No. 71-72-44(17.)~ to be dc~velop~d in nccurdnnce with the RS-7200 site davelopment etandarde; that eubmiCted plans prr.~~use a decorar.ive, opanwork fenc~ construc~ed of 1-i.rich x 1-i.nch eteel t:ubes at S-lnch centers ~ with a rail.in~t top and butCOm of 1-1.nch x 2-inch steel tubee, util.izing 2-i.nc}x x 2-incts eL•eel tubea as poeta on 8-fo~t ceriter.a, ranging in heigh~ ftom 42 inches to 6 feet; tha t eubmitted floot• plune and al~vutiona indicnted f.LVe flaor nlnna rangi.ng in size from a 1-story~ 3-bearoom~ 1709-oquar.e LooC house wi[h u 494-equure foot, 7.-c:ar gArage to a 2-story, 5-bedroom, 25S5-dqunre foat house witti a 5i38-equare foat~ 3-car g~ra~e; and that exterior buildir,g n~aterials cnnsisted oE r~tucco, plywood aith grooves, and red cedar, a~edium shake rooffl. Mr. Ji.m Uarisi c, representing Anahaim H111s, Inc:.~ lndiceted hio presence to answer any questions regarding the siibjecC reyuertC. Coromiasioner Farano o£fered a motion, aeconded by Commiseioner Jahneon and M~'fION GARRIG~D (Comwisaioners Gauer, Morley and Tolar b~ing absenr.), tltat fi.nal apecific plans eubmitr.ed for Tract No. 8075 (R~vis~.on No, 3) and in connection with Reclaesificati.on No. 71-72-44f].2) be and hereby are approved. AllJOURNMENT - There being na futther buaineas to disruas, Commisaion«~r Farano - ~''~ered a motion, seconded bq Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIEA (Commiegionera Gauer, Morley und Tolar being absent), to adjour^ [he meeting. The meetin~ sd~ourned at %:00 p.m. RespecCfully submiCted~ ~ _ • ~ ~ ~ Patricia n. Scanlan, Secretary Anatieim City Planning Commission PAS:hm