The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1975/09/030 Fl C G MICROFII.MING SERYICE, INC. ~~ ~ 4 ~ ~+ ~ ~ry ,~'. 1 O ~ ~rl, v~ O U1 ~~ ~ ~ N W ~n r ~I ~ 1 V I I ~~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ C 1 ty I~A 1 I Aniheim~ C:~I I f~~rnla $.n~~Cemhr.r 3, 117~~ REGUI.nR MEfTI~IG OF TN[ At1AIlEIM CITY PI.ANi~ItJf; CQNP1iS510tJ R[GUl.l1R - A re.q~ilar mee[Incl c,f thc~ ~niheim City FlPnninn Co~rmissi~n wa~ ca~led to MFF.TING order ~it 1:~~ p.m• in thF Cc~unc:i l Char~her, ~~ c~u~~rum hrinn present. PR.ESENT - Chl~l P,MAN: Far~~no ~ CnhiMISSI~NfftS: ~arncs~ Hcrh,t, •IohnS<~n, Kinq~ Morl~y, 7ol.~r RE3SF.NT - COMMISSIh1lERS: Nonc ALS~ PR~Sf~~T- Frank Lowry Denuty City Attorney Jack Judci Civil Enc~ineerinq Representative Annik~ Santal~htl l.c+r,ing Supervisor Allan Daum llss(st~nt Zonin~l Su~ervisor Patricla Scanlan Commfssfon Secret~~ry PLEDC,E OF - Commissioner• Johnson led in the Pleclgc <~f 1111eglance to tfie Flag of the ALLEGIANCE Unlted State~ of America. APPROVAL OF - Cormiissioner Johnson offered a tnotian~ seconded by Commissioner King and TNE MlNUTES MOTI~N CARRIED, to auprove the minutes of tlie meetincl of August b, 1975, as submitted. RECl.ASSIFICA'flf`H - C~NTINUED PUHLIC NEARING. N(1R'EAST PLAT.A~ L7D,~ c/o h~ark U. leff~ N0. 74-7_5'~~~ 12U E1 Camino Urive~ Suite 110~ Beverly Hills, ~Ca, 9~~212 (Owner); - Bill Phalps, 1095 No~th Main Street, Suite S, Orange~ Ca. 926G7 (~gent). TENTATIVE MAP OF Proparty described as: An irregularly-shaped par•cel of l~nd consisting TRAC7 N0. 8710 of approxin~ately 16 acres located on the west side of Kfaemer Boulevard '""'-- between Crowther Ave~ue and Orangethorpe Avcnue~ having approximate frontages of 620 feet on the ~outh side of Crowther Avenue~ 160 feet on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard~ and ~Fb!~ feet on the no~th side of Orangethorpe Avenue. Property presAntly classified Cl ~COMMERCIAL~ LIP117ED) APID CH (C~1MME'RCIAL~ IiEAVY) ZONES. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-120Q (RESIDENTIAI.~ MULTiPLE-FAMILY) ZONF. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUFST: An~;NCaR~9?H~5~ bSubjec[Nprop~erty2is~pNoposed~for subdivisiont~ into 7 RM-12~0 lots. The subJect items were continued from the meeting of July 7~ 1975~ for the petitioner to submit an environmentat impact report and revlsed pl.~ns, and from the meeting of August ~~, 1975~ at the request of the petitioner. No one indicated their presence in opposition to the subject items and~ thereupon, Chairman Farano cieclared the PUBLIC HEARI~IG CLOSEO. Mr. William Fhelps~ the age~t for the property owner, appe~~ed before the Planning Commisslon and 5tate~ his position was awkward in that he Fiad failed to do what the Comcnission had wanfed him to do since the initial public hearinc~, however~ the arice of the requested environmental impact ~•epart was considered to be beyond their means, and although there were only t~ao areas of impact which were of interest Co the Commiss(on~ an environmen:a) impact report would probably be all inclusive; and th~t the petitioner haa indicated a desire to withdraw the proposa' but he, as agent~ was continuing on since he sincerely felt that the enviro~mental impact rcport was not a racessary item and would cost approximately $5~~~~• PC75-4o1 ~ ~ ~ MINUTF.S~ CITY PLANNIWG CQM1415SI~N, Saplemhe~' ~~ 1975 ~5~~02 REf,I.ASSIFICATION N0. ~i°]5-41 !-NU TENTA~'IVE MAP QF TRI1~T N0. 871~ (Continued) In responae [o questloning by Chalrman Fr~rano~ Mr~ Phe~ps ~tatcd [he proJecCed tra~flc yener.7tod bY the curre~nt propos.~l (ap~roxim~~tr.ly 75~~ trfps per day) would he lass than that o~hlch -vould be generated fror~ a commercla~ pru~osal; and that tne property ha~d br.en prevlously zoncd for a 21-~cre. re~I~~nA1 shappinn centcr, Commiss(oncr 7olar toak exception co Mr, Phelps' sta[~ments, notin~ th~~t the numbcr uf paople wt~o would be Ilving In the proposecl projr.ct would rleFinitely have an (mp~ct r~n Che are~, ~nd that he was ~ot ev~n sure Chat the prop~rty should havc~ "C" zonfn~. In rr.spc~nse t~~ questloning by Cha{rman Far~nu~ Nr. Nhelps rec~nfirmed that he d(d not Inkrnd to furnlsh an env(ronmental irr,aact report, since t~~c cost was b~~yond thefr mrans. fornnissloner Herbst noted that he haci always been o~posed ta the subject ~r~perty bCing c~~mmcrcfnl and especi~ally for a regioral shapping cenker; that tl~e p~npoS~l would separate the large parcel into two portions, ancl he would question whether tha remaining portlon on the corner of Or~n~etliorpe Avenue and KrAemer Boulovard should remaln far commer•c{at developm~nt; ttiat there were no speciflc plans as to what the propo~;ed pr•oJact would ~~ctually be and only a l~~+yout had been pres~nt~d; und that the Commisslon wo~ald want to knaw the spr.cifics. Na furthPr noted that the Commfssfor, neeciect to know what the resulCant traffic count and the noise c~ff~ct from the adJacent railroad would ba to Che proposed multiple-famliy development; and thaC as ftir as h~ wa~s concerneci~ the r~quested environment~~l impact report could address only the traffic and sound and indicate I~ow the property would be protected. Thereupon~ Mr. Pheip~; star.ed he could provide a sounc report and a traffic report ~rhich would not be exactly as-huilt~ but ~~ould be cl~se tc~ as-t~uilt~ and he was herewith requesting to have a resolution of intent to the RM-1200 T.one. Cammissior,cr Herbst then noted tt~at the Comm(ssion had made rr.zoning commitments in the past wiChout kna.~ing what was actually going to be constructed on the property and he would want ta be able to have [he essent(al information upon which ta base a decision as to what xoning shoulci properl~ b+e on the property~ wr~ether CL/CH, RM-1200 or ML. Mr. Phelps remindeci the Planning Commission that the so~nd problem was not a community proJect~ bu•~ a Siate proJect, anct the developers would have to submit a sound resume and analysis to t.he State tn compliance with the State requirements. Commissfoner Tolar noted that he would nat be in favor of a resolution of intent which ~aould provide some guideiines For the developers~ but wanteci to f~av~e specific plans for his consideration. He noted some examples of proJects which indic;~ted what could happen wiYh resolutions of Intent wh~re, because of the resolution of int~nt t~ the zone~ tl~e developers were able to get their proJects apprnved; end he was not sure of the reguested zaning for the subject property. Commissione~ Johnson noted that he was inclined to agree with Commissioner Herbst and did not wish to put the developer to the expense of the environmental impar.t report~ although the informatfon appea~ed to be essential to a good dectsion. Chairman Farano noted that a~ fortunate or untortunate as it might be~ he felt that with th~e problems that were apparent with the proposal, the Commission In approving 1t might be setting a precedent and would probably find it hard to approve othE~rs who m(ght be mors deserving than the petitioner. Ne further noted that if an environmental impact report was determined to be required~ said requirement could reot be weivecl and the subJect petitioner was no better off than any others +~rho were required to provide such a dACUment; and that the Commission was bound tc, comply h~ith the r'equirements and not send the proJ~ect on to the City Council if an environmental impact report docurnent was needed and outstandtng. Commissioner King inquired whethe~ an environmental impact report would still be required If the petitioner should elim(na[e from the proposal that portion of the property which fronted on Crowth~r Avenu~; whereupon~ Commissioner Herbst nuted th,at would substanttally relieve hEs own mind as far as the residential development was conc~erned; howeve~, the circulatlon elem~:nt would still be of concern. In response ta questioning oy Commtssioner Tolar~ Mr. Phelps confirmed that the petitioner was the owner of the entire property to the c~rner of Orangethorpc i4venue and Kraemer Boulevard and to Crowther AWenue. Commissioner Tolar then noted that he could envisfon a small shopptng center on the corner property at Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard ~ ~ ~ 1~INUTES~ CITY Plf1NNING CONNIS~IQPl~ ;eptember 3, ~97~ 7~~~i0~ RfCLASSIFICl1TIQhi N0. 74-75-4! AN~ TI:NTA'T'IV1= MAP OF TRACT N0. 1371U (Contlnued) anu s~id center would he abutting the prop~sed r~sfc~entl~) suhdivls(on wh(c.h n~ight be cb.~cctlonablz. In rr.spon~c to ryuestloninct by the Pl~nnin~ Commissi~n rec~nr~lfnc~ the racessity La have the envlrunn-ental impict report inform~tion, Mr. Pticlps stated he was requcsting chat the Commission c<~mc to a decision renardinq the prop~s~~l at thi~~ rne~~tln~ and thn: he dld not wish Cca reques[ a iurthcr continu~nce slnce he dfd noC wish to pr~vlde the ndditional in,°orrtwtion deslred by the Commis~;icin, Comnis~loncr Fle~rbst n~r.~~d chat the petitl~ner h~ci submittc~l n~ suhstantial a<1~11tion~l inForm~tlon ~+hich had heen requeStcJ by thc Plannine~ Commissi~n slncc thelr mce~ing of July ?, 1975, wh~~i~ the public hearinc~ wns init(~~Ily held, TherPUpaai, Oeputy Cfty Atc~rney Frank Lowr•y established that the subJect ~yublic hear'ing could not bc ~urther contlnued from this meeting withaut consent af the p~titionr.r or his ~~grnt . Commissioner Mc,rley offered a motion, secc~ndscl by f,ommissioner Tolar :~nd MOTIQN CARRIED~ that the Pl:~nning Commission does herehy recommend to the CiCy Council t.hat the petitioner's request for ~n environment~l impact repc~rt ne~lative declar_iticn be denied and that, pursuant Co the provisions of the: California Fnvironmental Quality /1et~ an environmental impact report t~r>. require~i for the sub)ect development proposal~ said denfal being base~l on thrs pe~itioner's f.~(ture to provide suffici~nt informalion, as deemed to be requi~ed~ consistinn of an cnvironmental impact report generally related to traffic~ sound and schools; :h~t sa(d infrrm~~tion is requeste~l in ordcr to make a propcrly informed decislon re~arding the lan~! use. Coirnnfssioner Morley off~rpci Resolution No. PC75`1°n and moved for iCs pass~qe and adoption, thiat tf~e Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council tl:at PeCitlan far Reclassif(cation No. 7~~•15-~~~ be disapprovecl, based o~ the findings that approval of [he prc~posal +n the man~~er req~~ested~ without adequate supplemenCal information including an environmental impact report and specific plans, might sek an un~ies(rable precedent for future similar requests; and, additionally~ the petitioner failed to provide information relatlve to the future development of the adJacent commercial parcel fronting on the northwest corner of Oran~ethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevarcl; and that ttie Planning Commission does further recummend that in the event th~ City Council shoul~ look favorably on the sub~ect petition~ etc.~ that the petitioner be required to submit specific plans fur development of the subJect property~ as well as for the property which would be remain+ng at the northwes~ cornP~- oF Orangethorpe Avenue and Kr~emer Eiaulev~rd~ since said property was zoned cammercial and there wa~ no request for change af zone on th~t pro;~erty. (See Resolutiun Book.) On ro11 call, t.he fnregoing resolution a.ss passeci by the follawina e~ote: AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: BARP~E.S~ HERBST, JUIiNSOP~, KIN~~ MOr?I.EY, 1'OLAP,~ FAR/1N0 NAES: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE ABSE~~T: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE In response *_o quest(onin~ by Chairman Farano, Civil Engi~~eerin~ Assistant Jack Judd advlsed that the Tentative Map of Tract t~o. 8710. as submitted~ compiled with the statutes far tentatlve tracts, Commissioner Morley off~ered a motion, second~a by Commissioner To1ar and MOTION CARRIED~ tliat the Piannin~ Commission does hereby r~r_ommend tu the Cit~ Councii that Tentative Map of Tract No. a71U be d(sapproved on the basis that the petiCioner fatlecl to provlde additlonal informatfon as reques'ted by the Planni~g Commission~ which included specific plans and essentlal supplemental environmental impact informatinn related to schools~ trafFic~ and suund from the railroad, etc.~ and furthermore, tt~e Planning Cc+mmission recommended to the City Council that the requested zo~ing of the subjact property from the CL ~Commerciat, Limited) Zone to the R~1-1200 Zone be disapproved. ~ ~ MINUTFS~ CITY PLANNfNG COMMIS510N~ September 3~ 1975 ~ ~ 7S-~+p~~ Vf1RIANCE NQ. 2721 - CQNTIMUf_'p PUt~LIC HFARIIJG, E. J. JOhNSON~ 171£~2 Armstrong Avenue~ '~ San[i Ann. CA. 91711 ((~-iicr); AME:RIC11t~ BAKERIES~ 7222 Eost Gegs llvenue~ Los Angel~:s~ Ca. 9~~un (Agent); r~questing WAIVER 0'r (A) MAXIMUM NUMHER OF SIC,~~S~ (B) PFRMITTED SIGN LOCATI~N, AND (C) MINIMUIS qISTANCC• BETWEEN SI~NS~ T~ C~NSTRUC7 A FREE-STANbING SIGN on pr~perty deSCrfhe~ as: A rectAngularly-shapecl p.~rce1 of IH~J consiating of approximntely l.f~ acres havln~ ~~ frontage; of approximately 2~~n feet on the west side of East Street~ h~vin~ a maxi~~um deNth c~f approximately 32a fea[, br.inq loc~ted Approximat~ly 165 feet north of the centerline of South Str~et~ and furthcr d~scrlbed as 'll South East Strcet, Property presen[ly classifled Ml. (INqUSTRI~L, LIMITED} ZONE, The sub.ject pet!t(on w~is c.ontinued from the meetings of July 21 and Auryust 4~ ~975, for the petitloner tn submlt morc InF~rmatlon. No one lndicated their presence ln oppas(rlon te subJect ~r~tltion. lllthough the Staff Report to Ch,~ f'lannlnq Gommission dated Septc~~ber 3, 1975~ was not read ~7t the publ ic hearln~, sald Staff Report (s rei~erred to ancl madt ~~ part. of the: minutes. Mr. Don Fordlanl, [he a~Pnt for the petitianer, appeared before the Plannin~7 C~mmissfon to answer questions reqardlnci the proposal. Chairm~n Fsrano declarecl th~; PUDLIC HFARit~f, CLOSED. Chairman Farana inqulred if thc petitioner had g(ven any thought tu cor,s~~lidatfng the ~nci proposeci sign with the existinn sign un the northerly porti~n of the subJe~t property, Mr. Ford(ani stated he had conkacr.e:l the property a+~ner who had indlr.ated h~: ctid not .+~nt to move the existl~~g sign away from the tenant. who uccupiecl the northerly porclon of the property, and that the property owner was not considerin~ ~plittin~ thc lot, Commissloner Tolar noteci that if the lot was split~ the property owner woul~' he e~*itled to two signs. Chalrr~ar~ Farano added that by reason of where the existing •-~~n was lacated, without a variance ai~d without puttin~ the City in t~7e positic~n approving the proposed sign, the property owner could split the lut and have anothcr ° . Cammissioner Johnson noted that the applicant was not the property o~ ~~~' c~uld not decide on matters such as a lot split. Commissioner Herbst nnted r.h -:ann,ission shuuld take into coi~sider~tion the fact that at the public hearing ~~ ~ ~+~ .~nce ~~o. 2G99 was approved tc. permit an expansion of a retail bakery and th, ,~-~ ~~~~ the subject property, there was an implication by the applicant that n~ .;~~>> sign(ng would be necessary. Chairman Farano atided that he was incline~t `~.~. the existing sign was not locatea in a manner to properly identify the southF x ,.~~ theyhwere prope.rty; hcwever, the Commission was concerned about others Wr , ~~inion, the entitled to the same privileqes in the industrial zones; and tt~+ : ~:ase with the slgn pr(v+leges should have becn defined in the terms cf the ~i~:~ aroperty owner. Thereupon, Mr. Fordtani stated th~t althou~h the property ow~~~~i ~~~ c~ositively state he would not cdns ider a lot s~l it, he had led him to bel ievc~ h~, ~~~•~ ~~~[. Commissioner 7olar indicated that he was concerned since the -iue~ ~-~~ ~ight be of a moral nature, based on th~ legality of who was res~onsible for thc ~ror~~ c~• Commissioner King noted that the e~cisting sign r~as apprcximat~ly 90 feet n~?r:~h ~= :{ oakery sto~ and the 10-foot wi~le planter in front of the store woutd be a beautiF~~ s~ for L'he ~~n; and, further, he felt the applicant had a hardship. Commissione~ Mor~ noted tha. he felt the applicant h~id a definite harAship and the property owner was n~t ,terested in helping him out. Commissioner H~rbst noted that a variance request similar ~~ ,h:~ proposed could alsu appty Lo shopping centers with several different rennnCs and, _herefore~ would se't an un~esirable precedent if approved. Commissioner B~+•nes innuired why the applicant had such a pro~lem with idenkification sir•.:.e the lar9e sign on the buildin~ front appeared to be more than adequate; and if the ~pF~ icant would consider a small free-standing sign~ nating that the applicant probabiy w:.~id w~nt , li~hted ~i~n; and that a small sign coupled with the wal! sinn should be enouc~h idrn;~ficat~on. In respo-~se~ Mr. Fordiani stated he had asked the property c~wner about moving the existing tiree-standinc~ si~r closer to the driveway so th~r it could be ~hared by the tenants of ~ ^nw~~ ~ ~ MINUTE.S, CITY PIANNING COMMISSIC':. September ~, 1~)75 VARIANC~ N0, 1.721 (Contlnued) 75-~~05 both porti~ns oP Chc ~ropcrty. There~i~~~n, Mr. BI11 Murrny, owner ~f thc siryn company. o~pe~red befr~rc Lhc Plannin~ Ccxnmisslnn and st~~t~~d a low pr~flle sl~n was not sultoble since it woulcl result in a loss of porlcfn~~ ir~*». Commissi~ner Tol~r noted thnt monument signing was be~autiful and there would '.~c nc lotis ~f visual coiitnct fr•om the stroet, In his opinion; th~~t he was questloninq the ,•~tnil uae in an industrl~~l are~i, sfnct~ it should be in ~ commercinl area; ind th~~x the u•,c~ as prevlou~~ly proposed ancl ~7ranteci~ was not purported t~ be for walk-+n ty~e tradc and no additional sign(n~ w~s t~ be requested f-~r tFiP praperty. Commiss?oner Barnes notecl that the subJect exp~~nded retail b.~kery stor~ wa5 similar to a supermarket. f,onunFssloner Kinct inquired if th~~ proposed sinn co~ild be consistcnt with thc McCulingh siqn, which was very a*.tr~ctive, in his opinion; whereupon, Mr. Murrav st~ted the Nippopat.-~mus was a chain m~rke+, and the: signs were alike as much as possible for o1) the stores; and that Chey could put a redwo~~ cover aver the s(gn pule and have the slqn practictilly fn tf~e center of the planter in front of [he store, r,ommiss(oner Barnrs noted tner•e were residences located across the street from thG sub,~ect property, and she inquired haw those people mf~ht fr.el about another li~hted si~n, sinco lighked signs could be very disturbing. Thereupon~ Mr. Fordiani stipulated the sign would be lie~hted no later than 9:00 p.m, or one l~our after closin~ timc i'or thc stor~, Commissioner Jc,hnson ~oted that it appeared~ in vlew of thc negative resp~nses fram several of the Commissioners, the subject proposal minht be turned down if votr.d on at this meeting, and he inquirecJ if the petitioner would be inte~e.sted Co have another two- week continuance tc, provide ttme to work with the pr~perty owner in tryinq to resolve the problems involv~d, elther to agree to rrx~ve the existlnc~ sign or to split the property so *.hat the waiver v+oul~l not be needed, Mr. Fordian! repliEd that he did riot fcel the property owner would cooparate in the manner bein~ su~ryestecl. It was noted that the Director ~f the Planning Department had de.termined th~t the proposed activity fe~l within the definition of Section 3.~1, Class 11~ of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requireme:nts for an Envirdnn~ental Impact Report and was, therefore~ categorir_ally exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Commissioner King offered a reso{ution and moved for its passage and adoptio~, to grant Petition for Variance No. 2721, based on the hardship der~onstrateci by the aF~licant, granting all of the requested walvers subJect to the Inte.rdepartmental Committee recommendations. Commissioner Tolar noted tt.at the granti~~ of the variance should be for the existirig bakery and thrift store use only. Chairman Farano noted~ in terms of Jiscussion~ that the owner of the subJect praperty was not the applicant and the owner liad the power to determine what would happen to the property; that, in his opini~n, the owner did not have a hardship; that consotidat(on of signs had been r~•quir,~J for a~~~~mber of other similar applic.ations; and that the Planning Commission, in approving the subject petition~ mic~ht be putting itself ir. the posi[ion of granting a privilege Chat had been and would be denie~ to others. Commissioner Tolar relatecl that f~r a recent application in connection with a restaurant at La Palma Avenue and Euclid Sree*.~ the Planning Commission had determined that since thc property o+~m er was responsihle to make dedicition for street purposes, the applicant had a hardship and. in his opinion, that examplc paralleled the subJect petition; that the proposal should be granted for the existin~ specific use of the praperty only; that the lot split possibility would n~it chenge the moral implications; however, he felt a monument sign~ rather than the proposed s~9n~ wouid be a better sign for the property. Chalrman ~arano then notecl that in uetermini~g these matters, the Commission should look upan them o~Jectively and not sub.jectively. Commissioner Herbst noted that he concurred with the Chairman; that the Comnission was dealing with the property owner and the property itself~ and the property o~ner could solve the problems legally, a~id the same situation existed for a number of other properties in the City, that the exist~ng retail use of the prnperty was nor a permitCed use in the industrial zones and he, for one~ woulci not have voted in favor c+f said use if he had k,•~own it would be a full-blown grncery store nteding signing; that he was opposed to grant~ng a varlance of the type proposed since it wnuld set an undesira5le precedent and~ additionaliy, the Planning Commissian had tried to uphotd the integrity of the industrial zones for years. • • ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING C(1MMISSION~ September 3~ 1915 75-1~06 VARIANCE N~. 2721 (Gontinued) In response to quer~:(oninq by Commissloner Johnson, Mr. Fordlnnl stated their {~resent lease on the propcrty would cxpire irs six more years. Qn rnll call~ the i'Uregolnc~ resolution to grant the sub~ect varl~nce faile~l by the fc~llowlnh vote: AYES: COMMISSIANFRS: JQHNSOPJ~ KING~ TOLl1R NOES: C~MMISSIQNERS: BARNES~ HERBST, Mt)RLEY~ FARANO AftSENT: C~MMISSIONF.RS: NOP~E Tftcreupon~ Commiss(oner Nerbst offered Resolutlon No. PC75^IE31 and moved for its passa,ge and adoptlon~ that Petitior, for Variance No. 2721 be and herehy is denied on the basis of the finding that the proposed commercial signing is determined to be unsultable ln the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone; that Che Plann(nq Commtsslon h~d appraved the expansion af the existing retall bakery at the subJect location at a previous public heariny wheretn the petltioner Implied that the existfng free-standing slgn woiil~ be utilized for advertising purposes; that, furthermore~ approval of ih~.W~geparateufree~standin~esigns,forreachcof f~r future similar reque~ts for signinn~ severa) tenants or uses on a glven parcel ~nci commercial slc~ning for nonconforming commercial uses in tndustrial r.ones; that any hardship canceriilm} signt~9 for the existing commerctai ~~se of the subject property is of the pet(tioner's own makinc~~ since expanaion of the ~xisting commerclal use was approved in conne:tfon with a variance rnd since recard~tion of a parcel map subdivldinc~ subject proper:~~ would ellminate the need for the waivers. (See Res~lution Book) On rnll call, tl~e fare~oing resolutian was passed by the follc~win~t vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. H[RB~T~ M~RLEY. FAR~1N~ NOES: COMMISSION[RS: J~NNSON~ KING~ TOLAR ABSENT: COMMISISONERS: NONE ENVIRONM~NTAI_ IMPACT - COf~TINUGD PUBLIC HEARING. C. MICHAEL, INC., P. 0. Box 278~ Mldway RF.PORT N0. 133 __ City~ Ca. 92655 (Owner). Property d~scribed as: A rectangularly- -' shaped parcel of land consisting of ap~roximately 1$ acres located VARIA~JCE N0. 272t3 at the southeast corner ~f Vermant ?~venue and East Street~ having approximate frnntages of 733 f~et on the south side of Vermont TENTATIVt MAP OF Aven~e and 11IIA feet on the ea~~t side of East Street. Froperty TRACT N0. t375~ presently classified RS~A-43,OQ0 (R~SIDEWTIAL/AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. (REVISIf:~J N(1. 1) V{1R1 ANCE REQUEST : WAI VER OF M I PI I MUM DI STANCE BE74lEEN BU I LD I NGS TO EST~BLISH A {19-LOT~ Rt1-4000 SUBDIVISION. TENTAlIVE TRACT REQUEST: ENGIt•JEER: RAAB b BOYER ENG~NEERING CO., 14482 Beazh Boulevard, Suite R~ Westminster~ Ca. 92~~3• Subject property is propo,ed for s~ibdivision in~o 119 RM°40~0 lots. 7he subJect items were continued from the r~~~:ing of August 4, 1975, for the s~bmission of revised plans~ and from the ~~~~~ting of August ~~+3~ 197>, at the request of the petitioner. No one ind'cated their presence fn oppositien to subject items, and it was noted that the petitionar was requesting an additional four-week coiitlnuance to the meetirig of September 29, ~975. Commisslonsr Kir~g offered a motion~ seconcicd by CommiSSioner Morley and MOTION CARRI~D~ that EiR No. 13', Variance No. 272R and Tentative Map af Tract No. 875~ (Revision No. 1) be and hereby is further continued to the meetinc~ of September 29~ 1975, as requested by the petitlorer. ~ ~ ~ MINUTE~~ C17Y PLANNINf; COMMISSI~N, September 3, 1975 7~~1i07 V1IRIANCE N~. 2729 - COMTINUED PUBLiC NEARING. GUS MAf~~/1S, F~ODLAND MARKF'~~ 910 South '-" Eucl id Strent~ AnaMeim~ Ce. 9^`~!'~'' ~~+~~r); J~~~~~ ~~FD NIIRRIMAi4~ 5n5 Eaxt Commonwealth~ Fullerton~ Ca, ~12F32 (Agent); rEquesting W111VER OF (A) MAXit1UM NUMBER QF SIGNS~ (E)) PERMITTED SIGN L~Cl1TION~ AND (C) MIIIfMUM DIS7ANC[ BETWEEN 51GN5~ T~ PERMIT SEVf.I~ EXISTIN~ FREE-STANDIN~ SIGNS on property clescr{bed as; A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistlnn of approxlmi~tely O.n acre having a frontage of approx(mAte.ly 1'~() fect on Che enst s(de of Euclld Street~ havln9 a maximum depth of approxim~tely ?.6~ fect, bcinq located approxlmutely 5~-5 feet nurth of the centnrllne of Ball Road~ and further described as 91~ South Euclld Streat. Property presently classifled CL (CQMMERCI~L~ LIMITED) ZONE. The sub.~ect petition was contfnued f~om the Planning Cc~mmission meeting of 1lugust 18~ 1975~ for the petitloncr to consfder altern~tive signing proposals, No one (ndicated the(r presence in oppositlon to subJect pet:ition. Although the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated Saptember 3~ 1975~ was not read at the public hcarinc~~ sald Staff Report is referred to and ms~de a part of the minutes. Mr. Joseph Harbertfi~ representing the agent for the praperty c~wner~ appe~red before the Planning Commission and stated thaC since the Planninq Commission meeting of August 18, 1975~ the suqqestions of the Commission hiad been discussed with the representatives of Foodland Market (the applicant) anci it was their feelin~ that the requested variance was necessary in order for them to continue their operation in the manner they felt it had to be done; th~t the petitioner did not wish to alter their ariginal proposal; however, if their propasa) was totally unavailable or decermined to be unreasonable~ then they would have no alternattvc but to make changes. THE PUBLIC HEARINf; WAS CLOSED. In response to questioning by Commissioner Tular, Mr. Harberth stated he did not have definite information as to whsthe:r the petitioner owned Just some or all of Che residential properties abuttin~ the subJect property to the north~ or whether the petitioner actually resided in one of those abutting resiclences; and that said informati~n was not avaflable since Mr. Mandas ~as on vacation and could not be contact~:d presently. Commissioner Flerbst noted that accordinq to the Staff Report~ the existing sign area was approximately 92 square feet under the area allowed bv Code and~ therefore, an apprQximately 8 r. 12 foot re~aer board could be added which wc+uld be in conformance witn the type uf sign permitted and woulcl be far superior to the exisLirig multiple price signs. Mr. Harberth r~lterated that the petitioner had been informed concerning the Planning Commission's suggestions and dire~tions from the meetin~ of August lt~~ 1975, and although he was not sure about the petitioner' exact rcasonin~, tro osedtioner had requested that the Fetition be put before the C~mmission as originally p p It was noted that Che Director of the Planninc~ Department had determinea that the proposed activity fell within the definition of Section ;.01, Class 11, of the Clty of Anaheim Guideli~es to the Requirements for an Environ;nental Impact Report and was~ therefore, ca'tegorically exempt from the requirament to file an EIR. Cammissi~ner Nerbst offered Resolution No. PC75-18?. and moved for its passage and adopt(an, that Petition for Variance No. 2729 be and hereby is denied~ on the basis th~r. the petittoner did not demnnstr~te that a harciship would be created if said waivers were not granted; that any hardship regarding signing on the sub.(ect Froperty could be resolved by expanding the existing ~ree-standing sign; that, furthermore~ approval of said waivers would set an undesirable precedent for future similar waivers; and that the Planning f,ommission has denied similar requests in the past. (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoln~~ resolution was passed by the fallc~win~ vote: AYES: CONMiS~iONERS: HARNES~ HERBST~ JOIiNSON~ KING~ M6RLEY~ TOLAR, FARANO NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSE~JT: COM~IISSIONERS: NONE ~J • ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIWG COMMIS~ION, Scptember 3~ 1975 75-4Ad CQN~ITIONAL 115E - PUElLIC HEARING. GULF OIL C~RP~RI1TIbN~ 1f3Q1 Avenue of thr~ Stars~ PF.aMIT N0. 15hQ Los Angeles, Ca. 9~~fi~ (Owner); FOS7ER 6 KLEISER~ c/~ Robert Reld~ "' 1550 West ~lashington Boulevard~ Los An~eles~ Ca. 9oon7 (nqent); requesting permission to CQNSTRUCT A BILlh~11RD EXCEEDING TFIG MAXIMUM ~ISPl.AY Af~EA on prnperty describeJ as: A rect~n~ul~rly-shaped parcul of land consisting uf approxlmatcly 0.7 ar.r~ located at the southwest corner of B~11 Roa~ and Deach Oaulevard~ having ~pproximaCe frontagns of 175 feet cn t!~c south slde of Dal) Road ancl 175 feet on the west side of Bepch Boulevard~ and further described as 1201 South Beacl~ ~aulevard. Property presently classifled CL (COMMERCIAI~ LIMITED) ZONE. No one indicatecf the~r prescnce In opposition to subJect petition. Although the Staff Reporl to the Planning Commission dated Snptember 3~ 1975~ was not read at the public hearing, said Staff Report Is referred to and made a part of the mi~~utes. Assistant Zoning Supervisor Allan Daum read a letter of opposition into the minutes, as f~llows: "August 28, 1975 DirecCor Develaprm:nt Services C i ty Ha 1 1 Anaheim, Califa~nla 97.~05 As propertY owners we wish to state that we strongiy op~~se the issuance o+f Condit~onal Use 'ermit No, ~5bn~ requested by Gulf Oii Corporation as Owner, and Foster and Kle~iser, Agent; t~ Canstruct a B121board Exceeding The Maximum Display Area on p~'cperty located ~t !?01 S. Beach Blvd. Approval and issuance of the above permit would not only canstitute an eyesore~ buC could be a contributinn factor to more accidents at the already accident prons intersection of Beach and Ball Road. s/LeGrand D. Spencer M.D. (1771 West Romneya Orive, Suite E~ Anaheim) s/Thelma D. Spencer (92iF S~outh Hayward StrPet, Anahefm) LUS/fk CCc City Pla~ning Commission City of An~heim Attn: Floyd Farano, Chairman" Mr. Robert Reid, reprasenting the agent for the property owner, appeareo before the Planning Cornmission and stated he was (n complete agreement with the Staff Report and his only r,omment would be concerninc~ the reference that the proposal might set a"possible precedent"; and that in 19~8~ th~sy had received approval for five billboards, h rn+ever~ they f~ad constructed only three of them. Cha(rman Faranu noted that he did not believe the Planr.ing Commission had granted the referenced billbeards and~ thereupon, Mr. Reid stated that was correct. Mr, Reid continued by stating that the referenced billboards were approved by the City Council; that b~llboards were permitted in the City onlv under a conditional use permit and the reason the Billboard Ordinance was set. up in the beginning was for the removal of billboards along the freeways; that the three billboards constructed wsre to replace some that were removed fran the freeways; that the current proposal was to remove a smaller ~illboard and replace it with a larger pa1^.ted bulletin; that the painted bulletin was different from an ordlnary biliboard in the manner that a Cadillac and Chevrolet differed; and that the painted bulletlns were expensive, and they did not intend to convcrt all of the smaller biliboards ln the fut~+re. TIiE PUBLIC HEARINf WAS :L~1!:~ED. ~ ~ MINUYES~ CiTY PLANNING COFIMISSION, Septembe; 3~ 197~ CONOITIONAL USE PER~11T N0. 1560 (Continued) ~ ~ 75-404 Chel~rmen FarAno note~i that b~ck in 196A, he recalied that the Planning Commtss(on appi~~uded Fo~ter b Kl~iser on thr numher of blllboards wh(ch they r~cmnved from thc frec~~-~ys~ how~ver, the Commisslon'r. thtnking at that time was ln terms of amortizatian and getting away from the Foster b Kleiser type signs; that with the current pr~posal~ thc subJect pr~perty would still have two billboard-tyPe signs~ in Addltlon to the service station identiflcation si~n on the c~rner; tliat the proposed sign would be 672 square feet in slze~ compared to the existing sign which was 3Q(1 square feet; ar~d he was lnterestea to know if the remaining billbo~rd on the subJe~t property wou1.' ~e proposed far replacemcnt by a G72-square foot bulletin in the fuCure. Mr. Reld ~eplie~ In the negativc and explt~i~ed that the new typc si~~n was workable and the demAnd w~s fanlastic; that Irvine bough-t the sfgns fr•om Foster 6 Kleiser and ~.~t them in other cities to advPrtise their buslness; and that many other cittes~ i.e., Palm Springs~ San Diego~ etc., had banned billb~ards completely, but cantinued to buy tliem and advertise fran other citles. Commlr,sioner Herbst took excP~tlon to the proposal n~ting that one s(gn was being replacr.d by a rn~ther sign twice as lar,qe; that if the number of signs were beiny redu~~d, as well as the total square footage of' slgn area existing on the property, the proposal m19ht be more viabl~; 3nd thst the angle of v4sib(Ilty oF tha p~oposa~' Si4n was r'rom aii airection~ or traffic. Thereupon~ Mr. fteid stated the proposal was to replace a dcuble-faced sign witt~ a singte-faced sign, Cammissioner Herbst then notecl that the proposal was for too much signing for a servlce st~etlon lot and the subJec~ property clid not warranl• that much slgnin~~. It was noted that the U(rector of th~ Planning Department had deeermineci that the proposed activity fell within r.he definltton of Section 3.01, Class 3~ of the City of A~aheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and was, therefore, categor'ically exempt from the r~quirernent to file an EIR. Commissl~~ner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC75-1B3 and moved fnr its passage and adoption, that Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1560 be and hereby is denied on the basis that the size nf the proposed billboard is more than twice as large as is perm(tted; and that ~although the petit(oner is propasing to remove o~e billboard and replace it wtth the propo:~ed oversizeci biliboard, a second billboard would ren~ain ~n subJect property. (See R~solution ~ook) On roll call~ the foregoing resolut(on was passed by thP followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIUNERS: BARNES, HERBST, JOHNSON, KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO NOES: CO.MMiSSIONERS: NONE ABSFNT: CQ111115S I QNERS : NO'~E COND1TlONAL I~SF - PUDLIC HEARING. WILLI~M SANGSTER, 2133 West Chapman Avenue, Oranye, PFRMIT N0. 1'~(il Ca. 92668 (Owner); JOFIN E. BOU2ANEy 1019?. Hill Raad, Garden Grove~ Ca, g2640 (Agent); requesting permission for ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURAPIT on property described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately O.S acre havi;~g a frontage of appraxi- mately 100 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth ~f approxlmately 255 feet, being located approximately 1$0 f~et south of the ~enteriimr ~t Orangewood Avenue~ and further described as 2112 S~uth State College Boulevard. Property presently classifled ML (INDUSTRIAL} LIMITFD) ZONE. No one tr~dicated their presence in opposition to subJect petition. Although the Staff Report t; the Planninn Commission dated Septeaiber 3, 1975, was not read at the public hearing~ satd Staff Report is referred to and made a parr of th~ minutes. Mr. John E. Bouzane~ the agent for the praperty owner, appeared before the Plannina Comntssion and stated he had checked with the neiqhbors and there were no obJectionti to the on-sale beer and wine at the sub}ect location; that no structural changes were proposed; and the additi~n ~f becr and wine woul~i be a great hslp to their buslness. ~ ~ ~ MINUTF.S~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ 5eptembcr 3~ 1975 75-A10 COMDI'ilON11L IISE PEaNIT N0. 1561 (~onti~~u~d, TIIf PU[~LIC HI'ARl~lf, WhS Ci.~1St:D. In responsc Ca questi~nin~ by ChalrmSn Far~n~~, Mr. Bouzanc st~ted the c~unter in the subJeck restnur~inC w:;s use~i ~~s a fc~o~l servlce c~untcr .incl was not .~ cpcktail bar. C~mmissioner Kinq noted th~t he ~~nd Commi~cir~ncr Marley hid checked the subJect ~roperty in tl~c ficld ind founcl th~~t tfie bulldinn ai,~s well-kept~ with am{~le pt+-'kinn spaces, and the fnt.crior wa3 kept clean- also. Comm(ssioner Itinu offered Re~solutlon No. PC75-18-~ and moved for its passa~e and ~doptfo,,~ tht~t Pelltlon for Canditi~n~l Use Permit Nn. ISG1 be and hhrehy is ~ranted, sub,lect t~ [he condition that the ~n••sale heer and wlne sh~~ll be in c~niuncti~n with the servlnry of meals; ind s~bject to the Interdep~rtment~~l Committee rec~mmendation. (See t~esolutlon Elook) 0~ roli call, the fore~oin,i resoluti~n w~~s passed 'oy thc followinq vote: 11YfS~ COMMISSIONERS: BARtJES~ H[RDST~ J(111NSON, KING, MQRI.FY, T(1LAR~ FARP~N~ NQES: C~MMISSI~~IERS: MONE l~BSFNT: CQMMISSIOMFRS: N~PJE Mr. Boua.ane lnyulrr.d if thc Planninq Commisslon could walve the 2?.-day apPeal perlod for the c~nditional use permit t~ become final end Deputy City Attorr.oy Frank Lowry advlsed that the applican[ ~~~~uld be required t~~ wait the specified tim~, as provided for by ti,ode, VARIAPJCE N~. 2731 - Pl16LIC HfARltl(;, CQ~ITINE~IT~L LIMITE.D Pl1RT~lERSf11P~ IOfiA9 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite r7~,~ Los An9eles, Ca. 9~02h (Owner); DA~! l. R(1WLA~lU~ 100Q West La Palma Avenue, Anah~im, Ca. 92801 (Agert); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MIPJIMUN BUILDING SITF ARCA AD~D (9) MINIMII~1 FLObR AREA TQ °ERMIT 12 UNLAWFULLY COPISTRUCTED APARTMEP~TS on properCy described as: !1 rectangularly- shaped parcel ~f land consistin9 of approximately S.~ ~cres havinq a frontage of approximately 6~~ feet on the ;outh and west side of Mallul Drive~ having a maximum depth of approximately 660 feet, and being located approximately 37n feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 2175 Mallul Drive. Property presently classified RM-12~!1 (RESIDE~lTIAL, MULTIPLF-FAMILY) ZONE. No one indicated thelr presence in opposition to subject petition. Although the Staff ReporC to the Planning C~r,xnission dated September 3~ ~~175~ ~yas not read at the public hearing~ said ~taff Report is referred tn and made a part of' thP minutes. Mr. Dan Rowland, the agent for the property owner~ appeared be~ore the Planning Gomnission and stated a drawing was before the Commission indicating the unla~yfully eonstruct~d apartments; that Mr. Evans, President of Continental Limiteci Partnership, was totally unaware that the sub.ject 1: units were lllegally constructed until approximately flve days prior to the closinq of the escrow to purchase the apartment prolect and Mr. Evans had proceeded to close the escrow knowing thi: he had a problem; that the illegal units had been in existence for approximately four years~ had been accepted and filled a need in the community with a 100~ occupancy factor; that, upo~ investigatincl the matter, it was found that the o,-iginal conditional use permit (No. II07.) granted a to~al of 24R units and, therefore~ the 252 units which were purchase~ appeared to be only four units In exc.ess of the approvai; that Mr. Evans had also been unaware that th~ builder had decreased the number of units const.ructed to 2~-0; th~it both he and Mr. Evans felt that if the illegal conditions existed for sever~l years, it would :eem reasonable to allow th~ untts to continue as long as the requirements of the Building Division wcre mat so ~t .~o great danger could befall the occupants of the units or the City of Anat~cir~i; thac, concerning parkinq~ the sub.ject apartments comprised a stnc~les complex, and a parking study was made beginning .luly 17. 1975 to indlcate thc daily use of the parkin~ from Thursdays through Mondays and from 6:00 a.m.; that the par{<In~ study was facilitatecl through the securlty guard on the property, and indicated clearly that no parkin~ problems e:cisted; that ~ ~ v~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ Septembnr 3~ 1975 VARIANCE N0. 2731 (Continued) ~^~1 ~ 75"411 Mr. Evans cred 12ed pub I I c trana~r tat I~n and the use of b icyc 1 es for th~ adequt+cy of parking; that, additlorsally~ many of thc residants ~orked in 2he lmmedlntt areo; that tho parking~ evon with the ad~lltlonal dweliinc~ units, still met t he rcquirements of the Code; th~t there wcre oCher p~o,)ects In the Clty af Anahelm which c c~mp.ired wlth the subaect prnJect and the (llegally constr~ictecl units, i.e., Westward H~, llncoln Palms~ Vlll~g~s Inn~ etc.; that the Villacie Inn advert(sc~1 ents on monthly basis; that tho ~ubJect dcvefopmant had a much better cnvironment than a motel anci th e privilc~es b~ing requn~ted ware bcing enJoyed by others In the comnu~nity; that. regardi~g density, tlie subJect devclopment had undersized unlts and less land than authoriz e d, howevcr, in the Center City S[udy Victor Gruan advocate~i or recommended A35-squAre f oot unils and the subJect davelopment was more tt~an ad~qua[e In that respect. Mr. Rowlond contlnued hy stlpulattn~ 1 n behal f of the pet i t 1 oner to ccxn~ 1 et i ng the i terns f n connee t i on wi th Tratt Mo. 7035 and Conditlona) Usc Permit Na. 802, ~s outllned on page 7-c~ p~ir~graph 18, of Lh~ Staff Report; and sYated~ however, that th~y did not know why the sub.iccC developmei~t sho~~id be concern~ed with rerl,~cinq the Cwo parking lot type ltghts alo ngside the Van Ue Kamp driveway~ althouc~h thsy wou1J be willi4,g to comply wlth sa(d condition, Mr. Rowland further stipulated to complying with tl,e cnndltions of appro val ~i set fo~th in ~he Staff Report~ Includlnq compllance with all of the Duilding Code requirements. TI~C PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In res~+onse t~ questioning by Chairman Farano, Mr. Rowlancl s tated the subJect pelition constituted a req~~cst far walver ot two Zoning Code require ments, and w~s n~t a request for waivers of the Unifcrm Building Code •equtr~ments. Ihe Ptanning Commission ~ntered into discussian with Deputy Clty Attorney Frank Lowry and Mr. Rc~wland to clarify the nature of the request slnce the proposed dwelling unlt slze was Icss than allo pd by e{ther the Uniform Buildi~g Codc, the Gity Code or Gity poltcy~ during which ~. Lowry advlsed that the specific plans~ as submitted, wauld requirr. some revislon pr{or ta any favorable action beinp taken by the Piannin~ Commis~sion sinc~ he felt strongiy that the prt~pesal was in vlolation of the Unif orm Buildinq Codes and the Commissfon could not 9rant any walvers therefrom. RECESS - At 2.5~ I.~.m•, Chairman Farano declared a recess. RECONVENE - At 3:03 p.m.~ Chairman Faran~ reconvened the meetfng, with all '--"'- Plannin4 Commisaioners b~ing present. (The dlscussion cor~cerntng Vartance No. 2731 continued at t hls point in the meeting.) Cammissioner Tolar noted that the type praposal being pres e nted concerned him slnce it would appear to set an undesirable precedent in the City; wl~ereupon, Mr. Ruwland assured that there w~re only a few two-bedroom units in the subjec t devPic+pment which could physically be changeJ since s(milar conversions would requi re approprlate autside walls to access them. The Planning Commfssion indicated Chey had no intention to permit any violations to the l~n{form Building Codes and following lengthy discussion~ M r, Rawland ctarified that the building requirements would be adhered to and the necessary changes made to brin~ the structures into compliance with all the Duilding rodes; however, they were asking for ~aaivers from the 2oning Code to be ~ermit~ed t~ have less than the minimum huilding sitc area per unit and less than the minimum floor area permi[t ed per unit to accommodate the number of units that presently existed on the praperty. Commisstoner Norley nnted that on a field inspectio~~ CommBssioner King and he nat~ced that the sxterior of the ~ubject development was very wcll kept~ inciudin.~ the landscaping and the trash areas; howe~•er, he had been advised that th e interior was in a dereriorated conditi~n, Mr. Rowtand responded that he presumed the re f erenced deteriorat~•~ interior was the public ar~as; that he had been in the development a few ~eeks prior ~~d had notcd ev i dence of repa i n t f ng ~ pa tch i ng ~ and other repa 1 r work wh i ch new cnvne rs no~ ,..a 1 1 y became involved with; and that the unit themselves were in norma 1 condition, i.e.~ he had ~oticed sane were w~ll kept whi ~ others were not so we11 kept, and in generai were normal in re'~..ion to the individual tenants, etc. • ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, September 3~ 1975 VARIAIJCE N0. 2731 (Contlnued) i5-4I2 Chairmen F'ara~o nated that the Planning Commisslon had be~n throu~h scxne palnsCaking public hea~in~a in determ)ning that mult(pla-fAmily dwellfng units should havc a certaln amou~t of floor space with the excep:lon thet appruximntely 25~ of snid units with(n Any given praJect minh~ have a lesser amount af flo~nr space; nnd that t.he Canmissl~~ was pretty much unani~sbus (n their fears about pcrmlttinq kicchens In ~ven smaller unlts~ i.e.. motels~ slnco s+~l<i unlts mlght beGOme sub-standard apnrtm~nts; and th,~r If the motel davelopment~ referred to by Mr. Rowland were lndeed belnq advertisod as epartments and leased by fhn munth~ then the City rccords ~ppraving thc~sc developments should be (nvestlnrted. M~. lowry canfir•med that motels were permitte~i ro advertise for da(ly and weekly periods~ only; haaever~ the Cfty had no control over success(ve weekly perlods of ren~al givesn to tenants or guests of thc motels. Zoning Supdrvisor Annika Santalahtl noted for the Plannfnc~ Commission that Tract tJo. 7035 hAd been recorded and the Staff Report would stancl carrFcted In that regard. In response to qucstloninc~ by Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Rowland stated the (llegal bachelor aparLments could be e~sily reconverted to two-bedraom units; whereupo~i~ Commissioner Nerbst noted that since the new ^wner was awara of the illegal units prior to purchasing tt~em~ and slnce thcre would bc no great hardsfilp in returnin~ said unlts to two-beclroam status~ sald un(ts should bc reconverted. Mr. Rowland relterated that the own~r knew only approximatcly five days prior to close of escraw that the .~bject units were illegal; that the develo~ment was a$3 million (+) pro,Ject and the fi~e days were ~ike five seconds; that the apr~~aisal and laan were ctructured around 25'l un(ts and Mr. Evans thounht~ up to thc~ ive days before close of escrow~ tl~at everythin~ was perf~ctly legal. Mr. Rowland conP(rrned th~t Llie illega! ~unversions took place after the original constructlon of the proJect. Mr. Steve [vans, one of the owners of the developrtx:r~t and the managing partner~ appeared before the Planning Commiss(on anJ stated one of the effects of rec~nverting the units would be the upheaval of approximately 24 tenants~ in additlon to considerable expense to reconvert; that the small bachelor units happened to have the lowes~ vacancy factor of the entire proJect, with the highest vecancy faclor being in the tw~-be~room u71ts; that the reconverslon would saddle the proJect with rmre two-bedroom units; ~;;+ that they wouid stipulate ~o satlsfying all the rec~ulrements of the Bullding Codes to be able to retain the converted units. r.ommissioner Farano noted *.hat his main concern was with 1:he Build(ng and Zon(ng Code requirements, and whethrr the kind of hardship dern~nstrated by the petitioner would be acknowledged for he rpm~lnd~~r of the City in the futu~e; that many similar requests had been denied in the past; and that news of approval ~f such a proposal would tr~vel very fast and there wouid be more similar proposals submitted for aoproval. Mr. Evans requested that the Planning Commission consider the ~equest on its own merit. with particular emphasis on the available parking spaces and recreatio~ial amenities. He stated thcre ~iere not many singles apartments in th~ City of Anahe(m and there was a demand for tl-is type facility; and that the proposal couid be cons(dered as a betterment for the tenants in the subJect developrtient. In response ta ~uestion!ng by Commissioner Herbst~ Miss S:~nCalahti advised that the ~ity poltcy was presently to alla~ a minimum of 425 yquare feet f~r bachelor-type units~ said units not to axceed 25$ of the total number of units in the development. Commissioner Herbst then noted that the subject development might end up with couples and a small child~ etc.; a~d that as soor as other developers were aware that a variance of the subJect nature w~S granted~ they would probably all fcel entitled to the same privilege and rightfully so. Mr. Evans indlcated that the rent from the illegaily converted units was approximately Si50 per month furnishe~i; whereupon, Commissianer Tolar hypothetically noted that by renting to a couple or a couple with a child, the r~nts could be increased accordingly; that with a larger return to encourage such a rentat~ the City would have no control~ and that was his greatest conce+~n with relatianship t~ the p~oposal. Mr. Evans st:•.ed their pol(cy was not to take children into tfix development a~d that the bachetor apartments were to be occupled by o~ly one person. Chairman Farano then noted that (f the subJect ~ ~ ~ MINUTFS~ C17Y PLANNING CO~IMISSION, September 3, 1975 7S"4~3 V~RI/1NCE N6. 2731 (Cont~nucd) ~roposal was granted~ severrl of the motels presontly being prasecute d by the City would ~equest tha same type of varlance fa r their illegal occupanci~s, Mr. Rawlanef raquasted that tho Planning Commission conslder apl~rovlnn the sub~ect varinnce with the conditlon that the floor space be i•eal located to make lhe i lle.~al units more aqual in size, or to i~e (n conformance witli the approval of Conditinnal Use Permlt Na. ~()T. which {~ermit[ed bachelor-typc apartmenks in the sublect ~leveloprnent varying fn size Prom t~2~ to 6f~; squarc fect, and ~ubject to the petitloner satfsfyfr.r~ all af the requiraments of the Unifurm 6uildinq Codes ~g ad a ntr,cl by the City. (n raspons. to yucstlonfn~ hy ~omm~~sioner Morley~ Mr. Rowland st~it~d the reallucation of the f loor space o~f the converted two-bedroom ~partme~ts to have more equ~) bachelor-type un i ts would not be as ernens (ve as r.onvert i nn bACk to two-bed~ ~om apar tments. 'ihe Planning Commission ent~ered into discussi~n rehardinq passible revislons to the s~.eciffc plans to shnw how the floor space of the illegal units could be r~~,1l~cated~ ~~iiereupon, Mr. Rc~w~and revlsecl the plans before the Comnlssion to so indicate that there would be~ a minimum of ~~2Q squ~re feet In each af the bachelor-type uraits~ sald revisiuns indicatinq the closinq off of dnorways, etc. Yhe Plann(n~ Commission generally concurred that cl~e plans, as revised at the meeting, would constitute officlal revlsion. Mr. Lowr•y withdrew hls ob.jectl~ns to the plans on the basis of the petitloner's stipulation to comply with tiic requ i r~ments of tt~c Building Codes. The Plannin~ Commission entEred into discusslo~~ with Staff anci ll~e petitioner concerning the tlme limltaCl~n for the submitt~l of p12ns sho~ing compliance with the minimum Bu i 1 d i nc~ Code requ 1 remer.ts and the da tes fo r cc~mmencement of the co r rect I ve work and completlon of said wc+rk, etc. ~ duri r-g wliich Mr. Rowland st(pulatecl to submitting the plans, obtafning the necessary bui 1 din~ pern~its and commencing the corrective work within 45 days and to completing said work within 1B0 days fror~approval. Commissioner Her~bst offered a motic~~, seconcied by Commssioner Tolar and MOTIQN CARRI[D~ that the Plannln~7 Commission does herPby ~ecommer,a to the City Cuuncil that the sub}ect proJect be exempt From the requirement ta prepare an environmenta~ impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmentai 2uality Act. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolut ion No. PC75-185 and moved for i ts passage and adoption, that Petition for Variance No. 2731 be and hereby is granted~ in part~ granting waiver of the minimum building site area per unit on the basis tl~at the original approval of the subject apartment complex was for 248 dwelling units~ however, only 240 dwelling units were actually r,onstructed and, with the convers(on of the I?. tw~-bedroan ~~nits to two b~chelor-type un I ts each, there is a tota 1 of 25~ un i ts presen t 1 y exi st i ng on the property, or four more units than oric~inal ly approved and~ therefore, the request is determined to be minimal for the subject property; subJect to the stipulation ef the pet i t ioner to wi thdraw the request for wa i ver of the minimum floor area and to reaS locate the floor space of the 12 unlawful ly converted two-bedroom apartments so that each of the 24 resultant bachelor-type units w i I1 conform to the ori~fnal approval of Conditi~~nal 'J;e Permi [ P~o. 802 which permi tted bachelor-type apartments v~~ryin4 ;n s~ ze i rom 4t0 i.o 605 square feet; subJect to tne stipul atio~ of Che petitioner that the co•~verted apartment units will ccxnply with the minimum~ standards of the City of Anaheim as adopted in the Ur.(f~rm tiuildi~g~ Plumbinq, Electricel~ Housincl, Mecha-!ical and fire Code~~ and tna[ th~ plans shal) be submitted. building permits obtaine~, an~ the work eortxnenced within y5 d~ys from tlie date herenf~ ~~id that said~ork shall be completed within 180 days from the date hereof; and subject :o conditions. (See Resolution Bonk) Un roll call~ the foregoinq resolution was passsd by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES : COhiM i S I SONERS : ABSENT: C~MMISSIONERS: RECESS ' RECONVENE • ~r BARNES ~ HERBST, JONNS~N ~ KIP~G, MORLEY, YbLAR ~ FARANO NOPJC NONE AL 3:4~~ P-m,, Chairman Farano declared a recess. At 3:5t1 P-m, , Cha i rman Farano reconvened the meet t ng, wi th all Cortxni ssloners being present. ~ ~ ~ MINUT[S, f,iTY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ September 3~ 19'/5 ~NV I RONMENTAL I MP~1CT RFPORT N(!. 17.9 TE~JTATIVE MAP OF TRACT t~n, ~45f~ (REVISI~F~ Nf1, ++) 75°414 - DEVEL~PER: WCSTFIEI~ DEVE't.~PMf:NT C~?.~ 17~~% Skypark f.ircle, Suite IOA, ( ASS~CIA'fF.S~ 175 Irvine~ Ce. 97.7~1. EN~~ItlEER; W~Ll.Dl1t! ENG P~~f:Rlfl~ South Clnudina Street~ Anaheim~ Ca, 91fi01, Sub~cct properiy, consist- in~ of aporoximatr.ly 1'~ acres locate~l nnrthwes~AX~mr~~~ frontayes$o}t~on of Vla Arh~les nnd Canyon Rim Road, havinq app q4-- feet on the n~rth ~i.fe of Canyon Rim Road and 15~~~ feet nn the west side of Vis~ Arh~les, is pro~osed for subdivisi~n Into ~4 RS-:~OUO lots. pcpuLy City At.t~~rn~.y Frnnk Lowry presented the Stnff Rep~rt to the Plannine~ Commisslon d~ted Septemhcr '~~ 1975, an~ s~id Sr..aff Report is refcrred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Lowry note:d thot Revl~(~n N°~ ~ ~IntconJunltloncwithtTentatlva Map ofg7raci approved by thc C i ty Counc i 1 on ,luly 1 E~, 197 i~ No, R455 (Revislon No. ~~)~ tfie entire dcvelorment consiscin~ af 71 1ots; that Trac[ No, f~~+55 (Revisl~n No. 4) w~s rec~rded on May 27., 1975~ h~wever, the subl~ct tract expired because ar~ extension H~as nc~t requested fn time, accord(nn to the new Subdlvlsion Ma~ 11ct; that the -r,~p currenrl~ hef~re the Plann(nn Commission was ~consis~tint~ofha 34liot~,SRS- appr~ved Tcntat Ive M~~p c~f Tract No. ~4!~~~ (Revi s ir,n Na, 3) ~ ~1 5~0~~ single-family rr.r,icienti~l suhdivision havin~ a den.ity ~~f 2.~~ units per gro~s acre (2,8 units per net acre). In response fo questlonlna by Chairman Farano, zonin~ 5uperv~sor Ann11:a Santalahitl advlsed that "Lot A~" which had b~en created between Lot Nos, 3~ ~+nd 31, was design~ted as an easement reserved f~r futu~c roadwiy to thc prc~~~~rty immediately to the north from Vla Arboles; ~~nd that sald future roadway location appeared Co ~e acceptable insofar as the topoqraphy was concerned, Mr. .fames P,ogers, President ~f Westfleld Oev~~lopment Company, l'he developer, appeared before the Planninq Commission to answer q~iest(ons reqarcling thc proposal~ a~nd stated hc had nothinh to add to the inf~,rmation conCalned in the Staff Report, Commissi~ner Johnson offered a moti~n, seconded by Commiss(oner King and MOTI~N CARRIED, chat the Planning Comm!4sion does hereby reaffirm its action of' June 2~+, iy7~~, reconimending th~t the City Councll certify Environmen~al Impact Report No. 129 as In c~nformance to thP City a-.i S.+.ate Guldelines and the State of California Environmental Qua 1 1 ty 11c t. . Commissioner Johnson offe~e~1 ~ motion. secanded by Commissioner Morley and MOTION CARRIED, that 'fentatiue Map of Tract No. 8456 ~Revision No. -f) be and herehy is appr~ved, subJect to th^_ f~ll~wing .:oncli[fons: ~, Th~at ~'~e appraval of Tentat~ve Map ^~ '' <<:t No. B~-yG (Revision No~ 4) is granted s~b~e~ct to cam~~~tion af Reclassff~ t~~~ ~`7z-j}4• 2, fh~' °:hou ld this ~ubdi sion be de. s more than one subdivision, sach su~division s:hereoi ~~h~ll be s''tted in te~, a,..~e form for ap{:roval. 3. That ~ tors within tnis tract shall be served by underground utillties. ~i. That a f i na! tract map of subJect property sha~i 1 be submi ttea to and approved by t.he C i ty Counc i~ ~ nc1 then .~e recorded i n the Of f i ce of the Orange County Recorder. 5, ?hat any proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted ta and a~proved by the ~ ity Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval af the final Yract map and~ further, that the apprcved covenants, condltions and restrictions shall be recorded concur~ently wi th the fi~~al tract map. b. That street names sFiall be app!'oved by the City of Anaheim prlor to approval of a finai tract map. 7~ 7hat prior to filing the flnal tr~ct ma~:, the applicant shall submtt to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synorSis of the proposed functioning of the operating corporation~ including but not 1 imtte ~o the a~ ticles of incorporation, bylaws~ praposed methods nf management~ boncling to ln~ure mainte~anca of commor~ property and butldings, and such other informatlon as :he Clty Attorney may desire to protect the City, 1 ts c i t i zens znd the purchasers of the pro i ect . 8. That the owner(s) cf subJect property shal t p~y to the Clty of~ Ai ~~Pib tthe Ci ty approprtate park and recreation in-lleu fees as determined to be app p Y Counctl, sald fees to be pald at the time the bullding permit ls issued. ~ ~ ~ ~ 75-~15 MINUTES, CI'TY PLl1NNING COMiliS510N, Soptemtscr 3, 1975 ENVIRONHF.NTAL IM~ACT RI'PURT ~~Q. i1.~ AND 1'ENTAI'IVf. Ml1P OF TR~C7 N0, a45G (KEVISlON N0. 4) (Cont.? ~w 9. 'I'hnt a fi-fooc hiql7, dr.c~r.z[ivc, orcnw~r•k wal i sh~ll hc cunst.ruc:~cl it thc top of the slop~ adj~cen[ to Canyon Rlm Ro~~1 on lat Nos. I throuqh 6~nd al~ne~ thc side ~ot llnr. of Lot No. I at Ir,as[ to chc rc~ir carncr of thc housc on s~~icl l~t. Pl.~ns for s~+id wail shnll k~c gubmittr.~t to the P~annlnq Commfssinn an~l City Council for aG~rovnl prlar to approva) af Chc fin~i) lr~~r.t ma(-. Rer+sun~hle l~ndsc~~plnq, Inclu~ling Irrl~ation fnclllties~ shall he inst:lled within thr. ~slnpe areis of e~ach l~t ad~acent to the rot~dw~~y and In the uiicemen[ed partion of the arterial hi<~hw~~v ~arl:way the full cilstince of sald wall, Plans for said fandscapfng sl~~~ll be submltte~i to and gub}ect to the approv~+~ of ehe Superintendcnr, of 1'arkway Malntenance. Follaving inst~ill.~tlon ancl ar,ceptnnte~ the property uwnc~r(s) shill assume respnnsihil(ty for mafn[enince of sAlcl landscAping to the l~t l ines, ~~~d the Ci ty of Anaheim sh~l l A45llOC the respc,ns ihi l ity for ,n~intenance of the landscaptng in the Canyon R(rn Roryd parkway, 1~, That vehlculir access ric~hts~ except ~~t street and/~r alley openfnr~,, tc, Canyon Rim Road shall be dPdicated ta the City of Annheim, il. 7hat dr~fna~e of said pr~perty shall be disF~oseci of in ~ manner s~tisfactory tu the City ~nc~ineer. If, In the preparation af the s(te, sufficie~t grading is re.quired to necessitate a hradin~ permit~ no wnrk on Gr~idinq wlll he permitted between October 1Sth and April 15th unless all requlred off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shill be provided the Clty that such drafnage facill- ties will be completed prior to Octuber ~5cii. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drat~age facillties shall be dedic~ted to the City, ~r the City Council shall h~ve initi- ated condemnation proceedings therefor (:he costs of t~liich ~%~all be borne by the developer) prlor to the comrnencement oF gradin9 operations. The required drainage facili- tles shall be of a size and type sufflc{ent to carry runoff waters oriqinating frcxn h(gher propertles through sald property to ultimate dispo~al is approved by the City f.ngineer. Sald drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be cumpleted and be functlon~l throughout the tract and from thc •fownstream buundary of the property ta khe ultimate polnt of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspectio~s or nccupancy permits. Cralnaye district reimbursemrn~ agreements may be made available to the developers of ~aid property upon their request. 12, That gradtnq, ~xcavation~ and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the {wssibility of any silt ori~inating from this proJect being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water oriqinating from nr flowing throuyh this project. 13, That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as ~equired and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Departmenr, prior to commencement of structural framing. 14. That prior to apprcval of a final tract map~ the owner(s) of subJect property shall make irrevocable offer to dedicate an easement for riding '•. hiking trail purposes over that port~on of subject property over which the Fc+ur Corner 'pe line Company has an easement for pipeline and incldental r~rposes on the date of tht~ r~solution. Said offer to dedicate shall be irrevocabla for a period of twenty (20) years and may be accepted t~y the City of Anaheim at such time as it is determined that development of such faciliti~s would be in the best interest of the City of Nnaheim. Said irrevocable offer to dedicate shall be recorded concurrently with the ~inal tract map. 15, 7hat a minimum 2~-scale plot plan showing all on-site tmprovements, including eave Qverhang and praposed locatian oF all air-cnnditioning equi-~ , shall be submitted for building permits. lfi. That the precise locati~n of the public access easen~ent to the property to Lhe north of subJect tract shall be ~etermine~f and shown on the final tract map. 17. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the petitioner shall make somr provlsian, acceptable to the City Council~ for landscapin~ and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this property. 18. That f~nal floor plans and elevations for each phase of development shal) be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council pr(or to approval of the final tract map. ~q~ That the loc.ation uf the street (lot A) to se~ve the property ta the north of SU~)J~G'~ tract shall be approved by th,° owner of said property. ~ ~~ w^~ ~ MINUTES, CiT~ PL-"~tdNING COMMISSION, Sr.ptembcr 3, 1975 75~~~~~' R[PtyRTS APIU ~ I T[ PI N~. 1 RFCOMM[~IDIITI~NS ItFCL/15SIFICIITION NQ. 'I-79-hh(l~i) - Rcc~ucst fnr• approv~il c~f ~ ~1'CCISH pl~rs - Propcrty cc~nsi~>[Inc~ of a~~ro~ci,natcly 3 ncres I~r.nteci nt tlTe snuthc.,ist corner of Serrnn~ Avenue ~~ncl Noh! R,anch Road. ~t was iiotCd that thc^ *~ubJect re~~ur~st was continued fr~m thc Planrtiin~ f.ommfssian meeting of August lA, I`175~ f~r .icidltional ',nformatic>n ~~lr-tivc to ~1CCC5'S to the subJcct prop~rty. Znnln~7 Supzrvisor Annika Sant~~lihtl not~d that. the City Traff}c Enc~inr.er had indic~ted a willingness to accept the ~ccess shcwrn ~~n tf~e submlt[ed rrecisc pl~ns (R2vislon No. 1)~ provicied th~t a rnccllan strip bc pl~ced in tlic pr~posed nc:c:ess clrivew~y. Mr. Skanley Br~~t, representing thc appl(cints, ~ppe~~red hefore thr Piannine~ Comm~sslon and stated they had elim(n.ited the originally-pr~posed eastr.rly acce~s driveway on 5errano Avenue ~nd werc prop~~in~7 to keep Che westerly Acces~ drivew~~y; ~nd that the Traffic Englneer's sugge~tion for thr ~nedlan strip was a good une and tliey would sr.ipulate t:~ providln~ said median. Cammissi~ner hbrle:y offsred a motion, seconded by Comm(ssloner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Comnlssir,n does hereby recommend to [he Cfty f,ouncll that the precise plans known as Revision No. 1~ as submttted in conriectlon with Reclassification No. 71-%?.- 44(14)~ be appraved, subJect to the condition that a median strip be placed in the proposed access drtveway on Serrano Avenu~, as appr~ved by the Trgffic E~gineer. ITEM N0. 2 COPIDITI~N~L 115E PERMIT N0. 612 (READVF.RTISED) - Rey~est for appr~val of final specific plans - Property consisttng of approximately 0,9 acre having a frontage oF approximately 98 feet on the north side of Orang• Avenue, being located approxi- mately 660 feet west of the centerline of Euclid 'Street, and further described as 1749 ~'est Orange Avec~uc. It was noted that the submitted final specific plans indicated complete r,onformance with the plans prevlously approved in connecti~n with the subject con~'tional use permit; that the submitted plans indicated a sanctuary with 196 ~.eats and an educatiunal unit totaling approximately 4$QO square feet; that 39 parking sp~ces were required based on one space per flve seats, however. the plans ind(cated 3Q parking spaces plus an additional 28 spac~s whlch were available at Chaparral Park per a previous agreement~ said spaces being providecl (n accordance with Code standards; that the landscapei setbacks conformed to the previously~approveci plans and, although no sign was shown on the plans~ a 20-souar_ foot sign was permissible. Commissio~er King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION "ARRIED~ that the Planning Commissian does hereby determine that the final speci`ic plans~ including the site plan, floor plans and two elevations~ submitted in cor.~ection with Conditional Use Permit No. 612 (Readv~r~ised) are in substantial conformar~ce with the Planning Commission's original appraval of said conditional use permit (as readvertised). ITEM N0. 3 SANTA ANA RIVER BICYCLE TRAI1. - Requested by the Environmenta) Management Agency of Orange County. It was nc:ed khat the Environmenta1 Management Agency of O~ange County was proposing to construct a bicycle trail c~ 2he north side of the Santa Ana Rtver between Imperial Highway and Weir CBnyon Road; that in accordance with Sectlon E54~2 of the Government Code~ ttie Agency was requesti~g the Anaheim Planning Commission to determine i~ the proposed trail was in ascordance with the Ctty of Anaheim General Plan and, further~ was requesting concurrence with the filing of a Negative Declaration for the proJect. Further~ i*_ was noted that the deyel~pment of ~ xrall along the Santa Ana River was in accordance with the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan and sald proJect appeared to have no advPrse envtronmental impact. ~' ~ ~ MINU7fS~ CI'~Y PI_~NNING COMM1SS10~~. S~~pt~ember 3, 1775 I TEH N0. 3 ( Con t( nuecl) '1;- ~~ 17 f,cxnmiss~~ncr Klnq offcrcd ~i nx~[lnn, s~~conded by Corrrni,~;ir,nrr Jc~hnson r+nd MOTltlfl C~RRI[D~ that thr: Pl:.~~niny Conmission t~OCS herehy recr~mmend to the City C~~uncil that the Rub.~ect pro,ject '~e exempC from chr. requirement to prc,pare~ an envir<~nmr.nt:il impnct report, pursuant to thc ;•-~.Isions of the Cnllfnrnin Environrnr:ntal l2-iAlity Act. Commissloner Kin~ ~ffered Resc~lut~on N~. Pf.7;°IRF~ ~~nd nx~veci for iCS p~issa~Ia and ndopti n, that thc Anahelm City Nlanninq Commission finds and dete.rminc~s that thr proposed construction of thc afor~~mcntic~nr.d t,icycle tr~il fs in conform~ncr. ~~ith the Anahcim Genera) Flan, (Sa~ ltes~lution is~okl On rol) c<~Il~ the forehc~inc~ resolucinn wa~ (~.as,eC1 by the followin~i vot~~: {1YE5: CQMMISSIONERS: Bl1RNE5~ HI:RDST~ JONNS~)N. KING~ MURLFY, T~1LAR, FARAN~1 NOES : CQMM I SS I l1NERS : ~~(1NE ABSENT: COMMISSIQ~~ERS: NONE i 7EF1 N0. 4 REQUEST ~!)R E I R IvF.GAT I VE D,'CI.AR!'~T I ON - ~~~r grad i nc~ permi t at 2F+~ Peralta Way. It was noted that an appllc~tlen for a grading permit ha~i been filed Por the sub)ESCt locatiun and the applfcant was proposing to construct a singie-family reside:nr~; that an evaluatton of the environmental impact af ~~rading at the su,~Ject locati~n was r~uired under the provisions of the Ca1lfornia ~nvironmental Qualtty Act and the Stat~ EIR Guide?ines since the project was loc~~ted in the Scenic ~~,rridor; anci that a s~~~dy of the proposed grading by the Engi,ieering Division and the De~elopment Services Departmcnt indicated that the proposed qraciing ~~ould have no signitFrant environmental impact. Commissioner Nerbst offered a nntion, ,~conded by Cammissione.r Kina and MOTION CAi;RIFD, that the Plartnin~ Commissir.,n dOCfi he:rehy rec.ommend to the City Co~ncil ;f~at the subject proJect he exempt from the requiremene to prep~re a~ en~,lronmental impact report~ Qursuant to the provisions of the Ca~ifornia Envlronmenta) Qua?ity Act. I TEM N!). 5 RECl,AS51FIC11T10~1 N0. 73-7A-2 AND CONDITfONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1412 - R~quest for approval of final specifi.: plans - Prnp rty cor~si~tiny of apprnximately 0.'L acre havfng a Prontage of approximately 5~ feet on th;* north side ~:,r lincoln Avenue, beinc~ locatr_d approximately 100(1 feet east of the centcrline of State C.ollege Baulevard, and further described as 2211 East l.incoln A~e,iue. Assistant Zoning Supervisor All3n ~Jaum noted that the submitted final development plans indicated a revision to che ~riginal proposal~ said revision corisisting ~~f ,~n exp~ns(o~ of the existing restdential st-~cture at the subject location to approxlmateiy 16Go square feet~ or a~+4$ increase; ?,d ;hak a stipulati~~n by the applicant wauld Ue in order that there would be compilance wit~ the mtnimum required setback frnm the front property line to the structures~ in daiition to dedicat~on for ~ full 53 `~~t of rig~t-of-way `rom the centerline of Lincoln Av~~nue, Thereupon, Mr. Wayne S. Inouyr:.~ General Mana~~er of A. L. Qulntana Canstruction~ In~., tlie applicants~ appeared before the P7anning Corxnission and stipulated that the decilcation of rlght-of-way from the centerline of Lincoln AvenuP would be a full 5'3 feet ~n width~ and not 50 feet as indicated on the submitted plans, and that the minimum required setback for the structures from the front property iin.~ would be adhered to, In response ;o yuestloning by Commissioner aarnes, Mr, Inouye ~r!pulated ~hat thc garage on the p~oper'ty wouid not be used for conductinr~ buslness. Commissioner Barnes c~arified that sald garage coulcf be used by the owner for parking his automobile~ for instance. Commissioner (iarnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Morley and M0700N CARRIED~ that th~ Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Cfty Council that the flnal speclfic plans submi:ted in connectian aiith petitions for Reclassification No. 73-74-2 and Condltlonal Use Permtt No. 1412 be approved as being in ss~6stantial conformance wl[t~ tlie Pla~ntng Commission's orlgir~~ ~oproval of said petitions, subJ~ect to the stipulations ~f the petitloner and subJect to the o;iginal ~o~~ditions of approval a~ said petitl~ns. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ Septenb~r 3- 1975 ~ ~ 7~-h18 ITEM N0. G '~fTTfifF,1_ US[ PERr11T No. 1177 - Roqur,,t for extens(~n of timc - PrApcrty cnnsisting oF apprnximAtcly I? ~icres locih:~l a[ thc nortfiwest corncr of C~rritos Avenur nnd WesC Strr.r.k, c.urrrnt.ly zonccl RS-A-h1,0~~ wlth ~ res<>lutlon of InCenr. to CR. It was noted Ui~~t the applic.ants, Dnnlel H. Wolff of Kaplan, Livin+~ston, Goodwin. Berkawltz and Se~vin, Law dffices, Wr~ither [nterpr•ises~ Inc,, ancl Wr~ther Hotels~ Irc., were requestinq a onc-yc~r extension of time f'or Conditional Use Permit No. 1127; chnt the use pcrmlt was ryrnnted on July 2`~~ I'1~9 t~ utillze the westerly pc~rtlon ~~f the subJect property for ~utdo~r b~nquet fac i 1 i t i~:s ~n~J on~ of the condl t i~~ns of appr~v~l w:+s "T{iat ~a tlme llmitatioc~ of onr. ye~r shall be yr~intecl f~r the use of subJect prop~rty, suh}r.ct to an additlona) y~ar beinq grante~l upon request by the petitloner aftcr invrstl9ation and approv~) by [he Planning Commission"; that five one-year extension~ ~~f time had been granted since the oriciina~ approval of subJect use, th~ latest hr+ving ex~~ireci on July 2a, 1975; and that no complali~Cs had been receive~i (n ri,~~ P!a~~ning Qep~rtment regarding the outdoor banyuet facllities. Commissloner Johnson offered a motion~ seconded by Connnissioner K(ng and MOTi"N CARRIED~ that the Plr~nning Cammission does hereby granl a one-ye~,r extension of time for f.ondltiona) Use Permit No. 11?.7, as requested hy the applicants~ sald tlrne extenslon to be retroactive to .luly 27, 1~75 and to expire July ?.8, 1976. IT~M N0. 7 ENTA VE MAP OF 1'RACT NOS. 7137 (REV1510N NQ. G) AND 7666 (REVISION N0. 1) AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1543 (Sant Construction Canpany) - Request for approval of revfsed plans - Property c~nsisting of approximately 30.5 acres l~cated at the northeast cor•ner of La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Baulevard, havin~ approximate fro~tages of 1576 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 670 feet on the east side of Fairmont Boulevard. It was notecf ~hnt a condition was imposed upon Tract Nos. 7137 and 7666 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1543~ as follows: "That the owner(s) shall obtain an irrevocable license or easement for use of xhe property located witl~~in the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right- of-way Co permit a portion of the reyuired sound-axtenuation berm to be located within sa(d right-of•~way; said license or easement to be submitted P~~r review and approva) by the City Attorney and to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the cort+mencement of the act`~•rity authorized ,,... It was further noted that on August l8, 1975~ the Planning Commission reviewed revised plans far the sub.~ect tracts, showing a revision to the placement of the sound-attenuation barrier; and also reviewed the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company license agreement which was submitted to satisfy the abnve-mentioned condltion of approval; and said agreement was determined ta be unsatisfactory in meeting the intent of the condition of approva) and certain amendmr.nts were indicated to be necessary. Deouty City Aktorney Frank Lowry advised that Sant Construction Company~ the applicants, had submicted an amendment to the railroad company agrr.ement which was satisfactory in the opinion of the Ctty Attorney's Office. Commissioner Morley effered a motion~ second*~d by Commissioner King and MQTION CARRIED~ L•hat the revised maps for the subJect tracts (Nos. 7137-Revision No. 6 and 76G6-Revision No. i) and the condltional use permit (No. 15u3)~ affectin~ a revdsion to the sound- attenuation barrier adJacent to the raflroad property~ in adJition to the license agr~e- ment as amended and submltted in connection wlth the Plann~ng Commission's approval of the subject tracts and the conditional use permit~ be and heret~y are determined to be in sub- staritiat conformance with the Pla~nina Commisslon's original approval of said matters. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLNNMING COMMISSIUN~ September 3, 1c75 75-419 ITEM N0. ~3 ~7 ,~FI~'I~'T'0 71T1E 17 QF TtIE ANAHEIM MiJ''ICIP/IL CODF. PF.RTII1NINf TA SUBDIVISIONS - Request to sche~lulc pu~allc hearing date. Dc+puty City Aktar•ney Frank Lowry advised that St was in order for the Planning Commiss(on to sch~du~e the updated Subcflvlsions Map Ordlnance for public hearing o~ Septembar 15, 1975; and thAt sald Qrdinance woul~l constitute an em~nclment ta the Anrhelm Piunicipal Code, Title 17 - L~rid Dcvclopment and Resources, C~~apter 17.08 - Subdlvis~ons to Inr.nrporatc thc requlro~ents of the newly-ei5acte<i State Subdivisions Map Act. Commissloner .lohnson offe~ed a motlon, seconded by Comrniss(oner King and MOTION GARRIEp~ tn set the subJ~ct amendmGnt to tf~e Anaheim Municipa) Code for public heAring on September i5~ 1975. ADJOURNMENT - There bQing no further business t~ dtscusS~ Commissioner Tolar affered a motl~n. encondod by Comminsioner ~lerbst and MOTION CARRIED~ to acJJourn the meeting. The meeting adJ~urned at 4:Oa ~+.m. Respectfully suhmttted. ,~,~,~.~,~ -~ ?atrtcia B. Scanlan~ Secretary Anahelm City Planning Commission PBS :I~m