The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1976/05/10~ ~ Clty flall Anahclm~ Caltfornis May 1~~ 197fi RC•GUL~R MF[TI~lG OF 7NE A-lnNEIM CITY PLA~lNI~~G COMMISSI~~! RF.~,U..,4R - A rehular meeting of the Anahelm City Plannlnc7 Commission was called to MF.FTIIlf, orrler hy Chalrman Pro Tempore Herbst at 1:30 p,m, in the Council Chamber~ ~7 quorum being present. (NOTE: IN THE ABSENCE OF CNAIR~IAPI FARAIJQ. CNAIRMl1~l PRO TEMP~ItF. MORIEY NAD RFQUESTED THAT CONMISSIQPIFR HGR4S7 CH~IR 71IE MEE'TING.) PRESCIlT - C~HMISSI~~IER~: Barnes~ Nerbst~ Johnson~ K(ng~ Morley, Tolar ~~;r.-~T - r.~111MI551~~IFRS: Farano AI.S~ PRESEtlT - Ronald Thompson Frank Lowry Malcolm Slaughtcr Rrt Daw E~ill Stracl<er Jay Ti t~is Annika Santalahti .~oel Fick F~tricia d. Scanlan Planninc~ Department Director Deputy C~ty Attorney Deputy City Attorney Design Englneer Assistant Traffic Enyineer Office Engineer Zoninr~ Supervisor Assistant Planner Planning Commission Secretary pL~Ur,F OF - Commissione~ Barnes led in the Pledye of Allegiance to the F1acI of the I~LLF~Il1fI~K United States of America. APPRf1VAL OF - Commissioner Johnson offered a moticn. seconded by Commissioner Barnes TItF MI~lt~TES and M~TI~N CARRIEU (Commissioner Farano being ab:,ent) ~ tt~at the mtnutes of the rec;ular Planninc~ Commissi~n meeting heid April 12~ 1976~ be and hereby are approved, as submitted. VARIl1NCE N~. 2795 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GARY AND SUZANtJE LAMRO~ 631-1 ~ast Ken~ucky Avenue, An4'ieim~ Ca. 92F~~7 (Owners); requesting WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM WALL H~IGIIT AND (B) MINIMUII STRUCTURnL SETRACY.~ 7~ CnNSTRUCT A SW111MINf~ POCL AND BLOCK WALL IN THE FRONT SETRACIC ARcA on property descri5~d as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land co~isisting of approximateiy 0.2 acre havln~ a frontage of approximately ~2 feet on the north side af Kentucky Avenue~ having a maximum depth ~f appruximately 132 feet, being locatecl approximately 'Lg~ Feet north of the centerline of Loyola Drive, and further described as G8-il East Kentuci:y Avenue. Property presently r.lassified RS~720Q(SC) (RESIDFPlTIAL~ SiNGLE- FAMILY-SCE~~IC r,ORRIDO~ OV~RLAY) ZONE. it was noted that the subject petition was continued from the meetinq of April 12~ 1976~ for tt~e petitioner to contact nearby property owners concerning the preposal; and that the petitioner was subsequent~y requestinc~ thaC the subJect variance be withdrawn. Commissioner Y.ing offer d a i~~otion~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar anci M~TION CARRIED (f,ommissloner Farano being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedinqs in connection with Variance No. 2795, as raquested by the pet(tloner. 76-204 ~~.. s ~ ~ MIt~UTCS~ CITY PLl1NNING COMNISSIQN~ May 10~ 197~ ~~'~~~~5 V1IRIAMCE N~, 279~ - CONTINUEO PUBLIC HEAftINR. DUNN FROPERTIES CORP.~ c/o Ray Chermak, 2A DrookhAilow D~Ive~ Santa Ano~ CA. 97.7~5 (Owner); rec~uasting WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT THA7 ALL LOT~ AElU7 A PUALlC STR[FT~ TO ESTABLISl1 15 LOTS WITIIOUT PUBLIC STREET FRONTA~E on property descrihed as Portlon A~ an irregularly-shepad parcel of land con!isting of approxlmately ~i.2 ~cres havtng a frontage af approxtrt~tely ~i67 feet on the cul•de-sac of Knollw~od Circlo, havlnq a maxfmum ciepth oP approx(m~tely ~~(~5 feet~ and being located approximately 2Q75 fenC north of tho canterlinc of Woodlanci Ortve; an~1 Portlan D~ an Irregularly-shapecf parcel of lanci consisting nf nppr~xtmfltely 2.5 acres ha•~ing e frontAgc of Approxtmataly 7~ feet on the west side oP Knullwoou ~ircle~ havin~ a rnaximum depth of npprnximately 5An fP.P.C~ nnd beinq located approximatQly 4~i5 feet north of the centerline oP Woodland Drive, Proporty presently classified ML (iNDUSYRIAL~ LIMITED) ZON~. It was notocl th.~t Che subject pet~tlon was c~ntlnuad from the Planning Commission meeting of llpril 1?.~ 197f+~ for revised plans; and that the petitioner was requesting an Additlonal t~o-week c~ntinuance, Commissioner Tolar offPred a mot~on~ seconded ~y Commissioner Johnson ancf M4710N CARRIED (Cnmmissioner Kin~ abstalning anci Gommiss(onrr Fareno being ebsent)~ th~t the Anahe(m Ctty Planning Commission dnes hereby further contlnue the puhlic hearin~ and cansideration of Pgtiiion for V-;rl~nc~ No. 279~~ tc~ the P1anning Commfss(on meetin~ of May 21+, 197~~ as requested by the pstttloner. {~lOTE: A conF!t~r •,f IntPrest declaration was filad by Commissloner King on April 12, 1~176~ ond sald ~leclaration is a part of the record.) RFCLASSIFICATIOPI - READVERTISED PUBIIi. ri~ARIIJG. 9ANK OF AMERICA~ c/o 11. G. Johnson~ Nn. 75-7~-31 >55 South Flowcr Str~et, Los An~eles~ Ca. 900j1 (Owner); VEtt~JON W. MaNROE~ 52~9 Seashore Drive~ Newport acach~ Ca. 92660 (Agent). CQPIDIT1Rr1AL USE Property descrihed as an irregularly~shaped parcel of land canslst- PERMIT N0. 1611. ing of approximately 6.3 acres located on the south ancl west sides ""'" of Sequoia Avenue~ h~ving apNroximatc front~ges of 525 feeC on the south side and ~~03 feet on the west s(de of Sequoi. Avenue~ and further described as 911 Narth Brookhurst Street. Property presently classiFied Cl. (COMMERCIAL~ LIMIT[D) ZQNE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIO~i: ML (INDUSTitlAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. RFQUES'fED CO~JDITIQN/~L USE: TO PERMtT A CHURCH AND ALSO TO E57A6LISH A PLANNED C4MMERCIAL CENTER WITH 4lAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKl~~G SPACES, (9) PERMITTED USES, (C) MAXIMUM S7RUC?URAL HEfGhIT~ (D) MlMIMUM STRUCTURAL SETBACY., AND (E) REQUIRED SITE SCRE[NiNG, it was noted that th~ subJect petitions wsre con[inued from the Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1976, for more specific information rPla*p•! •o a~a5 ana rrom the meettng ~f April 2F~~ 197G. t~ r•e:!~:~;t~,e che petition for ~onditional us~e permit. No one indicated their presence tn opposttion to subJect petition. lllthough the Staff Report to the Planning Commission d~ted May 1~' 1~76~ was not read at the public hearin~~ said Staff Report is referred ta and made ~ part of the minutes. Mr. Vernon Monroe~ the agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning ~ommisslon to answer questions regarding the proposal and submitted a revised list of usas whtch were proposed undar the petition for conditional use permit~ stating that he was agreeable to having each use reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to occupancy of said uses on the subJect property, In response to questioniny by the Planning Commission~ Mr. Monroe stated that the automobile, boat and repair use would only occupy the existing small building which was lsolated from the main center but was about ~~ to 8 feet from the westerly property {ine and abouti ~~ fest from the southerly property line; that he would stipu;ate to constructing an 8-foot high masonry wal) along the westerly pr~perty tine for the protection c,f the rpsidentiaily developed property to the west; that "product fabrication" would consist of the snappir.y together of parts~ i.e.P picture frames~ would be a light -.-.,. ~ ~ ~ ~.w~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNItIG COMMISSIQN, May 10~ 1976 1~-2~~ RECl.A551FICAT10tJ N0~7~~31 AND C~NDiTIONAL USE PFRMIT N(1. 1612 (Gontlnued) end not heavy use, an~1 If the Plannin,y Cammisslon dec(ded t~ ba very speclfic I~e wnuld be agreeable; th~C~ ff necassr+ry~ ho was alsn agrneable to havln~ the P1Anning Commisslon revinw each of tf~e tenants at the cnd of ~ short perlod of tlmR; that the "exhlbitlon of proclucts produccd on the: {~remises" wauld amount to ~ shc~wroom wl~ich was permttted tn the Cl Zone; th~C "fabrlcation" was Included in the proposal tn connectlon wlth the automobile and boat repair us~ since they prasentiy had a proxpective xen~nt who wr~s in the business of hulldin~ boats at another lacalt~n where therr, were no nelqhborhood complalnts other then pertalning to an adJACent alley at that location, an~i he would stipulate to conducking all of the work inside the struckure; t!~at the boat fabricatton business was not expandtn~a at Its present location~ to his knrnvledc~e; that regarding pnrk(ng for the church, the submltted site plans had been generlc and the entlre floor area was committed tn seatinq for st~~-ff analysis purposes, hnwever~ he now had a plan showing hnw many seats were expected; and that oarkinq for al) of the uses would be pravided in accordancs w(th Code re~uirements. TN~ PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEC 71ie Planning Commissian reviewed the list of uses~ durinc~ which Commfssioner lalar took exception to the proposal for "automobfle and boat rcpair~" noting that the City would have to live with the uses, as granted~ and he recogntzed that the property awncr(s) would erv to subgidize themselves when vacancies arose In the future ancl would want xo further revise the llst of uses; th<it~ in his opinion~ palnt spray bootf~s were also not approprlate in d comrn~rcia) zone; that although the buildtng pro~osed to be occupied by the automobile and boat repair use was isolated from the main cenr.er, developers would look at said use~ If appravad~ as a precedent fn a cartxnercial zone ancl would not consider the hardships uf the subJect property in relationshtp to its location with ~oor access and being ad)acent to the fr~eway; that he a~reed that the property was untque hut he was very concerneci about the manner in which the uses might be approved~ although he wanted to be able to help the petitioner as much as possible to revlve the property; that he felt the product fabrication and automahile and boat repair uses shuul~i be considered on a time llmitatlon basis for review by the Planninn Commission every one or two ye~rs and the use should be confined to the existing free-standin~i structure on the southwest portion of the sub)ect property; that alThough the petitioner was stipulating to conduct al) of the work inside the bulldin~~ parking of the vehicles c~utside would not be precludecl and there were some existinq problems in this respect with ather properties in the City; and that the vehlcle fabrication use~ zven in an industria) zone, would probably vlolate the noise ordinance daily. Commissioner Y.ing noted that the noise from the adJacent fr~~nway woc~ld probably be loudsr than tlie proposed aut~mobile and boat repalr and fabricatlon operati^+s; that fiis main concern was for the ad,Jacent residential properties to the west, howeve~~ a fence was proposed alonq the west property line with additiona) buffering and the structure was somewhat remote from the adJacent homes. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst noted that tl~e petitioner hacl originally reque~ted industrial zonin~ with a conditional use permit to have some commercial uses on the praperty~ a~d the Planning Commtssion had ter~ded to agree that the CL Zone was more appropriate with a cond~t(onal use permit for any industria) uses on the property; that the subject center was totally '~dead" and the petitioner was trying to bring it back to life with some flexi~!'.Oty, aslcing for gutdance by the submission of a list of uses, some of wliich were margtnal ~~r the CL Zo~ie; that ~ome of the proposed uszs were permitted by ric~ht in the commercial zone; that he favored approval of the proposed lfst of uses except that the automobile and boat repair and fahrication shouiu b~ approved subject to review; that he did not favor having the petitioner submit all ofi the uses for r~view by the Planning Commission as the tenants were otitatned~ hecause nf the time such a procedure would lnvolve; that automobile and ~oat repair~ ?r~:, generally ended up wlth outdoor storage~ however, he wouid I~ave no obJection if thet use was completely screened and all of the work was performed inside Che building; that, if 2pproved subJect to a review f~rocedure~ the prospective tenants could be advised that Planning Commission review wnuld Lake place approximatoly two wee~s from the date requested; and that If the proposal was d~termined to be heavier than the Planning CQmmisSion intended ~nder the subiect conditlo~al use Qermit, •hen an additional public hearing would be r~~uired ta be filed for said use. Mr. Phillip S~:yderman~ 57~- West Commonwealth, Fullerton~ represtnting the propased church faci'ity, appeared before the Planning Commission and, in response ta questioning, stateC that he was presenting for the Planning Commission's consideration a floor pian for the first and second floors of the churr.h an~i indicaeing the seating; and that the parking ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMNISSIQN, M~y 10~ Iq76 RECLASSIFICAT~ON N0. 7~ 76",~I ~ND CONDI710MA1. USE PF.aMIT NA, 1612 (Contlnued) 76~zo7 would bN provided ln ~~ccordance w(th khe Code roqulreme~Cs ~nri wo~lcl not toke away frcxn the parking for the othcr uses. In rr.sponsc to furthor qu~stioninn pnrtaining thr prop~+sed church fr+cflfty~ Mr. Ronald P. Whitkinr~ the architect for 'ie church~ apPeared before the Planning Cammisslan and yCated it wAS not the Intent nf the church to have a school other than for a Sunday schoc~l on Sundays; thst the church was respectfully requestlnq that If the proposeci ~iutomoblle and boat repnir facillty was appr~veci tl~at lt be m~de subJect to no buslne~s actlvity belny conducted on Su~idays; thr+t tt~e church w~s plarining to purchase that purti~n of the Froperty which was the church sitc as A separate parcel; that parking spaces for th~ church would be provided in conformAnce wltli Code requlrements; anci ttiat any expanslon of the church other than for typical cliurch functlons, wil) be subJect to the wevlew and approval of the Plannin~ Commissi~r;, In response tu the foreqoing, Mr, Mo~roe st(pulat:.d that tlie automc~hile and boat repalr and f~bricatlon would not conduct buslness operatlons on S;mciays~ and that any outdoer storage in connectlon wir.h sald use would be ccxnpletelY contalnecf ancl fenced off by a 6- foot h 1 gh ~ cemen t r, l ock ~Na 11 . In respons~. to c~uestloning by Ch~irman Pro Tampore Nerbst~ Assistant Planner Joel Fick advlsecl that Staff had not reviewed tne ~,~ans subr~~itted !~ cann°c!i~~n ~•!ith rh~ churclti seating~ whereupon, Mr, Whittler stipulated that the parking spaces would be provlded In accordance with the Coc1e requirements~ and that plans wculd be submitted to thc Planning Department for approval Inclicating the number of fixed s~ats in the place ef the maln assembly insfde th~ proposed church f~cility. Conan~ssloner Johnson indlcaCed that, based upon the explanat!on presented thus far~ he was inclined to stancl behlnd the Zonin~ Code, especially since future c~wners anci/or tenants of the subJect property might want additlonal uses which were unsuitable tn commerclal xones. Mr. Munroe to~k exception~ stating that in his opinlon the subject property was n~c commercial property any longcr since it had been burled by th~ adJacent freeway ramp; that~ a~idltionally, the big stores in the surrounding area were destroyin9 the commercial potential of the subject property; that the property could not be converted for multl- family developm°nt since no one c~uld incur the financial responsibility for condemnation of the b~ildings;that the school c~istrict ciid not want to purchase the property; that, in his opinion, the hardship of the property c<:~,ld be solved by having some commerGlal use as well as the light industrial uses proposed; that the present condition cf the property was an eYesore to the cammunity~ as we?1 ~s a subJect fur vandalism; that the residents in the area did not oppose the proposed uses and wanr~-d the property to be industria) rather than commerclal; and that there were industrial uses adJacent to the subject praperty ~nd~ in his opinion, the spot aoning in the area was actually the adJacent resicientlal developrnent. Thereupon, l.ommissioner Johnson acknowledged the reasons for the praposal, notinq that the prop~rty was a hardship parcel which could be approved on its own merlt. !n response to the foregoing discussion, Ueputy ~ity Attorney Malcolm Slaughter advised that it w~u!d be dlfficult ta disallow any of the uses~ once granied and relled upon; that "product fabrication" was a very vague termin~logy and could consist of anything from a translstor radic~ to a space capsule.; that the Planning Cormission had granted applications in the past subject to review pri~~r to the use occupying the p~emises (i.e., a Koll industrial center); that the scz~le or intensity ef the proposed uses could vary greatly and that shnuld be a major consideration in the Planning Commission's determinatlon; that~ tf tliere was doubt in the mi~ds of the Commissioners that any of the pr~~posed uses might not be approprlate, the Comr„ssion would be in a stronger reg~~'atory p~sitlon lf those however if the Planniny uses were c~nsidered separately under otner appllcations~ - Commtssion approved the uses, subjecting the questionable uses to a review period, the City Attorney's Office would attempt to defencf that position; that "chur~hes" should b~ ~liminated from the proposed list since only one church was proposed; and that "private ciubs and lodge~" were permitted by right in the CI_ Zone, subJect to the approval of the City Council. Discussion pursued regarding the spectfic uses proposed~ during wh3ch Mr. ~~lonroe stipulated that the intent of tl~e uses was :o provide li~ht in~ustrtal on the praperty tn conJunction with CL uses which were permitted by right; and that he did nat )ntend to have bakery sales from the subJect locati~n to other distr(butors~ or to have wholesale of printed stock (i.e.~ letterhead). ~. • ~ MINUTES~ CI'fY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ May 10~ 1976 76-20A RECLASSIFICATION N0. 75-7~'3~_AND COND1710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 1612 (Contlnued) ~.- - , The Planning Comnlsslon dACer•mllled that "bakery wholesalc~" "prlncinq an~l reproductlon servtces~" "exhlbitl~n of ~~roducts produced on thA premiscs~" were p~rrnitt~d by rlght In the CL Zone; And that "private eciucatlonal Institut(ons" shnuld be Incluur~l ~r~~ier "cabinet st~op and carpentry shop." It wAS notod ther che petitloncr was requesting to w~thdraw Pet(tlon for Reclasslfication No. 75-76-31. Commissiondr MArley offered a motion~ seconded by Commissionnr King and MQTION C~\~~RIED (Commis~loner Farano being absent)~ that the Anahalm City Planntng Commission does he~eby recommenu to tha City Counc(1 af the City of Arahetm that the subJect proJect be exempt from the requlrement t~ prepare an envtronmental impact report~ pursiiant to the provlslons of the CallfornlA Enuironmentnl Quality Act. Commis~'~ner Morley offered a mot(on, seconded by Commtssl~ner King and NiOTiQN CARRIED (Commissloner Farano being absent)~ that the Anahaim City Planning Commisslon does hereby tarmtnate al) proccedings in connectl~n with F'etitton for Reclasslfic~ti~n No. 75-76-31, as requestad by the petitloner. Fn11•w+in~ ~~ietatled ~Ilscussion of r.~ch use proposed, thE Planning Commission generally concurred on the followin~ uses and lim(tatlons thereof: a. Cgbinet shops and Garpentry shops (including the sale and fabricat(on of ptcture frames) pro~~ided~ however, that thls use shall ba llmited to a maxlmum of five (5) employees. b. Mafl order firms. c. Pr~duct fabrication, provlded~ however~ that each use which ls intended to qualify under this classiftcatton shall be submltt'ed in written form to the Planning Commission for review and approval (n ord~r that a determinatlon mF+y be rtiade as to whether the propased use would be approprlate for the site. d. Research and testing flrms~ such as architectural and engineering firms. e. Wholesale bu>Inesses, including storage~ light warehousing and product dispiay of Iight products such as paper~ small novelty items~ glasswork, etc. f. Rutomobile and boat repatr, includtng im:chanical, fabrication and painting of autamobiles and boats~ provided~ however~ that this use shall be subJect to Planning Commissinn approval and shall be restricted as follows (as stipulated to by the petitioner): (1) A maximum of five (5) employees. (2) No business activity shalt be conducted on S~nday. (3) T~e use shall be r~stricted to tenancy in the existing approximately 4504- square foot building whlch is located !n the southwest corner af the subJect property, and said bullding shail not be ~xpanded in any manner. (4) All business activity shal] be condueted indoors. Commis~ioner hbrley offered Resolution No. PC76-86 and r~r~ved for its passage and a.:.:ptlon~ that the Anahefm City Planning Commissian does hereby grant Petition for Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1612 (readvertised), granting the proposal for a church subJect to the stipulatian of the petttioner that the proposed church school c~nsisted of Sunday schaol activltles only and that any expansion of the church to ather than typtcal church functi~ns would be suSJect to the review and approval of the Planniny Commisslon; subJece to the stipulation of the petitioner to withdraw Lhe requested waiver of the minlmur~i number of parking spaces on the basis that revlsed and specific plans showing the fixed :eating (n the p{acP af main assembly within the church shall be submitted to the Planning Department indicating the proposed parking spaces will be provided in ccnformance with Code standards; granting the requested .~aiver of perrnitted uses to permit certatn lighx industrial uses as spectfied by the Planning Commisslc+n in the foregoing discussian, said waiver being granted on the basis that the petitioner demonstrated tnat a hardship would be created ii not granted~ since the location of the property is not suited for a limited ~ .~..~ ~ M1NU7FS~ CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION~ May 10~ 1976 RECLASS~FICATION N0. 75-76-31 AND CONDITIONAL USE PE~MI_T N0. 1G12 (Continusd~ 76-209 coimr,ercia) shopping center with vel~lcular accessibiliCy nnd visibillty being substantfally re~.;trictecl from the neir•by arterial h(ghwey because of the above-grAd~ freeway on and ~ff- rAmps; granting thr, requsstcd waivers of tl~a maximum !~tr~ictural helght and rninimum structural setback on the basls that the structure~ are exlstin~ and e harJshlp would therefore be creatad if sald waivers wcrc not grrrit~d; granting th~+ raquested walver af the requlred site screening~ In part, on thm basis that the p~titloner stlpulated to construct an 8-feot hlgh masonry wall along the west preperty Iine and th~t the axlsting chalnlink fence separatlnc~ the subJect property from the RS-A-43~Q00 zoned property to the south may remaln because sald PrandrsubJecteto,th~edlnterdepartmertalhCommltt~~eCr, r.o the stipulatlons of the petitioncr~ recommen~iatlons. (See Rnsolution Book) On roll cAll~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the followlnct vote: AYES: COMMISStON[RS: BARNES~ JQHNSUN~ KINf,~ MORLEY~ TOL!-R~ HER9ST NOFS: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE ABSEN7; CnMMISSlQNERS: FARAP~O RECLIISSIFiCATiOtJ •~ P;IRLIC HFARING. MINNIE B. DIER[~ERGER~ 1439 Wes~t Damon Avenuea ,v_ N0. 75-76-3! 3 Anaheim~ Ca. 92~02 (flwner). Property descriLa~ as ar, i, r.., 1_r shapeci parcel of land consistinq of approximatcly 0.6 acr~ having VARIA~JCE N0. 280$ approximate fr<~n[ages of 1~4 feet on the south side of Ball Road -'"'"'-" + and 2? i~`aet on the eas t s i de of Hamps tead St reet ~ hav i ~g a maxl mum depth of approximately 204 feet~ and being located approximately 93 feet north of thc centerllne of Colonial Avenue. Property presently classlfled RS-A-43,n00 (RF.SIDENTiAL/AGRICULTURIIL) ZONE. RCQUESTED CLASSIFICATI~~~: RS-;~00 (RESIDFN7IAL~ SIPIGLE-FAMILY) ZONE REQIIESTED VARIANCE: TO'ESTA6LISH~AIFOUR'~~.07NARSAS~ OoSU3DIV15~lONAR7ERtAL HIGIIWAYS, Thre~ peraons indicated their pres~nce in oppositlon to subJect petition~ and walved the full reading of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 10. 1976, on the basls tt~at they had r•PViewed a copy of same. Although the Staff Report was not read a• the public hearing~ satd report is referred to a~d made a part oF the minutes. Mr. Jim Barisic, 2~~) South La Paz. Anaheim~ the agent for the petitioner~ appeared before the Planning Commtsslon and ~°viewed the proposa) statiny that they had analyz~d the sales price~ square footacie and design criterta which might be desi~able to the buyers of the proposed homes which would be slightly larger and slightly mnre Pxpensiae than the exlstinq homes in the area due to the current constr~.iction coats~ etc.; that renclering~ and fl~or plans of the proposed homes had been revfewed by the property aNners in the area w1~o generally felt the proposal would enhance their property values; that one nelghbor, Mrs. Tofteld, indicated some unhaRPlness since she had a beautifui back yard which would be abutttng the subJect develnp-nent; that the proposed homes would havc approximately 1370 square feet (not including *.he gara~e area)~ would have three 6edrooms two baths~ medium shake ~hi~9nt of~thearequestedaRS55~00dZone,dand that1thet1 t sizesira~gedhfromt coverage requireme 606Q to 735~ square feet. Mr. Irving Lederman~ 1~F06 West Ball Road~ Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated he was opposed to the proposal en the basis that the subJect property would be bet~nerBalitRoad~;rand that1his~property wastlocated,about fouruhousestfromntheSSUbJectic al g property. Hr. Aaron Tofteld~ 147.1 ~olonial Avenue, Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition and stated his viife's beautiful gardcn was adJacent to the subJect prnperty; that the maJor obJection to the proposal was thar. the existln~ residentfal development in the area was 4 dwellinq units pe~ a~re and the proposal was for 6.6 dwelling units and~ that tt therefore~ the proposal was not in ~eeping with the exist~n.y neighborhood; appe~red they might have as many as three neighhors rather than one aclJacent to the northerly portlon of thai~• east property line; that it apPeared there might be a problem ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY {'LAMNING COMMISSION~ MAy 10~ 1`~]b 76-210 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 75-76-33 AND VARIANCE ~~0. 2b08 (f.ontlnued) wi th parkinq :,lnce mr,st fAml 1~es h~d t.wo t~ three cNrs +~nd~ e) th~u~h he clld not knc~w thn t~chnice) aspects~ the pr~rkin~t w~~~1~i prohab~y he crowded. Mrs. Ll~yci 5. Durlln~~ 1?.2~ South tlampste~d 5traet, An+~helm, eppeArr.d bcfore thc Planning Cortrnlsslon in oppositl~n t~ thc: proposal and stnted thn homeov+ners In the area cilci not want the Nam~s±e~+~l ;t~~.:: ca',-~'~-`"^ ^^Rnecl u~ to Bal) Rued~ ~Ince opening s~l~l street would encourac~r. ,id~lltionai parkinc~ frcxn the s~•hool and also create concnrn Tor ~he snfety of tha ch I 1<1 ran I n the ne 1 ql,borhoud . In rebutt.~~~ Mr. Dar(sic stnt~~d thac although tho lots were narrc~w~ they were deep and he felt the proposP~l homes woulci be consisient wtth the ne:tghhorhoocf; that th~e exlsting h~mes along HampsteACl Street wcrc 7~ f~eet wide and 90 Pact deep; that on ~n1onlal Avenuc the lats werc 72~0 syu~re fcec; anci that only one lat would abut the 'fofleld propert~~ and said lot would hav~ a~Q-fo~t deep back yard. T~~F pURLI G HEAR I NG Wl1S CLOSED. The Plannin9 Commisslon entered Int~ discussl~n wlth Mr. Barlsic regarding the sound- attenuatlon measures t~ be provided a~1J~cent to Ball Road~ during which the Commission gunGrally conc,urred that ~~ G-foot high masonry wall sho~ild be constructed adJA:ent tA saicl artPrlal hlnhwey, in adcfltion to other suunu~dCLCIIUdI.IV~~ rr~~,si,~~:s ~hlc~ mlght -~a f1P.~8S4APV to reduce the n~ise level generated by tl~e ~irterlal trafflc t~ GS dhA In the rear yard of the proposed lotg ad.Jacent to the cjrterfal and to 45 dbA Inside the homes~ wlth doors and windows close~l~ except that an earthen berm neecl not he part of tlie souncl-attenuatlnn measures on th~ basts that a berm woulcl not be conslsl•ent with oth~r aciJacant resldentlai devclopmcnt~ ~+lonc~ sald arterial. 7hereupon~ Mr. Barlslc sttpulateci to provl~'ing a 6-foot wall~ etc.~ as outllned, In response to questlonlr~g by the Piannii~y Co~~~nlsslr,n, Mr. T~fi~lcl acknowledqed that hls pro{~erty was adJacent to the subJect property to the east and would be abuttecl by ane lot p~u~ about one-fourth of another in the pr~pused dev~lopment. Comm~ssloner King noted fn response to the comments by F1r. Lederman that~ ln his opinion~ r.ommercial development of th~ suhJect property would create more traffic In the resldent3al ar~ than the proposed homes. Commfssioner T~lar offered a rr~tion~ sec~~nded by Commissiorser Morley ancl MOTIOP! CARRIED (Commissianer ~arano being absent)~ that the Anahelm Clty Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Cauncll of the C!ty of Anah~'.m that the subJect proJect be exempt from the requtrement ta prepare an envirr,nmental ImpacS report. p~~rsua~t tr, the provlsions of the Caiiforr~ia '~nvironmental Quality Act. Cummisstoner Tolar offered ~esolutlon No. PC76-d7 and moved for lts passagc and adoptlon~ that the Anaheim C y Planning Go~nmission does hereby recommend to the City Counc~l of the City of Anahe(m that Petitinn for Reclassiftcation No. 75'76'33 be approved, subJect to rhe Interdepartmer~ta) Committee recommendatlon~. (Sce Resolutiton Book) On roll call, the faregolnc~ resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMISS~O~IERS: BARNES~ JOHNSON~ KINf~ MORLEY~ 70LAR~ HERBS'f NOES : COMMI SS I ONERS : NO~IE AB~ENT: C~MMISSIQN~RS: FARANO Commissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC7~-88 and maved for its pvssage and adoptlon, that the Rnahelm Ctty Planning Commission does hereby grant Petttion for Variance ~~o. 2808, granting the requested waiver of the requirement that all lots rear-on arterial hlghways on the basi~ that there are existing residential iozs wnich side-on dall +~uau ii~ the lmmedtatP ~rea, that slmliar waivers have been previously granted and~ fu~thermore, that the petitioner sttpulated xo providing a 6-foot htgh masonry wall ad~acent to 8a11 Road; subJect to the stlpulaCion of the petitlon~r pertalniny to sound attenuatlon and, further, that the minimum building setback on Loe No. 1 siiall be 40 feet adJacent to 6a11 Road, per Clty Council Policy Ivo. 538. unless the City Councll walves satd policy arvd permtts the proposed 5-foot building setback for satd lot; and subJect to the lnterdepartrt-ental Commlttee recommendations. (See Resolutlon Book~ On roll call~ the fora~oir~g reso+~::o; :•s~s ~~'~'~! h,v the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BAR~~ES~ JONNSQN~ KtNG~ MORLEY, TOLAK~ HERBST N(1F.S : COMM) SS I ~NFRS : ~lQNE ABSENT: CqMMISSI~~lERS• FARAl10 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMHISSION. May 10~ 197G ~~'_211 CONDITIOpl11L USE - PUBLIC IIEP,RING. ~ARL~S H. ALVARLZ~ 131 South Glasscll Street~ PERMIT IJO. 1(~1~~ Orange, Ca, 92GG6 (Owner); CARI. F. IIELM~ 2001 South 17astnr Stroct~ Apt. 1QD, Anal~elm, f.a. 92f~02 ancl ~EWEY E. THOMIIS~ 266J Amlierst Avenue, Fullerr.on~ Ca. ~2631 (Agents); requesttng permissfon to ESTI1E3L1~11 A REST/1URANT WITfI QN-SALE BtER ANQ WINE, WITH WAIVFR QF NINIMUM KITCHF.N AfiF.A o~ property <fescribad oe an irreyularly-shapnd parcel of lend consisttng of approximately '3. i acres iocnluu o~~ th~ ~auth s 1dc of Ceronado Str~et between Krcemer Boulevard and Kraemor Fiacc, h+~ving approxtmate frontages of 'i2~~ feet on 2he so~th s(de of Coronado Strnet~ ~i77 finct on the west sidc+a4~ Kraemer Bouleverd~ And lAl Peet on the r.ast side of Kraemer P1aGe, a~d furthcr described as IlE3~ North Krsemer Boulevard. Property presently classt fled ML ( II~DUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZQNF.. Two persons inciicate~l thelr presence In opposi tlon ta subJact petitlon~ an~1 wAlved the full reading o;' the Staff Report to the Planni ng Commission dated May 1f1~ 197~. Although tl~e ~taff Report was not rcad at the publlc hearing~ satd report !s referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Carl Helm~ the nctent for thc petttloner~ ap~ecred before the Pl~nntng Commission end stated they were proposing a f~~st fcx~d servic~ or tako°out sandwich shop; that In the futt:r~ Ch°_y ;,lA^^~ri ro liavn beer ancJ wl~e; and tliat they hacl not made appiicatlon t~ the State for the beer and wine 1 icense~ t~ut planneci to do s~ in ~ y~r~r or :~. M~r. I.awrer~ce Duenxcn~ 1109 Kra~m~r Ooulevard, appnared beforc tha Planning Commtsslon tn uppaaltlon an~l presented a petitlun signed by approxlmately 12 ownera of businesses In thr subJect areA In opRosttlon, stating that the oppositt~n was largely due to the lack of adequate parkinc~ in the inclustrial r,omplex fo~ the existing empioyees; that he h~d no obiections to a sandwich shop or.ly~ but since his own business had ~i11y 7 par{cing spaces, ~~ w„~,id obiect to a restaurant with b~pr and winn sales which would~requlre about 16 parking spaces. and wi th the traffic having tv pass hts place oT bus~~~ass. Mr. John Nosich, representing the W(ld Goose Restaurnnt at 1160 North KraeMer Boulevard~ ap~~eared before tne Planning Commission and stated hfs business was located acro~s the straet from thp subJect property; that a parEciny problem presently existed in the industrial complex; and that although he F~ad a very large parking lot~ he did not want the proposed restaurant°s custome~rs to pzrk in i t, In r~buttal, Mr. Helm stated their immediate plan was to have a sandwich shop only; how~ver~ they were asktncl to have the beer a~d wine at this time so they would not have to make a separ~ate applicatlon for it in the future; that Coronado ~treet was available for u~~-street parking and h^. woulcl suggest tnat the pa~kin~ spaces In the complex b~: marked for contra) purposes; and lhat he coul~d envislon parkinQ problems if the proposal was for a sit-down restaurant. buc presently it wo~ld bebas:cally a take•out restau~ant. THE PU9LIC IiEARIN~ WAS CLOSED. In response to questioning by ~hairman Pro Tempore Herbst~ Assistant Plsn~er loel Flck advi sed Chat the park i ng for the propos3l wa s computed 1 n re 1 at ion~.h i p to th, ent i re ~ 1 te; and that a shortnge c~f parki~g spaces based an the floor space in the complex was not Indicated. Morle , De ut Cit Attorne ~ Frank Lov+r In response ta questioning by Comnissianer y P Y Y Y 1' advised that 1 f th~e Plgnning Commisslon granted tF~e subJect condition~t use permit for a sandwich shop only. vri thout beer and wine, an addi tional appl tcat ion would be re~ui red ar the time the pei':toner desi red to have the beer and wine; and tl~at the waiver pertained to the sh~nrtage of f ioor area for the ki tch~n, Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst ncted that i: was obvious that a take•out sandwtch shop did not need the f 1 oor a rea wh 1 ch woul d be requ i red for a res tau ran t; that he a»s ~o :! n favor ot~ permittl~g a fut 1-fledgad restaurdnt at the subJe~t locatlon; ancl that the proposal appeared to be about 35~ of tha floor space normal ly requi r~d far a rastaurant. Ne questioned the kitchen area floo~ space norcnally ~equired for a take-out snndwfch shop and Zoning Supervi sor Annika ~antalahtl advlsed that by r~odlFying the use to a 01sandwich shop" the function wnuld be restricted from being a regular rescaurant. ~ ~^ ~ r11NU7ES~ C11Y PLANNINO COMM15`- ION, Mdy IQ~ ly7b CQNDITIONAL USE PCRMIT NQ, 161 ~i (Contlnued) 76~. z 12 Mr. Kalm state~+ thnt thelr pr_ak aperatlnr~ periocl would ba et lunch t(mc nr.~l the custamc~s would qenc~rnlly b~ r~stricted tn short lunchtimes; ~~nc1 that a lot of senting was not requlred. In responsc to quest toning by Commissioner King~ Mr, Hnlm stated that~ according to h~ls lAncllor'd~ th~e parklnq spaces i n the r.omplex would be ctividcci a~qual ly amonci ,ill the tenants and eACh woulcl then hnve e~proximntely ~ sp~~ces. Chalrman Pro Temp~re Herbst inquired of Mr. i'ucnzen what he thought ~ttribute~l t~ the lack of parkincl spaces in the complex; and Mr, D~irnr.e~ respcmdod that he had 7 employees, while the ten~nt next d~or to hlm h~d many; that ~he r~~~i~llcant was nnt preeently ope~aYing In the complex and hc ~iid n~t fec~l that the existinq businesses should gl~ ~ip thelr parking spaces to a new use; ihat thc t~ parking spaces rcferred to by Mr. NPIm ,~ould be 4 tn front and ~- (n back; ~ind th<~t If ~i ~est~urant werc approved~ Chere would probably be ~~bout 16 tables instde. The Planning Commissinn enterecl int~ discusslon with Mr. Helm regarding the problems wtkh Lho proposal~ durinci whlch Commfssloner Tolar guqgest~ed that the sit-down fACll(ties be reduced to 24 seaCS , and that the petf t ioner wl thdraw the rec~uest fcr on-snle beer and w(ne. Mr. Helm so stlpulnted. It was notPd that the Dlrector of the Plannfng Department had determ(ned that tlie proposed act(vity fell within ths definitlon of Sectlon 3•~1, Class 1~ of khe Clty of A~aheim Guidelines to the Rsqulrements for an Envtronmental Impact Report and was~ ther~efo~e~ catagortcally exempt fram the requ(rement to flie an EIR. Commissioner Tolar offered Resolutlon No. PC76-d9 and moved for its passa9e and adoption. that ehe Anaheim Ci ty Planninq Commissl~n does herehy grant P~tition for Condttior,a) Use Permit tJo. 161~-, in part, grantlnc~ the requested walver of the minimum kitchen area on the basis that the pet i tloner st T pulated t~ wi thdraw the pr~posal for a restaurant wi th on- sale beer and wine at the subJect location and furthe~ stipulatecl to establlsh a sandwich shap anly with se~at inc~ for a max.imum of 20 persons; that approva) is hereby gra~ted subJect to plans indicating sald reduction In seatin~ beine~ submitted to the Planning Uepartment for approval ~rlc~r k~ commencement or the a~tivtty authorlr.ed under this resolutton; that the hours of operation shall be from 10:0~ a,m, to 6;00 p,m. Monday through Saturday and closed on Sundays; anci subject to the Interdepartmenta) Camnittee recommendation. (S ee Resolu xion 9ookj On rol' call. the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; A~~ COMMISSI~NERS: SARNES. JOHNSOt~, KING, MOP.LEY, TOLAR, HER9ST NOF.S: CQMMISSIn1~7ERS: NffNE ABSENT : COMMI SS I ONERS : f,~RANf1 CONDITIONAL USE - PURLIC HEAP,It~G. 7HE KRAGER COMPA~lY, 6~14 South Eastern Avenue~ PERMIT N0. 1G17 Los Angel es~ Ca. 90040 (Owner); JOHN'S ~;1EVROPI b U-HAUL, 12~1 South Anahetm Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca. 92RQ~+ (Agent); requesting permission to ESTABLISfI TRUCK AND TRAILER RENTALS FROM A 5F.RVICE STATI~N on property described as an frregularly-shaped parcel of lanu consistinq of appraximately ~+ ac res located on the south side of i3a11 Road between Iris Street and Anaheim Boulevard, havinc~ approxim,ite frontage~ of 2p0 feet on the south side of Ball Road, 605 feet on the ease side of Ir(s Street, and 630 fzet on t!~~e w:~st side ~f Anahetm Boulevard, and further described as 1201 South Anaheim ?:,ulevard, Property presently classifted CL (COMMERCIAL, i.lialTED) AND PLD-M ~PARY.I~If,/LAVDSC~'1PE DISTRICT-hIANUFACTURIIIG) ZONE. No one indicated the(r presence in oppositlon to subject petition. Although the Staf Report to th~e Planning Commissio~ dated May 1Q, i976, was not read at the publ ic hearinca~ sald Staff Report is r~ferrec~ to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. N. A. Chamber~aln, representing ihc. U•Naui Company, Che ager.t f~~r 'che pctitt~ner, appearEd before the Planning Commission and stated the type of renta~ equfpment avai iabie o~ the subJect 5 i te was deiera~i nzd by tlja ci tf zr.es s:h~~ uscd the eq~ilprnrnt; ±hat the equipment would vary in size from 6 to 3~ feet in length; that on Saturday mornings. khe site was generally empty; and that the rental facility had operated for a numbe~ of years without 1 ine~f parking spaces and with no fences oth r than an Imaginary line on the w~est and south property llnes. 7HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ 76-213 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIN~~ f.:QMMISSIQN~ May 1Q~ 197~ CQMpITIONAI USE PERMIT NQ,_l~ (Continued) In responsc to questfanln~ by the Plannin~ Commissfon~ Mr. Chamherl~iin st~itc~i Chere was na siich th(n~ ~s unlformity of size for the rent~l equipment slnce it varled from one day to tho ncxt. Chairman Pro T~mpnre Herb9t n~tcd that the ordinance allowed 10 trntlers an A sQrvlce stAtian slte by ric~ht; however~ the petitiu~ier wa; requnstin!7 17 of clifferent sizes a~ic~/or len~ths, Commissloner Klnc~ noted that he haci revlewed t~~e subJect pr~porty In the fleld wi th G~rnn) ss loner Morl cy, and they found the tra) lers were arrangeci nr,nt 1 y on the s 1 te ancl that there wAS amrl~ rnom for the 17, Hr. Theodnre Klix~ 15~+ West Nill Avenue, Anahelm~ appearc~l hcforc xhe Plannii~q Commisslon in oppositlon an~1 4LAL8~II18 had Ilved in the area for ap~~roxim~~tely 10 years andy althaugh tha present own~r of the aub,Ject f~cility was cloln9 a t>etter Job than the prevlous c~wner (Mr. C~llins)~ the equlpn~ent was stlll betnq shoved ~ver th~ sidewalks along Iris Street whlch were ~onsistently bein~ used by the realrlents In tl~e area tn get to ancl from the bank and oth~~r nearby establtshments; that the trailers were unhitched and shoved toward the short brl~k wall ~nd the pedcstrlans alonc~ Irls Street; ancl that the petitioner should be requtred tMrkeKPiXhst~tel~,heehadpnonobJectionsmtohthei usealper se~, butpdidewant qunstlonin~~ protectlon for his famlly and neic~hbors. Chalrman Pro Tempore Herbst inquired if the petitioner would fnstall a row of c~nc:retP bumpers to kecp the rental equipment and other vehlcles f rom protruJing uver the lot lines, ancl especlally adJ~cent to the sidewalks. Mr, Chamberlain so sklpulated. In response Co further questioninq by the Planning Commisslon, Mr, Chamberlaln stated the service station h~d permission to extend over the lot llnes of the actual servlce station site; that the conditlonal use permit had been advertise d on the entire property owned by the Kroger Company (successor to Market Basket); and tha t, without pilnted lines, tl-,ay would be able to malntain an orderly display of the rental equipment. DFputy Clty Atto rney Frank Lowry advised that~ based upon the manner in which the request o~as advertlsecl~ the use would be permitted to encroacli over onto the ~dJacen~ lot(s). Ghairman Pro Tempore Herbst n~ted that the cuncrete bump ers should Le placed on the service station site to avoid problems in the future. It was noted that the Director of the Planning Departmen t had determined that the proposed activlty fell within the definition of Sectlon 3.01~ Cla ss 1, af the City of Anaheim Guldelin~s to the Requirements for an Environmental Imp a ct Report and was~ therefore~ categorlcally exempt from t!~e requirernent ro file an EiR. Commtssioner King offerec' Resoiution No. PC76-90 and mo ved for its ~assage and adoption, tha t the Anahe i m C 1 ty ^~ ann i ng Commi s s i on does liereby g ran t Pet i t f on for Concl i t( ona 1 Use Permlt N~. 1G17. for a maxim~~m of 6 erucks of the two-a xle type which can be operated with a Class 3~lriver's license and varying in stze from 12 to 30 feet l~ng, and 17 trailers varying in size f:~m 6 to 17_ feet long; subJect t~ the stipu'~'~tion of the petltloner to prQV(ding concrete wheel stops aciJacent to the properiy lines for said rental equlpment to discourage the possibility of rental equipment being pa rked aff-site, and that the display area shall oe ad.jacent to interlor property lines and s hall not encroach into any required buildiny setback areas ad)acent to r+naheim Boulevard an d Ball Rodd; that the Planning Commtssion does hereby detArmine that palntc~ ilnes to designate the parlcing spaces for Lhe rental equipment~ as specified by Code Section la.3 7.023.020~ shall not be required on the basis that the sizes of the rental equlpment vary; however~ the petitioner stipulated to maintdining an orderly disp~ay of said equipment; s u bject to the stipulatlons _* the petitiuner~ and ~ubJect to the Interdepartrnental Committee recommendations. (See Resolutior Book) On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by thr, follawing vo:e: AYES: COf1MISSIONERS: DARNES, JOHNSON~ KING, MORLEY. TOLAR~ HERBST N(1ES : COMMI SS I O~~ERS : NONE ABSENT: COMMI SS 10lJFRS : FARANO RECESS - nt 3~3~ P.m•, Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst declared a recess. RECONVENE ~ At 3:4~ P.m.~ Chalrman Pru Tempv~c !'.erb4t rPCOnve~ed the meeting with """"'-'-" Commissioner Farano being absent. ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING f,OMMI~SION~ May 10~ 1976 76-11 ~~ CQIJD I T I(1NAL USE ~ PUDL I C HFAR I P~G. LEONARD MASSENA ~ 5~2 soucl~ Duno ~ Anahe im ~ C~:. PkRMl~i6~i~ 9213Qr (Owner); MAaY M. DOVE~ 5~~2~~ Arhar Road~ Long Beaci~~ Ca. -' g~FiQ9 (Agent); requosting permissl~n to ESTABLISf1 A DAY NURSERY o~ prupcrty descrlbed as an (rrugulrrly-shape~ p~rcel af lancl cansistln~~ of approximatoly 0.2 acre locateci at tl~e northwe~t corner of Soutl~ Str~et and State College Boulevard~ having approximeta frontages of 92 feet on tlie nurth side of So~t1~ Street nn~! 5~ feet on the ~vest stde of State Collsga Boulevard~ and furkher doscribed as 733 Sou~l~ State College Bouiev~~rri. F~oNart'~ proscrt'y cl~:.s~" fted RS-72Q~) (RESIb[PlTIAI.~ SINGLf-FAMILY) ZONE (Resoluetan of intent to C0~ Commerclal~ Office ~nd Professional~ Zone). Mrs. Mary Do~e~ khe acient f~r tha p~titloner~ appeared befo~c the Planninct Commission and revlewed the proposal~ stipulating that the day nursery would be for a maxir~um of 2~+ children, TIIE Pl1BLIC HEARING WAS CL~SED. In response to questionlnn concerning a fence or wall along the State College frantage af subject property~ Zoning Supervlsor Annika Santalahtf advlsed that a w~~il as hlgh as 8 F~~t :~,~~.~ -,.. rnn.;tri~c:tet) abuttin~ the arterial highway for sound attenuatlon purposes and the quest(on of helght flexlbility to 8 feet c~uld be handled administracively. ~•~~~. ~~•J~ steted a chalnlink fence approximately <<$ Inches tn helght was what shie had in mind along 5tate College to retair~ the chilclren in case they should get int~ that area of the property. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst questloned whather the applicant had met all t~ie r~qulrements oF the State of Californla pertaining to the number of children per square feet of floor space~ et~•.; where~~pon, Mrs. Dove stated she had attended sem?nars in Santa Ana pertatning to nurger~ schools an~i liad only been advfsed that a fenc~ across the front of the propPrty would be ne~essary; and ~he stlpuldted to cumplying with ~11 SCate requlrements pertafnin~ to the use. Commisslone* King inquircd whethr.r the a~plicant felt pressed for space since the garage was sought ror restroom sp~ce; whereupon, Mrs. Dove statecl tiie submiCted plans indicated two parkin~a spaces were marked off next to the garage and said sp4.:es had been prevlously used for pz.rking. In respanse to further questioning, Mrs. ~ove stated she would reside on the property as the manager and caretaker; that the location was t~'~~al in ;hat ft had exposure on a main artertal street; that the hours of operatior would r.~e from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p,m.~ and that a cement wall was existir;g adJacent to the alley. Commissioner Tolar indicated that a precedent might be set if the aNF~licant was per~nitt~d to live on the premises (n addit~on to having tl~e business~ constituting a p~-~s~ble ~iual usage of the property. Chairman Pro Tempore Htrbst r.l~rified that the applicant wo~~d be residing there as a manager and caretaker~ which was Justiflable. Discussion pursued concerntng the m,aximum signane for the sub,ject use (n the R5~72~~ Zone whiGh was specified in the Code ~s one square foot artd deviation therefrom requ~ring a waiver to be advertised and considered at a public hearing. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised that a section in the Conditional llse Permit secxion af the Code provided for minor waivers ~y t~ie Planning Commts~ion by making specific notations in the resolution consummating the action. Mrs. Dove indicated that she would be using advertlsin~ brochures~ etc., and Che signaqe would be for identification purposes only; whereupon~ she stipulated that an 8-sc~uare foot sign would provide appropriate identi- fisition of the proposed use. Comnissloner Tolar noted that ~'~ possible tliree-year time limit for the proposed us~e a~ould bP aooroprtate~ if app~oved~ so that ik might be reviewed to determine a~y adversP effects on tha surroundina resldenttal neigl~borhood witf~ respect to noise, parking, traffic. elc. Mrs. Dove then stated she had dis:ussed the proposal wttli her ~eighbor to the immcdiate west, who was a teacher~ and who indicated there was a need for the subJect type use and would have no obJections to it; and that she had also contacted the neighbor three doors away~ who also indlcated no objec*lons t~ the proposal. ~ ~ MINU7ES~ CITY Pl.ANNING COMMISSIQN~ MHy 10, 1976 76~z~, CAND1710NA1 115E PERMIT ~IO. 161A (Contl~ued) Commissloner~ Barnes offerad a motion~ seconded by Cortmissloner Norbst nncl Mf1TI~N CARRIED (Cornmissloner Fa;ano belnc~ absant)~ that thn Anaheim City Pla~ning Conxnlsslon d~~es hereby ~-ecommen~l to the Clty Council of the City of Anahelm that the subursuAnt t~ctheCprovlslons from the rnquiremant Co preparc an envir~nrt~ntal tmpd~t raport~ p of the Californla EnvironmenCt+l (1_ua~lity A~r. Commissioner Barnes o1'fered Resolutfon No. PC76-91 and moved tur Its P21SSA~P. and a~opt{~n, that the 11nah~im City P1Annin~ Commisslon does hereby yr~int Patitlon for Con~aand~uponUse Porrnlt No, 1h1R, grantin~ the use for ~ period of 3 Years~ aftcr which time~ written r~quest hy tl~e petlt(oner~ cansideratlon may be given as to whether the uae should be exten~ted; that the use Is c~ranted for a maxlmum of 24 chtlclren to be cared for at any onc tfmc on the subJect property; provided~ however~ that the f~cili~les shal) be provldcd in accordance with the St.~t~ of Cal;fornla requirements pert~~tnine~ ~o squ~re f~otage per child~ etc., as stipulate~l to hy the petitfoner; subJect to the fu;th~r stlpulations of the petltioner that the hours of operatlon shall be from G:3~ ~~m, to 6:00 p.m.~ that the residentinl use of the property shal) be for a manager/caretaker only, that thc sign(ng for tlie proposed use. shall not exceed 0 square feet in arsa~ anci tliat fencin~ a~ong the State Collec~e Boulevard front.'~9e shall not exceed ~~ feet In height; and subJect tio the (nterdept~rline~~t~+i C.. ~mltt~:e re~:.m~~~.~d.^.tiens. (S~e p,esolutlon Book) On roll call~ Che foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; CnMMISSInNC•RS: BARNES~ JOIiPlSON, KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR. HERDST NDES : f,OMMI SS I ~NFRS : NOtJE A4SENT: COh~M15SI~NF.RS: FARArl~ CQNOITIOflAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINf, itO5C0E W. REEVES~ 131 South Batavia~ Oran~e~ Ca. PF,R111T N0, 1E~19 9266f3 (Own~r); requesttng permission to EST~BLISH Atd OFFICE iN AN FXISTING RESIDENCE on property descrlbed as a rect~ngula;ly^ shaped par~el of land consisting of approximatelY ~•?roximate front- aC the northwest corner of South Street <~nd Ha~bor Boulevard~ having app ages of approximately 97 Pee*_ on the nort`~ side nf South Stree*. and q5 `eet orr the west side r,fi flarbor Boulevarci, and turther described as 503 West South Street. property presentiy classifled RS°72n~ (RESIDC_NTIAL~ SItJGLE-FAMILY) ZONE (resolution o~ inCent to CQ, Cammer~:ial, Offi~e and Professtonai~ Zone). No one inciicated their presence ln opposition to subJect petition. ,although the Staff Re~ort to the Planning Commission dated May 1Q~ 1976~ was not read at the publlc hearing, satd Staff Report Is ref~rred to and made a part of the minutes. Mrs, Ervin Cook~ 723 South Pine Street~ Anahelm~ the agent for the petitloncr, appearpd before the Planning Commission and stated the subJect property was presently developed with an older home and the proposal was to remodel for offices; that a garage existed toward the rear of the property with two studio apartments on the second floor~ and sald apartments were to be combined into one apartment for the us~n°~fthatithe~twohapartments attending callege ar,d acting as caretaker for the property; had been on the property ~ince appraxin~ately 195~• THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discusslon pursued concerning the second dwziling on the subJect QropertP in t~url~ngzwhich which zoning was pre~ently in the process of baing finalized on the prop rty, Deputy City Ati~rney Fr~nk Lowry advisEd that the ~roposal would constitute a residential rental unit in conJunction with ~ rental office use~ or a dual use; that a waiver of the permitted uses had not been <~dver*.ised for consideraticm at this public hearing; that the CO Zone could not be flnallzed as long as the apartment was for residee~r`ed aUUSesvarlance a lot split 2o separate the two uses would be illegal; and that it app procedure was rmre appropriate for the proposal~ in ltght of the eviuence submitted. Co~rmissioner Tolar noted that he did not favor allowtng a dual use of the property; that th~ prnposal would surely set an undesirable precedent for numero~is similar situati~ns in the City; that the proposal was not an owner occupancy situat~~n; however, the CO use would be consistent wlth ather de~elopment alung Narhor 9oulevara, ~ ~ MINU7ES, CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ M~y 10, 1976 CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 1f~19 (f.antlnued) 76-21G Chairman Pra 7emporc Ilerbst noted tt-at tho plans dld not Indic~*.e tl~e apartmcnt on the pro~erty~ but simply the bull~llnq for convers~on and tho existing grrage for storage purposes; that residentia) structures proposed for converslon to commc~rci~~l use were requlred to me~et the rec~ulrements of the Unif~rm ~luilding Codes f~r tammerclal st~ucture~; and thAt he agrc~d that thc proposal as verhally prescntect would set an undesir~ble prececianl. {ia further noted that tho petltlo~ar h.~d the right t~ readvertise the prop~sal ~ t f~icg t reci, Commissloner Tolar o~fered a mot(on~ secnncied by Commi;sioner King and Mb71QN CARRIED (Commtssloner Farano beinn absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon ~.iaes hereby reopen the publlc he~~rinn And continue c~nsiderr~lton of Petition for Coi~dltlon~l Use Permit No. 1619 to the Plannlnct Commissl~,n mceting cf May 2~4~ Ih76~ for revlsecf plans, C0~lDITI()~~AL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ARNOLD I~~VESTMEN7 COMPANY~ 2293 West Ball Rosd~ PER141T t~0. 1G2q AnahCim, Ca. 92a~~+ ~~wner); JONN RUTNERFORD~ 93G1 Oma Place~ G~rden Gr~ve~ Ca, 926~E) (Agent); request(ng perm(ssion to have ON-SALE RFFR ANt1 WINF IN AN EXISTING RESTAURA~~T on property descrlbed as a rectangularly-shapecl parccl of lond conslsting of appro~lm~tely 0.4 acre having a fron*.a~e of approximately 5~ feet on the west side ~f Br~okhurst Street, liavin~ a maximum deptli of approxfmatcly 335 f~et, being lac~ated approximately 29~ feet south of the centerline ~f Colchester ~rtve, and further described as a75 South Rrookhurst Street. Prcperty presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITFD) ZO~IE. No one lndicated thelr preaence In c,pposltion to subJect petitton, Althnugh the Staff Report to the Plannlny Cormiisslon dated May 10~ 197G~ was rot read at the public hearing~ said Staff Report is referred to and made ~~ part of the minutes. Mr. John Rutherford~ the agent for the ~etitioner, appeared before the Planning Commission ~o answer questions regarciing the proposal. THE PUHLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. In response to questioning by the Planning Commission~ Mr. Rutherford stated he was purchasing ths subJect rEStaurant and planned to serve cocktails; and that it would be difficult to stlpulate to the hours of operation at the present time. The Planning Comnission entered (nto discussion regarding the hours of oNeration~ during which Commissioner Tolar noted that the subJect property was almost completely surrounded by comrt-erctal uses and there was nothing to preclude the subJect rectaurant from being open until 2:0~ a.m., if so desired. 'fhe Planning ~ommissio~ generally concurred. it was noted that the Dire~tor o,'- thc Planning Depertment had determined that the proposed activity fell within ths ~efinitlon of ;ection 3.61, Class l, of the City of Anaheim Guideltnes to the Requlrer~ents for an Environmental Impact Report and was, therefore; categorica'ly exempt from the requirement to flle an EIR. Commissioner Moriey ofi•ered Resolution No. PC76-O2 a~d moved for its passage and adoptlon~ ihat the Anafieim City Planning Conmisslon does h~reby grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~lo. 1620~ subJect t~ the Interdepartmental Commi:tee recommendatton, (See Resolution Book) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by th~e following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, JOHNSQN~ KING, MORLEY~ TOLAR~ HERBS7 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AElSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION~ May 1Q~ 197G y6-217 CANDITIONIIL USE •• r'UBllf, HEARING. DOtJAID A. JACOH~O~l~ 1929 Lanbl Driva, Costn Mesa~ PERMIT N~, 1621 Ca. 92G27 (Owner); ICAY IIILI.MAI! 92~ South Sllkwood Drlve, Anehcim~ Ca, 92~i~h (Agant); r.quPsting permission t~~ EXPAIJD AN F.X~STING BAR an property describerl as a rect~ngularly-st~ahed pdreel r,f land c~nsistfnq of ~ipproxlmately ~.1. acrr. havin~ a fr•ontnne of approximately 5~ feet on the east side of Anahelm Boulavflrd, hsvlnq a m~ximum depCh of approximately 15~~ feet~ ba(n~ loceted ~rproximatply $4 feet no~•th of tha centFrline of North Street~ anc! further described As 84~~ and Bnf; Nortl~ AnAhclm Boulevard, Propcrty presently class~- fibd CC~ (C~MMERf.IAI.~ GFNEMI_) 70NE. Threa persons (ndicated their presnnco (n opposition t~ subJect petitf~n~ anel waived tha full reAdin~ ot` the Staff Report ta the Planril~g Commission dnted May 10, 1976, on the bosis that they had revtewed A CO~y of samo. Although the Staff Report was n~t rcad at the publtc hearing~ snlcl ~epurt ts referred to anct Made a part of Che minute~. Ms. Kay Flillman, the actent for the petitioner~ appeare~i before the plonntng Commissian and statec~ that she I~ad owneci ancl operated ,.~e subJect bar establishment far appraximately one mcmth and was presently being given the opportu~ity to rent tlie property next door to expand the bar~ saici adJacent property havl~~g previousiy been a berher shoN ar: p~~~crtl~ In need of reopenfng and redecor~ting. Mr. Wilbur Narnell~ 115 East North Street, Anaheim, appeared before the Planning Commission and presented a petltion In oppositlo~ signed hy ~pproximately 3S residents and property ownars ir the area~ indicatinc~ indecent exposure of inen d~y and night ln et}e parking lot and ~urrouncling area, health hazard~ not enough parktnc~ space for rxisting bar and destruction and devaluatiun of private property tn the area; that the ~roperty was dirCy except when tl~e Zonlnc~ Enforcement Officer enforc.ed It; that the bar- customers who parked in the lot backed into his garage and had hit tiis vehicle several tlmes; that the customers of the bar raced their vehicles up and down the alley; that the facility did not have enough ~arking space since only 17 spaces existed for use by three buildings; tnat the barber had moved 'oecause there was not eno~gh parking far his customers; that the neic~hborhood was bein~ degraded dally by the bar establishment which was simllar to a rastaurant with respect to the nPed for park(ng spaces sinc~ tlie customers stayed for long periods of time; that the City had lost a gpod business when the barber mave~' out; and that his grandchild had observed some of the indecent exposure from th~ men customers of the bar. (n rebuttal~ Ms. Hillman stated she had dlscussed the parking problems with the baker next door and was trying to resolve them; and that under her own~rshtp she did not fee) there would be any pro5lems since she had not expe~•tenced such problems in the past. THE °~'A~.IC HEARING WAS CLOSL-D. 1n response to questioning by the Piannir~~ Commission~ Ms. Hillm.~n stated she and her landlord might be able to construct ~ blocK wall ad)acent t~ the north property line t4 protect the neighbors; that the additian oF 6 seats to the bar would brtng added revenue ancl there were presently not enough seats and the bar was very narrow and crawded, and the traffic flow for the bar anu games was terrible; that she w~s also hoping to add a walk-tn cooler and build an ~ffice far hersElf; and that the baker had three llned-off parktng spaces fn the parking lot for his ~se. Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst made an observation that there apparently was a shortaye of parking spaces for the use; whereupon, Ms. Hillman stated that the baker was willing to qive up one of his 4 parking spaces since it was only open durin~ the day and the bar was a nighttime business, In response to questioning by Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst, Ms. Nt~i~^.~n :tdGed she would have an estimated 20 customers at any one time following the proposed expansior~ of the facllity; that she could probably obtain additional nighttime parking on the aroperty to the north since the business on that property was a daytime operation; and that the own~rs of the business to the north had signed the subJect petition favoring her Fr.iJect. In response to the forey~inq~ Mr, Parncll stated that Mr. Cooper, the ovaner of the business to ihe north~ was rescind6ng endo~sement of the subJect petitfon on the besis ~ 1~ • MI ~IUTES ~ C I TY PLAIJtd I N~~ CQMM I SS I ON ~ MAy 1 Q~ 197G ~~'~2 ~~ C(1~IpITI0N11L USE -'"'tM1T N0. 1G21 (Contlnucd) that tl~e pe:ltloner evl~fently was not wllling to canstruct tl~e wall; nnd that portions of tha vehtcles parked In thc !at on thc subJect pra~erty Jutted out into the allsyway. Ms. HI11mAn then statecl th.it the beker neecled only 3 pa~G,incl sPflces ~in~l that the Ilquor store way a drive-thr~ur~h. The Flannin~ Commissic~~, y~:nernlly cnncurred thnt sPriouS park(nq ~r~~~~lems exlsted with the currant ~~p~.at~on of Che bar ~+nd appr~~v<~1 of the ex~anslon would be f~r an e~xpanslon oP tiie problems also; that G p~rkin~ sp,~ces were apparantly n~l c~o~~~h ancl the ~ppllcanC should ohtnin confl rmin~i I~~rtArs stipul~~tlnn that ~idditlonal perklnc~ was ~vall:+blc~ and th~~t n wall ~r some other dev(ce would be constructed ~~dJacent t~ the alley to further resolvG sume of thc parkinc~ ~roblems. C~mmissloner 1lorley offered a mc~r.lon~ seconded by Commtssfoner Y.inc1 ancl MOTIQN CAfiRIED (CoMmissi~ner F2ran~ brin~ ahsent)~ that thc llnaheim City Pla~ining Commtssinn does hereby reopen the publtc hearin~ and continue c<msideration of Petitlnn for Conditl~n~l Use Permit tJo. 1G21 to the Plannin~ (:ommisslon meeting of May 2~i~ 1976, for adciltional In4ormatlon. VARIANCE ~J~. 2`300 - PUBLIC NEARIIdG. HARRY A. AMAhIN~ 2n7.3 Alden Place, Anahelm~ Ca. "' 97.~~6 (Owner); recluesting WAIVF.R OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF Ei~C1.OSED P/1ftY,IDlG SPACFS, TO ESTIl9LISN Afl EXISTIPJG GARl1f,E ~Q~JVERSI~PI on property descrlbed as a rectanc~ularly-shaped parcel of land consistin~ of approxl- rtuitely ~.1. acre havinct ~i frontage of approxim~~tcl'/ 74 feet on the north s idc of Al~en Place, having a maximum depth of a~+prox(maCeiy ~!~? feet~ being located approximately 271 feer, e~st of the centerline of Rio Vista Street~ and further describ~ed as 2"23 Alden Place. Property presently classified RS-~20Q (RESiDfFITI~L, SINr,LE-FAMILY! 7_OMF. No one indicated their presence in ~pposition to subJect peCit(on. P.lthou9h the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated MTy 1(1, 1976~ was not read at the public hearing~ said Staff Report is referred to ancl macle a part of ths minutes. Mr. Harry Amann~ the petitioner. appeared before the Planning C~mmission anci sCated he had converted his garage into a den for hig gun collection ~nd an aquarium; that he had intended to install a silent alarm system but ran out of money; and that he was not aware that he nee~~ec1 to apply for a variance prlor to the c~nstruction. TIIF PUBLIC NEARIIJG WA5 CLOSED. In response to questioning by the Planning Comnission, Mr. Amann stated he dtd not sell guns or fish from his home but they were for his ow~ use an~i enJoyment; that the compiatnts received by the City were probably in connection with the cattle truc,ks, etc.~ wl~tch he h~d parked in the subject neighborhood until very recently, saici trucks being a part of his previous cattle business; that since that time he had moved the trucks ta hls factory hea~lquarters in a Sante Ana industrial area off Warner Street; tnat the constructto+~ for the c~nversion included 1G-inch stucls, paneling over sheet rack~ and car~etln~~ and was actuatly a room within a r~om; that to reconvert the den to a garage wouid tnvolve considerable work; that he was interested in staying at the sub)ect location since it was the first home he had owned; tliat he presently had three cars (tw~ Cadillacs and one Veryy)~ one of which could be parked in the driveway; that by adding an approximately 2-fo~t strip ~~ blac~:tc+p to thP side edc~e of the existir~g d~•iveway, there wauld be enough room to park two cars off the street; that he was very seldom home oecause of his business activities which were in no way related to guns; thiat although he feit the constructi~n of the converted room was in compliance with the Building Code~ he presently re~lizeci he shoulci have obtained a permit to make the converston. Mr. Charles Painter, 2`~29 Alden Place, Anaheim, eppeared before the Planninc~ Commisslan and stated he lived adJacent to the subJect property on the e~~st; that when the petitioner first moved into the neighborhood tliere was a parking problem which seemed to be resolved at thr. present tEme, if the driveway was expanded fnr the parkin~ of two vehicles; and that he had no objettlons to the pro~~osal as long as tl~e petitlonar dld not park in front of the adJac~nt properties. Upon questioning 6y the Planning Conxnission~ Mr. Painter stated his own garage had heen converted to a den but clid not have carpPting and, by pul{ing ~ pin, the wall folded back and he cauld still park (n the garae~e. I~a. J 1^~ ~ 141 IIUTF.S ~ C I'fY PLANN I NG COMMI SS 10~J ~ MAy 1 Q~ 197~~ 7G-zl~ V1IRIANCE N0, 28~0 (Cantlnued) Mr, Eclwar~l Minor~ 2f~17 Alden Place~ Anahcim~ appearcd hefore the Plannin~ Commtsslon anci steted h~ had no ob.)ectlons t~ the proposal unlass there were parkln!~ proolems as e result of It; thAt there ha~1 br.en no par~<inq pr~binms since the petitioner movecl the trucks out of the nei~l~borhno~l; and that the petitioner ha~t only thrae cars to his knowleclc~e. In response to questt~ntnn by the Planning Commiasl«h~ Hr. Ml~toV'1AaAad that if the proposal wes granted~ he would iiuC l,e rc;~u~s.lny :~ h..:^ e ame Mrs. Frnnces 9nr~~n~d, 2~322 Alden Place~ Anahafm~ appeared before tF~a Planning Commisslon and st~ted that up until ai~~~uC f~ur weeks og~ there was a parklnc~ pr~blem In connectlon with the sub)ect prope~Cy and she was the property owner who hacl cont~~cte~l the City oPflces r~bout It; .ind that ~iuring th~ past four we~lcs sh~ h~d sern from four to six csrs at n tlm~ at the subJect acidres~. In response t~ questlonin~ by C~mmissloner Tolac~ Mr. llmann stated the four to slx cars belonged to people who came to hls house~ Including hfs own vehicles. CommissV~ner Johnson Inquired if the pptitloner would st~pulAte to reconverting the garage at the time of sale of the pr~perty. Mr. Amann stated thtt the wall which was constructed inside thG ~a~'age d~or was a bearing wall, Ch~irrnan Pru Tr.~,~~~ore Hcrbsi nntA~ that If the petltloner dtd not stipulate t~ reccnverting the garage at the tfine: of sale to allow for faur o~-site p~rking spaces, then he would not vote in favor ot tlie pr~pos~~l. Thereupon~ Mr. Am~nn SA stipulatrd. It was notecl that the Oirector of the Planning Department had determined that the proposed activity fell wlthin the dePinition of Section 3.~1; Class 1~ of the City of Anaheim Gutdeitnes to the Requirements for an Environmentil Impact Report and was~ therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Commissl~ner Johnson offered Resolution No, PC7b-93 and moved for its passaqe and adoptlon. that the Anahelm City Plahnin~~ Commission dnes herehy gr3nt Petition for Varlance No. 2$00, granting the requested walver of the minimum nu~iber of enclosecl parking spaces for a period of one year~ subJect to review and consideration for• extension of time to determtne whether any parking problems occur sinc~ only two on-site spaces wil) be available~ faur being required and~ furthermore, to determine whether two additlonal on- site spaces should be required, partic~,larly in the event subJect property is sold~ as stipulated to by the petitioner; subject to the condition that a strip of blacktop or cement ~pp~oxlmat~ly two feE~t wide shall be required alongside the existing driveway to accommodate the parkin~ of two automobiles tn said driveway~ as st(pulated t~ by the petltloner; and subJecC to the lnterdepartmental Committee recommendations. (See Resolution Book) On roll c~ll~ the foregoinc~ resolution wa~ passsd by the fnllnwing vote: AYES: C~MMISSI~NERS: BARNES, JQfiNS011, KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR~ HERBST NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE ADSEFJT: GbMMISSI~~lFRS: FARA~IO VARIANCE ~Jb. 2"~1- - PUBLIC HEARiNG. JOfiN RITTER ANU MARY M. HOOVER, 1~19 Alsuna l.ane, Huntinqton Beach, Ca. 92G4~i (Uwners); reqU~~sting WAIVER OF PERMI7TF D USES ~ TO ES1'A.E'LI Stl AN AUTOMQS I LE D I AG~JOSTI C AND SERV I CE CENTER ~n property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cansisting of approximately ~.~i acre located at the norChwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street~ having approxfmate frontages of 39 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 15~ feet on the west side of Brookhurst St~~et~ and further descrihed as liQ7 North Brookhu~st Street. Property presentiy r.lassiftecl CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) ZONE. ho one indicated thelr opposition to subJect petition. Although the Staff Re~ort to the Planning Commission dated May 1Q, 1976, was not read at the pubtlc hearing~ said Ctaff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. M~~ Jim Crowell, representinct Insta-Tune~ tnc.~ 17981 Sky Park Circle, Suite J, I~vine~ appeared before the Planning Commission Co answer qu~stions con~erning thc proposal~ TIIE t'UBLIC IIEARIFJG WA5 CLOSED. J ----~ • ~ ~ MIt1UTES~ CITY PLANNIIJG COMMISSION, May 1Q, lg%6 VARIANCE N0. 2804 (ConCinued) 76-220 In response to questlonln~ by the Plannln~ Commission~ Mr, Crowell stipu~at~d to closing off the southernrr~st rlrlveway on Or~okhurst Street ancl repl~cin~ salcl driveway w(th ytract imp rovements~ as r~qulred by the Cfty Enc~ineer~ and wlth landsc~ipinry ~~cross s~id closure; and~ fu~ther, that the existin~ structure woulcl be brought Int~ conformance wtth the minlmum arnn~iArds nf ihc City of Anahc(m~ tncludin~ the Uniform Bullding~ Plumbing. F.lactrical~ Mechanlc~l, and Fire Codes~ as adoptec) by the City oF Anahelm, It was noted that the Dircctor of tlie Plannin~ Departn~cnt had dc~tcrmined tlint the pruposed activity fell within the deflnition of Section 3.~1~ Class 1, of the Clty oF Anahelm Guldelines to the Requirements for an Environme:ntnl Impact Report t~ncf was, therefore~ catc~clorically exempt from khP r~quirem<~nt to flle ~n EIR. Commissloner Morley offered Re:solutlon No. PC76-9~~ ~ind moved for its passage ancl adoption~ that th~ An~~helm City Planr~tnn Commisslon does hereby ~r:,nt Petitlon for Variance No. 2R01~, grantiny the rPquested waiver oF the permittr_d uses to establish an autnmo~~ile diac~nost(c ancl service center In the CL Zanp~ on the basis tl~at similar walvers have be~n granlad prevlously for the use of v~cated servlc~r sYatlon sites In comrnerclal zones; sub]ect to the stipul~~tlons of the patitloner and subJe~t to Inkerdepartmcntal CUitMnllCBtl recorn~nen<1att~ns. (Sse Resolution RUVk) On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passecl by the following vote: AYES : COMM I SS I ~IlERS : DARNES ~~~OHNS~IN , K I Nr,, MQRLEY ~ TOLAR ~ NERt3ST NQES: CQMMISSI~MfRS: NONE APSENT', CnMMISSI~~JERS: FAR~r1~ COMMISSI~NF.R JONNSQtI LEFT THE COUIlCIL CHAMBER TEMPORARlLY AT 5:110 P.M. VARI ANC~ N0. 2~Q5 - PURi.I C FIEAI21 NG. U I XBY LAND COMFANY ~ 4~i~~ Wes t Ocean Buul eveird ~ Suite 1704~ Long Beach, Ca. 9~~3~3 ~~ner); I1.S.A.W.A. CORP.~ c/o Bill Asawa~ N. 0, l3ox 1165, Santa Ana, Ca. 92702 (Agent); requesting IJAIVER QF (A) PERMITTED I~SES AND (B) PERt11T7f'D ACCESSORY USES~ TO COtlSTRUCT A MARKET WITH SEI~~SERVICF. ~ASOLINE PUMPS on property described as a rectangularly°shaped parcel of land consistin~ of approximately 0.4 acre located at the nortf-west corner c~f Katella Avenue and Haster Street, having approximate frontages of 127 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and 130 feet on the west side of Haster Stieet, and further described as 1A1 W~st Katella Avenue. Property presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAL, LiMITEJ) ZONE (resolution oF intent Co C-R~ Commercial Recreation, Znne). No one indicatecf [i~eir presence in ni.oosition to subJect petition. Although the Staff Re;,ort to the Planning Comnission dated 11ay 1~~ 1q76, was not read at the public hearing, said Siaff Fepore is referred to and made a part of the minuCes. Mr. ~ill Asawa~ the agent for thc petitioner, appe~red before tl~e ~lanning Commission and revieweJ the proposal~ stating that the subJect property was an abancioned service station site; that the Staff Report indicated some reluctance by the Flanning Connnission to grant a conven~~nce market (n conjunctlon with thE sale of gasaline; that there was ample ro~m on the site for the proposed uses and theywould stipulate to closing off ~~ne driveway on each si<le of the property (one drive~~ay on Naster Street an~ one driveway on Katella Avenue). TIIE PU~LIC HEARIPIG WAS CLOSED. Chairmar~ Pro 7empor~ 1lerhst noted th~t~ in hls ~pinion~ the two uses did no! mix and wauld cert~(n1y set an undesira~le pr~cedent for the Clty of Anaheim, In respohse t~ q~estioning by Commissior,er King, Mr. Asawa stated that subJect property was ad)acent to the Avts Car Rental Agency~ and by having the trash area at its proposed tocation, sanitat(on trucks could pick up the trash from the subJect prop•arty and the Avis property with one stop; ha~~ever~ if the gas sales wcre not approved, the building could he rr,oveJ fnrther to the sauth und the trash arras could then be located in conformance to the Sanlt~+tl~n Division requtrements. ~ *1w ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLAN~dING COMMISSION, ~1ay ~0~ ~97F~ VARIANCE I~O. 280~ (Conktnu~d) 76-221 In response to yue~stioning by CommissionQr Morley~ M~•, As~wfl st~tc~d they did not prop~se to util!ze thc existlnc~ servicc stt~tlon buildin~ on the property; tliat a complete new buildlnq would be constructed; that nll 7`Eleven Market sttes ai~re an~lyzed thr~u~h a com~uter process ~~nd~ if the Incllcatfons were "g~~" Cha ~~~~~alysis woulcl npp1Y for a market wlth or without n~s pumps. Upon further qupstionln~~ Mr Asawa sttpul<ited ta withdrr+w the proposz+l for gas pumps at the ~ublect locati~n. Further c11sc,~ssinn pursuecl re~Ardinq the drlvPways to the property~ ~lurin~ wh(cn it wns notecf that with the closure of two driveways~ the l~cotion of thr two remainin,:, Jrlveways woulcf be sui,Ject to tl~e Approval of tlie Traffic Engineer. Comml~si~ner Morley offered a motlon~ secnnded by Commis~loner K(ng anrl MOTION C11RRi~b ~Commiss(oners Johnson ancl Farano be(ng absent)~ that the Anahefm Clty Planning Coinnisslon does i~C~ruy ~~commen~i to the City Council of the Gtty of Anahelm that the subJect proJect be exempt from the requlrernent to prepare an environmental impact report. COMM{SSIQIJER JOHNSOtI RETURtIED 70 THE COU~lCIL CHAMBER AT 5:~5 P•M• Commissioner' Morley offered Resolution No, PC76-95 ~nd moved for Its passage and adc,pt~on~ that the Anahel~n CiCy Planning Commission does herahy grant Petition for Variance No. 2$05~ in pa-'t~ granting the reque:~leJ walver of permitteci uses for a market (retail store) onty~ on the basis tl~at the pe~itioner stipulated to withdrawtng the request for gasol(ne pumps as an accessory use; sub,l~ct to the conditlon that the southernmost driveway on Naster Street and the e~sternmast drlveway on Katella Avenue shall be closed and replacecl with standard curbs~ guttcrs and siciewalks~ and that the required landscaped setbacV, areas shall be extended across said closures~ and that tl~e location of the two remaining driveways shall be subJect to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer~ as stipulated ta by the petitioner; tliat a revised site plan refle~ting the rrx~difications stlpulatecl to by the petiti~ner shall be submitted to the Plannin~ Co~xrilssion for review prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by subJecC vari~nce; that the approv~l of this variance is granted subJect to the completion of Reclassification No. 6G-G7-61~ now pending; that ~ny under~round gasoline storane tanks elther be removed or filled with sand or cement slurry~ as requlred by tlie Fire Marshal; and subJect to the interdepartmental Commtttee i~ecommendations. (See Resolutic,n Book) On roll call. the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: C0f1MISSIOtlERS: BARIdES~ KING~ MOR! EY~ TuLi1n~ i{~nn~T NQES: CQMMISSIOtlERS: N0~lE ABSENT: CQMMISSIOhlERS: FARAt~O ABSTAIN: COMMISSIOPI"cRS: JOHNS~t•I VARIMlCE I~Q. 2307 - PU4LIC HEARING. RAPT COMPAPIY~ 17~Q2 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, Ca. g271t- (Owner); MALI~U GRAPID PRIX CORP., 17t4G West Y.atella Avenue~ Orange~ Ca. 92667 (Agent); requasting blAIVER OF (A) MIIXIMUPI SIGN AREA AND (B) h1AXIMJM PlU~1BER OF SIG~lS, TO CONSTRUCT A SECQ~ID FREE-STANI)ING SIGtI o~ property described as an irregularly-shaoed rarc.el of land consisting of appror.imately 10." acres located so~athwest of Katella Avenue and the Orange Freeway~ having a front- age of approximately 94 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately a~~ feet~ and further described as 2ii30 East Katell~ Avenue. Property presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. Three persons indicated their presence in cpposition to subJect petttion~ and waived the full reading of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 10~ 1976, on t'^ basis that they had reviewed a copy of same. Mr. Rors Cameron~ President of Malibu Grand Prix Corp., the agent for the petiitloner~ ai,;.~~red before the Planning Commission and stated the pr~posed si9ning would be strategicalty located at the tntersection of the freeway and ';atelSa Avenue; that although the subject property was actually about ~CO `eet wide, they had legal title to ~~nly an approximately 95'foot frontage on Katella Aven~-e; that ther~ we:re ~everal exlsting signs In the are~ w~~~ch were subsk?~tiallv l~rner than the c:roposed si,yniny; that the subJect property was adJacent t~ the freeway and had been ane of th~ir matn considerations w~~C~~ ~ ~ MIt~UTES~ C17Y PLAtJNING COMMISSI~N, May 10, i976 7G-222 VARIAiJCE N0. 2607 (Cuntlnued) the prope~rty w~s le~sed by the Msltbu Gran~' -'rix Corp.; and that, ii~ orcler to get the ex{~osure~ they nec~lecl the proposed signing. Mrs. Mary Dinndorf~ 1'tl Sauth La Paz~ An~hairn~ ~ppe<~rcd beForc the Planning C,~mmisslon ln op{~ositlon rPpreSenti^~ two other persons present ln oppositlon~ and st»kea the City hod a S1c1n Ordlnancc which shoulcl he enforced and a,as nnt being too well enf~rced At. tFie ~~YaSGnt time, Mrs, Dlnn~ic,rf reaci fr~m the Scenic Ni~ha~ays Elemesnt of the General Plan dated 197~ w~th re+f~rance to the Oranc~e Freeway (Frr.cway 5/) and then stnted that she had revlewed the property In the ftel~l ~nd Che petit!oner should not be grantad any walv~rs from the Code pertalning ta t4~e siqnin~, In rehuttal, Mr, Cameron statcd that he felt the purpose of the v~rlance process was to (nterpret an ~pplic~tion on a glven property; tliat it would be difflcult to establish a formula whlch applied to eve ry piece of land in the City; and that the subJect property had a har~ishlp in that ~ipproximately three-fourths of the v~~luable frontage was taken by C~'~e StAt~=~ anci the Zoning f,ode r~^quired that thc sl~e of ~igns be determinEd by rrontage fect. THE PUBLIC FIF.ARINr, WAS cLOSE~, Commissioner Tolar not~:d tftat althuuc~h he could sympathize with the petitloner, the probiems of the site were evident to ail parties concerned prlor to constructlon of th~e use, since the State }ie~l alraacly ti~:~n the frnnr,c~e at the tlmc the use wLS proposed; anJ that origtnally it wa, Indlcated that no varlance for sioning would be needeci and the petittc,ner knew ancl understood the problem at that time. Mr. Cameron thsn stated that a sign was indicate.d on the approvecf plans for the use. Thereupori~ Deputy City Attorney Frank i.owry advised that Che plans indicated a sign lncation with no size or I~eigf~t detail and~ und~~r the thaory of that ap~roach, the Planninq Commtssion could conceivably approve a l-square foo+_ sign at ground level. In response to questinning by Chairm~n Pro Tempore Herbst. Mr. Cameron stated thr_;~ had utilized cranes in zheir determinatlon tf~at a 7Q-foot high sign was needFd to be visible ~nd readable from the frPeway. Commissloner Tolar noted that the proposed signing might be visible !nside the stadium~ and that the proposal would probably not enhance the stacfium. Mr. i.owry adviseci that the proposal had not been cleared b•~ the stadiuM director, Mr. Tom Liegler. Conmissioner Johnson noted tlia[, althou.~l~ the sub}ect properc/ was 11 acres of land, he would favor scaling the proposed signing down. Mr. Cameron then stated thet a smaller sign would not be readaF,le by tt~e tr~ffic gotng by and that the proposed signing was the smallest sign they could have to be readable from the distance desired. Mr. Cameron then requested approval of the proposed silning~ sub~ect to the approval of the stadium director for locatton of said signing. Chalrman P-•o 7empore Herbst noted ti~at, althougn the subject propPrty a~as entitlecf to some recognition. ne wa~ opposed to the si~e of the ~ign since the use being advertisecf was not considered a service to the motorii7c~ public, per se; and that if tt~e proposal was granted~ a precedent would be set for 51n-ilar reyuests ln the future. A representative for the sign company appeared before the Planning Commission in behalf of the proposal an~f stated that many size letters had been tried in making the determinatfon for the size of the sign; that the letters proposed were readable from a distance o~ 400 feet and any smaller letters wo+~1d look llke a postage stamp~especially to the traffic going nurth on the freeway; and that the s3gn would not look huge from the ground. Commisstoners Johnsc+n and Herbst noted that they did not favor approval of a variance for the size of the sign at the subJect Iccation, Chairman Pr~ Tempore ii~rbst ;,oted that approvai by CalTrans mlght also be requlred for the proposed signing. Commissloner Johnsen o'Ffe~'ed a motion, seconded by Cammissio7er K(ng and MOTION CARRIED ._ .__,____ c....,., s.e~.... ~-.~-~•~ r-.,r rhP An,heim Citv Plann(ng Commission does hereby ~~~~~~~~~~ ~:.,..~~.,~ . centinue the public heartng and conslderatlon of Petitlon for Variance No. zu~~/ co c~e Planning Cammission meeiing of May 2~~~ 1976~ to obtaln recommend~itlons from Mr. Llegler and for revised plans, as discussed, 0 ~~ ~ MINUTF'S, CITY PL~NN1~1~1 CUIIMISSI~N~ P1ay 10~ 197b 7~'2i3 ENVIR~11Mt'IITAI. IMPArT - PIIRI.If Hf•.ItPIt~G. Rf1RER7 W, ANb D~R~)THY GOQSSCII~ I l~l QuA) ~ Strnct, fif'P~RT I1~. 17a Sul t~ I ~~ ~ Nr.wport licach ~ Ca. ~2G(~~ (Owners) ; cno~~ rnr, i ric "~"~ DFVEL~PM[tIT C~f1P. ~ 7.171 Campus Dtive, 5uf fn 33~, I rvlne, Ca, Vl1RIA~~f,F t10. 2~~~/, 9?.715 (llgent). Property dr.scrlhec~ as an I~rec~ularl~-sht~ped parcel '- -'~ of land consfstir~c~ of epproxirnrtely ll,f3 acres havln~ a rronCoqe Tf:N7l1TIVF MAP QF of ~~pproxi~.nntcly ?~'l f~et on the south side of Serr~no AvEm.^~ T t~~ '??I? TRi~f hz~vina a mnximum ciepth of approx(mately ~10 feet~ an~1 t~eing located , . "- southeasterly ~ the Intc~rs~ctlon of yerran~ Avenuc anci IJ~hI Rench Rond, Proper,/ ~~r~ser~tly ~:liysifled RM-2h0~ (RFSIl~FII'fIAL~ MUI.TIPI.E- Fl1MIl.Y) I.~PIE. REOU[STFO VARIA~ICE: W/11V1"P, OF (!1) MIHIMUM L07 WIDTH~ (El) MINIMIRI ~nr,n~~r srT~ncr.~ AND ( C) R-'nU I RF. MENT Ttll1T LOTS REI,R-OIJ l1RTF.R 1 AL 11 I C~II~IAYS . NI'~1IVF TRACT RE~U CF FS7: EN~~~lECR: Rn~1 MARTIN f. ASSOf,IATFS, 1~q5 Newport Coulevard~ . f.~sta Mesa. Ca. !32627, SuhJect property ls propose~l for subdiv(si~r, (nto 35 RS-50(1~(SC) lots (33 un!ks). It was note~l that [he petitfoner h~cl suhmitte~i a writtPn renuesk for a contfnuance of the sub.}ect Items t~ Chc Plannin~ Com~ni,sinn meet(nc~ of May 1_~~, 197~~. Commissinner Klnry afFered a motion. seconded by Commissfoner Johnson ancl M~TI~N CARRIEU (Commissloner F~r~no be~n~ ~hsent)~ th~~t the Anaheim C(ty Pl~nnin~ Co~m(ssi~n does hereby c~nlinue tne E~ublic hearing anJ c~~nsideration of Envir~nmental Imp~r.t Report No. 175~ Variance Nu. 2"~(~~ anef Tcntative Map of Tract No. `~3~3 to the Plannin~ Commisslon me~tinh of play 7.~~~ 1~37~~ as re~~~^stad by the petlCioner. (I~O1'F: 7his itrM wis considered fol'owin~ Item Mo, A- Reclassification No. 75-7f~'3~ and Variance No. 2~~" - on the Planninca Commissi~n agenda,) EIIVIRONMENT/1L 111PAC1' - D~VELOPFR: BUTLER HOUSING CORP., 16~11 Kettering 5treet~ REP(1RT N~. 17h Irvine, Ca. 9~711+. [tIGINiER: ERVIt! ENGINCERIN~~ 729 South Park View Street~ Los Angeles~ Ca, 9~~57. Suh.ject proFerty~ TEtITATIVf: MAP OF consisting of approxim~tely 14.2 acres h~vinq ~ frontacle of rrtn;.T N~, it~f~9 approximately i311~ feet on the east sicie of Anahe~m Nills Road~ (RF.VISIQN N~. 1) havin~ a maximum depth of approximately 975 feet, and being located approximately 210 feet south of the centerlit~e of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ ls praposed for subclivisinn into 71 Rs-5~~n(sC) tots. Three persons indicited their presence in opposition to the subJect items~ and ~:~ived the full readinc~ of the Staff Report t~ the Planning CommissEon date~i May l~~ 1976~ on the basis th;it `hey ha~1 reviewed a copy of same. Mr, Merrlll Butler, representinc~ the developer~ appeared before the Plannir~~ Commission ar~d stated they were present'inn~ 1n their cpinian, a car~fully th~u~ht-out and considered land and archit~ctural proc~ram representinc~ ;he best in land use and product; that they were no loneer interestecl (n developing the previously approved 219-unit proJect on the propert~~~ ancl had given some consideratirn. for 72~~-~quare foot development~ however~ t~king a' Factors into consideration~ tfiey had created the proposed RS-5000 subdivision for which there would be no varianc~s; that tf~e propo~ed lots averaneci 68Q~ square feet, rather than 7200 square Peet~ and met the m(nimum standar~is of the RS-S~OQ Zo~ie; that a maJor stor~n drain was situated along the s~uth si~.fe of the SubJect ~rope~ty~ and the property was irregularly-shaped; that the pro~osed homes would be In a price range comparabl~ to th~ existing h~mes on the west side of Hnaheim Hills Road~ or d~~ ~pproxirnately $7~,~~0 valuation; that t.~e actu~l price range would be betvraen $62,Ob0 and $'J?.~0~~; that they were proaosinc~ to extend the exdstinc~ berm alon~ Anaheim Hills Road and they would probably increase the height of sa(d berr,~ for sound-attenuat(on purposes to an average height of 6 feet; and th~7t the pr~posed plan had been approved by Anaheim Nills~ Inc.~ subJect to the extension of the berm, as inclt~ated on the clrawings, ~nd also subJect to a malntenance easement which would eventu~l~y be glven to the homeowners association. Mr. Butler continued by stat+nn that iF the~~ had gone to an RS-72Q0 subdivision, they would obviausly ha~~e had ~o ~~ to 7Q-f~ot fruntae~es resulting In a loss of approxi~nateiy l~~ lots, which represenr~,l a;ubstantial sur~ of mc~ney; that the proposed lots rancled from ^~~•~ - ..~+ wirh the lots ~long Anaheim Hills Road bein9 approximately 12Q ~~ ~~, i ~ ~., ,, ,.. .:,:.-. . _ , , ~ ~ ~ 76-22h M I-,UTCS , C I TY I'LANI~ I ~lG Cf1NM I SS I Qtl, Moy ~~~ 197G r".NV I RQNMEN7A1. I MPl1CT REE'ORT N0. 17~+ A~lD TEtlTAT I VE hV~P OF TMf.7 IJO. 840~ (REV I~ I ON N~. ~) (Cont .) feet cfeop~ ~1ue tn tl~~ berm rer~uiri.n~ents~ ~~ncl havln~ approx:i~tely ~~~~~ Sq~iaro feet; thAt beceuse o~ thc drnin~~~c fr>r the property~ the street pettern coul~f not he channed; that~ accor~il n~~ t~~ the I r~~n~i -~~c~ r, i f they ~ib! decl by the 72~~-squnre fcxit lot raqul rements ~ they would only .ti~hlevc 5~~ ~r !~7 Ints nv~•rn~ing d~~~~ s~unrn f~rt, ~~n~l ~uch a clovelopment would subsCnntinlty incro~ise the c~sts ~f tli^ impr~ve~1 l~r.s nr e ml~(m~Kn ~y SG~OUO PP~r~~~sai wl~lch was ~a very vli~~l<~ fact~r in det~~rminin~ IAnd use; end that th~ felt the wns n im i c~~ae Jes i ~n ~n~~ he•~rt I ly recommended i t for ap~r~vol . Mr. Butler ~~ISCUSSC~I the EnvironmenC~'+1 Impact Raport an<I the Staff Report~ reiternting s~me of ;tie foregolnc~ commentary nnd skatin~ th~~t they would preserve as mnny xr•ees on the praperty is p~s,lble; thnt thc pror~sed grAdin~ would ~~vcra~e l,a feet in depth; thnt thay hid not Inten~le~i to rr.m~ve thr. cxlstinc~ b~rm or substitute n block wall al~nq llnahcim Nills Road but m~~y cnnstruct retainin~ walls ~n the insicld of sald ~erm which would nor, be visible~ hc~wever~ they did Int~:nd t~ ~xten~l .~nd heighten the berm; chat thelr orchltect had hcen wc~rkin~ wlth Clty stnff an~l would mect the RS~-50~~ 2one siCe development requlreme~nts for 2.5•~f~t sethncks, etc.; that s(nce the Ir~(tl~+l ne~atlve re.sponse from Anahelm f1111!~, Inc. , changes had been ma~1e t~ the plans whlch were t+cceptable ta Anaheim Hllls~ Inc.; th~t they wcrc offerlnc~ to submit pl~ns for the mailhoxe, to thc City Enhineer and/or Post Off(ce~ if determined t~~ he necessary~ aince some concern ft~~d been Incilcated req~rcifncl the new ll, S, Post ()ffice rec~ulatlons for c~irbside mailboxes; that~ At the present tlme~ thcy werc proposin~ t~ improve A portlon o! the f~ill tr~veleci way of La PAZ Street~ ~Nhich hordered the s~utherly e~lqc ~f the sub.~ect property, Mrs. Mary Dlnnclorf, +31 I.~ Paz StreeC. representing the Sant~ Ana Canyon liomeowne~•s Improvement Ass~ciatl~m, Inc „ ippe•ire~cJ bef~re the Planninq Commisslon ir oppositlon and stated that they ha:1 talked w(ch Mr. [iutler and a Mr, Powell~ an~' came to conclusions that if the 5f~ or 57 RS-7?.~0 iots were developecl~ they could sell in the pric:e range of $71.~000 t~ $p~,~Q~ an~l woulcl mnint~in the lnte~rity of the stirrouncflnn ar~a, which was the maln concarn of the existin~ residents; that approval of the proposal would set a precedent th~t would most likely be continued for future proJects in the area; that the existlnq homes In the area were RS~72~~ And were ~resently ~cllinct for nbre than $62~Q0~: that they dici not quest.inn the devel~per's intent to save as mnny trecs as p~ssihlP; ancl th~t they were tntereste~l to know if the landscaping alon~ Anahelm Hllls Roacl would be part of the homenwners' lancl~ or sep~r~Ce And distinct. In response~ P1r. Butler s:ated the landscaped area aion~ AnahEim liills Road would be s~l~l as part of the proJect an~i maintainecf by the homeowners; however~ it would be ~n easpment. Mrs. Dinnclorf continue~l by statin~ they di:f not like the layout cf the proJect and thie land use was not the hic~hest and best usage of Lhe property; and that the proposal was not cor~ipaLlblc ti•~ith existfn~ development in the arca, Mr. TaY1or Grant, 1752 Lanqley, Irvine, representin~ Grant Warmin~ton Bu(iders~ appPared before the Planninn Commission in opposition and st~'~ted they were presently in escrow ta purchase the ad.~acent property; tl~at his company had manaae~l to come up with a plan acceptable to the Planning Cornmission with 7?.~0-square foot lats and he clfsagreed wlth the marketing analysis bein~ presented by the subJsct developer; that he did not feFl his potentl~l buycrs woulcl want to traverse thr~,ugh a smaller home development to ~e*. to their h~mes; that the unlque land features ~f tfie suhJect property should b~ prese.rved; that the s~~bJect area was zonecl for one or one-half acre homes on adjacent propc~rties; and that the s~.,~Ject property was basically flat. Mr. Philip Bettencourt. representinct Anaheim Nills~ Inc.~ appeareci before the Planning C~mmisslon anci ~t~ited that the homec~wners aloncl Anal~eim l~ills Road would he required to grant an easement for maintenance purposes~ and a mandatory I~omeowners asf~vedtfor the,d maintafn said easement; that a more intensive use had prf:viously been ~pp subJecC pro~erty; anci that the proposed proJect~ in their opinio~~, was compatible wtth the neighborhood an~i wc~uld meet the nc.ad in the market place. In resp~nse to questioninn~ Mr. dettencourt stated the eriqinally submitted tract map did nat show a lanclscape~i easement along Anaheim Hills Road; that Anaheim Hills, Inc,~ had retained the right of architectural revie4~ for development of the ,~roperty; and that the easement for the lanclscapinr~~ to be maintained by ~he hameowners ::ssociation~ was a requl rement of llnahelm Ili l ls ~ 1 nc. ._, ~._ n...~.._ .....~~„~ ahat. althouqh 'irr. ~innclorf r~iclht be ric~ht in that they 7 11 1 4: ~/ u L 1. a~ ~ ~ • •. • ~ ~ ~ • - ' ~ - •' • 1 . 1. ~ r COU~I~ 58~~ LhC homes ~~ the S1?~~~n price ranqe, the deveiopers f81~31~~a~~ ~~~~~~~'~~~~ """ thP proposal, as presented, was the right subdlvision fo~ the property; that she proposal was based on professlor~al Judgmen; from studies and figures; that ne did not presently own J ~ ~ MI~111`fLS~ CITY PLAM~IIMG C011MI~SIOt1~ May lb, 1~17G 76-2?.!'i EIIVIROI~MEt~Tl1L IMPAC7 REPORT N(-, 174 A~Jp 1'ENTATIVE MAP QF TftAfT N0, (1~~Q9 (ItCVIS10N NO. 1~, (Cont.) the property and regretted that the tress werc dy(ne~; that ~0`~ of thc prap~secl lots werc over 60~0 squarc feet; thet the Innd was not fint~ but had qulte a slop~ ~~s Indtc~ted on the topoarnphica) map; and tliat the r oposal was In the best Intare~t of the area. Commisstoner Morley n~te~i t-,.~t ~~e ~~~rr.cd wi[h Mrs. Dinnd~rf~ that the pr~poaed development woul~l cr4ate an isl.~nri ~f i~i-5~~~ In the arca, with less expenslve hnmes; an~l, thcrefore, shoul~l he ~fav~inpecl t~~ RS-72~)Q 7.one stind,ircls. Con~missloner Iiarnes r~lso ~~ryrned~ stattnq thnt the surrounciinn ~rei h~d one ~~cre and one-hal f acre I~~ts on<1 that thcre was c~ nu~rkat For tno hlqhPr price~l hor~os. Ch~~lrrien Pro Tampore Herhst n~tc~l th~l hc: recoqniicd that tlie hinhcr the br,rm, the more loss ~f l~nd ~~t the bor.tom~ and the herm for the subJect pmper[y m(ght en~l up b: inc~ 7 to B feet hlc~l~ to meel the sound-a•.tenunt(~n requir~m~nts and shortanin~ tF~e lats ~lang Anahelm 11(lls Road to ~~ quesclnnahle slre; tliat the previously approve~~, hic~her denslty proJect was b~~sed on tlie merlt ~i' lhe devclopment which prohably includ~d tho .~11-actutt concert an~l I~iqh-cAl iber proposal ~ and, tf~erefore~ the density w~is not people densi ty; th.~t rnther th.~n vl~uillzing the suc~~ested yG ta 57'~ot development ~s a lass of lots~ the developer minht vlsu~~lize the prop~sal as a gain of lots; that thc pr~pose~l density was octualty an Incre~se In cienslty h~sed on the number of people who would live ln It; and that Anahe(rn Hills w~s the prlme ;esidenlial area of the City anri thc sub,Ject site requtred a mtnlm~~m of c~r~diny for its development. In response to questioninct by Commissloner Kinci, Mr. Butler st~~teci he d irl not feel that reduclnc~ the number of lots would bc fatal to developrnent of the tract; hrn~ever, he felt that someune h~cl to stnn~i up for the future homeowners; thaC the proposed lots were approximately h4~ square feet shc~rt ~f the RS-72~~ standards~ ~nrl by Increasinn the size of Che l~ts~ the homeowncrS wauld pay $6~~~Q to $1Q~0~10 more for the homes; that he, personally d(ci not fecl the proposal would i ~re the other property ~~aluas in the area; anrl that~ l; necessary, thsy woulci probably n~ ~`orward wi~h the prole..t on a 72~n-3quare fo~t 1,a51s. Commfssioner 7olar nc+ced that~ from his r_xperienc.e in the real estate business, one of the market conc.liti~ns prefc:rre~i in Anahelm Hills was the relat(vity to open space; that he a~reed with the opposition, that less density with mor apen space was desirable in the subJect area an~l~ in his opinlon, the rnarkettng would probably he e~sier and quicker; that thc Plannin~ Commission had not approved the prNVlously pr~posed proJeet for higher dansity on tl,e subject property~ aut approval was obtained from the City Counctl, howrve~~ that proJect was a different Iifestyle than single-family homes; and tF~at the developer should consider 72~~-square foot lots, or larger, Commissioner Johrison noted th~t, due to the berm conditions, some of tt~e proposed lots would Just barely meet the RS-500~ standarcl5; that he could not support less tha~ 720Q- square foot lots at the subJect location; that his r~view of the subject area indicated tliat the pr ,~osed su~division would have the cheapest tiomes and, ~.~ a small-lot concept was desired, then a condominium project would be more appropriate, Mr. Butler _hPn stated that the proposed houses would have up to 23~~ square feet of floor a rea , In response to questioning by the Plannir.c~ Commission, Office En~ineer Jay Titus advised that the City had never accepled anyth~ng less than full width Improvements on a street; that the Engineering Divlsion had no arguments with t~ic desiqn of the street improvem~nts~ but wouid requlre that the full traveled width be impr~ved since La Paz Street would eventually be extended; and tnat tfie curb returns would definitely need to be installed wlth the proJPCt anci perhaps bonding could be worke~ out in relationsFzip to the additional half width which wauld not he utilized ~t tl~e present time. Cha i rman Pro Temporc: Ne rbs t read a memorandum f rom the P 1 ann i ng Depar tment i nd i ca t I ng that an archeological slte existe,l on the subjer.t pro~erty. In response~ Mr, ~u;ler stated that~ to his knowledge~ four dlfferenr EIR documents had been filed an the subject props~ty in the past and the subJect F.IR was tl~e fi fth, and the archeologiral s i Le was not brought uF~ until now, Mr. Titus further advlsed that the hillside street width standarcls would be appropriate ' For the subJect property. Mr, Butler repl ted that hi l lside street standarcls were being proposed. Thereupon~ Mr, Butler requested A four-wesk continuance for considerat~~~ ~~r ~ne suo~ecL tentative map an~f FIR ciocument. Commissfoner King offered a m~tton~ seconded by Comn~ission~r Johnson and110TI~N CARRIED ;w (Conmissioner Farano heln~ absentj, that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss(~n does hereby contin~~e consideration ~f Environmental Impact Report No. 1?4 an~J Tentative Map of Tract No. 8<<0~1 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 7~ 1976, .`cr revi seci plans, as requested by the developer. I ~ ~ MI NUTFS ~ C 1 TY PLAN~~ I Nr, cOtiMl SS 10~1 ~ May 10 ~ 197G 7G-'L?.G ENVItt~NMENTAI IMPACT - DEVELQPER: GaANT WARMINr,T~tl BUILn[RS~ 175z Langley Av~i`~e~ REPORT tJQ, 17fi Irvlne. Cr. 92703. ENGINfER: SOUTFIWEST ENGA2f6RIN~~Su~~ect ""'""~'~' West Katelle Avc+nue~ Sulte 207~ Orange~ Ca, TEtlTATIVE MAP OF property~ consletinq of approximntcly 11.4 acres locatsd TRACT_ N~. 9 3'13 southoest of the Intersactlon of Mof~ler Drlve and Ceuntry HI11 Road, havin~~ Approximnte frontages of 113Q feet on the south slcie of Mohlnr Urive and 25Q f~et on tlie eflst side of Country ~1111 Roa~1~ is proposed for subdlvislon int~~ 20 RS-HS-zt~Q00(SC) lots. Twodpnrs~~sthe~Staff~IReport to thecPlanninc~~CommissionSCiAtedtMAytl~l.c~1~17~~tl ~nI[hc basisu„ rea q thak Chey had revlewcd a copy of same. Alth~ugh the St~~ff Report was not read at the me!eting~ said report ls referred to ancl made a part of the minutes, Mr. Taylor Grant~ represent(ng the cleveloper•, appeared before +.he Planning Commisslon and stated they had contacted the homec~wners associatlon (board of directors) In order to ° the con~n~in~* that followin~ input from the respond to the neads and recommendetlons o~ Y~ communlty they had revised thelr plans for further revleN by the people and~ (n hfs cpinion~ the communtty was ln agraement wlth the plans, but wou1~1 want one-half acre lots, mintmum~ in order to mAintaln thc rural feelin~; that the commu~ity wAS requestln~ the develoFers to cievelop w!th the Peralta Hills-Mohler Drivc street standards which were in conflict with the RS-HS-22,0~~ street stanc1ards; tliat the c1evelopers were cognizant of the Fire Cede N4 requlrements; that the community preferred nat to have the fire accsss roads shown on the p1An~; that the horse tralls for the develoPAUld not,bebdedlcatedato thep~r~Y and since cliere was n~ approved tralls plan~ the trails C1ty, ~~nless an ~~ppropriatc means for doing so w~s approved by the City Attorney. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advlsed that a legal means might consist of conclltional dedication. Mr, W. A. Mc~lames, 320 Timken Road, appeare~l before the Planning Commission in opposition and stated his property was separated from ttie subJect property by an imaginary 1(r~e; that the proposal did not mention Timken Road (a private road which he owned and maintained) which was consistently used by the c~~~rnunity for "motorcrass" activities and if the road werc opened up~ it would ~llow for abnut 40 more children to become Ir~v~lved in the activities on his property~ or two children per each of the 20 homes; that he was desirous of having a wall constructed bPtween the subJect tract and his properfromghiselivingdroom; ap(~roximately S265,~~0 h~me an~f he would be overlooking barns~ etc., that he w as concerned about who would be ma1nC?inir~g the r~ads and the provlsions for the wall or fence, as well as the fire roads shown on the plans. Mr. McNames Inqutred if the subJect ~levelopers had thc right to extend the fire road onto his property and clarified that he w as not looking to the subJect development far any improvement to his propertv• TNE PUBI.I C HEARI NG WAS CLOSED. In response to questionine~ by Chairman Pro Tempore Herbst~ Mr. N~cNames st~ted his property was served by the City Fire Department via Timken Road off Mohler Drive. Mr. Grant res~onded that the fire road was the developers' :dea and to his knc>wledge was not s requirement of the Fire Department and~ tl~erefore, he had no obJecttons to removing it from the plans; that no regular vehicular traffic was intended on said fire road; that the subJect property had no access to Timken Road at the present time; that MrifM~NWaij' vtew of the valley would not be t,loc.ked by the proposed development~ however~ was constructed to sepa~ate the subject property from Mr. McNames' property, ather views might be blocked; and that since aMee~i~snotPfeelrajwallishouldibe~consideredrty ~i~e ad,jacent te the McNames property, Chalrman frTimken~Road~bystraffic cominqhof~~l4ohler Drirve were probSemseforAlrrtMcNamesato the use resolve. In res ponse to questianing, Mr. Grant stated they were proposing to c~nstruct semi-custom homes ~n l.ot Nos. i3 and lt+; that the future awners in the development might wish to have horses~ etc.~ but woulcl be required t~ comply with the City Code~ in doing so; tha~t the ._.. ~,_a s...,t~.,«..,~ anrl insisted uoon no street lights in the subJect developmenC~ es CUnrnu~ ~ ~ .. ~ ...... . .. . . _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTCS~ CITY PI.ANNING C~MMISSION~ May 1~~ 1976 7~-227 ENVIRONMfNTAI. IMPACT REPORT ~IQ. 17f, AND TENTATI~,'k MAf' oF TRACT N0, g333 (Continued) well as no curhs or sidewalks to praserv~ tlie rural cli~r~cter ~f the Aro~~+; and~ therefore~ tho lack of a fencc ~idJocent t~ the M~:Nemes proparty should be considered good planning; and that~ accorcllnq to their tltle to the+ subJeck pr~pe~ty~ the cleveloper had ~ccess rlc~hts to Timken RoAC1; ~n~l~ unless tho Fire DepartmenC or son,e other agency wanted the fire raQ~ts tc rem~in on th~ ~lnn, they would ahandon sald acr.ess rlghts. Mr. McNames took excepti~n t~ Mr. Grant's comne.nts~ stating that the de~veloper ,~ppAre:ntly did nnt know where the p~~perty llne ~dJacent to hls property was locatzd~ slnce to his knowledge thr_ property line wes on flat land; and that he did not w(sh the subJect pruaerty to have ingrnss or egress ner.t to his prc~perty. Mr, McNames reiteratcd that hc melntalnecl Ttmken Road. In response~ Mr. Gr•ant st~~ted the steep tcrraln of Lot No. 13 woulci act as a barrler to the ~i~IJacent property~ ~s would a fence. M~y, A. 4!. McNames appe~~red before the Planning ~~innission to cl~'tfy that droves of motorcycles were usinq Timken Road which was private property~ and she did not wlsh ta haves addl tional chi l~lren from tl~e pr~posed development t~ contenci wi th. In response to questlon(nq by Mr. Grant~ Mr, l.owry advlsed that the requests for no street lights ancl to have the streeks developed to Peralta Nllls strcet stanclards cauld be granted adminlstratively. Commissi~~ier Johnsan offereJ a motian~ seconded by Commissioner Kino and MOTION CAftRIED (Commissioner Farano betng absent)~ that Envlronmental Impact Report No. 176~ having been considered this date by the Analieim City Planning Commisslon and e~~idenc~e~ both written and oral~ having been presented to supp!ement said draft FIR No. 17b~ the Planning Commission believes that said dr.~ft EIR No. 17(~ does conform to the City and State Guldelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act and~ based upon such informatton~ does hereby recommend to tha City Counctl that they certify satcl EIR No. 176 ts in compliance with sald Env(ronment~l Quallty Act. Commissioner Jnhnson offered a motton~ seconded by Commissioner King and MATIQN CARRIED (Commissloner Ferano being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning C~rtmissfon does hereby fir~d that the pr•oposed subdiviston together• with its deslgn and improvement Is consistent with the City of Anaheim Ge~eral Plan~ pursuant to Gover~rtrant Code Section G6473.5; and~ therefore~ does hereby approve Tentative Map of Tract Nu. 9333. subJect to the followtng conditions: 1, That the approv~l af Tentative Map of Tract No. 9333 is granted subJect to the completion of Reclassificatlon Nu. 72-73-51. That should this subdfvision be developed as more than one subdivislon~ each subciivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for appr~val. 3. That ~11 lots within this tract shall be served by undergrouncl utilitles. 4. That a fin~l tract m~~p of subject property shall be submitted to and approved 'oy the City C~uncil and then be recorded in the Office uf the Orange County P.ecorder. 5. That the covenants~ conditlons, and restrictions shall be submttted t~ anr, ap,•roved by the City Attorney's Office prior ko City Cuuncil appr~val of t~e fina~ tract map and~ further, that the approv~d covenants~ conclltions. and restrictfons shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That street names shall be approved by the City Engineer prlor to approval of a ftnal tract map. 7. That the owner of subJect property shall pay to Cfty of Anahelm the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be approprtate by the Cfty Councll~ s~id fees to be paid at the time the bulldinq ~ermit is issued. S. That drainage of subJe~t property shall be disposed of in a manner sat(sfactory • the City Engineer, if~ in the preparation of the site, sufficient gradtnq (s requlred to necessitate a grading permit, nu work on gracling wtll be permitted between Qctober 15tth and Aprll 15th unless all required ofF-site dratnage facilities have been installed and are operative. Posittve assurance shall be provided tfie City that such dr~inaqe fac(1(tles will be completed prior te~ October ';5th. Necessary right-of-way for off-s(te dratnage faclllties shall be dedicated to tte City~ or the City Council shali :iave intttate~~ con~~~mn~tion proceedin~s therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the devaloper} prlor ta the cortmencement of grading ooerations. The requlred drainage facilities shall be of e siye 2nd type sufficfent to carry runoff waters originatincl from .~___.._~. __,,, ,,.,,.,.rr~ r~ ~~1rim,te disp~sal as approved by the City hlgher pr~pci ~~o~ ~~~~....y,. ....._ ,.. _, . Englneer. Said dralr+ag~e facilities shall be the first it~m of construction and shaii oe completed and be functionai throughout the tract and from the ciownstream boundary of the • ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 10~ 1976 7~i-27.A E~ RONMENTAL IMPACT REP^ 0~ RT N~ l176 AND 7ENTATIVE MAP OF TR~CT NQ. 9333 (Co~kinued) property to the ultimate point of dtsposol prlor to the Issu~ince uf ~ny flna) building Inspecttons or occup~+ncy permits. Dralnnge dist~ict raimbur:aei~x~nt aqrecmentg may be made avallable to thr. devetopers ol` subJect property upan thefr request. 9, 7hat grading~ exca~~ation, and a!1 ~tl~ar constructlon actlvit(cs ~hall be conducted tn such a manner so as to minlmize the possibillty oP any sllt originatin~ from this pro]ect bei~~ carried into the SanCa Ana River by storm water orlgin~~tin~ from or flc,wing thmugh this proJect. 10. That thc alignmdnt ~nd termin~~l polnt of storm cir~ins sliown on this tantative tract map ahal) not be considered final. These dr~~lns shall be subJect Co preclse clesign consldcrnklons and approvel of the CIt•/ Engineer•. 11. If permanent street n~~me siqns have not been lnstalled, temporary street name signs shall be Installed prior to any oceupancy. 12. That the ~vner(s) of subJect properCy shal) pay appropriate dralnage assessmnnt feas to the City of Anaheim~ as determincd by the Ctty Engineer~ prtor ta issuance of e bulld(ng permit. ,,,, roved b the Cit Englneer. 1~, That the cross sectl~n of A Street shall be os app Y Y lA. That all lots in subJect tract shall be servsd by sanitary sewers. 15. That public easements shal) be reserved for future sa~ltary sewers as requtred by the Clty Englnner. 16. That all structures constructed in subJect tract shall meet the requirements of Fire Zone No, 4 as required by the Anaheim City Fire Ocp~~tment. 17, That the remo~al of any speclm~n tree~~ as deftned fn the Munic(pal Code~ Sectlon 18.8~-.03~ Tree Preservation~ shall be subJect to all the criterla as specifled by said code sectlon. 18. That unless the proposed fire access ro~d shown on the submitted plans to Timken Road is requtred by the Ftre Dopartment~ said road sF-all bc deleted~ as stipulated to by the devaloper; and the revision shall be shown on the final tract map prior to Clty Counci) approval and recordation. 19, That the owner(s) of subJ~ct property shall conditi~nally dedicate to the City of An3helm e.asements for equestrlan trail purp~~es~ condltionPd upon the adoptlon af a City of Anaheim Master Plan for Equestrlan Trails. CQMMISSIONER MORLEY LEFT THE MEETIMG AT 6:30 P.M. PRECISE ALIGNMENT OF MIRALOh1A AVENUE - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIAT"0 BY THE ANANEIM BEZWEEN FEE ANA STRE[T AND LAKEVIEW AVENUE AvenueLAto,Iconsi~derSadoptior~i4afatheLpreclse alignment. No one indicated their presence in t-ie audte.nce in connection with *_!i_ s~.~hJect publ!~ hearing ltem. Ajthough the Staff Report to the Planning Comnission dated May 10~ 1976, wa5 not read at the public hearing~ said Staff Report is referred to and made a part of the minutes. It was noted that the City of Placentla had submitted a written request to the City of Anaheim ~oncerning the adoption of a precise allgnment of Miraloma Avenue between Fee P.na Street and Lakevlew Avenue; that the pians, which were developed Jointly by staffs of the cities of Anahetm and Plac~~~~tia, proposed the developmer~t of the extension of Miraloma avanue between Fee Ana Str~eet and Lakeview Avenue~ as depicted on the circulation elements of Anaheim, Placentia and the County of Orange; that portions of the proposed Miraloma Avanue extenslon were locaCed in Placentia and, in ordei• for said partions to properly align with ~he portion In Anahelm~ a more specific alignment adopted by Anahelm was requlred for planning purposes; that numerous alternative solutions to the alignment had been studted by the staffs c~f the cities of Anaheim and Placentia; that the proposed Hiraloma Avenue alignment to the west (in Placentla) was cletermined by the City of Placantia to Ue an appropriate compronise between the dest"ss of the affected property owners and o~timum roadNay design~ and wa~ adopted "in concept" by th.3t C(ty following pubitc hearinc~s on the matter; and th~t the proposal is in co~formance with the City of Anaheim's adopted Master Plan for Arteri~-+1 Streets and High~ays. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC76-92 and ~noved for its passage ,nd ad~ption~ that the Anaheim ~ity ~lanning Commission does hereby adoFt and recomrnend to the City r,.,~~~tt ~,f rhP Citv nf An:,heim acir,ntiun of "Exhibit A" in connecrion with the precise alignment of Miraloma Avcnue between Fee Ma Street anci Lakeview Avenue, sald Exn~ptt being on file in the Office of the Planning Uepartment. (See Resolution Book) On ro{1 call~ the foregoing resolution w~s passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ JOHNSON, KING, TOLAR~ HERBS7 NOES: CaMM1SSI01~ER5: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARAIdQ~ MORLEY ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 10. 1~7~ 76-2z9 R~pORTS Arin - IT[M N0. 1 RECQMMENDATIONS U~1 IL LICY N0. 5~~2 ' R~v(ew of parAgroph ~i relatinn to criteria for sound attenuation In resl~lent;lal proJects n~ar rallroads. Chalrmdn Pro Temporn Herbst requested that tfie Plannlnc~ Camnisslon consfder continuing rhe ~ubJoct Item to the meetin~ of May 2~i, 1976~ in order that he mlght provide aclditlonal InFormation In relatlon Cheretc,. Comml~si~ner Ktng ~ffereci o motlon~ seconded b~~ Commissioner Ba~nes ~ncl MQ1'I~N CARRIED (Commisston~r F;erbsi abstnln(n~ and Commis~loners Farano and Morley belnq ~bsent)~ that the An+~heim City Planninq Comm(ssion does hereby contlnue tlie revfew of Councl) Policy I~o• S~~Z to the POannin~ Commisslon meetin~t of May 2~F, 197~• ITEM N0. 2 REQ fS OR EIR N[GATIVE DECLIIRATI~N - Far a grading permtt at 121 ~ 131 and 1~-1 Cerro Vtsta Wpy. (t was noted that an applic~tlon for a grading ~.~rmlt had been filed to construct a aingle-family res(~lence at the subJect location; that an evaluatfon of the envlronmental impact of grad(n~ at this locatlon was requlred uncier the provisi~ns of the Caitfornla Envlronmental Quality AcC ~nd the State EIR Guidelines since the pro.ject was located in the Scenic Corrldor and thu sldpe of the land a~as at l~ast t~n percent; and that a study of the p roposed gra~iing by the Planning Department and the Engineerinq Divisinn indicated that it would f~ave no significant env!ronmental impact. Commissioner Barnes offered a motion, seconded by Commissioncr King and M0710PJ CARRIEQ (Commiss;oners Farano and Morley being absent)~ thet the Anaheim City Planninc~ Comr~ission daes hereby recommend to tl~e City Council of the Clty of Anaheim that the sub)ect proJect be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact r~port, pursu<~~~: to the provisions of th~ i',,lifarnia Environment~l Quality A~t. I TEM N0. 3 REQUEST FOR EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOP~ - For a grading permit at 2?.1~ 230, 2~~1 and 261 Willdan Road. It was noted that an appll~ation for a grading permit had been filed to construct a single-family residence at the subject location; that an evaluatlon ot the envlronmentai t~;p~~f ~p g~a~ing at this lncation was required under the provislons of the Californla Environmental Quality Act and Yhe State EtR Guidelines since the projec~. was located in the Scenic Corridor anci the slope of the land was at least ten percent; ancl that a study of the proposecl c~radin~ by the Planning Department and the C•ngineering Division indicated that it woulcl have no sie~nificant environmental impact, Commtssioner Tolar offered a mc~tion, seconded by Commissionr-~ i'~ng and MOT1011 CARRIF.D (Cammissioners Farano and Morley beinc~ absentj~ that the ~-~.:~heim City Planning Commisslon does hereby re~omcnend to the City Council of the City af A~aheim that the subJect proJect be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental +m~act report, pursu~nt to the provtsions of the California Environment~l Quality Act. I TEM PlO. 4 REQUFST FOR EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO~J - For a parcel mip for property at 5100 Crescent Drive. It was nated thae an application for a parcel map had been flled to split the eight-acre parcel at the subject address into three one-ar.re and one five-acre residential lots; that an evaluatlon of the environment~l impacc of parcel maps was required under the provislons ~ ~ MINIITF.S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ 'A~y 10, 197b 76-230 ITEM N0. 4 (Contlnund) nf the California Envlronrt-entnl Quality Act and the State EIR Guidclines; an~1 that r gtucly of the propose~l parcel map by the Plenning Department and the Englneerfn~ Dlyislon indicatod thot tltiere would be no signlftcant environrtx~ntal impact. Commisstoner King offered a mc~tlon~ secanded by CommisstonP~ Tolar and MOTION c,ARftIED (Cammissioner Barnes abstatning and Ca,nmissioncrs FArano and Morl~y b~~~uuncllnthattthe tfie Anahclm City Plannin~ CQmnlssion does herE~by recommond to the City sub ject pro)ect be exernpt from the raqui r~ment to preparn an envi ronrn~ntr+l Impac.r r~port~ pursuant to ~h~ ~rovtsions of the Cellfornla Environment~l Quollty Ac. ITEM N0. 5 E~'Q' 1~ES1~~'OP EIR NEGIITIVE DECLARATION - For a Qar~:el map for pr~perty Ft the southe~st corner ~f Lincoln Avenue and Eucltd Street (1676 and 1680 West Llncoln Avenuc). !t was noted that ~n appllcatlon for a parcel m~+p had been f~led to cllvlde the subJect property, consisting of appror.imately 1.2 acres presently developed with a service st~tion, tnto two parceig to permit development of the vacant portlon of the property ~~~ u separate use anci also t~ pravide addittonal parkinc, for an aclJacent prc~perty; that an evaluation of the enylronmentnt impact of parcels was required under the provisions of the Callforn(~ Environmental Quality Act and the State E!R Guidcllnes; and that a sCudy of the proposed parcel map by the Planning Dapartment and the Engineet'tng Division indicated that there would be no siynificant environmental impact. Commissloner King offerad a motlon~ ~econded by Commissioner 1'olar and MOTIQN CARRIED (Commissioners Farano and Morley being absent). that xhe Anahelm City Planning Commisslon does hereby recommend to the City Councll of the City of AnahPim that the sUbSUanCpto~the be exempt from the requirement to prepare an envtronmental im act report~ p provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. AOJ~URNMENT - There baing no further business to discuss~ C~mcnissloner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Commi~sicner King and MOTION CARRIEb (Commis~toners Farano and Morley being absent)~ that the meeting be adJourned. The meeting adJourned at 6:55 p.m• Respectfully submltted~ A..~iZ.i~t~t..~c~ ~1~t ~~.~~ Patricta B. Scanlan, Secretary Anah~im City Plann~ng Commisston PBS:hm 0 R L 0 MICRUf 1lMING SERVIC~:, Ih~i;.