Loading...
Minutes-PC 1976/05/24C~ ~ow ~ M) ~~UTES , C I TY PI.I1Nrl I rIG C~MM I SS ~ O~l, M~y 24 ~ 1976 C(1NDITIQ~IAL IISE PFRNIT Pl~. 1h04 (Contlnueci) ...__._.___._.__ --- 76-232 de~llc~tic+n~ b~it w~s nnt ~iuthorl ~e~l to sx(pulAte t~ the ~~ctu~il c~nstruction ~P t~e street Irt~r~venrnts as part nf the ~ub.ject pr~posol; that the recommencled can~lltinn~ c~f ~pprovnl~ as set fnrth in thc StnFf Report, Inclu~ie~i li~ree c.onditions reln[inn t~ ~1~~~ic~~tl~n ancl Impravem~ntg alon~ Ilaster Street (Condltlon Nos. 1~ 3 and 9)~ and t~~e subJect propnsel cltd not borcior sald strcet; chat thc home nFfic~ positl~n on the ~1ec~lc.titl~n f~r Haster Stre~t wAS that they shnulc.l not be requir~d t~~ declict~te until the o~.her propertles ~lon~ sald strcet were re~i~ly t~ de~iic~te nn~l inatnil the strcet Impr~vements. Chalrmnn F,irano nated thak It appe~re~l th~t. c~n<Iltl~n++l d~dicntion nnd >>ondlnc~ woul~l be .ippronrl~~te al~ng Hnster Street. Comnlssiat~cr l1e~b,t nnte~! ~~~Crrnlnr~ the proposecl convenlence rnArket thnt hls mnln concern w~ss that the store did n~e attr~cC custor~ers from the ad]acent street. He furr.h~r ~oted thnt the sp~ces for the recrr.ation~~l vehicles hed heen drastically improve~l t~ satisfy t' trallerln~ public. Mr, Wang stipul.~ted that the praposed convenience m~rket w.~s primeri,, far the usr_ of tl~e recre;~tional vehlcle park tenants and ne on-street sians were {~ropose~i to e~Jvertlse sales rn the ~enernl public. I~i resp~nse to questionin<~ by Gommissi~nc~r Rarnes~ Mr. Wong stited if ~rnblems developed tn the mc~bilehom~ park from the Jolnt use ~f the sa~imn(ng po~l~ they would specify that th~ recreationa! vehicle park ten~~n2s cease t~ use It after d~rlc, etc,; and that the area beCween the sub }c~ct s ite i tsel f ancl the wal i oP the aciJacent mabi lehom~~ p~rk varlec! between 13 ~nd 1'' feet. Mr, 1Jong f~irther ~t^~ecl that the speciflcs f~r the l~n~lscaping hnd not been shown on the plin~ however~ e~ch sp~ce would have a tree ancl a picnlc table and comply with the site devclo~ment st~ndnrds of the C-R 7one; and that the existing pool in r_he mc~bilehoms park was ~~'45 th~n 1n0 yarcls from the recrear.ioral v~hfcle p~~rk site. Comrolssioner Kinn offereci a mc~tion, seccmded hy Commissi~ner Herbst and M~TIf?N CARRIF.D (Commissi~ners Johnson an~1 Morley bein~ ai» ent)~ that the An~he(m City Planninn Commission does hereby rec~~mmen~i tn the Ciry Council of the City of An~heim th~t the sub.(ect proJect be exempt fram the requlremenC t~~ prr,pare in environment~~l impact re~~rt, purSuant to the provisi~ns of the Calif~rnia Envir~nmental Quality Act. Mr. Paul Sinkovit~~ Space IJu, 1?7, Riviera Mohilahomc Park, appearecl before the Planning Commisston in oppositlon an~J tnok exception to tlie proposal to open the gate on Haster Street for access. statinc; that it would create a trafflc ha~ard and he especlally did not 1(ke the idea because hts mobilehcxne was situated ri~ht next t~ the gate and he would be subJected to noise ancl fumes fr~m the tr.~fftc; an~i that if the re.creational vehlcle park could not be constructed orithout openin~ the entr~nce on Hast~r Street~ he was very much opposed to the proposal. In resp~nse to questioning by Chairm~n Farano~ Zan'ng Supervisor Annfk:~ Santalahti advised that the rtx~bilehome park was recommended to have ta~c exiCS and the gate an flaster Street was normally a crash or en~r~ency-type gate. Mr. W~m g stated that durin~ the constr~uct(on period they were prop~sing ~ temporary entrance on Naster Street; and that as soon as the entran~e on Clementine Street was c~nF~letPd, they would use the I~aster Street access `or exit only. Chalrman Farano then noted his apprehensions about the proposal !n relationship to whether it Was a healthy mix for the permanent resic~ents of the mobilehome park. He questioned whether the petitioner would stipulate t~ closinn said gate on fldster Street, except for emergency use, upon completion of the entrance on Clementine Street. Mr. Wong stated that ~s soon as any portion of the Clementine Street entrance was reaciy~ they would use it. Commissloner Tolar noted that ~ time certain f~r the closure of the gate t~~ Hast,r Street was essentiil. Mr. Wong indicateri that the c~nstriiction period should bP n~ more than 90 days; ~nd he st;pulate~ to clnsing the ~nte to Haster Street by the end of that time. Mr. Sinkovitz stateci that tlie reside~ts in the mnbilehome park hacl recelved a letter from :he petitioner concerninq the ~roFosal~ which dlffered from the prESent~tfon to the PiAnninq Commission; and he offered t~ reid sa1~1 letter to the Commission. ~~ _f..__., e...,..~ „r,r~~1 that ~ursuant t~ thc forectoing stipulation hy Mr. Wong~ the gatc on Haster~Street woul~i be used only Cemporari iy; W~~~~~..,.:.', "!'. ci~knvitz stated he would e~o alonn wtth the propnRal t~ use the Haster Street nate for an entr~nce t~ the mobilehome park ~lurinc~ the constr~~ction perlocl (or a m~ximur~ nf 9'1 days) of the recre~tional vehlcle parlc. I ~ liw^ ~ MlfllJTrS~ CITY PLA~I"lING GOMMISSI~N, May 2~-~ 197~~ C~NhITI~NAI. USE PkRMIT NQ, lh~h (Continu~:cS) 76-233 C~mmissi~n~r (larnes pursuecl Che mntter of the hours the sw(mminc~ p~ol woulcl be usecl hy Lhe recroation~il v~hicle p~~rk [eriants~ ~nd shn suqnPSt~d that thr ~ocil ancl the pla/ ircn he elosecl by 7:(1~ p.m,; ~~~here~upon, t1r. Wonet st~?u1~tPd t~ closinq the ct~ites to the plaY ~irea ancl thc sw(mminn p~ol ~7t lcist ~~~~e-half h~ur bef~~re sunset d~iily. C~mmissi~ncr King offered Resolutlon No. PC'Jfi•97 nncl maved for fts pASSage anci nd~pklun, thot the 11n~~heim Clty Planning Commisslon d~~s he-•ehy grant Pntltion for Conditiona) Use Permlt No. 16(~~~~ suh,Ject t~ tl~e stlpul~tlons nf the petltioner~ to make cnnclitl~nal dedlcatton for straeC~wldenlncl purposes along ~lementine Street (9~ feet t~ts~l width) ancl aleng Naster Street (53 feet fr~~m the centerllne)~ conditioned upon tha need for sal~ street widenlnq as d~terminod hy the Clty Engincer; tliat the petittoner shAll bonct for street improvem~nts along Clementine Street and Naster 5treet~ as requlred by thc C~ty~ with the improvements to he ma~ie when dexermtned to bc necessary by the Clty En~ina~r; tl~at the exlsting emergency exit to Naster Street f~-om the mobllehome !~ark will be opened temporarily to provide access to said park during tne construction perlu~~ for the racre~tional vehicle park and the relocatior~ of the existing entrance~ sald perlod to commence at the date of tssuance of bullding permlts and not to exceed 90 days; thnt thc proposed conventence markeC shall be prlmarlly f~r the use of ttie recreattonal vehicle park tenants and no on-street slgntn~ is proposeci to adve~tise sales to the ~7enera) publfc; that the use of the play area In the recreational vehicle pirk and the proposed use af the existing swimming p~ol In the mobilehome park by the recreational vehlcle park tenants shall cease at least one-half hour before sunset dally; that the property shall be devntoped in conformance with the site development standards of the C-R Zone; and subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee reeommendations. (See Resolutlon Dook) On roll call~ the forec~oing resolution was pa~sed by the following vote: AYES ~ COMF11 SS I OMERS : BARNES ~ NERDST ~ KINf~ ~ TOLIIR ~ FARA~~O N4ES : COMM) SS I~l~if RS : NntJ~ ABSENT: CQMMISSIO~dERS: JOHNSON, M~RLEY CQPlDITIONAL USE - READVER715ED PUBLIC tiEARING. ROSCQE W. RF.EVfS, 131 Soutl~ Batavia~ PERNIT NQ. 161'1 Orange~ Ca. 92~~68 (Owner); requesting permission to ESTI1f3LISli A~~ QFFICE ItJ AN EXISTING RESIDENCF WITH WAIVER QF (A) PERMITTFD USES AND (B) MINIMUM NI:MDER OF P/1kKIPIG SPACES on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cons(sting of approximately ~.?. acre locaterl at the northwest corner of South Strcet and Harbor Boulevard~ having approximate front- ages of 97 feet on the north side of South Street and 95 feet on the west s(de of Narbor Boulevard, and further described ~s 5~3 West South Street. Property presently classifieci RS-7200 (RGSIDf_NTI~L~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE (resolution of intent to C0, Cammerc;al~ Office and Professional~ Zane). No one Indicated their presence in opposition to subject petition. plthough the Staff Report to the Planning ~ommission ~~as not read at the public hearing~ sald Staff Report is referred to and rnade a part of the minutes. Mr. Ervin G. Cook, 72~+ South Plne Stre.et, -~naheim~ the agent for the petitioner, appearecl before the Planning Commission and stated that they had ju~t recently purchasecl the subJect property; that the proposal was~ in their oplnion, the highest ancl bes~ use of the property; that, in effect, the sub,ject area along Harbor Boulevard was a11 commerc(al and thc proposed use was the best interim use of the property; and xhat the requestecl waiver was to allew the c~ntinued use of the second flaor of the gara~e structure for apartments. TNF PU9LIC HEARIPlG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Tolar noted tliat he had been concerned about the pr~posed dual usage of the subject property and h~ needed t~ be informed of the hardships invol`:d. Mr. Cook explained that the pr~perty was developed with two separate buiidinys, one of whtch fronte~ ~n Narbor Boulevard and woulci be used entirely f~r commercial; and thar, thP oYher buil~iinn, a garage wicn aF~n~ ~~~ti~~~~~~ :~_ eprnnd floor~ was crmpletely separate and l~cated ~dJacent to the altpy. Ch~irman Farano submitXed that there was probably not one property owner in the City c~f An~ihetm who would not like to have two uses ~n a property. ~ ~ • MINUTES~ CITY PLANPII~IC, COMMISSI~N~ May 2~~~ 1976 COt~DITIONAI us~ PERMIT N0. 1619 (Continued) 7f,-234 Mr. Cook then state~l that in thc fA9C-chsngln~ nrr.~ along Harhor Boulev<ircl the property owners sli~~ilci he ahle t~ use tlieir K~~opcrty~ at least Lernpor.~rily~ for the best use. Commissl~~ner King Inqu(red if Mr. Cook waulcl sclpulate t~~ ~ two-ya~~r time llmitatlon fnr the pr~pos+~l, an~1 Mr. Cook replled that sur.h a stlpulatlon would be dlfficult because he uid nnt ~•now how lnncl it would tr~ke Harhor Boulevard t<~ devclop. Commiss(oner Kin~ thAn Inqulrnd if the ro~ms nhove the narane c~uld be ~itlllze~l f~r offtces, and Mr, Cook replled t.hat if he w~s f~rced to use that space for other than the prop~sal, it would definitely n~t be the b~s~ use, Chalrm~n Farano noted Y,hat interim uses had Ueen approved In the p~st and, although h~ would agrne to c'ie proposal on a two-year basis~ he would not be interesteci in approving anything beyoncl tliat pcrlod~ since it was a du~il use of the prop~rty. Commtssioner Tolar noted that he was opposecl to granting the proposal~ even on ~ two-year b~sls~ slnce tt would set a preceJent for dual zoning; that allowing the frontage on the boulnvarcl to become commerc!al and allowinr~ the hack to 1,;: rented out as resident(a;~ would be vtnlAting the trust of the other prop~rky owners in the Clty; and~ therefore~ hs opposed the proposal under any condltfon or time perfod. Ne f~,rther noted thaC on Romneya Drlve~ the Pl~nning Commtsslon had voted to dlaallow a requesC for two uses on a prope~~ty and~ as a result, a lady tenant was dented the u4e of an apartmPnt~ which had to be reconverted to part of the mr+in sin9le-family rzsidonce. Mr. Cook relterated thar. thc sub)ect structures were existing. Cammtssi~ner Herbst noted that the property cc~uld remain~ as is. for resicienti~l use; but if the petttloner fntencfecl to finaltze the tntent f~r CO zonin~, the two uses could not be permltted. Mr. Cook inqulred if the property could be split. The Planning Commission ~nswered in the negative. In response to questtoning by the ?lanning Commission, As~15t~nt Planner Joel Fick advised that ff the entlre str~~ctur~ in which the apartment units were located was to be used for car~imerctal offices at some future time~ a waiver of the parking spa~:~ requirem~nts would probably be nee~ied. Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, sec~nded by Commissloner King and MOTI(1~~ CARRIED (Commissioners Johnson and Morley being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planniny Comnisxion does hereby recommend to the City Counci) af xhe City of Anaheim that the subJect proJect be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental irnpact report, pursuant to the provisio~s of the Californta Environmental Quality Aet. Commissloner Tolar offer•ed Resolution No. PC76-98 »nd moved for its passage an~ adoption~ that Petltinn for Conditional Use Permit No. 1619 (readvertised) be and hereby is granted in p~rt~ grantina the use of the property for commercial-office ancl denying the wa?vers, baseci on the forego(ng findings of the Planning Commission. (See Resulution Bonk) On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYF..S: COMNISSIQtJERS: BARN~S~ HERB~T~ KING~ T~I.AR~ FARAl10 NQF.S: COMFIISSIOtlEP,S: NONE ARSENT: COMMISSI~NF.RS: JOHNSOtJ, MORLEY C~NDITIn~~/11_ USE - CON7IM~ED PUBLIC HEARING. DO~IALD A. JACOBSON, 1929 Lanai Drive, PERMIT N~. ih21 Custa Mesa, Ca. A2~27 (Owner); KAY HIILMAN y28 South Silkwood Drive~ Anahelm~ Ca. ~2~?~6 (Agent;; requesting permission to EXPAN~ AN EXIST- ING 9AR on property descrihed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cons'sttn~ of approximately A.2 acre f~avtng a frontage of approximately 5~ feet on the east slcle of Anahetm 9oulevarcl~ having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet~ being located ~pproximately f3~- feet nerth of the centerline of North Street, and further ~iescribed as f3~4 ~nd ~ic16 North Anaheim Boulevard, Praperty presently classl- fied Cr, (COMMFRClAL, GENERAI.) ZO~;E. ~ .•.• .-~_ _..~t_~. .,..~i~inn wn¢ rnnt!n~~nrl trnT LN1C Plannina Commission Rlk_'CL~f1Q ~~ Wtl~ IIl/lCU Llln~ L~~~. .~..uJ....~ r-" '" _ of ~~ey 1Q. 197F~, for the petitioner to acquire .~dditfon~l parking, ~ ~ MI~IUTFS~ CiTY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ May 2~i~ 1976 76-235 C~NQITIONAL USF. PERMIT N0. 1h21 (Continued) ,pproximrately 1~ p~rsons Indlcntr.d thclr prescnce In opp~~altiun to sub,~ecC petltlan~ rnd wAiv~d the fiill renc11nc1 of the Stnff Report t~ the Plnrnina Camnission d~te<1 May 7.h, 1~7~~~ on tho b~isis that they hed r~~vlev~ncl ~ copy of same. Althouqh th~~ St~~~f Rnport wAS n~t renrl~ said r~po-•t Is r•ercrred t~ ancl ma~le ~ ~~art of the minutes. Ms. Kay H111mAn~ the a~ent fnr the pttitioner~ ~pp~~~r.d hefore the Plannin~ Commissl~n and stated the hic~ prohlem s~emc~l tn be related to p~rking ~nd the penple whn llverl In bnck o4 the sub.Ject property wer~ worrlecl ~bout the c~~rs hittinc~ their fences~ etc.; that sl~e ho~t done ab~ut everythin~~ shr coul~i think of to a11ev1Ate the pr~blem; that thc alleyway had to rem<~ln npen for access; ~hnt r~ther than a wall, she felt. a better solution would be posts; that the ~d.lace:nt nel~hhor wanted I,er to c~nstrur.t ~~ wal) all the w~y alc>ng the alleyway~ whicf~ was im~ossible wltl~ the parking; that the bal<er next door haci refuseci to talk [o her; that she harl a letter frorn her landlord ~ fQrCthenb~~kerrwho,crrate I I~isnowny problPms nn ~I~r Su~.ir~: prnperty wl tli parking~ except parking prohlems; that her nttorney ~~as presently discussinc~ a lease on an acl Jacent service 3tation property f~r a~iditian.+l parkin~ spaces; that SI1P, wc~ul~' have to pay extra for thc nddltion~l parkin~~ due to the prohlems in the are~; th;it t'~,~:re had been no pollce reports ~n the subJect bar since slie ha~1 ayned lt; that h~r custtxners ha~{ informe~l her that Mr. Parnell was operating A buslness illegally from his yar~ge ~n~i th~~t he. was on tota~ dis~bility; and that although Mr, Parnell's gar+~ge had been hlt by c~rs many tlmes~ lt was not by her c~istomers. '. Hillman prasented leCte~s from the Pr~ntfavo~nalnngf the harber st~~p~ in favor~ and from the owner cf tlie subJect praperty, - with photographs of M.r, Parnell's garage and hi5 purported business. Mr. Wilbur Parnell, 11> [ast North Street~ Anahetm~ appeared before the Plannin~ Commisslon and stateci that altho~igh his hause was in bad shape~ he had purchasecl it about one year ago ancl was fixing It up as he cc~i.ild aff~rd it; that all of the vehicles he worked on In his ~arage were reglstered to either himself or his sonsy anc~ no money chanc~ed hands; that if the proposal was ap~roved~ the neighborhood would lose ~ good bakery shop sincr. the bal<er caiild not st~-~y in business next t~ the subJect bar; th~t he did not believe that the ad.)acent service station would give Ms. Hiliman a full-time 1naSe for parking~ since if they coul<i get .i ne4r lessee f~r the service st~tion it woul~f be used for that purpose; anci that many o~ his neighbors coutci not attend this public f~ear(nc~~ but rtast of them were opposed t~ the ina~i~quate parkln~ f~r Che proposal. Mr. I~enry Cooper~ ~~? PlorCh Anaheim doulevard, Anaheim. appeared hef~re tl~e Plannlnc~ Commission in oppositlnn and stated he ownAd the adJacent bakery; thaC he haci been threatened many times by the customers of tha subJect bar, and the poliGe had been calle~i many times; ~haC a health hazarcl was create~ for the children in the neighborhood who came out of the liquor stnre~ sat down on the sidewalks, laid thcir food on the si<iewalks~ and then picked up the foocl and ar.e it; that his customers nad been harrassed by the bar customers who used filthy languar~e and used the sides ~~ the cars for their public convenience; that one ~f the bar customers had jumpe~l into his car anci put it lnto forward~ rather than reverss, ar~d r~'~n into the fence; that he ran an exclusi w bakery service for the Grand Hotet~ the Royal Inn~ T'he King's 7able~ etc., and was tryinc~ to have a gooJ, cle~r businzss which ~~as an asset t~ the f;lty; that although he felt that Ms. Hillman was tryinc~ te do her best~ her customers lived like animals; that he did not belleve the suhJect type business was needed in the area; that thP walls between the businesses were very thin and he could hear the barber t•ihen he w2c located next door~ which wis notl~tng cc,mparsd to what he would be able to hear with ~ne bar next door. In rebuttal~ Ms. Htllrnan stated she realized there had been prohlems with the subJect bar in the past because of the previous owners; that she ha.f no idea she woulcl rece(ve so much opp~sition to the proposal to adci a maximur,i of five more seats to the extsting bar and to add mare games~ etc.~ for the c:~st~mers; that the exparded ~ar would be no lar~er tha~ the other bars a~ubecanseehe hadlanaunusual husinesstfor9thShsubJectZareahetheksubJectsbarQwas in the matte existing a~d eve ryor,e had to mAke ~, living, ~ THF PUBtIC NEARINr, IJAS ~I~SED. r _ n~ ___+.,.. r....,,..t..~ t.... Me Fll l lman ctaf~d She w~S (I1 ~n re~ponse .u yuc~~i~n~n~i ~y ~~~~ ~ •~~•••..•.~ --•-• tfierbartforUapproxtmatelyroneUmar.th and~there~had beenxnotcione~polic~`lofficenc~alledr~tocd the bar during th~t period. ~ U ~ ~ M I NUTFS ~ C I'f Y PLANN ~ M(; C014M I SS I ON ~ May 2~i ~ 197fi CQNDITIONAL USF. PERMIT N6, 1G21 (C~ntinu~d) 76-23G In response to questionlnry by the Pl~mnfng Cammissl~~n~ Mr. Ccx~pr.r stntr~l Lhc slt~ialion h~~J Improved ot thc b,~r far l'he first two w~eks nftcr Hs. Nillm~n he~~nr: hpr..rntinq it; nnd that~ althou~li tLere were mr,ny nic~ c~entlemen golny ln~~ the har~ sc~r~ wero not g~ntlcmen anc~ ~ ever~ so, hi~ expccc ~~d resp~ct ; and that ~ yc~ ~ the ber wr~ ' n ex 1 s tr.nce when he s tarted his businosc ~t the sub~ect locTtlon, linwever~ the b~,r was n~t very octlve at th~~t tima. Ch~~rm~n Farin~ nte•l thnt slnce 'the bar wns exlstinc~, It coul~l re~~~iln~ but the nelyhbors fclt th~~t If it w~~rc alloweci ta be cxp~~nded~ th~ pr~hlem ~Itu.itlan mlqhC not (mprov~; and that h~: tend~d tu facl that there was ~a posslbiltty that It mlqht Imprr,vc for everyonc's beneftt ff m~re parkln~~ was pmv(de<i~ nowever~ the~ Gbr sh~iul~l rer,nfn wlth nc~ expenslon for about ~i yenr or so t~ see If th~ new ownership mnde :+ dlfforence anci then it the appllcant w~nted to expand~ shr. coulcl re~pply. Commissl~ner Kino nnted that he agreed that khe app~icnnt shoulrf hc qlven on opportunity to lmprove the r~litlonshii,s with the ncighbors an~1 t~ r~npply fnr the cwnnnslon at ~~ future time. It was n~~te:l chat a letter ha~l been recelve<~ fr~m tho Covoc Corporrtion, a~`s No~~th Anof,~im Boulevard, In~llcatin~ they did not Intend t~ ~rnnt ~~ftcr~hour5 pnrkinn privilcgc for the h,r in their pc~i•kin~ lot. It was note<f thar the Director of the Planning Depa~tment ho~l cletarmine~i ~chat the proQOSed act(vity fell w(th(n thN definitton of Sectian 3.fll~ Ciass 1, c,f tho City af AnAhelm Gui del 1 nes to tha Re~ui rements 1'~r aii Envi ronmental Impact R~port an~l was ~ therefore, cateqoricall~ exernpt from the requlremerit t~ flle an EIR. Commissloner Tolar offered Re~ol~iticn ". PC7(~-99 and mover~ for its p&ss.~ge and adoption~ that the An~helm City Planr~i^e~ Commiss~~n d~e~ herehy deny Pr.titlan for Conciltlonal IJse Permtt No, 16?1~ hased on tha f7rc~going findings of the Commisston. (Sce Resolutlon Bo~~c) ~n roll call~ tlie fc,regoiny res~lution was passed by the f,~ll~~~in~ vote: AYGS: C~t1MISSInrIF.R~• DARNES, HERftST~ KINf,~ TOLl1R~ FARAtI~ NOES: C~~IMISSInNFRS: N~tIE A~SE~lT; C~~MMISSI~~~ERS: J~HNSON, P10RLEY VARIA~!LE Pt~. 279~. - C~NTI~IUED P'. i.IC NcARIP~G. DUP~fJ PROPERTIF5 CORP. ~ c/o Ray Ct~ermak~ 2" Brookhcllcwr i~rive, Santa Ana, Ca. 927~5 (~+ner); reGuesting WAIV-"R OF REQUlRE~iFNT THA1 ALL LQTS /`.BU'~ A PURLIC STREFT~ T~ ESTABLISII 15 LOTS WITN(11~T FURLIC STRE:.1' FRONTA~F Q~ Rroperty desr.rlbe~ as Portfon l~~ an irregularly-shaped parcel of l~~d c~r~sist n~ ~~ approximately ~.7 acres hiving a frontage of approximately 4G7 feet on the cul-d ~ac of Knollwood Clrcle, havin~ a maximum deptl~ of approximatcly l-~5 fe~ ~ and being located appr~ximatcly 2075 feet north of the cPnterline o` Woodland D; ive; 2nd Po~'ti~n f~, an irregular•ly-shape~l p:~rcel of land conslst(r~ of approxima*ely 2.5 acres having a fro~~cage of ~n~roxin~ately~ 7" feet on Che west si~fe of Knollwood Circle~ "~,v(ng a maximun de~th of ap~roximatel~ 54~ ;ee;, anci hetng lorated approximatrly ~~~-~ feet north ot~ the centerline of Wood;ancl Drive. Froperty presently class(Fied ML (INDI!Sir.IAL. LIMITED) ZONC:. It w~s not-cl that the subjsct petitlon was contin~ed from the Planning Cummission meetings of April 11 and Play 10, 1976~ at the reque~t of the pet(tioner. Commissioner Klne~ n~ted that he had prev~ously flled a"~~~nfiict of int~rest de~laratlon" with the t:hairman in connection with the ~ubjec~ petition~ sald confllct beinc~ that he owne~l comm~~n stock in Paciftc Ligh?ing Coronration and sald corporation was cr.~ned by Dunn Proper'ties Corporatlon; and that sald declaratton w,s on file with the Plannin~ Dapartment. TNEREUP~~.~ COMMISS~~IJER K~Nf, LEFT Tf~r COU~lCII CNAMR~R AT 2:55 P.t. No one in~llcatecl thetr pre-ence i~i opposi't~on to ~ubject petitio~. ~trh~~~nh rho Craff Rr.nort to che Plarning Comm(ssl~n dated May ?4, 1~76~ was not read at th, publ lc hearinn, said Staff Report is reterred tc+ ana mauC e N~+~ ~..~ ~;~~ ~~:~~,;::~~. Mr. Rogers Severson, representing Dunn Properties Corpor~tlon~ appe~red bef~re the Planninct Commissi~n and stated *.he reasoning for the proposa~ was that th~elr marketing research ha~l in~4fcatecl that in the City of llnahelm tlie indu~trial u~ers wante~! to own • ~ MINUTES, CiTY P4AN~IING CQMMISSIr~~I~ Mny 2~~~ 1976 V~R IAt~CE M0. 279f~ (Cant I r.u~d) 76-237 thelr nwn ~~~Il~linna, rnn~ing In sf ~e from ~ppr~xlmnt~ly 55i1Q kn 17.,f1f10 squ~~rc fect~ and that size bu11~11nq was noC beinq offererl In Orange Co~mty with thc exceptlon of the Koll pr~Ject In :rvlne; thir th~ aubJect type prc.)ect was In trr.mendous clem~md; that h~ b~ltovod tha pr~vionsly ~~pr~ved pr~~Ject for th~ subJect northerly ~or~lon oF khr_ property was mc~re af n ge.ner~~) plnn, and r~c~t ~ gpeclfic nlnn~ .~n~l was cons rrd ~pproxlm~~tely two years n~o; that m~rketlnq conditlons h<~~t chan~ed clrastlcnlly sinc~ ,hat tlm~;; that~ b~~sic~lly, In thA Qr~n~e County and Las Angeles Cour~ty areas warehoiis(n~ space was o~.•erbullt; that the small Ind~~strlal users woul ~ not Involve h~~vy truckinc~; that the pr~pose~l clensity w~s actually less tlian coulci be r~chleved w(th tl~~ ~levelopment of w~areh~uses~ or approximntoly 12P~~Q0 aquore fc~et veraus 1/5~nnn Sf~U0r0 feet; that warehouses wPre typically divided Into "sausage type" bu(1Jlnqs ~n~l inste~~<i of one user thera coul~i be as m~ny as 2~ nr 3'1 users in one bull dinc~; Chat the pr~p~sal would m(~Imize Che Crafff c m~ineuverabl 1lty and land cover~~e p rohlems; that thc vc~rlance was requesred for thP sole p~irpose of ennbling the devel~per to seil ll-e lndlvldual hull.lln~s, whl would franc on prlvate strepts~ whereas without the varl~~nce they could construct t~ proJect, as proposecl, nnly thcy would leasc the bullclings ins~e~d of scll them; thaL if they were reaulrecl t~ clerltc~~+te for st~nd~rcl width pub'ic strects, they wculd Ic~se coverage an~1 woulct not be ~hle ta bui ld out r.he proJec~ econ~mical ly; tl,at a pr~perty owners asaoclatior~ woulcl be formed t~ maintaln °'~e pri v~te streets~ etc, ~ an~1 would be enfarced through a bincilnc~ 1~~;~1 aqreemant; that m~,inten~~nce uf the Indlvidu~l lots was also a c~nsideratlon For the property oN~n~:rs ~~ssociati on; that the priv~~te stree*.= would providc many functl~nel fant~ires~ such as rolled curbs for access~ and even though the width of the pr(vate street wns s~mewhat less than a ded icated publ ic street, they had made a breakdown of the comrarlson. TI1E PU(~LIC NEARIN~ W~S CL45ED. CommisslonGr Tolar nntr.d that he 1 iked the concept bein~ ~resented, however~ he felt the developer was tryinn t~ ~et t~o much out of the sub,ject property anci sorr~ real problerns w~uld be crcate~i; that ~lthouqh the density was less tha~ ortginally approvecl for tFi~ property, tliero woul~i be mc~re need for park(n~~ spaces because there woulrl be more employecs; that thare would be rrx~re freque .t traffie trips although lhe trucks would be si~x~ller; that the traffic problems w~~uld carry to Magnolia Avenue also, the entrance and exit to th~ property; an~i that~ !n his opinion , the rolled curhs rrere a negattve aspect. In respon~e~ Mr. Severson stite~ they were propo~lnq t~ meet the parkinc~ standards for in~iustrl~l ~evel ,pment; that there were four or five other plans wliicli they could develop on the prope~'ty ~.ith mnre density than proposed, wi thout a zoning action being r~quired; that a tr~~'Ff 1 c;.r~b'~em woul d exi st un tf~e sub j ect p roperty regardl ~ss of hcw~ i t was ~CVeloperi~ due to ;ts sliape and si~e~ even with public streets; an,f that they woulci develop the ~roperty in som~ w~y but would try to d~velop It t~ the hlghest and best use, Commissioner Tolar then indicated that the Planning Commission was not t~ be concerned wi th economi cs; th~t t f there were other pl ans ava i;ab le wl~ i ch we,'e economl ca 1 ly as good ar better than the one propo~ed~ he felt Dunn Properties would bc trying to sell those plans rather than the one proposed; however, the Planning Commfss~~n was concerned with getting the best prnJect on the subJect pr~~perty t`or D~~nn Properties and for r.he Clty of Anahelm. Commissloner Ncrbst not that~ in effect, the developer was proposing a condominium NroJect t~ be ~old~ ~~itli narrow streets as allowed for condaminiums; that If the streets Icokecl ard acted 1(ke publ ic stre~ ts, they shauld be publ ic streets; that by having public streets~ the clensity woulcl he red~iced; that wi th the privar.e streets, four or fiv yea.•a from now~ the Ctr~ woul ~ liave the aroblems ~nd not the cievelopers; that he ais obJectec ~~o the fact ~h;~t the :.:~~ers of the individual lets would not have the opportunity that they would ~.ive i~ they d5utted a public street; that the small user n~~~c~^d some f 1 exi b 1 1 t ty or some w~y to expand h i s bui 1 d i ng 1 f he des i red to grow; chat he agreed w i th the concept but iC should be devel~ped to nubl ic streee standards. In re nanse~ Mr. Severson stated they had penell~•d out the proJect with aub'ic streets and the proJect wuuld be reduced substantialiy, or probably below 1~e1~0~0 squa~r_ ~eet. ~ Commissl~ner lierbst then noted that th~ ~fevelopers had c~•eated their own 'raffic ~~--- t-- ~-......~ .- ~ t..~. ti a.i h~e~ ODPOSOC~ t~ dump i ng the ctrculation pronier~s; :~~,~ ~~~e~ ~;~.- . , ,,,,...:, --..-...-- in~lustriai traffic Into the middle ofuthe ad.jacent commerc:~~ portlon of th:: ~iroperty. • ..... ~ MINI;TES~ CITY i'I.ANNI~IG C~MMISSI~Pl~ May 2'~, 1976 VAaIANCE Nd. 2798 (Continucd) 76-23g Mr. Severson ytate~l that they ha~l worked wlth the Clry t~ devel~p the commerclol ~ortlun of the property nnd the str~ets worc Ir~; and that: they nc~w h~d the sub]ect v.~c~~nt parcel (n bock oi' the commercial which they needed to dev~l~p, Choirmsn Far~no notnd thet the prohosed plnn was substflnCialiy diffcrent fr~m the artginnlly oppravecl plnn, (n G~ncept, Thareup~n, t1r, Sevnrs~n requcsted a two-week continu.~nce in ~rdcr to revlsc thc plans and provlde addiClon~l Inf~rmation, Comm{ssloner Tolar offr:red a moti~n , seconded by Commissloncr Nerbst and MOT!~~1 C~RRIf'D (Commt ss iono rs Johnson ~ KI n~ and Mo rl ey be ing ~~bsant) , thaC the Anahe Im C 1 ty P 1~nn i ng Cammi sa inn clpes hereby re~pen the p ubl i c he,ir 1 ng nnrl cont t nue cons I de rAr i ~n of Pet I t 1 on for Vari,~nce Na. 27~1R to the Planni ~g Commisslon meetinc~ of June 7~ 1976, ~s rcyuestcd by the pet(kfoner. CQM111SSInNER KIN~ RE~E~ITfR~D THE Cc'iUNCIL CIlAMf~ER AT 3:15 P,M. RECf:SS -!1t 3:15 p•m. ~ Ch -man Parano declared a recess. RGCn~lVENf -.'1t 3:25 P•m, ~ Chairman Faran~ rpconvenc~f the m~:etinc~ with Cammissloners Johnson and Morley beinc ~h;ent. VARIA~ICE N0. 21~07 - C~NTItIUFD PJRL 1 C HEARING. RAPT COMPAtIY~ 17~02 Sky Par~, Cir•cle, ^ Irvine~ Ca. 92 714 (Owner); MALIBU GRAND PR~X CORP., 17hh West Katella Avenuc, Orange~ Ca, 92~E~J (~gent); requestin~ Wl11VF.R OF (A) MAXIMUM SIG~I I1REA AtIG (B) MAXIMUII NUMBER OF SIGNS~ TQ COPISTRl1CT A SECQPlU FREE- STANDitlG SIG!J ~n property descril~ed as an irregularly-sliaped parcel of land consistinc~ of apprc:xlmately 10.~3 acres locateri southwest ~f Katel'-. Avenue anci the Orange Freeway, having a fronta~7e of apprc~ximately g~ feet on the south side of Y,atella, Avc:nue~ having a m~ximum depth of approximately t3n(? feet, and further describe~l as 2~i30 East Katella Avenue. Property presently clas~i fled ML (INDUSTPIAL, LIMITFD) ZOt~F., CommissEoner E3arnes noted that she ha~! a canfl tct of interest, as defined by .*.he Anatiefm Municipal Cocfe Section 1.1.400 and ~overnment CoJe Section 3E,25, et seq., in that she was presently smployed by the firm who handled t;ie petitioner's legal affairs; that pursuant to the provisions of ttic furegoing Codes~ she was fierehy declaring t~ the Chairman that she was wtthdra~~iing frum the h~ari ng in connection ~.'!h Petition for Variance No. 2~~~7 (I~~em No. 5 of the P'ianning Cummis slon Agenda)~ and would not tike part in e,ther ttie eli scuss ion or the vot i nq t~~~reon; and that she had not d i sc:ussed th i s matte r wi th any member of the ° 1 ann ing ConYni ss (~n . TNERF.UPQPI ~(.OMM I SS I ~t~ER BARtIES LEFT TIiE ~OU11C I L CNnPit3ER AT 3:26 ~.M. It was noted that the subject peti t(o~ was continued from the Planning ~cxnmission meeting of May 10. 197~, `~r further inio.- mation, Mr. Ron f.ameron, PresidenC of Mal i b~i Grand °rix Corporation, the a~ent for tlie petttioner~ ~ppeared before tne Plannirg Commi ssion and stated that they haci reduced the size of the proposed sign by appror,imately 41~ syuare feet, ko 17b square feet or a size that tl~ey believed was an absolute minimum co be read from Katella Avenue and the freeway; and that they hacl cleared the propo~al through the Anaheim Stadium Director's Oftice~ anci a copy of a letter was on file from said office. The Commisslon Secretary a~lvised that the referenced letter from tFee Anaheim Stadium h:id not been received. Cummissioner Tolar re~uested th~at .~ copy of tlie letter was essential far the Planning Commis5lon's con siderati~n of tne subject item; whereupon, Assis*.ant Plenner Jael Fick contacted *.he Anaheim Stadium Offtce and was acivtserl that the Director~ Mr, Tom ~iegier~ had r~o obJection s to the proposad signing~ and that a letter was forthcoming tn connection therewi th. ~ TI~F PUBLlC HEI1RI~lC WAS CLOSGD. Chairman Farano noted that a harclshiQ did not exist in connection with the subJ~ct proposal, lnasmuch as the petitioner was aware of the frc+ntage availabie for th~ praperty ~ ~ MI ~IUTF.S. C I TY PLANN I PIG COMM 1 SS 10~1 ~ May 24. 1976 7~'1 ?9 VARI I1NCc N0. 2907 (Cont I nued) when 1 t was ~cq~ I red, no d i scuss I rn was held pertal nl n~ tn a~ I ~n for tha use at the Inltla) public hearing, nnd the siqn was n~~t orf~nke~1 to Katella Avenue, but to the Qran~e Fraeway; an~i that th~ potl tloner was so ~~nxlous to get ont~ the subJe~t prnperty~ Inlttally~ thal• it prr~b.7bly wo ~ld n~e havc mattcred whethor thay ha~l ,i si~n or not. Mr. Came ron s tal~d that tlicy haci reques ted a f reeway-orl en tecl s t c~n on the or i g i na l p i ot plan; that the Planning Commisslon could allaw them only onc square foc~t of s(~ninn, bnscd on ss 1 d p 1 ans ~ s f nce they had ncrt t ndi c~ited any ~1r.t ~ I 1; that they wau 1 d be happy wi th a slgn that was read~~ble and the proposed s~gn was Just big enou~h to bc rcacfable from the Oranc~e Fr~ew~ry. Cfi~irman Farano then noted that the purpose of the sic~n should be k~ pull c,~stomers frum Kntol la Avenue ancl not i rc~m the frerway; and that he was ilrnost ~onv(nced that a newspa~er ad on a 5unclay woulcl do n~ ~e good tlian the proposed sign, Commissi~ner Tolar notc~, Chat there were atroctous slgns everywhere ~~nd he was not convlnce~i that thn petitfoner h~cl a hardshlp; that the petitloner had created any hardshlp on hls own by clioosinn the subject property for Che subJect ~~sc, any harclship being offset by the prTce pald for the land; ancl that he was oppased to the sub_ject Cype sir~n being nlong the freeway. Mr, Cameron then stated that the subJect ~.roperty was very flat and had a hardship being seen. Chatrman Farano then noted that he was of the or~inlon thal thc "mllk of human klndness" had flowed when the use was approved In the first plaee. Commissi~ner ~:tn~ Inqulred how much xhe subJect business would be impr~ved (f the bi_a,ger sl~n was approvect; whereupon~ Mr, Cameron st~ted that obvlausly it was a goo~' tdea or thay woul d no t be wi 1 1 1 ng to spend the money for I t, and that peop 1 e 1 ookecf for a s 1 gn on the freeway. Cha(rman Farano noted that the nearest freeway ofF-ramp was about 3/~ to 1/2 mlle ~way and the petitloner would probahly soon request a directional sign which weuld also be readable frnr r.he freeway. Mr, Gus Bade~ an Interested cit(zen, appe~red before the Pianni~g Commtssion ancl inquir~d whether it ~~~ s a requlrement that th~ ~uoJect site be boarded up so that no one coul~l see what was go(ng on at the subJect prc~perty. Ne stated he had 1 ived in the vicinity for two years before he knew he was al lowed to go In anci watch the grand prix races. The Plann ing Commissi~ners reviewed r.he ~vording on the proposed siyn which read "Mal ibu Gra~d Prix - You R,ce Here"~ which some of the Commissioner•s ~Jj~1 n~t feel was appropriate along the freewa, . It was noted Chat the Director of the °lannlnc~ Department had determined that the prop: actlvity fell within the definition of Sectton 3.01, Class 11, of the !'(ty of Anaheim Gutdelines to the Requirements for a~ :~vironmental Impact Report and was~ therefore. categoricaliy exemp! from the requirPment to flle an EIR. Commi ss i aner He rbs t offere~i a resol ut ion and rx~ved for i ts pass ac~e and adopt i on ~ that the tinaheim City Planning Commissic,n d~es hereby grant Petitlon for Variance No. 2f3(T7~ approving tw~ free-stan~fing sinns with a total sign area of 27f3 sqware feet for the subJect p~operty; sdid approval being granteci on the bas(s that che petitioner demonstrated that a hai•dship existed~ due to tt~e sl~ape and size of the property w(th only a small ~ercentage of the fronCage being realized by the petittoner; ~ubJect to approval of the proposed pl~ns by CalTrans; and subJect to the Interdepartmental Committee recor~menclaLi~n. (See Resolu*ion Book) On rall call, the foregoing resolutlon failcd by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIQ~IERS: HERRST~ KING NOES: COMMISSI~PlFRS: TOLAR~ FARA~10 Al~SEPlT: COMMISS1n~~ERS: BARtJEJ9 JOF;N50~I~ MORLEY Deput; City Attc~rney frank Lowry advised that the subJect pet+tinn would b:: continued to the Planning Commisslon meeting of Juna 7~ 197~, for a full commission. (~~1F115SIONF.", BARP~ES R~TUR~lEO Td THE CO~~N~.IL CHAMDER AT 3:4~~ P.M. ,. . ~ --~ ~ O MINUTES~ CITY PLA~I~JINC CONI1iSSIOfI, May T.4~ 147G 7(~-2~~h EIIVIR~NH~~;TA1. Ih!Pl1CT - C(1flTI~IU('D PUt1LIC II[ARIf1G, RnBERT ~i. A~~D DnRnTI~Y G~OSSF.~1~ Il~l Rf'P~RT ~I~. 17i Qunll Streot~ Suitn 1~~~ ~Jea~port Bench, Ca, '17.~~~~~ (G4~ners); CRilb! PACIFlf DE~~"I_~~~MFI~T C~ltP,~ 2171 Cnmpus brlva~ Ste. 3'~~~~ Irvlne~ Ca, VI1RIAlIC~ N~. ?.'1~6 ~^715 (P r_nt). Propcrty ~1esc Ihc~1 ,is en Irrcctulerly-shnped pnrcel oF land consistinc~ of ~tpproxtmntEly il,fZ ~~cres hav(nry a frontage TI'~1T~171VF. M11P OF of appr~~ctm~cely 7t1~ feet on the south si<I0 of Scrran~ Avenue, 1M.f.T PI~. ~"~1'i havinn n mixi~~~u~n depth of approxlm~ccly g1.~ feet, and bcing located 40U~f1Q~'IStPr~Y of the Intersectlon ~t ~errano Avcnue and IJohl R~nch Ro~~l. Property pr~s~ntly c1ASS(F(e~l R1~-2~~~~ (RESIDEIITIAI.~ MULTIPLF- F11t111.Y ) 'I.~HE. RI:i~,UF.~T~U V~Rl~~irf: WAIVF.R ~~' (A) MIFIIMUM LOT w'ID1H~ (t~) MINIMIRI GI1R11f,f SF.Tl~I1CK~ I1NU (C) RFnUIRf-~FrIT TIiAT L~7S REl1R-ON ARTFRIIIL 1~IGII~~IAYS. TF~IT~TIU!' TRACT RF~UF.ST; EN~I~lEkR; R~PI Ml1RTl'~ 6 ASSOCIATFS~ 1t~~15 ~lewport Houl~vard~ Costa Mesa~ Ca, 97627, SubJect property is proposed for subd(v(sinn Int~ 35 RS~SOOQ{SC) lots (33 uniks). It w~s note~i that the subject pptii-on was cantinued from t!~e Plann,nq CommiSSi~n meet~ng of May 1~~ 197G, at ti~c request of the petitioner. No ona Indicate~J tl~eir i~resence (n oppositlon to t.he 9Uh_~PCZ items. Alth~uc~h the Staff Report tn the Planninc~ Commts~.iurt d~ted May 7.h, 1976~ rr nat read at tha publlc he,~rin~~ sa'~1 StaFf Rep~rt Is ref~rred t~ and made a pnrt ~f the minutes. Mr. Ron ~~artin, represencin~ tlie a~e.nts for• the petiti~ner~ ap~eare~.l before the Plannin~ Commission and stated the pe~itinner accepted the suq~ested cnn~liti~ns of approva) as sec fo~•th In the Staff Report; that ~p~~r~r.imaLely ~i,7 ~~cres of the approximately 12-~cre sit wnuld be pr.~vided f~r oper, sp:~ce to be maintiined by the h~~•~eown~rs association. TII[ PU[lL1C Hi.ARltl~ Wl1S CL~SFD. Commissioner Tolar reques[e~l the petiti~ner to ~ddress thc traffit {~roblems su~gested by the '~r,ffic Engineer. Mr, 1lartin stated lhey ha~' worked ~ h Clty st~iff and thc sutmttted plans indicated~ in the developer's opin(on~ the best suh visio~ that they could construct within economic consideration~ 91ven s~me priorlty In the ~~esi~in; th~t any exten~ion of Noht Ranch Road would have s~^~e substantlal effects on thr. views; that che school district h~d adv(sed the developers that they I~ac1 not ye*_ pla^~e~l the schoo) site to the west; an~i that the achool site property dropped away suhstantially and although ch~ school distr(ct dici not ask for the street~ they haci not ohJected to It. Traffic En~ineer Paul S(n~er advlsed that the proposal was to deacl e~~l the arterial street~ t~ohl Ranch ,'tuad, at Serr~no Avenue and if a schoo) was developed to the wes~, all loadln~ ~nd un?oa~lin~~ of children would hav~ tu be dnne fror~ Serrano rathcr th~~n a residentlal strcet, and scho~ls historically had traffic problems; that tlie traffic from Che commercial property 'irectly to the north mlght very well conflict ~oith the propasecl traft`ic pattern anci be restricted to a sin~le access; and that the intersect(on of Serrano tive~ue arci IJohl Ranch Road woulci hs a m~Jor interSection requir(n~ sicinalization. F1r. Sinner further ~dvise~l th7t Nohl Ranch Road could turn into a c~llector Street~ rather than Serrano Avenuc. P1r. ~tartin stited tha: the elevati~n of the school site was irtmedl~i~r,ly approxiriately 3Q feet lower thin the sub)ect property; that although the property to chz wes*_ w~, desi~nateci as a potent3al scho~l site~ it had not yet been purchase~i by the school distrtct; that beinn required tn construct an extension ~f Nohl ~anch Road arould be a considerable hardsh?p for t~e petitinner; and he sugaested that as a stree~ it only function as a~~nl•de-sac about 3~~'1 feet long. Mr. Sin~er advisecl that the TrafFic Divisi~n visualized the extension of P:ohl Raneh Road as a local si~ie street to filter trarfic onto Nohl Ranch P.oad :~ncl Serrano~ with the exerc(se of yood traffic control at the intersection; that if the ac~_i„cent property to the west was developed a~tth a schc~ ' in thP future. the Citv would prefer •ha[ loadin~ ani unloadtnc~ take place from a side sCreet rather tl~an the m~Jor street~ S~rrano Avenue, and that the m~tn reasnn for ~he residential s*_reet (n connection witti t e school was due to the commercial devel~pment t~ the . rth and the further ramifications thereof. ~ ~ ..~. ~ MINUT[S~ CITY PLANNIN(; CAMMISSI~N~ M~y 2b~ 1976 ~~`Z~~~ ENVIRQNM~.NTAL IMPACT R[PQR1' N0. 175~ VARIANCE NO. 28Q6 AND TENTATIVt MAP~ RACT N0. q 1~ In rosponse to questl~ning by Ci~~trmnn Far~no~ Mr. Sinner ~dvlsocl thn[ If the property to tlie wsst was ~ot clavelope~l ~s fl school site~ some of the problems wnuld be allevlated; and that, If nacess.~ry~ traPffc contr<,l dev(ces could be used t~ r.hAnn~l the traffic~ but schnol trnfftc was dlfferent heceuse of t~e pe~lestrlans At mfl.)or In~ersections, In r~esponse to questl~nlnn hy Cammissic,ner H~rhst~ Mr. ~lertln st-irc~l Lot A~ whlch was dosigneted f~r open sp~~ce~ wcyuld be mnlntalned by Cfie home~wners Assnc~otlon~ nlthou~h the associntlon ml~iht not I tl:e the responsihi l lty fc,r s~tid mAli~t~,nance. Comml~sloner Nnrbst noted that it was Import~~nt thnt the developer be sure thr~c ~~11 of the prospective homaowners knear pri~r to p~irchasln~ tlieir '~omes th~~t they wo lc1 ewn n pert nf the open spACe, f,hi'rmnn Farano Inqulrncl w~~ether Nahl Hanch Road should be extr_nrleci in .~ n~rlh~ASterly direct~on~ c~nr1 Commissloner Darnes I~~~Ilcated that It was very Imp~rt~~nt th.it the 1'lanni~ ~ Cc~mmission be rt~ht In thelr consideratlon of Nohl Ranch Rond. Plr. Martin stited that he believed the City st~ff was dfvlded as to whether Nohl ftanch Ro~d shnuld be extencie~l. Chalrman Farano then notecl th~~t If the petltloner had snmething proFoun~i t~ s~y concernin~ the traffic s(t~in~ic,n, or eny ncw Ideas, thc Pl~nning Commiss(~n wruld pr~'~r thr~C thF pr~Ject be taken back for that consideration; whereupon, Mr. Ma~tin st~toei h~y had nothln~ tn acld sincr they ha~l fully sxplored ths cancept of the streetis. Commissi~ner Herbst revlewed the propo^al~ notin~t that tha suhmittcd m~p eliminat'ed the n4ecl fcr the waiver of the minimum l~t ~~idth; that one lot on a cul-de-sic had Iess than a 25-foot setback an~1 one fot sided on an artrrial highway; tl~At: P~ohl Ranch Road could only go up tihe hill to the south abaut one-h~lf block and it could cu'°de-s•rc there~ slnce the sclu~~l distrfct dfcl not know whech~r the; w.;re q~tnc~ to purchase the scl~oo) slte or not; and chat~ In hls opinlon~ the pelitioner had some legitimate ~rc~uments ~s to why Nohl Ranch Road shoul~f n~t be exten~ied~ sincc 't would increase the costs of tlie dcvelopment cons 1~fe rab 1 y, In response to qucsti~ning by Comrnissioner Nerhst~ Mr. Martln stipulated tli~~t a three-car garage was prc.posecl for the one l~t with less than a 1_5-foc~t setback on the cul-de-sac. CoMmissioner Herhst then noted that 5i~c . lots had heen approved fn the past and the affected 'iot had a Qra~~e clifferential of •, feet abov~ tlie aciJacent srtari~~l hinhway (n respons~~ to questlonin~ by Commissioner Barnes, Mr. Sinc~cr advise~i th~t no •fiscussion had been hr_ld with the County concerninp the extension of P1oh1 R.anch Roaci as an ~rterial hi~hway; an~i tl~at the intent would be to serve the school site an~l thc resldentl~l developmcnt as a local ~treet, In response to questioning by Commissianer 'folar, Assistant Planner Joel Ficlc advlsed that a cross section of thr berm and wall ad)acent to Se;rano Avenue was pr~vidP~l on the subr+i tte~i plans. Comm;ssioner HerhsC offcrcd a motion, secondFd hy Commissioner I<Inr, and M~Tlf1N CARRIE~ (Comm~ssi~ners Johnson and ,Iorley being ahsent)~ that Environmental Impact Report No. 175, s~i~plementing Master EnvlronmenCal Impact Report tJo, f3f1~ havinq been consiciereci this date by the Anaheim Ci~y Plannin~ Commission and e~~idence~ both written and ora', h.iving been presente~l to supplernent said draft EIR No. 175, the Planning Gommis~'on believes that said draft EIR No, 17~i cioes conform to the City and State Guidelines an~~ th~ State of California Lnvironmental QuAlity ~ct and, based upon such inf~rmatlon~ does hereby recommend to the City Council that they certify said EIR is i•~ compliance with sai<i F.nvironmental Quality Act. Comr*~issio~er Herbst offered Resalution No, f'C7G-1~0 ~nd mavPd for Its passage ~•nd adoption, that the Anahelm City Planning Commission ~oes herehy gr~nt Petitlon ror Varlance Flo. 2~~~~~ disregardin~ the requested waiver of the minimuM lot ~~i~lth on rhe basis that a new tentative tract map was submitt~d prior to the publlc hearing; granti~,g the requested waiver of the mi~imum gara~e sPtback on the basis that tiie petit~oner stipul~t~d to proviclinq a~hree-car garagp for Lot t~o. 21; ~ranttng the requeste.t wa!ver o~ th~ ~-• !w~~ r.ar~~r, arcerial highways on the basis that tne af~ected lat (tJo. 1) requi remC~~t t,~~.. .. „---_. ..~~_~tal hinhwaY and is at a grade ~slevatlon of appr~ximately 4 feet above cne ~~~~p~~„~ .. stmilar walvers have previ~~~sly been cl~anted; subJect to the recammen~latlor~ chat City Counctl Policy No, 53" requiri~~v a 4~-f~ot minimurn building setbac4: ac_~acent to arterDal hinhways be waived t~ permit the ~!'oposed 21-foot builcfing sett~ack ~n !ot ~lo. 1 adJacent to Serrano Avenue, ~n the tsasis that ~'•milar waivers h~•~e previously been granted where a ~ ~ MI ~lUTFS ~ C I TY PLN1~~ I N G C(1MM I SS I ON , Nay 24 ~ 197f, 7b-2~-2 EINI~OIIMCMTAL IMP~CT RfP(1RT N0. 175~ VARIAWCE Nn, 2fi06 AND TF.PITA7IVE MAP OF TRI1C7 ~l0. ^'}13 ~ - gride differenCi,~l was ~~resent; and subJect to the Interciepartmentil Committee recommenrlr~t:nns. (See Re~oluCinn Book) On roii call, the fnregolnn resolution a»s passc:d by the follc~wing vote: AYES; L'OM~11SS i~NCRS: E3AR~IE ~~~IERP ~T, KltlG, TOI.AR, r~nnn~~~ N~ES: COIiMISSI~~lFRS: N~F1F ~OSENT: cn~~~~iss~n-iens: J~IINSQN, H'illl.fY Commissioner' Hnrbst ~ffered a mc~tinn~ seconded by Commissloner Kinc~ an~l N(1TI~N CAItRI~iQ (Cornmtssloner~ Johnscn ancf Morley hc(nn absent). that the 11n~helm Clty Plannin~ Comnlss'un daes hrreby f;nd that [h~ pr~posed suh~livislon, tonether with its desl~n and Improvement, Is consT;tent wlth the ~ity of Anaheim General Plan~ pursiian[ t<, Governnent Cocle Sectlon 6(~~i7't,5; ~~~~I~ theref~re, does hereby anprove the tent~tlve m~ip of 7ract No. 9313 f~ ~~ RS-5~o~rSC) l~ts an~1 33 dwellinc~ units~ subJect C~~ the fo'lowin~ ccndltl~ns: 1. That the r~~proval ~f the T<~ntatlve M~'-p of Tract No. 9313 ts c~rantecf sub,~ect to thc~ apnrov~l of Var(ance t~o., 2"OG. 7., That shoul~l tnis s ~i~divislon be developed as more than ,~~r s~hdivls(~,n, each sub~ilvision tFiereof sh.~ll be submltted in ten!:atlve form for approval. 3, TI•~t a c~mhinati~m m~sonry w~al) and landsc~ped c~rChen berm shall be constructed on the north ~roperty 1(ne se~~~~ratln~ lot tdo5, I and 2(~ through 33 from Serrano Avenue~ the design ~in~l '~cati~n of said wall an~.l l~erm to he subJect to the revlew and approval of thc Plannln~l Dspar~mcnC. h, That all lots within this tr~ct shall be served by underground utilities. 5. Th~it a fin~~; tr~ct map of subject property sliall f~e subm(tted to an~l approved by the City Council ~,n~J tnen be recorded in the Offlce of the Qrange County Recorder. 6, That tF~e covenants, conditior~s, and restrictic~ns shall be submitted t~ and approve<I by the City llttorney's Officc: and the City Engincer prior c~ City Cauncil approval of the final tract map an~+ further, that the ~pproved covenarits, conditions, and restrictions sh,ll be recorcled cor ~rently with the final tr~cc map. 7, Th~-+t strc~et names shal l l ~~ppr~ved by the Plar, ~n~ Departr ~nt prl~r to ~pproval of a final tract map. n, That the owner of subject property shall pay to the Clty of Anaheim thu appropriate ~ark ancl recreation in-lieu fees as ~etermineJ to he appropriate by the City Coi~nct 1~ sai~1 fees to :~e pald at the time the oui Iding perinil: is issur,ci, 9, ThaC drainag~: of s~~id pr~perty sl~all he disp~sed of in a ma~ner satisfactory to the City Enoineer, If~ fn che preparation of the slte, sufficient c~r<~dtn~ is required to n~c.essttatc a gr~dinn perm't, no work on grading will be per~nitLed between October 15th and Apr(1 lath ~nless all requlred ~ff-site drainege facilities have been tnstalled and are opera*_ive. Positive assurance shali be provided the City that such ~Jr~tnage f~ :ilitles will be complete~ prlor to October 15th. Necessary right-or-way for of°-site drainac~e facliities shall he dedicated t~ the ~~ty~ or the Clty Council sl~all have Inittate~f condemn~ti~n proceedin~s therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the dgveloper) prior t~ the comr~~ncemenC of grading operacions, The required drain~ge facillties shalt be of a size and type sufficien*_ to carr, runoff waters c~ri~inatir~g from hinher properties throuqh said property to ultimate dlsposal as a~proved by the C(ty ~nq(neer. ..aid drnina~e facilities shall be the first it::m c,f constructian ancl shall oe completed an~~ he fiinctional throuc~hout the tract and from tfie <lownstream bounci~ry of thc ~roperty to thP ultimate pnint of disposal prior to the issu~nce of any final bulidinq inspect!~ns o~ occupancy pernits. Dr~~inage distrlct reimbursement agreements may be made avallable t~ the ~fevelopers of said property upon their request. 1~, That graciing~ excivation, :~nd all otner construction activiti~~s shail be conducteci i~ such a manner so as t~ m~nimize the possibility af any silt ~ric~ln~ting from this proJect ~einc carried into the S~nta Ana River by storm water origini[ing from or flowing throu~7h this proJeet. 11. If permanent street name signs have n~t been installed~ temporary street nam~: sinns sh~ll be lnstalled prior t~ any occupancy. 17_. That all structures c~nstructed in this tract shal! meet Che re^.uirerr4nt5 of Fire Zone No. -E as determined by the City of Anaheim Fire Department. ?3, 7hat a fin~i parcel mip or. ~~ubjecC property s~idl l be recorcled wi th t`.e CountY Recorder p+~;~r to app~~v~i of a fina tract map. lh. That pr!or t~ the apProval of the final tract map, the petitinner sha!I subrnl; flnal spec~fic ftoor pl~ns, elevAti~ns ancl plot p~ans tn the Clty Counci) for approval, 15. That the public uti~ity easements shall be sur`aced ln a nanncr ap~reve~~ hy ;he Utilfties Direct~r~ i~~ orrler tn allow aclequete and suitahle access to saicl easemc.nt in emerclency situat(ons. 16, 7hat the minimum building setback on Lot No. 1 3ha11 be ~ minlmurt~ ~f forty (4~~ feet adJacen[ to Serrano Avenue~ per City Council Policy No. S~P~~ unless the City Council waives said policy anJ permfts the ~+roposed twenty-on~ (21) foot building setba~k for satd lot. ~l I \J T ~ MINUTE5~ CITY PLANMINP COMtq1551~pJ~ May ?.h~ 1~17~~ 7G-243 RGCLIISS I F I C~T I nhl - PUEiL I C IIF.AR I ~If~, MR. At~D MRS, s i rrrr~ i~n ti. AMNII~ ~ 95'~ ~~uth whnuccr ~ NQ. 75-7f~-3h 11n.~halm~ Ca. '12~'~G (Owners); raquestinq th~t pmperty ~Icscribe~l os a rectan~~ilnrly-sha~acl parcel oF lnnci consistinq c~f approxl~~~~~tely 1.7 acr~s havinn A fron•aqc of approxlmately 212 f~•et ~n Che south sitle of Orann~•ro~d Avnnue~ havlna n maxlmum de~th nf approximntely ?.~i`~ feet~ ancl be(n~ locntecl n~~r~~ximat~~ly 11~5 foet west of the centerllne of Lewis Street be reclassifiecl from che RS-A-~+3~~~~ (RFSIpFriTIA1./AGRICULTURnI.) ZoNE t~ che RM-t7.n~) (fsCSIDFtJ71~L, MULTIPLE-FA11 Y) 7~NF, l22 unilg proposed) One (ntereste~i citlzen in~licate~f his presenr.e at [he public he~ring, Alth~uqh the Staff Report t~ ehe Plannlnc~ Comm(sslon dAt~d May 2~+, 197G, was not rc~~ci at th• ~ubltc I~e~rin~1~ sal~l Stnff Report is referred tc, an~l made ~~ pirt ~f thc minul~•s. Mr, blilll~m S. Phelps, 1~~5 North Ma(n Strect, Santn Ana, tlie :~~nt for the petitionc ap~eare~i bc~f~rr. thr Planning Commiss(on and presente~~ the proposal~ st~tin~ that minim~l- t;~~e un i ts were pr~;~~o~ :~i, wi th ttic ~1ens i ty be i nn 1 ess than far RM° i 2Q~ an~! nr~.~te r th~~n fo. RH-?.h0~~ anrl wich no walvers. TIIE PuBLIf. HFr,Rll~c: WAS CL~SEp, Commissioner King ncted that in his review of the subJect property~ he founcl th~t the adJacent residence to the west was slt~aated appt'oxim~+tely 3~ feet from the west propcrty line of the subJect pr~perty and~ with tlie proposed driveway also separating the propose~i d~velopMent from t'ie existing residences~ he felt there was ample buffering. In respons~ t~ queStlonin~ by Commi~~ioner I~erbst, Mr. Phelps skated tl~at more than en~ugh trash areas were prop~sed and the turn-around are~s for the cnllection vef~icles were more than acceptable tn th. Sanitatiun 6lvision. Comrnissioner Nerbst took exception to the Zocatton of the trash area being against the west property iine~ and fiirther noted that no protectl~n whatsoever was being afforded Che aclJacent residential properties~ with 1~~ parkin~ sp~ces aqafnst tl~e fr.ncc arlJacent tc, two single-family residences. Mr. Tom Vorhees, 323 East Bluebell Place. Anaheim~ appeared b~fore the Ptanning Comnission and stated I~Is rPsidence was one house removed f~m tl-ie wett side of the proposed complex; and he quest(oned wl~ether a la,iclscape~l bufter would be corsiderecl on the west~ in addit(on to the block wall. Commtssioner Herbst n~ted that he would be unable to vote In favar of the proposal~ as submltted, since in t!ie past the Pianrifng Commission had demanded that other apartment developrr~nts prntect the slnqle-family hories which r~butted them, in respon~c, Mr. Phelps stated he atsa felt that parking was a priority item; whereupon~ Chairman Farano noted that one c~uld not be substituted for the nther, Mr. Phel~s then stipulated t~ deletin~ the extra trash storage are~ an~1 pr~vicling a 10- feot landscape~i buffer strlp along the south .~nd west property lines to buffer all of the single-famlly liom~s; an~i that they would also comply with the parkir~n space requirements fer the pra~ect ~n~f constr~~ct a 6-foot hi9h masonry wail along the south property llne. Comr~issioner 7olar offered a mcstion, seconded by Commissioner K(ng and MQTI~t~ CARRIFD (Cc+mmissioners Johnson and Morley beinct absent)~ that *.he Anaheim City Plannin~ Commission does hereby recommend t~ the City Council of the Clty of Anaheim that the subJect proJect be sxempt from thc reyutrement ta prepare an envlronmental im~act report, pursu~~nt to the provisi~ne of the California ~nvironmental Quallty Act. Commissioner Tolar offered Resolution tdo. PC76-101 and mc~ved for its passage ~nd adup*.lon~ that the Anaheim City Planninq Commission does i~ereby recommend to the City (:uuncil of the City of Anaheim that Petition for R~classification No. 75-7~•3t- be appr~ved~ sul,ject to the stlpulattons of the pe.t(tioner t~ deletP one trash storage area ancl provl~!e a 10-foot wide landsc~-+ped bufFer strip :~~1Jacent t~ the south and west property lines; thut the pa~k(ng shall be provided in ~ccorda~ce with the Code r~c~ui~ements; that a 6-foot h(gh masonry wal l shal l-,e constructeci a;o ~he; sc+uth pro~erty 1 ine; ancl that revlsed plans shal) he submitted to the Plaitining Commission for ev(ew and approval, pr~rr to City Councll publlc hearing on thi; reclassification applicatior.; and subJect tc~ the Inter- depnrtMental Cummtttee recomme~~iytions. (See Resolution a~ok) On roll call~ the f~regolnn res~lutton was pa~.se~ by the f~llowing vote: AYFS: C1'MMIS.r,I~;t1ER5: B/',R-JES~ HER~ST~ KINr,, T~l.~n, FAnJ\ti~ NAES : C~Mr11 SS 1 n~lE RS : NQ~IE AIISEIIT: C~MM I SS I ~PJF. RS : JniI~ISOrI ~ MORLEY ~ ~ MiNUT~S~ CITY PLANNING C0~IMISSION, Nay 2~~~ 1~J6 7~~2~-~+ RF.CI,IISSIFIC11T1~11 - PIIDLIC 11EARIPIG. ALA~I R. Tl1LT, f~15~i Fl~wcr Strcet~ Sultc ti~f~~ Los N~. 75-7~~'~S An~eles~ Ca. ~~~I'J (Owner); K[NNETfI ~~ELSUIl, t~elson Dovelopment Compir.y~ 17401 Irvlne tioulevnrcl~ Sulte 11, Tustin, Ca. 9?.f.~fi0 (Agenl). TF.tIT~TIVC MI1P OF Property de,crlbocl as ~~ r.;ctangularly-shriped pnrcel of lan~l consist- TftAf,T ~I~, 9'~7, (nn of approx(mately 3.9 acres locAted at the so~rthwest corner of qnll Rrn~d and Sunklst Strcet~ hnvinc~ ,i~+~r~xlmatc fr~ntAqes ~f 29~ ~r:et o~ thc soiith s i dc ~f flal 1 Road incl (~3~ fcet ~~n the wes t s I rle of Sunkist Stre~t. Pr~nerty presently cl~iss(fled RS-A~h3,~n~ (RE~SinE~iTInLIAGRIrui.TUZ~I.) zn~ir. RFCLASSIFI~/~tI~N RF.~t~CST: fcM~i2nn (RESIDC!lTI~\l, MU~TIPl.~~-F~MILY) 10NG, TEtlT~71VC TR~r,T RFnU~ST; k~IF1fER: HALI f, F~RfMl1I1~ INC. ~ 2530 h~orth Grand Avenuc~ Santa Ana~ Ca, ^?71°, SubJect property Is proposeci for subJlvisl~n tnt~ 1~~ RM-12~~ l~,ts. No one Indlc~~ted their ~resencc in n~IpASILI011 to subJect petit(on. Althau~h th~ Staff Report to the Planntnn Comnissl~n daked May 7.h~ IA~G~ was not read at the publtc he~~+rin~, sald Staff Report Is rcferrecl to and madc a part of thA mtnutes. Mr, Kenneth Nelson, the ay~;n~ 1`or the petitloncr~ appeared before tlie Plannfn3 Cormisslon to answc~r questi~ns concernin~ thc prnposal. TIIE PURLIC HF.IIRING 1JAS CL~S[D. In response to c~uestl~nin~ by the Plannin~ Commtssinn~ Mr, Nelson sti~u!atecl to constructin~ a 6-fc~c~t hlg~i m~sonry wall along Che souLh pr~pe~ty llnc of thc street boundar~ (south sicic~ of Omega Street), as shown on Area Development Plan No. ~-~~ Alternate 2; to also provide re~is~nable l~~ndscaping witli minimum 15-gallon trees on a minimum of 2Q- fc,oi :,ters~ ln;:luciing irrfg~itton facilit~es In the parka~ay~ along the fiill clist~nce of sald w~ll; ~nc~ to enter Int~ a perpet~~a' ~intenance agreement with the C(ty of Anaheim For the lancJsc~pin~. Commis•.Inner N.in~ ~ffered a M~tian~ seconded hy Commissioner Darnes ~n~l MOTInM CARRIFD (Commissioners Johnson and Morley beln~l absent), that the Anaheim City Planninq Commission does herehy recommen~l t~ the City Council af the City of Anaheim that the sub.ject proJect be exempt from the re~uirement to preparP an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of thP Caltfornia Environmental ~uality Act. Commissinncr King offered Resolution PJo, PC7G-1~2 and movecl f~r its passane and adoptlon, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reconuu~~nc{ to the Clty Council of the Gity of llnaheim that Petition for Reclassification No. 7>-76-35 t,~ approvecl, sub.ject to the stl~ul~ti~ns of the petitioner, and subject tn thP Intercieparr.~~~~~~ral Commit*_ee recortxnenclitions. (See Resolution Oook) On roll call, the for~~c~in~ resolution was pisseci by the following v~~te: AYFS: CnM~115SIntIERS: f3ARNE5~ NERRST~ KING~ TOL~R, FARA~iO NQES : C~~-1M ( SS t ~~IF.RS : tJf1P~E IiBSF.tIT : COMI1 I SS I ~N~RS : J~IINSf.,, ~ MQRI.FY Commissloner King ~ffered a motian; se..~nded by C: m ssi~~_r qarnes and M(1T1(1N CARRIE~ ~Commissioners Johnson and Morley bz.~ng aF,sent)~ tha r'~: Anaheim C(ty P'anning Commissior d~es hereby finr~ *.hat the ~.roposed subdivision, t~ryet~ w'*h lts desfgn an~1 improvement, is consistant wlth the Clty of Ana!~eim General Plan, pu ~int to Goverr.men~ Code Section 6h-E73.5; ~~d~ thereFore~ dnes f~ereby approve Tentative M~. ~f Tr~c[ No. 937~ for lt- RM- 17.(1~ lots, subJect to the followtng conditl~rs: 1. That the approval of Tent~tive Map of Tracl• No. ^~7. Is ~r~,nteci subject to the a~prnv~l of Reclassiftc~ti~n Fio. 75-7~~-3~~. 2. That should this subdiviston be develooed es more than one subdlvision~ each subdivtsfon thereof sh~ll be submttted (n tentative form for apFrtoval. ~ ~ MINU7Ft, CITY PLIINP~ING Cnr1MISSI~N~ May 2~~, 197G ~6'Z1~~ RF.f,I.~SSIFICl1TIOtl M(1, 75'7~?^i5`1ND 7[NTl1TIVC MI1P c`F TRIICT ~l0. ~3 5 (Continucd) 3, That a 6-fnnt maa~nry wall shall he constructe~~ ilc~n~i the s~iith s(~le ~f Ome~.i Avenue ~s shcywn on Arua Dev~lnpmenC rlan Nu. ~4, Alternate 2; th~t r~~ns~n~hle 1nn11scaping wlth mint~~um 1~-~tflll~n si~e trees plantecl a minimum nf 2~ fcet on-cent~r an~l inclu ng i rrf~~tinn f~cfl Ittes. shil l be Inst:~llr,~f In the prirl~wny the ful l dist,~nce ~f s~~td wall ~ plnns for s~~' l~n~iscaping ~~ b~ sul ~iitted to ancl approvecl by the Supertnt~n,lent of Parkw~y Maln ~n~; ~:e; an~l that tho OWI1Pr~3~ c~f suhJect property shall enter into an aqrecmant wi t.h the Ci ty t~ perpetu~~l ly malnt,~in th~ ahove-rt~nti~ned lan~l~ca~e~1 p:+rkway~ t'hc ~grecment t~ bc a covenant t~ run w(th [he lan~1~ a5 stipul~it^d tn by the petttloner. 4, That ~~I1 lots within thls tract sh.~ll be scrve<I hy unuc~qround utllitle.s. 5. Th~~t :+ f(n~l tract map of subJe~ t property shal l be submtttecl tc~ an~f ~pproved by the C(ty Counc:il an~1 then be recarded fn the Offtce af the Qr~inqe County Recorder, 6. TI• strect nn~ ~s sh~il ,,e ipproved by the Plannlnc~ Dep~~r~ment prlnr to approva) of a r'inal ~ract m~p. 7, Th~it thc rnyner(s) of subJect propert~,~ shall pay to the Clty of Anahcim the appropr~ite ~ark ~nd recreatlon in-lleu fecs as dekermined t~~ be approprlatc by khe City Council~ snlci fees t~ '~e p~'~Icl at the tim~e thie building permlt Is Issued, 0, That dr~~n-ie ~f subject property shall be di;pnsed c~f in .7 manner that 1~ s~tisf~ctory tc, the City Engineer, 9. If permanent street nnme slgns have nat beer, lnstr~lled~ tempor~ry street n.~me signs s-i~ll be (nstallecl prlor tu any ~t•c:upancy. 1~, Thit ~~~-foot r,idlus cul-de-,ac sliall be provtdsd at Che n~rth r.e~•min~is of the new str~et. 11, That a la-fcx~t raciius prope ty line return sh~~ll be provicled .~r. tl~e northwest corner of Omeg~~ Avenue and Sunklst .`.treet. 12. That, ~n accordance with ~:i~y Councll Policy N~, 5~+?~ s~und-attenuatinn measures sh~ll be prnvlded adJ~~cent C~~ [~all Rc~ad. RECI.ASSIFICATIG~! - Fl;Bllf, HC•.ARINf,. D1,11IE KOLOb7_IE.1SY.1, 113~+0 West Olympic~ /1301~ L~s N~. 75- 7~~- ~~~ Ange l es , C ,;(1~6-+; NAV I DAD 11. APID I SAREL A. R I ~S ~ 1 139 North S tate College D '~ Anaheim. Ca, 92t'•0~: WAN~l1 LEE STAt~Kt"Y~ 1155 North S e Col lege t~lvd. ~ Anahe(m, Ca. ~1~"Q[; GUS7AVf ED41ARf~ BODE~ JR. ~ llh7 North St~te College Blvd., Anahelm~ Ca. ~23~2; GFRTRU~F ~E STEIGUF.R~ ET AL~ 1716 East Broad;~ay, A~a' aim, Ca. ~11.~~~5 ~~ners) and DYAt~LYN DEVELOFNF~IT CO., 113~-0 West Olympic~ N3~1, Los ~nneles, Ca, 9~~G-- (Agc:nt); requesttng that property described as an frre~ularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of ap~roximately 1.2 acres locatec! at the s~utl~west corner of Romneya Drive and State College B~ulevard~ havin~ approximate frontages of 1;5 feet nn the south si~ie of Romneya Drlve an<1 315 fect on the west side of State College Do~~levard be reclassified rrom the FS••A-~~3,~~~ (RESIDF.-lTIAL/ AGFtIf,ULTURl11_) 70NE to t'h~ CL (COMM[Rf111L, i.IMITfQ) Z(1ME. No one indicated their presence in opposition to subject petitton. Altf~ouc~h the Sta'f Repor•t to the Planninct Commission dated May 2~E~ 1q7G~ was not read at the publtc hear'n~, ~atd Staff Report is r~ferred to and made a part of the m(r~utes. Mr. ite~~e Powers, representing the architect and the petitioner~ appe~re<I before the Planning Commission to answer questions regardinc~ the proposal~ sCatinc~ that they agreed with the polnts ma~1~ in the StafF Report; th~t tliey were providing aciequate parking~ setbacks and lanrlscaped bur'fering~ and were not seeking iny wai~ rs from the Code. THE PUBL~C NEARIfJG W^S CLOSED. Chairman Far~no noted that the Planninc~ Commission would consi~ler that the proposed laniscape~i me~ll~n strip i~ State Cellege Boulev~rd woul:i satt;fy the concerns ~~pressed bY the Traffic Divisloh relat(ve t~ potential confllc ~ between ve~~'cles exltirg onto Sta*.e College Doulevard, and tl~e north and southbound traffic tra.eling alcm g 5a1~1 atr~et. ~ommiss'~ner Kin~ offered a motlon~ se u m ded by Com~nissioner Herbst and MQTIQH CARRICD (Commi~ ners Johnson ind Morley being ahsent), that the Anah2lrn City Planroi~ig Commission cloes her..~,y rec~mmend to the City Coun~il of the City of llnaheim that the subject proJect be exempt from the rer~~irement t~ prepar'e an envirnnmental imptict reoort, purs~ianr to the provistons of tiie California Er,vironmental Quality Act. Commissi~ner Kinn aPfererl Resolutton No. PC7(~-103 and movecl for its passane and acl~ptlon, ;.hat the Anr'•eim C(ty Flanntn~i C~r•x^•~~ston d~es hereby recommen~t t~ the City Council c+f the City o~ An~he'~n that Petlt!nn f~r Rer,lassificatlon ~~c. 7~-7G-3F be ~pproveci~ subJect to the f~re~loincl flndinqs of the. Plann'~ng ~onx~+lssic. , ancl subJect tn the IntArdepartmenta) C~~~m+'ttee rec~mmen~l,~tlo~s, (See Resoiution Dookl ~ ~ MINii"fES~ C17Y PL~~N~hl~ C~MMISSI~tI, May 2h~ 197(~ 7G-246 r,ec~nssiFicnri~~i r~o. 75-76-3G (Contlnued) On r~l l c:ril) ~ the fnrc~oing r~s~lut(on w~s pt~ss~d hy the fol l~winn vot~: AYf:~; r.nNMISSIn-IfRS; D~RNES~ H[RnST~ KINr,~ TnLh.R~ FARI1Ho N~f S: f,~Mt1) SS I ~~IF RS : NOtlf Af1!:f'IIT: C(1MMISSInNFRS: JQNN5Q~1~ MnRLEY C~NDiTI~Nl1L U'~E - PURLIC N[ARitl(;, J. KEIJT AMn KI1REtJ AtI~J IiEblLEY~ G217 Hill Avenue~ PERMIT ?l~, 1(~22 4Jhlttier, Ca. ~Q6~1 (Owners); Rl1LPI1 F. LEPRF.~ GS GrAnadn 1lvenuc, long Bcach~ Ca, h0~~3 (Agent); requestinn permissi~n t~ ESTARI.ISII A DRIVE-THR~Ii(;H RCST~IUR/1tIT cm pr~perty ~escriheci as ~~ ~cctanclularly- shaped pnrcel of land conslsting of apprnximately Q.~ acre hav(n~ a frorta~e o' approximately 17.'~ fect on the west side ~,f Western Avenue~ havinc; ~ m~~ximum ~lepth of 29~ feet~ heln~ tocate~l approxfmately 7.~i feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Aven4e, and furth~r descr(hed as 117 South Western Avenue, Property presently cl~sslfir:d CL (C0~IMFRC111L, 1.1111T~:h) 7~NF, No one In~iic~~ted thelr presence In opposition to subJect petitian, Althouc~h the Staff Report t~ the Plann(ng Cammissl~n d~ted Hay 2h~ 1~17(i, was not read at the publ ic hoaring~ said Staff Re~~ort is referrecl ~.~ and rn~cie a~:art of the minuCes. Mr. Ralph Lepre, the a~ent for the petitioncr, apaeare:i bef~re the Plannin~ Commfssion and stated thcy felt the subiect location was ideal for a restaurant~ using one-half ~f the facilitles for i ciining r~om and the open bay on th~ soiith sfde as a drive-through; that tt~e sitr, was campletely and flexil~ly accessible; and that they would need stackinn ~~oom for a maximum of 3 or 9 cars~ as proposed. TIiE PUBL) C NEARING WAS CLOSE~, In response to questionin~ by Commissioner King~ Mr. Lerre stated the alley would be utllize~i since (t was very accessibl~ ancl they were proposinq to ~an~iscape '.he front of the rroperty. Commis~i~nt:r Nerhst offereri a motion, seconded by Commissl~ner Tular anct M~TI(1N CARRIF.D (f,ommissi~ners Joh-~on ~n<I Morley being absen+•)~ th~t t~ie llnaheim ~:'Ly Plnnning Corm~iss(on does h~rehy re~;nmmen~i t~ the City Council af ths City of Anaheim that tf~e subJer.t proJect bc~ exempt from the requirerient to ~repa,-e an environment~.l Impact report~ pursuant to the provisi~ns of the Californ~a Environmci.tal Quality Act. Commissi~nFr Herhst offere~ Rc~~lutian No. PC7h-1~~+ anci r~~ved f.~r it~~ passa~e ancl ad~ption~ that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commission dc+~ erehy ~rant Petition for Con~iitional U5~ Permit ~lo, 1E~7.2, e~bJect to the inxer~ tment.~l C~~mrnittee recommen~latinns. (See Reso~~~ion dook) ~n r~,ll c~ll~ the fnre~~in~ ~esolution was passed by the folloa~inn vote: ~Y[S : Cor~r•ti SS I n~~E;~s : DAR~J[5 ~ HE~aST ~ KI NG ~ ToI.RR ~ FAMN~ NoES : COMP{ t SS I nNERS : ~J~~lE AE3SEPIT: C~~1'11 S~ I ~~IERS : JnNNSn~d ~ MORI.EY co~~~ITln~inl 'JSE - PU3LIC NEARiNG. WOODR01~! J. MC CLURf., 2225 East Katella Aven~~~~ PERMIT N0. 1G23 r~naheim~ Ca< 91.R~-~~ (Lessee); W. E. FLAHARTY, 12136 Skyline Dr(ve~ ~ Santa A~a. Ca. 927~5 (Agent}; requesting perm(s,ion to ESTABLI~aH A REC!?F.~TI~NAL VFIIICI.E STORAG~ YARD WITH WAIVF° OF (A) PF.RMITtED LQCl1Tl~fl uF FRcC-STl1~IDIIlf, SIG'!S, (B) MI~lIMIJM STRUf,7UR/1L SE7RACIC AP~D (C~ REQUIRED SITE SCR~E"JING on pro~erty describecl as an irregularly-shaped parcel of lanci consisting of apprc~.'~nately 3.3 acrr.s havinc~ a fronta~e of appr~ximatel•/ 296 fee; on the south- westerly side ~f Howell Street~ having ~ maximum depth of approximately G9~ feet~ and beinq lo;,ated ~pproximately 5?.~ feet r-thwesrerly of the centerline of Kareila Avenue, Prop~;•ty presentlv classifiea ML (ItJDUSTRiAI_~ LIMITFD) 7.O~JF, No ane i~dicated their prrsence ir npposition tn suhJect petiti~m. Although the SC~ff Report to the Plr.nning ~ommission dated Hay ?.h~ 1!~76, was nat re~d ac the public he.~rin~~ said Staff Report is reF~r•red t~ anci made a part of the minutes. , ~ _._. - ~ ~ MINUTF.S~ CITY PLANNING COMIIISSI~'!, M~y ?~i~ 197G 76~2~~7 CON~ITI01lAL US~ PFItMiT N0, 1(~23 ~nued) Mr. WI111<~tm Flafiarty~ the a~ent f~r the petltloner~ appearecl bofore tlic Plann?n~~ Commissl~n ancl stated n~ sl~fca~alks were propoRed for the entirc len~~th of Howcll Strect; that the site would be screened by ~~ ~~-fnot h(yh m~isc~nry watl alung th~ Howc:ll Str~et frontage ~nd the Interlor property lines would he screened by ch.~lnlink fencin~ without slats; that thcy wore requastin~~ to h~avc ~ 25-foot front setback wlilch would be l~n~iscaperi, with the p~~rktn~ t~ he provlded behlnd the block wall; and th~~t he would stlpulate to provlcliny a 6^-foot long vehicular/st,ickfn9 area oucsfde the entrance gate at tl~e nortl~westernr,ost boundary of the subJect property, to alloa, for vehlcle back-up s~~aces when vehicles were waitln~ f~r tl~e g~te ~ be opened~ as recommended by the Clty Traffic EnRi~~~rrin~~ Dlvlslon. TIIF PI18LIi. HEARING WAS CLQSED. Commissionci K(nq Inquirecl if the ex(stinc~ slc~n f~r the McClure buildin~ could be Jolntly uttlized by the subJect pro(ect; whereu~n. Mr. Flaharty 5t.7te~- the su~Ject property was a sep~rate p~irce' ancl the McClure s(gn was ~n the h~llding, an~l he stipulaterl to c:omplying with the signinc~ requlrements of the zane~ other than for the lucation of the proposed si~n. Discussl~n pursuecl conccrninn the scrrening in tfie chainl(nk fencc: enclosinn the outdoor st~r,~~,~ ~1~,~ inq whirh Cammissioner King n~r.e~ that~ in his c~pinion, theru was no app~rent tn the screeninq of the interlor of the sfte; Co;~nlssioner Barnes noted some that IF interior screen(ng was no~ provided, t~~e property mlqht chanc~E han~ls with rc:~ ~nt problems; Commissinner Tolar noted that a time lim(t for review of the screening situaticm miqht be appropriate; and Comm(ssloner Herbst noted that pure out~loor storage was prop~seci an~1 everyone else wh~ wante~i outdoor storage in the City harl been required to screen it~ huwever, with a time ' mit he would not o~pose the pr~posai. P~r. Flaharty requesteci a~~aiver of the requirement for sidewalks on the basis that there were nonP ex-~;tin~ In the area; whereupon, veputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advlsed that a wa(ver of safd re~uirement could be constdereci 6y the City Enginecr, upon request. Commissioner Darr~es offered a mntion, secondeci by Commtssioner Tolar an!{ MOTI~P! CARRIED (i,ommissicncrs Jahnson and Morley being absent)~ tliat the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hereby recommend to the C(ty Council of the Clty of Anatieim that the subject praJecC be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environment,~l impact report~ pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Qualir.y Act. Gommissioner Barnes offer~~d Res~lution t~o. PC7h-1Q5 and moved f~r its P355~~C an~l adoption~ th:,t Petition f~~r Cond~cional Use 1'ermit No, 1G23 be and hereby is granted, in part, qra~i:lnc~ the requested waiver• of the permitted location of free-stan~l(ng signs on the basis that the abuttin~ varcel is hwned by the petitl~ner and the petitioner stlpulateci to otherwise conforming to the signing requlrements of the ML Zone; clenying the requested waiver of tfie minimum striictura? setback on Lhe basis that, if grantecl~ an undesirable precedent would be estahlished in an ind~~strial area; grantinn the requestc~~ waiver of require~~ site screening f~r a time period of two years, subject to review and cansideration for extensions of timc, sald time limitatfon beinh t~ dete;•mine whether the screening of the outdoor use should be required if the common ovmership ~f subJecc property an;l the aclJacent property cases and/or if the developmcnt af neorhy propertfes Is such that ~dequate screening of subject use becomes necessary; subject tc the cri~~ilation of the petitioner that the pr~r~sed gateway a2 the nortliwestern corner of the sub;ect property wi 11 be relocatecl to a clistnnce ~~f f,Q feet southerly fr~~m the property ~(ne alonc~floaiell Avenue; and subject tn the Interdepartmental Committee recommenclations. (See Resolution Book) On roll call~ the foregoing resolution a~a~ passed by the following vote: AY~S: C~1IMISSI~~lf.RS: BAP,PJES, F~~RBST~ KI~JG~ 7~Ll1R~ FARAt10 NOES ; COMMI SS 10(lFRS : NO~JE ;'.HSEIIT: C~M~11SS I~MERS: Jt1H~lS~Pl~ MORLF.Y ~ .... ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOtI~ May 24~ 1976 ~ ~ 7G-248 CQNDIT!~NAL USE - PUI~I.IC FIEARINf, GI.ENf~ K. [iALI.IE''~ 1211 South Wost Strcet~ Ana~holm~ PERMIT M0. 162h Ca. 92~'~~i (Owneo•) ; ARN(11.D 9ALL1 ET, 1?.)1 South West Street ~ Anahelm~ Ca. A2Rn~- (Agent); requesting permission for ADULT MOVIFS IN A MOTEL an property descrlhed as an Irregularly-sheped parcel of land conalsCin~ of approxirtu~tely ~.~i acre ha'~(ng approxtrt-ate frontaqes oP 1~5 feet on the s~uth s'de of Ba~l Road and 60 fe~t on the west slcle of WesL Stre~:t~ hav~n9 ~~ maxlmum depth of approxin~ately 21Q feet~ and further describecf es 17.11 Sauth Wzst Street. Prcrerly prosentiy classifiad C-R (Cf1MMFRCIAL~RECFl:l1Tl~~J) PONE. One persc Indlcated her presancc i~i oppositlan to subJe~t petitfon. Assistant Plann~r Joel Ftck read the Staff Report to the Planning C~mn.issi~n datecl hia~~ ~~+. 1976~ and sald Stoff Report ls referred to as If sex torth in full ln the mtnur.Ps. Mr. Glenr oa~liek, the petition~r~ appeared over the vtdeo ca~mu~lcation 5`JSt~'m ~nd stated tiiey hmd started the uperation of tha su5.{ect rnotel with f~r~s+.-run movies; that they had lnvested thousandg of dollars tn movlc equipment; that they nad used the first-run n vles for about two years; thrt In Febru~ry~ 1~167~ they f~ad hegun showiny adult rt10JiCS whlch others ln tha City and County w~.re showing; that the a~luit movtes were well-c~.~pervlsed~ could only be seen by speclal ~r.quest, and the coat wrs S10.Q~ (n a,idltlon t~~ the cost .f a mate) ra~m per night; tha~ they were ~ot (n thc business of selling rr~vles any inofe ~han they wera try(ng to sell pop~ ~tc,; that they ~y~sre usin9 the mrn~tes t~ promote use o'' thefr motel; that only those who could afford tha ~nQVies cout~ s~e them~ anc~ no mino , under ?.1 years of acfe a~crP 1~erm?tted to sec them; and, Furthermore, the rooms were not cheap In the sub]ect ares; t;~u~ success dP~ended or~ successful promotion; th~t hls son had bsen srrtcken with ~olto •.vhe~ t~~ was very young and was in a wheelchair~ and had a difficuit time findtng a Juhy so the matel had been r,onstructed so that ths son woul~i have a)ob; that his son w3s 1~0$ in charge of the operationg of thr, motel an~i wnrked very hard; ancl thak to have a good business~ it wa~ nece~sary to promo:e ~nd have good Ideas. Mr. Arnold Balliet, the ager~t and operator ~f the s~bJPct motei~ appEare~; over the video comrrunicat(on system and stated the motel was very wc:ll kc~~*_; ~~hat the marquee did not tndicate adult movies; ~hnt they d(d not charge extra for t~e firat-r~n movtes', that adult movtes wcre shown by reques_ only; ihat, genc~ral~y~ after the mot~l cliantele saw the first-run m~vies, they would ask lf that was all there was and~ conseque.itly~ they ~+ere advised that acl~~lt movies were avail~ble upon reques~~ whereupon~ they would sign a r.onsent voucher to have the adult movies shown in their rocros. Mrs. -~ightowrr~ owner of the Jack and Jill Motel ir the subJect area~ appeared before tnP Planning Commission in opposition and s:ated her motel was opei~ed December 19~ 195~; that they :1id not bel(eve that the Disneyland area shauld have tfie type entertalnme~it being rroposed; and that many of he. customers haci inquired lf she al~o showed the X-rate~ ~nov 1 es . The Planning Conmission Secretary rea~ a letter dated May 2-~~ 1976~ from Disneyland~ as fo?lows: "May 2t+, 1976 City of Anaheim Anaheim Flarning Commission 20~{ E. Lincoln Anahetm, CA Dear Planning Commissioners: SUBJECT: Waterctate Motel Request to Show X-Rated Movies Disneyland is unalterably opposed to the granting of this Conditional Use Permit. A survey of the area surround(~g the Motel wtll shaw thiat it is surrounded by fami~y ortented recreation *ype faciltties~ such as Disneyland~ Anaheim Conver~tion C~i~tr.r, Bowling Alleys~ the Disneyland H:~t~l Marina, Angel BasPball Stadium and Kampgrounds of America. Great numbers of people are attracted to Anaheim b~cause of this family oriented raputation. To allow X-Ratad flims tn this area In the mldst of the c:ity of Anahetm waul~± be a direct controdiction to ths reputatton that ~~e have for clean ~.,holesome entertainment and would not be consistent ~~ith the ent~rtain- ment thae people come to expect when they arrlve in Anrhelm.