The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1978/09/11~' ~ City f1a11 Anahetm~ California Scptember 11~ 197A REGULAR MEETiNG OF T19E ANNIEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSIOtI REGUTAR - 7hc regulor meeCing of the A~ahelm Ctty Pl~nning tcmber Se m 0 CanmisgiO^inatheeCouncil 11~ 19~lAr MEETING order by Chairman Herbst p .~ at 1:3 P. Chamber~ e quorum being present. PRESENT C11A I RMAN : Ne rbs t C011MISSIOFJERS: Barnes~ Davl~i~ King, Tolar 11E3SENT COt~M I SS I ANERS : Sohnson VACN~CY One se~t AL50 PRESENT ~ Jack White Deputy City Attorney yln~e~ Office En Jay Tltus Paul Singer , Traffic Engineer Jay Tashiro Ass~ctat~ Planner Ed Gundy Planninc~ Aide Planninq CanmlSSion Secretary Edith Ilarris PLEUGE OF ~ The Pledge of Aliegiance to the Flag was led by Gommisaioner Tolar. ALLEGIANCE COtaTINUED RE/1UVERTISEG PUE3lIC HEARI~G. OWNERS: ITEM N0. 1 yE~qf'jVE UEGLARA710-~ C11RL L. AtID MILURED E. RAU~ Clt+ssic Development Garden Grove, Suite a R~CLASSIFIGATION N0. 11'7~°~+~~ . ~o~P•~ ~Z7~~ Knott Avenue, AGF ~~T : SIIALLER E LO~IR ASSQC 1 ATCS , 1 NC. , C/1 92GA 1 VA I ANCE t~0. 299 ~N A TRACT . 36G San Miguel Drtve, Newport Beach, CA 926Go. -shaped parcel ularl i W0. 1025~+ (R~VISION N0. 2) y rreg Prop~rty desc~ibed as an thing of land conslsting e 5 ~ t ox WAIVER QF C17Y COUNCIL no on the feet 83 + oxtmatel a frontage of app Y POIiCY t20. 53~ west slde of Santa Ana Canyon Ro~d, havinq a maximum ed depth of approximately 4~-0 feet~ and be1^9ese~tl p Y rt P y rope approxl,~at~1y 1800 feet northe~st of the centerline of Mohler Orive. (RESICENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENIC GORRIUOR UVERLAY) and COUN7Y C ) classified h5-A-43~0(l0(S A1 {GEfJERAL AGR~CULTURAL) ZONES. REQUCSTED CIASSIFIGAT~~~~~ OVERLAY)SZOI~ER~SIUENTIAL, 51~lGLC-FAMILY-SCEIIIC CORRIDOR VAtt 1 ANCE ftEQUEST : uAAT~S ! Nf,L~AFAIM 1 LYMSTRUCTURESTREARUOFRaRTER 1 ALNH I G IWAYS~U I R~MENT 7 TEI~TATIVE TRACT REQUE~T: 16-LOT~ RS-72~)U(SC) SUBDfV151QN. Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 3~ and August 28, 1978 at the request of the p~titionPr. 78-744 ' 9/11/78 ~ ~` MI NUTES ~ I1~~ANE I N C I TY PLN~~~ I NG COMM 1 SS I UN ~ SEPTf Ml3ER 1 1, 197$ 78- 745 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICAlION N0. 37-7~-~G~ VARIANCE H0. 2~9~~~ AND TE~ITATIVC MAP OF TRAGT NQ. 10254 (REVISION N0. 2} (contlnwsd) _ __ There wera ~ic~ht persons indl.,at,~~ their presence in ~rp~sition t~ subl~ct requesc~ and although the stnff repo~• to thc Plenniny Com~,~lstl~n d.wt~d Sopt~ml•csr 11~ 197P was not re~d sl the public heering~ it is referrcd to anJ made e pArt of t-,e minut~s. I~ was noted thr HI11 end Canyon Mun(clpal AJvisory Ccxnmitt~e (IIIICNAC) rev(ew•~d the revlsad pl~ns fur the abc~ve prapos~~l on Aprll 2r~~ 1~7fi and wi~li nine memhers present~ seven members voted to re~.orm-end dnnta) of the subml tte<i trnct msp dnrf requested varlance since the d~veloper has ~ot ~roven a hardship re~utred hy thP Zonin~ CoJe for Che reduced lot frontnaes~ An~! se.verel rne~~berY fe~t It woul~E he: ~ndeslrrl~lr. for common Lots A~nd B to be unmaic~talncd and ~but ~r~~~~~~•~i l~ts es «;~ i I b~, to lsave ~ remn.~nt parcel ea~ t of the pr~posed trsc.t which w~ul~f be very difflcult to develop, One mrrnb~r felt the .rect cuuld be approvcd if L~ts A and B and the rernnant pArccl to tl~e ~ast were not left undeveloped and unm~intalneuy a~~d an~ mei~ber felt tl-r tract sh~ulcl Ue apnrovect Althouqh the tract was not d~si~~ned p~rticulariy well. Ranald Noyes~ rtp~escntiny C~assic Devel~~prnent Company~ lndir.a~ed they had been before the Comn~sslon several ttmc;s concern(ng rhis development; that Initially there were several concerns expressed by the Lomn(ssion ~~id thc~y ha~f resolvcd those concerns~ and the C~mml;slon granted Approval of tl~l~ Jev~lopment son~ tin~e eyo. 11e stated the development wes appealed to the Clt.y Councll anJ is ncrir back hefore the Commissl~n ~nr furtlie~ revlew; tl:at the oppaal was coiicr,rned b.-~si cal ly wi th two separ•aie mat.terx: 1) thc~ nropused davelo~rtr_nt having inad~yu~t~ c~r substandard lots in comnaris~n wlth che exis~Ing dgveloprtx:nt and indicated thr.y have demonstrated c.oncl~sively that this Is not the cas~e; that. in fect~ chc lots vary betwecn two and three times larqer than the adJ~cent developr-ent; that the flat p~~1s on mo~t of the lats are as much as doubla to those tr ~i-e ad,jacent developmer•~t; th.,t the flat~ hulldahle pod area on tl~e lot 'mmedia[ely adJacent ta the rss i dence of tl•c peop 1~e wi~u t~ad f( I c~J the appea I 1 s twi cc as 1 a~~ge as che I r en t I re I~t; and 2) safety - it was expressed that possfbly thc strcet was too stecp and there were too many driveways o~~ the street. They asked for a c~ntinuance to study this W~th ~he City staff andhad as~~.ed for yuidanc~ relative !o c~rrect(n~ ~ny deficien~les thar may exist. fle indicated o tr~fflc study was con~iucte~! by Mr, Singer and tl~e results ~f th~: study shawed that the usagc~ of ti~~ str~ct is very ~~v, aRproxlr,~ately 7~3~ cars per day. He stateA th~y have pfferPd to provide access to ~hr o+her screet tn the tract and eliminate access to the tract at this pr~lnt from Santa Ana Canyon Renr1. wt~ich should el(minate eny concern ad}ace:nt residents should !iave ~bout the safety~ hawever~ the City is unwiliing at thls time t~ provide acc:ess through the adJacent praperty t~ Santa Ana Canyon Road. kle stated there lias becn an offer tn dedl~ate a new eesement through that area; however, there is no desire on th~ part of the Cit.y to change the access from tts present locatlor, He indic~~!eci they have agre~rl tv ca~~ply wi tf~ al l the Commission's requiremerts and r~ccxnmendations wiih respect to this roaclway and have rpquested frum the City staff any requirements the;~ might hsve to eliminatc safety hazards and have heen told a safety hazard daes not exi,t, Ne indicated there Is on record cx~e acc~dent in the vicinity ~f this Intersection and it wAS not somethiny that could be related in any way to the design uf the street; that the street I~as been funct(oning far over a year with such a record -ha~ couid not be imorQVed upon~ and tf~ey dic; not feel it could be demonstrated the design of the strect at present is unsafe~ and since they have na intentlons to alter that desiyn. he Jid not feel the developr,-ent would make it unsafe; [hac the additto~ oP these lots to the traffic flow in this area would certainly be insignificant, therefore, they wcre asking the Commiss(on to reinstate their previous approva) of this development. Ne stated there was conce~n express~d by five lots on Via Copala wcre too many an~ too cl~se together; however~ the numbers large. He s!ated the two lots that were 11~0 00 square feet and the gross area of the people who flled the appeal that tyey felt ~ that the lots werp too small And the driveways do not bear that aut; that the lots a~e quite of particular concern have pads of 10~000 to those lots (s considerably larger than that; tl~at 9111/78 . ~r y~ ~11NUTE5~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 11~ 1978 7~~7W6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-4h~ VARIANCE N4. 7.994~ AND TENTATIVC MAP OF TRACT N0. IU'ttiW (REVISION NU. 2) (contl~ued) _ _ ~_ . __ _ _ .__.._... ------ tl~e tota) frontege of thoae five lots is considerably qrerter, two to chree times~ than tha frontege of thc lots an wl~(ch the: people sr~ currently Iivinry; thAt the drfvew~,ys are conalderebly further epart wir.h more spece bptween chrm than any od)ACen davelopment. hle stated lt simply c~uld not be supported trom an ~nglneertna standpo(nt th~t there are too mAny driveways on that street and if it could be suppported~ t{~ey would ch~ nqe It. Grog and Eve Ml lle~~ 7684 Cal le Du~~+ne~o~ A~ahetm~ were present~ and Nr. Mi l ler statcd his measurements of the lat do not come up to wi~at the developer seys; that h~ i s not a developsr~ su he cauld bc off on some of the lots; end thet he was plaas~d ta I~eor the developer is not Interasted in mavine~ that street because r lot of the homevwnQrs are concernod aibout the street being left end having a cul-de-sac. Ne stated th elr complalnts as in thc pest ar~ thc san~e. As far os addiny ~re t~~ffic to the streec with more homes thei~e~ there w( 11 be more tl~an 7f30 aclditl~n.~1 cers pe~ d~y; that thcre has been more thon one eccident on that corne~ and some of the homeowners have wltnesssd chem and maybe they wcre not ~epor~ed. Nc stn~c.f at this point ~ie has made severa) ~ffers to purchase the ~ruperty behind his hnme In order to enlar~e his bt~ck yard~ and with sonre t hought of makiny a community pool or mr~ybe 8 little park su the kids could yet off th c streets to plAv, but thcy had gotten no answer or res~onse to the l~ttcrs he had so:nt to ~lasslc Uavelopment about purchasing tl~e aroN~rty; thrt he was t~~terested in se~ing If thcy would be interested In selli~y thcir praperty t~ him at this ~~oint. Eve Miller stated one of their m.~ln concerns Is the safeiy of the street; t hat the grade nf the street is 13•li$ ~~t r.t~is tirne and accorJing to the Fire Depertment the maxlmum is 12~,; that th(s. ~long with the si~ero turn at the top of che hill~ makes (t vcry unsafe a~d if people come out of thetr dri:-~~ays with the oncoming traffic off Sa~ta A ne Canyon Road~ it would be very unsafe. She stated the developer will, tn fact. put the binck wall at the top of ttie hill to st~p the cars that come off the carncr from falling, and this would help quite a bit, but thc wall at thc end of the tract is half block and h alf wood and she has s:en cars come throuyf, block walls in~i there would be the additional hazard of the waii coming dvwn on top of the houses alony with the cars. She indlcated thls ts thair position and submlttcd severa) letters from homeowner5 wlu ^ould not atten d the meeting today. Greg Miller polnted out tt~osc property o~wners have expressed the same c~nc~erns as mentioned in their letters. Larry Sickles indicated he lived across the strePr. ~t 7~75 Calle Durango a nd wanted to add that his apprehenst~ns were the ~ame; that this Is an unreasonable plan an d no~e of them should h~ve to be present to np~ose it, but felt it was a little more than Che developer should try to put ~ver on them. Phillip French~ 7655 Calle Duranyo~ Anahe(m~ stated when he Durchased hi~ home he wa.~ not told of the intention ta put more hcxnes in the area; that he drives that s treet ev~ry day anci knows tnat wl-en vou start to ciescend the street off Santa Ana Canyon 6toad~ the vision is blocked and the positfon of :-+e driveways that are supposed to be put in there are yoiny to create a traffic hazard, and he fplt the entire pro)eGt is bad. Anthony Pratali~ 7b91 Calle Durango~ Anahetm, polnted out t~~e locat6or of h(s housc ~r,d stated if a driver were unabl~ to put on his brakes~ the car would end up in hts livin~ room~ and even though the~ developers say there ha~ been on~y one accident_ ~hat maybe only one has been recorded hut there iiave been three~ two of which h-ve fialler. dlrectly into tf~is area; that two cars liave gane down that embankment and hov~ had to f~ave [ow trucks get them o~it, and he dJd not think this is a feasible plan as proposed at this tlme, and he was again~t it. 9/11/78 ~ MI tiUTES ~ ANANF. IM C ITY PLANNI NG COMMISS I ON ~ SEPT~MBER 1 1~ 1~78 .. x .; 78-747 kIR NEGATIVE DECLAMj10N~ RLCLASSIFICATION N0~ 7~-76-46~ VIIRIANCE N0. 299k~ AND TENTATiVE h~M OF TRACT N0. 1025~+ (REVISION N0. 2) (continued) __ _~ _ ... Mr. Noyes stetcd the s ame issu~s are being dealt wltl~; that it becomes n questlon of whether or not ~he views of the people who Ilve there can be made t~ correspond wlth the vtews of the englnee rs who design the street. Ne statQd that also th~rc~ repcatedly seems t~ be a concern thr~t what they e~n going to butld thero is go(ng to create a hazard~ and he thought the polnt has to be made tl~at the stre~t is there o) ready And ti~ been there for some time. Ne poi nted aut Mr. Pratal i is ac~alnst the streat~ but the s~r•eet ts a fact~ It Is there a~d exls:s~ an~ thay did not request eccess at this polnt but think it Is necessary to 5er~ i ee the tract ar the people wh~ llve thr.re. Fle pointed out M~. Mi l ler hes repeatedly state d his measuremr.nts of the lots art not the same as the cleveloper's and the( r concern hAd been perhaps ch~:y hacl rt-ede an error~ but they have not mede an error and the lot stzes ~Iven a ~c correct. tle stetcd conccrn was ~xpresscd again thet ddditlonal homes wtl) create ed dit(ona) traffic, but they are oniy proposing 1G homes. !ic steted the grade of the strcct is nn established fact an~1 thc grade af the s!r~et has not resulted tn any Acc(dents; th~~t one. acciclent has been recorded which `~ad nothing to do whats~ever with thc loeatlon or const ruction of Via Copt+lA; and that it has ber.n stated the vlslon fram the top of tt~e I-i 11 i s not avat lablc, and they are r~c~uired to provi~IC 300 feet of vlsion at the top of the hi 1 i. Ile s[ated there is consiclerable weed growth at that location and tha~ landscaping that right-of-way cnn only serve to improve the vlsibillty. t~e stated that in ~hanging the desiqn of thc strect~ they would b~ tmproviny Che dcs(gn af the Intersection ~y providing a left-turn lane anJ 18ndscapiny at tt-e intersect(on and ful) in~provement of Santa M a Canyon Road ot that location. He stetrd they havr not refuseA to sell the land to the Mlllers~ but they slmply cannot name a pr(ce ~nCll th c•y knnw what their casts are and they connot begtn to determine thelr cost5 untll they h.~ve an ap~~rav~:d subcitvtsi~~n. He stated tt would be nice to have a park there and asked if this I~cation would bP any sefcr as A park than it would bc as ~ twu- lot residence and indicate~~ he did nat think so~ therefore~ they w~:re askina again that the Commission consid er this matter and reinstate its prevlous approval. TIIE PUEILIC tiE~~Ritd~ WAS CLOSEU. Chairmen lierbst sta*.ecJ it appears the main objection of the City Councll and the reason they had sent this p roJect back to tfie Planninq Commiss(~n for evaluation was !he five outlets on[o Vta C~op ala. tie indicated h~ had walked the site agafn and did not fce) Lat 16 is a 3ood restden tia) lot~ that a good portion of it (s 1n slope and is nothing but driveNay frontage an d is aiso re~rinc~ anta three lots, which means th~se people wil) b~ looking into three lots~ anc~ this (s one ar~a he woul~ have obJection to. ~le referred to Lot 13- point(ng out the gracJing plan calls for filliny in that one area which has a deep hole and the slope of the road at thai point is approxlmately 13$, which tS a substantial, steep grade for a re siden!ial strect with cars backiny out onto that street~ and this is one of the cnncerns h e has with the three lots on the ~ther side of Vta Copala. Ghairman Nerbst poin ted out the easenw nt crossing Lot 6 and asked the purpose of that easement~ and Mr. Noy es replled the easement is to provide servlce to th~ water well; that they have access ~t this timc, however~ the eccess 1~~ Che fu-.,re can be provlded off the cu{~ae-sac; that the re is a road e~sement in the form of a blanket eas~~n~nt~ but it is a pipeline easement an d follows an the slope partton of Lot 6. He stated there is not ~ road there at the p resent time; that they usc four-wlieel drive vehicles and pointed aut the access p roposed an~! felt it would be a much cieaner access than t~ey presently t~zve. He sta:ed the easert~nt which Ccmmissioner Herbst had referred to would be el (minated from the record, and tha t they do have t(tle to that pruperty. Commisstoner i~.ing as~eJ about lots A~nd 8 wl~'ch HACMAC had been concerned sbout, and also the remnant at the east side of the tract~ a~ci Mr. Noves pointed aut the location of Lots A and B inttially a~ d stated because nf NACMAC's conc,ern and because of revisions they are JI11I78 --J ~ ~ ~ 4 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEM~ER 11~ 1978 7n-7~i~ EIR NEGATIVE DCCLARATION~ RCCLIISSIFICATION N0. 77-7A-46~ VARIANCE: -~n. 2~~p~ AND TENTATIVE M/1P OF TRACT N0. 1025~+ (RF.VISION NQ. 2) (conttnued) ~~~ _ __~__„ making to camply wlth Conmisston requircmants~ tf~ay h3ve cl(mtnetrd those lots. Reletlve to Lot 1G~ he polnred ouC hc mede ~ couple of edJustments whlch chey ho~rd would Imprnve ~cxnewhat the situett~n which had created the c~ncerns. Ile polnted ~ut th~ altered lines whlch wera provldtng flattar~ wi~~er access srea to the bullding pad on the lot~ ~nd they heve provlcfed a(-foot wfde landsceped buffer between the lok end the edJacent three lots that rear onto Lot 16 and felt this sl ic~ht adJustrnent of the lot lln~ wnuld somewhet. increase thc pAd A~ea an Lot 16 at the csxpcnse of Lot ta. He polnt~d out that before the adJustment~ Lot 1f, had a flat pad uf 11,70~ square feet~ n~t slo~e; that the Miller's lot adJacent~ fo~ ~xemple~ had f~;00 sq uare fee~ qross end thls cou~d~ by no stretch of the Ima~inatlon~ be celled ~ smnll pad for a lot that is prlmarily~ sloped. lie pointed out there is a lot of slope on the lot, but it is a ve~y larye lot to begin wtth~ a 11.70() squere foot~ flat {~ad wl~tcl~ sl~uuld be adequate to bulld a single-famlly hous~. Commissioner ~arnes asked if [here was anyone presn.nt who liv~s ~n Can~ino ?ampico to the east~ stattn,y she wondereJ where the people from th~t area gair d r~ccess to Sante Ana Canyon Road~ ~n~i thare wAS a respanse fram the audience that they ya(n acces° f~om Vta Copala, Commissloner 4A rnes stated somr_ pcoplc do ,yo out thr~ugh Mohlcr urlve. C~anmissioner UavIJ askc~f the Trafflc En_yineer far his comments concerning V(a Copala~ pointing out the oppogit(on is seyin~ V(a Copala would bc vcry uns~~fe wlth Chose flv~ lots with the edded trafflc~ etc. Paul Singer~ Traffic Enyln~:sr, pointed out tliey have count• ~ the trafflc on Via Copala and have come up with 784 trips per averaye work day~ week day trafttc~ which Is a very lc~w traffic figure on a r~esiGential st~~et~ and tFiey have no record of any acc(dent occurring on that street; that thc:re was one rccord~~~ accident~ a runaway car on Santa An~ Canyon Road~ which real ly t~ad nothiny to do wi th that particular intersectton. Ile s ted as far as the road being safe, if nothiny has ever hAp~ened an it~ it is considcred safe; that if these drlveways proposed by the petitione:r could be internally desi~ined so :hat vehfcles entering parktng pads and yarages would ht+vP a means of Curning around on thc property and heading out rather than ba~kin~ out pnto Via Copela~ this street still wnul~ remain safe. ~ie stated~ obviausly~ no matter what the te~rain~ any [Irne a car is backing onto s street, it runs (nto the problcm of beino run into and thfs is true on any resiJential street~ but it is accentuetcd when it !y on a grade, that this same condition exists all over the hills area with grades and traffic backing cu~to a street~ so lt is s questfon of where you want to draw the Ilne and what con,titutes 100a safety. fle stated he beltev~ed in this case there is sufficient spacP on those front lots for the developer to be able to provlde a hammerhead on the prpperty or Join two driveways together so they mskc a loop; elther way, he could probably have them e.clt face-first rather than backing into tl~e stroet~ and that would eliminate any question of safety. He stated any tlme there are rr~c~re thar- iwo car_ an a stree:. there is goiny to be a s~fety problem on any street. Commisstoner Davt~i aske~f Mr. Noyes if hc was aware of the frelin~s of ihe Traffic Engineer and if it would be possible to implPment his suy~estlans. Mr. Iloyes indtcated he did not knc~w whether c,r not it would be possible on all the lots~ but he was sure it wauld be possible on the lots closest to Santa Ana Canyon Road where the hazard would exist~ and Chairman Herbst pointed out he felt that ls what Mr. ~i~ger was dlscusstng~ those three lots. Mr. Noyes replied it would be posstble on those lots. Gommissioner l3arnes indicated she would like to discuss the grade whtch is 13$, or 1~ mc~re than the maximum allowed by t'~~.: Fire Department. She stated one thing she finds very curious is that almost all of the letters submitted have to do with the closing of the street; that they do not want that street closed, so obviously the people in the tract are willing to risk the danger of goiny onto Santa Ana Canyon Road~ beceuse if che danger was 9/11/78 ~ ., .~ MINUTES~ ANAt1EIM CITY PIANNING CONMISSION~ SEPTEMDER 11~ 1~78 78-749 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION NQ, 77-78-46, VARIANCE NQ, 29g4~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 102s4 (REVISION N0. 2) (contlnued) Erare then the c~nvenlence~ ihen they would went to cl~se (t~ so she did not see it as a dango~. Sl~e asked haw much the treffic flow would be Increesed per day with the 1F homes. Pau) Sinyer stated tl~c increesr would be 13.5 trips per d~y pnr unlt. fle explalned the entire aree between Via Copela ~~d Mohler Drive is servcd by thc Mohler Drlve access, and the Mohler Drlve access handl~s r~ppraximatcly 1~800 cars as opposed t~ those 780~ so the trafflc desire Ilnc~ is prtma~ily !o thc west alonq Santa Ana Cen~•on Road rather th~n to the east. He state~i it is probably only th~se h~mes thnt are rm,tly adJatent who would flnd (t rnore convenlent to use Via CapAla and this tigu ~e Is pretty clryse t~ thelr proJecttons at the t(me thp nelghborl~~x,d petltt~ned the Clty t~ construct Vla~ Copsla; that it was constructed by request of thc area and was n~t or(glnally sh~wn or not ~~rlglnally prompt~d by J~velop~~~ent. l,ut t t was ~dded st a 1 ater d~tc hc~~;~se thc res i dents fe1 t they hod on ly one wey i n, Cammtssloner To~ar stated hc thought it woulcf be very nalve on anyone's part t~ think. that land is not going to be devcloued (n some way; that the questia~ Is how to develop it in thr_ best way~ and wfth the enceptton of those two lots on the west side of Vta Copala or the ones backlnca up to Chc Milicr property end several other pro~ertles~ he would find it d(fffcult not to suppo~t this particular plan because thc slzes range in excess of 14~OQ~ squarc feet~ or ar~ averagA nf 11~04~ squere fect per lot~ wl~ich (s a yrcat der) htgher then the RS-7200 Zone requlres. Mr. I~oyes polnted ~ut thc largest lot is tn excess of 18~0~0 square feet. Commisstoner Tolar stated the developer is ~isklny that this property be develaped as RS-~ 710U~ which ls ~ lot larger than the houses abutting it to the west (Classic Homes) and with the exceptlon of the s.-+fety of thos~ twu lots on th~ west side of Via Copala~ he would find it dtfflcult in fiis own rnind to say it is not a good plan. Ilc stated he did not know where thcy are going to gee acce~~ anywherc else to that partlcular parce) of land and it ts very obviously going ;r. ~e develope~ in some ~ay~ and (f there was only one tot on the west side of Via Copala versus twc~ isavtng m~re spACe betw~en that and the existing residentlal homes, he would support '~t. Comn(ssi~ner Barnes indicated lot iG is 11~000 square feet of flat land which is large~ than the average hame in that whole tract and larger than any home (n their tract, and devetopc~s have ccxne before tlie Commission canstantly wtth lots Ilke this in Anaheim Hilis and there is no difference in thts lot and any ather lot wh~ch hes bcen approved. Commissioner Tnlar pointed out it is a lot different because the grade is a lot different; that tl~ere are two driveways si~ie-hy-side on the west stde af the property and thought there sh~uld be only one lot on that side; that i[ is true tt would be a much larger lot~ but somettmes that wlll happen in the hills and canyons; that it is a srpep grade, 12.8~ is ste~p coming around that curve, and tie felt that with one house on this side, the lots could be b!~~ enouyh to put tt~e turn-around on the lot. Conmissloner Qarnes pointed c~ut the petitioner has agreed to do that alre~dy. t:ommissianer Tolar indicated he did not s~e how it could be done on the west with th~se tM~~ lAts because there would stil be tvm drfveways side-by-side~ pl~~s ane house would be sitting practically in the back y~rd of the house below tt. He stated this (s not a question of over-im~actiny the area~ so it is not a questiar~ of density~ but that ttalktng about density sor,~etirr~:s does not ~elate to the grade~ safety factors~ and the health end welfare of the oth~r pc~ple in the area~ and he would not want that house in his back yard either. 9/11/78 ~, , MINUTES~ ANAI~EIM CIT~ t ~/1N~IING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 11 ~~97a 7~-750 EIR NEGATIVE DELLARATlON~ RECLASSIFICA'IQN N0. ~7-78-46~ VARIANCE NQ. 2994~ AND T~NTATIVE MAP 0~ TRACT N0. 1025~+ (RCVlSION N0. 2) (continue.d) ~ _____,_, Commisaioner Oarnes pointed out she I~nowt Ic is a pr~blern~ but tt Is h~ppening over and over again tn the hills. She (nd(cated she dld not sce any Jiffcrence In this and the t ract app roved LWO ~+ICCIS4 a~,~o t n Anah~ ! m II I 11 s w i th the dcve 1 opmen t to be ovrr 1 ook 1 ng the houses wt~ich are extstinr. Commisslancr Totar stated he would offer e resolut(on for approvel tf one lot was elimtnetcd~ and Chalrman Hcrbst and Commfssioner Davld indlcated they would alsc vot~e for approvAl for one lot rather tha~ twa. Cl~airr+~,~ Herbse polnted out there ls only onc varlAtlon which is lot 13 and ~the othcr deviations ~~cre on the cul-de-sac~ which is not unusual. Mr. NoyPS polnted c~ut~ recognizing the concerns of the Commisslon bnd the realden*s re~lat(vr, to that matter~ they have included a 6-faot wide easement or landscaped buffer which would lieve a block wall at the top of thc hili~ whlch would csliminatr. a direct vi~w fron Chc ground levr.l of thc upper house into tha Pxls~ing rr~perttPS bclaw and also provide a more pleasant vic.wv from the rear of tha extsting properties. (Commissione~ Tola~ ssked what is pleasant a5out a 6-foat hiyh block wall.) Mr. 1luyes pointed out thcy (ntend tc~ plece [hat fencr 4 to C feet from the present property lins an~ provide a rt-aintained I~ndscaped buffer between the f~nce and the axisting property lines. (Cammissioner Barnes~ Tolar and Chairman Herbst asked who would maintaln that landscaped area.) Mr. Noyes polnted it would be on the property avners' side of the fence and the dc:velaper would ltke ta proposc that they wili acce~-t maintenancE of it. ~f not~ there would be an association provided for slope maintenance~ but they would F~refer that the property aaners do it themselves since it is not such a large area and would not be outstde the realm of normal yarder~~ng and they could have whatever lan~isceping they wanted there. Commtssioner Tolar pointed out an ~ssociation can be abandoned at any time; that the City Attorney has sCateJ for yesrs that these associati~ns are only valid as long as the pnople want them to be. but if they elect not to do tt~ associations can be abandoned as easy as they are formed. Mr. Noyes pointed out that is why they wauld offE* that area for maintenance by the homeaw ners in the adjacent tract. Commissianer Taiar st~ted he was tryin~~ to lielp with this proposal and he ts looktng for a stipulation to el(minate one lot and if the petitioner is not interested in doing that, he would be Interested in malcfr~~ a motlon and that motion could go elther way the petitioner wanted tt; that it is up to the petitione~ how ttie reads the Conmissio~~ but wtth two lots he would offer a mctlon for deniai. Mr. N~yes stated if the Commissi~n in Its wisdom chooses to r~du~ce thut to c~ne lot. it is their prerogattve~ but that they are asking for a decision on this proJect. Commissioner Tolar stated he felt the petitione~ (s entitled to a decision; that this has been goi~g on fa~ a long tlrne and the petitioner hed trled very diligently to i•esolve the prut~lems and he ~ecognized it is a very ~tfficult piece of property~ but sometimes you cannot yet as many lots out of a difficult piece of property as you would ltke and he recognized the averages are quite hi,yh~ but thought there is a health and safety situation not only for the peAple living there, but for the people who are going to be living there~ and ~y eliminatiny one more lot, and he r~alized no developer wants to do 9l11,/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CIiY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 11~ 1g7B 7A-15~ EIH -~LGATIVE DECIl~RATION~ RECLASSIFiCATi0~1 N0. 77-78-~~6~ VARIANCE N0. 29~~~~ AND T~NTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NU. ~0254 (REVISION N0. 2) (continued) that~ he ~~'~ought the develaprr~ent w~ulcf be about es goad as could be gottQn from thls property. Maury Nichols~ Classic Development,, indicated theY would he willlny to stipul9te to furnlshlny e hammerhead a~ turn-around area on eACh of the fivc lots~ but a~ to voluntarily resctnding or taking out one lot~ economic.~lly he could not agree tfl it. 11e stated if the Commission r.lects to approve it thet way~ h~ w~uld have to live wtth tt; that they would provtde a turn-around are~ on eac:h lot eae;n though hc did not think it would be aesthctlcally pleas(ng~ but if from a safeGy polnt of vtew it would satlsfy the coneerns I n that regard ~ he wo~~l d be~ I~epFY to do t t. Conm(sstoner Tolar polnted out t~,e Planntn~ Conxniss(on cannot ~'.ect t~ just ellminate one lot~ that they are not archit ; rQ~irawing the pl~ns, and unless the dtveloper stipulates to rerro v'ng une l~~t~ fhey can ~~nly ~ct on what Is presentcd. (Jack White~ Dcputy City Attorney~ e~cplalned the Commission must either epprove ~r reir_ct this plan~ ~~~b)ect to con~i[iuns and stipulatiu~s, but thcy cannot redesign it.j Mr. Nichals stated he hesitates to yive u~ a lot when thP City staff states it is not a safety hazard~ and hc thc~ught ic wa~ an unreason8ble posttion on the part of the Commisston If thcy yo totally agalnst tl~c staff's recommend~tion just far personal reasons. Commissioner Tolar polnted out he does n~t ltve in the arca so dc~es not have any personal reasons other than the fact t~~at the deveioper~ Classic.liomes, built ell those hort~es adJacent to thts lot a~~ci this home is goinq ta be in their back yards. Mr. ~~ichols p'nted out it will not be any closer to their hack yArds than any other k~y lot carner :~(tuation would be if this were flat land. He staced they have normal baek ya~ds and tfiey are offering a 6-faot wide lAndscaped ea5ement and the nt~rm~l s(de yard. Chairman Herbst stated he felt the Planning CommlSSion sho~id proceed o~tth this hearing; that he was not in favo~ of Lot lf, and had be.~n opposed to it since he had seen (t; that he went out and wsl~ed the property :~-~ain and tt Is not A place for a home. He felt tf t~~~y eliminate ~ne lot~ it will make a yood~ llvable house; that unfortunately the terraln is bad and causes some problens, but he did think lt was che ~ouncil's thought that ffve outlets on Via Capala were too many, which was the reason they sent it back to the Planning Commission. Y.aryn Schonherz~ 157 Nortli Motiler Drive, Anaheim~ stated she was representing the con u:rned netghbors; that they do not have a matr~tenance assocfatia~n of any kind at the present time; chat if Classic Uevcl~pme~t is planning an instituting a;e on these 1F lots. tt is something new; that Classic Devclopment ma(ntains no part of the p~operty, in fact~ she haci gone through Pubiic Works eight months ego in arder to get trees p~anted on Mohier urive whcre Classic Development had left nothing but weeds; that they refused to landscape that area. She stat~d this is not in conforr,~anre with the rest of the t~act; that there are no other flag lots in thc tract and she does not know of any other lots in the hills that front upon three other homes. She stated even with the 6-foot wall~ the house on Lot 16 will be laoking down into the Miller property, plus the other house behind tt, She stated as f~r as the resale valur goes~ Classic Development has been granted variances before in the tract; that they are supposed to be in an RS-7200 square foot area; that each house on Avenida Malaga~ for instance~ ts 60 feet by 100 feet, +rhich means they have 12G0 square feet less of flat iot; and th~t every single lot has to be flat~ there are no sl~opes. She stated wl~en It comes time for the homeowners to build pati~s, the City code reads they are supposed to have 5-foot setbacks frorn the sides and 10 feet f~om a block wal) because they are in an RS-7200 Zone. 9/il/78 ,k a a ~ a MI NU'ti.S, /1WANE IN CITY PLANNI NG COMMI SS ION, SEPTEM9ER 1 1~ lg7a 7~i-7~z EI-' t~EG~1TIVC DECLi+RATION~ RCCLASSIFICATION N0. 77-]8-46~ VARIA~~CL N0~ 2y~4~ n~ro TE~~TnTiv~ MAr OF TRACT N0. 10254 (REVISION N0. 2) (contlnued) Ms. Schonhe~z st+~tod the prablem ts when vArirn~es are grantc~ for thtngy llke f~~ lots It mak~s lt extrem~ly diffir,uit for homeowners to construc.t ~AtIoS~ etc. She stated if there ere slidinc~ gl~ss doers ar any windows faciny thAt si.1~~ th~ sun wc~~ild be a problem and patlos cannot be butlt beceuse of City codes. She polnted out there are abc~ut eight I~ouses Classlc Uevelopment has butlt an Calle DurAnr~o ancf for one and one-half years are still unsold because of ~he sh~rC ciriveweys~ little br~ck yards, ~nci hiqh~ steep slopes. She stated th(s ts a diFficult ptec~ of lanci t~ develop~ but thc~se houRes are sttttnc~ there and ~ire an pyesore~ th~t they arc not lanciscaped and hAVC weeds knee-htgh. She stated tf ti~~se h~mes wcre qotnc~ to bc allowrd, es~eclally LAt iG~ tt wlil AISO be a problesm t~ try to sell them and suygested they Ar~ gofn~~ to stt for rmnths unsold and unilved (n. Mr. Nichqls stat~~J there are two or three points he would likc: to covcr: 1) tF~ maintanance assoc(ati~n was not Classic's desire; that there was not an essoclatton in the f~~~nbr tract~ but it was staff's desire and he was not sure whether It was an ordlnanct~ but due to [he sir.e of the slopes A matntenance ~ssociation was required; 2) there are tl~ree or four othen c~xnes in Llassic: tracts with side-on lots siuillar L~ Lot 16 and there are no other flag lots~ f~c~wever; ~~nci 3) ~s to tF-c unsald homes, they h~vc one urssold home (n the entire Classic traGt~ but tfiere ~ire ~ few undelivered anci he thought there were four unclosed escrows and the rest ~f the homes that may be var_ant have been sold or are a~ned by someonc otf~er than Cla,sic Uevclo~n-ent. fle asked if it would be posslble to have a st~aw vote without a flnai acti~n~ and Chatrn~an Herbst pointed out that would not be possible. Mr. Nichols s[ated that rather thun yo through ar.other six mc~nths of what he has Just ~one through, he woul~! lil.e to requcst apG~rova{ of this tract map with Lots 15 and 16 being one lot and asked if th~ action ~f the Planning Commission would be finfll tod~y or if it would automatically yo ro the City Counctl~ and Jack White~ Ueputy Ctty Attorney~ pointed out the matter would be subject ~.; app~~l. ACTI~i~: Commissic~ner Tolar offere~ a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Davicl and MQTION CAR D(Comnlssioner Johnson bei~. absent and one sea~ beiny vacant)~ that the Anaheim City Plannirq Commission I~as revie~a~d tf~e proposal t~~ reclassify the praperty from the RS- A-43~OQ0(SC) (Residential/Agricultu •al-Sce~~ic C~rri~.or Overlay) Zone and County A1 (General Agricultur~l) District to tlie RS-72Q~(SC) (Residential~ Single-Family-Scentc Corridor Overlay) Zone to establisf~ ~ ty-lot, RS-7200(SC) subdlv(sion with waivers of minimum lot width and frontagc: and r4quirement that sinyle-family residential structures r~ar-on arterial I~ighways on an irregu::rly~-~haped parcel of land consisting of approxlmately ;.2 acres liaving a frontage o~ appraximately 834 feet on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ havinc a maxlmum depth af approximately 440 feet, and being located approximately 1~00 feet n~rtheast of tt~e centerl fne of Nohler Drive; ant' +n~s hereby approve the Negative Oeclaration from the requireme~nt tu prepare an environmente~ inpac.t report on the basis that there would be no signlflcant individual or cumulative adverse environmental ~mp~,ct ctue to the ap~roval of this Negat(ve D~cla~ation since the Anahelm General Plan designates the subJect property for generai open space/low density residential la~~i uses canmensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmenta) impacts a~e involved in the propasal; that the initial Study submltted by the petit(aner indicates riti signlf(cant individual or cumulative adverse enviro~mental irrpacts; a~d that the Negative Declaration substantiati~g the fo~egoing findinys is on file in the City of Anahelm Planning Department. Commtssi~n2~ Talar offered Resoiution ko. PC7t~-209 and moved for its pas~age and adoption, that the Anahetm City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petitton for Reclassification No. 77-78-4E~ subJect to lnterdepartmental Cc~nmittee recarrnendattons. 9/ill78 • .. ~. MIf~UTCS~ AWANEIH CITY PLANNING COMNt5510N~ SEPTEMBER tt~ 197~ 7e-7,3 E 1 R NEGAT I VE DECLAftAT I ON, RECLASS I F I CAT 1011 N0. 77-78-46 ~ VAR I A~ICE ~~0. 299l+ ~ AND T~NTAT I VE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10z54 (REVISION NQ, 2) (c.onttnued) _~~_ ~ On rull call~ the forec~o(ng r~solutl~~n w~s pass~d by tl~e following votea AYES: COMMISSI~FICRS: 0l1RNE5~ DAVID~ f1CRf3ST~ KING~ T~Ll1R NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOI~E ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: J~iIUIS~tJ VACANCY: ONC SkAT Commissioner Tolar of~.rccJ Resolution No. PC7:-,'.10 and moved for (ts pass~+ge and adoptlon~ that thc Anaheim Clt• PlAnnin~~ Commisslon does hereby grant Petition for Varlance No. 2q94 on thc basis of th~ unusual sl~apc and top~~raphy ~f the land~ and subject to Interdepertrnenta) .OITYTIICCCP. rr_c~mn-enJations. On roll call~ t c fare~,~olny resolution was passed by thc follvw(nc~ vote: AYES: COMM ( SS I ONERS ; UARNES ~ Dl1V 1 U~ HEKE3ST ~ I:I I~f ~ T~LAR NOES: COM~115~:OWERS: tlONE ABSENI: COHMISSIONCRS: JONNSOt~ VACANCY: ONE SLI1T Commisstoner Talar offered a mc~tion, secon~ied by Commissloner Barnes and MOTIO~J CARRIED (Commtssioner Johnson beiny ahsent and un~_ seot b~~ing vacant)~ that thc Anahe(m C(ty Planning Ca~missicm does herebY ftna that the proposed subdlvi~.ion, t~yethe~ with ics design and improvernent~ is consis[ent with the Clty of Anaheim General Plan~ pursuant to Gove~nmpn~ Code Sect(on Gf,h73.~ anc~ does~ thcrefore~ a~~pro•ie Tentative Map of Tract No. 1U2~4 (I,evlslon Plo. 3) for a 15-1ot~ RS-7200(SC) subdivision~ suh.ject to the followlnr~ conditi~ns: '. That the approva) of Tentativ~ Map of Tract No. 1r12r~~ (Revision No. 3) ls 9ranted subJ~.ct tc~ the approval of Reclassiftcation No. 77-7~-~~(~ anci Ysriance No. 299~~. 2. That should this su6ciivisi~~n be developed as more than une subdivisian~ each subdivision thereof shall be subr~ittecl in t~ntative farm for approval. 3. That in accordance wieh City Council policy. a G-foc~t high masc>nry walt shall be constructed on the southeast property linz separating Lot Nos. f, through $~ ~4 and 15 and Sante Ana Canyon Road. Iteasonable landsc~eping, includine, Irri~~ation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portiun of the arterial hiyhway parkway the full dlsta-~~e of said wall~ plans for said lancistaping to be submitted to .;nd subJect to the appraval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Followiny installatton and arceptance. the Ctty of Anahein sh~~ll assu~~ the responsibll(ty For mainter~ance of said landscaping. 4. 7hat all lots within this tract shall be serveJ by underground utillttes. 5. That prlor co the introduction of an ordinance, a final tract map of subJect property shall be submttted to and ap~roved by thc Ciry Council and then be recorded in the offlce of the Orange Ccunty Recorder. 6. Tha[ the ccvenants~ condltians, and restrictions shali be submitted to and approved by the City Att~rney's Offtce priar to City Councll approv~l of the ftnal tract map and~ further~ that the approved covenants~ conditions~ and res' ictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. Said covenants~ cond(tions~ and restrictions shall include provisions for the satisfacto ry permanent maintenance of ail slope areas located northerly nf the block wall separating the tract from the Riverside Freeway. 7. That strcet names ghali be approved by t:he City Planning Department prior ta approval of a finai tract ~~ap. 8. That the owner(s) of sutiJect property shall pay to the City c Anaheim the appropriate pP m d recreatlo~ in-lieu fees as determined to be approp~tate by the City Council, sair , to be paid at the time the building permlt is issued. 9/t1/78 :~ ~ MINUTES~ ANIIHI:It~ CITY PLAP~NING COMMISSION~ SCPTEMDER 11~ 1378 7R-7~~+ El~,tiEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-7ti-46~ ~~ARIANCE ?10. Z994~ nNU TENTATIVE MAP OF ~RACT ~~0. 1025~- (R~VIS ION N0. 2) (co~~t) nu~d) ___._._____.._._____ ~._..~--- - 9. That ~rainag~ of ar~ici pr~party sh~~ll be GIS~~SCCJ oP tn a manncr sAtisfACtory to the City E~~~~Ineer. If~ in the prepAration of the sit~~ suFficie:nt qrading ts requlred to necessitate c~ grading p•rmlt~ nc.- work on grading will be permitte~+ between Octoher l~th and April lath unle~s all requtred off-sitc drrlna~e fncilitie~ t~av~ benn Installed and are op~;ratlve. Positlve ass.~rence sh~~l) be provicfecf the City tF~at such dra(nege facilit(es w(11 be complete~l prior to October l;tl~. Necessnry ri~ht-of-way for off-afte dralnage facilltles shall be de.cilcatecl t~ the Clty~ cr the City Council shall have lnitlated condemnation nrocecdiriys thmrefor (ttie costs of wl•;.h shall be borne bv the dcsvelaper) prlor to th~~ commenr.en~cnt of qradin~i op~rations. The requlred drr~ina~~e fac111tiFS sl~all bc of A SIXe ,~n~i type sufflcicnt to carry runoff waters originrtfng from hlyher propertl~~s Chrough snld prop~rly to ultimatc disposal ~s approved by the City Englnacr. Sai~l drainage f~~cilitl~-~s sl~all b~e the f1rsC item of constructl~,n and sl~all be cumpleted and be fu~ctional thrau,hout che tract an~_1 fr~m th~ dnwnstrcam boundary of the property to the ultin•ste poin[ of dispost~l prior t~ ttie isiuance of any flnal Lu{1c11ng inspectlons or occupancy p~rmits. Drairid!~r Jlstrict reimburscroeiit a~reements rru~y be made avallable to the Jevclopcrs of sai<1 prop^rty upon their requesl. 10. That yradin~~, cxcnvation~ and all G~'~er constructlon act-~ ftte~ Si,<~11 bc conclucted in ~uch a manr~Er so z+~, tc~ mini~nizP thc rossthility of any silt oric~lnAtin~ from this projeet beinq carrled li~to the Santa Ana River by stor-n w~~ter orlqinating Prom or flowing thro~~~li this pr~Ject. 11. That reasonable lanJs~apin~~, Inclucling irrlyotion fac.tl(tics~ sh~li be lnstallcd in the m~dian uf Santa Ana Canyon Road right-of-~~ay in accor~larce with the requiremenrs of thF. Supc;rinten~fent of Parkway Maintenance. Following insta~lation and acceptance, tt~e City of Anaf~eim stial) assume the respun5ibility f~r malntenance of said landscapinq. 12. That the developer shall obtain a favorahie flood haaard letter~ acceptable to the City of Anaticln~ froi~ the Oranye Caunty Flood Gontr~l Dlstric.t, 13. If peimanent street name sie~ns have not bee.~ installed~ temporary street name siyns shall be installed priar to any occupa~cy. 14. That thc owner(s) uf subject propcrty stiall pay apprc,prlaCe draina9c assessment fees to the C+ly of Anahelm~ as detcrmined by the Ctty En~tneer, ~rior to a~nroval of ~ final tract map. i5. That final specific plot~ fioor an~i elevrtioi~ plans shall be submitted to the Planning Gommission and/~r City ~~~uncil for review and approval prior to the (ssu~ice of buildtng pcrmits. iG. A left-turn pocket on Santa Ana Gar~yon ~oad and V(a Copala 5hA11 be constructed by the dFVelo{~er for east~hound traffic and shall bc a~proved by the City Engineer. 17. That appropriate wAter assessment fee~ as determined by the Director of Public Utiiities~ sh~all bc; pai~ to the City of Anahe:~~~ prior to rhe Issuance of a bu~ldinc~ permi t. 18. That the de~reloper shall nrovide adpquate vlsibility for vPhicles exittng Via Copala onto Santa Ana Canyon Road for a minimum distance of 30(1 feet of the approach length os approved by lhe Trafflc En~lneer. 19. That s~und-attenuatl~n measures adJacent to ~ca Ana Cany~n Road and the Riverside Freeway shall be ~ravideJ in accordance wit .ouncil Poiicy No. ~b2. 20, That any specimen tree ~emoval shall be subJe.ct to the reg~~lntions pertalning to tree preservation in tfie 5ce~~ic Corridor Overlay Zo~e. 21. In accorda~ce witt~ the requirements of 5ection 18.02.01;7 pertat~ing to the inittal sale of resi~cntial homes in the C!ty of Anahetm Planning Area "B"~ the seller shall provlde each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim Genera~ Plan ar~d the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of ~uhJect tract. C~mmissioner Tolar offered a n~otion~ second~~d by Cammissioner 8arnes and M~TION CARRIED (Comnission~r Johnson t+eing absent and one seat heing vacant), that the ~lnaheim City Planning Conxnission does hereby recommend to the City Ceuncit that Council Policy Na. 53a 9/tt/78 ~ ; MINUTES~ MINIE:IM CITY PLANNING C(1M11155I01~~ SEPTEME3ER 11, 1~78 78-755 E 1 R t~~GAT I VE DECLIIRAT I ON ~ RE.CLhS51 F I CAT I ON N0. 77~7d'~+~, VAR I ANCE N0. 2~94 ~ AND TENTAT I YE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10254 (REVISION N0. 2) (continued) __,~_____..~,_. be walvecl for Lots 1 through `~ ~f Tract No. 102y~~ (Revislan !lo. 3) abuttinn tt~e Riverside F~eeway. Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ p~tnt~~ out the ri~~ht t~ eppnal the Plann(ng Gommisstan's dectsion wltliin 22 drys on the ~eclas~sificatian anJ varlt~nce actlons and the tentative tract mep within 15 dAys. ITEM N0. 2 C~)t~TIr~UC(~ PU~LIC NE~itRl~i~. OWt~CRS: RUT!1 AND ARNOLD ~Tt~`+ ~~RICAL CXEMPTIO~~-~Ll15S 1 FEULRSTEit~ And J/1MES M. I1Np NELENL G. FEUERSTEI~I, - ~. .,0 1.:'~3 West pall Ro~d, An.-~hefm~ CA 928~~+. Af,ENT; Ii~TERI1l1TI01~AL PLANT GRf1lJERS ~ 2f~65 East Coast Iliqhway, #30a~ CornnA D~1 Mar, CA ~2F25. Petlt~uner requests WAIVER OF (A) Rf:2~'~REr~E~~T Ti~A1' ALL USES SI~ALL HE Cb11DUC7Ei) WNOLLY WITIiIN A(3UILD- ING~ (li) MIIJINUM STRUC7l1RAl SCTDl1G1:~ ANU (Cr MIN111UM SETf3ACY. LnN~~SGl1PING~ T~ PLRNIT OUTUOOR DISPLAY OF PL11NT MATERI~.LS on property ,escribe~l as a rectangularly•~hai~ed parcel of land eonslstiny of ~ip,~roximately O.h AerP l~~c~ted at che nortl~west corner oF Ball Road and Brookhurst Street, hav(ny approximaCe fruntAges of 12~ fect on Che north sid~ of Uall RoAd and 150 faet on tf~e west sicie of arc~<~~.hurst Street~ end furthcr ciesc--ihed as .9~i9 -c.~khursC Street. Propcrty presently ciASsi~'ed CL (COMME!?CIAL~ LIMITCD) ZQiIC. Subject petition was continued fr~xr thr mer~iny of Auc~ust l~i~ 1~7~ at the req~~est of the petitioner~ and from the r~eetin~ uf Auvust 2~~, 197}_' in order for the petitioner t.o be p resent . There was no one indicating thnir presence in oppositlon to subJect request, and although the staff report to the Plannir~r Go~.mission dated September 11~ 1~7R was not read a[ th~ public heaPinq, it is referrecl to and made A part of the min„tes. Jir~ White. representin~ the agent. was present io ins~~er any questions and stated the applica~t would be willin~~ co comply with all of che ~.onditior. uf Pap rova+. TNE PUttLIC fIEPRI~ir, w~s C1.05CO. Commissioner King pointed out to Mr. White tha~ tt~e canopies wouid have to be removed, and Jay Tash(ro~ Associate Planner, pc~int~d out thp petiti~~er has requeste~ a w~iver concer~aing the canopies~ and J~c~, i~h~ite~ Deputy Clty Attorney. explaeneel if the application is aRproved as submittecl~ tl~s c.;nopi~s would stay up. Commissic~ner Kiny refer:ed to not~s he had made, indicat ng l"~e property ap~ears to be abandoned and out of business a~. ttiis northwest corner is seen by hund~eds af people and is u~attra~tive~ and felt wit-~ e Comralssion's encoura~ement :h~~ petitioner could d~evelop this property into a business ..~„nparable to tf~e flower s!~op a*_ the corntr of Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Streer, lie stated thc Gonmission insisted ~n greenery for a lumb ~ yard on 5anta Ana Street an:i ~ere i~ a party who wants to beautify his ~remiseS an~i elim~nate the ugliness *_hat ex(sCs; that hr is i~sing the value of useful land wtiich ~s now wasted and bincktop and concre[e benefit no one; tna° tfie can~pies will sl~ade and protect the flowers and p~ants and protect the custorners Jur(ng hot and rainy ~~ ather; in other words, the canopies are an asset to the business. Commissioner Tolar asked what the rn~~in purtion uf the building wa~ beina used for at the present time~ and Mr. 4lhite replied it is a retail gold shop. 9/t1/78 ~. ~ _~. .. k MINJTCS, I':IANLIM CITY PLAt~NING COMMISSION, S~PTEMIiER 11~ 1)I~~ /~~15E~ Elft CATEGOKICAL EXENPTION-CLASS 1 ANU VARIANGE N0. ~~~~40 (continued) Commisstoner Tolar st~ted he finda thfs vt ry interesttnq~ ttiet t~ie Commiss(on is talking about supp~rting an appltcatlon an a servi~ce statlon conv~rsion wikh chnlns up over the driveweys which he thouhht look~~.1 ridicuous~ and oth'r sr.rvtcP stetlon conversions hAVe bscn requlrpd tc> clnse off !hc driviw+ays~ put fn landscaplnq~ irr~rove thc skrects, and make them look t,r,ttcr; that this is two comrr-erclel uses In a but 1~iing that wi 11 n~t ~~nform to commercial standards. He thought the plenter boxe.s were poor examples of someone who is tryinc~ to beautify his propcrty~ and these b~xer~ were a poor examplP and lie was dlsappalnted tfiat the petltioner had not donc somethlnc~ t~etter thtre. ~{e stated he did not dlsegree w(th what Cortmissioncr Y.ing wa~ r-~~~' ~. about and thounht this could be made fnto a nice-loc~kin~ cornnr and a lot of ~ pass by that carner~ but he~ coutd not support the petition Ghe way it is rlyht na •ss the driveways ere closed aff~ the chains are taken down, ~nJ lan~lscapin~ is provideu. Commissloncr Kin~ asked CommiKsi~~ner Tolir h~w he felt ab~ut the canopics~ an Commiss~oner Tular stated thc on~y thinc~ h~ was concerned ab~ut with thc cenopfcs is tlie same thing the Canmission tias been r.~ncr,.rned abo~~~ witt~ all servtce statlon conversfons, and that i,~ is it ~~ol~g to look like a servlce scation conversi~n when it (s ftnished, He stated as lon~ as hc has been on thc Commisston~ the rea~~n fur tl~e removal of the canoples is sn that it is not convc-'ted back ;o a servtce station tn thc future, He stat~d he is not hung u~ on canopies~ but was cuncerned witti the overnll Pppearance and did not knvw of any servicc statiun conversions Cliat hrd bePn at~proved with~ut remova) of t t~e canop i es . Gommissioner King pointeJ out there is a canopy on the existiny Toyatb dealership at the southeast corne~ of 8roadway and Euclid Stre~t and he dld not th(nk it looks ba~, and here are canoptes that would benefit t+~e pr~pc,ty. Commissioner Tolar stated hc was dlsapaointed hecause Mr. Whtte has not done anything to improve the ~:roperty a~id has becn operating witt~out a ~ermit for a year and a half, or someone has bcen operating wicho~~t a permit. Mr. White stated they are propared to rP-do the driveways~ t~ke down the chatns and put in the required sidewalks~ curb and guttcr~ and thcy wilt pravide the ; f~et af landscaping around the cerner and replace the existing landsc~ping in the planter b~xes. Ne stated they have just recently acquired this business and are prepared to do [h~ th(nc~ necessary to improve t~~is area. Commissioner Tolar asl:ed if tliere a~- any drawn plans sha~ing the landscaped planier boxes~ etc. He stated it appeared ~ him the Flanter boxes were built on top of the f s 1 ands ~ and tliat the i s 1 ands had not t~een removed. Mr. White pointed out tl~e)• are tn thr~ process of plai~ting in these boxes at the pre5r_~nt time~ but are prepared to do whatever is necessary anci if the i:cxnmission war.ts ground- level planters~ they wiil comply. lie st,.~e~f the only plans were those submitted. Chalrman Herbst pointed out Con~itio; tlo. 4~ requlring that the buildtng be brought up to the minimum Code standards~ and state.: I~e thought ttic petitianer would find service stations are dlfficult to meet those requirements without major overhauling. Comnissioner 3arnes asked if the plans had been disc.ussed with tt~e property owner~ and Mr. White replied they had discussed Che changes they woutd li4:e to make. He stated they do not have a lease and ~re operating under a gentlemen's agreernent. but that the propert~ owner is aware of their plans. Q~~~~7~ .. ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAf1EIM GITY PL/1NNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEME3ER 11~ Iy7H EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLl1SS t AND VARIANC~ N0. 304~ (continued) r 7ti-757 Cpmmisstoner Barn~ss ask~d tf the property owner w~s awore of the City requirer~~nts. She statsd~ techn(cally~ the property owner would take cere c somc oP the requtrements fnstead of the lessee~ and Mr. White ind(cated he was n~t sure wt~ether or nat the property awner was oware of tl~e Ci ty req~~i remonts. Commissioner Toler stated~ unfortunately~ wl~at he env(s!ans and wl~at Comml~stoner King envisions as +~ beautiful corner are enttrely d(fferent~ ancl what .he ~~O~E!~CY owner wlll allow t~ bc done may not be i~i agreer~ent with what Mr. White wishes to do and economlcally it may not he fea,(ble f~r th~~ ten~-nt t~ do thesc thinrys. He 5tated this was the type of thiny lie was concerned about wti~n there was no one attending the prevto~is hearinqs and wondered if the property uwner is gotn~ to do these things. Cpmmissioner King sugyested approval for a st~ort time periad in order to allow th~ petitloner to show what he can do with the pro~erty~ and Commissioner TolAr stated he would be wllling to consider a onc-ycar ~erloJ, Commissioner Barnes felt it miyht bc r~re beneficial fc~r the petitioner to requlre al) thesc conditions ancJ advisc~f him not to si~n a lease f,~r a vcru long period af time. She stated, if approved~ this would t~e ttie first time the Comnissi~n hAS appro~cd any servtce station conversion withnut requirin~~ all tf~ese conditions beine~ met. Commissianer Kinc~ po(nted Aut the Toyota dealersi~ip still has iis canopy and he thought it looked alrfyht~ and pointed out thc ide~ was to keep s~rvicc~ stations frc~ni going back in and indicated hc dlcl not see anytfiin~ wronc~ witfi a service stat(on yoinc~ back in in the future. Commissioner flerbst pointed out se rvice siati~ns enjoyed a special privilege ~ec~use [hey se rviced th~ automobiles and all retail outle~s I~ave had to mcet secback rcquiremen!s aceording to Lode, and any ne~a huiidiny would be requir~~! to cort~ply with all setback and landscapiny requirements an~ tlie fact thAt service st~tions en.ioy snecial privileges no loryer applled. Vie potntrd out ~bout 2>b of the corners in Anaheim have vacant service stations a:id meta) servicc station build{ngs were allowed and there are a lot of eyesores. Ile poinied nut this is not only a plant sl-r>~ hut a jewelry sl~op~ and !~e could not see any reason to devlate on chis one corne.r and felt the bui3ding should he brought into conformance with Gode. Ne stated there are a lot of vacant service stations stilt existing and once this use I~as been allcywed~ it could set a precedent. Carunissioner Tolar asked why thc peCltioner hac. rcquested that the canopies be l~ft, and Mr. Whiite replied he planncd to use them as plantcr boxes ~-nd hanging plants for dtsplay. Commissloner David asked how long thc business had been in operation, pointing aut it appears the use has been goinq on for a lonq time with~ut A permit and the canopies are stil) tl~ere, and asked how this liad I~appened (it was noted thls particular use has been going on for ~ver a month~. Jay Tashiro explaine~: oriuinally there was a"CB" raclio shop whtch was installing "CI3" radios~ wttiich was approved by the Plai~ning Departcnent, and subsequent t~ the "CB" operation mo~~in~ out~ the plant shop had r+bvcd in and the request before the Commission 3s because t~~ey wish to have outdoor display. and when the property was evaluated by staff~ three walvers were noted. Commissioner Barnes stated a lot of other people I~ave come before the Planning Commission trying to l~ase service s~ations for many different uses and many times~ because the owner of the pruperty cannot yet an~thei• tenant for a comm~rcial usc., he will go ahead with the modificatinns because he knok~s he cannot yet a service station again and he cannot rent 9/11/]6 r ~: MI NUl E5 ~ ANAl1E I M C I, Y P! AN~I I ~.~+ COMMI SS I ON ~ 5k.f'TEMtiER 11 ~ 1~7f1 EIR CATEGO' :AL CXEMPTION•CLA55 1 AND VA~IANCE N0, 3a4o (contfnued) ..,.~_...._. -... the bullding lu any other cammerctal use. answer th~se peopla who haves come before wi Ch ol l~'~ndi tiuns. 18-75s She askcci l~ow tt~c Plflnnlnq Commissican would the Commission and have been requirecf to c~~nply Commisslon~r T~lar state~ the petitioner has stlpulated to close off the driveways~ whicli will elimina'e waiver (c)~ and Jay Tasi~lro explslneu we~tver (b) 15 necessary because the canopy is tu the praperty lin~~ and w~uld b~ requtred to be set Lack 10 fePt t'ran the pro~erty ~tne. Ne alao explalned thAt If this usc is approved~ the owner must submlt a letter ra~,~estin~ termination of Varlance No. t~2~~~+nd if he dec(des at a later date to have Another servlc~ stntiun, a condition~l use ~~rmit would be reryuired. Cortmissioner DaviJ felt tlie petitio~er would be stiF~ulatin9 to a lot of thi~gs thet should be up to the property owner~ an~f Jay Tashi ro explaineJ the c~wner vf thc property h~d siyneJ the petition authorlying the pctlt(oner as agent to act on his behalf~ so either the c~wner or the agent could possibly rrx~et the conditions. Commissloner t3arnes stateJ this re;yuest Is no diffcrent than all the ~ther requcsts for the same thing and tt~e Planniny Conrnissi~n has nev~r granted them~ and she could set no reasor~ to do it now, in all f~irnc:ss to the ot.t~er people. Comm(ssioner Davic, suggested tt~at the naturc of previous businesses on this property should merit c~nsideration of the canopies~ and felt tfiis business could teke advantage of the canopies because they shede the plents and nnhance their growkh and felt thts should be considerPd~ ~~d Commissioner Kin~ indicated the 1~oint he was trying to make is that the eanopies wnuld ~~e~ ~n asset to thc ~roperty~ an~1 Commissi~~n~r David pointed out also Che Toynta dr.alersh+p with existing canopies s~iauld be considered. Chairman Herbst pointed out that~ if approve~~ this vArian~n~ the,flowerishophcouldpmove and that the ~~se Is for a flawer shop and a,jewelry shop., out. Commissioner Uavicl suggeste~ the use be permitt~d for one year to ctive che man a ch.3nce. It was noted that the Planninc~ Utrector or his authorized represer.tative has determined that the proposed project falls within the ~.lefinitiQn of Categorical ~xen~tion;~ Class 1, as deflned in paragraph 2 of the City o` Anaheim Envir~nmental Impact Report Guidelires and is, therefore~ cateyor(cally exempt from the requirement to prepare an EfR. Commissioner King indicated tl~e only t~ardship fie could polnt out would be the speclal Lircumstances applicable to the property due to its location and the su~roundings wnich do not apply to other properties. (Ghairman tlerbst stated t~~is would apply to any corner whtch has a servicc statlon.) Commissionr.r Tolar indicateJ he was not specifically talking agalnst Mr. '.JhiCe, but that he did not li~:e the way tl-is corner is developed and if it were developed the way he hoped it could be developed. thc use would be gaod for this location. He indicated he hoped to see this business establish~ci~ but not on the basis of any variances and he did not believe the canopies would be conducive to tl~e use or to what the Planning Commisslon will be faced witi~ in the future. Commissloner King sugc~ested that if tf~e use is approved for one year and the ccrner develops into a beautiful spot~ then pernaps the petitioner coulu remove the canopies and everyune would be happy; that [liere are hundreds of people who pass this corner every day an~f it i5 a~ ugiy corn~r~ and he would like ro see tt developed similar to the use at Euclid and Lincoln. 9/Zt/78 ~. :~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAf~E1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMf1ER 11~ 197~ 7$•759 EIR CATEGUaICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANU VARiANGE N0._3040 (contlnued) It was pointed out the use at the corner of Euclld and Llncoln was a new bullding~ a~d Commisslo~er aarnes pc~intcd out that petltinner I~ad b~cn requlred to adherc to al) Codes and did not require a varlance. Jetk Wliite~ Deputy City Attnrney~ pointe~l c~ux the applicant hs+d madP ~a statement of hardship and the Plenniny Lommtssia~ sho~ld determine whethcr or not hls st~tament Is adequate and nat try to create a t~ardshln. Chairmen Herbst indlc:atec, he: would yo Along witn waiver (a) for the outdoor storag~ of pla~ts~ but would not support waivers (b) anJ (c) sli~ce it would ba settiny a pr~ce~i~nt for other build(nc~s (i~ Anaheirn; th~t other uses havP hAd to eliminaxe canoples and bring the bullaln~s intn conf~rmance with Code~ and he did not see any dlfference wlth this request~ but he would allow thc appiicant to dtsplay flowers and plants. ACTIUN; Commissioner Barr~~s offcrcd Rtsolution l10. PC7~'~-211 and moved for iCs passage and a~opt~on~ that the Nnahclrn Clty Planninq Commission does h~reby grant Petitton for Varlance No. 301~0~ in part~ ~~rantln~ walver (a) on the basts that the petlt(aner demonstrated a ha~dship due to the n~ture of the use; cfenying w~tlvet3 (b) anci (c) on the bes(s that no harciship ex(sts; ancl sub.ject to Interdepartmental Cammtttee recammendatlons. Ccxnmission~r 7olar indtcateu hc would n~t want to see Lhe outdaar display of anything other than plants an~f this Sr~~~~i~i h~~ include<f in tl~e ~esolution~ and Cc~mmisstoner Barnes Indlcated that shoul' ~c added, On roll call~ the foreyoiny resoluticn was paSSed by [he follaving vote: A7E5: GOMMISSIONERS: HARN(:S, UAVif~~ HERIiST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIO~~ERS: ~~O~IF. AE3SENT: COMMISISONERS: JOt1N~.01J VACAPiCY: ONE SEA7 Jack White indicated the peti[ior+~~ t~as the right to appeal any part of the rianning Comnlssion's dectsion wi;hin 22 days and presented htm with the written right to appeal. I i EM N0. 3 CO;~TItIUEU PUBLIC HEARING. OuN~.RS: ELAINE B. t ~ ,I~TVE DECLARATION LOWR.', WILLIAN J. STCINE30R1~ ANU JOtili C. STEINBORN~ G ION MU. -79-1:i JR. ~ 100`? East Broa d way~ Ana he im, C A 9 2 8 0 5. VARIANCE N0. 30t3 AGEN7: JAMES L. BARISIC, 82~ South Western Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA 92~A4. Property descrlbed as a rectannulerly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximetely Q.a acre havtn~ a frontage of approxlmately 100 feet an the south side of Broaciway~ having a maxirnum depth of a~+,~roximately 13~ f~et, be(ng locr~ted Ppproximately 80 feet east ~f the centerline of dush Street~ and further described as 100~3 East groadway. Property presently classified RM-7.40~ (RESIDEN7IAL, MULTIPLC-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED CLA~SIFIGATION: RM-12(30 (RESIDENT!.A~.~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVCR UF (A) MIi~IMUM FRONT SETBaCK~ (a) MIt11MUM DISTAiJCE BETWEEN BUII.DINGS, ANU (C) MI~~~MUM PEDESTftIAN ACCESSWAY, TO CONSTRUCT A 10-U~~IT APAR7MENT COMPLEX. Subject petition was ~ontinued from the meeting of Aug~~st 2$. 1978 at the request of the petitioner. 9/ 11 /,,. ~'~ r ~` MINUTES~ ANAHE~M :ITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SFFT~MBER 11. 1~j7~ 71i- ~60 E I R NEGAT IVE DECLARA710Ni RECLA551 F I CAT I ON ~~0. 78-'J9-13 AND VAR111NCE N0. _ 3~!!3. ~cont 1 nued) Thcre was no onc l~dicetlny thelr presercG tn op{~ositlo~ tn sul3Ject ~equest~ anci althaugh thu staff report to the Plannlnc~ Commissio~ detr.d Septemhr_r 11 ~ 1914 was not read at the public hsari~q~ tt is referre~l to and made a part of the minutes. James 9arisic, age~t~ w~~s present to an~wer any Guestions. TIIE PUd! IC HCARIIJG WAS CLOSF.... Commissinne~ King offerecl a nr~tion~ seconded by Conmissloncr Davfd and MOTION GARRIED (Commissioner Johnsnn beln9 abscnc ~nJ ~ne scat bcing vACant)~ that the Anaheim City Planniny Gonmission has reviewe~l th~ {~roposal to recl assi fy the subject property from the RM-2~~00 (Residentlal, Multiple-Family) Zone to tl~e RM-12UQ (Res(dentlAl~ Multiple-Famtly) Zone tt~ construct a 10-unit apartment cnmplex on t~ rectangularly-S~~aped parcel of lan~! cunsis+:ing of approxi~~ately Q.3 acrc I~aving a frontage of approximately 1f10 feet on the south side of Broadway~ havlny a maxlmum depth af approximately 13~+ feet~ beiny locaicd appr~~ximately ~t) feet east c~f tl~e centerl ine of Susi~ Street; and does nereby aprrove the Negt~tive Ueclaratic~n from ti~e re~uirement to prep~re a~ environmental Impact report on the basis that there woulcl be no ~i~tnlf(cent in<llvldual or cumulatlve adverse envlronmental impact due to the approval of this Ne<aative Geclaratio~ since the A~ahetm General Plan designates the subJrct property for meJium density resi~fential land uses commcnsurate with the proposal; tha; no sensitivc cnvironmental impacts are involved in the proposAl; that the Initial Study submitt~cf hy the petitioncr inciicat~s no si~nlflcant (ndivldual or cumulativ~ adverse envi ronrr-ental impacts; an~ that the Neg.~tive Declaration substantiatincl the forec~olny findings Is on file in the City of Anah elm Pl~nning DepArtment. ACTION: Comnissioner K(ny ofiere~l ~esolutic~n No. PC7`i-21? and moved for its passage and a~~optTan ~ that the Anahe i ~n C i ty P 1 ann i n~~ Commi ss 1 on does hereby hrant Pet t t i on for Reclassiftcatton t~o. 7g-%9~13, subject tu Interdep:~rtmental Committee recortimendations. On roli call, the foreyoin~~ resolution was pass~d by tl~e folla+ing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. UAVIU~ NCftBST, M.ING. TULAR NOES : COM111 SS I ONE:itS : NONE AIiStNT: COMMI SS IONEitS : JOt11~SON VACANCY; ONE SCAT Commissioner M.ing offered a r+iotion~ seconded by Commi ssionsr David and MOTIOt~ CARRIED No~rt3043ibeeterminatedbatnthebrequest~ fniheepetltic~ner~since~revisedeplansnhave deletede the requested walvers. ITEN N0. 4 PUBLtC NCAR~t~G. OtdNER; EQUITEC-77 REAL ESTATE ~Th`~.~'f'~~RI~AL EXLMPTION-CLASS 1 11~1iC5TOP,S~ 3732 Mt. Olablo Boulevard, lafayette, CONU IONAL 'JSE PERMIT N0. 79 CA ~~~~~+9. AGEN'tS: !J. ARTFiUR ASTOR/UON BEaRIGAN, 12 78 Eas t ka t ~ 11 a Avenue, Anahe i m, CA 92E05 . Pet i t loner ~equests permiss ion t~ ESTABLISH AN AU70 SALES~ REPAIR ANU RESTORATION FACILITY on prape~ty descrlbed as a rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisti~g of approxlmately 17 .3 acrss having a frontage of approximately 1022 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approxfmately ;07 feet~ beir~g located approximately ~60 feet west of tl~e centerl ine af Staie Col lege Boulevard, and f~rther described as 12 J3 East Katel la Ave.nue. Property prese~tly classified ML (iI~QUSTRIAt, LIMITEU) ZOWE. 9~>>i~a ,. ~ ~.. MINUTES~ AWANEIM CITY PLANNING C(1HM15~101~~ 5CPTEt1BEP, 11 ~ 1~7r 78-761 EIR CATkGORICAL ~XEMPTION-CLASS 1 A~~l~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1H79 (contlnu~d) There was no one Indica tin~~ the(r oresence in oprositlon to suGJect r~quest. and althouqh tl~c staff report to tl~e Plannlny Coi,~ni~slan dated S~pternber 11~ 1~'%~) w~+s not raad at the publie f~eiirlnJ~ it (s ~efe~red t~ anci n-aJe a part of the mfnutes. Uon Berrtc~an~ 2~~1 Park Cnntf~r Orlve, Los Ar,qelcs, ~qent~ wAS present tq answer any quest i ons, TNE PUfiL1C Hkl1RING W/1~ CL~SkU. Chalrn~an Nerbst asked the ~c-cittoner to cxplaln the action by the Zoning k:nforcement Off(cer, a~d Mr, berriyen rep11ec1 -.hae when hN t-ad cntcrccl thiz complex~ he I~ad atk~d in advenee whether or not this use wuuld be permittc~l and was informecJ thare would be no probl~nrs witf~ th~: zonlnc~; that they wer~ surprised to recelv~ a n~tice on thetr door inJicatiny the probl~rn fs any autmm~tlve use in this areA would need r eonditianal use pe~mi t and they ha~1 r,,~d~ ~very effort Co comply with al l.oncllttons. Chai~riwn Herbst aske~ thN petitloncr to expl~~in his business, how many cers~ cmployees. etc.. he would I~ave~ ancl Mr. BerriyAn explAlned they rr_store and scll 1~5~ and 196G c~~vertlble Ferd Mu~tanc~s for thr..(r c~wn business and also restore them for people who own them priva'.ely; that they w~~uld n~~rmally I~ave 1~ a~ 12 cars in their possession~ including p~tvate perty cars, at any on~~ Cin~e And would store tt~~m as thFy could~ and that all work anci stor~~e ~~ould bc done insi~ie bec.ause these cars ~~re vnlunble and ,ub_ject to theft. Comrni sstoner Tolar as4:e~J the length of tf~e lcasc, and Mr. Rer~igan replled one ycar. Commi ssioner Tolar offered a resolutian for ap~~roval af Candltiona) Use Permlt No. 1~7° for a one~year period~ to automaticAl ly expi re ~~t tl~c end of ona year, and pointed out the Comm T ss i on has had prob 1 e-~~s i n the pas t wi th au tdoor s t~rage t n the i ndus t r i s 1 zone anci he would want the Zoniny Enfarcen~ent Officer to ma{~e sure ther~ is no outdoor scorage of vahieles~ cven w~iile they are beinc~ worke~~ on durin.~ tl~e day; that ather ~~etttioners have indieated their C8-'S are too valuablP to leave outside~ but Chey have t~ePn left ~utstde; and tha[ this is an inclustrial ~~reA arid the vetiiclPS should be stored irside. Mr. Ber~iyan explained that thcy plan to have finislied veFilcles on display durtny the day on thei r parking lot. Commisstoner Talar iridicated this is a problem hc is i~aving, ttia~ this would be a retail car sales lot~ and he would have to withdraw t-is resuluiion for approval because it comes back to putting corrxnercial uses into an Industrial tone. Mr. Bei•riyan stated tt~ey have two buildings. o~e for the restoration activities and one for Lhe display~ and althouyh It has been their practice to Jlsplay them outside. if ths Plannlny Comnfss(on does not allvw that, he does have the facilities to store them instde. He stated the cars they display are quttc beautiful to see. Chai ~man Nerbst a~,ked wl~at type of signina is proposed. and Mr. Berrl~an repl led they would have anly r,ne small sign; that they do not deper~d upan foot traffic for thelr busi~ess; that their cllents seek them out through the ctassified a:s. Chaf rman Herbst asked what percentag~ of their business ts retail s~les, and Mr. Berrigan rep 1 i ed i t i s f rom 80$ t~ 90a. Cornmissioner David pointed out the petitioner had rented this propcrty with the understanding from th~e lessar that this use wr~uld be permitted and this is the samz 9/11/7a ~~ ~ M I NUTES ~/WAIIC I M C 17Y PI,AN!~ I NG COMM 15510N ~ SEPTE~IEi ER 1 1~ 19 jtt 7b- 7G2 EIR CATCGORICAL EXEMPTIUN-CLASS i AND CONQITI.ONAL USE_PERMIT N0~1~9 (continued) lacatlon where the Pianniny Commission has I~~ard similar rert-arks frcxn other bustnesses ond felt the probl~m is w(th the lessor. Mr. berrl~an replicd chcy f~~ve found (t yulte a shoc4, to recelve khe notice~ but thelr deal i ngs wi th tfic lessor tiave becn very bus i ncss I 1 ke and they have great respect for th~:m. Cha(rman ~lerbst statecl I~N finds nn problem with the restoratlon actlvft(es (n thls location and felt tt~ey sh~~uld be locoted there~ but was concerned about the re[al) activittes. Mr. Berrlyan stated t~h~~ infqrmAticx~ he had received concPrning the ML ;onr. indicated this type nf opcratlun ( s pcrmi ttecl wi th approva) of a condi t(on~~l usc permf t an~1 th~t is why he had felt (t would be wis~ Co seek the permft; tf~~t they conduct a very qulet~ dign(fled busincss and have no sal~.sn~en or ~ressure of any kind and do not n~ed frontage on a busy street; that thcir sic~n is ~pproxirn~t~ly G feet by 2 feet; and thAt their customers seek ti~c~m out because, they are interested in this speci fic car. Commissioner Tala~ askcri ..~ack WhitF~ Oe~uty City Attorney~ if the ncrmit could hc approvcd i iml t i ny Che use to the l~+f~~,-1966 Ford Mustanq and asked th~c pet ( t lon~r ( f ne p 1 anned to sell a~y other types af vetiicles. Jack White explain~d the Cr.~mn,lsslon could yrant the permic to thase particular models and years i f they so des i reci ~ b ut tha c che app l i cat i o~ reques ts auto sa l es ~ repa f r and restoration facllitie~ an~ does n~t s~ectfy A p~rcicular year a~d model, Mr. berriyan stated it was nc~ir intention to not limit their sales to those models~ althouyh that is thc nature of their business~ but they are experimenting with t967-1963 rrpdels and (t is possible they would sell some other modei an~J ~iake of classlc vehicles. Gommissloner Tolar ind(cated he was receiving the informatlon he did n~t want to hear; that he fe 1 t the rr_s torat i on of ca rs be I ongs i n tt~ i s xone ~ Uut was conce rned about tt~e SOti to 90X retail sales wfiich he felt belongs in a commercial area; and that he is flnding a lot of discomfort wi th tt~i s r•equest. Comm) .sian~r 8arnes stated she dld not understand wliy the Commission would be interested in ap~roving this request; th,~t we are in the mldst of dtscussions wlth industrialists, the C~-~amber of Commerce Industrial Corranittee, etc., concerning [his very Issue and every time some~ne from this p~rticular property comes in for a conditional use permit~ they tndicate they had been inforn~~d by the lessor that they could do these things. She stated she was sure this business was great and she would like to see the petttioner have lt~ but retail sales in the industrial area is a prohlem~ particularly when the Comnission has been getting sn many appltcattons from tl~is particular area ~nd she ts convlnce d that Equitec is teil(ng the te-e~nts that anything will be permitted at this locat(on and she could not vote for retall sales in this ar~a. She feli ~quitec should be conta eted and asked to appcar before the Corxnis~ion~ and Jack White~ Denuty City Attorney, ex plained that if the permtt is denierf~ he felt su~e the lessee would be cont~cttng Equitec and also staff could contac~ them. Commissio~er Tolar felt they sliould b~ made aware of the uses permitted in this location since they are one of the prime; abusers of having commerctai uses in an (ndustrial ares and he would Iike ta see them k~efore the Cortmission. Chatrman Ner•bst asked what wou~d happen if the Commission denled the sales portion and permitted the rep~ir an~ restoration facility~ and Mr. Berrigan replied they would have to move. NG stated the inFo~matic-n he had reviewed indicated this use was permitted in the 9~>>~~a `'+ F MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SCPTEM~ER 11~ Ih7R 7A-7~3 E I it CATEGORI CAL EXEMPTI ~N-C1.A55 1 AND CONp) TI Q~IAL USE PE:RMI T N0. 1~i%9 (cont ( nueJ) ML Zone wlth ~ condltic~nal use perrnit~ and Jay Tashlro explalned that he was correcr that with a cnndt[i~nal usc pcrmtt AUt(7fM~hI IC s:~~~s is permttted, but the Planning Ccxnmtssion also has the r(yht to deny the request. Chalrman Nerbst pointeci out there ~rP areas~ especially along A~ahc~lm Boulevard. stll) ln Che M-1 Zo~e which should be rezoned to heavy comn~erctal end they do have retatl seles In thAt area and are setttny precedents and should b~ Ghanged~ hut this eppllcatlon wc~uld be in the mlddle of an est~blishe~l lndustrlal complex. Mr. Berrl~~an stated th~~ir business is ~llfferent than retail car sales In chflt without the ability to do the restoration wor~: within a rcasonabl~ geoqrophical proximity~ they rAnnot operate thefr retatl operatiun; that the: nature. of thcir bustnesS ts nc,t Just to get a vehicle and sell ir~ but they ~ka a carr.ful~ ~onsci~ntlous an<f correct restoration for thcir cllents sc~ th.~t thcir Invcsement is maximlzed; that Chis 15 an fnvcstment~ not Just an expr.nse; that thc cars are meturing about SSnn evcry thrce rrxmth5, sa p~rt of thelr sales preser-[ation i:~ taking a ctistonrr into the area where thc: cars are beinq reat~reci so Chat they can sce them from thc bas(c~ unrestored condtti~n Chrough all thc steps and from that they gain confictenr.,e in thr.ir knoailedge; and that three-fourths of the cars sold are un~estored whr.n they are purchased sa they ne~d the industri.il capabillty, yt~t thc industrlal structure r~wst be aestt~etically prestntable an~i in keepinc~ wi[h tlie prlces they ask for these vehicles. Commissloner Tolar statecl that tSU~G tc~ 90:, retai 1 sales versus restoration is the problem and if it ~rere the other way around with tfie sales beinc~ tnctdental t~ the restoration~ then nC could support the u,e, but orfth ~i~k, to 9~~ of the business being retail~ it should be in a com~ercial area. Mr, kterrtyan stated the nature c~f their sales is r,hat peoplc~ have conft~lence in the correctness and knowlecJgeability of th~ restoration activities and one cannot really function without the other, but they cauld not have the retail operatfon in a pla~e that dues not riake the clients feel ttiey are substantial and are ylving them a product that is an investment. Commissloner ~arnes stateei that argument could be used on almost any new or used car business and she still did n~t see any dlfference between tt~is and sny other retail sales~ that he would display ttie cars ~nd di:i not bclong in the indusfrial areb. Comn(ssioner Tolar stated this is the second request fran this same complex recently where the petitianer has toid tl~e Conmtssian that they ~eould have to mc~ve or be ou[ of business if they did not get the permlt~ and the petitioner is suffering in part from some of the things the lessor has donr.; that although the Gommisslon is not supposed to consider economics~ he stilt feels it (s unfortunate that b0~ to 90~ of the business is retall sal~s. Mr. Berrigan stated 9'Jb of t~is activity has nothing :o do with the selling of cars, although thelr income and business is based on the selliny of the c~rs~ servicing the cars they sell~ ~nd in ~estorati~n for people who own Mustangs or have bought cars and wisl~ to upgrade them,so th~t 9~x of th~:ir act=vities a~P preparing the cars for sale and the actual sale of the cars is anly 10~ or 1;~ of their activities. Commissioner bavid asked how many ears are sold per month~ and Mr. Berrigan replied app~oxlmately four to ten per rrq~th. Chairman Herbst asked it all the sales could be done tndoors~ a~d Mr. I3errigan replied that they could~ but the cars would be driven in order to demonstrate them. Ne poi~ted .~ ;~,. MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 11. 197~ 7g'j6~~ IR CATf.GORICAL L•XEMP710N•CLAS5 1 I1N0 COIVQITIONAL USE PERMIT N0._IN~ (contlnued) out oniy onc-thirJ of thelr fiaor area 1~ dcvc.~ted t~ dlsplay ~nct the rest Is devacad to the res tara t I on of ttir. ca rs . Ch~~lrman Herbst f~lt the fact tha~ y~)$ 01' the activ{tles on th~ site arc ~levoted to restoretlon of the vel~icles c~uld be representative c~f the intent of th~ Code. Commisstoncr Uevld pninte~~ out thc Code permits autcxnobilc sales, repalr and re,torAtlon in the ML Zone suhject to the approval af a c~n~itlonal use perr~it~ which to hlrn Ind'cetes this may be tn thc spliere of ~,~ork wl~ich fAl ls wi thin the ML l.one in the opinl~n c~f thc Code writer. Jack U4-il~ explalncd there ~re two ways A requeat far a conclltic~nal usr permlt can c~mc before the Planning Canrnisslon: 1) a~here thr., partic.ular zonc~ spells out a conditlanal use such ~s autc+mobile sales and repair or rc~,toration and z) wl~ere the use is not mentloned ( n the zone and i n orde r to qua 1 1 fy an~ ob tal n tl~~~ r 1~1ht to h~~ve th~t use , such ~is a furniture store, wtiich is nnt calle:J for t~s a conditlo~ol use or pcrnitte~l use and the petltioner wishes to still havu th~t right.~ he can a~p~y for a permlt. Ile cxplained these uses were formerly calleci use varlances~ but because of certain leqnl technic~lltles a conditianal use permit is na•~ r~squired. Ne ~xplaine~l the Corr~ission has to look at each application In the same way and determine whcther or not It r~cets thc Co~e criteria for a condtti~nal use pcrmit~ and that critcria as set forth (n Sesction 1f;.;~3Q of the Code 58Y5 the Gommission can grant the c:onJitlon~~l use permit only if thc proposed use will not adver5ely affect the sur•roun~Jln4 land uses ancf the growth and development of the area (n which it is prapose~' to be located; ti~at the size and ~h~pe af the site praposed for the use is adequate to allaw the tull developrien: of the pro~oscd use in a manner not detrimental to the particular ar~a~ nor to the peace~ health~ safety and ger.eral welfare of th~e citizens ~f the City of Anaheim~ ~nd tfiat thc yrpntin~ of the con:fitiona) usc permit under the conJltion~; lm~~osed w~ll nu[ be: aetrirx ntat to the peace~ health. safety and yeneral wclfare of thr_ citiztns of the Clty of Anaheim. Commissioner Kinc~ asked the attorney ta explain what wc~uld hap~en if the owner does n~t follaw throuyF~ wiCh the conditiuns imposeG, such as the trafflc si~nal assessmc~t fee~ and Jack White replieJ the condictons rnus[ be cornplied witli and the City do~s not care whether it ts the lessee or the lessor, but cerLain conditions can only be performed by the property uwner~ such as dedicati~n~ and if it turns out the lessor is unwilling to rnf:et ttie canditinns, that is hts prerogative anJ it becomFS a matter yetween the tandlord and the tena~t, but the City has the ri~ht to requlre conditions ttiat can be perfo rn~ed by either the tenant or the landlord~ and if they are not ccxnplied with, the condit~onal use permit can be revoked. Comnissionef David asked if this use would be allowed in a commerctal zone without a pc ejexcent the CashWh,iChXwouldepchmit~autornobile~sale5 and repai~nfacilitles.it in any zo p Cortmissioner Ktnc~ inoicated he w~ulci agree with Chairman Herbst ttiat this use meets the intent of the industr(al zone. Gommissi~ner Barn~:s asked rhe Ci ty Attorney if the Planning Corrm(s: ton would have a difficult time in the future if they wanted to deny a conditlonal use permtt based on the fact that i~ would be a right previousl~- granted. Jack White er.plained from a legal standpoint he realizes it may be d(fficult to explain and justify in terms of practicality~ but there is no such thing as a precedent in zontng matters; that each individu~l property or set of clrcun~stances is entitled to be looked at based on its own merits. lie pointed out one of the criteria for yranting variances is 9/11/78 ~. ~ ~; MINUTES~ ANA~IEIM CITY PLAt~NING COMMISSION~ SEPTf:MOER. i i, 1)7~ ~~'7~~ EIR CATEGnR_IGAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANQ CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT NA, 1~_(coiitlnuea) whethor thr prc~p~rty would be denled a prlvllegc enJoyed by other praperties and It mlyht be dlfflcult to Justlfy d~~nyin,y a varlance for an Iclenclcrl ty~c usc in tl~e s~ne locality~ but this criterl~ Is not Tppllcable to a conditianal use permit and each one Is subJect tn revie.w+ on its own~ which is somecimcs difficult to explatn but from a lec7al standpoint is Justlflable a~d coutd be defendecl, af necrssary. Comnisslon~r Tol~r inJlcatcJ hr_ would 1(-:r. to offer a resnluti~n f~r ~r~ntinc~ the use for one yet~r, to expl re ~t the end c-f one year. Jack ~hitc explaineJ this woul~ diffcr ('rom thc normat condltlon of review at the end of one year far acidl t i onai exten~ 1 uns of t i r~e ~.~nci i n th i s case At thP ~nci c,f one year i t would be subject to re-ap~llca~ic~n. Ne r,xnlnined th.~t ~~pprovel for one yer~r subJact to revlew Is revieo~ed under aeports an~i Recc~nmenclations~ bu; wi th the conrfit(on Chat it w~uld autvmetically terminate at the enci of ane y~ar would require another ~~ul,l(c hearing. Cha) rman Ife rbs t fe 1 t the same th i n~~ woul d be ~ccc~mp I i she~ by havi n~ the rev i ew under Reports and Recommendfltions in orcicr that tt~c pr_titioner would nat have to pay th~ fee ayaln. Commissioner Ua rnes asked thc trrms of the lea~e, end Mr. aerrigan replied he hns about eight months left on this year's Icese. ComMissioner King (ndtcated he thuugh[ the new ordinance stipulates that in onc year the ~ermit automatically termin~tes~ ancl Jack. White explained tt~~~ ordinance states thA~ conditions can be exte~~dPd ar c:fianged any way the Commission desires~ but therc is a new ordinance recently adopteJ a~d which states thc petitl~ner can have a retraactive cxtension of time so if it has sxpired and six months later the petitio~er dlscavers it, he can reyuest a retroactive e~ctension of tir~~e. Commissianer 6arnes asked why Commissi~~nE~r Tolar wr~nted the one-year per(od of time~ and Commissioner Tolar replied tl~at it tics in with thc lease and it would br. o~e year in whlch the Planniny Corrmission could actually check i[ out to make sure the sales and sto~age are inside thc property~ and if it turns out to be retall sales and nat ~ncidental sal~s, th~~ the permit can be ~evoked. IIc stated the only reason he: wouid support it was because I1r. Derrigan has said ~5ti to 9~~ ot the activit(es are incidenta! to the restoratlon. Mr. Berrlgan potnted aut there Is a possibility the retail activlties would he removed from the premises since there is a problem nav with restoration of the v~;h~icles encroaching ir.to thelr retail sales space. Ik was noted :hat the Planning Direc~tor or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed pro}ect falls withir. the definltion of Ceteg~ricai Ex~mptions, Class 1, a3 def(ned in p~ragraph 2 of the. Ctty of Anaheim Environmental impar.t Repo~t Guidelines and Is, therefore~ categoric.~ily exempt from the requirement 'ta prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offered aesolution No. PC7~-213 and moved for its passage and adop ~on~ that the Anaheim Gity Planning Commission does hereby grant Patition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1u7~ for a one-year pe~iod~ subJect to review and consideratlon by the Planning Gortxnission et the end of that period of time for further extensions of time; subject to the stipulati~ns of the petitioner that ell work~ sales and storage will be done inside the faclllty; anJ subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recomrt~ndations. On roll call~ the fc~regning resalution was passed by the follawing vote: 9/11/78 '~, IIINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLAN~~ING GUMMISSI01~~ SEP7EMBEa 11, 191H 78-76(~ ~I(t CATCCORICAL EXENPTION-CLA5S 1 AND CUNQITIONAL..,USC PCRMIT NQ._lA~~ (continue:d) AYE:S: CUMMIS51(1W~RS: E.iARt~E5, UAVII)~ N~RBST~ Klt~f,~ TOIAR NUES: COMMIS~-1(1NERS: NOI~E A9SENT : COMM I SS~ I QNEkS : J ~H~~SqN VACANCY: ONE SLr1T Commissioner Tolar offere~ a mation~ seconded by Commissl~ner Barnes and NOTION CARRIEp (Commisslo~er JohnsAn Gelny ~bsent and RE~,s~~tate'Invest~rs,contelninq a,lintnof Commisston send a lettor to Equttec 77 pcrmltted uses fn th~ industrla) arca and request that they appear before the CommisSion fdr further explanaClon. RECESS There was a ten-rrinute rec~ss ~t 3:3~ P•m• RCCpNVEpIC The meetln~ r~ccnvene~ at ~:4i) p.m.~ all Commissioners befn~~ pr~sent except "'-"~- Commissioner Johnsc~n beinc~ abse~t and one s~at being vacant. ITEM N0. 5 E,A VE GE(.LARAT I ON R CL S C I ON t10 . 1' 7~ WA VE COUE RE:QI: I REMEtI'f p~ D ON~f~~IT Nf~._~ G 1060 feet east of the r.enterline of Lincoln Avenue. Propc~~ty presently PUULIC NCARItJG. OWNE~: KALYANJI M07A, 2912 Wast Li~caln Avenue~ Anaheim~ C!1 ~2~~0l. Property descr'ibeJ as a re~tt~nyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatcly 0.7 acre having a frontage of approxlmakely ~5 feet on the s~uth sid~ of Lincoln Avenur.~ havin~~ a maxlmum depth of approxinately 3;0 feet, being lacated approxirtu+tely etach aoulevard, and further de:scribed as 2912 West classif(ed RS-A-43,~0~ (RCSIDf.NTIAL!AGRICULIURAL) ZONE. REQuESTE~ CLASSIF1CATf0l~: CL (G~MNEP,CI~~L, IIMITED) ZOwE. REQUESTEO C01•IUITIOI~I,t lSSE: TO EXPANU AN EXISTIt~G M~TEL WITII 41AIVER OP MININUM S7RUC7UftAL SE.i~BACK. There was one pers~m indicating their presencc in opposition to subJect petition, and although the staf, report to ~~fp*~~~~C~98n~ ~i~~i~"~~~~eofstheeminutes, ~~~~ w~s not read at the public heering, it Is Kalyanji K. Mota. petitioner. was ~resent to answer any questions. Jey Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ explaincd a correctlon tn the staff report: the maxtmum structural setback should read 2 fcet proposPd and 9-1/2 feec existiny rather than 10 fee[ required and 2 fect proposed as shvwn. Kariska Haage.n indicated hP was c~wner of the property ad,jacert ta the suoject propzrty and he ope~ated ~ restaurant at that locatian; tt~at approximately three or four weelcs ago Mr. tlota had approached his wife ~equesting thaC they sell him ~ 3'foot strip of "and and that he had irmiedfately ob,iected to this expansion bec~use of188uedewithiallesort~ Qfsince M~r. Mota has operated the motel, they havc bePn consta~itly (~ 9 incidents, namely wcxneci :.ominh into their ~estauratit and soliciting custon~ers. Cnalrman t~erbst pointed out police problems are ~ot a part of this hearing, and Mr. Naagen indicated he did not have any zoning objections~ but did not want his problems compoundea. 4/11/7~ ~ ' b~ MIMUTES~ ANAHF:IM CITY PL.ANNIN(; CnMM1551(IN~ SEPTEMBER 11~ 1~78 1~')~'7 EIR NEGATIYE DE~LARATIOII~RCCLASSIFICATtON N0. 7$-7~-12 11FlD CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT N0. l~f8h TI1E PUBLI C NCARING WAS L'I,OSCU, Chelrma~ Flerbst explainNd to the petitton~r thac the Traffic Department is very conce~ned abaut the one-way in s~nd onc-way out circulation plan withaut a~ camplete turn-~ro~nd area at Che far end~ and h~e felt the trafflc clrculAtlon is not acceptAble for thls type af use. He steted now tl~ere is roam for them to back out a~d turn o~ouncf~but with the adcllti~na) use with rnore parking an both sides, vehicles could not get out end the only way the plan would bc acc~p~t~hlc in his mtnd would be w(th 9~••dcgree parkin~ with 25-foot back-up arra. Fle stated i t Ap~~carcJ to I~im the propcrty is -,eing ovcrbui lt and thought a motel w;th traffic ~:Irculation as proposed Is noc suttat~lc •~nd this Is a bad p1An. Mr. Mata explained thla pl~n is exactly the same t~affic r~attern they cu~rentiy have anJ indicated he wauld he williny t~~ talk with the Traffic Enylneer And expla(n to I~~Im hvw r.hr,y cAUld actually turn tf~~ cars aroun~i. Ne uolntcd o~~t the playc~rounJ area {s the ~o~tiun where they are gatn~ to be bullding thc untts ;end they do not curr~ntly have any problcros with turnin~ around. Chalrman Ilerbst pointed out hc would be addi~y more units~ which would mean more auxomobiles and would be compuundin~ the problem. Ile stAted the~e were currently 16 un(ts and they woul d be add i nq 1 t' un i ts ~ wl~ i ch i s more tt~an doub 1 i ng the use~ wl th the samc amount of yround space. Commisstoner ~avld pointed out thc: staff rep~rt indicates the parki~c} would be in r,onformance v~ith Code requi~er~x;nts, pointing out to Mr. Mata tt~at thc Plann(ng Commisslon is not particularly concerned wi tl~ the nwnber af parktng spaces stiawn~ but with the way they are set up. Comntssioner Tolar stated this plan ne~°ds scxn~ kind of iurntng radius or hartmerheed and that there are too many uni[s on the propertv, and the ~nly way to accomplish Che adequate eireulatlon would be: to rcciuc~ the nurr~er ut units an~ briny in a revised plan. He pointed out flre vehicles or trasli trucks could not turn around on the property at the present tir~~e, and Mr fiota pointed out tr•ash trucks currently service the property. Cartmissioner Darnes asked Mr. Mota iF he would like a continuance to bring in revlsed plans and work with the Traffic Enyineer, and suygested he yet the Traffic Engineer's approval; that there is ~o way anyone could get tn and turn around at th~ present time; that it is also dangerous and shc felt the problems could be solved, and suggested that he request a continuance. Mr. llota indicated he wuuid 1(ke to request a two-week contlnuance. ACTION: Commissioner ~arnes offered a nx~tinn~ seconded by Commissioner Qavid and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson bciny absent and one scat beiny v~ca~t)~ tt~at the Anaheim City Planning Comnission does hereby ~rant a two-week continu~nce, t~ [he rehularly scheduied meeting of tl~e Planniny Commisston on September 25, 197~1~ in order for the petitianer to subrnit revised plans. 9/tt/?8 4, ~ . MINUTL'S~ At~l1HEIM CITY PLANIIING CUMMISSION~ SEPTf.NI~ER it, 1~)7f; %~-7G~ ~TE~~~ ~~~ ~ PUtiLIC NEAkIWC. ~WIICR: LA7.I1Rk: F. Uf.kNl1l1RU~ 1800 EIR NkGATIVE OECLARATIOM Avenue of the Stars~ Los 1ingel~s, CA 900Ey. AGENT: WAIVER OF GOUE. k~QUIRf.MENTS JuSEPIi li. UUYLE ~ 1452 West Beverty Orlve ~ Anaheim~ ~~~ ~~,~j CA ~32`:~1. Petitloner rr.quPSts permission to E5T/1t31 I Sli A USE: u AUTONQt31 LE STORAGE AND IMPOUNO YAftU WI'f~l WAIVf.R OF (!1) MAXIt1UM FFNCC IIE IGNT AMU (e) P~RMITTEU ENCR~~C11t1E.~IT I;~Tc1 RL,1U{REU SF.T;s~GF: on nrr.,perty descrthc•d as a rectan,yulerly- shaped parcel uf lancl consistlny of ap~~rc~ximate~ly 0.;, ecre Ic,c:aied at the narthet+st corner of tiroadway an~i :a~~ra Street~ havlny a~nroxl~,~~te front~u~s of 137 feet ~n tf~e r~~rth side of Isroadway an,1 15;) fer.t on thc east sicif: of Loara Strcet, ond fu~ther described as 15~5 West Lf~oadway. Property presently classi f iecf NL (IPIUUSTRIAL~ LINITEU) Z~Ilf.. There was one pe rson 1 nd ( c~~t i n~i the I r presenc~ i n opF~cs i t i on t~~ sub]~:~1 rryuc5 t~ and althauyh the staFf repurt to tl~e Pla~inin~~ Coi~xnisSiott datcd Sertember 11, 1~;7is Was not read et CISP, publfc hc:~irin~~, it is referre~l to and maJc a{>r:rt oF th~~ iniriutes, Joseph Uayl~:~ ~gcnt~ referred to thc cr~n~ii ;i~~n rtif t.h~~ ~rc7~~~rty at. thc prrsent tlme~ indicatin~ the reason for its conditinn is thae the last tena~it under the terms ~af h(s lease was supposecf to mainLai+i thz gr~~unds ~~ncl ~~reenery ~~nd th~t ~i0~ 51`~~ trecs have be~n destroyed. t1e stated i t f~as bc~e-~ a) le<Jed tlic Gi ty crews ki l led the trecs wi th weed ki llers and the ten~v~t has refuse~ t~ re-Jo th~ ~,~rec~ncry, He s[ated he real lr.ed this has nothing to do with the present applicatlun buC he wanted the CoMmi~sion to kr~ow the owner wi 1 1, i f th i s i s approved, have the new tenan t re-clo the qre~enery anci br i nq i t up 10 standard. Ile asked about thc con~iition requirin~~ strecr. li~~h[inq fees be paid~ and indicated somewhere a mistake has becn made becausc he had researclir_d ttie record and found the fees were pai~ October ;~ la~~)• Chairman tlerbst po(nted out this is a standarcl c~r.dition uut on all requcsts and if the fees have been patd~ thcy c1o not h~7vc t~ be pald a,ain. Mr. Uoyle referreci to t}~e conclicion requirinc~ a letter be written tc~ terminate Yariance No. 2y46 and pointed out accordiny to the staff report that Variance No. 2546 ex~ired Septen~ber 5, 191~;~ but they wc~ul~! t~e wi 1 1 iny to wr i te a letter i f necessary. Doyle Ni 11 ~ 16G~i West tfr~aciway, i,~Jicat~d he c~wne~ tlie propertics adJacent to the corner and his tenants have been qui te cc~ncernr_d ~~i tti the use of the property in ttie past and asked him ta speak in opposition. tle st.atecl the property i~ay not been praperly maintained, not just the sl~rubbery~ but it is not pav~~i as indtcated, ~nly gravel~ and the landscap{ng consists of weeds and dead trees. tle indtcated it is true the City sprayed the parla~ay, but the trees are 10 feet back from the parkway. Ne indicated the entire ~,~roperty has t,~one from fairly good to worse each year ancl he does not allow his tenants to ~store anythiny outside; that this is a corridor int~ the City of Anaheim and he has tried to keep his tenants fram storing outsicle and keep the buildinys painted, and he would llke to see the property upgraded. Ne stated they bought thc property the same time Lin-arook Nardware bought theirs and did not suspect the worse~ but he has had efght years :o analyze the situaCi~n and t~is tenants have cantinually complai~ed about the condition next door and he dici not see any difference here as long as the storage is allowed, and he was represe~ting not only himself and his tenants, but represe~nting Mr. Jackson and his tenants also. Mr. Doyle stated he thought the last conditional use perm(t was granted on a yearly basis, providiny the petitioner k~pt the praperty up the way it should be,and they were gtven two ar three er.tensions of time and he did not know what had happened in the meantime; that he I~as on file a letter from Mr. Hill's tenant requesting that they be permitted to use the property for parklny. and he dt~i not know wl~ether this had anything to do with the 9i~~r~a ,~, -*. ~, . ~ MtI~UTES~ ANANEIPI GITY PLANNING CJMMISSION~ SEPTEM(3ER 11~ 197~ 1~'7G~3 IK NEGATIVE DECLARA?ION ANU CONDI_TIOtJAI USE FERMfT N0. 1887 (contlnued) opposttlon; tieet thn property wns pureha~eci and a G-foot hl~.~h wall wAS bullt ~or the storage of lumber and this use ren out when Lln-Bro~k sold :helr hardw~r~ and the property was leased to McCoy Ford~ and aa far as I~e knaws~ the propcc•ty hbs been kept in pretty good shape untl I recentlY wt~cn he reccived A lctter from tl~i: aub-!esseestating the lessee had left and asking hlm to secure an~thcr tenant; tliot he ti'led to find a tPnant who want~ed to store new cars anci trollers, but wA~ not ablc to f'tnd one and at tl~e present tlrne the propcrty Is xoned M-1 anJ the pern~(t was for ttie store9e of autnmoblles~ and thl5 request ls very 1 i ttle di Fferent. TN~ PUbLIC HkARING W~S CLUSCU. Ghairma~ Herbst steted the scorac~e af automubiles anJ n~ovemr.~t of ~rrecked vehicles in and ouC of an area on a 24-haur b~~sis is noc the same thing; that there are homes across the st reet and wl~en you have tow truck5 b ~ i ng I ny i n wrecked auto~,~ob t 1 es on a 2~~-hou~ bas i 5. there wlll be noi~e ~r~~blen,s an~l thP Commission has had comp~aints reqarding this type of usc backing up to ~r near resiclcntla) arr.as~ an~ wh~n tlie noise level at 3:~~ a.m. is dnwn to practlcally not!~lny anJ a wreckeJ automabile is brouc~ht tn~ tt~e notse will carry a long way and (t is an en[irely differei~t use. Commissioner King asked if khe huurs of operation could be confined to 1~;Q0 p.m., and Mr. Doyle indicated t~e woulcl Iike the tenant to an5wer that questlon. Commissloner Tolar pointeci aut this prc~perty is not bl~cktoppecl~ it is ~ust gravel~ and since this use was permitted, a resideiitial cract has bce~ constructed south of (t and~ in his opinlon, the usa of outdoar storage wuuld not be canducive ta reside~ttal uses. Commissioner David pointed out the property owncrs ln that area had been notiflzd of th(s hearirtg and wcre not present. Richard Du Eiois~ representiny Uu Bois b Paschal! Garage 6~~~dy Shop~ indicated they woutd be using the lot for storagc of automc~bfles and storage would be outside but within a block wa~l. Comrnissioner King asked if the operatio~ c~ulcf he limited to 10:00 p.m. and no cars be brouyht in after 10:OU p.rn., and Mr. Du E3ois replicd the t~ours could be limited at the present time unttl tlie City teils tt~em they have to move from the(r location at West Chestnut Street; that they have a facili~y there for storlnc~ the cars at night. Ne pointed out that location is in the redevelopment area. Ne indicated they pick up cars for the Pollce Uepartrtxnt on a rotation basis. Comm{ssion~r Davld indicated f~e felt this use wuuld impact that a~rea and generate a lot of noise with this ~yp~ of towin~a on an in-and-uut basls. Commissioner King indi~ateJ thc petitioner f~ad stipulated ta stop the operatlon at 10:00 p.m. and poTnted out this is a noisy intersection. Ne pointed out the work is done behind an ~'-foot hiyh wall un aroadway so the noise is baffled and that there ts a two-story bui lding wi th no windaws on that si de. Commissloner Tol~r pointed out this area is close to residentlal and is almost as close as the Conrad's aperation which has had so many problems and is the same type of operation. Mr. Du Hois stated this property is not abutting residential. Cort~rissioner Kin~ point~:d out there is an 8-foot high, salld wall to the east, a school to the west~ an~ a playground Lo xhe norCh, with so~id walls on all four sides and he did ~ot 9/11/78 ~, FIINUTCS, ANAt1EIM GI7Y PLANNING COMMI5SION~ SEPTEM~ER 11, »7a 1~'774 Elli NEGA7IVE OECLARATION ANp CO~IUI71UNAl USE PERMIT NO....1_8a7 (contlnued) se4 any harm ta anyone as lony es the: cars a~'e nok stacked lilyher th~+n the wall, He refar~ed ta the heavy trafflc, an~ nolae from tt~c traf(i~; at this locatlon ancl dld not fecl there would bc any rnare no1sE~ from this operation th~n tlic tr~fflc. Commissioner Herbst asked ff any autonx~biles would be r~palred at this location, and Mr. Uu I3ois replled they woul~ unly stora autonx7bi les r~t this locatior- anri repair them at th~ f~cility' on West Ch~stnut Strect. fle expl~+ined if there is an accident. either the insurance company or the crwner picks up the vehicle c~r tl~ey go through a lien sale and get t~~4 papc:rs from ti-e Slace and sell tlie veliicle to thc salvage yard. ConmfSncenancl~`referre~etattl~e~choinlink yatestand,pointeclaout~theysneed,new slats~d~nd~Mr. tt,c. fe Uu kiois replied they would comply witl~ that request. Ccxnmisslaner Davirl ar,kc~c1 if there i~ a requirement ty~~t~u`e~heeCommission~ha^~dthat optlon~ s tated te~ere i s no requ i remen [ in tl~c ~u .ic for pavl n. , Mr. D~~ I~uis replied that ttiey, tt~e lcss~~cr would not ba williny tu bl~cktop the ~-roperty~ ~ormifssioncr Barnes stated sl~e coulcl su~port tlie pro}ect If It is paveci an~i if ttie hours wcre limited forever and if tt~e lanclscapiny is <iane rcally well, which mcAns a t0-foot densely la~id5caped se~back witt~ sprinl:lers and th~t it is prop~rly maintained. i1r. uu Uois stateJ he F~as received an estii~~ate for th~ landscaping and would fallow through viith the landsca~iny un Broadw~y an~ Loara Street. Cc~mmiss?oner [sarnes s[ated stie wuuld like a stipulatiun that the landscAped setback would be !!~nse ard act as a furthrr scrceniny. Ccxnmissloner Y.ing indlcate~ i,e w~uld utfer a r,x~tion for appr~val as lnng as there are no cars to be stacked abnve tl~e wall and a letter is written tcrminatiny Vartance No. 25~~G. Ne asked about spreadiri7 oil o~~ the rock and gravel. Commissioner Barnes felt that irti arder to pratect the homeowners and businesses next door, it would not be unreasonable to require asplialt so that th~ pro~erty would be upgraded. She felt asphalt woul~' eliriinate d~:st which would be a nuisance to those property owners. Mr. tlill pointed out the present ground is hcavy gravcl atid is used f~r new cars and does not generate dust and does th~ same thing asphalt would do. Commisbj~~intonttie~park~ anci MrQ Doyleipointednoutathef p opertysostcompletelyasurrounded wrau 1 d by a frnce. ACTION: Commissloner King offered a motion~ seconded by C:xnmissione~ Uav(d and MOTiON t~t EO (Commission~:, ,,ohnson bring absent and one s~at being vacant), that the Anahelm City Planning Commissi~•i tias reviewed the praposal to permit a used automobilP starage and impound yard with waiver~ of maximum fence heiyht and permitted encroachment into th~ required setback on a rectangular'y-shaped parcel of land consisting of aDproximate~y 0.5 acre located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Loara Street, having approximate frontages of 137 feet on the no~th side of Droaa'way and 15~ feet on the east side of Loara Street; and does hereby app~ove the Negative Declaration From the requirement to prepa~e an environmental impact report or, th~ basls that ;here would be no slg~ificant individual or cumulattve adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaratlon since the Anaheim GGneral Plan desig~at~s the subJect property for general 9/11/7~ ~ ~ . ti.. MINUTES~ l~NAf1FIM CITY F~I.ANNING COHM155101~~ S~PTENnER 11~ 171f~ ~a'~~~ I~R NEGATIVE DECLAW1TIpN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1887 (continued) fndustrial l.~nd ~ses canmensuratc with thc propr»~1; that no sensttlve envtr~nm~nt~+l impacts ar~ Involved In ttie proposal; th~t the Inittal Study submitted by the prtitloner indlcates no sic~niftcont inciivlclual or cumul~tive aJv~rse anvlronme:ntal impaets; and that the Negatlve Ue~;laratlon substantiatiny thr fareyoiny findings Is on flle in the Clty of Anahuim ?lanning DaaArtment. Comr~ilssioner Klny c~ffere~ ~~ motion, secori~ed by Commissloner Davld and MOTION CARRIEU (Commissloner Johnson br:iny absent, Commissioncrs Nert~st anci Tolar voting no~ and ~ne seat being vacant)~ that waiver (a) be yranted on the basis th~it a hordshlp exists in that the block wal) is ex~sting :md tc~ ren~ovc it would create a harclsl~ip and a loss of the use of thc land,onJ the butlding abutting this ~ropcrty to thc east is iQ feet from the south property 1 ine; yranting waiver (b) on the basis this is a prlvl lege c~njoyeci by tl~e property in the past anJ tl~~ use is not foreic~n tc~ the aren, and the use of thls particular property is limitrd becausc of the trnf,°ic nols^. at tl~at corner. Chalrman Herbst stated hE~ had 4ppused this rtx~tion because th~~t pr~perty has had outdoor storage for e(9ht years ancl evcry appllc~~nt li~3s i~at live~i up to the conditions of the permit and it has becom~ a condition not conducive to the nelghbors ancl they are obJecting to It. Commissionsr Kiny askeJ Cf~ai rman Ilerl;st if f~c would bc wi ll inc; to supporC the use if a tin~e 1 irni t were imposc~~ ancl C!~ai ri~ian Nerbst repl ie~l he would not. Commissioner I:!iiy offered ~~ r-asulutiun granting Petitton for Conditional Use Permlt No. 1Bb7. subJect to the stipulatl~ns c,f the anplicant to n~t stack vehicles hiyher than the fence and to provicie new slats in the chainlinl. gates :,d to subr~lt a letter requ~stiny termination of Variance No. "L;~~6~ anJ subject to Interaepartmental Committee r~comrt~ ndations. Gc~mmissioner Eiarnes lncJicated sf~e would want clense landscaping and the area to be paved with asphalt~ and Comnissic~ner Kiny pointec~ out the petiticmrr has stipulated to bringing the landscaping up to standar~~i. Chalrman t~erbst stated this ty~~c of use in that area has hc:cane a detrin~ent to the nel yhbors and the otlic;r bus i nesses and s i nce t1~at use was ~~ermi t ted ~ a res i denti al area has been developed across the strcet. Jack White. uepu[y City Attorney~ ~~sl:ec~ if the asphalt paving requirement and the limited hours of operation shoul~i be included, and Comm(ssioner King explained the haurs of operation would ~e betwe.en i;:00 a.m, and 10:0~) p.m. anJ he did not include the asphalt ~s a requirement in his resolu~tinn. Commissi~ner E3arnes indicated she would vote against the use unless the petitioner stipulated to providing asptialt paviny. She indicateJ she agreed with Commissioners 7olar and tlerbst tF~at the use of this pruperty has probably outltved itself~ huwever~ she understood this corner is difficult~ and she did not know what use could be put ti~ere at the present time and was i~ot oppose~ to the outdoor s~nrage if all those conditions weru met because she thought this was an interim use anyway. Conmissioner King pointed out asphalt wouid not be Justified if the use were permitted for one year and asked Cortmissioner Barnes if she would support th^ use for one year with the rvck to determine whether or not there are any complaints, an.~ poinCed out again thd*. the use of this property is lir~ited. 9!t i/78 ~- ~ ~... MINU7~S~ ANAt~EIM CITY PLANWING CONMISSIOIJ~ SCPTEMBER 11~ 1~7~i 78-77z EIR l~EGATIVE uEGLARATION AND COt~oITIONAL USL PERMIT NO. 18~7 (continucd) Cammisstoncr Uarnes s;ateci g1~e would not vote for the use without the paving because (C could cause the nelyhbors n~re dust anJ noise problems and sl~e wc~uld not v~te For anytl~lny they could see c~~at would liave an aestfietically unpleasin,y effect. Comnissioner K~ng askeJ (f there haJ buen any complaints froai the ne(ghbors in the past~ a^d Jay TaS,~ira replicJ he was not ~~w~re of any complnint5 Mr. Uoyle expleined the music cvmpany has asked ko use the parkiny. !ie also explatned that At the present tinx~ tlie owner uf [he property (s the Crustee of the estate of a child and the property Is lcasec~ Lo Central Narciware (n St. Louis and that lease will explre in 19~2, and in 19t2 wh~n the lease expires, a buildiny w(11 be built on the praperty. Commissioner Klny calle~f for a vote on thc resolutlun w(thout tr~c aspl~alt paving requlred. On rol) call~ the foreyofny resolutic>n FAIL~u TO CARRY by the follawiny vote; AYES: COMHI SS I OPJEItS: NOES; COI~MISSIOt~F:ftS: ADS~NT: CQMMISSIONERS: VACAtJCY; OiJE SE:AT DAVI~, KIIJG UI1RIdE5~ IiLRIiST, TOLAR JONIIS~~N Jack White polnted uut another resolutiun stu~ulJ be offe~ed for either den(al of the request or r~quiriny that aspi~alt paving bc put in. Corrmissioner Talar offered a resalution far denial of Fetition for Londitional Use Permit No. 1~587 pn the basis that hc did not think o~tcJoor storage of automobiles at that locatfon is the hiyhest ancl best usc of the pr~~crty. Comrt:tssione~ Dav1d pointed out the pro~~r[y would prabably remain vacant and will be a detriment Co that area vacant an~l unattended, Ccxnmissloncr E~arncs asked wha*. couid be donc with tt~e propcrty. Coaimissioner Tolar stated in 19~s2 when the lease is up~ another bullding could ~rohably be constructed that would be c~mpatihle with the rest of the uses; thaC the I~nd owner I~as the property leased until 19~2 and is probably happy with tf~e way it is. but could probably get a hlyher revenue if thc building wac bullt. but in the terms o1 land use~ he did not think ~roadway~ as busy as tt is, is any place for an outdoor storage yard. On rail call~ the foregaing resolution F'AILED TO CARRY by the following vote: AIES: COFI111SSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: AaSEtIT: CAMNISSIONERS: VACANCY; Ot~E SE:AT TOLAR~ HERBST BARr~ES~ DAVIU~ KING NUNE Cortr~issioner Barnes offered Resolution ~~o. PC73-214 and maved for its passage and ad~iptlon, that the Anaheim City Planniny Commissinn does h~reby grant Petitton for Condl~lona) Use PermEt No. 1~~J for a period of one year~ subJect to review and wnsideratian by the Planning Commisslon for pos~ible extenslons of tirne upor~ wrttten request by the petitioner, and subject to the following stipulations by the petitior+er: a) that the a~ea shall be paved with asphalt~ b) that r~dwood slats shall be provided in the chainlink yates~ c) that dense landscaping and sprinkler systems will be provided, d) that the ho~crs of operation shall be limited to from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.~ and subJect to Interdepartmental CommitteP reconunendations. 9/11/18 a' R MIt~UTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION~ 5CPTEMBER 11~ 1976 EIR t~EGl1T1VE DEGIARATION AND CONUITIONIIL USE PERMiT N0. IS$J (conttnucd) On rnll call, the foreyoiny resc~lution was p~~ssecl by the following vote: AYCS: COMMISSIONEftS; NOCS: COHFtISSI0NER5: AOSLNT: COMMISSIONERS: VACA~ICY ; ONE SEAT k3/1RNES. 0l~VIU~ KIN~ H(.RfsST~ TOLAR Jul1!lSoN 7~-773 Jack Whitc presented thc wrltten riyht to appcel any par[ of thr. Planning Coc+misslan's d4~islon to the GI ty C~unci I wi thin ?.2 clays. ITEM r~U. 1 PUiiLIC Nt1lRt11~,. OWr1ER; HARVEY NUI3tiEL~ II~C.~ L R IJEGA IUk UEG1.l1RATIOIJ IZ12 tlorth Ma~}nc~lla Avenue~ l1n~h~lm~ CA ~12001. C NDI IONAL USE PERPItT ~10. 1~~:" AGE1~75: LA~F:RGCL~ I~IC. ~`!7~1 Wi lsh{re a~~~~levPrd~ Beverly H( I ls, CA )~Y:17. a~d IIObIl1RD F. THOMPSQt~, 203Q Cast F'ourtl~ Street~ Sant~~ Ana, CA 927A5. Patitioner requests pern~ission to ESTA~LISII OFFICES A~~U RCSTAURANTS IW Ail 1-~OUSTRIAI COMpLEX on property described as an irreyu)arly-shaped parcel af land consisting of approximately 2l.~~ ~~cres havinc~ a front.~g~ Uf appro>.(m~tely 7~J f~et on the east side af f4agnolia Avenue~ F~avlr~~a a maximum depth of a{~proximbtely 1G,n fcet~ being located approxlmately >15 feet north af the Cc:nte~l{ne ~f La Palma Avenuc~ and furthcr Jescrlbcd as 1212 Nartl~ Magnolia Avenue. Property presently classlflEd ML (ItJUUSTRiAL~ LIMITED) ZO~IE. There was no onc indic.atiny tlie~ir ~~rescnce in opposi tion ta suhJect ~equest, and although the staff report to the Planniny Comr~~tssion datc~l Se{~tember 11~ 1978 w~s not read at tht public heoring, it is referrea to an~f made a part of the minutes. lioward F. Thompson~ agent~ state~l Lhc~y liave been working with ma~keting people~ clvil enyineering consultants~ end the proposeci dcveloper of this property and hAVe attempted to come up with a~,ian that is unique~ interestiny, and fills ctie needs of the cttizens of Anahelm. I~e polnted auc the restaurants on thetr plan are located on ttie Magnolta frontage, designateci ax l~uildings ~, ~, C and D~ and will be used by both loca) and aut~ of-tawn people beceuse of their proximity to the freoway; that tl~e individual office bulldings not~d as f3uildinys 1 through 19 offer the small busi~ess man thc opportunity to purchase a~d own his awn builciinc~ at a r~asanable price and felt this wauld create a more permanent and lasttng business commu~+ity; that these buildinys range in size from 2170 square feet to b70Q square feet arid will be constructed of Lextu~ed and Rainted concrete with reflectiny ylass, wood trlr~~, and extersive, heavlly-bermed IanJscAping. Ile presented renderings of bulldinys 2. ~ an~1 1~ which were typical proposed office buildinqs. Chairman tierbst askeJ Mr. Thurnpson o clartfy the parkiny situation; that because of the number of parking spaces sl~own for ~~ch individual unit~ the plan is coming up short for a few of the bui ldinys. Mr. Thompson replied that if that ts truc. it cauld be easily ad}usted; that he was under the impresslon thry had p~ovided four parkiny spaces for every 100t) square feet of space for each buildiny. Chairman Herbst pointe~i out that if individual buildings are to be sold, they must stand on their a+n and that because of the tract nw p:he count does come out short an a few of the buildinys. lie stated. however~ adequ~:te parking is provided for the overall proJect. 9/11/78 ._....~......«~m..~.~a~ ___- - .:F.. =A..'a~r;s~`... .:w.~:.- .:~ ~ ~ ~` ~. MI~IUTES~ ANl111CIM CITY PLAfIt~ING COMNIS510-~, SEP?EMBER 11, 137~ 7e~'77~~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA?ION ANO COt~01'~IONAL USE PERMIT t~0. 186~; (cunti~ucJ) Yhcxnpson steted this caulJ be acljusteJ ancl askeJ tf fUUr sp~ces per 1~'1U sque~re f~~t Nr. is the c:orrect flc~ure~ nncl it was raplled It Is carrect. Ile stAted this was an overs y t an their part encl thcy ~rc ~ot askiny fo~ ~ny veri~nces. Ile statr.d to tha best of thelr knuwledge thcre orc ~~ officc buildlnys ~.~f th(s slze oY ty{~e witl~in e pl~nned business pArk for sale ln Oran~~c County. ~nJ {ie bellcve~ the combination of restourants~ small offices and llght Incfustrtal facllitles ~rovicic very harmon{ous land uses In nn envtro~mentally•controlled businc,ss c~rmun(ty. Tl~f. PUfiLIC HLl1KItiG W115 CLOSEu. Chalrman Tolar state~l lie felt tlifs wos a uni.aue concept nncl has a loC of inerlt~ however~ with thc number of hulld(nc~s proposc~, thcre are othcr problems besides parkinq and pnrkiny could be a~rc~~lern if the inefivi~lual lots are sc~ld~ hut also the tresh c:ncl~s~• .~ fo~ tha sc:para[e unit.~ ~1ftF~ the narrnw srr~ct Is a~roblem~ and t~e cilci not think the tras~~ trucks couid yet Ir~ ancf turn aroun~f. Mr. Thumpson replleJ that thcy havc donc sm~ill industria) buildln~5 of this type in this city and are famlliar wi th wUrE:in~~ wl tl~ ths Sanitatton Divlsi~n. tle indlcated they havc shown a tr~st, enclasur~~ c,n each parcel, howevcr~ they h~ve not shc~v+n precisely where they will ultimately end up. lir, stated the re~son is t~ecausc thcy know they will h~ve to work with the C(ty on CAGF1 indivluual parcel anJ satisfy their requirernents~ anJ thcy have ncver h~J any problems in the past an~i ~io nut anticipatc ~iny rroblems now and they ere providiny trasl~ enclosur~s on eacii parcet aneJ wi 11 put ~.hem wherever tt~e Sanitatl~n Uivislon w~nts them. Chalrman Nerbst did not think it wc~uld bc possihle for s~^x~ of thc bull~in~s because adeyuate turn-around areas are not provicled. Mr. Thompson statee~ thr.y havc V~ad trasl~ enclosures placed on small industrlal buildings during the last ycar in Anahei~n wtiere t~icy were not right on the front~ but were about half-way, and there w~~s a way to yet to them without t,acking out of the property. and he believed that could l~e wor~;ed out and pointed out these are office bulldings and do not have the amount of trash industrial builciings w~uld have. Cornmissioner t3arnes state~l c~r~ of the things thac bottiers her ab~ut this pl~n is tha~ it is so gcnera) ~~d the Commiss~on has no idea of how the prablems will be taken care of and i t appears to take c~r~ of some of the prob 1 ems ~ some af the bui 1 d i ngs rnay F1AVE to be ellminated and the plan chan~~~~ c~nsiJerably~ and this is not an actual plan wfth that ma~y changes (for example~ the trash enclosures and parking). She stated the petit(oner i s i nd i cat i ng he wi 1 i ta{.e care ~f these pr~b 1 ems ~nd sl~e unders tood why i t was presented tliis way~ because he has to work witli each indlvidua) departnent of the City. but wonde~ed why these matters were not taken care of before the final plan was presented to the Planning Gommission. Mr. ThompsQn stated he had worked with the Fire Department~ the T~affic Departme~t~ and the Planninq Department and the only department he h~ad not sattsfted was the Sanitation Division because he knew he would have to sit da,~n and go over each individual building. He stated ouring his conversatian with the Planning Dcpartment last week no one had ind(cated there would nUt be enough parking spaces. Commissioner Tolar explained the reason for the parking problem was because it was considered an irdustrt~l park and not indivldual parcels~ and Jay Tashtro explained this was cor~ect. g/11/78 ~. .~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ AI~AIIEIH CITY I'LANNING COMMISSIQIi~ SEPTENDER 11~ 1~7E 7~'775 Elft NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONOITIOI~AL UaE PERMIT IdO. 18a8 (continusd) Mr. Thampson explalned he h~id presented e breAkJown .~f the 19 bulldings wlth the parklnq spaces to the Planning Gepartment ~ and JAy Tashf ro rr.pl (ed that tt» bre~kJown wAS bss~~~f on each indi vi~iual but ldiny anJ st~ff had b~sed the perkine~ a~ the c~~tlre ~~roJec;~ and thern wa~ mo~e then sufffctent ~~erkiny for the entire proJect. but b~sea on each Incllvld~a) builcliny there ere five bulidinys which .~rG short of parkinra ~.poces. Mr. Thompson stated kf~is pra ject was cles i;~ncd to bc~ pr+rc:e 1~ ze~i; the of f 1 cc bul 1 d t nys were dasi,yned for n~e p1~~Snr~ gpece far ev~ry ?.;Q square fQ~t ~nd the industrlal area avcrages tn excess of ono space per ~+U~ squa~~~ feut~ ~~hirh Is mc~rc than enough lo maet Code for industrisl~ and it was nevcr rJesiynecl to 1,~: s-~ort of parkiny s~nces. Ne stat~d cherc have been a number of ineetinc~s and no one has In~licateJ there was a shortage of parkinc~~ and puinted out Du(ldlnys 31 throuc~fi 36, for e~c.ti~~~le~ have one s~>~ce per 375 squore feet and Buildings 20 through 30 are in excess of one space per >0~ square f~at~ so hc dicl n~t knuw how he c~ ~ld be short of ~~Arkiny bASe~ on the whole concept. Jay Tash i ro rcpl iect that the whole ~r~~ject does r~eet thr ~arki nc~ requi rements and polnted out thosc indtv(dual buildinys whlch ore short of parkin~. Commissiancr l~arnes felt thls matte:r should be cuntinuecf in ordcr for thr. rlans ta bc r~evl5ed to includw adequAte p~irking far each individusl unit and ad~q~:ate trash store,ya for eoch in~livldual unit because s~~e felt ~c~reements could not be reAChed since this plan is not definite ~nou~h. Mr. Thompson pc~lnted out It is n matter of reducinc~ the indiviclual size of the butldings on the individual p~rcels to rneet the parkin~~ requirements~ ~~n-1 he dld not see why {~ ~•~as necessary to come back in tr~o weeks to ad~ust the site ~f t' bulldlnys and felt the plan could be approved subJect to the can~itlons that adeauate ~ k~ng ancf trasl~ enclosures are p rov i de d. Commissioner 7olar inJicated ttiis makes s~~nse tr~ fiim si~~ce no variances are beinc~ requested~ and th~ proJect could be approved subJect to the plan complytn9 wfth Ti•affic Enyi nee r and San I tat I on Ui v i s i on app rova 1. Chairman flerbst stated f~e would like to sce dctalled, final plans brought back under Reports and Recomrnendatlons (n ~rcfer for the Planning Conmissinn to see what has b~en done wlth the ci rculation~ trash enclosures and parking. Mr. Thompson s tated he assumed 1 f he sa t 1 s f i es tl~e T~af f i c Eng i neer and the San 1 tat ion Divtsion, the Planning Commission would be satisfied. Chairman tlerbsi statcd the traffic circulation is very important since this Is an industri al area which creates t~uck traff ic with Jel iveries ~ etc. ~ and the cl rculation ~or thls plan is not a11 [t~at great, and he thought it would behvc+ve thc petikloner to analyze the c~reulation so that there is circulation all the way around the bulidin~s. Mr. 7hompson stattd lie has cione a lot of indu;,trial bui ldfnys lii this clty and this plan represents the same thin~~ as has been done in this city and many other citles; that these a~e smal 1 industrlai buildinys and there would be very 1 ittlc heavy~ seml-tral ler type trucking createJ. Chairman Flerbst stated if someone wanted to order one steel bar delivered~lt would bc pulled in wtth a biy semi~ and one of those trucks w~uld I~ave a hard time delivering to a machine shop. 9/11/]~ ~, .o ~ ~ ~ . MINUTES, ANAHE IM GITY PIANIJI NG COM~115S ION~ SEPTEMItER 11 ~ 1~7b 1~'77~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AWD CONDITIOt~AL USE PERMIT ~IO. 1688 (conti;~ued) Mr. Thompson sCntecl in thc ML Zonc they would bc ~) lowed to t,ui lc1 thesc Industrifil buildi ng~ wi thout a conJltiunal use permit mnd esl.ecl if tl~e plan would ae accepta~ic~ wlth the exca~~tlon of tl~e trash oncl~suras and perkiny. ACTIdt~; Commissioner Uavid offe~ocl i moti~m~ scconded by Canmissiuner Barnes auJ MUTION ~'U (Commissionc. Jol~nson beinc; absent and one scat bcing vacant) ~ that the Anahelm C{ty Plenning Comaission hAS raviewcJ the propasel to permit bus(ness affices and rostaurents i n en industrlal complex on ~n irreqularly-sf-aped rareel of tand consisting of approximatcly 27.~ acres h~~vin~ a frantage of approximately 7~7 feet on the east sidr, of Ma,yno lla Avenuo~ li~~ving a r~ax{~num det~th ~f approxl,natcly 16~~ feFt~ an~ br.Inn located approxlmate 1 y ~1> feet nc~rti~ of the centerl i ne of LA Palma Avenue; ancf does hereby approve tfie t~eyative Ueclaratioii from ttie requi rer,~nt t~ prepare ~n envl ronmental (mpact report on the basis t!~at there would be no sic7nificant inulviJual or cumulative ad.vcrse envi ronmantal Impact due to khe ap~rovAl of is Neyative UeGlaration since the Anahe(m Gene~al Plan Jesi~~nates the Subj~ct property for ~~ener: ~ industrt~l lanct USf'.5 commensurate witl~ the proposal; chat n~ s~nsttlve environn~ental irnpact~ arc involved in the proposal; that the Ini tlal 5tudy ~ubmittc~l by tlic petitiancr in~ilcates n~~ s!9n(ficAnt individual or CUr,~ul ~ttivc adversc envlront~~ent~~l irnp~~cts; anJ that tlie IJeyativ~~. Daclaration substantlating th~ forec~ofng findings is ~n flle in tl~e City of llnahclm Plannin~ 0~_partment. Commissloner Davi~ offcrecl aesolut~on No. P~7~%-z1'~ and rnoved for iCS passage anJ adoptian~ that thc Anaheirn Ci ty Plflnnin~~ Commission does hereby grant t'~tf t ion fflr Cundittonal Use Permit I~o. 188t~, subject to the stipulations of thP petittoner thac tl~r. trash enclosures and parking space plans wi 11 be approvr.d by tl~e Sanitatlon Divisinn and the~ City Traffic Engincer, and th~t a flnal specific plan wlll b~ braught to the Planniny Ccxnrnissl~n for thei r revie~v~ and subject to Intcrdepartmenta) Committee rccomn~en~itatl~ns. On rvll cal Z, the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the foi lowinc~ ~~cte: AYCS: GOt1MlSSIONC~;S: kSAR~~ES, UAVIL`. VILRI~ST~ KIIJG. TOLAR NOES : CnMP1) SS I ONCI~S: NOIIE At35Ei11'~ COf1MISSICNERS: JUIiI1S011 VACF~NCY; ONE SEA7 ITEH NG. ~S PlfFllC HEAaIr~G. OwNERS: FRAHn C. AND PAUI.~;iE C. '~R ~~RICAI_ EXE~iPTIGN-ClASS 1 S'~ITE1~ 21~ Broadview Street, Anai~ei~~ CA ~23C4. VARtANCE NC. 30+~ Petittoner requcsts WAIVE:R OF M~NIMUM NUN4kR AND 7YPE OF PARKI~IG Sf'ACES 70 PCRMIT AF~ ILLFGAL GARAGE COf~VERSI0IJ on property described as an i~•regularly- shaped parGel of land cor~sistiny of approximately G732 squa~e feet lotated at the cul-de- sae termi nus of Emeralc; Street~ t~aving a frontage of aporoxi~~ately G~ f~et on the east side of Emeralc! Strect, havin~ a r~aximum deprti ~f opproximately i07 feet, being located approxlinately 8~S feet north of the centerline of Embassy Avenue~ and further described as 110 South Emerald Street. Property presently classified RS-7200 (RESIqENTIAL. SII~GLE- FANlLY) ZONE. Therawere three pe~sons Indicaliny their presence in opposition t~ subJect request, and al though thc staff report to the Planning Camiission dated September 11, 197$ was not read at the publlc t~earing, it is referred to and inade a part of the minutes. F~ank Smi th~ the petitioner, stated he was the awner af subJect pro~erty and had purehased th is horr~e two years ago and tF,~ garage was al ready conve~ted ~nc! was a nice-loaki ng room, and he did not question it since he bought the property canventionally. 9/11/78 ~, ~ ~.,- ' MI tiUTES ~ ANAIIE: I M C I TY PLANN 1-~G LOMMI 55101~ ~ SCf TL~10Ct! 11 ~ 1~78 7F-711 EIR CATCGORICl1l EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 At~O VARIl1NCE N0, 30~i~ (continued) Chairr~~n 1lerbst pc~lnte~f out this re.yuast is the rFSUIt af a~ acCl<m ~f tlie ion(ny Enforcement Offlccr and asked hc~w that had hap{~onrd. Mr. Smith repl(ea he di~f nnt knc~w anything except they had recelved a citatl~n anel I~e did nnt knaw who had flled the complaint~ f~e c:cplained he had bouyht the property from the ownar and aft~r recelviny the ciCatl~n~ h~~d searche~i the records and chr.cked wlth the ov+nerwho explained thc room was convertec! by thc owncr Gefore hir~~~ so thc raom has been thare fpr approxlmately ten ycc~rs, Vic Passr~re, 10G Emerald Place, Anaheim~ stt~ted he owns the property aclJacent to the r~orth uf subje~t property and thc roc~rn waa probaUly converted about thr~~ years aq~ rather than ten years ago as in~icatcJ; that It was done without a permic And without the neighbors' ki~owledgr, because thc yarayc~ ~oor Is still operntianal; and that the:y were p~rking outside the garagc ~~t th~ t(mc since the ~arage was full anyw~y. 11e stated he personally ubjecteJ to this rcquest beca~as~ i~c c:id not fecl there is Adequate parking on tl~e premises for two cars; th:~t the cul-de-sac has ~Ie-shaped loCs hcing much narrower in the front and by thc time you get twc~ d~iveway sp~ces. [here 15 very limited parking In the cui-de-sac. I~e statc~l lie had contacked tl~e prn~erty c~wnPr lust aftc~r he had purchased thc property to infurm t~im there were twt~ or thrEC families livinq therc in violatlon of the Code. Ile s ta te~l he bc~ugi~ t I~ i s s i ny 1 e- fam i I y prope rty 27. yea rs ago and i f he had wanted to llve next to ~3n apt~rtment~ motel~ or whatever, that is what he would I~ave done; that In talking with the rast ot the neiyhbors~ they are in 1~~)L agreement and the reason tliey are not present is because one is on vacation anJ anc~tfier (s in business for hlmself with a partner and the p~~rtner is on vacation. He stated the,y had authorir.ed him to speak f r them and the fact th,~t they object~ and the reason t.hey ohJect Is 1(mi[ed parking~ and that anyune with morc than one car would bc parkinq in the strect~ eliminating the street sweepc:rs cleaning the area which is already ~firty. He scatr.d the peaple who had Just moved out af the property had four autonobiles and tl~~,rc was more than one famtly living there. tie stated if ;he awncr w~~nts a four-be~roam housc for income purposes~ there are other houses with four beclroon~s wl~ich he could purchase; th~,C this is a three-hedroom house and he would l ike ta ser: i t s[ay tt~at way. Midge Siinonton, 10; Emerald Plnce, Anahei~~~~ statecl she agreed with Nr. Passmore; that it is difficult to have conp~ny now hecauso the ar.:a is so crcxvded;tha[ the people had )ust moved out, but there havc been so rnany fami l les liviny thiere t1»t tt~ere was a noise problem and she realizes t--eY cannot complain about what has haprened in the past~ but did not want more of tt-e sanu~ th i n ~s to happen . Mr. Smith stated he dici not knaw abuut tl~e three or four families~ but he dld know there were some people stayiny wlth thc~ tena~t just before I~e moveJ, tie stated he understood from the Zoning Cnforcement Officer that five unrelated people can live in on~~ house. Ctiairman tlerbst pointed out the question is the illegal gar~ge conversion withou~ adequate parking. 7HE PUDLIC IiEARItIG 1JAS CLOSEJ. Chairman Herbst asked Mr. Smith if he lived in the housc or if it w~~s vacant, and Mr. Smith sCated tf~~y are in the process of repairin~ the house at the presenC ttme and it is vaca~t, but it is p~ssible he miqht movc into the property himself. N~ pointed out there are five in h(s `~nily and ther¢ miyht be three or four cars. Commissioner Toiar stated as an investment property the house would be just as gaod an investrnent a~d w~uld rent Just a~ wel l wi thaut the qarage conversion. tiE sCated the only time the C-:ssion has granted an iltegal garage conversion was when there was a har~ship 9/11/78 ~ ~ ~ti1NUTE5~ At~AIIEIM CITY PLAt~NING COMFIISSIUN~ SEPTEMQER 11~ 197~ ~f"~~~ E I R CATCGOR) CAL EXE11f't ION-CI.ASS 1 ANU VARIAIIGE N0. 30~~ (conc i nue~) created on th~ fsmily~ and tl~e harcisnip on a rentAl property woulc' bc herd to Justify end the Planniny Cammission has tc~ Justify the reascyns far ~ranting verlances~ anJ asked what the hardshlp would b~ in this situation. Mr. Sml th statedntl~~~95~e~ o'"an~wthchfomi lyt~wl~o~,but 1 trthe roomthad sfx chl ldren ~Wandbthat appr~ximetely te y .! was thc reason far the room. Commisslone~ khere isaco~h~`rdsf~~ on~hisep~~rteanatif'thr.rPlannlnqrConm(sslonhw~ntsnther~ Smtth state room taken out~ he wi11 cornply. It was noted that tiic Plenning Ulrectur ar his authorited ret~resentativc has determined that the proposed proJact falls within tlie definition of CaCeyor(cal Exernptions~ Class 1, as defineJ infp~~ea9GAtecorically ex~yptfframhthc r!~~~iipement~tol{rtir~ParceanrEl~ui~fellnes and is. therc ~ ~ ACTIOt~: Cornmis~ioncr Ktn~~ offered Kesolutl~n No. PC7~~-21F> and moveu Petiti~n~forAVerience ac~optron~ Chat the Anahelm City Planniny Commission does herehy deny No. 3045 on tl~e basis that inadequate parkinca spaces ~rc provided. and the existinc~ illegal garage conversion had had an adverse ir~pact on thc neiyhborh~~od, On rol) call~ the foreyoln~ resolutiun was passed by thc follawing vote: AYES : CONI115S I ONERS : 4l1RNES ~ OAV I p, HLRB57 ~ 1:1I~G, T~LAR NO~S: GOMIiISSi0NER5: NOIIE AEiSE1~T: GOFINISSIO~~ERS: J~ili15UN VAGANCY : ONE SEAT Ct~:~'rman Herbst asked the peti[ioner t~ow long he needed to rer~ove thc illegat conversion~ A~~1r. Smi th repl fed he would need approximatelY 3~ ~aY$ ~ Gommissloner Tolar ask.ed Mr. Smith why he tiad a~,~~lied for thc: v~riance. ~nd Mr. Smith ~eplied the t~nant living in thc property had given him the impresston he was qaing to stay there and he had a sister wt~o ~i~~~the~ arage~~hut~hethadrlateradecidedmto moveg another room, s~ he neeaed the roam 9 Jack White. Deputy City Attorney, pointed out the written ric~ht to appeal the Planning .x~xnission's d~ecislon witf~in 22 days to tt~e petitioner. 1 TEM ~IO. PUUL I C ti~-^R !~+~. OwNERS : JA~~ES J. Ar~D NANCY TO'LZ 1 C~ '~ T'~"'~~ R I C AL EX~Mt~~~ ~;~-CLASS 5 992 South Chanti l ty Strer.t, Anaheim~ CA g2~~F,. V R AN N. 3~- Peti~:ioner reques ts W A I V E R O F M A X f t 1 U M W A L L N E I G H T T O -- - -- COI!`TRUCT A f~-FOOT HIGH BLOCK `dALL on prope~ty desc?~~ed as a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of app~oximately 75~5 square feec lotated at the south~ast corner of Maverick Avenue and Ghantilly Street~ having approximate frontages of 89 feec on the south side of Meverick Avenue and 85 feet on tpe eystresent~~~f clas5ifiedsRSe7'~~e~RE51DE1TIALeSSitIGLE-as 992 South Chantilly Street. Pro ert p Y FAMILY) 20NE. 9/11/78 - - .. r,:..l~ M:~FN ~ ~ MINUTES, A~ANEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ SEPTEMI)ER 11, 197~ ;8-779 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA5S 5 ANO VARIANCE N0, 3U46 (continued) Thare was n~ one tndicactny thalr presence in oppoSttlon to subJ~ct request~ ancl aithough tho staff report t~ the plenning Commissian daced Septe~mber 11, 197a wos not rt.ed at ths public hearing~ It ts referre~f to and m~de A part of th~ minutes. Jame~ Tozzte~ tl~e pQtlttoner~ (nei(ceted he would ltke ta construct a~oot rnd thc block wal) to thN property 11nc on thc sidr.. yard. THE PUBLIC IILI1RINf 41AS CL~)~CO. It was noted th.~t the Planntny f)(rect~~r or hls ~~uthortz~d r~•presentatlve h.~s detc~m(ned that the proposed pro)ect falls withtn the definition of Cate~~ar(cal Exern~tlons~ Class 5~ as deflned in paragraph 2 of thc City of Anahcln Envlronrr~rntal ImpacC Report Guidelines and (s~ thcrefore~ :atc~orically exempt from tt~e rc~utren~ent to prep~~rc an EIR. ACTION: Commissio~er David offere;d Resolution W~. PC7i±-217 and movecf for tcs passayc and a opt on~ that the Anahe(m Ctty PlAnning Commission does hcreby grnnt Petitton fo~ Va~tance No. 30~~f~ on the basis that subJect praperty ts douhle reversed corner lat and without a va~lance a pc-ol cannot be constructed anci the wall is requ(red for sAFety, a~d subJect to Interdepartrr~enta) Comntttee recorm dations. On roli call~ the forr.gofng res~lution was passeJ by the following vot~e: AYES: CONMISSIQNERS; kiARNI-'S~ DAVID, NERElST, KINf,~ TQLAR NOES: C014~ISSIOI~ERS: NU~~E ABSENT: C011MISSIGNEP.S; J01(NSQ~J VACANCY: ONC SCAT I TEM N0. 10 PUI)L I C HEARI rIG, OwNLR: lCE O, uEt~B, ';n; Narth FT~'~~ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS ; Tustin Avenu~~ N170~ Santa Ana~ CA 91.1~;. ~ ~. 3~+ Petltioner requ~sts WAIVER OF (A) MIIfIHUM FR,O~iT SET~ACK ANO (tt) MIr~INUN NUMQER flF PnRI;ING SQAC£S TO COt~STRUCT A MQTEL on praperty desc.ribed as a rectang~~larly-shaped parcel of land consistiny of approxim.~tr:ly 2.~ acr~s having a frontage of approxtmately ~0~ feet on the east siJe of Harbor Bouleverd, having a mextmum depkh of aprroxirn~+taly 250 feet~ being located aprroximately 1G~ fcet north of the centerline of Oranc~ewnod Avenue~ and further described as '105n 5auth Harbor Boulevard. Property presently clASSified G-R (LOMMEP,CIAL-RECREATION) ZO!tE. It was nated the applicant was nnC present. ACTION: Commtss(oner Barnes offered a motion, seconded by Comm(ss~aner King and MOTION ~D (Commissioner Johnson being absent and ane seat being vaca~t). that consideration ~~ Petliton for Variance No. 30~~7 be ~~nttnued to the reyularly schect~~led rneeting af the Planning Commission on Septeriber 2!,~ 197~~ in order for the peti~lo~er to be ~resent. si>>iaa MINUYES, AI~l1ilEIM GITY PLANNII~G CONMISSIUN~ SEPTLMHE.R 11~ 197~ 7K•780 (TEN NG. 11 RE OR 5 ri~ Rf.C~~,r~[;lUATIOtIS A. TCt17~11V~ M~P OF 7P./1~:T I~U. ~l~t, - Re~uest for wa(ver of Hlllstde Gradinc~ r.~ nnncc. The steff rcnort ta the Plannir~<~ Conxniss(~n fro-n the Enr~tncerinn Dtvlsi~n~ Publtc Works D~partmen~, -vas pres~~ntc~, n<,tin~~ Paciflc Co~st aui Iders~ Inc. request that they be granCed a wnivar of th4 requlr~r~ent af thc Htllside Grading O~dtnance as It ~elates to the lacc~tiny of lot llnes ~t the top of slopcs within Lot 1~~ ~~f Tract ~lo. 913(; that thc Clty En,y{neering Divlsic~n ~r.c~rm-er,ds th.~t subjec.t request b~ caranted; And that T~act No. ~136 is located south of Scrrt~no Avcnue~ ~ast of Noh) Ranch Ro~d, ACTIUN: CnInm15SIU~iC1" Kin,y offere~i a nrotir,n~ saconded by Gonm~issioner Dav~d and MOTION ~U (Commissinner Johnson befn~ ~h~,~~nt and ~nc scat bcin~~ vacant)~ that th~ Anahclr~ City F'l,inninci Commission <tocs hereby rec.a~Kn~_nJ t~~ the Clty Gouncl) that thc request far waiver of the ~Ii Ilsid~ Gra~iin~~ Orclinance for Lot iF~ In Trect No. ^13G be granted, U. CONUII'IGt~AL U5L PL.P.MIT f10. { J~; - Renucst for ap~roval of precis~~ landscapln~ and g t n~ p ans, Thc staff report to tlie Plannl~g Comr~(ssion claced September 11~ 1~);S was presented. noting sub}~ct prapprty i5 a r~ctan~~ularly-shaped parcel af land consisting of approximately ~1.7 acre having a fruntage of approxirn~tely t`>d feet on the east si~ie of Anahcim liills Roed~ -+nd that thc applicant requ~scs epproval of precise landscaping and lighting plans; th~rt l,onditionai Use Perr~it No. 1~~'~~ was ap~raveJ~ in part~ by the Plannin~ Cormission, with Che requcsted waivers b~ine~ dr.nicd on thr basis that subject proposal was an integral part Uf the stiappiny centcr which ls only partially devclored and addltionel land appeared to be available fur d~velopment in full compliance with Code regulAtions; and th~t the r,onditions of ap~roval inclucied t1~r~[ Cl~e propc~sed no~therly off-si te driveway as depicted on the pl~ns bc fully improved pri~r to final butldin~ and zoning inspectt~~s. ~r vehicul~r access to tlir north be prohihited by ~n effective bnrrir~r consisting of landscaping ~nd G-inch high concrete curbs~ and [hat precise buildinr~ and landscaping pians shall be submitted to th~ Planniny Cortxnission for review and approv~l prtc~~ to the issusnce of butldin~ permlts. Mr. Carpenter~ the apriicant, was nresent to answer any questi~ns. ACTION: Gomc~~lssioner Tolar offereci .~ motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION ~ t ED (Commissioner Jotinson bein~ absent and one scat being vacant)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Comr~ission does here~y approve the proposcd lightin~ and lanclscaping plans, satisfying ConcJltion Nos. 5 and 6 af Resolution PC77-113• C. GUfUE SIGN5 FOR ANAHEIt11iILL5 - Request for determinatlon if proposed signs are gu e s yns as de ne y ode. Philip Bettentourt was present to answer any questions. The staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 11, 1978 was presented, noting subj~ct p~operties are located at the northeast and northwest corners of Canyon Rim Road and Fairmo~t aou~evard~ and that the applicant, Anaheim Hills~ Inc.~ requests a 9/11/78 , ~, MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 11~ 1g78 78-7A1 ITEM C (conttnued) ~ determin~tlon wt~~+ther aub)~ct rroposed sic~ns are "q~.~lcic stc~ns" es deftned by Lade Sectlon ta.oy.02o.034. ACTION: Commissloner Tolsr offered a motion~ secAnded by Cormissioncr aarnes encl MOTION CA~t~D (Gummisstoner Jahnscm being absent and one chatr b~l~-g vacant)~ thet the Anshetm City Planning Commisston does hereby determine tf~at thc proposed si~ns ~re "yulde slgns" as def(ned by CoJe Section 13.0;.020.030. AUJOURNFI~I~T There bcing no furthGr business~ Commlssioner E~arnes offarcd a motion. seconded by Commissione~ Uavld nnd MOT10~1 Cl1RRIGD (Gonm(sslonr.r Johns~n bc:(ng absi~nt and onc seat belny vacant)~ that the mceting be adJourned. Tt-e meeting was adJourned at ~:10 p.m. Respectfully subm(tted~ ~..~. ~ / y~J ~f ~, ~,C"t,4. •~~ !`J (,l.-4. l..ti. Edith L. Harris, Secreta ry Anaheim City Ptanning Corxnlssl~n ELFi:hm 9/11/78