The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1977/12/19• City Hall A~eheim, Caltfornia December 19, 1977 REGULAR NEETING OF TIIE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN ~....._ _. REGULAR - Th e regular rn~etiny of thG Anahetm City Plenntng Commission was called to MEETING o rder by Chairman Tol~r at 1:28 p.m.. December 19~ 1977~ in the Counctl Chamber~ a auorum betng pre~ent. PRESE~JT - CHAIRMAN: Tolar C ONMISSIONf.RS; Barnes, Davld~ Nerbst~ Johnsan, King~ Linn ALSO PRE5ENT - Rona i d Thompson Jack Wh i te A nnika SanCalahtl Jay TI tus Paul Singer J. J. Tashiro Edith Harrls Planniny Di~ector Deputy GICy AttornPy Assiatant Dtrector for Zoning Officc Engineer TraffiG Engtncer Assiscant Planner Planning Commisstan Secretery PLEOGE OF ~- The Pledge of A'legionce to the Fleg of the United Stetas of America was ALLEGIANCE led by Commisstoner K(ng. APPROVAL OF - Comm(ssioner I:fng offered a motion~ seconded by Commisstoner Herbst a~d THE MINUTES MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson abstaining)~ that the minutes of the No vember 2!~ 1~77 meeting be approved as submitted. ITCN N0. E I Ri NEG~I VE DECLARAT I OtJ CONT I NUED PURL I C NEARI NG. Q4lNERS: ARTHUR N. AND ~fT~~~ N. -7Ii-2o RUTN M. ETZ~ 16245 Elizabeth Lake Road~ Paimd~le~ CA 935~0. AGENT: JOHN 41. ZYLSTRA~ 233~ West Lincoln Avenue, A'18, Anaheim~ CA y2801. Petitione~ requasts reclassification of property described as a rectangularl,~-shaped percel of land cons(stl~9 of app roximstely 2.6 acres having a frontage of apprax~.~~ately ti12 feet on the east side of 8each 6oulevard~ haviny A maximum depth of approximetely 279 feet, and being located approxima tel 435 fret north of the centerline of Ball Road from the CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED~ to the RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-fAMILY) ZONE. Subject petitlon was continued from the meeting of December 5~ 1977 for the submission of revised plans. There were approximately 12 people lndfcating their ~r~sence i~ opposition to subJect request~ and although th~: staff report to thc Planning Commission dated December 19~ 1g77 was not read at the publlc hearing~ (i is refErred to and made a part nf the minutes. Chairman TQlar as ked those present in oppostttan if ;hey were opposed to the zone change or to the spec(fic proJect as submitted. A gentt~man from the audience stated he was opposed to the zone change and the project. Chairman Tolar explained the Commission was only concerned with the zone change at this particuler tirne. »-aa9 ~2~ ~9,~» NINUTES~ ANAHEIM C17~f PLANNING COMMISSION~ Dec4mbe~ 19. 1977 77'85~ EIa NEGATIVE DECLAaATION AND REGLASSIFICATiON N0. 77-78-28 (contl~uod) John Zylatra, agent for thc petitiannr, explained ha had met with the attorney for the odJace~t la~d ewner to the east and thet a letter was submitted by the attorney~ indicating the prope~ty owner's agreement with the proposed plans. He also explained the surrounding l~nd uses. B. A. Smtth~ 2950 West Lynrose Orive~ Anaheim~ arner of the adJacent epertmnnt complex~ statad he was the owner of Lynrose Drive and has s decd showing Ix (s a private right-of^ way av~ed by hlm. Na indtcated he had been informad by the Planning steff on Thursday of the prevlous week chat his attorney had written a letter thrt h~ had conse~ted to thla manstrosity~ a~d that he had since dlscharged thet attorney. He indtcdted he had no raa) complalnt sbout the zone chanye so long as it complies witl~ the Clty Cnglnear's recanmendarion for the st~eet; that if the party Interested tn requestfng the zone change w~uld be willing to complY with those requirements snd then to build a p~oJect as no rn-ally permitted by the Plenning Cmmisa(on in that type zo~e~ he waul~ gledly dedicste his easament on that strcet. Cha(rman Tola~ stated he understood that Mr. Smftt~ hnd Indicated he was opposed to the type of land use being propqsed~ and nvw he is saying he is not opposed to the proposed lanu use of mult(ple-femlly residential~ but is a~posed to the street alignment of ~ynrose. Mr. Smith st~ted he was opposad to the zone change unless it complles with the recomm~ndatio~ of thc City Engineer. Ha potnCcd out Lynrosc Drlve on the map and stated it ts a full 60 fee~ wide, and pointed out whot he felt would be d bad sltuation with the resldents wanttng to go to the(r carports~ empty their t~ash~ usc the swimning poo) or laundry facilltles end having te cross a public street. He felt the prc~Ject was poorly planned. Jacab Shaya~ 2972 Rome Avenue~ Anaheim, indicated he avned the praperty at the corner of ~cach s~d Rome and was nat opposed to the rczoning but was conc~rned about a prlvate rood which is at the side of B~ach Boulevard and esked lf Lhis private road would be sbsarbed intQ the development or stay a prtvate road. He was also concerned about addltional trafflc on Rome. Dolo~es Moody indicated she Ilves on Lyn~ose Orive and felt tf~ts would be a very dengarous situation with cars backing out onto Lynres~; that it is already dangerous and referred to ~omnone walkins~ to the bus stop~ especially at n(ght. Cynthia Wyyal~ 29S0 West Lynros~ Drive~ Anaheim. indicate:d she did not tike the idea of having to dodge cars backing into a street as she walked her children to school and that she did not like the closed-in feeling~ and indicated f~lends h~ve a hard time locating their dweiling at the present tirne a~d felt Che proposed development would make that situation worse. FrancQS Smith~ 2950 West Lynrose Orive~ Anahei!n~ indicated there ware peopte who could not come to the meetiny but had signed a petition obJecting to the rezoning. She presented the potition to the Commissio-~. J. J. Tashi~o, Assistant Planner~ read ihe petition and indicated there were 46 signatures (subJect petition is on file in the Plann(ng Department). He also read a letter from George M. and Har~iet Miller dated December 18~ 1911~ 2950 West Lynrose Drive. Apt. A-4 (subject letter is on filc~ in the Planning Department). John Zylstra stated that Mr. Smith had indicated he fiad a deed to Lynrose Orive but that all ~e has is an ingress and egress easernent; that this is privately-awned propcrty and 12/ 19/77 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSIOH, Dacember 19~ 1971 77•~5) EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-_7_8- 8(rontinund) that the Etz' pay the taxes on It. Ne stated M~. Smith has the non-exclusive rlght of Ingress end egre~s but that the property awncr does not, intend to dedicetc that as a publlc street; that it w uld not be reasonable to expect the City to take over the malnte~ance of the street which Is presently being maintatned pr(vAtely. Answering Mr. Shaya's qunstton regarding tt~e private ro~d, Mr. Zylstra felt Mr. Shaya was referring ta the frontac~e road presently in existence. 11e stated there Is no dedlcation of that roed and that it wlll be eltmtnated by this plan; that there would be no access of cers through that frontag~ raad, Con crntng Ms. Moody's question regarding Lynrose Orive being dangerous ac nlght~ he indicate~ tliat the petlt~oner plans to light that arca much bcttcr than it is prescntly lit. C~nrerntng the feeling of being closed In or the sltuat{on of peopla not being able to flnd the ~esidence~ he stated he had talk~d wtth Mr. Smith's attorney about stgn rtghts end that tl~ attorney had Indicated they felt it was ~ot necassary. He stated there will bc an ldentiftcat(on siyn for the new unlts~ and that iP Mr. Smith desires to have signing privilcges~ they w(11 be happy to work that out. Regard(n the sdfety~ lie (n~icated the plans call for speed bumps but that these are actually ~tamped concrete with a cobblestone effect so thal people wlll not have to lose thefr wh~el alignment evcry tlme they go over them but would let cnem know they are going across a walk~ which sliould slow them duwn~ and that signs wou1~1 l~e posted re~~ardiny the speed limit. TNE PUBLIC HEARING W AS CLUSED. Chairman Talar Indicated t~e felt the ma)or thiRg the Commisslon ~aas concerned with is tha 60-foot (ngress and egress easement~ regardless of what it is called; that the 5mith's do have a dedlceted 60-~oot easemeni to cheir property. He stated he did not have any prablem wlth the land use (n relatio~st,ip to the reclass(fication to RM-1200~ but that he felt this plan, especially with people backing out anto th(s 60-foot prtvate eas~m~nt or 60-foot public street~ whatever it is called~ does not make good iand planning~ and that he would not suppart this parcicular plan; that he did not care how the property owners workad out the problem witt~ the easement but that if the Commisslon voted on ~his todey~ it would be for the reclassificatlon only and not the plan. Jack White~ Deputy Clty Att~rney~ pofnted out that all the Commission has before it is the reclassification not tled to speclfic plans~ I~owever, if the reclasstficatio~ is approved~ the developer could build w(thout Planning Commissi~n tnp~~t unless conditions are (mposed to prohibit it. Conmissioner Herbst asked Mr. 4lhite if the Commission could approve the rec~assification subject to approval of specific pians~ and Mr. White replied that they :ould. Cortimissioner Johnson Indicated he felt as long as the easement goes across the property~ it should be treated as though it were a street and that all the safety factors normalty bullt i~to publtc streets shuuld be built into this easement. Commissianer Harbst asked Plr. Titus tf Beach 9oulevard adjacent to Rome to Ball Road is dedicated to the ulttmate street width~ and Mr. Titus replied that it was. He indicated that f~om this property northerly ther~ was access dedication to a gr~ater width than the Li ty requi ~es . Commissioner Linn indicated he felt a new plan should be drawn and the 60-1'oot easement should be clear, plus all setbacks from the 60 feet. Commissloner Barnes indicated she via+ed the easement as the Etz' property since they are paying taxes on it. and the Smiths have ingr~ss and egress. 12/19/77 ;j MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Dacember 19~ 1977 77~852 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATI(!'~ '~D RECLASSIFICATION NO,. 17~ -7_,8_28 (continued) Mr. Zylatra indicated thet they had praposed an alter~aLe to this plan to the Smiths~ whereby the butldtngs would be turned so that thora would bo addltlonal driveways coming off the easement. but that they needed an addit(onal 7 feet on each side of the 60-foot ~asemont and theY had offcred to pay fo~ the relinqulshrt~nt of the 7 feet on each slde~ which would reduce the 60-foot easement to a 56-foot easement a~nd still malntaln the same width nf the street and allow the st~eets to go off the essement so that there would be no cars backing into thet •rea; hawGVer, the Smiths vrould not agrne tn the re,linqulshment of 7 feet o~ each slde to en+~ble the architect to turn the building. Commissloner Herbst suggestad that the condttlons of a private st~ect be met as fer as setbacks~ etc.~ are conce~ned. He felt ~hat if this was ci~veluped as a private s~reet with access to the beck~ tt would meet the criteria the Commisslon was looktng fo~. Commissloner Johnson asked about the frontage road referred to earlier by the oppo~It14~ and esked if It yons beyond tt~e cxtens(on of thls pr~p~rty~ and Mr. Zylstra replled no; that It anly serves that one private stree-t; that there is ~o dedicatlon on that frontage roAd. Jay Titus indicated ha would Itke to clarify Commissioner HerbsC's commc~ts reg~rding standards for a prlvate street and pointed out that thc City's private strect stand~rds mnrely requlre a 36-foot wide ~asemant, curb-to•curb~ and Mr, Zylstra polnted out that the existing prtvate street is 36 feet curb-to•curb. Commissloner Linn asked if the 36 feet would be wide enough for safety with pa~kt~g on both sides. Jay Titus t~d(cated that the standard width for a private street~ wlth parking on both aides~ is 11 feet for two travcl lanes and 7 feet on each side for parking~ whtch ts a little less ti~an the ~[anda~ds for a publ(c street. Commtssianer Ne~bst stated he felc the main obJectlon to the proJect is vehicles becking out onto this eesement and felt if the project could be arrenged ta satisfy that particuler ab}ectlon~ It coutd be a viable proJect a~d that the two property owners should try to work something out. AC710N: Canmissloner Johnson offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION t ED~ thot the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the subJect proposal to reclassify the zaning from CL (CommerGtal~ Limited) to RM-1200 (Residentlai~ Multiple- Family) on property consisting of appro~:imately 2.6 acres having a frantage of approxtmately 412 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approxlmately 279 feet~ and being located approximately 435 feet north of the centerl(ne of Ball Road; and does hcreby approve the Neyative Dcclaration from the requirement to p~epare an environmental impact report on the basis that there v+ould ba no significant individual or cumulative advers~e enviranmenta) impact due to the apprnval of thls Negative Declaratlon since the Anaheim General Plan deSEgnates the subJect property for general commerctal and medlum density residential land uses conmensurate with the proposal; that no sensitlve envlronmental impacts are {nvolved (n the proposal; that the Inittal Study submitted by the petitianer Indicates no significant individual ar cumulative adverse envi~onmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on fil~ in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commissioner Johnson offer•ed a resolution yranting Petiti~~n for Reclasstficatlan No. 77- 78-28. subJect to che condition thac spectftc plans be rev~ewed and approved by the Planniny Commission prior to issuance of butlding permits. Commissioner Barnes asked Jack White, Deputy Ctty Attor~ey, if this mea~s this proJect cannot be built wi+[h the plans he has here, and Cortanissioner David asked if thc property 12/19/77 ~, 77-853 M~NUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING CAMMISSION. Decemhar 19~ 1977 Elit NEGATIVE ~ECLAfWT10N AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. - 8-28 (ca~tinued) M~ White replled that there would not be e public hearing for owners would be notifled. • lans. the Planniny Commission tu revtaw thc specific p a for CortxnlASioner Johnson Indicated e hoseuintcrested,pabtiega~d that the petitioner ~ y edvertlsing or notification to t roblem Ne strted Chalrman Tolar stated he~had fo i~bnemsp'ciflccplansnwlthout A2pobbic hearing~ a p with the Planning Comrris.-lon ev . it was hls opinion the Commhouldnactson thosefplanss in front of them with t e reclessific~tio~ ~~d they s ointed out this wou{d nnt be a public heerlnq but that the Comnlssion could Mr. Whlta p allo~w those intcrested per•sons to speak. i;`~~ti~to ~edraw thespbansto Gontinue th s hearing to ~ Jate ccrtaln t~ allow the app Mr. Zylstra stated he would like ta r~quest a contln~aance r~ther than readvertising and going through the whole procesS ayaln. {n this particular case~ the petltloner has ltstened to the Chairman Tolar stated he felt~ and that obJections af the opposition and nhe~~io ~~~fy therco~cerns`,iand thattaccess~has to be the plans S~s~~ke ~edlcgtlQnyofha public street ~r private street and the seCbacks must be treated j maintalned. Commissioner Johnson ask~+d how much ti~ tohnsoniwithdrewehlsdmotionhfornai resolution. weeks would be suff(cient. Commissioner J Mr. Smith stated the petitioner should consid~ei thersonvwho canededicat~ed~tated. Chalrman Tolar pointed out the ~roperty vwncr ls the y p ointed out that the City cauld not be placed ln a positfon to decide the rights Mr. lahite D in fact~ is requlred to malntai~ the between the property awr~ers; that if the developer, the same thing would be setbacks from that easement just es if it were a publtc stre~t~ accompllshed from the standpolnt of plann~i~anta that was the Inteni of the Planntng Commisston~ to meke that knawn to the app r. Smith ind{cated tha; would be fine ag ~O~98i`,dt exceptr[hatdheswouldrhavestoepayWfor M norma) setbacks and normal drlveways were inst . the street. ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered a ~-qtn°`nuedGto thebregu a~SmeeLin9Kof9thedAnahe~im ~D, thet the aforementioned ttem be co t Planning Commission of January 16, 191a• t2/19/77 MINUTES~ ~1N11HEIM C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 19~ 1977 7y-854 I TEM 1~0. 2 ~E~rA~TVE DECIARATION PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WAYNE 0. AND RUTII V. I N . -78-A2 HANSEN~ 3618 Orange Avenue~ Anrheim, CA 92a01. AGENT: GRAGE-WILLSON. INC.~ 20G2 B~siness Center Dr(ve~ I105~ Irvinc, CA g2715. Petltioner requests reclaaslflcation of property descrlbed es ~~ectangularly•shaped parcel of land conststing of approximetely 0.5 acre heviny a fronCage of approximately 80 feet on the south side of O~ange Avenue, having a maxfmum depth of appruximetely 258 feet~ being loca*ed approxl- mately 575 feet west of the centerllne of Knott St~eet~ and further descrlbed as 3618 Oranqe Avenue~ from the RS-A-4;~000 (RESIDEf~TIAL/AGRICULTURAL) tANE tu the RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL. MI,~LTIPI.E-FAMILY) ZONE. Thcre was onc pcrson l~.iicating thelr presence in apposltl~n, and nlchough che staff report to the Plann(ng Commission dated Qecember 1)~ 1977 was not read at the public hearing, it is referrecl to and made a part of the minutes. Wendoll Rylee~ Grage-Willson~ Inc.~ ayent for the petttioner, polnted out the surrounding land uses of the subJect property and indicated the wi~ole orea (s being developed multiple-fam(ly apartme~t houses. He presented renderings ar+d photographs of [he propoxed bu(lding and polntad out the shinqle roof and naturai wood stding~ the landscaping~ atc. Ne indicated thts plan Is conslstent wlth the General Plan; that there is an alley at the rear and all parking would be off tlie alley. Hilliard Warren~ 5275 Vista R~o, Cypress~ member and lay leader of St. Mark's Methodist Church~ next door~ tndlcated they haci looked at the plans and had two co~cerns. the parking and the Nall, Hc stated the City ordtnance is sucF~ that the developer ts providing for 16 enclosed parking spaces and 12 open spaces~ with all access from the alley; that the aliey fs 600 feet long and caters to the parking for about 30 apartme~ts and it is going to be a cor~yested alleyway. Fle indtceted that from the church to KnotC Street there ls solid parking; that it is very difficulc to get out of the church parktng lvt. tle felt the tenants would be parking in front of the church because It is a public street and they do have that right. He ~inted out the~e is a bus stop at that locatlon with a flre hydrant and felt the C~.y Police Department should study the entlre proJect and suggested that "no parking" be posted along their driveways. Ne i~dicated that traffic does travel fast between Nolder and Knott; thac (t is a very dangerous si¢uatfon and with cars~ trallers or motorhomes parked there~ it will be even more dangerous. Hc i~dicated he felt the City laws do not requlre enough park(ng. He stated their sCCOnd concern was regardfng the wall; that there is a b-foot wall and when they grade the property~ they w(11 prabably raise the property next to the wall. Ne indicated the church would ltke to havr. the wall ratSed and suygested that some sort of actractive wood be placed on top of the wall. Ne indicated they liked the apartments and reallzed there is not enough huusing in thls ar~a, and that they had no other objections to the proJett, hSr. Rylee stated they wauld be agreeable to raising the wall~ making it 6 feet on thelr ~ide. Ne poinced out the only plac.~ they can enter the property by Clty code (s off the alley and that they havc 1-1/2 parking ~paces for evcry one-bedroorn apartment and 2 parking spaces for every Mo-bedraom apartment. He pointed out that he has been In the area at different times and tliat Orange Is a very broad street and is not a busy street, ~nd he has never seen anyone parking in the church parktng lot. THE PUBLIC HEARING 41AS CLOSED. Commtssioner Linn Indicated the Comnissi~n had seen this prob{em before~ with adJoinin~ property goiny up onto higher property. Ne indicated he did not want to see wood on top 12/t9/77 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PGANNING COMMISSION. Deccmbcr 19~ 1977 77-a55 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAitATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-y8-42 (contlnupd~ of tha extstl~g wall but that a h-foot wall should Ge constructed~ which probably means a naw wAll i~~ ~rdur to have tt~~ proper footing. Commissloner Johnson Indicated he agrecd; and that the Commissinn usually required e n~w wall. Mr. Rylee stattd he was not sure thPy would have to ralse tl~c property; that It wes qulte possible vcry little gr~cfing would havc to be done, Chalrman Tolar suc~~~steci that ti~~ petitioner stlpulate thac 8 6-foc~t wall w~uld be prnvided on h(s side of the propert.y line; that if grad(ng must be done~ A 6-foot wali st) l l would bc requi red. Mr. Rylee agrcad to thts stipulati~n, Jay Titus~ Office Enyineer~ su~~gestad that Mr. Wa~ren submlt H letter to the Traffic Englneer requestin~~ a study regArdtng "no parkin~" in front of tl~e cliurch. ACTION: Commissioner David offereJ a motion~ seconded by Commtssloncr King and MOTION ARtTED,that t1~e Anahetm Ci ty Planning Commissfon has reviewect thc subJect proposal to reclassify the zoniny from RS-A-43~000 (Res(dentlal/Agricultural) to RM-1200 (Residentlal~ Multiple-Fam(ly) on apprux(mately 0.5 acres havtng e frontage of approxlmetely 80 feet on the south sidc of Orange Avenue. having a maximum depth of apprpximatcly 258 feet, being located approximately 515 fcet wesc of the centerline of Knott Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Oeclaration from the requirement to prepare an envtronmental tmpact r~port on the besis that there would be no significant inclividual or cumutativn edverse environn-entel impact due to the approval of this Negative Decla~atlon si~ce the Anahelm General Plan deslynates the subJect propcrty for medlum den~tty residcntlal land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sens(tive environmcntal impects are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no signiflcant indivldual or cumulative adverse environme~tal impacts; and that the NegativP Declaration substanttating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anahetm Planning Department. ACTION: CQmmissioner David offered Resolution No. PC77-279 and moved for its passage and a~cap~tTon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Reclassiftcation No. 77-78-42~ subJect to the petitioner's st(pulotion to prov{de a 6-foot high~ ~oncrete block wall along the west property line adjacent to the church property and that subJect property will be substantially developed in accordance with Exhibtt Nos. 1 through G~ and subJect to lnterdepartmental Committee recommendatlons. On roll call~ the fo~egotng resolution was passed by thc following vote: AYES: COMh115510NERS: BARNES. DAVID~ HERBST~ JOHNSOtI, KING, LINN~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONkRS: NONE ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: NONE t2/t9/77 MINU7E5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION~ December 19~ ~977 77-856 ITEM N0. ~~~VE UECLARATION PU8L1C NE~RINC,. OWNER; NOWAaQ P. HOUSE. 1645 . Samar~ Coste Mesa~ CA g?566. AGENT: PAUL s. CLAYTON~ 7641 Flrestone Boulevard, Downey~ CA 90241. Petitioner requests WAIVCR OF MINIMUM REAR YARO SE78ACK TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-UNIT OFFICE BUILDI!IG on property descrlbed es a rectangularly~shaped pa~cel af land consistl~q of approximetely 0.2 rcre having o front~go of approxinrately 7a feet on the aast side of Msgnolla Avenue~ having a max(mum depth of appraxlmately 135 fcet~ end being located approximately 175 feet north of the centerline of Broadway. Property presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL~ IIMITEO) ZONE. There was na one indicoting thel~ presence in opposition to subJect request, and although the staf` report to thc Plen~~lny Commisslon dated Deccmber 19~ 1977 was not r~ad at the public hearing, it is refcrre:~] to and mad~ a part of the minutes. J. J. Tashiro~ Asslstant Pla~ner~ pointed out ~~ corrr,ction to the staff report, page 3•b~ paragraph (10)~ "The Anahelm General Plan designates sub~ject property for low-medlum restdent(al land uses (should read commercial~professional lend u~es)." Faul Clayton. agent for the petitioner~ indicated ~iis client desires to build a two-story office bullding and is asking for waiver of th~ 10-foot required setback from the adJolning property wh(ch is zoned RM-1200. He pointed out that the 10-foot setback would be blocked in becaus~e of the 2G-f~ot turniny radtus in front of the carports on the opposlte sid~ of an ex(sttng G-foot block wall; that the buildtnq Immedlately to th~ north is butlt out to the property line and was built about ten years ago and that the property to the south is being developed as a 7-E'even Market and wi11 have a conc~ete block wal) on the nortl~ stde of the property, blotking i~ thc 10-foot area. TFIE PUBLIL HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner .lohnson asked the dlstance from the wall back to thr_ apartment wall~ and Mr. Clayton rcplied that the c~rport Is 20 fcet wide and the driveway is 26 feet wide, with another yard between; that it is at least 46 fect to the ncorest bu(lding. Commtssioner Herbst asked tf there would be any accPSS to the rear and it was holnted out there would be no windows o~ access on the rear walls at all. Commissioner Johnson stateJ hc felt it would be imposing a I~ardship on the property awner to landl~ck a 10-foot strip and it would have nothing but adverse effects on the City. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion~ sccond~d by Commissioner Dav(d and MOTI~N CARRIED~ that the AnahPim City Planning Commission has reviewed the subject project consisting of a four-unit office building on property consisting of approximately O.z acre having a frontage of approximRtely 78 fect on the east s4de of Megnolia Avenue~ having a maxirnum depth oF approximately 135 feet, and being located approximately 17S feet nnrth of the cenierline of Broadway; ar,d does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requlrement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there wauld be no signiflcant individual or cumulative adverse envlronmental impact due t~ the approval of this Negative Declaration since tt,e M aheim General Pian designates the sub,ject property for commerc(al-prflfess(onal la~d uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitlve environme~tal impacts ar4 involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by tl~e petitioner indicates no sign(ficant (rdivtdual or cumulative adverse environmental fmpacts; and Lhat th~ Negative Declaration substantiattng the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Depart.ment. 121t9/77 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION. Qecember 19, 1971 77-857 ElR NEGA7IVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 2983 (continued) ~.~.._. _.._ .:._ ACTION; Commissloner Y.in~ affcred Resolutlon Ilo. PC7~-28~ and movcd for Its passage and a~opt~on~ that the Anaheim City P1Anning Commission daes tiereby grant Pntition for Varianco ti~. 2983 on tha bssls thet the edjacent property to the north has an existing bulldinc,~ built to the propcrty Ilnc~ and subjcct to Interdepartn~ental Conxnlttec re comr+~e n da t t on s. On rol) call~ t~~c for~yoiny resoluticm was passed by the following votc: AYES : CUMMI SS ( OtIERS : BAKr~ES ~ DAV I D. IIERBST ~ JQNNSO~I ~ K I NG ~ l I N-~ ~ TOLAR NOCS : C~MI11 SS I OIIERS : NONE A~SENT; COMMISSIONCRS: NQNE iT~M rro. 4 EIR NCGA VE DECLARATION READV;RTISED PUdLIC HEARING. OWNER: CALIFORNIA C011D1 f1AL USE PERMIT N0. l~J~ LUTHERA~I E31DLC SCNOOL~ 13h5 South Burlington Av~nue, Los Anc~e les ~ CA 9000G. AGENT: I RlJltd ASSOCIATES~ INC.~ 3b31 Atlantic Avenuc, Lon_y Beach~ CA 90607. Pet(tloner requests per-nission to ESTABLISII A PRIVl1TE EUUCATIONAL INS'fITUTION WITIi WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM SIDE YARO SETHACK AND (D) MAXIMUM STItUCTURAI. HEIGHT on prop~rty consisting af approximately 4.$ acres 1~avlny a fr~~ntage of approximately 337 feet on the west slde of Western Aven~~e~ having a maximum depth of approximately 618 feet~ bcing located approximately 340 feeC south of the c~nterline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 631 South Western Ave~~ue. Prope~•ty presently classified RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTlAL/AGRICULTURl~L) ZUNE. Two people indicated thelr presence ~n upposltion to subject rec~uest, and although th~~ staff report to the Planniny Commission dated December 19, 1977 was not read at the publlc hearing~ It Is referred [u and rnade a part of the minu:es. Phillip Allen~ Irwin Associates~ tnc.~ agent for the petiti~ner~ stated they have bee~ workin5 with the staff for about four months basically updating t~ previously•approved plan of this particular facility on this particular site and that charges have been made to address the environmental concerns of today as opposed ta 1972. Ne po~nted out the Trafflc Engineer had suggested tNey move thc drlveway and that they would be happy to put the driveway wherever the Traffic En~~ineer wants~ but that they have two concerns about maving the drtveway :(1) that it is Row located to enter on the site d(rectly across Western Avenue from another strcet and that the rPalignment would open (t up t~ tieing a direct shot from Western to the back of the parking lot, and they felt It migh~ tie an invltatlon for paople t~ ~ace tt~rouyh the parking lot in a very dtrece menner; (2) the Callfornia Luther~n Bible School Cortmittee has been wurk(ng with chc neighbors to the north~ the Huffs, and they are most affected by the parking 1ot bzing ad}acent ta their prop8rty. Ne indicated they had discussed the construction of a block wal) from whateve~ point the Clty deems desirable to ~he back of their qarage and eo give them access through thei r pr:rking lat. Ida Nuff~ 623 South Wes~ern~ Anaheim~ indicated she was very muth opposed to any type of educational facil(ty being built tn that location; that t'ere is already enough traffic; they have accidents constantly and it is totally unsafe for people to ~urn left I~to the tract. She indicated she nav has trash from the church~ from ttie f(eld~ and from the school~ etc. She stated she does not want a parking lot backing up to her bedroom windows. She indicated she did not think there is a need for another schaol at thls location; that there is a high school on one corner and there is a lot of traffic problems wtth that. and Rointed out problems she currently has with the parking and nolse from the high school students. t2/19/77 ~ ~. MINUTES~ ANAN~IM ~ITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ Oeceniber 19~ 1917 77-858 EIR NEGA7IVE DECLARAT_ ION ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1775 ~contlnued) Betty Spector~ 31$g Westhaven~ An~helm~ statad she was concernad about the aams conditiona aa mentiondd by Mra. Ftuff and reftrred to the h~zardous traffic p robtem coming out of Stonybrook onto Western to go to Llncoln; the h(gh schooi stud~nts parking on Stonybrook and when there is an event at the high schoal~ they park on all of thc streets; that she has tra~sh ond nol~e already and understsnds the new facillty wlll have a two -story dormttory opposite hc~ property and feels that wlll be an Invasion of her prlvacy. Mr. Allen referred to concr.rns mentioned by Nrs. Huff and stated thAt a drivewey closer to her drtveway is a concern of thefrs and if the Traffic Engineer ftnds it mo~e gppeeling~ they could put (t there. lie referred to discusslons with the I~uffs to construct e block wall and lvndscaping and that the lot does need tca be cleaned up. He indicated thelr plan p~oposes extens-ve lanc:scaping on the property~ and he felt the proposed denslty is reasonable; tf~at it Is not tlghtly packed. Fte indtcated ihe Calffo~nla Lutheran Bible School has been ln Los Angeles for 27 ycars a~d they have owned this land f~r i3 yeers~ and have plenned to move to thls property for that tength of timc. 11e indicated th(s educat(onal facillty has bnen astablished and there Is a need in the nelghborhood for it. Concerning the use of the facility for nfyht activlties, he indicaied they now put an semtnars tn the cliurches In the area throughout Orange Coun[y~ and that they will cont(nue to do thls. Conce~ning thcs oppoaition by Mrs. Spector~ he pointed out the parking lot baslcelly is again`t the dralnage channel and [hat the dormttories and classroom spac~s facing res~dential araas havc no wtndow openings on those sides of the bullding; that they are set back, wtth landscaped buffer zones; and that the twa-story dormltorles are at least l0Q feet from any property line. Mlrs. tluff indicated her principal concern was with the total traffic and not just her driveway. TIIE PUBLIC HEARItIG WAS CLOSCD. Chairman Tolar pointe out that he was concerned that th~ opposltion does not seem to realize the property +s going to be developed in same fashion; that the land awner has the right to develop the property and thet many other developments could have a iot mnre ill effect on thei r property tlian an educatlona) facE I 1 ty. and .~sked i f thty had gi ven any thought to this~ recognizing that there is gotng to be some type of development on that property soc~ncr or late~. Chairman Tolar indicated ht did not understand why the developer had turned the facility around from the original ~lan and Indicated he ltked the old plan of 1972 better than this one; that this one did not protect the residential integrity of the area and that the old plan had a lot mnre merit. Ne felt a better ~lan wauld be to put a landscaped buffer area agai~st the residential side of the property and the parlclny adJacent to the landscaped buffer~ and th~ dormttorles adjacent to the char~nel. Mr. Allen polnted out that when they had reassessed the old plan~ they found the zones were split o~ the property and that che two-story dormitories and gymnasium would be tocated within 15 feet of Mr~. Huff's property and tha* the parki~g lat was nn the other side of the tract; that there were some resldences on the south side of the property~ some of whlch are within 10 feet of the fence. He steted It was their general theo ry to keep parking away from as many people as ~ossible. He also indicated that~ occasionally at night meetings~ people tend to stand out a~d talk for about a half an hour. t2/ t9/77 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. December 19~ 1q77 77~~59 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARI~TION AND__CO)~DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 17]5 ~c~nttnued) Cortmi ss i annr Johnson asked Code requ i re+nr:nts for two-s tory canmercl al aci J acent to ras~dentlel~ and J. J. Tashlro polntad out thet an RS-A-43,000 Zonc wAUld n ava to malnteln d 7:1 ratlo~ for example~ a 20-foot buildinq would have to mAlnta(n a 40-foot setback. Cammissloner Jc~hnson ~skQd Mr. Singer~ Trafflc Engincer~ his tlioughts rca-~dlrg the treffic~ ~n:' '!r. Singer replied tl~nt the location of tl~e dr(vew~y is opposi te ~he strast entrance and i t would be very nlce :o maintali thet location~ prc~vlded Interna) circulation coul~ be alt~:red sfgnlflcantly to ~rovide ease of trav~rsinc~ th at d~gleg. Commissioner Johnson clarlfled thet Mr. Sinyer's prefcrnnce would be thet thc driveway be rigl~t acr~ss frrxn St~nybrook Urive~ and Mr, Sing~r replied the luc~~ti~n of the driveway Is proper~ tha~ it Is Just the tnkcrnal circulation that is pretty bad. Mr. Al~~n pointed out that they ~lanned the cio~~ley ta slow the tr~ffic dc~wn; they did not want a fast access thraugh the parking lot. Commisslnner Barnes referred to what ap~~~~red to her t~ be a very tough corncr to neyotlate witr~ A right-turn into the driveway and suggesked that situatian should be altered. She asiced (f there we~e any extra parl~iny spaces~ And Mr. Allcn ~eplled that they dld not have any extra and did not w ant to take out any parking space s that could be avolded. Cammissioner Barnes indicated the turninq ra''~s bothered hcr. Mr. Allen indfcated they could take c.are of ~ at. He stated thc statf he d recommended tl~et the londscaping be omitted in the turn-around arca at the far end of the proper2y due ta the turniny radius for trash trucks. etc. Commisstoner Herbst asked if most of the scuctents fiad ~iutomobi les~ and Mr. Allen repiled that prGSently a~ uc one-tl~ird of them do have automob~les~ but th~y are proJecting an increaso to one-hN~`. Cammissloner llerbst ask~~d what I:Ind of control the school has over the dormitory tiours. and Mr. Allen replled that. frankly~ some ot the student~ do work and ccxne (n later~ but that he would ~~ave sort+eone from the sc.hool explatn the hours for the dormi t~r(es. Commisst~n~r lierbst asked tliat the aperating ;~ours for thc poal be explained~ AI4n Chairman Tolar Indlcated he felt this proper[y was beiny overbuilt and th at the dtveloper had squeezed as mu~h onto the prop~:rty as he poss~bly u~uld. Frank Wilcax~ representing the ~alifornia L~theran Bible School, stated t hat the resident students of the dormitories would have to be into the dorms by i1:b0 p.m. ; that very few students work at n(ght jobs; and that the pool would be limtted to gfternoon hc~rs and early eventn9 hours. certainly not beyond 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. He indicate a he did not anticlpete any breach o~` these rules; that there wil! be resident dorm co unselors~ a husband-and-~ifn team~ in charge of tF~e residential facllities; and that r~as~ of the admini~~rators livt In An,9helm or ad~acent communiGles and w(11 be on th e premiscs when sch rol is open in thc daytime and oftentimes at nighc. Commissioner Johnson referrca to the existing building at the southeast corner of the property and the setbacks of 5 fe~t and 10 f~et, and felt now thts w~ulc be made i~to a dormltory and would be a resldential use and would be too close to the n eighbors. Ne felt that the proiect could have bec~n carved to fit the zoning requirements. Ne 3tated it was hard for him to leok at a plece of p~operty of approxtrnately ftve acres a nd see where it would have to encroach on the neighbors in the sctback are8s, and felt t hls was hard to justify. 12/19/77 _ MI~IUTES~ ANAHEIM C1T1f PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ December 19~ 1977 77-86Q E I R NEGATI VE DCCLARATION AND COND IT IONAL USE PERMI T NQ. 1775 (cont ln~ied) Mr. Allen pointed out the reason was the pArking lot; that if they hod put the perking lot adJacent ta the neighbors, ihay wauld not have any problems except for tha exlsting bullding. Chalrman Tolar strted he tendcd to ag~ee with Commissionor Jol~n~on that fivo acres of land could be developed without any varianGes except for ~he technical veriancc on the oxisting house~ and cou1J provide the privaey and felt if the developcr decided ko build wlthout varlances~ they n~ight Qliminatc sorne of the s~ace~ but he felt lt woui~i be a better project for the whol e neighbarhooci . Cammissloner Herba*. Indicated he we,uld like to have thc request for maxlmum structural hetght weivrr explained, and potnted out ihe heiyhts perm(tted end propased for the student luunge~ dor~itorles~ ciASS~ooms~ librar~ ~ an~1 cl~apel. M~. A~ len rap) ied ihat ~n ~Imost every case sxcept the student lounge~ the het ght was besically f~r aesth~tics, that they wanted to build a facility which is a credit ta the communi ty and poi nte~! u~, the s 1~~ inc~ tl le roofs. Commissioner tlerbst end Mr. Al len discussed the varlous haights of the bul ld(ngs~ including the steep le for the chapel. Mr. Allen poinred uut there were no windows on t-~use sides of the buildinys faci ny residentinl propertles. Commissloner Barnes fndlcated she felt this ~~lan wAS very weli thaught out; that earller she had fclt the whole plaR c.ould be switched so that parking would be on thc south side~ but Inasmuch as the ~e ls no actess on that slde and no w{nclaws ~ shc fcl t wi th the landscaped buffer betwcen the hor-~es~ it would be a good plan. She su9gested the lAndscaped buffer zons be continucd past Mrs. Huff's prc~pzrty aopr~ximately 33n f~et. Jay Tltus suy~ested that a cnnui C ion be added that a modified cul-de-sac be constructed at che termfnus ofi Courson Drive wt t~ln tt~c existin~~ street right-of-way. Commissioner Linn su~tnested thc paol hours be 1 i~r~~ ted to dayiight hours only. Cummissioner Herbst asked about the existing conJitlonal use perr~it approvcci on this p~operty, and i; Mras po(nted out it would automatically expire. ACTIOIJ: CommiSSio~er Darnes off~red a motion~ seconded by Commis~ion~r King and MOTION R ED, that the Anah~lm City Pi anniny Cummission ~~a~ reviewed the sub.ject pr ~Ject consistin~~ of a private educational Instltution with walvers rf minimum side yard setback. ~nd maxlmum structural height on property conslsting of app-~r.ima[ely 1~.~ acres having a ~rontage of approximatety 337 ~~e'• on the west s(de of Western Avenue~ havin<, a maximum d::pth of approx.imately Gif3 feet, being l~cated appreximately :i4~ feet south of thc cenccrllne of Oranc~e Avenue~ and furthcr described as 631 South Uestern Ave~iue; and does hereby approv~: the Ne!~ative Declaration from thr requir~~rt~nt to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis tha: there would be ~io s(gnificant Individual or cumulative adverse environmenta) imp~c: due tQ the a~-•o~al of this Ne~ative Declaratio^ slnc~ thp Anahei m Genera 1 P i an des i gna:es ~he sub,ject p~~operty for lo+v de~s I ty res i den ~ i al land uses commensurate wi th the proposal ; Lhat no sensi t i ve envi ronmental Impacts are i nvolved in the proposal; ttiat the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner !ndicates no slgnlficant i~dividual or cumulative adverse envi~cnmen~al impacts; and t!~at .~e Megative Uecla~atlon substantiatiny th~ foregQing findings Is on f(lc~ tn the C{ty af ~nahe~m Planning i;epartment. ACTION: Com;~~issio~er Darnes offered Resolution No. PC77-281 ar.d moved for its passage and a~fon~ th~t the Anaheim City Planning Commissian d~es hereby gra~t Petitto~ for 12;19/71 k MINU7E5~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 19. 1977 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA710N AND CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0. 1775 (continued) 71-861 Condltlnnal Use Permit No. 177~~ In part~ s'+J~ct tu petit(oner's stipulatlon that the dormltories wlll clase at 11:00 p.m. and out~loor swtmming p~~l huurs wiil be limitod to dayllght hours only~ and that a m~d(fied c:ul-de-sc~c wlll be ~.anstructsd at the terminus of Courson Drivo; that walver (a) is hareby yranCed~ in part, f,~r the ~etback along the northaca property 1 ine on ly on the bas i s that t t abuts a f lood control channe I and th~ ncerest dQVelo~able parcels are located approxlmately 75 feet to the north~ but that ad)ecent to the existtng single-family clwelling located t~ [he northeast~ tl~c pet(tloner ha~ stipulated to ravising the parking plan to provi~ie a minimum 1$-foot landscaped setbeck alony the common portton of the north property line~ sald comman portlon being approxlmately 1Q0 feet lony; and r~ubject to the petttloner's stipulatlon that the design of the butlding wells and roofs facing the single-family dwellings tc~ the so~~th and west will be compatible with said resid~ntlal uses~ and that therF will bp nn op~~nfngs ln sald walls; that watver (b) (s hercby yranted on the basls that the 13-foot high student loune~e bullding currently cxists and has not been deleterious to the arljacent residents to ihe south; that the proposed 2~-foot high dormltories are a;tually onty one st~ry of habitable fioar spece; that the prapusC.f 14-fooc high classrooms and 1 ibrary are ~ mfntmA) 7 fPet higtier than permitted; ~nd that the proposed 3a~foot ht~h chapel includes a t«wer structure I~aving n~ habltable space abnve the first floor. and subject to Interdepartmental Commlttee recommcndatlons. On rol) call~ tl~e foregotng resolution was passed hy the follc~l~g vote: AYES : COMMI SS I UNE R5 • BARNES ~ DAV I D, NERaS'f ~ JOHNSO~~ ~ K I NG ~ l, f NN . TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIOPIERS: NONE ITEM N0. ; E I A ~OR I CAL E XEMPT I ON-f.LASS i PUBL I C-1FAR I NG. OWNERS : ARNO II . STOVALL AND CONDI IO~IAL t15E PERMIT N0. 7 3 DOROTHY M. FU~LER~ 147~ Santa Marguerl ta Drive, Fallbrook~ CA 92n28. AGENTS: MICHAEL 41. MAYFIELD ANU LAkRY D. HOOPER~ 19051 North A1 rport Way ~ Santa Ana~ CA 92)07. Petitioncr renucsts permission to ESTADLISFI AN AUTOMOBILE RENTAL AGENCY AND INGIDEN7AL AUTOMOBILE REPAIR WITH 41AIVER UF MAXIMUM WIDT N OF ACCESS OFIVE on property descrlbed as a rectangula~ly-shaped parce) of land consisting of approximately 0.4 acre located ac the sauclwvest corner of Lincoln and Western Ave n ues, having approxi- mate frontages of 130 feet on the s~uth sicle of Llncalr~ Avenue and !35 feet on the west slde of Western Avenue, and fur[her described as 3200 Mest Llncoln A venue. Property presently ciassifted CL (Ct~MMERCIAI~ LIMlTED) ZONE. Tlier~ was no one indicating their presence in oppositton to subJec t req~ecst~ and although the steff report to the Piann.ng Commt~sion datPd December 19~ 19 77 was not read at the ~u~lic hea~ing, (t is referred to and n.~de a part of the minutes. Larry Hooper~ reprGSentir~g Budget Rent~A-Car~ age~t for the petttianer~ was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARINC WAS CLOSED. Commissioner J hnson aske~~ Mr. Nooper if the two driveways clos~st to the Intersection would be closed~ and he replied that they would, and Commisstoner Jahnson in~}icated he was conc.erned whether or r~oi there would be sufficient storage space, t2/19/77 MI`IUTfS~ ANAHEIM SITY PI.ANNING COMM~SSION~ Decemher 19~ ~9]7 77-862 EIR ~ATEGORICAL ~XEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANO CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N~. 17A3 (c~ntlnued) Mr. Hooper polntod aut they do not plan to h ave any more then 10 cars on the proparty at one tlme; that occ~sla~ally cars woulJ be w sshed outstde and tl~at some would be left ovornight~ b ut~ normaliy. thls is Just offic e space. Ch•~l rman Tolar a~ked 1 f they intandad to wo~k on cors, end Mr . Ilooper re~) led that there would be no major repeirs~ but routlne repal rs, such as adJlnc~ water~ changing the oll~ c tc., would be donc. Chal rman Tolsr (ndlcated I~e was concernn,d b~ceuse some rental ac~encles heve a tendency tc develop usad car lots, and Mr. 1loapnr r~pl fed that was nnt thcir incentl~n. 1 t was noted that the Dlrector u the Plann i ng Qepartr-rnt hes ~Irl~rn~{ned thaC the propasnd activlty f~~lls within tlie definltion of S~ction j.01~ Class 1~ of the Ctty of Anflhelm Gu(dellnes t~ thP Requirements for an Enviro nmental Impact Re port and is, therefore~ eategorlcally exempt frum the requ(rement to file an EIR. A('.TION: Cornmissioner Johnso~ offered Resolutlon No. PC77°2~?. and moved f~r Its passaga anae~doptfon~ that the Anahelm City Plenning Commisslon ciocs hereby gran~ Petitlon fo~ Cond(tional Use Permit No. t'?n3~ subject to petitioner's stipulations that all incfde~tel automoblle repalr work wlll De done wl~olly insiJe thc bullding; that there wfll be no naw or used car sales or advertising for car sales on the premises; chat the Cwo existing d~lv~•ways nearest the Intersection wlll be cios~d and replaced with standard curb~ gutter, and sidewelk; that there w( 1I be n~ more than 1~ vehicles park~d outside the bul lding on the premises at any one t(me; and that the proF~~sal 15 subJect to revlew by the Planning Commisslon ln two years to determine whethcr thc use I~as b~en decrimental to the surrounding area and whether extensi~~ns of t~me ~~~ould~ therefore~ be gran[ed~ and subject to Interdepmrtment~l Comm(ttee recommendacions. On rul) call, the foreyoiny resolutlon was passed by the followin9 vote: AYtS: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES~ DAVID~ NERBST, JOHNSON~ KING, I.iNN, TOL11R NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOME 485ENT: COMM15510NER5: NOt~E I T WAS NOTED TIIE APPL I CAI~1' FOR I TEM N0. fi wA5 NOT f'RESENT. RECESS A ten~minute recess was called at 3:10 p.m. _~ RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened a t 3:20 p.m.~ wlth all Commissioners -'"-`- being prtsent. 12/19/77 M I t~UTES ~ Alll11~E I M L I TY PLIINN I NG COMNI SS I ON ~ pacr.-nber 19 ~ 1977 77-8~3 ITEH f~0. 1 EIR~ ORICAL EXEMPTIOtI-CLASS 1 PUIILIC HCAHitlG. OuNCRS: LEE: COMfiS AND ~~E~~ V. CONDITIONIIL USE ERMIT N0. 7 ~ CASEY, 14(115 Eleverly brive, llneheim~ CA 't1tS01, AGENT: JOSEPII G~tIRAU, 27_(~2 West Corunet Avenue~ Analielm~ CA ~2f3~1 . ~'et i t loncr renucsts p~rm) ss lan to CSTNE3l. I SII AN AUTUMQB 1 LC ST()R/1GC A-~U I MPOUtID YARD W I TII Wfil VC R OF REQ.II I RE:D S 1 TE :,l:Rf.CfJ i ~If, on property described es nn 1 rr gul,irly-sli~ped ~~arcel of lancl conslstin~~ ~f approxtmatcly 1.9 acres lncatecl ~t the corne~rs of Soutl~ Street~ Anahelm Doulevard~ and M~~cArtliur Manor~ havin~~ approximate fr~nta~~es ~f 3~~1 f~•ct ~~n tlie south sldc of 5outh Strcet~ 3~~5 feet on the west side of Anahefrn E3oulevarJ~ ancl ~2 feet on the nartti sidr: of HacArthur Manor~ end further descr(bed as ~i~11 South n~~~r~~t~, t3oulevArd. Pr~~erty presently cl~ss(fled CH (GUMMLFiCIl1L~IILAVY) Al~p PU-C (PAR~;ING UISTRICT-CONMERGIl1L) TONkS. Tl,~re were approximately ~~ pcr~plc Indi~..,t~r~ their prescnce (n c~pnositlon to suhject request~ and ~3lthough the scaff repnrt to the PlAnning Commissior d~ted Uecembcr 1~~~ 1q7~ was not read at the public hc~iriny, it Is refcrred tn and madc ~ irt of the minutes J. J. Tash(ro~ Asslstanc Planner, ru~~urteJ [I~at a putiti~~i~ was re~.elvecl contafnln~~ 12; si~~natures~ and three letters uf opposltinn were r~eceived~ ~ne dat~d December 13~ 1~J7 f r~m kf I I I I e l.. [~ i rJ an~ Ke I th D. E3 I rd ~ 121 M~acAr thur Ma~or ~ Anahe 1 m; one c' ~ ted Dr.cc-~ber 12~ 1911 from Mr. and Mrs. Galc U. Farmer~ lof, Wcst HacArthur Hanor~ Anahc(m; and one detcd Ucscember 12~ 1917 from Carolyn J. Nuaum~ u3G South Anat,nin~ doulevard~ ~lnahefm (subJect letters ~nd petition are on file in tl~e f'lannin9 Ue{~artment). Joseph ConraJ~ agent f~r the p~:tifioner~ indicated they werc requestin~ waiver of the require~ s~reening of tl~e area for impuund cnrs; t~~at tf~e p~,rpos~ ts to screen the arsa used for storage and that slats w'Il I~r. added to the cl,ainlink fence. He indicatGd the number of impounds will vary from 1~ to 2y cars; tliat the fac:ility w(I) park~ inslde~ close to 200 cars. Jack ~Jl~ite~ Ueputy City ~ttorney, pointed out that in addi[ion to thc waiver, thc petlti~ner is rec;uestiny a conditi~mal use permit to permit the impound storage yard. Ne indicated objections in tlie letters ware raised concerning the automobile repr~ir and body shap and that was not before the Comnission today becausc that is a pre-exi~tin~ us~ and that a condttional u,e permit lias alreaciy been approved; thac it Is permltted in th(s zone a~d if there are oth~r prol~lems~ the; should be directed to the Zoning Enforcement Officer. lie indicated th~t tlie ~~eti[ion before the Commissiun (s whether or not it would be sultable to permit a StorAye yard and if it 5hould be permitted~ sh~uld ihe screening be walved, Darwin Stocl.wcil~ i212 Maplewood~ Anaheim~ representing tl~e Trinity Method(~t Church, Indicated the petition had becn presen~ d signed by the administration bot~rd c~f tt.e church asking tfiat ttiis permit not be yrantc:d; tha[ it ti~s been a nuisance in the past when it wa~ held by scxneone else; but thpt the past operators did not work on Sunciay and now they are having probfems with Sunday n~i§e; and that~ In addition. they wer~ concernrd aboui cti I I dren hangi n~.~ arounJ to watcti, ~'everend Saville of St. Michael's Ep!scopal Church~ Z1L West South Street, stated the r. ighborhood was residential/agr(culture but it has increased with sin~le-famlly residences and now a lot of mulci~le-family dwellings on Lemon Street; that the area ls alive with children of all ages; and that their concern is with old cars stored on the lot and the teenagers are wild about old cars, it would prortiote unhealthy acttvities for the chllciren. Secondly~ he has person~lly delivered "meals on w~ieels" all along South S[reet and right across from tf~e storeye yard there ar~ sever 1 small~ sinyle-famil~r res?dences with elderly people and looking acrass at the storage yard~ witf~ tl~e (ncrease in trsffic tz/19/,1 MINUTES, A~Wlt~ll; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Decerr~er 1~3. 1971 ~~'~6~ EIR GATlf,ORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS_1_ AND CONUlTIO~JAL USC PERMIT N0. 178; (contlnued) and Activities~ he diu not tl~ink It would not be I~ealthful. Tlie thlyd point~ ~1% West South Stre~~. h.~s a larye oici home with an avc~cado c~rc~ve and they could bulld threc single- famlly hnuses~ wlilch the church contempiates do(ng~ but this kind of fAClli~y wou~d d~:cre~ase th~ property valur.s tremendously. He indlcatecl he was not opposed to this man's busin~ss but that therc otfier more sultoble place:s In Anahelm. Ne felt this aJditional usc is unfalr tio the penple and that the off`icl~l board of hls church h~~ra voted un~nimously tu ask tlie Comn(sston to reconslder thls use seriously. G~rald lireckman~ physical theraplst~ 11!; South Ana~~c:im k~oulevorJ~ Anaheim~ i~dtcated he had been in pra~tice 1~)U feet from this apcrutiur~ for 3n ycars and hc I~~tes to see evcrythiny dcywngracicd; tl7at hc h.is hupes for buil~l(ny up Anahelm, not teariny lt down, Ne indlcateJ lie h~3s Investe~l a lot of n~ney in his building upyrodiny ~~ith a beauliful rock front~ etc.; that his bedrourn is upstairs in tl~e back ~~f the pr~~~erty ~~ncl w~uld be wlthin 11)~) fcet of South Strrrr .-~nd tli,~t the noise wc~uld ~~o up. Rusaria Kacsler~ I~; Hac/lrtliur Hanur, Anaheim~ inJlcate~l sh~• ~,~~PJ th~ Cornnisslon wouid not yrant this petitiun. Shc indicalc~ hcn c~usc st~~nds hiyh an~ that with ~ 6-foat~ concrNtc bl~tk w~ll vt~u coul~l look rlyht ~ntu this placc ~~f huslnc~ss, and that the existing bl~ck wal{ h~s h~J vandali,m and a p~rtlon of it is now clown in her yard; that there are ber.r cans thra~n over the fenc~: frum the im~~ound yar~; th~~t there (s foul lanyuaye ~i~~l cruJc shuutiny at niylit, and shc fclt Ic was an fnvasl~n of hcr privacy~ and thcy could not cnjoy thcir own bacF. yar.l, She ir•~dic.~te~d thcy have invested thousands of dollars to bcautify t~icir I~o~nc t~~ up~~raJc Anal~eim an~ ott~cr people havc Invested a lot of money and time~ and tl~iy i; onc ~xamplF of wh~t will start ha~penin~ if this use is allowe~ to yo ir~, She preS:.nCeJ phutugr~phs of suhject pruperty. Keith ltird pres~nt.e~1 th~ s.~rx ar.tition w(th rnure s(qnatures and dirmctcd thc Commisslon's at(ention to the Cwu ~.~ses c~f' thc property~ [hc hody shup as well as an impound lc~t~ and indlcated he rcalize;d Chat thr-.y were only c<~nsicferin~ unr_ use hut felt the other se sliould be consiJerecl in thc ncar futurt. He fclt the praperty as it is cxl~tin~ today ls e~vlronmentally unsou~~J with bocl~ uses on the property. He felt this propcrty c~uld be of benefl[ to the comrnuni[y if used for anot~7cr business; cha[ the pr~perty fs ar. eyesorc and Nutting slats in a chainllnk fence wou1~J not hclp. ~ie indic~ted a b~~<1y shop is Icss than 5C fcet away from sin~ale-family homes; that cliey are working on these vehicles ac all hours of the day and lat~ly [hey havc becn workiny on them at 10:00 p.m. lie sta[ed they have sma 1 1 cli i 1 dreii 1 n thc~ ne i yht,orl~aod who iieed to s 1 ee~ dur i n9 thn day t 1 rie ; that th_ re ar~e r^any new fami I i es i n the nc i<Jh~orhoou who wau) d 1 i ke to rna4;e I t 1 nto a commun i ty ~ a~d peop;~ wt7o have lfved tiierc for 1!, years~ loakiny forwar~! to uryrading [~e downtown area. He felt ii was j~stifted [hat these peonle turned out to shcnv their discontent for the use of the property. Stiaron Farmer~ lOG MacArtfiur Hanor~ Anahelm~ indicated sl~e had written a letter and wanLed to emphasite the referen~e in that Iftter to "shady" characters. She stated they h3d cliosen to buy a hume in Anafieim and hoped to raise their family iiere. She stated they have a lot of company who come from ou[ of tcwn to see Uisneyland~ and she cioes not like to see the rness across the street and was concerned about the neighborhood. Elalne Kaesler~ 107 Mac~rtf~ur Manor~ Anaheim~ indicated she has a younc, child under tr~a years of aye and indlcated shc wanted to emphasize the quality of the people who worx at this impouncl yard; tfiat many times tl~ey t~ave picked up heer bottles in their back yard and that upsets her very much; tl~at tcenayers congregate nutside the fence of the storage yard; [hat she d~es not fcel safe to walk out her back door, wlth the men drlnking beer in the storaye yard; that she does not think it is safe for these men to drive on the resldential streets; and [hat the quality of [lie peoplc who ~rork there upsets her. t2/19/77 ~ ~ MiNuTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI01~~ Uacember 19, 1977 77-8G5 EIR GATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA5S 1 AND COl~DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 178y (contlnued) BllliQ ~ird~ 121 MacArthur hlenor~ I1nAhelm, indtcated lhe increased trarflc imposes dt~nger to the clderly and the chlldren~ an~; the guarci doys could (nJure th~~ ch'ldren playing ne~~rby the fence ar~d tf~ere (s a possibi Ilty they c~uld get loose; tl~at ~:~sonal property~ such as cars~ lawns~ shrubbery~ ~tc.~ have been demaged or broken down by the commercial vehicles; and that th~. r~o(~c pollutlon makes It difficult for ther~ to Itvc a normel, healthy ilfe. She indlc~~ed tlie traffic is fast in tl~c t~lley and this business I~as attra~teci childran to play c~~ere. Mary Ollver, 111 West Mac/lrthur Manor~ AneheiT, stated tlicre is a lot of notse in the drea~ r_specially at n(ght with cars rAC,ine~ ar~und tl~e streets~ and (t Is difficult to watch televis(on. She Indicoted a portion of her block wall has been torn down and that the property aNner has r-ot flxed it. Jan-es W. Clemmer~ 119 Wegt Sr.uth Street, Ana~ 'm~ indtcat^d he lives directly ac roas the street trom the ft~c:llfty an~ that tow trucks ~ come into tl~e yEr~i at night and shtne liyhts into hls fron~ wi~~Juw; ihaC he Jucs nv~ lhii~k a chainlink, ience wlth rrelwu~,~i slots would do very much good, Ile in;ilcatcd I~e h.~d lived at this address for fi5 ycars. Will(am Masch(ng~ 1~~ West South Strcet~ Anaheim, ind(c-+tcd his mt~in obJection is wrecking cars at this locetion and referred to a 1~)yy Cadillac whicl~ had been an eyesore. Ne indlcated he had not been apposecl to cr~e operation whQn they had w~orked on n~ew cars and t~ien moved tl~em out. but thAt hc was ~yainst any form of wreck(ng ya~d at th(s property. Mr, Conrad stated that he undcrstc~o~ the conccrns af the neiyhbvrs; that he had spent a lot of tirne trring to flnd property that was properly xoned for kliis type of activlcy, and thot this piece of property was so zoned. lie stated he ~as yrllling to work with the people to try to sulve the pr~blems; th~t I~F was willing to puc in e block wal) fence to enclose the storage area; and that th15 was not a junk yard~ chat they pick up some vehicles that Inok like junk~ but they w~~id be out of styht. H.~ ~ndicated they were not in a position to know exactly what was reqUired for screeniny this particular area. Ile stated I~e wislied to apoloylze to the neighbars for thc way this arca ha3 looked~ but that he h~~! spent a lot of r~,oney starcing t1~is bus'ness i~ [hIs area and tiac; put S1;~OOn to 52U~OOU inLo the black wall fence. Ne indicated th(s ~roperty has been used tn the past for a repa i r and body shop ; anJ tt~at !~e wau 1 d t ry to do a t 1 I~e cou 1 d to he 1 p the situetion. TH'. PUBLIC NLI1RItIG WAS CLOSE~, Chairman 7olar stated. in relationship t~ [he (mpound and st~rage yard~ that he was totally confused with the amount of dua{ uses on this prc+perty; that it was a boat storage facility and now it is an inpound storaye lot. and he did not fe;el an irn~aund storage lot shuuld be located n~xL to a residentisl area~ that it belonged in a heavy manufacturing area. Conmissioner Herbst stated he wou1J I~k.e to clarify the CN 2one a~d automnbile agenctes; that in 1~68 this was approved for an automobile agency anc,~ acc~rding [o the Code~ automnbile agencles allow, as an incidental use. painting and body sh~a work in conJur~ction with that use, wt~ich is no tonger existing on this ~+roperty. He indicated the Commission has allc~wed boat str~raye and boat sales at th~s location anJ th~,: rhe automc~bile paintiny and bady shap ix not related to the boat yard and it is operating illeyally. .~ack White~ Deputy Ci ty Attarney, state~i tt~at ttiese are permi tteJ uses in t!~is zone r~d a~e not illegal; tt~at if thls were nothiny ~ut an automobile repair shop~ it ;~uld ue a permitted use in the CH Zone; tl~at the petitfoner Is coming in writh a ~equest `or an 12/l~/17 ~~„ MINUTES~ ArJAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Oecember 19. 1977 77~8G6 EIR CATCGOkICl1L EXEMPTIp~~-CLA55 1 At~U CONUITIONAL USE PLRMIT I~O. 17t~5 (continued) Impnund and starage lot, ~~nci tt~at is thc reason ,vr the conditlonal use ~ermlt; tl~at If tt~e property Is no lpnyer brin~~ used .~s an eutomobile ahency~ then that condltional use permlt no longer applics. Ne in~icatr.d it is possible that tlie usP may not be~ bciny conducted In a manner conslstent wlth tho Code and the Zon~ng Enforcerient Offtcer could make an (nspectl~~n uf tha praperCy~ t~ut that was not before the Commtsslon taday; [hat the public i~earing is for the impo~nid storage yard ~nd waiver of si[e screc~ning, Commissioncr Johns~~n asked Mr. ConraJ if his operatlon would be of ~ny value witliout tl~e storage yard~ and Mr, Conrad re~lieJ thac if hc did not h~ve a placc to storr, thc vchicles~ he would have to find anothcr sitc in Anahcim and would have this samc problem; that It ti•~~~ vcry d(fflcult to ff„d a placc. tic :,totcd tic fclt to movc ribuld grcatly ,jeopardlze his buslness; tliat I~c en~loys several p~~ople anJ ~ias a lat of mcncy (nvested (n th(s area and is wi 1I(ng tr~ worF; wi t1i th~ neiyhbor:,. Commissioner Kln~~ su~~yc~sted that Mr. Conraci w~rk witF~ the Chamber of Commerce in finding a suitable locatiun. Mr, ConraJ replied he is a member af ~',e Chambcr of Gomrt~rce. ~hairu:an Tolar indic.Ated I~e was con~erned with any businessman trying to molntaln his busines5~ hu[ th~t hc dIJ not think an irnpouncl storaye yard ~~ith this proximity [o a residential nelgF~horhoc~d was yood pl~nniny~ and hc felt it sl~ould be in the ML Zone so tl~at the use would not offend s~ many pcuple; that there arc a lot of people tll-affected by this use M/F1pSC hcalth a~cJ safety rnust be considered and not just one buslnc:ssman. He indieated I~e had be~n by che site and did not tt~ink tlils facil(ty was anythinq to be proud o~~ espccially in t' .: way it I~as been kc~~t~ and he felt a lot of opposition could I~ave been ellminated if thcse thinys h~~d been taken care of. Ile stated he could not even justlfy an extensfon of time to allaw tl-e petit~aner to find an~ther location. Mr, Conrad statecf that i~is requcs[ is for use af t~iis property for an tmpound and storage facl l(ty; that a v^tiicle~ when intpoundecl~ ycnerally sits Chere; thatthese are late model :.irs and tliey ~o nct wc~rk on thern. Ile pointeJ out wrecked vehicles are pulled In for body wo~k, but cars are Just parked in the impound storage area and the ~rea wil) be screened ta keep it oui of the yenPral public view. He indicatcd this I~earing should determine wt~~t wauld be requi red t~~ enclose the area to el iminate the eyesore. fle indicat~d the use of th~ proFerty is for ar impound storage area and it makes r~~ difference if a 1965 or 191~ Pontlac is stored. Ne stated he felt the re are a lot uf c~verr.ding factors because of ~he noise fro-n other u-,es tt~at have entcrcd inso th(s heariny and have taken away some nf h~s rlghts. Chairman Tolar asked how many leases were hcld at this property~ and ic was revealed there wer~ four or five diffcrent leases on the property, and Cheirm.~n Tolar stated it was more thars a dual use of the property~ it I~as flve or 'x different operat(ons going on. Mr. Whlte polnted out that as long as they are perr~ltted useS, there ts nothing Illegal about thc operatian. Commissioner Johnson stated tf~at the objections regarding the notse are coming from the permltted uses end that this petittoner ~~as bee~ cauyht i~ tne middle; that he is coming in with a non-permitted .ise ~nd that the nolse, etc., is coming from other operations. Chairman Tolar pointed oui [he propo: d use will increase traffic cuminy into thls area at nlght. Comnissioner Linn steted hc felt the Qroblem is Mr. ConP~d opened the business illeqally; that he dtd not yct a conditional use permit to begin wlth; thac he has operated for four months illegal'.; and naw is reque~sttny a waiver of the chatnlink fence to screen an ~19/77 ~ MINUTES~ MJAf1EIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ DacRmber 19~ 1~77 77-867 Ela CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANU CONDITIONAL USE PEFtMIT N0. I~ fcontinued) illogal operetion; that they have had this troublc in the past~ wlth peAple opening thelr buslnosses illeyally And tha Zoning Enforcert-ent Officer Issuing a vlolatlon cltatlon a~nd then the petlCioner coming in requesting a conditional use permi[ for an illegal oporatlan. 11e indicated lie felt if the petitioner I~ad requested this condlclonfl) use permlt prlar to qoing into buslness, t~ie Commission mtght not have approved it anyway. lie felt ther~ has to be some place in Anaheim f~r a storage or Junk yerd~ but not next to residentlal; that A storoge ya~d does usually become a)unl; yard and is an attractive nulsance. Commissi~ner David esked M~, Conrod if the storagc actlvities are sr,parate from the re~alr activltie~. and Mr. Conrad advised that I~e lias tl~e repair parc of the facllity but that he needs the permlt for the stor~ge af a~tomobiles because if hc were to store the automob(les in another location he would havP to yuard the area or have someone around mc~st of the time; that this u:,e is not somethiny you can place just anywhere. Ile Indicutad the whale area is fenced and that chilJren cannot get Into ehat area. Co~ra~~issic~ner David askeJ if tliere is a poss(l,f lity that the tr~o businesses arc not neccssarily dependent upon each uthc:r~ anJ Mr. Conrad replied that ther~ is a posstbtl(ty thet a vchicle is si[ting there for ren~irs anJ (t could bc therc for two or three weeks. It was nc~ted that the Uirector of the Planniny Uepartment has determir~ed that the proposed activity falls within tl~e Jefinitic~n uf Sec[ior. 3.01, Class 1~ of the City cf Anaheim Gu(delincs to tha Requirements for an Env(ronmcntal Impact Report and is~ therefare~ cotegorlcally exempt frorn the reyuirement t~ file an EIR. ACTION: Commissio~cr David offer~:d Resolution No. PC77-2E~4 and moved for it~ passage and a~optron~ tf~at tl~e Anaheirn Gtty Planniny Comnission does hereby deny Petitlon for Gonditional Use Permit No. 17„S on the bas(s that sai~i use has been in operation with~ut approval of a condicional use pcrriit and has resultcd ln noise and ott~er nuisance probler~s wlii ch have d( sturbecl the res i den ~s i n tt~e~ surround ( ng ne f ghl~onc~aod an~t ~ therefore ~ the use~ as proposed an~ existing~ has had a deleterious impact on the surroundin9 sfngle- family residentia) and c.hurch USP_5. On roll call~ the foreyoing resolu[ion was passed by tl~e following vote: AYES: CQMMISSIONCRS: BARNl:S, UAVID~ HEkDST~ JOl~N501~~ i~lUGo LIN"i, TOLAR IJOES: COMMISSiONERS: NOVE ABSLNT: C011M15SlONCRS: t~;1i~E Prior to v~ting on the foreyoiny resolucion~ Mr. Conrad pointed out that he had first approacheJ the P 1 ann i ny pepartmc:n t whei~ he s tarted h i s t,us i ness , ancl J. J. Tash i ro rep 1 1 ed that he had appt(ed for a conditional use permit about two months a~~o. Chairman Tolar inJicated he was supportin~~ tlie resolutfon because he felt this was a bad use for the property; tliat he fcl. this type of use deserves to be snmewhere where It does not create; a nuisance to tl~e resi ~ntial area. Comnissioner King ~.tatecl~ again, that he hoped Mr. Conrad would follow his recommendation and yo tc, the Chamber of Commerce to havr_ them help hlm to find a suit~hle site. Jack Whit~~ Depu ty City Attorney, prc~entPd Mr. Conrad the written right to appeal the Planr.ing Commission's decisi-n wi tf~ir~ 2 days. ACT10~~: Gommissloner Ilerbst offcred a motion, secon~ed by Commissioner King and MOTION CARfiIEU~ that the Planniny Uepar[ment staff have the Zoning Enforcert~ent Offic~r 12/19/77 MINUTES~ ANANCIN CITY PLANNING CONMISSIOt~~ Oecember 19~ 1971 77•86H E{K CAT~GORIC,IL EXEMPTION--~ASS 1 ANG CONQI?I~NAL USE PF.RMIT N0. 1185 (concinued) ~~..._ .r~ ~._ lnvestigate thc nnlse probloms ancf hours of operatlon ~~nd find ouc if thcre Arc any further violatinns of the operetion~ at this particul.~r locatian~ in order to protect the people and the homes in that area. Commts.loner Ilerbst indtc~ted he also fclt tl~is Is an a~ea for further study rcgarding dual usas on property in tl~e Zonln~~ Code~ especielly with automobflc agc~cles that go aut ~~f buslness anJ then other uses arr. rut on thc pr~rerty which wcre not ~ntenderi to hegin with. Ile f~:lt there was a h~le in the ordinance ~omeplace. Chalrman Tolar asked (f there was a limit ur~~fer ~he palnt and body shop uses rcgarding the I~uur~~ anJ Annl{.~ Santalahti, AszistanL U(rcctor for Zoniny~ state~' thr hnurs nre limited, but if noises are betng c~enc*rated~ the Z~r~~~,~~ Enforcenx~nt Offfce~ could check to see if they ire opcratlny late at nYr,ht a~~d tt~e noisc level coul~ be investiyated. !T WA5 NOTE:D Tl~t APPLIGANT FOR ITF '~0, b Wl15 PRESE.NT, ITEH r~o. G EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOti-CLASS i PUttLIC HEARING. OWt~CR: SUNSIIINE WAY~ 2Ei0~ South CO D 011 L USE tRMIT t~0. I Mein Strcet~ Urit K, Santa Ana, CA '~2701. AGCNT; FALGON GUSTOM 'JANS~ 1261 Sunstiine Way~ Anaheim~ CA 92ES06. Pet(ttoncr requests permission tn ESTABLISf~ A VAN CONVERSION FACILITY (II~CI.~DING PAINTING At~O BOOY REPAIR) an propcrty described as a~n irregula~ly-sl~aped parcel of lAnd con.,(sting of appr~xirnately 1.2 acres having a frontage of approxl~nately 3~7 feet on the south sidc of Sunshine 4fay~ having A maximum depth of approximately l~~~i feet, bein~ located aorraximately 31i; feet s~utheast of the c~nterline nf Miraloma Avenue~ anci further described as 12f,1 Sunshi~e Way. Property presently tlassifled ML (INUUSTRI!-1.~ LIt1lTEU) ZONE. There was no one Indicatiny tl.,:ir presence in opposltion to suhject request~ and althougn the staff report t~ che Planning Commission dac~J December 19, 1977 was not read at the p,blic hearing, it ls ref~rred to an~i made a part ~f thc minutes. Vittor Nappi. 1t~20 Clifpark~ Anaheim, representing thc petitioner, ~aas :sent to answsr any questions. THE PUBLIC NEAKI~IG ~IAS GLO~EU. Commissioner Nerbsi asked if the applicant understoc~d that al~ :;ork must bt done ins(de the building and that he must mcet the Air Poliutiai Control specifications. Mr. Nappi replfed tha e understood this. Cortmissioner Johnson asked if thcre :•~ere any signs on th~ building yet, and Mr. Nappi replied that there was. Commissioncr Johnson asked if it was facir~g the freeway and tf it was the sign from one end of tlie butldins to the other~ and Mr. Nappi explained the sign started mldway on the building. Chairman Tolar asked if the applicant understood there was to be no outdoor storage at niyht. and Mr. Nappi replied that there is some iimite~ sto;,ge riqht now~ but everything they intend Lo wor~ on wili be moved insiJe at night. Commissioner King stated this was part of the conJltions~ th~t nothing will be stored outslcie at night and he wanted to be sure that Mr. Nappi u~derstood, and asked if it would t2119/77 ~ . MIh~UTES~ ANAHEIM LITY PLANt~ING COMMISSION, Uecember ty~ 1977 77-SG9 EIR CATEGORICAI. EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANU CONDITIOt~AI. USE PFn~iT N0. 178W (conttnued) __.._ - _ cause a hardship. Mr. Nappl replled that~ occasionAll~, some vehlcles may have to be le"t o~~ts(de and that Mr. Welp~ Zoning Enforcement Officcr, had suygested that If they i~tendod to keep vnhicles outsida~ they shuulJ put reclwood slats in the fence acr~ss the front a~d tl~at they were not opposed to dainy tl~at~ if required. ile explafned thac a 6-foot bloek wa'~ wlll be constructed on one s(Je ~f tho premis~s. Chalrman Tolar po~ntrd oul the hours of operation as listed in the stbff report, B:Oi) a.m, to 5~3~ p.m, durin~ che weckdays and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m, on Saturdays~ with five employees~ and Mr. ~~appi replied that chis wes correct. Chnirman Tnisr referrr~i to tt~e staff rP~~rx~ indicating on~ t~ thr~e Alsulay vehlcles may be sto~ed outside dur(nc~ ti~e day; tt~at all work will ba donc (-~alde; thAt thc petitioner further (ndlc~ted nothing wi11 be ^tored outside at nf~ht; an~l pu(nted out if the eonditlon~l use permit (a approved this way~ the peliliunur wi11 be~ expected to ccxnply. Commissioner Kiny potnted out that thc spray paint bou[h will require a permit from the Fire Uc•oartment~ and Mr. Nappi Indicated he unclerstood that. Commissloner Elarnes indlcaced she was stlll confused ahoui the outdo~r s~ora~~e and stated the petitloner had !ndtcatccl li~ wuuld likc to store somc th(nys outslJe at niyht and that she d(d not see any harm !n this arc;a, and aske~ '~~~w many vehicles he would be stor~n~ <~~~;side, and the petitioncr replied nrohably five or six. Mr. ~~appl indieated he would not want t~ see the loi deteriorate; ttiat th~y wistie~l to show quelity ~~orl; and d(J not want tlie place to Ic~ok like ~ junk yard, Commi ss i oner Ba rnes I~1CI1 Cr7CCa sl~e fc I t they shou I d be a 1 1 owed to h.~ve uutdoor s tarage for 10 vehicles~ ~nd Chairman Tolar ,~olnted o~t that for any outdoor s~ age uf vehicles It wauld be necessa ry ta cortipiv with th~ Code rec~uirements. Ann(~a Santalah~i~ Assi;tant Uirector for Zoning~ pointed out that any outdoor storage woul~ have to he ~cparate from the regular ~rea rec~uired for parking~ 2 spaces for 1Q00 square fect of buil~:ing~ and any v_hic~es ieft there other than employees p~rked during the day would have to be in an ou:door stvraye area enclosed with a fence to a heiqht enclosinq wtiatever is beiiind the fence. For exam~~le~ if you -iave an f3-fooc high vehicle~ you wouid need an ~•~foc~t F:i~~h wall. Co^Knisslo~e- k~arne;^~ ~vinted out the pecitione~ had stipulated to providc recfwond slats tn the; ex;stiny fence. Gommissioner Johnson p„inted out this ar~inance was prirr.arlly written to k~eep ~nanu~acturcrs from sta ~ny ~.i7eir goods outside. I; was ncted that thp ~Irector of the Planninv pepartment has determined that the proposed acttvity falls within t}~e de°inition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of th~e City of Anaheim Guldelines to tfic Requircroe~~ts for an Envlronment Impact Report and ls~ ~therefore. cate~~orically exempt from tr.e requirement to fllr an EIR. ACTlOtJ: Ca~rlssioncr Linn offered Resolut?~n No. PC77-2~3 an~ moved for its passaqe and ad- o- p n~ that.the Anaheim City Planning Commissior does hereby grant Petition for Co~ditio~a! Use Permit No. 17L'4~ subject to the petitioner's stipulations ~tl~at all rep~ir work will be done wholly inside the building and that ;he hours of operation wiil be from f3:00 a.m. to 5:3~ p.m. during weekciays and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday; and that no more ti~an 10 vehitles being ser•viced oilll be stored outdoors~ and Lhat said vehlcles will be stored in accordance with Clty Code requirements~ and subJect ta Interdepartme~ta) Committee recommendatlons. ~2~~9~~~ MINUTL•S~ ANANEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ Uecember 19~ 19J1 77~870 E{R CATEGOkICAI EXEMPTIO~~-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL liE PERMIT ~10. 1784 (c~ntlnueJ) ~_. Qn r~ll call~ thc fore~oiny rPSOlutlon was passed by t~~e fallowing vote: AYLS: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DIIVID~ IIER~ST. JOHN50~l~ KING~ Llt~t~~ TULAR NOCS : GOMHI SS I O;JERS : NOIJE AOSEPlT: GOf1Ml SS I ~~IERS : NONC 17EM N0. tS E ~ R C EGOR I CAL EXCMf'T I Of1-CLA55 1 PUtil I C Nf ARI t~G. OWNL' R5: MARC I A AHN NALL I ~A~~ AND CONU 01 AL U<< '" ^''~i Ilq. 17~ RAYMOI~D ANU ESTLLLE SPEItAR~ ~13 Paloma Place, Ful icrton~ C/1 )26;5. /~GEt1T5: PAUL A~~D DO!It1A KIM, 2;1.2-H Nortli Tustin 1lvenui~. Santa l1na, Cl1 92705. Petitioner reques~s ON-S/1LE BELR A~~D WINf. IN A PROPOSEU RES7/1URAI~T on propcrty described as on irreyularly-shaped parcel of lanJ con5isting of approximately 11.1 acres located no~tl~ end east af thc nortlieast corner of L Pa'ma Avenue an~l Imperla) Iliyhway~ having approx(mate fronta9r.s of G3~) fec:t ~n the nvrth s+de of La Palma Avenue and 372 feet on tt~e east side •:.` ~mperial Iliyhv+ay. bciny Ic~ca[ed a~proximately 190 feet north of ehe centerline of la Palma Aven~c and 3~0 fec~. east of tl,e ccnterllne of Impcrial Hfghway. Property presently classified CL(SG) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED-SCE:NIC CORk1U0R OVEaLl1Y) ZONE. Tl~ere was no one in~ifcatiny Lheir preser~ce in oppositlon to subject re~uest~ and althnugh the steff repc,rt to the Planning ~flmmission dated Decemt,er 1~, 1977 was not re~d at the public tiearinc~, it Is refcrred to and made a part of tlie minutes. Donna Kim, .~gent for the petitioncr, was present [o ~~nswer any questions. TNE PUBLIC HE.ARING WAS CLOSEU. It was notcd the Nill and Canyon Municipa) Advisory Committee (11ACM/1C.) revfewcd the above proposal on December 13~ t977 and~ witt~ 10 men~bers preser~t~ voted unanimously to recornr-end approval of Condl tional Usc Permi t t~o. 17<;6. It was noted the ~(rector of the Planning Gep~rtme:nt has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of 5ection 3.Q1~ Class 1~ of the City of An.3hetm Guidelines to thc Reyuirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is~ therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirer~~ent to I~e an ~IR. ACTION: Cnmmissioner t~~arnes offered Resolution No. PC77-285 and rtx~ved for its passagc and a-T~ptTon~ that the Anaf~eim City Planning Commission does hcreby grant Pet(tion for C~nditional Use Permit No. 1786~ subJect to Interdepartmental Cammittee recommendations. On roll cali~ the foreyoing resolutlon was passed by the followiny v~te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ HERB;T~ JOiiNSON, KING~ LINrr~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONCRS: NONE AttSENT: COMM'SSIONERS: NONE 12/19/77 ~ y MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIfY PLANNING CAMMISSION~ Uecembe~ 19~ 1977 /7'~11 ITEM N0. 9 EIR CATC OG RICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 PUDLIG f1EARING. OWNER: i.EMON ASSOCIATES~ P. p. D L E 0. Bax 35~~7~ Analieim~ CA ~2803• Af,ENT: LEQ IMPERIALI, 7561 Garden Grove 9oulevard~ C+~rd~n Grove~ CA ~2641. per.itioner rcquests permisslon ta ESTIIDLISH A RCTIIIL CONTIiACTOR'S SUPPLY STORE IN TIIE ML ZONE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMaER OF PARKi!!G SPACES on prop~erty ck:scribed ss a rec:tangularly-shaped parcel of land :onsisting of appruxlmately 0.~~ acr~ located at the no~theast corner of Ornngethnrpe Avenue and Lemon Street~ having approxfmate frontagos nf 2J0 fae[ on the ~orth side of Oranc~ethorpe Avenuc and 147 feet on the east slde af Lern~n Street. ~roperty presently classifled ML (IIIDUSTRIAI.~ LlMITEO! l0~lf. Tliere w~s no one i~diceting ttielr presence in appasitlon to su' ject reques~, and altho~..,~~ the steff roport to thc P18nning Commisslon d~~ted Uecember 1~, i`377 wds i-o~ read at thc publlc hearing~ It is reFcrrr~ to and madc a part of the minutes. Commtsstoner David Indicated he had A c.oiif4ict of interesl n~ defin~d by ~lnahelm City Plann(ny f,ommi~slon Resoluti~r~ No. PC7b-1;/ a~Jo~+linn ~ Conflict of Interest Code for the Planninc~ Lommisslon and Government Code Sectian 3625. ei. s~q~ i~, th~t he Is a suppller to the petltioner ~,nd that~ pursuant to Lhe provisic.ns of tl~e ~bove c~~c~es~ hc declared tn the Chalrman that he was wlthdrewiny from the hearinc~ (n con:~ection with thP taregoing iterr~ and will not take part in eitlier thF c'iscussion ar the votlnq tt-~~~on, lit indicated he had not d i scuss~.u th i s mat ter wl ch a~y r,~emhc r of the P 1 ann i ny Co~rni i ss i on . COM1415510NER DAV~U I EF1' THE COUhlCIL GHAMkiER TkMPORARILY AT 4:1$ P.M. Jerry Knudsen~ 1,"?8 Vilshirc~ Anal~eim~ representlny Tile Warld anci thc owncrs, Indicated his presencc to answer any questions. TNE: PUI3LIC NEARING v~,5 CLOSEU. Annika Sentalal~ti. /~ssistant Director for 7.oning~ po~nted out thls building was bullt as a 5tandard industrial L~uilding ln an industrial area and the waiver is be(ng requcsted beceuse af the commercia) ~5pect~ the retail Floor area. She pointed out the Code daes adJress a simllar use, furniture stores which h~ve a~reat deal of dlsplay area rclative to the actual number of customers. Mr. Knudsen Nalnted out tlie petitioner estimates he has four tfines tl~e amaunt o~ parking needed bdsed on their other operatiuns. It was noted thc Di~ec[or of the Planniny Dtpartment has determined that the proposed activlty falls within the definition of Section 3.01~ Class 1~ of the City of Anaheim Guidcl(nes to the Requirements for an Environr+~enCal Impact Rep~rt and is~ thc~refore~ cateyorl~ally exempt frorn the requiremcnt to file an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Linn offered Resolution No. PC77-286 and moved for its passage and a opt on~ that the Anatieim City Plar-niny Comnission docs hereby grant Peticion for Condit(onal Use Permit fla. 17u7. granting the walver on the basis that similar walvers have been previnusly yranted for simitar uses tn tt~e ML (Industrial~ Limited) Zone and that the propoaed u~e does no[ generate the nceJ for the requireu number of parking spaces because of the proportionately great amount of display and scoragz space within the bulldi7~~ an~1 subJect to Interdepartmental CortunitteP recammendations. On roll cail, the foreyoing resolu[ion was passed by the followin~ vote: .4YES: GOt4MISSIONERS: BAt:P:ES~ HERBST~ JONNSON, KING, LINtJ, TOLAR trOES : COFIM i SS i ONCftS: NOt~E AfiSEfiT: COM~•115510NER5: DAVIU 12/19/77 M I I~UTES ~ AIWNE I M C I TY PLANN I ~~G COkM I SS ION, pecembcr r 19 ~ 1977 77-~72 I TEh 1~0. 10 EIR CA C,ORICAL ~XEMPTION-CLASS 1 PUOLIC IIEARING. ('WPIERS: RO(iFRT J. ANJ LORRETTA M. C t~U t L USL ERMI 0. J a HOCKC~~BCRRY. (~133 Cast Cam~no Manzano~ Anahaim~ CA 92$0 J. AGF.NTS : JACK GRUB 1 S I f:f1 I1NU M I KE WALS11 ~ 2205 So~ith Center Str~et~ XC, Sa~~ta Ana~ CA 9?.70W. Petltloner requests permission to ES7ADLISI~ AN AUTO 80UY AIID PAINT SHOP WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM 5TRuC7URAL SI:1'BACY. un propcrty described as a rectangularly-shaped p<~rcel of I~~nd consisttn3 of approximatciy G')3~- sryuare fect having a frontagc of appraximately 42 feet an tl~e south slde uf SyGamore Strect~ havl~ig a maxfmum depth of ~ppr~ximately 164 feet~ being located approxi:nately 3J.0 feet east of the centerline of pauline Street, and further described as 70~) Cast SycArrare~ Strcet. Property presently classlfted ML (I~~~USTRIAI.~ LIMITEU) ZONE. Tl~ere wes one persc,n tndicatlny her presence in ~p~o~itlon t~ sub.Ject requast, and althouyh the staff r~port to the Plannin~ ~a^misaion cJated Dec~mher 1~, 1977 was not read at the public hearin~~ lt Is refsrreJ to and r~adc a par[ of cfie minuces. Jack Grublsich~ ageiit f~r the pc~titioner~ indicated their dcsire to open an automobile pa~nt and bc~dy shop which is presently a Flberc~las manufactur(ng plant. I'e indicated they were mva~e of all Che laws ancf re~~ul~tions and were prepared to meet them at this time. Ne indfcated rt~ast of the requireme:nts they will tiavc to niect are alrcady established because uf tt-c exlsting Flbcrylas plant~ and hc felt this ~peration will bc iess hazardous concerniny no(se~ etc. A~irlan Jones, 1416 Nurth Pauline Street~ Anah~im, indicated she was wondcring if there was sufflclent park(ny For employees and potenti~l customers. J. J. Tasf~iro~ Assistant Planner~ polnted aut tl-~t based on the square f~~tage of the exlsting buildin~, the use does rneet the reyui~-emen[s as far as zonfny is concerned. Ms. Jones pointed ouc that she has a smail house and that tt~ere is wall-t~-wall parking an Paultne; there Is an apartment to the rear and stated Cliat employees and visi[Qrs park on Pauline Street~ startin~ at I:GQ a,m, until ~:~0 p.m., and it is Impossihle to park in front of her awn hame; that thcy ar~ nevcr able tc clean the street and trash p(ck-u~ is a problem. She indicated with tl~e parking of the vans and motorhomes~ it is v~ry hazardous coming off Paullne onto Sycamore Street. She (ndicated she was also concerned about the r.oise~ but that her m~in concern was parking. Mr. Grubisich indl~.ated he is currently in the process of buying the property and the present property owncr has two employees plus hfs wiFe~ and he knows they park thetr -ar~ Inside the facility~ and the only thing he cauld see would be the parking problems are ceused bv other businesses in the atet.. He indicaL.:d his father would be the only person working besides he and hi:, partner a~d they woulo have ample parking inside~ and he did not see any parking problems. TNE RUBLIC IIEARING WAS CLOSEU. Chairrt~an Tolar inquirsd about people leaving thefr vehicles tv be painted at the facillty and where they would be lefit overnight. The applicant indicated he had bee-~ in this business ~bout six years and that he would estimate ther~ would be no more than ten people over an eight-hour day who would be comtng in to get estimates, but would average four or five. Ne indicated they have a drlve-up lane prvvided a~d the cars will come in5ide the yard; th~t thev ~uld not be on the street t2/19/77 ~.. MI NUTE S~ ANl~NE I M C( TY PLANN I NG COMM I SS 10~1 ~ December 1~1, 1 g77 17~$73 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-C1A55 1 11ND CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT N0. I J88 (contln~ ~d) ._._. ...~._ ~ .. or visible from the street; and that tt~ey would give -.he customcr~ a w~ittnn estimate and he would be on his woy. Chairman Tolar asked the applicant to stipulate that there would be no parking for em~loyees or customers an the street, whtcl~ hc cSid. Commissloner Nerbst polnted out the hours of op e r~tion would be 8:Q0 a.m. to S:OA p.m, and the appllcant agreed~ and th~t all wark would be donc Insldc and Mr. Grubisich egreed to that. It was notacl thc Director of the Plann{ny Uepartmr.nt fias determined that tlie: praposed activfty fal)s within the ckfinitlon of Sec~fon 3,01, Class 1, nf the City of Anah~irt~ Guidcll ics t~ the Requirements f~r an Envir~nment~~) ImpACt Report and is~ therefore~ categorically exempt from the requtrement to fi le an EIR, ACTION: Commissioner Darnes offcred R~solution ~lo. PC77•2~51 nnd movecl for lts p~ssage and a~Ton~ that the Anal,eim CI ty Planntng Commiss fon does I~treby g~ant Pati tlon fur Conditlonsl Use Permit Na. 1%t~b~ subject to petitioner's stipulatlon that all parking for cmplayees and customcrs w(11 be an the premises; that thc hours of ope~ation will be fr'om B:OU a.m. to 5:00 p,m. ~ Monday through Fr i day , and tl~at al 1 work wf 1 1 be done t ns 1 de the buf ldiny; that the waivcr is hcreby granted on the b+~sis that thc structurc Is existing and has noL adversely impacted Che surroundinc~ uses; an~1 sul,ject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendat!ens. On rol I cal l~ the tore<~oiii~~ resolutio~~ was pa5sed by the fol lowing vote: AY~S: GOMMISSIONERS: BARt~tS~ DAVIO~ NERE35T. JAfiNSON. KING~ LItIN~ TOLAR NOCS: COMMISSIO'IERS: NOf~E AE35ENT: COHMI S~ I Ot~ERS: f10NC I'EM N0. 11 ~ (CAL EX~MPTION-CLASS 1 PUtiLIC HEARING, OKNERS: KARL AND TNElI A. KOLB, 0~ . USE Ei~MI N0. ' 9 i80 Pin~o Place~ Norco, CA 91760. AGENT: CHARLES E. EAGLES~ Iu20 East Edinger~ NI~S- Santa Ana, ..A 97.705. Petitioner requ~sts permission to ESTAaIIStI ~~ REST NOME FOR ALCONOLICS on pro~erty described es a rectangularly-sh~ped parcel of land cohsfstiny of appraximately 0.2 acre lacateo a t the northwest ca rner of Chestnut and West Strects. having approximate frontages ~~f 1>~~ f~et on the nortli side of Chestnut Street and 70 fcet on th~ west side of west Street~ and further descrlbed as 12~ South West StrePt, Property presently ciassified PD-C (PARKING DISTRICT-COMMFRCIAL) 2~NE. There were approx~n~ately 19 persons indicatiny the(r presence in opposition to subject request~ and al thoug~i the st~ff repor: ;o thc P lanning Commi ssion dated December 19~ 1977 was not read at the pub 1 ic I~ear i nr~~ i t i s refer rcd ta and made a part af the mi nutes, Frank Rose indir.ated he lives in Anaheim and is President of the Board of Directors fpr the Colonial Manor Halfway Houses~ Inc.: that t h(s organlzation has a dues-paying membershlp of 23~0'10, wlth 6.000 reslQiny irt A~ahefm, He inJ(cated he was not aware of any oppos i t i on to th i s locat i on unt i 1 tf~ I s af te~nuon and that had he bren aware of the opposttio~, he would have brought 2.000 people wiCh hlm to support the petition; that th~ proposed use on the praperty is ~ place for a person who has been drinking to go and get the pressure off and clear his t~ead and then q-- back to his family; anci that they are not preposi~g a pia.ce for derelicts or drunken bums, Ile Indicated he had tried to explaln to a lady in the lobby what an alcoholic is and that the terminology or lauel of a drunken 12/19/7~ MIIIUTE.S. ANAHEIM CITY PLI~NNING C~MMISSION~ December 19~ 1~)77 7~'~i74 EIR CAT~GORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 A~IQ CONDITIONAL USE PCRMIT N_0._1_ a~ (continucd) bum ~r dere 1 1 ct doas n~t app ly . ~le i ~d t catcd ho woul d b~ concerned 1 f saneone p roposed to establlsti sor,~eth(n~~ in his nPighborhood if he felt tt,ere waa going to bC bums th~:re~ but that tiiey dicl not prop~~se to do that a[ this locatlan. Ne rr_ferrec! to a sirnllar operation on lemon S:reet and stated severAl pec~ple wer^ prrsent to relate tt~~I~ Improssipns of that c,pr,rat i o~. 11G I nJi cntc:d that feci l i ty has bcen cleanc~J ~ap and h~s had a goo~l ef fect ~n the neighborhooJ. H~ indicat~~~f he would ~(ke to invite those peaplr, present who are opposed to thc pr~pcased far.i 1( ty to vl s 1 t the loca• ion at 7~~3 ~~orth Lemon Street and talk w I th the ne I yhbors ~ anJ tl~ey wou 1 d te I 1 them wlia t k 1 nd of f oc i 1 1 ty ( t i s. Gerald i3ush~re~ J1a West Llncoln Avenuc~ Anaheim~ stated hc undcr~tood thls hearing was to consi~ler r rest homs but oftcr bcing here and listening, hc fclt i t is to consider A halfway house. Hc r,ointed out there havc been two othur lialfway hou~cs (n Anahp~m that have been dlabanded, He Indic~ced he wa~ not opposed to group homcs or inyth(na simt lar on a well-run pruyram~ but that hc fclt the house ~n Lert~n Street should not bc ta~en into cons i de rut 1 on ns i t i s not thc proposa 1~ tha t thc d f scuss i on shou 1~i t>c regard i ng tiic house on Wes t SC rect, Hc stateJ lie fe 1 t 1 t dacs nc~t work f~r an al coho 1 i c hr~ I fway housc to be in a resldential nelyhhorhoo~J. He stated there is a facility at the corncr of Lemon and 8 roadway run by l1) cohol ( cs Anonymous where these peop 1 e can go. M e d 1 d not f ee 1 a person should bc making a profit out of other pe~ples' misfortunc~ and th~t there erc other programs run by tl~c State~ County~ ecc.~ whcrc thesc neoplc can go and c~et profestiona) help. Myrna F3eacl~ stated she lived ocross tl~e str~et frorn the proposed facl i ity, Sh~ tndlcated this was a recovery home that su{~~osedly w( 11 bP a place for peop 1 e to dry out frc,r a drunk. She statecf they have been tolcl by thie Pianning Department t.hat the police will be bringi ng people to this place; tnat they wi 1 ~ be ir~toxicaen_d and since they are intoxieated~ it ts unlil.ely tl,ey w(11 be comina peaceahly and qui~tly. She painted out there i s haavy trefflc on Nest Street end they have a quiee neighborl~ood and fe~t the police coming et odd hours wo~ld be a nuisance. Sh~• stated tfie proponents propos~^ that the place w( I I not appear to be anyt~iing out of the ~~clinary. but yet she remcmbers a halfway house that was clased down on South Claudi~a Street because the ne(ghbors complained about di-turbances. She qucstloned the sincerity of the proponents and indicated they have stetea there wi 11 be no counseling services but stated ttiey had applied to the Menta) ilealth Department for a contract with thP StaCe for support~ whict~ requl ~es tralned counselors to be on the premises 2~+ haurs a day. She ind(cated the enviro~mental impact r~port s[ates the only thange in thP curren[ use would be the age differences. and she felt there was rmre than ttie age differences between drunks and elderly people who are simply unable to maintaln their own homcs and need some asslstance in caring f~r tt~emselves. She indicated they have no objections to the present use of the !+,-~perty. She indicated the petitianer had ~nentioned that Khen they moved into the nc I ghb orhood 1 c was us ua 1 1 y cl eaned up ind she d 1 d noc fec 1 the i r ne i ghborhoad needed cleaning up~ that it looks pretty nice now. Ms. Beach presented a petition with 73 signatures~ stating the reasons for opposition to the proposed use, J. .!. Tashiro, Assistant Planner~ read the petitlon, and subJect petitlon is on file in the Planning Department. Tom MeDonaugh~ 123 South West Street~ Anaheim~ indica[ed he lived in the house directly north of subJect property and that he has work~d ln a socfal detoxification atmosphere and warted the Commisslon to know that this is not a quiet, normal home atmosphere; that these people are brought to the house intoxicateci or drugged and are subJect to vtolence. He stated it was inconceivable to him that 20 people could be squeeied into this home; tha[ tlie report states lt is 4000 square feet, but he did not think i t was tl~Is big. ~z1~9/77 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COhWIS510N. Qecember 19~ 1977 77-875 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANU CONOITIO~~AL USE PERMIT N0. 1789 (conttnued) ~~illard Walton~ 121 S~uth Illinois Street~ Apt. 2~ Anahelm~ r~ferred to the staff report ana statod the request was fpr a rest h ane for alcoholics and pointed out An elcohollc does not need rest, lie needs a doctor because he is a sick man ond if hc needs re~t~ he can get tli~t at home. Conterning thc statement that there ~re seven bedrooms and one bath, he IndicateJ hc dld not sec haw 20 pcople In ~ev~n bedro~ms wlth one bath would be a good 5(tuetion. lie stated he felt thls was like a~~ inv(tatl~n to all alcoholics to the tommunlty and that it aays~ "Comr. to ilnaheim~ ge. drunk, and we'l1 c~lve you a bed to s1eQp in and a place to rest." Ile Indicated lie did not think one employee could hnndle 2~ drunks. Ile polnted ou! the averac~r acte in this eres is E~7 yta~rs nf age for the Area along Illin~fs~ Ohii~~ West Strer.t~ etc. Concern(ny the staterient that the pol!ce will escort the occupants to tlieir Jwelline~~ I~e Inc~(cate:l he liad talE.ed wlth Sgt. Specl: at the Pollce O~~partment ancl that tl~e pol ice ~lready have problems because of the ~F1f~~CIlC55 and the growth in Anahslm~ an~i he felt the police had murc importAnt things co do than plck u~ drunks anJ take them tc~ this h~~m~. He lndicated he felt this home sh~uld be plbced near eocktail lounge:s and m.~ssaye parlors rather than in a residential area. Delrnar Pebley~ representinq his motfier who lives at 12~3 South uest Strect~ Anahelm~ stated she had livcd ti~ere 2~ years and owns a triplcx with an clderly couple and an elderly lady; that she ~.nl.es tlils licr ~>crmanc~~t home. {le incficated she has fel t comfortable ln thls nefght~orhood and has bcen ablc to live alone tl~cre~ and tha[ hc would I(ke to see the ne(ghb~rhuod I.ept this w~y. Ile indi~ated he had frlends who were alcoh~~llcs and realized Chey have a real problem and that we neeci places for these peoplc~ but hc felt they shoul~ be in a controlled area like a huspital, nursinci huRic~ etc. Ilr_ indica[ed this area is made up predominately ~f older peoplc. and he fc~t to put this homc in this area woul~ cause problems for a lut of ~~eople wh~ were tryiny co make a decent place to 1(vc. Ile referred to [he problem af' these alcol~nlics u~ctin~~ drunk. and driviny around looking for this hotne. Ne Indicatcd he felt it woul~i be a mistal:e to allow them in this quiet nelyhborhaod tha[ these pcople have str(ve~1 to rn:-intain. Ruby kdmandst~n~ 1130 West Center Strcet. Anah~i~n~ indic~ted thai all the people in oppasition are elder!y peuple but that !here are youny cl~il~ren in the area wt~o play around the block, an~1 that tl~ey were concerncd wlth transient people coming Into the area who m(gh[ be danyerous tu the children, Gail Stroud~ 2l1 Ncst Wilhelmina Street~ Anahelm, indicated that sl-~e lived next door to the house on Lemnn Street referred to earlier anJ shc was sorry to see so many misconceptions; that tl~e~~ have never seen a person who has been drunk and rowdy outside this factlity; that there was more noise ccx~~ing frorti other residents in the area than from the halfway liousc on Lemon St~ect. Alice Sh~rp~ 7d9 Nortti l.eman Street~ Anaheirh~ indicated she lived next door to the halfway house and that they have never seen an alcoholic on tite outside and have never seen a policeman brinyinc~ tlie drunks into the house or taking them out~ and that these people in opposition who did not want to live with the alcoholics are wrong, A gentleman from che. audience (ndicated he had not discussed the situation of the Mouse on Lemon Street because it was for women and was not a detoxification center; that these peop)e were brouyht to this home after tt~ey had sobered up a little Lit and it was exclusiveiy for wanen. He indicated it is a nice-looking place from the outside. Raymond Miller~ 700 West Cente~ Street~ Anaheim~ indicated he is purchasing xhe property and that there are a lot of misconceptlons about th!s facility; that he has never seen a police car roaring down the street wlth a siren on~ taking someone to a halfway hause or a detoxif(cation center; that these people are asked if they want to go here and they remain qutetlY to withdraw from alcohol. He indicated he could understand the oppositinn's 12/19/77 MINUI'CS~ ANANEIM CITY i'LANNING COMMISSION~ pecember lg. 1977 77-8y6 EIR CIITCGORIGIL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AHO CONUITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 178~ (continued) de~s 1 re to prot~ct the f r p~ope rty ~ protect the e 1 der I y and the ct~ 11 dran ond he apprec f ated it, but he did not fcel ch~ey have the ful I knawledye of wfiat wos yoing to be d~ne, and i ndl cated he was an e I ceihol ( c and tha t th I s ( s e nreded center; tha t the property i s I n an industrtal zone~ and he wanted to ur•ge the Commisslon to approve the resolut ion al Idwing th(s use at this locetlo~~~ that there would be no harm done. P lady from the audience ~tated th(s prope~ty is not. (n An indust.riai zone, Mr. Rnse stated there are Four baths in the liause and I t does have seven or elght bedrooms (thcre was a response f rom the aud i ence that th ( s was not the casc) . Fle i nd i catcd he still felt the problemwas a misun~lerstending of thc terminolo~~y and misconceptlon of what an alcohol lc (s. Ile indicate~l ttiat ~ie and I~is two sons. i l and 15~ spend most hol ideys elther tn a recovery horne wi th the occupants ~r at ~t~ei r own home, that they are constantly around sober alcahol ics~ and Cl~at tils cl~ildren da not use dope or drugs of any tyne~ do not drink~ anJ are "A" studenls. Ile indicated that an aicohc,lic is a pr~son who does not drink and are not dru~sken bums. Ne stnted th(s program is not capitalizing on other peoples' misertes, ti~~ stated the fact was brought up th~t thcy had asked fvr an RSP fram the State and County ot' Orange and inclicated this was true~ that they had asked for $200~000 for tfils detoxif(catton center and the bud~et for tliis fac(lity w~uld be S2S3~~~~. and the 23~Op0 dues-payfng members would be payinc~ thc difference of $53~000 to keep thts cQnter go(ny, Ne Indica[e~i th~re is a need for khe ctnter in Anaheir~; that ~30~ of the arrests by the police clPpartme.~t ~rr drunks in Analieim. fie indicated It is i llegal to arrest a person for beiny drunk; and disorderly and that corranunitics are goin~ to have a lot of stck people laying on thc streets unless they develop soc(al proe~rems to takc care of them. He indfcated that mention was rru~de these alcoholics helong in a medlcal setting~ but that with~irawai from alco'nol is casierin ahome setting. He scatrd that the facility on Lemon Streec ts a detox(fi~:atlon center for f~males. He referred to a faelli[y on Claud(na Stree[ that was dlsb~+nded bec~~use it was a dirt•~ hou°~, Ne indlc~ted thcre would be three ur four staff inen~bers at the proposed site, fie ;tated he does no[ draw a salary f rom th i s organ i za t 1 fln, Nc s ta ted f,c fe 1 t th~ oppos 1 t i on was co~r-.erned and that the concerns wera jusilfied, but that tliey should talk with tf~e people whc~ are famlliar with tiie Lemon Street f3cility and maybs their ideas of what an alcoholic is Is wrong. He stated he dld noC fee) alcohol ics are moral ly sick and they certainly should not be put in a location wi th a massagc parlor. Rick Ehler~ 6239 San Ramon~ Eiue~na P~rk, indicated he worked for the County of Orange Department of Alcohol ism and that what Mr. Rose had said regarding the centers was t~ue~ and he had worked in a detoxification center in a residential area in Santa Ana~ and the neiyhbors were very support i ve of cl~ i s fac i l i ty and they never f~ad any prob l ens w i th t.he nelyhbors. He ind(cated the County had run a center 1 ike thls but they found it could be run less expensively by thP ~ri~at+: sector~ and that the facility is neeJed and there is a demand for It. Ct~arles Eagle~~ 8usiness Administrator for Colonial Manor Halfway I~ouses, Inc. (a n~n- profit organization) for approxarnately one year~ rerterred to ttie floor plans for tlie subje~.' h~use and noted ttiere are more baths than indicated, TI~E PUE~LIC fiEARIN; WAS CLOSEG. Mr. Eagles pointed cu[ the baths on the plans for the Commf ssion and xhern was a general discussion between Mr, Rose, the Comm(ssion~ Mr. Eagles. and the former awner of the property~ Ann Knapp~ 418 South Illinois Street~ Anahetm, regarding the number of baths~ with Ms. Knapp poinLing out that bachrooms had been built into sc~me of tfie closets. 12/19/77 ~ ~yINUTCS. AI~A~IEIM CITY PLNNNiNG COMMiSSION, December 19~ 1977 77-g7'l Elk CATCGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDIi1QtiAl. USE PERNIT N0. 1789 (contlnued) Chalrman Toler Indicuted that certair- requlrern~ents must be mst In order t~ 9et State asslstance or County assistnnce for this type facility~ and Mr, Eagles r~plled that some~ne fr~m thc State and the License f3~ard had Inspectc~f tt~c house ancf 1 t ~~ad r~et with thelr appraval. f1e fndic~ted thGrc ar~: iia cour~seling sessi~~ns or anythtng of thAt nature. Chairma~n Tol~r askcd Ma. lfeach, wh~ had indicated that the c~c~vernment subsidized programs~ county~ s[ata or city~ requ(re that a counsplor be on the prcmises 2~~ I~ours a day. wt~ere she fi~d ~~otten that (nformatlon, a~d Ms. Bcach re~lied that she had talked with Aclolph Kn~uff with the St~te Meiital Ilealth Uopartment~ and f+e had talJ her that the only way they would glvQ a contract wa~s if the~,~ had a[rained person tu counsel these people on the premises 2~+ h~urs a day, Comm(ssfoner Linn asked if pcoplc would bc arriving at this fac,ility any i(r~e~ dny or nic~ht, ~nd Mr. Rose repited that thty wouiJ. Commissioncr David asked if therr was any Ghargc to tl~c r~:sidcntz~ end Mr, Rose r~~rll~d that this is based on thcir ability to pay; that i f thcy can ef tord i t, thc County woul d ask Chem t~ pay. Chalrrnan Talar inJicated he felt cverybody is in sympachy wtth this neecl~ that everybody wants 1[ for thei r ci ty ~ buc nohody wants i t next daor to tliei r residc:nce. Concern~ny thc fnformatior, th~t a c.~~unselor is required~ Mr. Ehler stated that he thought thc confusi~n was thc definltian of a GounselAr; that tlie ~eople must be tralned and have experlence In workiny in a socl~~l detoxific:,~tion center and would bc required to have some sensitlvlty to the alcoholic. Chalrman 1'olar clarlflFd ttiat the~c~ are no work. scssions~ ar~d Nr, f.hler replied that is correcc. Commissioner David asked what i, t`~e :rnpulse or the end item whicl~ is the declslon not to drink; that he sees this as mercly providiny a tiomc-likc atmasphere for someo~e who has drunk too much and needs co be dPtoxifird, and asked (f there was any type of counsel(ng that would keep hiin from r~p~eati;~y this. Mr. Rose p~in[ed out Lhat what takes place ts a peer pressure emong the residents; tt~at [hey start to talk about therm cives and share thetr experlences; that ttie staff does not volunteer any (nformatiun~ that a person has ta ask for information. Commissfonpr Oavid stated it is the ~ntc~r-actlon amony the residen[s~ and Mr. Rose replled ttiat is Correct. Chalrmon Tolar asked how lony a perso~ normally st~ys on the property~ and lir. Rose ~eplied from flve to ten days; tfia; they are nut outside the premises. Chalrman Tolar asked how thsse peaple are restricted~ and Mr. Rose replied that when a person is at the center~ he c!oes not feel llke c~oing out and walking around the block. Commissioner Herbst asl:ed Mr. Rose what had happened [o the homes for which he had previously requested permits frorr. thc Planning Comrnission. and Mr. Rose repliGd that there had been a hom~ on Anaheim Boulevard and thai it wes still there. He stated th~y had applied for two facilittes for federal grants to ramodel two other homes and Ch at the leases had not been extended, 11e inditated that a federal grant was approve~~ for the home on Anaheim ~oulevard and the owners had not extended the lease. and that that hac; been dropped because the house did not come up to health and safety stendards. 12/19/71 d .. MINUTES~ 11NAHEIM CITY PLANNINf COMMISSION, Decembcr 1~~ 197y 77~878 EIR CAiEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONUITIONAL IiSE. PERMIT Y0. 1789 (cAntl~ued) ~~. .~~. ~..._... Lommissianer l3arnes Indicated It was hard for her to moke ~ moti~n bec~use shc was In sympathy wir.h the necd for thla facility and sha felt the Car-~,isslon wos aware of the dafinitlon of slcoholism, but she also understood tha concerns of the people In the araa. Slie indicated that (n the tnterest of good planning~ shC was concerncd about (a) the sizo of the building and (b) the nurtber of pcople going into the facility and if there sre eddltional bathroom facilttles, She Indicated that at ftrst when she haJ thought there was one bathroom~ it was obvlous this wes not the plece and wns not :ure faur bathroams for 20 people was adequate. She indicat~ed she would likc to sec thc peoplc ln the area and the petit(nn~r get t~sgethe!r and discuss thls because in the past it has been helpful. She did not feel it would do any harm since the matter would be hrou~ht back before the Planning Cnmmisslon, and if the problems exlst and no solutlo~ has been found~ Chen the Commiss(on can either deny or approve the request. She indtcated thc~re is a larqe socla) prOblem wlth elc~hnlism rnd ah~+ frit it w~uld h~ th~ h~imanP thing to c1o~ to c~ntinue the matter so that ne(ghbo~s and the pet(tioncr c~n d(scus~ (t. Commissioner Linn Indfcated he would a~~ree~ but that f~e would like ste~ff send scx~ic~~ne ~ut to get an accurate description of the ho~~se In terms ~~f bathrooms~ etc, ACTION: Crxnmissi~ner dernes offered a moti4n~ seconded by Cammissioner t.inn and MOTION ~~D (Cornmissioners Tolar and Johnson voting no~ and Commissioner King being absent), that consfderation of the aforerr~n~ioned item be continued to thP regular meetiny of the P1anning Corr~,iission of Jenuary 16~ 13Jfi, in order for the petlcioner ancl neighbors to dtscuss ti~c proposal. Chairman Tola~ indicated he cou1J not support the cc~ntfnuance bnc~use as far ~s land use is co~cerned~ lic: frankly felc tl~is was r~ot the place for this type of f~cility; that It was too impounded with residential usc and even thauyh it is a non-pr~fit organizatlon~ tt indicates that it is a busincss of some sor•t with full-time emplc~yees on the premises, and he did not feel a contfnuance was yoiny co chanye his opinion of a land use. COMf115SI0NERS KIt~G At1U JUfINSOt! LEFT 7HE MtETItIG AT ~:25 P.M. RECE55 There was a ten-minute recess ot 5:25 p.m• ~____ RECON'JENE The meettnq reconvcned at 5:35 p.m.~ witfi all Commissioners being present except J~hnzo~ and Y.ing being absen[. 12/19/77 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P,~>NNI~IG COMMISSION~ December 1~~ 1977 7)-87~ ITEM N0. 12 E`~tl CA EG RI GAI. EXEMPT I ON-CLASSES 3 F. a PUIiL I C f~EAR I tIG, OWNCRS ; JAHCS R. At~D UARDARA " D. SPIU~GLER~ ~~3~ S~uth Avenida Faro, An~heim, •- ~- - ~11 gZgp7. Peti~loner reyuesis WAIVER OF A MAXIMUM 41AL1 Hf.IGl1T AND (B) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETUACM. 70 RCTAIN AN EXISTING 6-FOOT HIGtIIi~OGK WALL on nr~perty described as a i'ectangularly- shapeJ parcel of lancf conststing of approximatcly t335Q square feet l~cated aG the southwest c~rner of Calle Canada anJ Avenida Faro~ I~aving approximatc frontages of il!- fect on the south side of Calle Canads and b~ fcet on tlic west sid~ of Avenida FAra~ ancl further descrlbed as 43S South Avenida Faro. Property presently classlf(ed RS-HS-10~~00(SC) (Rf:510ENTIAL~ SI~IGI,E- FAMI LY H I LLS I UE~SI.EII I L CORRI DOH OVE:RLl1Y) 7.Ot~E. There was one pers~n indicating her presence in opposi[ion to subject reque5t~ and altl7ough the steff repurt tc~ thc Pl~nnin~~ Commisslon d~ited Occcmbcr i')~ 1~77 wa:~ not read at th~ publl~ I~earin<~~ it is rcfr_rred te ~~~ m.~~~~ ~ 4»rt of thc minutes. Ron Spanyler~ thc; petitioner~ st.i.ec1 that in addition to the information submitted with the petitton. he warited tc~ ad~S that he had yotlcn his homcarners ~ssotlation approval fnr the wall; that City pcrmits were issue~ ond the slte inspected twice; that 33 homeowners have sign~d ~ pstltlon statiny thcy were in full agrcement with thr. wail; ancl tliat he has received unt~nfmous apprav~l from the H111 and Canyon Nunicir~l lldvlsory Committce (IIACMl1C) fnr the wall. Oarbara flnpkins~ ~620 Calle Canad~~ Anat~cim~ statr_d shc lived in t.f~c house next ~~oor on ~he other side of the existing 6-foot wall~ ~nd shc indicatcd she was amazed tha~t 33 nefgh;~ors had signed the petitio,. since there werc only six houses ~n the cul-de-sac that wouid be disturbcd by th~ wall; that she knew of two o[h~~r fAmilies who were unhappy with tlie walt and had not received nntice of the hearing and che property notlce had been removed from tF~e property after Ic waa postr.d. She ind(c~~tcd her big obJection to the wall was the faGt that it was impossible for th~m [o liave full visibility backing out of their driveway. She referred to th~eir liability involved with t~itti~<a another car or a child. She state~i that two of the nuighbors had forhidden their cfillciren to w~lk on that side of the streei because they were not tall anough to be seen by c~ars backing out. Concerning Mr. Spangler's privacy~ sh~ inciicatt.d that when a person buys a hane in thP canyon, they relinquish a certain ~mounc ~f privacy. She indicated she had approached Mr. Spangler regardiny th~ installation of a wrought-frun fe~ce Hhen they had their pool installed but that he ~~ad told her he would be llving there temporariiy and was not Interested. She stated she was co~ccrncd about not only the present owners of these propertles but future owners and tticir liability wi[h the wall blocking the visibility. Mr. Spangler indicated that five out of the six houses loca[ed a~ the cul-de-sac had Signed [he petitlon~ agreciny with the installation of the wall~ aod that Mr. and Mrs. Nopkins dld not si4n the petitlon. He indicated that the notice of the publtc heari~g had not been rertwved; that it had been placed in the front and was still an tlie property in front of the mailboxes~ in fuli vic.~w of the public. Regarding the traffic hazard~ he referred to a diagram of the ~;ui-de-sac and the property whicl~ is located on the lefY side of the street. He indicated this ls not a major t~affic area~ with only 40 houses in the tract~ and that a car backing out of the driveway would back out onto the left-hand side of the street and oncoming traffic comes up ehe right-hand side of the street~ so he did not feel the view is btocked. He referred to the pictures which had been submitted~ ind(cating there is a full view of the complete block from the driveway and also a view of the sldewalks with the cars still parked. Concerning the easement. Mr. Spangle~ indicated he had checked with the electrical and telephone compa~ni~hcasd~e~eendawater`run upttarthe were no wires over that portton of the property. , front of the house~ and as far as the variante request for an casert~cnt~ fie felt that ~ 12/19/77 h MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CpMMIS510N~ December 19, 1971 77-880 Elit CNTEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CI.ASSES 3 t', ~-4ND VARIItNCE N0. 2i8K (continucd) should be easlly obtaincd because t-~e:re ere no electrica) lines, water~ sewer~ etc.. on that side of the property. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Chairma~ T~lar asked Mr. Spangler if thc contractur had been aware they w~re building i~ an casemcnt when f~e i»d built tha fence. Ha Indicated he dlcl not ~gree with the harclshiq that the f~nce wes al~eady up~ nnd askad why Mr, Spangler ha~f nat considered a wrought- iron fence or something of thAt nature. Mr. Spangle:r indicated consideration was actu~~lly tl~at the structure is a~.,proximately 18 feet from the sidc~+alk ~+nc: th~~t a wrought•irc~n fcncc wi il al lcaw no privacy at al l. He indicated that bcfore t~~cy had decided on a part(cular type of wail~ they had driven around Anahclm Nills and suhc~itted threc pt-c~tographs ~f similar walls; tha[ they hAd g~tten th~ IdeA fr~m what other people~ had ~fon~ on their propercy with simi'a~ reversed corncr lots. Chalrman Tolar indicated Ic was difficult for liim ta accept the fact that Mr. Spangler had stated there were only sir. houses on the cul-de-sac~ and he did not frel the 6-foot block wal l would I~ave an ( 1 I ef fect on them~ but that the si x I~ousc:s do have sn t I l effeet on hts own prlvacy. Mr, Sptmglr.r (ndic.z:ed tliat sittiny in the b~eakfast nook or the family rnom~ the passersby can wave from thc sidewall:, C1~a(rman Tolar asked Mr. Spangler if he was aware he could not put up a fence when he had bought the property~ and Mr. Sp~nglPr repiied that the fence could ~o up' hut the h^.ight of th~ wall (s the pr~~blem and~ according to the Ctty ordinance~ he u~uld have a wall 42 Inchess htgh hut felt a 42-i~ch wall would not pravide any privacy. Commissioner Linn ln.iicated that, obviously~ thc petittoner had bought the property in tt~e daylight and did se~ tt~e v(ew when he luoked at it; and tha~ whe~ you are in the hill and canycm area~ y ou rellnc~ulsl~ your privacy in your back yard with houses looking down the hil) into your yer~j. Fle stated he had driven oround the cul-de•sac and would not want to d~ive a car out of che driveway ~f tfie neighbors next door. Mr. Spanglar indi~;,~ted the liouse is on a cul-de-sac in full view ~f the street and sidcwalks. Ne s.ated thls wall dcses not block the vlsiblity of those people driving out of :heir drivew~.y. Chairman 7olar indicated that people buyiny homes in the canyon area are buying them for the view~ and ;liat is one of th~ reasans why block walls are avoided. He referred to a similar situation when a car had backed out into the st~eet with a block wall similar to this wail~ an~j tt~e driver ~as given ~~ ttcket or citation fnr backing ouc lnta o~caming [~afflc~ and when asked the safe speed for backiny out~ tf~e answer was Zero. He indicated that when you back into oncoming craffic~ the responsibility lies with yo~. and he thinks that is the neigl~bo~'s concern. Gortmissiuner Harnes indicated that bushes or si~rubbery could he planted aY anw helght and asked Mr. Spanyler if he had ccrosider~d landscapi,~g. Mr. Spangl~r replied t--at the expense rrould have been less; that this is a slumpstone fence. Commisstoner aarnes polnted out that by building the fence. he had expanded his yard by 3 feet. Mr. Span,yler s ta[eci thc permi t was i ssued by the C i ty and i t was not thei r i ntent to expand their yarci and tl~at in selling their property, lt would not raiss or lower thc vaiue of this property. Concerning the traffic, he seated~ again, this is a cul-de-sac 12/19/77 .,~ r• ~ MINU7E.~ ANANEIM CITY PLAN~IING CONNISSION, l~ ccmber 19, 1~77 ~~~Q~~ EIR CATEGORIC_AL CXEMPTIQN•~CLASSES 3 6 5 ANO VARIANCC N0. 2~88 (continuc~J) ._._..~.~_. -----~-- ------ - street end r.he cars woulci oe backi~y <~ut on the left-hand siclc of the street and oncomin~ traffic would be on the rlyht-hand sidc of the street. Cartmissinn0o whererther,^were~goin9~,r~ndefe~rt~~itQwasf ~Qdargero~us situationnwhenttheyirun by attcntio t Y thls block wall. Mr. 5panglcr pointed out tfiat thP wall is set back 2-1/?. fcet from thc sidewvlk for 9 faet and th~t the view whilc the Nopkins are tn their drivc:wway Is 1,~ excess of 40 feet. Ne stated he thougl~t it was a qucscl~n of how much visii~llity is rnally necdad and he would never have had the w~ell c~nstructe:a wlth any negligcnce to aciyo~e. Cortimissio~~er Herbst dskrJ if tltie C( ty h~d yiven P!^1'miSS~n~ for him to t~ut the wall at that location and if he 'iaJ submittCd drawings of tl~e fence at ihat locatlon. Mr, Span<~ler re~lled that he dae,s have a perm(t and lhe descriptiun of the wall is on the permit. lie indicated he had discussed this with thc superv{sor of the two ins~ectors who had i7spected thr, wall, a~d [hat he had saEd if thase twa men had pessed it with thcir expesr(ence, there was nothing to worry about and the next thing he k~cw. he had a violatto~. Lommissioneen~~earretnot`checking property binesiandithat~itrisaup toeiheCp~~pertYtowner. dltth only Mf. Spanqler stated tl~at filiny for an easement wouid only seem to hfrn to be a formality because there were no publ fc uti 11 tY wi res or sewer l ines thern„ Ne felt the c4ncern is for the wall and whether or noC it is a safe structure for the community. Commissioner Nerbst Indlca[ed that F~eee the wall is actually block~9blockednthef-stght and intr.rferinc~ with soMebody else; that when he put the wall up~ neighbor's llne~of-sight. Ne fclt it could i,e vcry ~:aslly solved; that portion of the fence could come down a~d wr•ought-iron w uld be pu[ up. Mr. Spangl~r aik~dcated~that'as fartas the1resipo~si5ilityaShehhaf,ASkedss~me~nertotinspect the wall. Ne the wail. Commissloner Herbst asked Ronald Thompson, Planning D(rector. if the inspectors check property lines~ and Mr. Thompson replied that they normally do~ but (t is hard wherc the sidewalk ls adjacent to the curb. He indicaLed it is possible an er~or was made in the meas~~rement. Commissioner Barnes asked how fa~ the neigtibor's driveway was from ths beginning of the wall, and Mr. Spangler replied that it was 13-1/2 feet and is set back 2-1/2 feet from the normal f'lc~w of the s i dewai k. I1 the Commissioner Barnes indicated this was a tot~l of 21-1/2 feet the neighbor has unt wo11 canes to the sidewalk. She indicated st~e kept going back to her original thought that the petit~°thatc~she could nothsee whatgwouldhbebaccomplishedeby~having~themuteara~e no control ove . down the `ence. Jay Titus~ Office Engineer~ Rointed out the City would have control over anything they pla~t within the public right-of-way.e~ta~nsftotwalls,tfences andkhedg~sJ~ J' Tashiro pointed out that the 42-inch heigh. p t~/19/17 ~y MII~UTFS~ ANAHEIM ClTY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ December ~9~ 1q77 77'882 E1R CATEGORICAL EKEMPTIQN-CLASSES 3 b 5 AND VARIANCE NO_. 2~0~ (contlnued) Commissioner Nerbst sugc~estad putting the fence at an anglo across the lot and tlien add(ng lsndscapiny around the poles; that the line-uf-sight aould bu the impnrtant thing; that it could came to a point and ongl~: streiyht across wich Icrv-lying shrubhery around the poles so that when a pe~son is sittin~ in the driveway in f~is c~r~ bafure the rtar bumper would mect the sidowaik~ the person driving the ca~ would have o Ilne-of-si~hc. Commiss~loner Bbrnes Indicated she did nc~t. knaw of any driveway where people have full vlslbiltty or f~il line-~~f-sight. Mr. Spanyler referred to a photogrAph which hn tiad presented which indicates the drlver of a vehicle would heve a full view of th~e entire sldewalk down ta the corner. Ms. Hapkins a~ked to see the photoqraph anJ polnted out that is was taken from the sidewalk end nut from thc driver's polnt nf vicw. Mr. Spengler odcJed the photograph was tab:en from the driveway of Lot 2~~~ which is hehind the intersection~ and he wc~ndereJ what woul~ be ec.~cxnpl isl~r.d i f tI-r wal 1 was torn down en~f tut at an angle w(th the hardshlp and expense involved, when you can actually see to the cornrsr br,fore a car entcrs ~he street. Commissioner Ilerbst polntcd out the Commissian (s trying to satisfy both parties; th~t they are trying to protect f~is privacy and prov(de thc ncl~hbor with a tlne~of-sight. tle indicated he did noC ag~ee wi tt~ the pl~otographs. Commtssioner David ask:.d if the fact the City staff had issued the permits hed bny t~eariny~ and Jack White~ pcputy Ci[y Attorney~ point~d out chat ic does not mstter; that the City cannot be held responslbl~ for [he unforcunate issu.~nce of a bulldtng permit illegally; that ttiey still rnust havc the ability to enfarce thelr own Zoning Code. Mr. Spangler stated that even with thc hardship and the expense involved and taktng in gaod feith the lssuance of the builciin~~ permft~ that if stipulations f~ad been made in the beginniny~ they would have be~:n adficrcd to. He did n~t fcel the visibil(ty is blocked. Commissioner Linn (ndicated he would like co offe~~• a motion to deny the request since the existing wall creates visual p~oblems and sane adjustments must be made. Commisstoner Herbst stated he would ltke to see the request approved with modtficatlons. and Commissioner David fndicated he would rathcr see it modifled than denied, l:ommissioner Barnes suyyested Lhe variance be approved~ denying watver (a) and granting ~,vaiver (b), and leaving it up to the Traffic Engineer to detFrmine the palnts to where the fence should be lowered. Ms. Nopkins lndicated her main concern wes the Ilabiltty; they did not thirsk to bring photographs shuwiny thc cha~ge in tl~e view from what they uscd to have before the wall was constructed. Annika Santalahti. Assistant Director far Zoning~ pointed out that in this particular aone~ which is RS-NS-IO~OQO~ A normal rear yard setback would be 10 feet, an~ sa they could construct a garage located 10 feet from the rear property line. She stated that to csstablish a point where a gera~e would be located 10 feec from the re.ar property line~ 6 f'eet from the street. and then draw a diagonal Ifne at a 45-degree angle from the rear t~ the side property line, that would be the point where a garage c~uld legally be constructed. She indicated a building could have been constructed that would have cre~ted a visual buffer that would be simitar to the fence. t 2,119/77 MINU7E5~ ANAHEIk CITY PLANNING CQhWISSION~ December 19~ 1977 17-883 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 3 b 5 ANG 'JARIANCE N0. 2~88 (conttnued) Chalrn-an Tolar po(nted out thot to give the Ilnc-of-sight es discussed would probably put a lot of the pet(tlonsr's lot outslJa tl~e fence~ which he wauld not malntaln, and Ms. liopkins statod thet the slo~~es are mnintained by the hameowners association. Commiss(oner Darnes InJlceted that ratl~er than have him tear down that portian of the fence~ he could lower that arca of the fencc and put in a wrouqht-iron addltton and then could landscepe thc Insidc. Chatrman Tolar asked Mr. Spangler if he would stipulate ta remove down to 42 inches from that cornar and put wrought ir~~n from ~-2 inches to G feet wfiere the Ilne-of-sight is affected wh(ch would still givc hlm the privacy anJ yivc thc neighh~r thc Ilnc-of-,tc~ht~ and it woutd be cheaper than takiny dawn thc wall and bulldlnc~ !t at An ~~qle. Mr. Spangle~ agree~l ta do thts. It was noted tl~at thc Dircctor of the Planning Department has determined tf~at the proposed ectivlty falls within the deflnltlon af Sectlon ;i.~1~ Classes 3 and 5~ of the C(ty ~f Anahelm Guideltnes to thc Requ(r~ments for an Environmr.nt~~l Impact Report an~i (s, therefore~ categorically exempt from t~ie requirement to f(Ie ~n EIR. ACTION; Cwnmissioner darnes off~red Resolution No, PG77•28£~ and movcd for its adapt on~ that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Cammission do~:s I~ereby grant Petition forsage and Varlance No. 29~58~ in p~rt~ qr,~nting waiver (a)~ in part~ to permit a G-foot solid block wall wtChin the requlred setback area along the narth propercy line (Calle Canada) of subject property~ provlded that In urder to matntain an adequate li~e-of-slght for veh(cles exitiny t{~e property to the west, said block wall shall be modified in the follow(n~ r~anner: within the triangle formed by the line connecting two points~ one located 10 feet eastcrly of the west (rear) property line on the north (Calle Lanada) ~raptrty Iinr. and the other located ; feet southerly of the norch (Calle Canada) property line on the wes[ (rear) property Ilne; sald wall shall CiCl~rr be reduced to 42 inches tn overal l iiclyht or st~al 1 be rnc,di f fed to wrought-i ron _yri I 1 work or anotf~er non-vtew-~ obstructing rrwteria) for tlie fenciny between A2 inches ::.~d G Feet (n heiyht; tliat watver (a) is granted~ in part~ on the basis of tfie grade different(al between the street (high) and the rear y~~rd of subject ~roperty (low)~ said difference min(mizing the privacy and recreatlon~) usability of the rear yard because Qf excessive visibil(ty frcxn the aJjacent publfc street; and that walver (b) was determined to be unnecessary; and subjecc to Interdepartrn~ntal Committee r~conmc:ndattons, On roli call~ the foreyoing r~solution was passed by the foll~wing vote; AYES: COMMISSIOIICRS: E3ARt~ES~ OAVIO, HERH5T~ LINN, TOLAR NOES: COHMISSIUNERS: NONE Af35ErlT: COMM I S51 O~IERS : JOHNSOIJ ~ K I NG 12/19/77 4 MINUTES, A~IAt1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Decamber 19~ 1,977 ~~"8g~ I'~EM N0. 1 '~'TR E DECLARAT101~ PUOLIC HEARING. DEVE~.LOPE.R: SfiAMROCK CONTaACTOi~S~ ~~''F"j~'T~""~'~"~'~CTt~10. 1O1G7 INC.~ ~+500 Campus Drive~ Sulte ,36, Newport Eieach~ R~QUF.ST FOa APPROVAL OF REMQVAL Cn 92G6o. ENGINEERs C. A. R~YNOLUS CIVIL ENf,INECR- OF SPFCIMEN TRELS ING~ INC.. 30A1 Redhlll Avenue. Suite 227~ Costa Mosa, CA 9262G. SubJcct property, conslsting of a~proxtmatoly 1(1.2 acres havin~ a frontac~e af approxlmatoly 102£3 feel on the north and east s~des of C~untry Ilill Road~ hAVing a maximum depth of epproximatelY 12~0 fcet, and being located approximately 115~ feet sout!~ of the centerline af Mohler Drive, is proposeJ for o 15-iot. RS-HS-22~000(SC) (RESIDCNTIAl.~ SINGLE~FAMiLY NILLSIpE-SL~NIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZOI~E SUEIDIVISIOt1. TnFre was no one indiceting thelr presence In opposicion tc~ subjcct request, and although the staff report to the Planniny Commission dated Decc:iii~er 19~ 1~77 -vas not rcad at thc public hearing, tt Is referre~i to and rna~~ a part of thc minutes. It was n~ted thHt the H(ll ~~nd Canyan Nunicipal -ldvisory Committee (HACt1A(.) revlewed tl~c above proposal at their meeting of Decemb~r 13~ 1!~77 ~nd wlth 10 committee members present. 6 members were in favor of the cfe~~elopment proposal~ provided thc street easement was obtalned from the property ~+~cr to the narth; that a privatc equestrian easement be considered behind Lvts 2 through 1; [hat Lo[ ~ be edjusted so as not to have such a c.hallow dapth; and t~•ee removai be kept to a minimum. One member concurred with the above, but further indiGated a des(rc to have any Jedicated cque~trian trails tmproved (the applicant indicatr.d dedlcatinn tr~~lls Nere iiot planned to be improved, ~~~ovedhthe would pu~sue the feasibllity of improvement w(th h(s en~ineer); one member app proposal as submittecl~ altl~ough I~e fclt that tree remuval and equestrian tralls should be glven greater considerati:~n; and onc mernber approved of tt}e proposal as submit!ed. Tom Riley~ representing Shamrock Cantractors, Inc., develop~er of the proJect~ indtceted they had not offered to replac~ the trees being removed but that he had reported to 11ACMAC and the 58nte Ana Canyon Property Owners Association that hc would enter into an agreement when he retains a landscape c~ntractor~ ~nd will replace trees es required. CommissionereHe~bs~sGatetco~+tractorraouddndetermiryeiwherehtheyrshould bePplaced.trMr.fRiley tree~ and th la~ P agreed to do tMat. Cortimissianer Herbst ask~d if access to Lot 13 Wouicl be off the private road~ and Mr. Riley stated that subsequen~ ta approval c~f the tract mape Lots 13, 14 and 15 revert to the owner of Lot 15; that they will be Cutly developed lots in accordance wit~ City and County nrdinances and will comnly to ail ordinances. J. Titus~ Cortmissloner Linn indicated his conccrn regarding the i2-foot grade, and J. Offlce Engin~ee~r,e4Ota~n~~~~ae~ondittan bemaddedsthat themgradesiba ap?rov dnbyrtherCity the gra~es n r Engineer. Commisstoner Barnes indicated her concern regar~iEng the trails~ and Mr. Riley lndicated they had met with the representatives of the trails associetion and discusssd tl~e request to have a dedlcated easement at the bottom portion of the property so that people in the Criterion homes could get thelr horses down. I~e stated that HACMAC had suggested an easement to Lots 3~ i+~ 5~ G and 3 so that the people in those t~o butGthed couldCnotsanswer thax they agreed to do this if they could comply wtth the width~ Y that until the final design. He indicated It was a steep grade and they did n~t want to 12/19/77 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ Decr.mber 19, 1977 ]7-88, EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN TENTA7IVE MAP OF TMCT N0. 1016 (continued) make a~y dnep cuts; they would not be oppased beceuse th~y would not ba pe~allzed~ square- footago-~wise~ by glving private easements. Cammissioner pernes Indlcated she felt it was Important that the aasements be provided in order for the people to f~ave access to the trails. Mr. Riley referred to the recommended specificatlon that the horse trails be 10 feet widP ~nd~ as steep as the property is~ he dld not thlnk they could cut that deep, Ccxnmissioner Herbst Iriditatcd he dtd not necessarily see ~ 10-foot wide easement~ but he could see If s~meone f~od a horse [~iey st~ould have some Access to get to a trail; that somet~ady ml gh t bu t I~! e fen r.e and tfien they cou 1 d not ge t th r~~ugh . Mr. Rilcy indicateJ hfa reluctance to agree to any easement was based on the recommanded speclflcatlons of the horse trails conmittee ~hat the space bc 10 feet wlde; that if he had to cut that deep with the downlilll slopes~ it would I~e Imnosslble, Commissloner Ha rnes indicated she felt that If it wera possible to providG Access~ it would be ntcc. Mr. Riley stated he was M~ill(ng to ayree to prnvide an easement. ACTION; Gornmissloner Barnes offered a motion~ seconded by Chairman Toiar and MOTtOP~ ClIR IED, that the Planninq Commiss(on has reviewed thc su6j~sct proposal for a 15-lot~ RS- HS-22,000(SC) (Resi~enttal~ Single-Famlly flillside-Scenic Corridor Overley) l.one subd(vision on property consrstiny of approximately 1~.1 acres havin~ a frontage of app~oxtmately 1ci2~i feet on the nartti and east sides of Country Htil Road~ hav(ng a maximum depth of approximately 1200 feet~ anJ being locattd approx(rt-ately 11~0 feet south of the centerlfne of Mohler Drivc; and docs hcreby approve the Negativc Declaration from the requlrement to prepare an environme~ntal impact report on the basis tl~at there would be no siyniftcant fndividual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negatlve Declar~tion sincc the Anaheim General P)an designates the subJect prop~rty far hillside estate density residencial land uses carxnensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive enviranmen;al impacts are tnvolved in the proposal; that the Initta) Study submitted by the pe[itioner ir~dicates no signtficani lndivldual or cumulatlve adverse envira~rr~ntal (cnpacts; and that the N~gative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findinys is on f(le in the City of Anaheim Planning Dep~rtment. ACTION; Commissione~ 6arnes offered a motfon~ seconded by Commissloner ~inn and MOTION CARRIED (Commission~rs Ktng and Jol~nson betng absent), tl~at thc Anaheim City Plarsning Commissian cioes he~eby flnd that the proposed subdivision, together wtth its design and improvement~ ts consistenC with the City of An~heim's General Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 and daes~ thNrefore~ approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 10167 for a 1~-lat, RS-N5~-22~000 subdivlsiUn~ subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Mnp of Tract Nq, ~0167 is granted subject to the completion of Reclaasification No. 72-73-51, 2. That shauld this subdivision be developed as rnore tl~an one subciiyiston. each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentat(ve form for approval. 3. That a final tract map of subject property shall be s~~hmitted to and approved by the City Councit and then be recorded in the office af the Ora~~~e County Recc:Jer. ~. That the covenants~ condittons. and restrlcttons shall be submitted t~ and approved by the City Acturney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map and~ further~ that the approved covenants~ conditions, and resCricFions shall be recorded concurrently wikh the final tract map. 12/19/77 MI~~UTES~ AtIN1EIM CITY PL~NNlNG COMMISSION~ December 19~ 1977 77'8a~ EiR NEGATIVE DECLAIN TION.~T,ENTA_ TIVE MAP OF_TRACT NO_. 10 67 (continued) 5. 7hat streot na~~s shall t~e approved by t~;^ Clty Planntng Deportment prlor to approval of a f~nal tr~ct map. 6. Thac th~ nwner(s) of subJPCt prope~ty shall pay tu thc Clty of Anaheim ths appropriate park and recre•~t(an in-lle u fecs as determined to be approprlate by Che Clty Counci 1~ sa(ci fde:s to be pald at th.: timc the bui Iciiny perm1 t Is lssued. 7. That drainaye of sald prUperty shall be disposec~ nf ln a manner satisfactory ta ktte Glty Enc~inoer. If~ in the prepara[lon uf tt~e site~ sufficient grading is requtred to necessitat~ a gradiny permit~ na wark on yradiny will Ge permitted between October 15th and Aprfl l~th unless all required ~ff-site dratnage facilities f~ave been tnstalled and are operative. Positive assurance shall be pr~vlde~ tt~e City that such drainage faclllties wil) be completed prlor to October l;th. Necessary r(yht-of-way foi off-site drainage facilities sha11 be dedicated to the City, or ti~e Clty Council shall have inltiatad condemnation ~roceed(ngs therefor (the CnSxR ~f which shall be borne by the developer) prlor to the commencement of grading operatians. The required drainage facllltles shall be of a size and type sufflcient to carry runoff waters originating from hlgher properties through sa(d p~operty tn ultimate Jisposal as approved by the GiCy Englneer. 5ald drainage facilities shall b~ r.he first item of wnstructlon and shall be cumpleted and be functfonal throuyhout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property Co thc ultimate polnt of disposal prior to !hc i:,suance of any f(nal bullding inspectlons or occupancy perrtilYs. Oralnage district reimbursement aqreements may be mede available to the developer3 of said propcrty upon ttieir request. 8. That gradlnc~, excavation~ and all ott~er construction activities sl~all be conducted in such a manner so as to minimizP the ~~ossibility of any silt originating from cl~ts proJect being c~rried into the Santa Ana River by storm water ori~,inatin~ from or flawing through this proJect. 9. That all private strects sliai) be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim's standards for pr{vate streets. 10. If permanent street name si~ns hAVC not been (nstalled~ tempor~ry street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy. 11. That fire hydrants shall be installed ~7nd charged~ as requlred and determined to be necessary by the Chief of ttie Fire Uepartment, prtor to commencement of structural framing. 12. That all structures sliall be constructed in accordarce wtth the requirements of Flre Zone 4 as approved by the Anahe(m Fire Department. 13. That fuel br~:aks shail be constructed around all structures as reyulred by ths Ci ty of Anaheirn Fi re Departr~ent. 14. That [he Jeveloper of subject tract shall enter into a special faciliites agreement with the CiLy for water facilities in the High Elevat(on System~ as required by Rule 1SB of the Water Uti4ity Rates- Rules~ and Regula[ions, prior to approval ~.` a final tract map, as stipulated to by the petltion~r, 15. That a tree rtrroval permit be obtained prior to rermval af any specimen trees. 16. That a reciprocal road easen~ nt agreemnnt with the owner of the properiy to the ~orth~ providing for a 2~~foot wide prlvate street, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for review and approval; then be filed and recorded in the offlce of the Orange County Recordcr. 17. In accordance wi th the requi rerrents o' Section 1t3,02,047 pertaining co the initial sale of restdentlal homes in the C(ty of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shalt provide each buyer with written information concerniny the Anahetm General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet ~f th~ boundaries of subject tract. 18. That a 10-fc~ot wide equestrian easement shail bt provided, as approved by the Planning Department~ along the sout~~erly rear lot lines of Lots 2 through ~. Commissio~er Darnes offered a motion, seGOnded by Commissioner Deaid and MOTIOtI CARR{ED (Commisstoners Jolinson and King being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby approve the removal of 93 specimen trees from the existing iB9 specimen trees on-site, as defined by the Scenic Corridor Ove~lay Zone standards pertalning to tree preservation, said t~ees to be replaced on a 1:1 ratio with trees from the tree j2~~9~77 reeiacemant 1 ist. _ _ ~.~ ~. MINUTCS~ It11AHCIM CITY PLANt~ING COMMISSION~ Occembcr 19~ 1y77 77'a$~ ITEM ~~0. 14 (tEPQRTS At~U RECOMMEt~u~TIOr~S I TkM /1. n~nr~~o'~MEIJT N0. 7G-2~A - P~~b 1 i c roadway located between Rorn~eya D r i vP a~d Anahelm doulcvard west of L~mon Strcet. Th~ staff report tu the Plannin~~ Commission dated Decembcr 1;1, t')77 was ~resented, inJieating tlie request Is to al,andon a dedicated roadway comMOnly known as Parry Avenue and tfie publ ic al leys all located betwcen Fi~mreya Urivc and AnAheim Houlevarci~ west of Len~n SGr~et. It was noted that tl~c Ulrec[or of the Planning Ucpartment has determined tl~at th ~ prop~sed Actlvity falls within the definitlo~ of Section ;.~lt, Glass ~~ of the City ~f Anal~eln~ Guidelines t~ the Requirements for an Environinental Imp~~ct Report and is, therefore~ eatc~~~~rically exemnt fr~m tl~e requircinent t~ file an E:IR. ACTION: Comn~issioncr U~vid c~ffr.red o motion~ seconded by Cor~missinner Barne~s And MOTION CARRIED (Conm~issior,crs Johns~n and Kiny bainc~ ab~ent)~ that thc Anaheim City Pla~ning CommlSS'son does herr.by recornnend to the Ci ty Counci I that the request f~r Abandonment No. 76-2~A be approved. ITEM E3. CONDITIONIIL USE PERMIT N0. 1~~~3 - Rec~uast f~r an extensi~n r~f time, Tiic s[aff rcport to thc Pl~~nnin~~ Cornrnissi~~n ~iat~•cl Uecernber 1^, 1~7I was presentAd~ noting tli~t the subject property is an irre;ul~rly-shapc~i parcel ef lan~1 consistin~~ of approxlr~ateiy 5 acres loc.ited on the north side of Katclla 1~venue between Naste r S[reet anJ Nanchester Avenue; that tlic apF?licant (C. M, Mc,~ees) rr_quests a retroactive extension of tii~x: for co~,~i ci~;,~~~ Use P~ rr,iit Ilo. 1~~.3: tf~~~t subjec:' concii ticmal use ~ermi t~to establish a hall for varicty sh~.~ws, le~cures~ meeti~qs~ d~nces~ etc.~ witl~ an o~-sale liquor establishm~nt in an eristin~ structurc at 1J21 South Manchester Avenue) was ap{~roved by the Planr~iny Com~~ission on October 7~ 1'1(~3~ suLjec~ to the eor.dition that the pctition be yrant~ci for a period uf ane year~ aftcr »hich tim~~ it shall be revi ewed by the Planninc} Jepartn~ent s[aff t~~ cJet~~rrnlne w}iat eff~ct the uses of the property I~ave~ had on the area; tha[ the 7.onin~~ Lnf~rcemer.t l~fficer inciica[r~. [hat the s~h.ject use 1~5 employing portat~le siyns an~i se~ri.hl iylits in viulatlc~n of tiie Zonin , Cc~de; Lhat nn othe~ apParent deleterieus eFfects h~ve occurreci~ anci par~.in~~ appe~~rs to be ade~u~te; and [hat nine pi'evious e:<te.nsiuns of tic~e 1-ave becn yranLeJ~ thc las[ c~ne ex~~i~ing on Octoher- ), 1~])• Annib.a Sant.~la!~ti, Assis[anc llirectur For Zoninr~ suy9cste~i tl~at the peti[ion~~~ t:p required to expl~in why he is vlc~latin~a thc ,"_onin~~ Cocle~ and J. J. Tashlro~ Ass(stant Plaiincr~ stateJ tliat the prop~rty vwner had bcen notified of toJay's heariny. ACTIUII: Gomrnissioner Linn off• ~i a mntiun, secondeJ Ly Comr,issioner kiarne.s and MflTION AR ~D (Corrruissioners Johnso~~ anc~ King bein~~ .it~sent). that considera.ion ~f thc request for an cxt~nsion of ti~~~e for Gondit~~.~nal Use Permit No. 1~(3 be continued to ttie regular Planninh Commissior~ -neetir~~~ of January 4, 1975. Miss S~ntal~l~ti stat~~ t!ie Plannin~a Departmeiit would contact both partie5~ tlte tenant anJ the property owner. t2/19/77 NI~~UTCS~ ANANEIM CITY r~nNr~i-~c coM~~issioN, December 19~ 19'%7 1~-888 REPORTS ANQ REGOMMENDATiONS (continued) ITi:M C. CON~ITIonn~ uSL PERM17 N0. 10~2 - Re~~ucst fnr an exte~si~n of tim~+. ~_ The staff report to the Planninc~ C~nx~~issi~n dateci December 19~ IyJJ was presented~ noting subjr-c:t property lg an irre~~ularly-shaped porcel of IAnc1 conslstiny of Approxlmately 5 acres located on tlie north sidc of K~tella Avenuo between 1laster Street and Manche~ter Avenue; that the applic~nt (G. M. McNees) requests a retronctive cxtens(on of time for Condltlana) Use Permit No. 107'l; that subJect conditlon~~l use ~ermlt (to establislz a bus depot In an exlsting structure with waiver oS' the maxtmum permltted proJecttnn of a wall siyn at 1711 South 11ancPiester Avenue) was approved by the P1Anning Commission on H~vember 4~ 196~~~ subject to thc :,onditi~n that thc pcrmit is grantc~l for a pcriod of ane year~ afcer ~ahich ttme lt shall be reviewe~t by the Planniny Uepartn~ent staff ca determinc •''at effect the uses of the prc~perty h~ve h~~~ un the ~'trea~ whether or n~t par{,(nq ha5 be~n adequate~ wheCher dcdic~+tlon for Hastcr Strect is neeJed. an~ whethhr furthcr pubilc he~rings Should be sci~e~tuled to ~Jc~trr~~inr whethvr the use 5hou1~1 he c~ntinu~~l~ And [h.~t recent investi~atic~n by staff incJicaecs that [li~ subject use has hacJ no apparent ~eleterious effect on the area :+n~1 that parkiny ap~cars ta be a~lequate; and that nine pr~vious exkensions of tin~e licivc bee:n ~~rantPd. the last one expirinn on Nc~vembe.r 4~ 1977, ACTIOW; Co~n~nissioner Linn off~rcd a r~~tian. seconded by Cammfssion~r Uavld and MOTION C~i i~t E~p (Commissioners Johnson and Kiny bein~~ absent). tf,at the Planniny Commisslon does hereby grant a retroactive extenslon of time for Cor!iti~nal Use Perm~t I~o. 1QJ2~ to exp i re November 1~ ~ 13 7~. iTEM U. VAKIANCE N0. 27,.~ - Request for aY~raval of revlsed 1P ans. The staff report to the Planning Corr~~~ission dated Uecember 1~~ 1?77 was presented~ noting the subJect prapcrty is a rectanyularly-st~apecl parcei of land c~nsistiny of approximately 2.3 acres locate~f at th~ souttiwest c~rner ~f la Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avcnue, I~aving approxlmate frontayes of 2-~~~ fcet on the south si6e of La Palma Avenue and 409 feet on tf~e west sidc of Lakevi~~r Avenuc; th~t the applicart (Uon Carson) requests approvai of revised plans to construct a worksl~op at an ex+stinh equlpment rental yard; that Va~tance N~. 2780 (to establish an equipi~ent renr.al yard with wa(vers of minimun~ landscaped setback~ maximum wall heiyht, prohibited encroachu~ent of outdc~or uses into setback, required tree screen o~~d permitted uses) was approved by tiic City Council on April 27. ly7E. subject to review in five years; tl~at subjec[ pr~~perty Is currently deve~oped wtth the equipn~ent rental yard; and that submitteJ reviseci plans indicate an additional Cwo-story~ 57u0-square foot workshop buildiny that was not shown on the original plan. ACTION: Commissioner CAR~tIE'D (Commissioners lhat the Anaheim City the revised plans for t~erbst offered a motion, seconded by Crxnmissioner Uavid and MOTION Joh~son and Ki~g beiny absent and Commissioner Barnes votiny no)~ Planniny Comnission does hereby recomn~end ta the City Gouncil that Variancc No. 27+3~J Ge appruved. 12/19/77 ~ _.. ~ ~ MII~UTCS~ AI~AIIE:IM CITY PIANNIIIG COMHISSION~ Dr+cemher 1~)~ 1`+77 77-88y RCF'OR75 ANp RECAMMENOATIOIIS (continucd) ITLII E. GOI~DITIO~I~L USE PLRMIT N0~ 135" - Requcst fc~~ ~n_ rxtension a~ f Girme. Tlie staff report to the P1annln~~ Commiss(on d.ited Deccmb~r 1~1. l'~+77 was pre,ented~ notlnq that the subJect property is an Irreyult~rly-shaped p~~'ce1 af 1nnJ corisistlnc~ of aNproximotely ~;.~ acres locnted suutheast~:rly of the soutl~c:.ist corner of Freedman Way And IlArbor f3oulev~rd, and heln~~ further describc~ as 1It)O South Nark,or t3oulcvard (Ily~~tt Ilouse Hotcs 1) ; thnt the appl 1 can t( Lco F ~ecdman ~ awncr of the '~y a t t Ilousa ~lote ~) reques ts an extcnsion uf tiinc for Conditlonal Usc Pcrmit 1~0. 135'! in ardcr to com~letc currcnt ne~~otlc-tlons~ financin~~. pl~~ns and speci f i~_.itluns; and that suh)ect conditlonal use permit (~~,~ CStAhII5I1 a 1~-story liotcl tc~wer' w(tl~ waiver of mlti{murn nuniber c~f ~~~rl,lnq sp~~ces) wa~ yrantc~l ~y the Planninc~ COtrM~tI55I011 c~n Ucc:r.mt~cr ~/, 1`il?• AGTI01~: Co~~u~issiun~r Herhst uffered .i motion, seconded by Conxnissic~ncr f3arnes an~i MOTI(1~! CAkRIL (Commissioners Johns~~n anJ Y.in~~ t,einc~ abser~t). that t.he lln~iheim CICy Plannlnq Comrnisslon -:~~ey herrt~y yr~+nc ~in a~ldition,il cxt~nsi~m ~~~rt~ timr ~f ~ne ycar far Conditional Us~~ Per,~i'. I~o. 13',') ~ to expi rc Decci~~er '1.1 ~ 1'.~7~j, ITLN f. AUAN~u-lME.I~T I1~. 11'11~ -~'ubl ~c ut i l i ty ease~rx~nt lc~cate~l at 711w 1 Col tcr Gi rclc. ------ Thc staff re~ort t~~ thc F'lanniny Gnrrnissi~i~ dated 'Jecembe.~ 1~~ 1'~71 was prr.sented, notin<~ suujcet reyuest is to abandon a purtic~n c~f ~~n existin,~ pu1~l ic uti l f ty casemen[ loeat~d at 7111 Coltcr Circlc, c;outi~~~stcrly uf Scrrana !-venuc~ cast ' Armstron~i Clrclc. It was nuted that th~ Ui rectr.>r of the ('lannln~~ Ucpartn~c~~ ~'as ~of~thenCityrlof AnahciMnosed actlvity f~lls with(n the ~icfinitl~~n of 5ection 3.~!1~ Class 5~ Guidelln~s to the Requlrerr~nts for ~n Envir~}nn~ent~~l Inn~a~t Report and Is, therefore~ categorical ly exempt f rc~m the requi remcnt t~~ f 1 le an C I R. ACTIO~J: Camrnissioner Herhsc offere~ a ric~tion~ seeon~e~f by Commissi~ner Uavid anci MOTI011 C,RRIEU (Cornmissh~~~~~s fc`Q~r~n 1r'to~ll~c CI tY,~(:uuncri 1, ~hatt~thehrequelst' for'Abandonment No. Commi ss i on daes Y 77-11A be approved. AUJOURNNEIaT 7herc bring no furt~~cr business~ Commissic~ner linn offered a motion~ secon~Jed by Comnissioner Hcrbst and MOTIOt~ CIIRRICI) (Commissioners Johns~n and Y.i ng b~ i ny absent) ~ tl~at tl~e rneet 1 n~ be ad jaurned. The meetin<~ was adl~urned at G:4~ P•~^~ Respectful ly sul~riii ttecl. ~j~,~"'.~' ~ ~~' _ " _ A" Edi th L. Harri s, Secrctary Anahcim Gity Planning Comi~~ission ELH:hm 12/1g/77