Loading...
Minutes-PC 1978/01/16Clty Nall AnAhelrn~ California January 16~ 137b RCr,~I.Ar, Mf:I.TIt~G Of' Tti~ ANAFIEIM CITY PI,ANNING CUMMi5510N REGULAR - The rcgular meeting of the Anoheim City Plenninq Commission was c:allad to MEETING ordcr by Chalrman Tolbr at 1:3~ p.m.~ January 16~ 197d, in the Counci) Charnt~cr~ a quarum bciny present. PRES~NT - CHAIRMAN: Tolar COMNISSIONCRS: Barnes~ Uavid~ Herbst~ Johnson~ Kiny Camnissioner lini~ errlved at 3:00 p.m. ALSO PRESEtiT - Jaclc Wh ( te Annika Santal~hti Jay Titus Paul Stnyer Ron Sm(th J. J. Tasl~ira Edlth Narris Ueputy Gity Attorney Assistant Oirectnr for Zoning Office Enginecr Trafftc Enginecr Associate Planner Assistant Planner Pl~nnin,y Commission Secrecary PLE~GE: OF - The Pledye of Allegiance to the Flag of the Uniced States of Mx!rice was ALLEGIANCE led by Comm~=,sionsr Johns~n. APPROVAL OF - Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Cammissioner David and TNE MINUT~,S MOTION CARRIEQ (Commissloncr Llnn being ~bsent). that the minutes ~f the meetings of December 19~ 197J and January 4~ ta7b be approved~ as submitted. lTEM W0. ~I~t~~'~TVE DECIARATION CONTINUED PU~LIC NEAftING. Ouf1ERS: ARTHUR N. AND CLA CA ON N0. 7')-/~-2~; RU7H M. ETZ. 16245 Elizabetl~ Lake Road~ Palmdale, CA 935$0. AGENT: JOHN M!. ZYLSTRA. 2331 41est Lincnln Avenue, ~18. Anaheim, GA 92$O1. Petitianer requests reclasstficatinn of praperty described as a rectannularly-sheped parcel of lsnd consisting of approxlmately 2.6 rcres havi~g a frAntage of approximetely 412 feet on the east side of Beach Boulsvard~ having a maximum depth of approximately 279 feet, and being located approximately 43y feet north of the centerline of Ball Road from the CL (C~MMERCIAL. LIMITEU) to the RM-120() (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. Chairman Tolar polnted out to M~. and Mrs. Smith, who indicated their p~esence in the audience~ that the petitioner had requested a continuancs in order to submit revtsed plans. Commissioner Johnson offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED (Coannissioner Linn being absent)~ tha~ consideration of the aforementtoned item be continutd to the regular meeting of the Pianning Commission on January 30, 1978, in order for the petitioner to present revtsed pians. 78-26 1/16/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Januar'y 16~ 19)b 1~~27 (TEM N0. 2 EI NEGA VE DECLARATION CONTINi1E~ PUULIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHES7ER PETERSON U. -J;:-34 AN~ Dk.uIRLY At~~~ CUMPTOtI. 221 Nortli Meplewood Street, TENTA IVE MA OF TRAGT NU. 101;~ Oran~,~e~ CA 91E,GG, A~E~+r; ~FAR BkANU RANCH LOMPANY, REt~U~ OR AIVk:R OF LOT Llf~~ 2y~: Newport Centr.r Drive~ Ncwport l~each~ CA 32660. REQUIREMENTS OF THE NILLSIUE ENGI~~tCR: ~1UNSAM.ER ~ AS;OCIATES, ING.~ 3uat Red NIII~ GW1UI NG ORDI NANI.E du i 1 J I nca V I~ Su l tc 2.12, Cos ta Mest+. CA 9262E,. Pr'operty cie:scribeci as an irre~ulArly-shaped p~ireel of lan~f c~riststiny c~f approximately y.1 acres locatad west and southwest of the s~uthwest corner of Senta Ana Canyon Roac. anci Avenids Marqarft.a~ having approxtmate fronta,yes of 2~1 feet un the soutt~ side ~f Santa Ana Ganyon Road and y'lu feet on thc north side of Avenida Margarita~ and bcinq located approxfmately ~75 faet west of the centerlinN of Avenida Marqnri[a and ~04 feet souttn~vest of the centerlii~e of Santa Ana Ganyun Roa~l. RECLAS5IFICP,TIUN REuUEST: RS-l1-43~u'l~(SL) (ItkSIGENI'IAL,/f1f,RIGULTURAL-SCLI~IG CORRIDOR UV~RI.AY) Z0.lE TQ RS-lzoo(SGj (RE.SIUENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY- SGkIJI ~, CQRRI UUR OVERLAY) 7.ONk.. TEN'fATIVE TFtA~T REQ~tST: 21-LOT, RS-/2U)(SGj SU~UIVISIOW. SubJect pet(tion was conk(nued from it~e rnectiny of Janut~ry l+, tyld for tfie submiss(on of revised plans, 'fhere was no one inriicatin~~ tfic:ir presence in opNosition to subJect request~ and although the staff report ta the Planniii~, Commission datcd January 1(,, 197f~ was not read at the public liearinq~ it is referred to a~~ci m~cfe a part of the mi~ute5. It wa~ notecl the Hill an~ Ganyon Munici~al Advisory Carrnittee (HACMAC) revl~we•~ the above proposal o~ January j~ ly1b; that the mernber, had receiveJ two tentativc tra~[ maps, the oriyinal c4nsistiny of a'll-lot sub~ivisic,n with~ no variances and the second with 7.1 lots with a variance for minimu~~~ lot -ric;th uccurrinc~ on s+~ven lots; that the entrance street to the t~act aligned with Aveni~a Felipe to the south; that the ori~inal ~lan was the most desirable because of the conficturati~m ot the property; and that with e(ght n~embers present, the committee voted unanim~usly to approve the oriyinal tract map~ which is the tract map presently beir~~~ submitte~l for Pla~ninq CommisSion conyideration. Dick Nunsaker~ Hunsaker ~ Associate~, SOU1 RCdliill~ Costa Mesa~ indicated the petitioner's agreement with the staff recom~nendati~ns e:ccept for the alignrr~nt nf their str~ee wich the existing Avenlda Feli~,e, anu also the ~stubbin~~ of a second s[reet Into thei~ p~oject. He indicat~d chat when they had revi~wwd ih~ c~riyinal plans with the City staff~ they we~e told the Traffic Enqin~:er would prefer havinq tf~e street ali~tned with Avenida Felipe~ wh(Ch they did. ~ie statecf NACMAG liked taie first layo~t~ su they elected to withdraa their second proposal and rroceed with the oriyinal plan, Ne indicated he had the County of Urenye standards for• subdivisions of much qreater size and the width they require for Off-settiny intersections. Ne stated they require 150-foot separatians centerline-to-centerline re~erdless o:' the sixe untess they feel the street would have a sign~l in the futurE. He presented copies cf ttiese standards to the GammisSion for tl~eir information. He indicated they had consuited with Nerman Kimnel b Associates and presented a copy of tt~e letter written to the Bear ~rand Ranch Company dated Jenuary 12~ 1973~ which in+::c.rtes they feel tt:is layaut is quite adequate. He indicated they had prepared an exh~c~it wlii~h shows the number of conflicts with tioe four- way intersectlon in lieu of a"1'" i~~tersec[ion which is proposed; that with the "T" intersection~ 1t is possible there would be three conflicts~ and with the four-way t/16/78 MINUT~S~ HNAHkIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N . Jenuary 16~ 1y76 1g'?~ EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION, REC~ASSIFICATION N0. 71~ 78'3 4, TENTATIVE MAP_OF TRACT N0. 101ti5 (cont.) ineersection the possibllity of 16 confli cts. He indiceted N~rmen Kimmel b Asgocl~tes felt the traffic clrculatlon prapose~ fo ~ thi~ subdivision is quice rdoquate. He stated the other pol~~t of conGern was tt. acces ~ point into the subdiviston; that It was requcated lh~y provide a stub strect tu ,i~e west fram th(s subdivislon to s119n tha propos4d street with Av ~ida Felipe; anJ that lf they dld nat provlde thet~ thare aould not br sufflclent room tu put a thir~ in tersectlon ationg Avenida Margarita. He presented a preliminary iay~ut ~~~~d SCACOd~ in n~ way~ wern., thcy trying to tell the property nwner ta thc west (Yorbo) I~uw to devclop their property~ but It Nas mafnly to shoa there ls suffic.l~nt frontag@ on Avenido Maryarita to put an eddltiondl lntersectton a~p~oximately 2~0 fcset from tl~eir tntersectlon, which i~.; w(thin the huldelli-es ot the Clty's Trafflc Englneer. THE PUBL I C NEAkI NG M-AS CI.OSEO. ~halrman Tolar stated he a<~reeJ wttt~ Mr. Hunsakor in that the ft~at plan beneftts access to the subdlvisfo~ a little better than align(n~ the ~irivoways~ but that he dtsagreed in relatianship to not I~avlny sane alternat ive inelhod. Ne statecf he dld not wont to put the Planntnc~ Gommisslon in the positfon of t cllin~~ Yorha how to develop thelr property, but In land planning they have to look towarcJs th~ overrll p(cture ar~d thet some elte~nate cholce access point must be created. Ne stated that in looking at the pla+~s~ ic eppears there Is a natural flow from Suncres[ Rond tR~roug h thc property. ~e stated ~he Planntng Cammission recognlzes thls area~ when it is davclopFJ, i~~ going to need anothcr access po(nt. Ne stated he was not satisflcd wit~~ Che pla n withaut some type of stubbtng off for a future continuation throu~h Suncr~st~ or someth ing 1 ike thet~ iiito another outlet. Mr. Hunsaker asked Chairman 7olar If he fslt Yorba t'raperties should have the connection into AveniJa Margartta~ Nlus a stub s~re ct into their prolect~ and Chairman 7olsr replted that he felt they should have ~icher/or; that some cype of access wc,uld havc: to be p~ovlded elthcr tl~rough this dnvelapmen t or anothcr war. Ha stated~ in r~lationshlp to thts plan~ whlle it shows they heve don~ thelr homework and that the~e is room to provide the intersectio~~ he does not feel thc re sho~ld be three outlets onto Avenida MArge~ita; that a combination of the twa could el l minate one of tt~ose outlets. Co~m~issloner Herbst polnted uut that Yo ~ ba Properttes could not have access onto Santa Ana Canyon Road, and that the only access t hey have no+~+ is Suncrest~ whtch is about 150 feet from the corne~~ whicl~ limits their acc~ss. He felt that e common eccess polnt should be providad betwePn Yorba Properties and subJect property. M~. Hunsaker p~inted out that Yorba Properties probably would not bc developed for several years. Commtssioner Nerbs: replled tha L~ recogniaing th~y wil) be developinq at some tlme in the future~ they rnlyht be wi 11 in~~ to partic~pate in a ccxnmon access. M~. Hunsaker pointed out that Just abov e the reverse curve there are drtv~Nays every 50 feet on-center; that t{iis is a local st~eet and not a collector. Ja~• Titus~ Office E~Qineer~ stated that Avenida Ma~garita is cansidered a local collector; that it doas collect trafflc from other streats and does have a considerable amount of traffic~ even though there are hornes farthcr up with less grade and that it would serve quite an area. M~. Titus polnted out there ar~ only tti+o accesses into that area, one going out onto Royal Oak Road and the other to Ilvenida Margar(ta~ and that the other st~eet. Suncrest~ also serves qui te a large area wi th on ly two arcess ~~oiRts. Cammissioner Johnson stated he felt anything that is dane will be planning Yorba P~ope~tles' layout ahead of ttme, and that no matter what is left will be in the wrong t/16/78 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N. January 16~ 1~78 78-29 E I R NE6AT I VE DECLAiU1T I 0N . RECLASS I F I CI1T I ON N0. 77~ 78-34 ~ TE NTAT I VE MAP OF TRACT N0._ 10_i~y (cont. pl~ce unless it ts worked cwt now. He stated he woulcl be against the Commts~lon plsnning s l~yout at this ttme; that the che~n ces of having an access Itne up wtth Yo-ba Properties' thlnking e~e elmost nil, Chalrmsn Toiar ttateJ that ehe ctrc utatinn (n the h(I) and canyon araa is needed and that developers understand good I~nd plan ~iny (s goinc~ to call for street conformance in ~elationship to the Circul~etfon Element and It ts up to them to plan their developmer~ts around the ingress and ogress into these: tracis; that Yorba Properttes has only one ~ecass~ atther through Sunc~est Roa d or throuqh thls praperty and~ recogntzing that, dtd not want to yet tnto land plani~ii~y Yorl,a Pruprrtiey but cou1J see they are gatnq to have to plan eround those Mo access pai~ts. Gommissionnr Johnson stated they we re talking abaut bringing another access polnt th~ough chis man's property~ and Commission er rlerbst statcd he was «ilklny abaut a Jolnt effort; that the Commtssinn liad just gone t h rough a similar situttion with Imperta) Properties and now thcre is the prublem of circula tion; and that tl~ts developer should be laoking at a cvmmon ~ffort wtth Yorba Properti~s. G. H. Winder~ Fullerton~ stated he haJ occasion to telk with Bernardo Yo~ba on Saturday and had shown t~im the drewinys and that iie was well-pleased wlth the entire layout. He stated Mr. Yorba had informed litm the property where his house is located is not yol~,~g to ba developed~ but that tha part on Avenicla Maryarita could be developed at a later date. Ne stated he felt arrangements c.o~ld be ~-ade if lt was advantageous to all partles. Th~ Commisslon rev(ewed the map as s ubmittrd by Mr. Hunsaker and dete~mtned it would be about 16y feet to the intersectiun and Ghairman Tolar patnted out that there should be 300 feet betueen intersectlons, wit h Paul S(nyer~ Trafftc En~ineer~ indicating thls was correct. ~ommissioner Nerbsx stated from wha t he has Just heard~ it wnuld appear ta him the possiblllty of a comn~on access poin t wich Yorba Properties partic(~ating would be advantsgeous to both parttes. Mr. W1nde~ potnted out that M~. Yo ~b a had stated he was not goiny to develop up there; that there was no way he would knaw what he was yoing to do~ and Cemmissioner F#erbst stated that maybe 15 years fro~n now he would want to develop and would have to have access. He felt because of the limited access, Mr, Yorba would be interested. Chairman Tolar polnted out the Commission ~~as plans beF~re them and (f they feit the inte~section wouid have to be change d~ tfien futu~e deveiopment would have to cnmply. Commissioner iierbst po(nted out tha t therc has to be an outlet and he must provide for alignment Co the road on the other side~ that the ~evelaper nf the property on the other side has provided a stub and this property should have a stub to allow for clrcuiatlon. Comni;sianer Barnes stated there is anoti~er solution' that the Comm(ssion could approve the plans and at some ttme in the f uture, wnen Mr. Yorba rrant~ t~ develop his praperty~ they can insist that he provide access. She asked Hr. Nunsaker tf he thouqht it would be possible to work out sancthfng suita ble with Mr. Yorba. Chairman Tolar did not think that wa~rld be necessa~y at this time if Mr. Hunsaker would agree to provide eithe~ a stub strr~at or common access point. Canmissioner Nerbst stated the petitioner could cither agrec to provide a stub or bring back revtsed ,lans showing a commo~ access point, but Chat the Commisston dons want access to both p~operties at that point. Mr. Hunsake~ agreed to that stipulation. ~i~bi~a MINUTES~ AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING CAMM~SSION~ Jen~~ry 16~ 1978 78•~~ EIR NEG~7IYE DECIARATION. RECLASSIFSCATION N0. -78-34. TENTATIVE MAP OF TiWCT N0. 10'~ (cont. ACTION: Ccxnmissloner Herbst offered a motlon~ seconded by Commtsstonor King and NOTION ~D (Conmtssioner Ltnn bciny absent)~ thac thc Aneheim Ctty Planninq Commisslon hes revlewed the proposal to -cclasstfy the zoning from the aS•A-4~~~00(SC) (Rasicientlal/Agri~ultural~•Scenic Corridor OvarlaY) to RS-7200(5C) (Resid~,ntlel~ Slrygle- Fsmily-5cenlc Corrldar Ov~;rlay) on an irrogularly-shaped pa~cel of land co~s~sting ~f approximately 5.2 acres loc~ited west en~ southwest of tho south~re.~ct carn~r uf Santa Ana Csnyon R~ad and Avenida Matgarlta~ having approximete frontanes o~f 231 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and $~; fect on thc north siJe of Aventda Nargarita~ bei~g located approximately ~~7t: feet west of the centertine of Avenida Margartta and 504 feot southwost of the c.enteYlir~r uf 5arica Ana Canyon Roed; and docs hcrcby opprove the Negatlve Declaration from the requirement to preRare an envlronmentAl Impact report oR the basis that the~e would be no siyniflcent individual or cumulative edverse envirorn-enta~) impact due to the approva) of this Neyative Decla~at{on slnc~ the Anaheim Genera) Plan designates the subJect property for hillside~ Iow-denslty residential land uses commensurata wtih the proposal; that no sensitive environmenkal impacts arc involved In the proposal; that Che Initial Study submltted by the pctittoner Indicates iio siqn(ftcant indtvldual or cumulstive adverse env(ronmental impacts; and that the Negat(ve Declaration substanttating the foragolny flndinys ts on ftle in the City of Anahelm Planning DepArtnr_nt. ACiIOH: Commlsstoner Ilerbst offered Resolutton No. PC73-~ and moved for its passnge and ai7optTon that che Anahelm Clty Plonnir,y Commissio~~ does hereby arant Petitian for Reclasslficatlon No. 77-J~-3J~. subJect to Interdepartment~l Commi~te~ recorrmendatians. On roll call, the foreyoing resolutlo~ was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS; BARNES, DAVID, ttERJST~ JOIINSON, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOI~E ABSENT: COMMISSIONCRS: ~INN Commlssioner Herbst offered a mution~ seconded .~v Commissioner David and NOTIQN CARRIED (Gcmmissioner Llnn being abs~ent)~ that the Anahei~~ City P18nning Commisslon does hereby find that che proposed subdtvlsion, togel'tier wlth tts desiyn nnd improvemcnt. is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan~ pursuant Co Governm~nt Code 5ection 66473.y and does~ thprefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 10155 for a 21-lot, RS- 7200(SC) subdivision~ subJect to the petitioner's stipulac(on to revise plans to etther provide a stub street into Suncrest to align with the existing access potnt~ ar tm rnake arrangements with the adJacent praperty owner to tlie west to have a ccxmion access point adJoining the two proper;y Ilnes that wouid be advantageous ta both parttes~ wtth only one access onto Avenida Margartta~ subJect to the Trafffc Engineer's approval~ and subJect to tt,e follaw(ny conditions: 1. Th~t the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 1~)155 Is grented subJect to the approval of Reclassificatfon No. 77-78-3~+• 2. That prior to approval of the final tract map. a publlc street shail be provided to serve the property to the west of subJect tract. Said street shall intersect with "A" Street; or, atternatlvely~ "A" Street shal) be relocated ~ provide vehicular access to both subJect trsct and the adJacent property to the aest~ the exact point of intersectton with Avenida Margarita to be subJect to the approvai of the City Trafftc EnginePr. in eith~r case~ the: v~vner(s) af the prope~ty to the west shall be consulted. 3. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivisio~ thereof shall be submi~ctcd in tentative form fo~ approval. 4. That in accordance with C(ty Council policy~ a 6-faot '~igh~ open~ decarattve wall sh~,ll be ~anstructed at the top uf the slope on the north p~operty ltne separating Lot No$. 9 and 10 from Santa Ana Canyon ftoad. Reasonable landscaping, including i~rigation facllities. 5hai1 be installed in the u~cemented portion of the arterial highway pa~kway 1/1~/78 MINUYES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSIO-J~ Janua ry 16~ 197A ~$.3~ EIR NEGATIVE OE~~ARATIO N, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78-34 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1Q1~5 (cone. ~_~ ..~..1 ~.......__---_ the fu11 distenc~ of said wall; plans for satd la~dscaping to be submttted to and subJect to the epprova) of the S uperintenJent of Parkway M~intena~ce. Followtng instellat(on end acceptance~ the City of Analietm shal! assuma the raspons(bil(ty far mainte~ance of sald landscaping. 5. That al) lots within thls tra~t shall b e ser~ed by underground utilittes. 6. That prlor to the introduc~lon of an o rdinanc~~ a final tract msp of subJect property shell bc: submitted to ana opproved by the City Counci) snd then be recorded In the of f I ce of the Qranye County Recorder. 7. That any proposeJ covenants~ conditluns~ and restrictions shall be submitted to and approveJ by tlie Ci ty Attori7cy's Off ice arrd G i ty knglneer prlor to City Gouncl ! approv~l of the final tra~t mep and~ furtfier~ tt~at the approvQd c~venants~ eond(tions~ and restrictlons shall be re corJecl c~ncurrr.ntly wlCh the final tract mep. b. Tha[ street names sh~ill be approved by the: City Plt~nntny Departn~nt prlor to approval of a flnal tract ma~+, y. That drainage c~f satci propcrty shall t~e disposed of (n a manner satisfacl'ory to the City Enyl~ecr, If~ i~, thc nrep,~ratiun of th e site~ suffictent graJing is requlred to necessitate a grading permit~ no worl~ r~n yradin~~ will bc perMftted between Octaber lyth and Aprtl ISth unless all reyuirecl o`f-site drainage facilit(es have becn inatalled and are aperat( ve. Pos i t i ve ~is surance sh.~l 1 be prov i~led the C 1 ty tha t such drA i nage facilities will be completeJ prior to October l;:tfi. Necessary riyht-of-way far off-site dra i nage facl 1 1 t i es sha 1 1 b~ decl t catecl to the C i ty, or the C 1 ty Counc 1 1 sha 1 1 have in(t~ated ~:ondemnation procee~ings therefor (the costs of wt~ich shall be bo~ne by the developer) prior to the commencen-ent of y~a~iny operattons. The requirecf drainage facilit(es shall be: af a size and type sufficient to carry runnff waters originating from higher p-apertles throuyh satd propcrty to ultimate disposr~l e.s approved by the Ctty Engineer. Said drainage facllities shall be the first ftem of constructton ~nd shell be comp 1 e ted and be func t i c~na 1 th rougfi~u t the t rac t ancl f rom tl~e downs t r~am boundary of the p~operty to the ult(maC~. p~int of JisF~osal prior to the lssu~nce of eny ftna) butld(ng inspections ~r occupancy permits. Drainage district r~imbursem~ertt agreert-ents may be made available tu the developers of satd prooerty upon their request. 10. That yrading, excavation~ and all othe r constructton activtties shall be conducted in such a manne.r sa as to minirnize [he possibility of any silt origfneting from this p~oJect beiny carried into the Santa Ana Rtver by storm water oriyinating from or fiowing thraugh this pro,ject. 11. Thaf reasonable landscaping~ includln_y irri~atio~ faciiit(es, shalt 5e installed in the unpavad portion of che south parkway end in the median of Santa Ana Canyon Road ~ight-of-way in accordance wi th the requi rements of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Followin g installation and acceptance~ khe City of Anahetm shall assume the responstbility for main tenance uf sa;~ landscaping. 12. That the Ci ty Counci I reserves the riyht to delete or emend the assumption of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy changes. 13• If permanenC street name signs have not been installcd~ temporary street nam,e siyns shall be installe d prior Co any occupancy. 14. That al 1 structures s!ial 1 be constructed in accordance wi th the requi ~ements of Fire Zone 1~. 15. That any spe cimen tree removal shall be subject to the regulatio~s pertaintng to tree preservotton in the Scenic Corridor Zone ~verlay. 16. That prior to app~oval of the final tra ct map, the owner(s) of subject property shall dedlcata ta the City of Anaheim easements for riding and hiicing tratl purposes~ in accordance with the T rails Element of the Anaheim Gene~al Plan. 11. In accordan ce with the requirements of Sect(on 18.02.047 pertainin g to the initial sale of residen tial homes in the Ctty of Anaheim Planning Area "B"~ the seller sha01 provtde each buye r with written information concerning the M aheim Ge neral Plan and the existing zontng within 300 fePt of the boundaries of subJact tract. 1/16/78 i MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISStON~ Januery 16~ 197~ 78-32 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARpTION~ RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. ~j-J8-34, TENTATIVE MAP OF TaACT N0. 10155 (cont.) -- ---------- • ..._ Mr. Tashiro axplalned that the requeat for the waiver of lot l ine~ requtrema~ts of the Hlllsida Gr~ding Ordinance partained to I.oc Nos. 10 throuyh 17 whlch are abuttiny tl~e northeast property line. Ne stated the only p~oblem would be thAt the aciJACent property owner malntalns the slopas. Ha stated this was e similar condltlo~ as on the oppostte sid~ of Avenida Margarita with Imperial-Yorba Shopp(ng Center. Commisstoner Herbst offered a mot:on~ s~GOnded by Commissiancr Cavid and MOTION CARRIED (Ganmissi~ne~ Linn belny absont), that tl~e request for wafvc~ of lot Ilne requt~ementa of the Hiilside Grading Ordinance as pertainlnq to Lot Nos. 10 through 1? be granted for Tentat(ve Map of Tr~r.~ No. 1~~15;. a~d that a mointenance agreenknt shall be provlded to the City E~ttorney's Offlce thar thc property owne~s wi ll maintaln th~ slopes. ITEM N0. E IVE UECLARATION RENDYERTISED PUBLIC HEARING. 011NER5; WIILiAM p. J-/b-2, DARLIN~ 61b South Euclid Street~ JOSEPH B. EDWARDS~ 620 South Euclid Street~ WILLIAM D. PROCOPIO. 624 South Euclid Street~ FRAHK AND LOUISE GERRY~ 626 South Euclid 5treet, and IiENRY ESCIif.LL, 63~ South Euclid Street~ Anaheim~ CA 92t302. Potitione rs request that subJ ect property consisting of approximately 0.7 acre heving a frontage of approximately ~2~~ fe~t on the east sidc of Euclid Street~ having a maximum depCh of approx(mately 97 feet, beiny Doceted approximately 160 feet south of the ce~ter- Iino of Ora nge Avenue~ and f urther described as E~16~ 62U~ 624~ 626 and 630 Sauth Euelid Straet~ be ~eclassifled from the CO (GOMMERCIAL~ OFFICE AND PROFESSION/1L) ZONE to the CL (COWIERCIAL, LIMITEU) ZONE:. There was o~e pcrson indicating interest in the sub,ject petition~ and atthough the staff report to the Plannin9 Canmission dated January if~~ ly7$ was not rcad at the public heariny, i t (s referreJ to a~d made a part of the n~inutes. Loutse Gerr-y, 626 South Euclid Strect~ stated sh~ had requesied a zone change in November, 1977, which was denied on the yrounds it would create undesirable spot zontng In the area. She i~dica ted she had since learned there are adJacent property owners aho would b~ intereste d in a zone chanye nnd has submitted another petttion inciudtng al) five property owne~s. which includcs the entire block~ and they are asking that tfie property be rac.lassifi~d co CL zoning. Ray Nichols, representing Ne nr~ a~d aetty Lou Eschell~ 63Q South Euclid Street, potnted out that In March~ 1977~ they had requested a variance for a free-standing sign which was denied by the Planning Canmtssion and was subsequently granted by the City Council~ and in that dtscusston~ one Cvmmissioner had 5uggested that they mtght petition for a zona change. bu t with the consensus of opinion that since they would be stanaing alone~ the chances would be slim because of spot zoning. He stated that in a short time tnere is anather ne i ghbor vtho wt 11 be request i ng a recl ass i f 1 cat i oii, and so they have deci ded to petition a t the sAme tlme. t1r. stated they were five individuals o~ ~uclid Street~ which must be one of the busiest streets in Anaheim; that everythi~g across the street is zoned CL and eve ~ything to the no rtli is zoned CL; that on the west side of Euclid Street there ls reside n tial with no aliey for separati4n, and on the east side of Euclid b~hlnd these properties there is residentiai, but sepArated by ~n aliey, otherwise, there is no difference on both sides of the street. Ne stated it is extremely difficult to be on a business s treet where both sides are zoned CL except tf~ese flve lots. He stated they felt this was s pot zoning. He stiated the City needs offices and retail businesses. He stated t/t6/78 ~,,. ~, . MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ J~nuary 16~ 1978 78-33 EIR NEGATIVE_DECLARATION ANO R_E_CLASSIFICATION N0. 17_~ 8-2~ (continued) tliey felt thts request Is fn thc bast tnterest of th~ City end he know~ they have brouc~ht addltional ravenues end bustness to tl~c City; Cl~at hc knew the Commtsslon was awe~e of the probimms of CO property in thn CL aree because of the petitiuns that hsve been before the Comm(ssion in recrnt years~ and he felt there would be e lot more petltions in the futu~n. Ile presented plctures of the area from the Burqer Ktnq to where thetr properttes ere locatnd and asked that the Commtssion rnclassify thesa ftve properties to be in conformence with the rest of the area. Nency liall oppeorcd bcfore thc Commission and stated she was ropresenttn~ her ,ieiyhborhoad; that she lives riyht b~hinJ the Burger King and realized shG was concnrned about a cllfferent item and referr~d to a sign being put up regarding the sale of lfquor. Chairman Tolar potnted out that was for a restaurant and that she should check with the Planning staff to see why they were not notified. TNE PUBLIG HkARIIJG WAS CLOSE~. Cortmissioner King asked Mrs. Gerry ~b~ut her plans for instruction~ and sl~e ~eplted she was not gotng to be g(viny lessun~. Commtssioner King clariflad that this establishment r+auld be just for the sale of supplies~ and ahe replted that was correct. Chairman Tolar stated his concern was developiny another area where people could Iive on thair prope~ty a~d develop a business; that hc knows of ather areas wtiere thfs nas been allawed an~1 they have not been properly maintained. He stated he was not concerned whether or not this property was zoned CO or CL. He wondered tf the other pr~perCy owners were aware of at) the restrictions that would be placed on their properties by this zone change, and refarred to the fact there would be no vehitular access onto Eucltd Street from thelr lots. Mrs. Gerry potnted out there is a full alley anci a drivcway onto Euclid would not be neceisary. Mr. Nichols stated the petitioners recagnized they would be operating undar sane limits. but th,~t in the past every time they wanted to do anything, they had to run to the Commission for permission~ and that th~y were not in a ~esidential area but were in a CO area. Comnissfoner Nerbs[ pointed out that certain ~~ses woulci still requi~e a conditional use permit in the CL Zone. J. J. Tashiro~ Assistant Planner~ pointed out that in the CL Zone certain lim(ted offtce uses a~e permltted~ however~ there are limttations in numbers and if they dectded to have a reiail business~ thcy would s~til need a conditional e:se permit. Wrs. Ger~y pointed out that this is not part of an existing house but is a new structure that will be compatible with the axisting structu~e. Chai~man Tolar pointed out a house cannot be convertad by Juat having the zone changad. you still t~bve to comply with the requirements, and pointe~! out th,~ pa~king ~equirements~ at~. Mrs. Gerry replied that she had checked with the Pirmning Department and she does 'equate par•king. Co. '-~ioner Johnson poi~ted out he felt the Chafrman wae trying to p~atect the interests of all the property owners~ because a resolution is perma,~ent. t/t6/78 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ January 16~ 1~7b 1a•3<< EIR NEGATIVE DECLAaAT10N AND R~CLASSIFICATION N0. 71-7~•25 (continued) - - ......~.... Chairman Toler palnted out that the Plannin,y Canmtsslon is the only body that can elecide wl~ather or not a use is golny to be allowed~ and he wenteci It to bo clca~ the (mplicatfons be(ny puC on the othcr propertles. He r~f~rrad to othor places in the City whcre people heve combined buslness~s and residenc:es~ and pointed out the other four property awners do not wish to live on these propertfes. Mrs. Gerry replicd that If a person buys any CA pruperty and has enaugl~ space for an epartment~ they can use it as a r~sidence for a proprietor~ custodian or owner, and Mr. Tashir~ pointecl u+~t that it depends upon tlic type of business you have. Commissioner Harhst stateJ tf~e Coismtssion is not only loaking at this property but that the nther people will have to abide by the same standards. and that tlie Camiission wantnd to b~ sure that everybody understand5 tliat access inust be off the alley on all flve lots and that they must have adequate parkiny. Commissioner Barnes askeJ if tl~ere was a record of tlie pcople who were notified~ and Mr. Tashiro pulnted ~ut khc prop~rty owners wltliin a 300-fo~t radius of subject property were notifie~l and that nu comn~enCs were received. Commissioner Barnes rcferred to a similar pie.:e of propcrty on 5tate Gollege Boulevard across from Ralph's with a similar situ,~tion, with an alley behind it~ and stated thcre have been corr~laints fran the residents in tt~at area objecting to tt~e addltional traffic, etc. Commissloner Johnsori pointecl out tiiat property was zoned RS-72A0 and they wantsd to change to comnercial, and this is CO wanting to chanc;e to CL; chaL th~s is not near as dr~stic a change for the nei3hboriioo~~ tt~at they already ii~ve ccxnmercia) itmited behind them now and diJ not think there was tha[ mucl~ difference between CO and CL zoninq. ACTION: Commissioner Johnson uffcred a motion~ seconded by Canmissianer Uavid and MOTION CARRIEU (Cortmissioner Linn bcii~~ absent), tt~a't tf+e Anaheim City Planning Cammisslon has rev(ewed the proposal to rAclassify the zoniny frorn CO (Commercial~ Office and Professlonal) to CL (Co~rr~~ercial~ Lirnited) on a rectanyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre I~aviny a frontaye of approximately 326 feet on ttie east side of Euclid StrPet~ having a mexlrnum depth of apprnxirnekely 97 feet~ and bcing located approxirnately 160 feet soutl~ of the centerline of Orange Avenue; and does hereby approve tt~e t~egative Declaretion fran tt~e requirement to prepare an envtronnental impact report on the basis tiiat there wauld be no si~,anifican-. individuai or cumulative adverse env(ronmental impact due to the app~uval of this iJegaciv~ ~eclaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property fo.• commercial/professional and low density residential land uses commensurate wltfi the proposal; that no sensitive environmenta) impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no signiflcant individual or cumulative adverse environmenta) impacts; and that the Negative Deciaratlon substantiatiny the foregoiny findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. AC710N: Commissioner Johnson ofFered Resolution No. PC78-9 and moved for its passage a~d adoptTon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Comm(ssion dces hereby grant Petition for Reclassificatlon No. 77-78~25~ subject to all vehic~~lar access on Euclid Street being dedicated to the City of An~heim~ and sub}ect to Interdepartmentai Cortmittee recammendetions. On rall call, the fo~egoing resolution was passed by the following vot~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID~ NERBST, JONNSON~ KING, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINN 1/16/7'S i MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Janua~y 16~ 1978 78•35 1 TE11 N0. 4 '~~'~VE DECLIIRAT I t,J PUt3L I C NEAR I IJG. OWNERS : DAN i EL H. N I NBURG and 0. J T7~•~5 MARINACCI-LINUBORG IX-XX, 1~415 Sunset Boulsvard~ Paciftc Palisades, CA 90272• AGENTS: DAVIQ D. QAHI and GENE J. MAa1NACCl~ 1720 Paclfic Coast Nighway, Nuntfngton Beacl~~ CA 92G48. Petttioners request that subJect property conslst- Ing of approximately 0.~ acre having a frontage of approximately 12U feet on the aast slde of State Colleye ~oulevard~ havtny a maxlmum Jepth of apprnximAtely 2E~1 feet~ and being located approxlrnetely ~-98 feet nurth of the cenlarline of Placentla Avenue~ be reclassified from the RS-A-43~000 (RE5IUENTIAL/AGRIGULTUR~L) anJ RM-120~ (RESIDENTIAL, MIILT I PLC-FA~11 LY) LOi~CS to thc RM-1200 (RCS I UEI~T I AL, 11ULT I P LC-FANI LY) Z01lE . There was no one indicatiii,y their presence in oppositlon to subJect request~ and althnugh thc staff report tK~ the Planning Cominission dated Ja~uary 16~ 19I~ was not read at the public hearing, it is referre~! t~ ancJ macle a part of tfie minutes. Oavid Oahl, agent for the petitioner~ fndicated the proposal is to buiid an l~i-un(t apartment builcllny and they nced tu re;:ont a partion of the property to R~4-1200~ and that the developmcnt rneQts the critcria for that zone. He indicated tliey were tn agreement witt~ the staff report~ includiny all tf~e carport ~equirements. THE PUBLIC NEAVtING WI15 CLOSED. Commisstoner Herbst stated he iiad a question concerning the trash enclosurps abutting the p~operty line of the existtny onobilel~ome park, fle stated t~e felt the nwbilehome park si~ould enJoy the same protection as sin,yle-farnily dwellings, and I~e did not think the trash disposal ar~a should be adJacent tc the fence. Cf~airman Tolar asked if there was a landscaped buffer alony that fence or we~e the mobilehomes abuttiny the fence. Commissioner I~erbst indicated he was not sure~ but he felt the trash area should be relocated. Mr. Dahl indicated he would be willing to ~elocate the trasli enclosur~ area. ACTION: Commissiuncr King offered a nation, seconded by Canriissioner David and MOTtON CA- RRIEQ (Commissioner Linn beinc~ absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Corrmisslon has ~eviewc~d the propos~l to reclassify the zoning frum RS-A-43,000 (Residenti~l/Agricultu~al) a~d RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) to RM-120~~ (Residenttal~ Multiple-Family)on a rectangularly~shaped pArcel uf land conststing of approximately 0.6 acre having a frontage of approx(m~tely 120 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard~ having a maximum depth of approxirnately 237 feet~ and beiny located appr~ximately 49~ feet north of the cente~line of Placent(a Avenue; and d~es hereby ~pprove the NG~ative Declaraeton from the requirement to prepare an en~ironrnentel impact report on tt~e basis that there would be no siynificant indio:~ual or cumulative adve~se environmental impact due to the approval of Lhis Negative Dnclaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect property for cc,mmercial/professional land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensltive envlronmental impects are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submttted by the petitioner indtcates no signif~cant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that tFie Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planniny Department. ACTION: Commissioner Ktng offered Resolution No. PC78-10 and moved for its passage and a~~on that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition far Reclassificatlon No. 77'78'35, subject to the petitione~'s stipulation to relotate the trash enclosure a;ea away from ths existing mebilehome pa~k to the north~ and subJect to Interdepartme~~tal Canmittee recomme~dations. On roil call. the foregotng ~esolution ~as passed by the following vote: ~-YES: COFWISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID, HERBST, JOHNSON, KlN~, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ~~16~~$ ABSENT: COMMISSIOI~ERS: LINN MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIMG COMMISSION, Januery 16~ 197g ~e- 36 ITEM N0. E R NEGAT VE DECLAKATI~N PUBLIC HE:ARINC. OWNER: MA50NIC BUILDIMG ASSQC.~ I C ON 0. 7-73-37 1077 Wagt Bal) Road~ Anahetm~ CA 92802. AGENT; DAVIQ S. COLLINS~ 1077 Wesc Ball RoAd~ Anaheim~ CA y2802. Petitioner requests that subJect property consisttng of approximately 1.' acres having a frontage of approxtmately 64 faet at the eaate~ly terminus of P~ov~~~idl Drive~ having a maximum depth of approximately 140 feot~ a~d heving a maxi~:.n width of approximately 33~ feet~ be reclassifled from tlie CL (COMM~RCIAL~ LIMITEGj ZQNE to Che RM•120f1 (RCSIDENTIAL, MULTiPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. 1'he~e was no on~ indlcating their presence in opposition to subJect rcquest~ and althaugh the staff report to the Planning Commisston deted January 16~ 197$ was not read at the public hcaring. it (s referrcd to and made a part of the minutes. Oave S. Collins, agent for the petikloner~ indicated the develapment proposal of the sCaff report indtcatas plans to construct four two-story fourplexes~ and this is not the proposal; that If fourplexes are constructed~ they would be built eccording ta the Code. standards. Comm(ssion~r Herbst sugyested that the reclassificatton could be apprAVed subJect to apprnval of precis~• plans. ACTlON: Gommissioner Kiny offered e mntion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION ~D (Commissfoner Linn be(ng absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss(on has reviewed the proposal to reclASSlfy the z4niny from Ct (Commerctal, Llmited) to RM•1200 (Resldential~ Multiple-Family) on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatsly 1.1 acres haviny a frontage of approximately 64 feet at th~e easterly termtnus of Provential Drive~ hav(ny a maximum depth of approximately 140 feat and a maxlmum widt~y of approxlmately 23,j feet; .~nd does herehy approve the Ntgativp Detl~ratlon from the requirement to preFare an environmental impact report on the basis t:hat there would be no significant individual or cumuiative adverse cnvironmtntal impact due to the epproval of this Neyattve Declaration since the Anahelr~ General Plan designates the subJect property for medium density residential land uses commensurdte with the proposal; that the proposed proJect will be compatible with land uses tc~ the west and south; that no sensittve environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the initlal Study submitted by the pecittoner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse envlronmental irnpacts; anJ that the Negative Geclaration substantiating the foreg~tng ffndings is on file in the City of Anat~eim Pianniny Department, ACTION: Comnissioner King offered Resolution No. PC7~3~11 and moved for its passage and ac~ron tt~at the Hnaheim City Planniny Comnission does here6y arant Petition for Reclassificatlon Na. 71'7~'~"37. subject to the review and approval of specific site devetopment plans, an~i subJect to Inte~Jepartmentai Committee reccxr-mendations, On roll call~ the foren~~:ng res~lutfon was passed by th~ following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVIU HERDS7, JOHI~SO~~~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COf~MISSIUNEkS: NOt~E ABSENT: CQMMISSIONEkS: LiNN t/16/78 ~ MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIQN~ Jsnuery 16~ 197~ 78-37 ITEM N0. 6 EIR A~GORICAL EX~NPTION-CLASS 11 PUtfLIC IIEARING. QIJNER; WRATHER INNS~ INC., . 1855 South Harbor Boulevard~ Anaheim~ CA 92802. Patitioner requests WAIVER OF (A) PRONIDITEp SIGN~ t8) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-S1,1NOI~~G SiGNS~ (C) PERMITTED LOGATION OF FREE-STAN~ING SIGNS~ AND (D) MINIMUM DiSTANCE BETWEEN FREE- STANDING SIGNS TO CONSTR~GT TWO FRCE-STAIIUING SIGNS ANU 70 RETAIN A PRONIgITED SIGN on property desc~lbed as e r~ctanyulsrly•shaped pa~cel af le~d conslst(ng of approxlmately 10.9 ecres loca~ted at the northwest co~~er of Conventi~n Nay and Narbor 9oulevard, having opproxtmate frontayas of 6no feec on tl~~ north slde of Convention 41ay and 795 faet o~ the west side of Hsrbor ~oulevord~ and furcher clescribed as It'S5 South Harbor aouleve~d. Property presently classified C-R (COMMERGIAL•RECREATION) ZONE. There was no one indicating tli~ir presence In opposttt~n to subJect request~ and eltt-ough thc staf f repor t Co th~: P 1 ar~n I ny Comm( ss (un dt~tc~ January 1 G~ 197f~~ was n~t rr.ad a t the publtc hearing~ it is referred to and mode a p~rt of th~ minutes. Andrew Schwebel, representir~~ Wrather Inns, Inc.~ in~icated the request Is for twu direct(onal signs f~r Che Inn at [he Par~ Hote) and a prof~ihited ruc~f-mounted stagecoach. THk PUftLIC HCARI-~G W11S CLOSLU. ChAirman Tolar Indlc~~ted hN was tonc~rned abaut the hardship as stated by the petltloner on thls request as belny closc to the Gonvention Center and confusion for funCt(ons At the center versus functiuns at the hotel. Ne stated he did not understand how the stagecoach on the roof would heip th~t situatio~; that he c~uld understend tfie nced for d(rectional signs for the hote) and tlie restaurant~ but the staqecoach cm tlie roof served no purpose. Mr. Schwebel stated thc first sign southbound ~n Ilart,or Baulevard is "Anaheim Co~ventton Center" wtiich is next to tfieir property anc that about 9~Z of the Conventlon Center visitors turn into their Jrlveway. Chairmen Tola~ indicated lie did not think that should be a problem~ and Mr. Schwebel stated they did not have enouyh parkiny space, for their hotel and restaurant guests. Ct~alrman Tola~ stateJ the Planniny Cors'~mission has recently given the hotel the right to cha~ge far parkiny~ and he thought r,hcy probably would want the additional parking to provide income. Mr. 5chwebel referred to a recent event at the Center when their park(ng had besn filled. Commissioner Nerbst st~ted lie did not see wf~ere advertising signs wouid stop thc people from entering that parking lot and, by right, the hotel would bc allowed to have entrance and exit signs~ but not as larye as they are requesting. J. J. Tashiro~ Assistant Planner~ pointed o~t they would be allowed to have 3 square fect of atea and a height of ~~ feet. Mr. Schwebel stateJ thnt ncxt to the Gonvention Center sign~ this sign would look llke a dot on a picce of paper and that people are turning in at the "exit only" access, causing a traffic Jan. C~mnissioner Herbst asked if he had curved the driveway away from the flow of traffic~ ~nd he rcplted that he had. ~~~~i~a MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Jsnuary 16~ 1978 7a'3a EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0, 2985 (continued) ........_~__ ~._~_..._..~~. Mr. 5chwcbel ststed the siz~ of thc slyn was lnslgntfica~t to him and h~ would conform to a smaller sign~ but did nat tl~tnk it woutd be noticeable stnce it would bo only 15 to 20 feet away from the blg sig~. Chairman Tolar statod he thought the Clty has enou~h big stgns, especially in that erea~ ai~J~ as big as Lh~t hotQl is~ I~e did nat see why they needed more s(gns a~d that Jlrecttonal signs could conform to Code. Commissloner Johnson felt 3 sc~uare feet would be adequote for directlonal signs. Mr. Schwebe~l pointed out th.,t the exlstiny sign, ~re lar~rr than Co~ie requlr~a ~r.d were put up with taclt approval~ and he would like somc consideratton t~ at least have thc ~eme si=e signs so thAt he could mafnt~in tl~e r.xtstinc~ siyn and change the facepl~tes. Commissioner Herbst pulnted out the exlsting signs ere probat~ly nonc~nformtnq and went in when the hotel was bullt end tt~e Slgn Ordinance iias stn~e chanc~ed. Annika Santalshti, Assistant Director for Zoning~ pointed out the sie~ns ma~• I~ave been rr+adest enough thet they were put up wf thout b~~i Iaing perml ts or~ in son~e instancc~ entrance or exit signs have been allowed to be largcr or caller when tt is obvious there Is a problem~ but usually all tl~ree would not have been xaci~ly approved. Commissioner Herbst asked the slze of thc existing siyns~ and Mr. Schwebel pointed out he did not hava the actua) dln~enslons; tl~ar. he would lik~e to go back to the sign company and get another proposal~ and asked for another luariny ~n January ~Oth to see if he could come up with somethfny within ~he Code and still be legible by the guests. ACTIUN: Commissioner Barnes offered a motton, seconded by Commissioncr Nerbst and MOTION .~ED (Cormiissioner Linn being absent)~ that consideration of tlie aforementioned itrm be Contlnued to thc requl8r meeting of the Anahetm City Plan~ing Commission of January 30, 1978, in order for the petitioner to present a more reasonable pla~. Conmissioner Johnson indicated it was his feelin,y there were a lot of signs in that area and sugg~sted that it might hurt Ct~c business ratt~e~ than do it good. RECESS There was a fifteen•minute reces~ called at 2:55 p•m. ~_ RECONVENE 7he meetiny reconvened at 3:10 ~S.m.~ with all Commissioners '~~- present, includiny Cortmissioner Linn whu arrived at 3:Q0 p.m. 1/16/78 ,~ MII~UTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMiSSIOt~~ January 16~ 1978 7g-3~ 1TE~ itlCAl ~XEMPTION-CLASS 1 CONTIf~UCD PUDLIG HEARING. OWNERSt KAaL ANp TIiEA __. U A. KOLD~ lf',~ Pinto Place~ Norca~ CA 91760. AGENT; CFIARLES E. EAGLES~ 14lp East Edlnqer~ X105~ S~nia Ana, CA 427~~. Peti.toner rec~uests permtsaton to ESTANLISN A REST IIOME FOR ALCONQLICS un property descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land conaistiny of apprUx(mately 0.2 acre located at the nartl~west co~ner af Chostnut and West Streets, havln,y approximete fronto~es of 150 fect on the north s(d~ of Chostnut Street anci )0 fect on the west side of West Street~ nnd furthcr describeci as 12y Sc~uth West Street. Property presently classified PD-C (PARKINf DISTRICT-COMMERCIAL) ZONC. There were approxlmateiy 2j peopla indic,atiny their presence In opposftlon to subJect p~titton~ and althougl~ thc stc~ff report to the Plnnning Cortmission datec~ January 16~ 1978 wos no~ read at the public hearing~ it Is referred tc~ an~i made a part af the mtnutes. J. J. Teshtro~ Assistant Planner~ read two letters which haci been received fn oppos(tion~ one Jated January 13~ 197~ fra~- Pearl M. t~adorff~ $1(~ west aroaclw~y~ llnaheim~ a~d o~e dated January 12~ 1qJt~ fr~m Lorineia K. McDonough~ 1?3 South West Street (subJect lettors are on file (n the Planninq Department). Frank Rose~ represont(ny the Colonial Manor Haifway Ilousas~ Inc.~ steted he had not revtsttnd subJect property anci apoloyi.csct far the misinformetton gtven at the last meeting concerniny the nurober of bathrooms. He ro(nted out the ~oning Enforcement Officer had Inspected the property and his report stat~s therc are faur or ftve bathrooms at thls location. He indtcated tl~e Clty re~ort also states salcl bath~axn~ are adequate for 20 people. He rpferrcd to ti~e statement in the staff report whlch indicates the Police Departrnent briny pe~ple to this center an~ pointed out that tf~e policr. d~ not br~ng clients to this cPr~ter. Ne stated it wa,s t~is feeliny that thc people af this neighborhood have a littSe knawledgt but do not really know what is proposed for thts facility. He state~l lie had excellent fllms avallable to shc~w to tlie neic~hbors but they hnd had poor reaponse. Fle reftrrcd to a folder of information which h~. had furriished to the Planning Commission ,~ust prevlous to this hearing~ which fnciude:d a fi~•e•year plan for the Colonial Menor Nalfway Houses whlch spells out their intention to dpvelo~ a school deal(ny with addictions. He indtcated he felt the word "detoxificAtion" is wl,at is scaring people and he gave a descripeton of an alcoholic; that a person is at a point of reasoning when he is taken to this fecillty ~+nd must be mentally competent and fully an,bulat~~ry; that they do not deal witt~ "skid row" derelicts or bums. N~ stated this neiqhb~rhood is not ~n R-1 neighborhood; that there ~re R-2 and R-3 propertlr.s (n this neighborhood and that this particular piece of ~roperty is commercial. Chalrmen Tol~r pointed out that a restdential zone is where people are living~ it could be R-1, R-2. R-3~ etc. He askeJ Mr. Rose to explain tu the Com~ission why [his particular use should be ailowed at this location. Mr. Rose stateJ the location is good becAUSe it is on two well-traveled streets, ~incoln and West Streets~ and it was s~lected because af the approved conditional use permit allowing 20 people and it was their feeling that if you could have 70 elderly people, then you could have 20 other penple. He stated he I~ad tried to get the neighborhood residents to t~ke a look at the facility for wome~ on Lemon Street~ but they had sald it made no difference to them. Ne stated the propo~ed facility would he about the same as that one. He indicated the neighborhood he lives in is a11 R-1 and there are no rest homes in his neighborhood~ but tf there ~iad been one he would have no opposittnn if soneone wanted to t/16/78 MII~UTCS~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Jsnuary 16. 1978 18'k~ EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONA USE PERMIT N0. 178y (continued) - ~~~~~. -- put in e detoxift u tion u nter. He felt this w~s discrlminotion agelnst a certain cype of peraon~ to be able to hsve 2~ people af one type and not another type. He felt if the ~aighborhood residents had seen the moviQS or the women's facllity on Lomon Screet~ they would be more understanding but thet he cani~ot dispel) fears If a person will not gtve I~Im the opportun(ty to do sa. He indlc~ted he could hove had 2~000 peuple here In suppo~t of thls petition. Tom Mcponougl~~ 123 South West St eet, Anef~eim, read a pr~ragrapt~ from a lettcr to Dave Anderson~ Zoning R~presentative, dated October 27~ 1~77~ from Charles E. Eayles~ as follaws: "The term "Soclal Model Detoxiftcation" is the cur~ent label attached to non-n~edically relateJ J~yfnc~ out frcxn alcohol abuse. Prior to tl~e edoption of this term~ suci~ ~ facility was referred to os a rec~very horne~ step-huuse~ gues[ i~ome~ I~alfway-house~ rest horr~e, etc. The name or label attacheJ to an oparation of tt~is sort changes from year to year depending on the current "buzx-word" of thc day." Mr. McDonough presented a peti~ion with f>2 new s(!~natures~ indicatin_y ti~is wAS an addition to the petlticm previously submitteJ with ~J3 signatures~ for a totel of 135 signatures. I.~~Inda McUonouyFi~ 1'L3 Sout1~ blest Street~ Aneheim, indic~ted she had 1 ived here for 1; years and is opposed t~ this conditlonal use pprmit. She stated tt~at Mr. Rose had repeated to her in front of witnesses that hc purposely bought in thls netyhborhood because he would not want a facility of this type In his own neigt~borliaod. She skateci the Code stipuldtes that boarcling houses or lodging houses would be permttted only subJect t~ a conditlunal use permit and that a ~ietoxification center for alcofiolics can. in no wey~ be construecS as a baardin,y house~ that It is a business~ and it Is riditulaus to continue calling such a fdctlity a guest home or rest txxne for alcoholics. She 5tated it was an insult to their inteiligence for Mr. Rose to keep Celling them therc wc~uld be no change in the cltentele of cfie rest home except for age differences. She (ndicated thc condltional use permit approved on this property was for six rcrsuns and that at no time had thcre been more ttian six el~erly people (n this home. She stated the Ge~cral Plan deslgnates subject property for medium ~iensity residential land uscs and that 20 persons~ plus staff of t~cn or four, in ch~t home could not b~ conslJere~' rnedium density; st~c felt it could be called overcrowdiny. She ~ndicated (3ob Hofsced~ Judy Narden nnJ a man called "Steve" had visited her home~ and Mr. Nofsted explained t~e was the operator caf the faciiity at 90~ NUrth .:ackson in S~nta Ana and Miss Harden works there~ and he would be ope.rating thts facility if it is appraved. She inc~icated lhat she and her nc:lghbor~ Myrna Beach, had visiteci the Jackson Street fncil(ty and had observe~l a crowdeJ facility with 10 clients and four staff inembers !n a smali tract house; that cars were parked in the front yard and in the driveway; that they had talk,ed with two of the neighbors and one family. Mr. and Mrs . Pedro An~br i z wt~o awned tlie h~use next door to th i s fac i 1 i ty , had p~c.sented a 1 et ter ~ and she read the letter~ as follows: "41e~ Mr. and Mrs. Ped~'o Ambriz~ livc next door t~ the detcx center at 909 N. Jackson, SanCa Ana. We havc had many disturbances from this center~ including: persons ~ominy tn nry home many times late at night~ thinking this is the alcoholic center; ambulances caming to that center at all hoursf many times parking in ou~ driveway; a woman and man pushed their way in our front door asking for maney and frightening Mrs. Ambriz~ and another timE a woman pushed her way in and ask~d for money and frightened my daughter~ tt~e only one home ~t the timc. These pec~ple were from the alcaholic center. Th~se and other disturbances bother us very much. s/Pedra C. Ambrix Naria G. Ambriz" ~~16~T8 , k MINUTES, ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Janus~y 16~ 1978 )8-~il EIR CAT~fORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS i AND CONOITIONAL USC PEAMIT N0. 1789 (continued) ~~.+~~~~rr~ ~~..~~ r ~ ~ w She Indicated she did not feel the steff rep~rt hsd adequately descr(bed the nelghbarhood and polnted out ttie vartuus residentir~i structures In tf~e ncigliborhood. She indlcated she hacl (nfor•r-~ d herself regerding alcoholism and had talked wlth representativos of Melodylan~i, New Flope Counseling Services at tfie Gardon Grove Canmun(ty Chu~ch~ and the Alana Club at Droadway and Lernon~ and ttiey all concurred that this type operation does not belong in a rosidential nPighbarheod. Fredna Jackson~ 431 Soutti~fest 5trcec~ Anaheim~ sta*.cd this is a residential area~ that it ts three blocks from A~ahelm Htgh Sct~ool and four blocl:s frcxn a Junlor htgh school. She stated she did ~ot know Mr. Rose's crndcntials but tl~at first-hand knowledqe is hard ta beat~ end she fett rn~st people whu have associ~ted with an alcol~ulic will be the ones to protest ;he loudest. She indicated they had rece~iv~d lecters from the Redevelopment AgRncy offering funds to meinta~n ancl improve *'~eir nel~hborhood; tf-at she did not belteve this facillty would be cnmpatible w4th thr.ir <',esire~: and would laad directly t~ detertoraxion of the neiyhhorhood~ and st~e did not think (t should be in an aree wl~ere thore ere chil~lren And grandchilJren ar~und. Wtlllam L. 5chafer~ 1114 West Chest~ut Street~ Anaheim~ indicated that the ~eople af the area had been advised to take a look around and investigate elcohol~~m. He tndtcaked :hey were sent a notlce to attend a rrM~tiny and asked Commissianer Johnson to read that notice. Commissioner Johnson notcd~ as part of Mr. Schafcr's testlirsony~ as f~llows: "Dear Resident: You are cordially invited to a lun~heon~ film and discusslon on alcuholism on January 13th~ 11+tf~ and 15th at 1:00, We would lik~~ to c~~t to know you and have you qet to know us because we believe you may have rnisinformatinn about us. Col~nial Manor 423 N. Anaheim eoulevard Anaheim~ California 92805 ~71~~) ~~35-L~40~~ Mr. Schafer sCated he was ~ very busy man~ workiny 12 haurs a day at times~ but that he had taken off the Jay before and c~one to this 'ocation at 1:00 p.m. and was met by a young man who stated he did not think they wanted to see any films because they seemed to be info rnied and that the films we~e locked up. F1e indicated Mr. Rose had talked with them and had talked pretty loud and had sat down while the ladies stood. He Indicated he felt it w~~s an afternoon wasted; tha~ he had gone with an opt~ mind but figured~ after that~ it wa~ nat very well organized. Ne inditated he does wo~k with alcohalics and unde~stands the problems~ but he does not want to have to come home from work and put up with it in I~is neighborhood; that there v~rould not bc sufficient parking for 20 people~ and that right ~aw they do not have enouyh parking. Delmar Pebiey appeared before the Corr~nisslon and indicated he was representing his mother who lives at 12S South West Street, Anaheim; that he had been tuld this same organization was buyrng the Elks Club and that this shauld have e bearing on Lhis dec'~ian. He indicated he felt there Hould be areas mad~ availabie through the ~Pdevelopment proJects in Anaheim and felt this should be considereJ rather than trying to put it in an area where people are settled. He indicated his mother was alreadr getti~g worried wtth ~eople wandering a~ound the straets and walking by; that a lot nf kids 4r:q~.~ent these Plleys. He indicated he was famtliar with alcoholism and tt~c prob!• ;~~ ,.~ople wo~1d dry out and then in a day or week would be baCk d~inking again; th-.~ ... ~~e~ ~eople do overcome it, 1/16/78 MINUTES, ANAHCIM CIT' P+ NNING COMMISSION~ Januery 16~ 1q79 78-42 EIR CATEGORI~AL EXEMr_r_i0N-C U1SS 1 ANO CONDITIONAI_USE PERMI7 N0. 17a9 (continued) but usually d~n't. t1e fcslt the tontlnual flow oP people (nto this nelgliborhood would be detrimental. He Jid n~t feel the parking would be adequ+~~~ for 20 penple~ plua staff. and did not think It wo~-Id be possib~~ for them to hava sc~ch a use witliout p~oviding adequate parkiny. Ne asked the Commission to examine the po~s(btliry of puttinq somotl~ing Iike this next to thelr rnother; th~~c thls was h(s matl~er's home; that he had bullt that place for her and she was sAtlsfled with it, nnd fclt if this was appr~~vcd hu woulJ h~ve to i~elocete hor. 11~ stated Anahelm (s gc-ing thruugh redevel~~~xncnt ric~ht now and there could be areas for ~: proJect like ttiis. Ile State~ he wt+s not oppased to helping the ~lcoholics~ but he wa~ apposed to havin~ chem in a residr.nti~l area, Mr. Rose referred to tf~e faci l ity c~n LGmon Street an~1 pc,tnteJ out therc; a~e elclerly people Itving in Chat neiyhborhnud, ancl that they arc: prahably sane of the besc frlends that faclllty has, tte stated he felt if Nr. Pabley had investig~ied the typr, of facility this (s going to be~ he w~~ld kr~ow whnt kin~l of p~onlc thcy ~an to Jcal with. Nc refsrred to sevcrol pcople in thc ne(gh;~c~rhoocl of thc f.~ci 1 ity ar- Le~non 5trcet who wcrc tn fevor of the proJect. Ne st+~ted k~c fclt the I~ousc on Lemon Street was probc~ly one of thc quictest houses on Chat strcet. ~ie state<i if his mother werr s~.~red~ he woul~f try ta ~nlm her fears~ and he fe.lt Mr. ^ebley sl,o~lc: tak~ his nx~tl~er ta el~e hous~ on I_emon Strest so thaC shc cauld sec for I~erscl f wl~n[ [fie fact 1 i ty is. Referring to f1r. McUonauyh's remarks~ he statc~f Mr, McOcnauc~t~ hed wor~;cd as a vc~lunteer in a cletoxificatfon center and tl~at if he had worked in that same fec:illty, ha would be suapicious also; that thac fa~ility l~as stnce br,~n closed by Bill Peterson who looked at it~ and with his Uackr~round in alc.oholism~ dId su~gest that it be shut down, He referred [~ *.he comments thac Gordo~~ Sloan ho~i s~i~! this facility st~ould not bc i~ a residential nely~~:.orhood~ and indic.ited he found (c h~rd to bel i~ve Mr. Sl~an would make such e statement. tlr, indicatccl reh~rdiny thc New Nopc Foundatlan~ he had n~t had any bad deai tngs wi th that yroup~ and i f tt~c: managc:r of the Alano G 1 ub made e statemen[ to thAt effect~ he wou1J be termtnate~i. Regardinq the f~cility on Jackson Street in Senta Ana~ he indtcated he kncw of that facility and that it wt~s ~~vercrowded and overstaffed. Ne indicated it was Rc~t ~ne of the Col~~nial Manor ot~eratlons ~r~f that he wc~uld not want to h~ve it for a facllity. He asked 1f he c,ou~d havc copie~, af the let!ers read by Mrs. McUonough. Reyarding his c~eJent(als~ he in~licatr.~ he was the "town drunk" a`ew years back and that the effect of aicohol has left Its scars on him and his family's lives~ and that he has not ha~ a drin~. in al~~x~st nine; ycars. HP referred to thc Toron;o Report rr,gardin,y the medical settin~~s for withdrawal from alco' ~i5rn and suyyested that because of the psychologlca) effe~:: c~n a person in a medica) sett(ng~ t~e aqreed with t!~is report. Ne stated that in c~rder for this facility to be licensed by the ~'~te of Californla~ any persans coming to chat facility must be mentally :umpetent. Regarding the cosi factc~r. he indicated he did nut know thf: breakOnw~ but doubted that anyone had eve.r paid the arnount as stated previously~ an~ pointed ~ut that hosrital ~ooms cast over $200 a Jay. Ile indicated the Gounty of Orange had sent o~~t a r•~uesL for a proposal, Indic~t(nu they had $200~U00 of the taxpayers' money available to spend on alcoholisn-, and thbt the Cola~ia) Manor Halfway Nouscs had responded that they needed $25t~,OQO to operate this faci 1 ity and would be wi 11 ing to pick up the cif fference. He indicated Charles Eagles cuuld furnish information regarding the budg~t. He stated the reasoii he had sat down while discussin~~ this operation with the ladles was because of a bad back; that there w~s another chair available which ane of the ladles could have sat in. He stated he wished as many people had responded to their invitatlon to learn mere about t-~a opera;lon as had come out for this meetiRg t~ oppose the operation; he felt Mr. M~Donough had Farobably scared his neiyhbors regarding this t/1L/78 MINUTES~ l1t~ANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Januery 16~ 1978 78-43 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AI~G CQNDITIONAL USE P~RMIT NO. 1 78~ (continued) facl l i ty; he understo~d the condit io~sal use permi t wes approved fo~ 20 peaplo~ and Mr. Tashl~o pointed out that !t was approved for 20 people~ Ix~wever, th~y prap~sed to expand the phystcol bui lding in order to aecorr~~x~dnte those 2t1 pQOptc. Mr. Rase stated someone has done something to the physl cal bul lding end polnted out he thouc~l,c e room !i~d been a~+ded onto thc north sicle of the bui 1J(n~ to the rear. He indi catcd this fncillty on West Street would be no di f ferent than thc one Por wanen on Lemon St raet. M~. Charles Eogles stated they planned to ~pend +! lut of maney on this ft~cllity to remad~l t t; that tha garege i s fa 1 I 1 ng apa r t; ar~d tl~ot af kc r the money hos been spon t~ th I s dwel l tng wi 11 probably look becter L~~an othc~r propcrtics tn the n~tyf~borl~ood. TNL PUDLIC NEARING WAS CLUSED. Cl~ai~man Tolar p~inte~ uut in relatiansl~lp to what they are t•ying t~ do~ he cannot see enything except that it is e v~ry wond~rful thing; that it is ~ecognized by eaeryane that there is a necd. Ht stated hc Jid not know lic~w tl-e rest ~f the Commisslon wrs ~~~In~ to vote, but nothtnc7 ha~f been st~id to eonv(nce lilm th~t thi, property ~hould be used for thts type uae. He frl t i t shauld be in sn area where I t would n~t have an i i l effecc on so many people~ rather than in the center ot a residenttal area that we are trying to preservC. Ile felt malntt~ining the ~esidr.ntlal a~eA is going to hc A very Important item to the radevclopment of Anahcim. H~ s;ated we want the people to st~rt Ilving back in the ~ity of Anaheim and to uxne back into the re~leveloped areas. He indicoted that whlle he supported the theory and cuncept ar~d real izeJ i t takes a lot to puc up w( th poople who have a cJrlnkiny problem anJ he appr~ctated what they are attemptinq t~ do~ he felt this area is restdential and that t~is su~port woulrl go tc~wards the ~esldents there. He wtshed Mr. Rose the br.st of luck In findl-~y another location tf this rcquest is turned down. Mr. Rose ask,ed where woulcJ he sugyest puit(n~ a detoxification ce~ter~ and Chairman Tolar repited that he did not know wliat to tel l him; that onc gentleman had suggest.ed there might be somethiny in ti~c redevcl~prnont area, and that might be ttie best app~oACh he could take but that w~uld be up t~ che Re•~eveiopmenc Commission to answcr, Commisstoner Herbst refcrred to the statement in the literature furn(shed by Mr. Rose that these types of facllities should be locatec! in an area wlth mixed zoning and th~t this is primarl ly zoned and is tc~ta) ly res i dcntlal ~ nnd hP fel t the 1 i terature furni shed answered that concern. He di d not fee i th i s wes the area because i t d i d not have the mi xture of zoning. M~. Rose reptied that the~e was a mixtur~ of zoninq (n this neighborhood. Cornmissioner Nerbst stated it is totally involved ln ics entirpty by residentia) uses; that 1 t is not a mixture. Commissioner 6arnes stated she obJected to this use in a residentiat area and complimented those people who fiaJ bothered to f i nd out more about the operati~n. Shc fel t tF~at in order to protect the citizens of A~aheirn~ the petttion must b~ denied. Commissioner Johnson stated he knew i1r. Rose and the ~Commission !~as dealt with him in the past; that he was not going to support this proposal; ~nd th~t hts obJection is that this is a ~esidentlal area. He want~ed M~. aose to kn~w he was not discriminating against any certaln type of peo~le, but was trying to accompltsh gooJ land planning and ta follow through Ni th th~ Ci ty of Anat~elm gc.idel ines. It was noted Chat the "rirecCUr of the Planning Department has determined that the proposed activity falls ~ithin ~~,e definition of Section 3.01~ Class 1, o~ the City vf Anaheim Guldelines to the Requirements fo~ an Environmental Impect ~t~port and is, therefore, categarical ly exempt from the requ i rement to fi le an EIR. 11~6/78 ~- MI iVUTES, ANANE IM C 1 TY PLANt~ I NG COMMI SS I ON ~ Jenua~y 1G~ 1g78 )8-~i4 EIR CATEGORIC/1l EXENPTION•CLASS 1 AND COND_IT~OI;AL US~ PERMlT N0. 1789 (c~ntinued) 11CTION: Commtesloner ~ernc~ offered Resalution No, PC7~~12 and moved for its passage and sc~optTon that Petition for Condltlanal Use Permit No, 178y be denled on th~ besls that the use wouid noc be compattble wlth the surrounding residentlel uses tn thet sub,ject lotatto~ is in a wholly resiJential nelyhborhood and the proposad usc would cau~c addttio~al craffic, nois~ and park,ing which would neyatively Impact tho neighborhood~ and bathroam fact 1 i ti es and o~-s 1 te parkiny are i na~iequate. On roll cell. the foregoiny resolution was passed by the followlnc~ ~iote; AYE;S: COMMISSIONERS; BAaNES~ UAVIU~ NERUST~ JOHNSON, KING~ LINN~ TOIAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONL A~SEI~T: COIIMISS I ONCRS : NONE Jack Whlte. Dep•ity City Attorney, prescnted the pecitioner with the w~itten rlghc to appeal the Ptannin~ Commission's decision within 22 days. 1 TE19 N0. 6 R A ORI CAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 PUBIIC NEI1RINf~. 01JNERS: VINCENT D. JOYCE AND ~ 11 1 I ONAL USE PE i~M 17 N0. 795 CHARLES LARRY CULWELL ~ P. 0. dox 24F, ~ Bonsa 1 1~ CA ~2003. AGCNT: KAKL P. KOCEK~ 1303 South Drookhurst Street~ Anaheim~ CA ~28~~~~. Petttloner requests perrnlssion to EXPAIID AN EXISTING PRE-SC1i001 WITIi WAIVCR OF MAXIMUM Ft~~CE HEIGNT on property described as an irregularly-shaped parce) of I~nd consisting of approximately 0.2~+ acre having a frontbec of approximat~ly 13~ feet on the w~st side of Brookhurs: Street~ havisig a maxinwm dep!I~ of approxirr+ately 115 feet~ being locatod approximately A00 feet south of the centerline of Bal1 Road~ and furthr.r described as 12~+1 South Brookhurst S treet. Property presently classtfieJ CL (COMMERCIAL, LIHITEU) ZONE. There was n~ one present i ndicating thei r ~ppos i t(on to SubJect request ~ and al thouqh the staff report to the Planning Commiss(an dated JanuAry 1G~ 197~ was not read at thc public hearing~ it Is referred to ancf raade a part ~f ~he minutes. Ka~l Kocek~ ayent for the petitioncr~ was prescnc to answer any questions and indlcated the owner of the existing school wished to expar~d, Commissto~e~- Johnson in~iicatcd he felt th is was ttie type of pre•school Anaheim needs and he was pleased wi th ..r~e plans. TI~E PUBLIC NEARIFIG WAS CLOSL'D. It was noted that the Direct~r of the F'lanning Departrt~ent has determined that the proposed activity falls within the deffnltion of Sectfon 3.01~ Glass ?~ of the City of Anahelm Guidelines to the Requirements fnr an Envtronmental Impact Report and is, therefnre, ~ateyoricai ly exempt from the requirement to file a~ EIR. AC710N: Co~nml~sTaner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC7~-13 ~nd moved for i ts passage and adoptron th~t Petttion far Condittonal Use Pe~mlt No. 1795 be granted and walver fo~• maximum fence height be granted on ths basis that thn proposed fence wi 11 be a cantinuat(or of an ~xistin9 fence o~ the westerly and southerly property 1 i nes. and subJect to Inte~departmental Committee ~~cormendatlons. On roll cal 1~ the forcyofng resolution v+as passed by the follawing vote: AYES : CQMN I SS I ONERS : BARNES ~ DAV I D, HERBST ~ KI NG ~ L I NM ~ JOhNSON, 70LAR NOES: COMMI5SlONERS; NONE AgSENT: COMMISS IONERS: NONE ~~t6~~~ ~, . MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY P~AN-~ING CO-'WIS;'~ION~ Ja~nut~ry 16~ 1~18 ~ ~a'~1~ ITEM N0. 9 IR CG RICAL LXEMP710t~•CLASSCS i~ PUBLIC NEARINf. OWNER: LA PALMA PROPERIIES. ~ s N. ~ 4)7A Campus prlve. Newport Deach~ CA 92GG~• AGENTt DONALD R. POTEETC ~ 101'12 Me~rimac~ Huntingtan Beech~ CA 926~~6. Patitionar requas ta permi s s i on to ESTAaI I SII AN AUTUMOB I LE SALES AND LE!-S I NG f11C I L t TY WI TIi WAI VER Of MIf~IMUM NUMI~ER Qf PARKIt~G SPACES o~ property det~cribed as e ~ectangularly-shaped parcRl of land constating af approximat~~ly O.f, acre haviny ~ frantag~ of approximately 12~i fnet on the ~orth side of La Palmo AvMnuc~ haviny a rk:ximum dcpth of approximt~tely ?.O6 feet. betn g located a pproximately 215 feet ea~t oF the centr.rllne of Tusttn Avenue~ and further descrtbed as 3~i11 East la Palrna Avenue. Property ~resc~t ly c lass l f ie d H l, ( I N D U S T R I A L. LINITEU) ZOt~E. Therc was no one indicating tltsir presencc in opposit(on to subject request~ and olthou~h the staff repvrt to thc Plannin!~ Commisslon d~t~d January 1G. 1'17~~ wAS not read at the publlc hear(n9~ it is ref~~rreJ to ~nd ri~de ~~ ~Art ~f the rninutas. Al Tetreault. representing La Palma Partncrs~ indicated they wcre r~aucsttng a conditlona) use pcrmit and that he was oiie of the principals in the buslr~eSS and was present to ansvrer any questions. TI1C Put~LIC HEAkI~~r, Wl15 CLOSEu, Chalrman Tolar asked wt~y he wantr.d to c~pen a reta(1 automobi lc sal~s ~~~~tlet in an industrlal zone~ Mr. Tetrr..~ult repl iccf tl~at in r~ost inst~nces~ rather than wholcsale these cars ~ they wou 1 d-n~~ke yood reta i 1 cars ; that they havc ~~fenuat~ storage areas and could reC~il these cars to some of their ctientele. Chal rman Tolar stated f~~ had somc reservations e6out this use; that mest of the permi ts epproved have bF~n very restrictive rcgarding thc sale of aut~xnobi les, that they have been strictly for le~sing operations in order that tt~e I~asiny comp~~nies wi 11 not create used car sales i~ conjunccion with a leasiny ar~ency. I~e indicated he ~yas furth~r concerned about dolny this in the industrial zo~e. M~. 7etreault poin'ed out there was one such ayency in the area at the pr~sent timo; th~t he was not opening up a used car lut in the middle of an industrial area; that most of their buslness would be lcas(ny. Ne indicated he was tald they could wholesale (f they wantad to get an of f i ce. Ne indicated the cars at this location would be under cover and would not cietract ~rom the area; that he has been working for the dealerships tn this canmunlty for quite a nurrber of years; and that v+ith the cars ~~ndercover~ would be a much better appearance. Commissioner Linn pointed out the tast conditional ~se permit approved for a Icesing agency specified they could not ssll any cars on the site. Chairman Tolar potnted out that th~ Commission was probably over-reacting ta thls operatlon because of the other 'ealership which w~s mentioned. Ne indicated that when that Rermt t was approved~ i t wes stri ctly a dealership and not a srles faci l i ty; that they would be selling just wholesaie tn the dealers, at least that was the way it was told to the Cvmmissio~, and F~e had no doubts that ttiis petitioner would have a clean operation and that the City does need this type business, but did not feel breaking dcywn the industrial zone aith this type factlity is what the Commission should do. He indicated he felt ti needeci to be ln a carnmercial zone where it would be allowed by ~ight. 1/16/7$ ~ MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Janu~ry 1G~ 1978 78-46 Elii CATEGOKICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 6 5 ANO GONDiTI`L U~c. PCa_ N`79~ ~~ontinued) Commiaslonerllerbs t polntad out tl~at the car agenclos along A~shelm 8oulevard are still zoned induetrial a~d that whe~ t~ie zone was reclassified~ c.ar aq~ncies were allowtld by cond(tlonal use permit only because nf the existing u~es elong Anehelin aoulevard. Ile felt tliat prope~ty sl~nuld be rezoned Ne statod he felt tl~ls was why the petitlanGr was making this request~ sfnc~ the Code doess soy we al iow cer ayencies by epproval of a eonJitiona) uso permit. Ild indicAtnd thls pa~rticular site (s a brand new Industria) complex and it bothcrs him beceuse thore is a large~ unused service statlon site ad)~ecnnt to this prep~rty, and even tliough it m~y not be thls pe[Itlonor's intentlon~ lt would open tho door for this type af usc for scxnc:t~ody olsa in the fu[ure. 11e felt tljat beceuse this is in the haart of the (nJustrlal complex and carirtxrcial usc~s heve not been ~~llowed to intrude inta thc industrial xone anJ this usc w~uld not service t~ie industriel ereA~ tha request should b~: doi~~eJ. Mr. Tetreault Indicat~d Vie felt ho miyht as well witlidraw lils request because ha could soe the opinlon uf the Commisslon and indlcated he haJ ssarched for two we~ks f~r n locatlon and did not wnnt a location on Anal~elm E~oulevard, but hG wes tryinc~ to build a diffcrAnt kind of image and felt thosc locatlons on Anahelm 8oulcyard werc not tlie mc~st plcasant. Chairman Tolar p otnted out i~c was entitled to a vote from the Commisslon rec~arding thls. Ne stated he thougli[ onc uf the ~icest things a business could do would bc to take a site~ such as ane ~n Analicirn BouclvarJ, and improve f c. Mr. Tetreault pointeJ out that the landowners do not want to spend any mancy for impr~vements and tell Lhc tessec to take it as lt Is. He indicated he llked tt~is particulAr location because tl-e cars would be under cover and protPCtion would be prvvided fot the cars; that tie has Cadillacs~ Porsches~ etc.. an~ d{d not want them sitting out. Cl~airman Tolar aske~ liaw tie would bring clientele i~to the business~ an~f Mr. Tetreault replied lt woula be by appolntment; tliat lic tias only five employecs anJ buslness would be on an appolntment-only basis; that he u~d not want to run a us~d-car lot~ and the Commisslun could restrict it to five c.ars if they desired. 11e indicateci he was going in for fleet leas3n~ and trylny to g~t cc~mpanles to purchASe from him; that It would be ~pen to indivlduals~ l~t basically he would be c~oiny after fleet sates. Alsu~ this locatlo~ ts close to the auetlon down tfie street. Chalrman Tolar noted it was unfortunate that because of what had happened and polnted to the use down the street and indlcated they have completely reversed what the Cormi(sslon was told anJ are advertising~ hav(ny auctions, etc.~ chis request is being negatively reviewed. Lommissioner He rbst indicate~ t~e realized what che yentleman was talking about~ buC he fialt tlois is an industrial zone, primarily for industrial uses ~nd not for commercial applicatlons~ and that even tiiougli r.he buslness would be totally enclosed~ as this gentleman I~as s toted~ once the conG~.ional use permit (s allowed~ it could set a precedent. It was notad ttiat ttie Director of ti~e Plan~ing Department lias determined ihat the proposed activity falls within the defi~ition of Sectfon 3.01. Classes 1 and 5, of tl,: City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requiremcnts for an Environmental Impact Report and is~ therefore~ :ategorically exempt from the requi~err,ent to file an EIR. ACTIOP~: Cacmi~sioner Herbst offereJ Resolutlon No. PC7a•tk and moved f~r its passage and a opt on~ thet Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1796 be denied on the basis that the praposed us e would be an intrusion inYo the industriel area and dces not serve the lndustrlal community. 1/16/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Janua~y 16~ 1978 78•47 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEHPTION-CLASSES 1 6 5 AND~CONOITIQ~IAL USE PERMIT No. 1796 (continued) On roll call~ the foreyoln~~ resulutlon was pASSad by the follow(ng vote: AYCS: C011MISSIONERS; BARNLS~ DAVID~ HERUST~ KING, LINt~~ JOHNSO~I~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AEiSENT: COMMISS I Ot1ERS : N~tJL Jack ~!h i te ~ Dnputy C 1 ty At torney ~ prescntcd t~ie pet i t ioi~er wt th thE~ wrl t t~~ r t gh t to appeal the planning Cammission's decision witl~in 22 cloya. ITCM ~IU. 10 RE'OR AI~u RECQNME~~UATIONS ITLM A. GLIItIU~L FLAN AMENDMC' ~ N0. 14~ - Reyucst for ini ti~tian t~ study an use a ternat ves e~n t ~ Circulat,ion Element~ os follows: I. Area northeast of Nerbor ltoulev~rci and Ghepman Avenue. II. Southwest corner c~f Rampart Street and ArAngewood Avenue. I11. Northwest corncr of Katella Avenue and Walnut Street. IV. Arca east of the Senta Ana Frceway, south of Kate11A Avenue~ north of Oranq~w+oad Avenue~ ancl west of State Collc.qe Douleverd. V. Circul~~tion Elemen[ (roaciwAy widths and city standards). VI. Arca northeast of Hestcr Street and Slmmons Avenuc. V~I. Statc College aoulevard in the vlcinity of South Street. Ron Sm!th~ Associate Planner~ presented the staff reports dated January 1~~~ 197Y to the Planniny Commisslon far Areas I through VII ~nd stated chat the Planning Gommisslon should determine whethsr or nat a fer~er~l Plan ~mendment for these areas is approprlete at this time. Commissioner tierbst pointed out that he felt the areas should be studied and offered a motion, seconded by Comnissioner Davici an~i MOTlON CARRiE~.D~ that a public hea~(ng be set to conslder areas I through Vil of G~neral Plan AmF.nclment No. 145 on March a~ 1978~ I:O~ p.m.~ at a locatian to be detc~mined at a later date. Chalrman 7olar asKed Mr. Smith to please determine whNre th~ meeting should be held and report b~ck to rhe Cummission. ITEM B. ABAMpONMENT N0. 77~2A - Public utility easeme~t and portion of ex~ess r g t-o -way nown as Hancock Street. north of La Palma Avenue and eas t of Lakeviev, Avenue. The staff report to the Planning Comnisslon dated January 16, 197~ fr~m the Publtc Works Department, Enyineering Division, requesting to aband~n an existing public utlllty easement and an excess portion of a street known a~t hlancock Street Iocated north of La Palma Avenue and east of Lakeview Avenue~ was p~esented. It was noted that the Director of tt~e Planniny Department has determined that the proposed activity falls wtthin the definition of Section 3.01~ Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Rcquirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. ~/16/78 MINUTES~ 11NAHEIM CITY PLAN~IING COMMISSIQN~ Janua ry 16~ 197$ 78-46 ITEM b (continued) ACTION: Commissloner Kli~g offered a motion~ s~condeJ by Commtssi~nar Davld end MOTION ~D~ thnt tha Anahelm City Planning CommissiAn does hereby reco~-wnend eo the City C~uncil th~t request for Abendonme~t No. %7-2A be granted. ITEM C. ABANUO~IMENT N0. JJ-t0A - Public utility easament~ past oP State Call~ge ~ou evard~ south o dal) Road. The staff rapart to the Planriiny Conrnissicm d~ted January 1~ , 1~78 fran the Public Works Department~ Engineering Division~ requcsting to aba~don an existing public ut111ty aasemant located 4est of Statc C~llegc Doulevard and south of Br~ll Road~ was prescnted. It was note~ that the Director of tt~c Planntng Department has determined that the propdsed acttvlty f~lls w(thin the deftniti~n of Secticin 3.~1, Ciess 5~ ~~f the i,i~y a` f~n!~hai;.~ Guidelines to the Requlrements for ~n Envirc?nrnPntal Impact Re~ort ~nd is~ theref~re. categorlcally exempt from the r~~uiremenc to file an EIR. ACTION; Comrnlssioner King oFfered a n~~ticx~~ seccmdeJ hy Ccx-miissio~er Linn and MOTION ~t p~ lhat the Anahe i m C i ty P 1 enn i nc~ Corrm i s s i on daes he rah~~ retcxrrnend to the C i ty Council that request for Abandonrrw nt No. J/~1~A be ~aranted, ITEM U. REGlAS51FICAT1011 N0. /3-74•5y(G) - Request for approval of sp~cific plans. The staff report to tl~e Planniny Ccxnrnissiun dated January iG~ 197~ was presented. noting that subJect property is a rectanyularly~shaped parcel of lond consisttny of appraximately 0.9 acre located at the nortF~west corner of La Palma and Magnolia Avenues. having approximate f~onta~es of t/5 feet ~~n the north sidc of La Palma ~venue and 2j0 feet on the west ~ide of Magnolia Avenue~ and that tl~e applicant requests appruvAl of specific plans. Cammissioner Kfr~g noted that he had a conflict of int~erest as defined by the Anaticim City Planniny Commission Resolution No. PC76-15)~ aJoptinc~ ~ Conflict of Interest Code for the Planniny Gormission~ and Goverrn~~ent Lode Section 3G2~ et seq., in that Uunn Properties ls associated with Pacific Liyhtiny Gorporacion and hP awns comnion stock in Pacific Ltghting C~~rpo~ation~ and pursuant to provisions of the above codes, he hereby declares to ttie Chalrman thst he was witi~drawiny from thc hearing in conncction with item tO~D and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting xherea~, He indicaxed he had not discussed this matter with any mernber of the Planniny Commission. TIiEREUPC)N, COhWiSS10NER KI P~G LEFT THE COU~JC i L CHAM6~ R AT 4: 37 P.M. ZeFrese~tat(ves from the Cerritos Va{ley Bank discussed th~a Traffic Enyineer's suggestion that th~e driveway gaining access from tt~e west prnperty line be clos~d. Paul Singer~ Traffi;, tngineer~ pointed out the Planniny Ccimmission has apF~•oved limited access ta the ent(re parcel bounded by La Palma, Megnolia~ and Woodland, and that th~ Traff~c Uepartrnei~t has taken tiiat as a yuideltne and has classified this as a limitPd- access parcel. Ne stated he would recammend tf~at one driveway be permitted for the exclusive use of the bank. The Commisslon discussed the access points and interior circul~tion of this parcel anJ various solutions to take care of the problems. ~i~bi~a ~ I ~ MII~UTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~~nuary 16, 1978 78-49 IT. fM D (contlnued) ACTIONt Commissioner tierbst ofTered a motion~ secondad by Commissloner Barnes and MOTIOtI ~D (Commisatoner Ktny being obsont)~ thet the speGific plans be approved~ sub,~ect to the stipulations that revislons be mado to allow I~qress only to sub)ect property f~om the ~dJacent pr4perty ta the west and that the revisad pl~ns be epproved by the Traffic Enginoar. WORK SESSION Anntk~ Santalshtl. Assistant Oi~ecto~ for zontng. tndicated there had been some probtems with the pravlously-,et tan~ative date fo~ the wark sesslon In that February 20th woulcl be a City holidsy. Vertous dates were discussed with the Planning Comm(ssion, with the consansus that February 23rd~ 1978~ J:00 p.m.~ would be the best time for them. ADJOURNMC~IT Ccxnmissloner Barnes offered e motion~ secanded by Commissianer Ltnn and MOTI(1N Cl1RRIEn (Commissioner King b~ing absent), that the meeting be adJourned. The meeting adJourned at ~+:y5 p.rn. Respcctfuily submitted, ~~ ~ . Editl~ L. Ilarris~ SecreCary A~aheim Clty Planning Cor-wnission EL11:hm