The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1978/03/27~tty Hell M ahelm~ Celifarnla March 27, 197g REGULAR MEETING Of THE ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSIOr~ REGULAR - Thc regular meeting of the M aheim City Planning Commissto~ was called to MEETING order by Chairman Toler at 1:30 p.m.~ Merch 27, 1978~ tn the Council Chamber~ a quorum being pr~sent. PRESEN7 - CHAIRMAN: Tolar C~MMiS~iuNEK~: ~Arnes~ Ne~bst~ Johnson~ King Commisstoner David arrlved at 1:35 P.m• Cammissioner Linn ~rrived et 3200 p~m. ALSO PRESENT - Jack White Deputy Clty Attorney M ~ika Santalahtl Asststant Oirector for Zoning Jay Titus Office Engineer J~y Tashiro Assistanc Planner Editi~ Harris ~lanning Commtssion Secreta ry PLEDGE OF - The Pledgc of Alleg(a~ce to the Flag was led by Commissioner King. ALLEGIANCE ITEM N0. ~ EIR~GORICflL EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 PUBLIC HEARItIG. Oti1NER5: SIDNEY AND CHARLOTTE . SINGER~ 5i5G Ssnta Monlca Boulevard~ Hollyvrood~ CA 90Q29. tiGENT: HAL NORMAN NlBBARD, 7329 Esst Pesco La~edo~ Aneheim, CA 928C7. Peticioner requests WAIVER OF (A) PERMITTED USES AND (B) REQUIREU SITE SCREENtNG, TO ESTABlISN A RAOIAI'OR SNOP IN AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION on property siescribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of la~d consisting of approximately 0.3 acre located at the southwest co rner of Lincnln Avenue and Rase Street, haviny approximate frontaqes of 100 f~et on the south side of Llncoln Avenue and 125 faet on the west side af Rose Street~ and further described as 1020 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classlfied CL (COMMERCIAL. LIMITED) ZONE. Chai~man Tolar rcported the petitioner had requested the application be withdraw~ for Variance No. 30Q4. ACTION; Commissloner King offerGd a motton~ seconded by Cvnmissioner Herbst and MOTION ~~ (Commissio~ers David and Ltnn being absent)~ that Petition for Varianct No. 3b04 be withdrawn at the rcquest of the petitioner. COMMISSIONER OAYID ARRIVED AT ~:35 P.M. 78-192 3/21/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEII! CI'~Y PLANNI~lG COMMISSION~ MIIRCN ?7. 1979 ITEM N0. 1 ~VE DECLAkAT{ON N .~ V R ANGE_N0. 299 _ described as a rectangulariy-shaped having a frontage af approxtm;,~r.ly mexlmum depth of ~pprcxlmately ti0a the centerl(n~ of L.lncoln Avcnue. AGaICULTURAL) ZOI~E. 78-193 CONTINUCU PUDLIC HEARING. OMINERSt ELMER C. AND EL17.Al~ETN d. DREWS end CEN7RAL BAPtI ST CNURCH OF ORANtiE COUNTY~ 227 North Maqn~lle Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA 928~1~ and ROLAND J. JENSEN~ 101n East Chestnut Street. Sante Ana, CA 92701. AGENT: 80R15 ELIEFF~ 200G No~th Broadway~ Ssnta A~a~ CA 92706. P~operty parcel of land consisting af epp~oximately 7.7 acres y51 feet an the west side of M~gnollo Avenue~ having r feet~ an~t bein,y loc.ated apnror~mately 325 feet north of Pr~perty presently classtfied RS-A-43,On~ (RESIDENTIAL/ REQUESTEO CLASSIFIGATION: RM-4000 (RESIDENTIAI. MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE, RCQUCSTCU YAP,IAl~CL; WAI`'Ef~ OF (I!) MlNIMUM 0~,!!!DIN~ SITE AREA, (~{~ MINIMIIM RFAR SETBACK, (C) ~`11NIM~UM UISTl1NCE BETIJF.Et~ BUIIDINf,S~ (0) TYPE OF PARKIhG SP. 'E5, AN~ (E) REQUIRED 5CREENING OF PARKING F~.~CILITY~ TQ CONSTRUCT A 14fi-UNI i, RM-4QOn CONDOMI~IIUM CQMPLE~;. There were four persons indicatiny the(r presencQ in oppc~sitton to sublect request~ and althouyh the scaff report to the Planning Corr~~issio~ dated March 27~ 1978 was not read at the publi~ heortng~ i[ is referre~ to and made a pert of the minutes. David Termohlen~ Presidenc~ Architec[ural Resenrch Group~ Inc., ')90 Tawn and Goui try~ Ora~ge~ indiceted the request Is for 13~ dwelling units rathe r tnan 1G6 as indiceted In the staff report; thaC th~~ units wi 11 be canstructcd ~f concrete and cteel ~ with sprinklered ~~rages undernea[h~ similar to a high-rise building since th~ cost is lower and b~tter fire protection~ sound-proafing~ etc,~ can be provided and che ouildtng will be safer since anly the ewners can enter the garages; that It wi 11 be restri~=ted from any entry frum the ground surfece except for emergency equipment; and that they are warking with the County Flood Control Distrtct to cover the Carbon Creek Channel at a cost of about S35~~000 ~nd wi I 1 use the surface ri ght s primar i ly for rear yards a~d f ire entrances. but nuth(ng will 5e built on it. Ne indicated it h,~s incraased the cost of che underground garages to reinforce the channel for ecriergency vehicle use, He pointed out they proviJe mo~e ope~ spece than if tliey had follawed the regulations for an RM-40U0 development and had put roads and garages all over the surface. He polnted ouC the actual required minlmum lot ~overage has been inc~eased sosnewhat. and they have provided more green space than ts required by Code~ and pointed out cheir ~mits are about 2250 squa~e feet r~ther rhan ~~000 squarF reet; that they havc d~~cbled the lot sizes by putting the dr(vewaYs and garages underneaxh; and that wa(vers (b) and (e) have been deleted. He referred to the walver of the type of parking s~~aces to be prov(ded and felt chis was a matter of interpretation; that the underyround garages would be enclosed~ sprlnklered for fire protectton~ well-lit and vantllated~ and elevatcrs Nill be pravided for the handicapped, Concerning the requirement for screening~ he indlcated they wo~~ld provlde whatever Screen(ng ts necessary. Regarding the rrquirement that a sound buffcr ~c provided, h e poin ted out they will be providing a~ ettractive h~uck wall across the front o4` the building, except for those areas required for inc,,~~ass and egress for automobiles. He fclt that wlch thc garages underneath and a wall provided~ this would be better sound reduction than a conventlonal proJect; that they have yone over the f i re hydrant requirements wi th staff ~ etc. He fe~ t beca~use of thz cnst of land and the urban ~equirem~nts~ thTs high denslty ls importa~t, 3/27/78 MINU7ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ NARCFI 27~ 1978 78-19~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. REL~ASSIFICATION N0. 17-7g~50 ANU VARIANCE N0. 2998 (continued) aspecially when you get rid of the vehicles~ tt~e exhaust fumos~ qas. grease end oll by putting the garages underneath. He pointed out hn has Just gotten approva) from the City of Or~npe for faur 20-atory, high•risc towera. He stated this proJect would have a Icft- turn lane and they wou1J put In traffic slgnals ~s requtred and try to make thla the kind of urban living which is necessary. Devid Taravella~ 2653 Yale Ave~ue, Anahelm~ stated his property backs up ta this property end thet he felt en onvironmental impact report sh~uld be required because of the htqh dens~ty. Hn indfGated the Code calls for 84 un(t~ on thls parcel and the developer Is ssking for double that em~unt~ and iie felt it was too high; that thts was a residential area and they w~uld Iike ta maint~in the residential erea and if urbnn living Is desired~ it c~n be moved to dawntown Los Angel~s because Anaheim does not need anymore hlgh density and it does not bcreflt the ~umnunity and he felt the burJeri ~f proof is on thc petitioncr to show be~efit to the City. Ha in~ll~ated that If thc proJect Is A~~rny-~1+ h~ w~uld Itkc to see an :'•foat~ r~l~f.,rced blo~k fencz ar~und the praperty; that the p~esent condttion of the wal l Is very bad. Concerniny tho i~~~erg~~cy gate. he tndicated tF~ey dld not went that on tl~eir street and suggested that it be put ~n the church property. He indicated thoy dld n~t wa~t llghts shlniny Into tt;ctr ;~~operty; that tt~cy would Ilke the arca l~ndscaped with trees larye enouc~h to screen the vte~w; and that they woulci be looking right into the two-story apartments. M~. Termohlen pointed out that there w~uld be only o~c-story buildings withtn 1;Q feet of tha rsside~tlal homes. Concerning the dcnsity~ hc p~inted out there wauld be more apen space and this typ~ p~oJect would have less problems than a proJeci where cars could be driven Into ~t, and thls w~uld restrir.t the entrance of any vehicles whatsoever. He polnted out there ts ane small area for off-street yuest parking. Concarnin~ the 8-foot wall~ he indiceted they would be ylad to provide ~n 8-foot wall, but that the Code only allews a G-foot wall. He stated thc lighcing wc ~td be tt~e low density type lighttng which is required and would not be shining Into the re.IdentlAl hanes. He indicated they do have to comply with the City of Anaheim Fire Code for the ~~mergency gate; that the gate wi 11 be ch 1 id-proc~f and wI 1 1 be ope ~ed wi tl~ a key pass and wi 11 be opera~ted electri cal ly; end that this Is a homeowners assACtation area and under normai c.l~:.umstances these areas do no[ deter(orate. Shlrley Clark~ 261+; West Bruce AvPnue~ Anaheim~ referred to the Planning Commission minutes of January 6, 1964 and presented a capy of chose minutes for Planning Commission ~evlew. She ind(cated she would like to see this pruperty developed; that she Ilves next doar to the churct~ and ts conceri~ed about the fence; that they had put in a retatning wall and nc~w the developer would be putting in a block wal l~ and they have 12-foot pyracantt-a trees whlch do not keep Ghe childrer~ out. She pointed ouc they would be moving the church a little and t~-~ cfiurch would be cutting dawn on their play area by movir.g the building and asked where the children ware goiny to play; that thts apartmenl would be F~dding more children Lo thP area and ~sked who would be supervtsing the playgroun~! after schuvl. She stated sh~ wa~ try(ng to work with [he developer and was tired af tiyhtirq :he sltuation. She referred to the minutes of the 1964 Planniny ~ommisslon meeti~g concerning the gate and the minimum setback of 25 feet a..d pointed uut a 25-foot ga*.back was not proposed. She also refe~red to the requirement that a cul-de-sac be p~.,vi ed if the property ts develoRed. Jerry M derson~ 2645 Yalt avenue, Anaheim~ indicated he was conce~ned about th~ 6-f~~t wall since hEs ~es?dence faces the projecl. He felt iR ths liv(ng a~eas of t~~e ~nits ;~+~ere 3/21/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI~G COMMISSION~ MARCH 27~ 1978 78-195 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATIQN NO.~J-L8~0 AND VARIANCE_N0~ 2~8_ (continued) ..., --- _ facing his Ilving room areA~ they would be looking into each ~• •r's living rooma. Ne ststed ha would be happy w(th the p~oJect if the fence we~e rai.~ed a couple of feet Sandra 'eravelle~ 2653 Yale Avenue~ Anahelm,stated her husband's questlon had not tzeen anawarod concernin,y the poss(bil(ty of putttng th~ emergencv gat~ on the church property. Mr. Termohlen polnted out khe Fire Departrtksnt Insists upon tha locatton of the emergency gate and sincQ that Is a street and ab~ts thls property~ that (s where tt~ey want the gate. An~ika Santalehtl~ Asslste~t Director for Zontng~ stat~d th~ Fire Qepertment is (nterrsted in having all units within 20cJ feet of a public street or same public eccPss~ and that In this instance~ because of the undergraund parking, the fire trucks could not yo (nto that arae end ihe on ly ecr.c;ss WI~UI l~ ~C u~~ Yala Avenue, and 1 t Was becausE of thc das I gn of thc proJect and the 2A0-font minimum dtstance requirement that t!~is is the locatton of the eme~gnncy gatc. Mrs. Taravella pointed out it wes tecause of the design for thc proJect that the gato would be at this locaCion. Mr. Termohlnn polnted out they could provide an easemant which would put all ~~iits wtthln 300 feet~ but that the Firc Department Insists a~ having thts ert-ergency gate end thcy were simply meeting the requlrements of the Ctty of Ana~helm Ftre pespartment. Mrs. Tarevella pointed out there is a flre statlon on Braokhurst near C rescent. T-~E PUBL I C HEAR! NG WAS f LOSEG. Chalrma~ Toler po(nted ~ut the ordinanca for the RM-4000 Zone Is being studied at the present time and that he has two majur concerns with thls proJect As presented. One c.ancern is the density; that the Commtssion has allowed 8 to 10 units per acre and this proJect is asking for 18 units per acre, and he felt that would ae impacttng the area greatly. He stated he recognizcs thers ts a large expenditure with the drainage problem~ but that was not the Ctty`s probicm and he did not want it pa~sed on to the homeowncrs. Nis other concern was with relationship to the parking; that people who are buying co~domintums ar townhouses 1(ke the amenities because they are primarily establlshtng the same type of idcntity with an ownership of a private hume; thac most are developed wlth garages or storage areas~ and Nhile h.: recognizes the securlty problem has beer~ ~esolved with the underground parking, he believ~s that if the parking were on the surface rather than subte~ranean. the developer wouid n~t be ~ble to get as many units on the proJect, and that economics is not a matter for the P1ann'ng Commtssion's concern. Mr. iermnhlen pointed out the cast of closing thP chan~el was to provide a~ditiona) op~n space and not to cut this prope~ty in half with a d(tch and that without ciosing i;~ th~y w~uld be having fire vchicles going through there. climinatiny th~ avera~lf securtty. We stated he felt more of these proJects where garages are not connected would be coming into the A~anga County a~ea and refarred to a praJect in Irvine where the density Is almost twice this proposal. He r^ferred to e NroJect on .lamboree aoad which goes past Newport Center~ which has extremely high density condominiums and felt (f they had put the parking underneath, they would have had ~ore open space. He indlcated he lives in the Anahetm Hills area where houses are very tightly 5rouped together; that he has an Sx10 3/21/78 MINU7ES~ ANAHEIM CiTY P~ANNING COi~it!ISSION~ MARCH 27, 1978 78-1!~6 ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECIASSIFICATION N_ ~. 77-Z8-50 ANO VARIANCE N0. 25~8_ (continued) front yerd~ witt~ no back yard st all and that this proJoct will give mc~re area and th~ open spac~ Is greate~ than that requtred undar the RM-4000 Zone; that it Is not s~ ec~~~mical situation; aRd that they have come up with the bast pro]ect they could fAr this property. C~mmisatoner Johr:,,n asked staff haw the 2250-square ~oot area r~~s calculated~ if the square footaqe g.ined by covering tfie chan~~el was Included~ and Jay Tashlro~ Asslstant Plsnner~ pa(nte~ out they had included that port(~~n because they we~e going to usr it for open space and recreational facilities. Commtssioner Johnson stated he felt thls was a ve~ Innovativc proJect and has some thin~s that could be used (n Anaheim; that he wcs somewha~ set agalnst th~ project at flrst bes~ause fie Jid not feel it w~uld be economicsl ly feasible~ bui r;~at was not th~ Planning Commtssion's worry; that if the develaper thought he could amorttze ttie e.ost of coyering the channel wlth that ma~y units, that was up to fi(rn, Ne askad tf the gareges would be tt~e full depth bclaw the bull~tiny or will be half submerge~~ and M~. Termohlcn polnted out they are fully subrt~rged, wltt~ a total ly automatlc ventilatlon system which would be activated when the exhaust fumes ~eached e certa(n Ievei. Commf ss i oner J~hnson as ked i f the sc reen t ng requ i remen t was fo~ the unde~ground fac i 1( t y or the guest parking~ and Jay Tashiro pointed out It pertains to the guest parking area; that they would have t~ provide some type of fence or landscaping to scrcen the parking stails, Canm(sstonar Barnes indi cated she w~s not concerned about the underground parklny~ but felt Anaf~etm is not real ly a large urban clty ltke Los kngeles o~ Ir~ lne and that thts (s ~eally an RM-2000 project, She was concerned about the denstty on the top of the property~ int'ucitng the open space, plus those concerns expressed by the opposltion. She referred to the mtnutns ~of the Planniny Cortmission meeting in 19G4 and indicated they agreed to provtde a 6-foot ~asonry wall o~ the west property 1tne. She read the motton at tl~at time concerning tFie cul-de-sacs to be prov(ded for the stub streets of Yale. Bruce and Russell. Commissioner Kiny pointe d out to M~. TGrrnohl~n that he was thinking abaut the moderate income peeple or below moderate income people and that his latest figures were that only Sa of ehe popu) ati on cou 1 J af ford to buy a new home, and the3e pec,p i e need th i s ty~t of struct~ure. Ne asked Mr. Termohlen tn indicate whether or not he w~,s provtding livtng quarters for those people who could not afford to buy new homes; that due to competitien this would prov~~e lower-cest housing. Mr. Termohlen indtcated he was buildiny 27 units in Covfna whlch are lower cost than any ever bui lt; that h~ is an expert in hlgh-rise and was trying to adapt that concept to lo+~- rlse; that !t ts steel eonstruct ion and would be cheaper. He indEcate~ this type structure does cost cons iderably less than a conventional, wooden-type structure and the sav t ngs wou 1 d be pas sed on to thc hor-~owne rs . Cormnissioner Ilerbst asked about the playground arPa tt-e church has been using and if this woul~ be eliminat~ny part of their playground. Hc felt if the church intends to sell off part of the propc. •ty and crea te more ch i 1 dren on less property, the Commi ss ion needs to knaw about It. 3/27/78 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ MARCH 27~ 1978 1$'~97 EIa NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECl.AS51FICATION N0. 7-78-$0 At~D VARIANCE NO_ . 2998 (continued) Mr. Termohlen pol~ted out thr. church ~ould be ellminatiny the h(yh schoo) level of thelr operat(on. AnnikA Santelahtl po(nted out ths church In tha ortginal cenditlo~a) uss permit did cover part af thts s(te and they hava bce n In talking wilti staff about ~elucetlnq th~ bulldings and nwd) fy i ny the I r en t 1 re p~oposa 1~ reduc i ng the usage by the ch urch. She pot nted out the church In the ori~ir~al condltional use perm(t did c~vrr ~ort of this site ~nd they h~ave becn fn talking with staff about rel~cating the hulldinys and modifying th~lr entire proposal~ ~eductny the usage by the church. She pointed out the rnodlficatlons were primarlly to rt-ove some buildings o raund a llttle~ wlthout add6ng any n av buildings~ but the~~ wus nothing suF~ t++ntial propased. Commisstoner Johnsan polnted out this has been tl vacant lot and t hat if resldentlal structures wcre allowed~ they woulci be allowad to ~iave two-story buildinys or llvln rooms would be looklnr~ (nto Iiving rooms. He pointed ~ut he Ilves on a one-acre parcel ar~~f he can soe another I 1 v I ng room f rom h i s 1 i v I ng room. He s tated the r e are changes when a vacant piece of property is developed~ but the restr(ctions on the developer would mltigete some of th~se concerns. Ne pointed out the develnper would have t~ bu) ld one~ story bu(ldings withln 1~0 feet of a residence and that sin9le-famlly structures wauld be allowed co go two stor(es. so thc developcr Is being requlred to build lower than requlred of a single-family development. Concer~ing the lights, he indicated there Nould not be llghts shining on the structures; that the emergercy gate was aometh(ng that fs seldom used but necessary 1 n case ~f an emerc~ency ~ and thia t an attract i ve~ ch i 1 d-proof gete woul d be an improvenx:nt. He ind~ ated prt~blems occurrtny from haviny ~h( ldren piay ln ~ vacant f ield woutd be el iminated by development; that most ~ f thc objectlons had been In tha[ nature and they will automatlcAlly be handled with development on the property. Ne indicated he felt the Co;^~*Iss(on has to face the probl~m pf al lvwing a waiver of the mtnlMUm building s(te ~r dw+elling u~1c stnce the other waivars have been deieted e~nd the screening could be negotfated. Commi sslane~ Herbs t asked i f there was a resol ut lon of i ntent on the r.nt i re property to Rri-1 [00 . Mfss Santalaht) pointed aut there is a resolution of incent on the iittle~ semi-trlangutar portton located at the easterly end of the ~~outh side of Carbon Creek Channel, but that the r~est of the property is zoned RS-A-43~000~ and the General P lan shaws this property for el ther a church fact 1 1 ty and/or medi wn dens I tY, and this pro Ject woul d be cens) stent with tho Ge~era) Plan. Jay Titus, Office Engineer~ polnted out the modified cul-uc•sac would be constructed wittiin the exlsting right-of-way and not re~ulre any additional rlght-of-way. Cam~f ssfoner B~rnes i nqu i red about the channel i~~el f and asked if any studies had been conducted regarding wace~ runoff. Mr. termohlen point d out Orange County is requiring 13•foot high by 14-foot wide double set of pipes a~d tt .vould take five times as much rain as we ~eeencly had ta fil) that up~ and that it would cost about S500 a foot to build. He indicated the County has done the studies and based on that had recomnended two culverts. Commtssioner King asked if tho trash enclosure relocation to the snuthPrly portion uf subject p~operty and the Trafflc Engineer's recommendation that two drivc ~ays be permitted 3i21/7~ MINUT'ES~ ANAN~IM CITY F~ANNINC COhMISSION~ MARCH 27~ 1978 78-198 EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-~8-50 AND VARIANCE N0. 2~98 (continued) to Magnolla Avenue end that n~ traffic across tha Carbon Cr~ek Channel had been complied witl~~ and M~. Termohlen roplfcd tf~at they were mectinq the requlrements of the Clty of Anahelm completely and that they are going to provlde left-turn lanes As necessnry. Chalrman Tolar pointnd out there were two constderations in his m(nd: 1) regarding the environmentr~l f~nact repoi•t~ he felt thfs proJect Is going to impact the aree and he was concerned about approving e nec~ative Jacleration on thb proJect~ ancl 2) he had not heard enouqh arguments on be~ialf of thts development to bend thc rules ir~ ielationship to the min(mum bu(lding site per dwell'+~g unit because It is so far away from thc RM-4000 d~veloprr~nt standa~ds~ and that even thouc~h they were offertng more open spece than requirGd by the P.M-4~00 Zone~ he fcit the de~sfty was too high. He stated hc did noC have a probicm with the l~nd use and thauyl~t il~a NruJuGl wuu1J i~~ e ni~~ p~o)eci:~ Lut hc did not Ilke the density. Ne indicateci [I~e Comn(sslon co~ld vote on these plt~ns or gtve him an opportunity ta revise the plans and reduce the denslty by granttn~ a cont(nuance. Mr. Termohlen indicated he wished ta have a vote. ~•~xnmissloner Harnes indicated st~e cauld not move for appr~val of a nec~~tive declaratlon because of ttu hlyh density of this c~rc~ject an.1 because of the water channel gotng through tt~e parking area~ anJ tf~at she has seen no studies as to thc dratnage problems end could not vote on thls proJect. She stateu she would like to see an environmenCal impact report which shc~ws the kinds of traffic problems yoing to be generatNd or kinds of pollution problems that are going to occur hecause c~f tl~e ~~ndPrgr~und parking, and ther•e were many y~esttons whlch she would likc: to have answereJ. Commissloner earnes offered a mc~t~on~ seconded by ConMnisstoner tlerbst for dlscussian~ that the Anaheim f,ity Planning Cortmiss(an has reviewc~ the proposal to reclassify the zoning from RS-A-43~0~)0 (Residential/ Agricultural) co RM-4000 (Residential, Mult(ple-Family) to construct a 134-unit condomintum complex with waive~ uf minimum building site area per dwelling unit~ rnin(i~wm rear setback~ m=niinun Jistance between buildings~ type of parking spaces~ and requtred scrPening of parking faciitty on a rec:angula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisttny of approximarely 7.J acres having a fronta~~~ of approximately 551 feei on the west side of Magnolta Avenue, liaving a maximum depth of G~~ feet and being located approximately 32;, feet narth of tf~e centerli~e of Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby deny the Neyative peclaration from the Requirement to Ftle an Environmental Impact Report on Lhe basis that there would be stgnificant individual or cumulative adverse envlronmental impacts due to the approv~l of chis Negative Declaration; that the Anaheim General Plan desiynates the subJect property for a parochial school site/medium density res~Jential land uses which are con-mensurate with the proposal; that sensitive cnvironmental impacts are involved tn the proposal; a~d that the tnitial Study submitted by che petitloner indicates significant individual or cumulative adverse enviranmenta) impacts. Commissioner Herbst pointed out this proJect, ~vith the p~rking added (25 spaces per unlt)~ has approximately 2750 square feet per dwelling unit~ whlch is a 30$ increase in denslty aver the narmal condominium ordinance of 1p-1/2 units per acre; and that most proJects have been approved for ~3 to 10 units per acre and this proJect is up to 1R untts, and he felt the inipact in traffic would be drastic and it would be hard for hlm to vote for a variance end hard to fir~d a hardship. He stated he realized the hardship is the drainage ditch which makes the configuration of the property hard to develop and more expens(ve to develop~ but he felt because the channel cover(ng h~d becn included in the density~ the traffic would be greatly increased. 3/27/78 MINuTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS~ON, MARGN 27~ 1978 7~'19~) EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN~_RECLASSIFIr.qT10N NO.~~;78-50 AND VAaIANCE N0. 29~8 (continued) Commisstoner Kiny e~ked if th.: Commisslon weuld requ(re ~n envirnnmental Impact report lf the number of units were b~ought wlthin Codc. C~mmissioner Be~ney indicete~ shu would :till be concerned about the channel and tt~e effect that would have on the proJect; that ~he Commisston has never been faced wtth this problem befare and she was concerndd ab~ut floc~.ling; that perhaps the Orange County Flood Con~trol Dlstri~t doas have some information regarciing this, encf even if the density ware reducad to a re;asonable amount and craffic was not r, concern~ she felt an environmental lmpact report st.tll would be re~ulred. Cha~rman Tolar ~~:~:~Inded the Gommission that th~ applicant has not elected zo revlse his pla~s end reduce the denslty~ and the Comm(sslun should act on the plans as presented and as requcstod by th~ pcti tiuner. Commissio~er povid indicated h~ felt this ~eliberatiun is wort~~Nh(le and inJ!c.ateJ ;c did nat think the Comn~issl~n would have asked for an ~:nvironmental impact report if tha proJecr. had met ttie minimum requi rements. Gommissioi~er Herbst asked Jack White tf the negative declaration is not approved~ could thc Commission vote on the rest af the pro,ject. and Mr. Whlte pointed oul they would heve two chofces~ to deny the plans or continue them until an environmenLal impact report is aubmitt~d to br revtewed~ but that tliey cou1J not approve ttie proJect. Commissloner HerbsC pointed ~ut ~he Commission is talkin~ about the density of the proJact and that an e~v(ronmental impact ~eport would discuss the impect an the s~`~ools and traffic. Ne tndicated he felt thAt with the Impact of th(s proJect~ an r.nvironmental impact report shauld be completed. Commissioner Johnson indicated he thought chis was a viable project; that it is heavy and he wondercd if the Planning Cornmission was requesting an environmental impact report for bur~aucratlc reasuns iii order to tie the developer up in red tape whlch is drlving the pricc of homes up, and that the Planniny Commission is finding thamselves a party to it. He felt the traffic generated by this ~roJect would not have an effect an the neighbarhood because It does dump o~,t~ Magnolta Avenue. He stated he admitted there may be some impact on the schools. but tliat the schoc~l Gistrict was not he~e to object. and that tf an RM-1200 apartmeni proJect ha., been proposed~ the schoc~l district would be there to object. Ne felt because the project is fo~ a c.ondominium, the Planning Commission is afratd of it and he felt they should be c~utious. He indicated he felt the proJect was too dense and did nat think it would fly~ and that the developer should reconslder. Chatrman Tolar indicated he was not afraid of the pro)ect and that he thought the co~cept was very g~od; that he would like to see c~ndominiums which would be much better than a reyul~r apartment complex, b~~t that he was opposed to the density and the Commission does not f~ave the expertise or authority to change the plans ta make them tionform to the RM~ 400d requlremcnts~ and that the appllcant has asked for a vote o~ these plans. Cortmissioner David asked if ~he neyative declaratiAn is denied and the developer comes in with plans for lower density~ would the negative decta~ation still stend. Jack White pot~ted out the negative cieclaration would be app~oved or denied with these plans and a ne~ negative declaration could be prepared `or the new plans; th~t it applied only to these ~articular plans. 3/27i 7~ a MINUTES~ ANAHCIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ MAiiCH 27~ 1978 78-2A0 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIQM, RECLASSIFICATION N0_ 7~-~8-50 ANJ VARIANCE N0. 2_~,~8 (continued) Mr. TQ~mohlen pointed out they could have aprliod for RM-1200 zoning and put 240 unlts on the l~nd~ but Chat would be economically ImNossible; thei che cost would be about S110~000 per apartment. Ne paintcd out the proJect does provide mnre open spece. Chalrmen Tolar stated he has salJ indlrectly that he does not Itke 18 units and would probabl~/ ayree with something between normal (8 to 10 units) ~nd 18 units, but he was not gAing to support 16 units. A gentl~sman frum ttie audience (apparently the petitioncr) indicateJ he would probebly revert to ~partmcnt units and put 2i;0 units on this propcrty. Commissloner Herbst polnted out a small portion of il~e property is zoned RM-1200 and that the Planning Comnisslon is talkiny about density 1`or this rrr,a. Chelrman Tolar stated he did n~t feel they could put 230 units an this pr~nerty. Cammissloner Barnes indi~ated sfie was not afraid of this projer,t; that she liked t!~e concept of steel a~nd concrete and felt most buildings woulci eventuallY he built wtth steel end concrete~ and that she recognizes the proJect Jaes have certatn problems and that It 1~ harcl to desi<~n a proJec:. She indicnte her maJor problem was with the density and she could not remember the Planntng Conwnission ever having anything quiLe so dense in con~!omi~~Ium 1 iv(ny. Mr. Termohlen indicated they wou~d like to withdraw the request for a vote to see if they could revise the plans. He pointed out they do have 5~~ square foot garages and that if the roads ~~ere addGd to the pro,jecC, they would be very close. Chairman Toi~~ pointed out the ;~arayes are enclosed~ but felt there (s a dlffe~ence here since in sinc~lr-`amily liviny or condominium living~ yaragss are usually attached to the u~its. Comnissloner darne: potnced out that rna•.is do provide assets~ that they provide a certain type of open space and more sp~ce betweer units. Gomm(ssioner P.ernes indicated she wouid ~ithcJraw the motion for denial and move for a cuntinuance~ and Cortrissio~rr Herbst indicated he would withdraw his second to the motion. ACTION: Commissio~e~ Barnrs offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED~ that Gonsideration of Reclassification No. 77-78-50 and Varlance No. 29~~$ be continued to the regularly-scheduled meetiny of the Pianning Co~ °ission on April 10, 1978. ~.ommissianer Johnson suggested that Mr. Termohlen provide flood contro) Info~matlon. 3/27/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 27~ 1978 7b~201 IT~M N0. 2 1 E~I~IVE DECLAflATION PU~LIC HEARING. QWNERS: JCRAL AND DORTHEAL yTANLEY~ . -7II-41 MiC11AEL AND LINDA GAENaING. 2116 Wildwc~od Court~ ~'~`- ~ullerton~ CA 92~31. AGENT: KINETIC DESIGN METliAOS, P. 0. dox 907, Orange~ CA 92666. Petittoner rcqu~sts reclassification of property dascribed as a rectangularly•sh~ped percet af land consisting of approx{mately 0~9 ecre having a frontage of approximately 13~ feet on the south side of Romney~ Or'~e~ having a maxlmum depth of approximately 2q8 feet~ being loc~ted app~ox(mately 327 fee; ~+est of thG ce~torline of State College Boulevard~ and further described as 1904 and 191 East Romneya Urlve, fror,~ the RS-A-43~Q00 (RESIOENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) 20NE to the RM-1?"~ (RESIOENTIAI.~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. Th~ e was no one Indicacing their presence In opposltion to subJect request~ and although t e staff report t~ the Planntng Commission dated March 21~ 1')!H was not read at the ~~blfc hoaring~ It ls referred to and made a part of thc minutes. Michael Goehring, owner~ was prese~t to answer any ouestions. Fle also asked for clarificatton of Intc~~~partrnentAl Committec recommendation No. a corcr.rning the park and recreet(~n in-~ieu fees, and Jay Tashiro. Assistant Planncr~ polnted out that the Building Ulvislon could furnish thac information. TNE PU4LIC NEl1RING WAS GLOSEU. Commissioner Hurbst referred to the Sanitatlon l~ivislon's request that adequate turn- around area be provtded for the trash trucks on subJect pro~erty. and Mr. Goehring reQlied that he has worked with thc staff and t'~e p~oblem has been resolved. ACTION: Commisstoner Y.ing offere~i a motlun~ seconded by Commissloner David and MOTION CAR~Q (Commissloner Linn beir.y absent}. that the Anaheim City Planning Cortmission has reviewed the subject proposal to reclessify the zoniny from RS-A-43,~U0 (Residentfal/Aqricultural) to RM-1200 (Residentiai~ Multipte-Family) on a rectangularly- shaped parccl of land consisti~g of approximately 0.9 ecre having a frontage of approximately 133 feet on the soutt~ slde of Romneye Drlve, having a maximum depth of approxlmately 29ci feet~ betng located app~oxtmately 3.'-7 feet west of the centerline of Statc College Boulevard; and does hereby approve [he Negativk Jeclaration from the requirert-ent to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be r,o significant indlvidual or cumulative adverse environmental impact d•.,~ to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anahcim Gonerol Plan designates the subJect proF~rty fo~ medium density resldential land uses canmensurate with the proposal; chat no sensitivc environme~tal impacts are involved in the prr~posal; that ths In~tial Study submltted by the petitioner indicates iio significant indt~vidual or cumulotlve adverse Gnvironmental impacts; and that the Neyat(ve Declaration substantiatir~g the foregoing findings is on file in thc City of Anaheim Planning D~partment. Cortmissioner Kiny offered Resolutinn No. PC7ti~51 and moved for its passage and adoptlon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Gommission does hereby grant Petitton for Reclassification No. 77-78-~1~ subJact to th~ petitioner providing a~equate turn-around area for trash Crucks on subject property; that any madtfications .o the plans concerning the size ~f the apartments ar elimination of ttie parkin~ spaces sh~il be reviewed bv the planning Department staff; anci subject to Interdepartmencal Committee recommendations. On roll call~ tt~e faregoin~ resolution was passed by the followEng vote: AYES: COMMISS~ONERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ HERBS', JOHN501' KING, TOLAR ' 'i.:~ COMMiSS~ONERS: NONE iENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINN 3/27/78 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANMING COMh115SI0N~ MARCN 27~ 197~ 78-202 ITEM N0. 3 ENVI,'~,ONMENiTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 'l1~ PUBLIC HEARING, OWNER: ~17Y OF ANAHEIM~ 204 East ~L~~1~ ~N 0. J- -_____- ~~~ Ltncoln Avenuc~ Anahatm~ CA g28~5. AGENT: SUN5ET CONSTRt1CTI0N, INC., 501 North Brookhurst Street~ ~'308~ An~he.im. CA 92$Oi. PRttttoner proposes reclassification of property describad as Partion A• ~n trreyularly-shaped parce) of la~d consist(n~ of approxirnat~ly 4.5 acros locatad at the s~uthwest corner of Orangewood Ave~iue end Rampart Street. havtng app~Aximate frontac~es of 36f~ fect nn the south slde of O~angewood Avenue and ~~25 f'c~et on the west si~~ of Rampa~t Street ~rom the PR (PUOLIC RECREATION) ZONE: to the CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZON~; and Portio^ B- an irragularly- shapcsd parce) of land conslsting of Approximately 11.3 ocres havf~iQ a frontac~s of approx(- mately 670 faet on th~ west siJe of Ran-par't Street~ having a mexi~num depth of approxirt-etely j~0 foct, ~nd bcSr;g l~c~tcd oppror.lrnately 4?.~ f~'~i ~~~~rh ~~f th~ c~nterl ine of Oranqewood Avenue from the PR (PUBIIC RECREATION) zONE to thc CO (COMM.:.RCIAL, OF~'ICE AND PRAFESSIONAL) ZONE. Thore was no one (n~icating thelr presence I~ opposttion t~~ s bJ~ct request~ and although the staff ~eport to the Plar~ni~~; Commissi~n dated M~rch 27, ")7& was not read a*. the pubilc hcariny~ it Is referred to anJ ~~iade a part ~~ the minutes. Bob Gilman~ Sunset Construction Corr~any~ ~gent, h~s preae~t to answer any quest6an~. TH~ PU4LIC HEARING WAS CLOSCU. Cominlssioner Herbst pointed out this area is (~ tl~e flood plsin and asked what was going to be done about that. Mr. Gilman replied they would be prov'ding an insurance policy and they would have to llve with the sttuation. Chalrman Tolar asked about th~ special i~s5urance~ anJ Mr. Gilman replie~l thac it is something made ava(lable by the federal govern~~ent and Cliat th~ Clty of A~aheim belongs to cF~c yroup and can buy the flood hazard insu~ance. He pointed out al! *~eir bui~dfnys would ba raisccl t~ 2 feet above the 100-year flood level. Chairmen Tolar pointed out the homeowno~s in this area would be required to ta~ry this insuranc~ and he believed Sunse.•. CQnstructlon~ Inc. does maintain avnershtp of all their properties. Camnissioner King asked about the acoustical study recommended by the Environmental (mpact Rep~.rt Review Committee. Nr. Gilman replied thst the landscapin lan shavs all trees wtll be 24-inch ta 36-(nch boxed trees on the south and west property lines~ which shnuld create good sound buffering. Commissioner Barnes indicated the concern referred to in the environmental impact report regarding the stadtum parklr~g which could be impacted. Mr. 61) i~un a•apl i ed *~~ey do not have anyth i ng pl annGd at the p~csa.~t ; tmr.; thc' i f a prob{em does arise in the future, they will have to do something about lt then, but he did not believe there would ba a~•oblem f~r a long time. 3iz~i~a MINUTCS, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 27~ 1978 I~ R N0. 21~ AND RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. 77'70'48 (c~ntinu~d) 18-203 Canmtssioner B~rnes indi^ated she dtd not want s~mcone to h~ve to come back before the Planning Cortrr,~ssion to Ilmit access to thc parktng arca for thc stedlum; that whon the stadtum was plan~cJ~ It was plnnned i~ this area so that It would be conv~nient to the citlzens of Ansheim, Chalrman Tolar polnted out that (f ttie c~ctit(oner clects to charge For parking~ that would be additlon~l revenue to the City of Anah~im. ACTIUI~: Commi ss 1 oner Johnson at ~ ~red a mot i~n ~ seconded by Cnmm( ss I oner Herb~, t s~id MOT ( ON ~D (Cammisslo~er Linn beiny absent)~ :het Environrr~nt^i Impact R~purt N~. ~13 fa~ ttie ~eclassif(cation to com~~ercial zoning of prupr.rty southwest of the in:ersectl~n of Orangewc~od Avr.nuE and R~mpart Street ~ hav i n~~ been cona I dereci th i s ds•e by tF~e C i ty of Anuhelm Planning C~mmiss!on and evidence~ both wrttten and o~al, having been presented to suppl~ment ~reft EIR No. 213. t'Inds that potent(al si~nificant adv~rse Impacts ~~hich coulJ result from the pro]ect location witti reapect to the floa~+ plain and nolse impa~ct. nn the: mobileh~ome park south c~f th~ proJect areo may ~e miti~ated hy appropriate _yredir,g, stte layuut an~l structu~,,l clesign and IandscapeJ buffering; that speclflc plens lndlc~ttnq thcse mitiyatton measurcAs should be approved by Che Plann(nq Commission pr(or to the Issuance of bulidtng and yradinq perm?ts; Ll~at draft EIR -!o. ~.13 c~nfnrms to the Califor~ia Env(ronn~ental Quality Act and to C(ty and ~tate EIR GuI~ .lines and~ Chereforc~ based upon the abov~ consideracions~ the City of Anahetm Planning Commission does certify Environmcntal Impact ~eport No. 7.13. Cortmissloner Johnson pffered Resolution Nu. PC7~-52 an~ ~no~e~ fo~ its passagc a~•1 adopt(on, that th~ Anaheim City Planning Commission does her~.by grant Petitlon far Reclassificatio~ No. 77-7b•48, subject to thc stipulatlon t~~at 2~~-inch t~ 30-inch box~~ trcas wlll be provided to visuaily buffer the properties on the sauth and west prope~ lines~ and subject to Interde.partc+iental Canmlt`ee recom.nendattor~5. ~n roll call, tne foreyoing reso~u[ion wa:, passed by ~he following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID, HERa~T~ JQ14t~5JN, KING~ TOLAR NOES; COMMISSI~NERS: NONE ABSEI~T: COMMI'..;IONERS: LINtI Cheirman Tolar indicated he wished to complimen~ the dev~eloper ~n the type of building whf ~,h he has brc,t~ght i nto the ~~ ty of Anaheir~. ITEM N0. 4 ~~ITT~VE DECL~RP~?IOIi PUMt,iC HEARING. OWNER: Fl.OSSIE C. HEIN~ 610 South ~LL~FICA 1 N Nr,~=7$-51 Su~-kfst ~treEt, Anaheim, CA g2806. AGE:NT: V. W. VARIANGE NU. 3b0' "FLIP" FLtPPEN~ P. 0. Box 6097, Anaheim~ CA 92803. ~ Ut~C PG~If.Y N0. 53h ?rop~rty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conststing of approximrtely 0.26 acre I~catec~ at the north~ast corn ~• ef S~uth Street and Sunkist Street~ having ap~roximete frontages of 75 feet on the north side or South Street and 15S feet on the east sids of Sunkist Skreet. Prope~ty presently classifled RS-A-43~U00 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTUP,AI) Z~NI.. REQUESTED CLASSIFiCATION: RS-50G0 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGL~.-fAMILY) ZONE. R~QUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF REQiJIREME~~T TNAT SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES REAR-ON ARTFRIAL HIGHWAYS~ TO ESTABLISN A TWO-LOT~ RS-5000 SUBDIVISION. ,,/27/78 :.INUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~4RCN 27~ 1978 7g-2ny EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-78•51 AND VARIANCE ~~0. 3002 (cont(nued) Yhere was nn one Indicatiny thetr presence In opposition to subJect request~ and alth~ugh the stsff repo~t to the Pl.+~niny Commisslon dated Merch 2J~ 197~ wss not read at the publ(c hearing, (t is rr,ferred to and madc a part of the m(nutes. Alan W~tts~ 1055 North Naln Street~ Ssnta Ana~ was pr~scnt to answer any qucstlons. THE PUBLIC HEARING MlA; LLOSLU. Commissioner Nerbst asked (t the parklnq ~rca and yarages have bec,i redesigneci to prevent backtny into the street~ and Mr " cNlled that they had. ACTION; Commissioner ~srnes off~ , mottan~ second~d by Commissioner David and ~0'IpN CARR ED (Ccmmissioner Llnn bein~~ absent)~ that the M ahetm City Planniny Gommissfon has revlewed the subject propos~l tn r~class(fy the property frorn tl,e RS-A-43~00~ (Resldentfel/Ayriculturalj ta the RS-5000 (Residentiel~ Sing1F Femily) Zone, to establish a two-lot, RS-SO~t) subdivision witli waiver ot requlrement that single-famtly structures re~ar-on artcrial hiyhways~ on a r,.,.;anyularly-shaped ~ercel of land consisting of approxlmately U.ZG acre located et the norcr,cast corner of South Stre~t and Sunkist Street~ haviny ~pproximat~~ frnntages of 7~, fect on tlie n~rth slde of Snuth Street end 155 feet on the east sid,: of Sunkist Strecc; and does hereby approvc tt~e tacgat(ve Declaration from the requirament to prepare an envirunmentr~l in~pact report on the basis that there would be no signiflcant indivldual or cumulative adverse environinental impact due t~ the apprAVal of thls Neyative Declaratian sinc~e the Anatieim General Plan d~slgnates the subject pr~perty for low dcnsity residential land uses ccxnmensurate w(th the praposal; that no sensitive environmenta) impacts are involved in the proposal; ;hat the Inittal Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant indi~id~al or cumulat(ve adversa environmertal impa~:ts; an~i that tt~e Negative Declara:'~n substantiating the foregoing findings ~s on file in the City af A~aheim Planniny pepartment. Commissloner Barnes offered Resolutton No. PG78-53 and moved for tts passaqe and adoption, that the Anahetm City Planntng Commission does hereby grent Petition fnr Reclassiftcation No. 77-78-51, subJect to Interdepartmental Comntttee recommendaGtons. On rol) call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follaw:nq vote; AYES: COHMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID, NERBST, J0f1NSON, KING. TuLkR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A65ENT: COMMISSIONERS; I.INN Commissloner Barnes urfered Resolutlon Na. PC78-54 and rnoved for its passage and adoptlon~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Comnission does hereby grant Petition for Var(ance No. 3002~ due to the size and shape af the praperty. and subJtct to Interdepartmental Committee rccommendations. On ro+) call, the foregoln;, resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 9ARNES, DAVIO~ HERBST~ JOHNSON~ KItJG~ TOLAR NOtS: COMMISSIUN~RS: NONE ADSENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINN Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by ~ommissioner ~avid and MOTIC~ CARRI~D (Cort~missfoner Linn being absent)~ that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Commission does hereby recommenc' that City Council Poltcy No. 53S be watved for Lot Nos. 1 snd 2 abutting Sunk~st Street and South Street. 3/27/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS~IGN~ NARCH 27~ 1~78 78-205 ITEM N0. ~t~,~VE DECLARATION PUBLIC HCARING. INITIATEO BY TNE ANANEIM CITY . -78•52 PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim CA 92805~ To reciessify property descr~bnd as ; ~ trregulsrly-shaped parcel of land con.isting uf +~pproxlmet~ly 4.~- acras heving a frontag~ of approximately 657 feet on the northwQSterl•, side of Santa Ane Canyon Roed~ having a maximum depth of approxtmataly 230 fe~et. and being located approximately 2633 fert n~rtt~easter~y af the centerli~e of Nohler Drive from the COUNTY A1 (GENERAL AGRICULTURAI.) DtSTRICt to the RS-A-43.OOC (RESIDENTIAI/AGRICUITURAI) ZON~. There was no one lndicating their presence in oppasition to subJect reyuest~ and although thc staff report +:c the Plannino~ Commisslon dated MarcF~ 27~ ~978 was not read at the public hearing~ it Is referresJ to and made a part af the minu;es. It was notad the Hill and Cany~n Municipal Advlsory Committ~e (HACM~'1C) revlewed the above praposal on Februa ry 28~ ~973. They discussed potcnti;,l problems of noisP, floodtny~ specimen tree removal~ etc. Na specific r•ecurtmendations were made with regard to the subJect rcclassiflCatlon From County A1 tn ~ity of Anahpim RS-A-43~UOu zaning. TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Jack White, Oeputy City Attorney~ potnted out this Is a Ctty-inftiated reclasstficatton request. ACTION: Commissioner David offered ~ motton, secondcd by Commisstoner King and M0710N kn~cD (Commissloner Ltnn being absent)~ th3t the Anaheim City Pla~ntng Commission has revlewed the sub,ject proposal to reclassify the zoning from Cour~ty A1 (General Agrlcultural) District to RS-A-43~000 (kesidentiallAgricultural) on propcrty consisttng of approximately 4.4 acres having a fr~>ntage of approximately 657 feet on the narthwesterly side of Santa Ana Canyon Road~ i~avlny u maximum depth of approxima[ely 23Q feet, and being located approxlmately 2633 feet ~ortheasterly of the centerline of Mohler Drive; and does hereby epprove the Negative Declaration from thc requlremen~ to prepare an envtronmental impact report on the basis that there would be no stgnif(cant individual or• cumulative adverse enviranmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration sinc~ the Anahelm General Plan designates the subJect property for low density res(dential land uses Gomrnensurate with the proposai; thet ~o sensitive cnvironmental impacts are (nvolved in the proposai; that the Initial Stucfy submitted by the petitioner Indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental fmpacxs; and that Che Negative Declaration substantiating the for~goiny findings is on file in the City ~f Anaheim Planning Department. Commissioner David offered ~cesotution No. PG78-55 and rrbved for tts passage and adopt(on~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission da~s hereby grant Petttio~ for Reclassification No. 77-78-52~ subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the fo~egoing res~lution was passed by the following vote: AYCS : COt~iMi ~S 10-~EI~S : BARNES ~ DAV I D, kERBST, .JONNSON ~ KI NG ~ TOLAR ~~OES; CO~iMI5Si0NER5: NC'NE AEiSENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINN 3/21/78 ~~INI~TES. hyAHE1M CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIpN~ MARCtI Z7~ 13J8 1(~-206 ITEM N0. G c TR NEGA VE DECLARATION PU~LIC NEARING. 01dNER: E. 0. RODEFFER, 1720 Eeat L ION N.'-~-~ G~rry Streat~ Suitc 106, S+~nte Ana~ CA 92]OS. . 15 AGENT: HARRY C. SCHREY~ 1;2a East Garryr St~eet~ Suite 106, Santa Ana~ CA 92705. Praperty describad a.~• en irre,yularly-shsped perce) of land conststing of approximat~ly ~.6 acre havtng a frontage of approxtmetely 22a fect on the esst stde of Dale Avenue~ havl~g a maximum dept~~ of approximately 262 feet~ end bcing located ~pproxl- mately 465 fnet south uf th~ centerline of Orany.sthorpe Avenuc. Property p~~esently clsssified RS-A-4J,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTUItAI} and ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) 2QNEE. REQUC~T~U CLASSIFICATION; ML (tNDUSTRIAL, IIMITEU~ ZONE. REQ~L~TED CONDITIONAL U5E: TO PERMIT A RACQUETutiLL FACILITY. There was ~o ane Indtcatiny their presence in oppositio~~ to su~Ject request~ and although the staff reporc to the Planninq Commtssion dated M~rch 27~ 1g7ti wa, not read at the public heariny~ it is referred to and made a par~ of the minutes. liarry Schrey, agent~ was present to answer any questions. THE PU3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Tolar asked Mr. Schrey lf he was aware of the probl~m w(th getting water i.o the site~ and Mr. Schrey repl(ed hc had been wcll Infnrme~i af this prob{em and hie under~tood it. Anntka Santalahti, Assistank Oirector for Zoning~ explalneA that a letter had been sert Lo the Buena Park Plann(ng Depart~nent, asking fur c~rmk:ntS regarding this proJect since they would b~. providing serviccs~ and no response had been ~eceived to that letter. She indicated she had called the Buen~ Park Planniny Department and the person she spok. witn was nnt eware ~f the letter but indicatpd they woul like an opportu~tt,y to review the plans and mal:e a comment. ACTION: Commissi~ner Johnson offered a motion, ,sconded by Commissioner K(ng and MOTIOfi ~f~t1~0 (Cortmissi m er Linn being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Canmtsslon has reviewcd Che proposal to reclasstfy th~: zoning f~om the RS-A-43~OOQ f,Residential/ Agricultural) and NL (Industrial, Limited) Zonrs t~ the ML (I~dustri~l~ Llmited) Zone to permit a racquetball facility on an irregula~ly-sf~aped parcel ~f land consisting of approximately O.b acrP haviny a f~ontage of app~oximately 229 feet Qn the east side of Dale Avenue~ having a maxim~~n depth of aoproximately 26? feet~ and bcing located approxtmately 465 feet south of the centerline of ~rangethorpe Avenue; and does herQby approve the Negative Declaratton from the requirement to prepare an envi~onmentat impact report on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse envEronmental in~pact due to the approval of this Negative D~clarati~n since :he: An~hPim 6enera) Pla~~~ designates the subJect propertY for general industrta) land uses comrt+ansurate with the propasal; that no sensttive environrrtental impa~ts are Involved i~ the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant inotvidual or cumulatfve adverse envtronmer~tal impacts; ard that the Negative Decla~atton substantiating the foregoing findi~gs is on file ir~ the Clty ~~f Anahetr~ Planning Department. 3/z7/78 t/ \ MI NUTES ~ ANAHE I N C I TY PLANN I NC COMMI SS I ON ~ MARCH 27 ~ I 978 7~~07 EiR NEGATIVE DECLAIUTION. RECI,ASSIFILATION H0. ~•> >a-53 AND CONDiTIONAI USE PERMIT r10. 1815 Gomm(sstoner Johnaan offered Aesolution No. PC7A-56 and moved for its passage and sdoptian~ ch~t the Anahetm Clty Planning ~omnlsslon does herRhy qrant Petttlo~ for Reclassificatlon No. 77•78~53~ subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On ~oll call ~ the foregoing resolution wes paased by the Following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES, DAVID~ HER~ST~ JOHNSON~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS; IiOf~k ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; LINN Chai~man Talar po(nted out the Plen~ing Conxnisslon h+~s allowad racquetbeil cou~ts in the industrial xorie previausly with a ttme Ilmit~ end ~sked if a tin+e lim(t shauld bc tonsldere~ f~r this profett. COhWISS10NFR LINN ARRIVEU AT 3;~0 P.M. Cortenlssloner Johnson Ir~dlcatc~d he did not feel e timc limit should be a part of thls resolutl~n, Commissiorer tle~bst asked (f access would be taken off Dale Aven~~~ and M~. Schrey replied that it wo~id. f,ommtsstanar Barnes i ndtcatcd ahe felt a time I lmit should be par•t of the reaalutlon tn case there !s some ef fect on the su~rounding netghborhood concerning traffic in order that the pro}ect cuuld be ~e-evaluoted. Conmtssioner Johnson offered Res~l~':to~ No. PC7H-57 and moved for its passage and adopLi~n, that the Anehe(m Clty Planning Commisslon does hereby grant Pet(tlon fur Condltlonal Use Permi t No. 181~, sub)cct to Inierdepartmental Committen ~ecommendatlnns. On roll call, the foregoing resolution wa~ passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMi5510NERS: BARNf:i. DAVID, HERE~ST, JONNSON~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMI SS I OMERS: MONE ABSTAIN: COMM1551Q!~l~RS; LINN (having not br .n present for the enttre hearing) ITEM N0. 7 'E'~'~~RIGAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 6 3 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RkY5 E. P':~ LAUR~L E. 1~ R CC NO 3~~1 WILLIAMS, 1131 South Clarence Street~ Anat~eim, CA 92806. AG~Nr~ HI•LO GQNSTRUCTION~ iNC.~ 10865 Beach Boulevard, Sta~ton~ CA 90680. Petitloner requests WAIVER OF MAXINUM SITE COVERAGE 70 CONSTRUCT A FAMil1f ROOM AQDiTION on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lai~d consisting of approxinu~tely 5U00 squ+~re feet having a frontage af approximatel•y 51 feet on the wost side of tlarence Strett~ h~ving a maximum depth af approxima~Ely 98 feet, being located approximately g7 feet north of the centerl ine of Cll~park Way~ and further described as 1131 South Clarence Street. Property presently classifisd RS-5000 (RESIDEHT~AL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. 3/27/1S ~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CiT1f PLANNING COMMISSlON~ MARCH 27, 1978 78-208 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLAS5E5 1~ 3 AND VARIANCE NO_ .i 3001 ~~p ~tinued) ~._ - Thnre was na one Indlcating their presence in appositian~ snd alt hc~ugh the staff report t~ the Pl~nnl~g Commissla~ dcted March 27, 197'B wes not resd at the public hearing~ it is refnrred to and made a part of the minutes. Rhys Williams~ avne~~ ~as pr~sent tn a~nswer any questlons. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Joh~son asked Mr. Wililams IF he had discussed this proJe ct with his ~e i ghbors ~ a~d I~e rap 1 1 ed th~ey wera aware of i t end had r-o at-Jac t i ons . It was noted the Planniny Olrector or his authu~lzed represc~tstive has determined that the proposed proJect falls wtthin thc definition af Categoricel E xemp tions~ Ciasses 1 and 3~ es defined in pa~•agraph 2 of the City nf Anal~~im Cnvironmental Impact Report Guidelines and Is. therefore, cacey~rfcally excmpt from the re~~~Irement to prepa re an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner King offcre<1 Rasolutlon No. PC'J8-5~ end mo~•ed for Its passage and e~optTon. that the Anahelm City Planning Cortmisslon does herehy grant Petltion for Va~lanco No. 3001~ on the besis tliat similar vartar,ces have been grented in the same vlctnity and zone~ and subject to Ihterdepartmental Commlttee re cam-endatlons. On rall call~ the forego(ng resolution Nas pessed by the follawing vo~e: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. DAVID~ NEaBST, JOIINSON~ KING~ LINN~ TQLAR NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOME RECESS There was a ten-minute recess at 3:10 p.m. ~~ ~tECONUENE The mee'ing was reconvcned at 3:20 p.m.~ al! Cammissioncrs being present. ._.._~ ITEM N0. u EIR~ N~ EC,~ITIVE UECI.ARATION ~U~LIC HEARING. OWNER: CROCKER NATIONAL DANK~ AR ANCE N0. 3 03 1675 California Street. 5 an F ra~cisco~ CA 941Q9• AGENT: GEORGE D. SHAMBEGK~ P. 0. Box 11667~ Santa Ana, CA 9271:. PGtitlon er requests WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT TNAT ALL LOTS ABUT A PUBLIG STkrET, TO ESTABLtSH A TWO•L OT SUBDIVISION on propa~ty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land con slati~g of approximately 1.6 acres having a frontage of approximately 175 feet on the we st sidc of Hsrbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 405 feet, being locate d approxlmately 485 feet no~th of the centerl ine of Orangewood Avenue, and further descr ibw~i as 2045 South Harbor Boulevard. Properry prese-~tly classified C-a (COMMERCIAL-RECREATION; ZOME. There was no one indicatin9 thzir presence in opposftion to sub,ject request, ~nd although the staff report to the Planning Commtssion dated Msrch 27~ 19 78 was nat read at thc public haering, it is referred to and made a part af the minutes. George Shambetk~ agent. indicated Crocker National BaRk woutd tike to sell the vacant land to the rear of thei r p~operty and i n order to do that~ they needed a parcel map and that 3~Z~i~a MINUTES~ ANAHCIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSIO N~ MARCH 27~ 191g 78-2b9 ~IR NEGA7JVE DECLARIITION AND VAalANCE N0. 3003 (continu~d) Ic had be~n detbrmtned that a vnrt:,nce wo~ld be necessary granting welver of the roqulremant that ell lots sb ut a public streal. Chatrman Tola~ asked if thare were any plans for dRValopment of thls property~ and Mr. Shembeck replicd Crocker Natlonai Bank i~tend: to sel) the property end not develop it. Chairmen Tole~ Indicated he Gould not un derstand why they did nat walt unttl they had a specific dovelopmr.nt to put on the prop e rty; that he was confused as to Nhy they were dotng it in this manne~. Mr. Shambeck repllAd that the Subdivislo n Mep Act does not perm(t them to offer the preperty f~r sale wlthout approval of a percol map. He pn(ntcd oul approval of this variance would not be lendlocking the p roperty any more thAn it is alreedy landlocked~ and it was hopeful scxneone could tie thn two p(eces of va~~ont lend togethn~ for one proJect. He stated that in order to create a pa~ c el that does nnt have frontage on Nerbur Bouleva~d they dld need the casament and did nc~d tha planniny Comntsslon's ap~raval. Chalrrnan To{ar incllcated I~e thought thi s was compoundinq an already bad probiem unless those two picces of v~cant property coul d bo developed together. The Commission discusscd the fla~ lot situatl~n and tf~e easement requirr.d~ with Commlssloner Johnson (ndicatiny he tha ught gront(ng the eaaemenC would effect the parking for the bank. Jeck Wh(te~ Deputy Ctty Attorney~ poin te d out the extreme back partlon of the praperty ts not before the Planning Commission and cannot be considered; that the Planning Commlssion must consider whether or not the applic ant's property meets r.he criteria for a variance tn order for him to dtvlde the parcel. Commissianer Herbst indicated he waulcS be more comfortabte w(th the proJect (f Crocker Nationa) (iank would provtde a comrnon easement to the property at the rear for both parcels, which would mean two separate easernents parallel to each other~ anci that combining che two easemcnts wou!d meke both parcels more usable and possibly each one could be develope~ individually. Commissianer Barnes asked Mr. white if the P1anR1~g Commission could stipulate where thcy wanted the easement located~ and he re plied that they could. Commissioner Barncs suggested that the easement cauld be lo~ated on the southerly property llne adjacent to the other easement. an d tl~at an effort be made to combtne the two easements. Mr. White pointed out the Planntng Commisslon could not impose a condition that wo~ld tie the applicent's property into somethin 3 he did not ow~. Ne stated the condition Would have to state that the easement be lacated e~n the petitioner's property; chat he cannot tie up somelaody else's property. Chairman Tolar tndicoted he felt if an easemeit is located on the south s(de of the property, it would be creating an tll- e ffect an the parking, since [hat is where some of the parking for the bank is located. 3/27/78 ;- , MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIi5SI0N~ MARCH 27~ 1978 7$"210 E 1 R N~GAT 1 VE DECLARAT I ON ANU VAR 1 ANCE N0. 00 ( co~t i nued) Commtasioner Barnes i~dieated she felt Crocker National ~ank owns the property and that they heve created their vrvn ha~dship; that If tl~ey cennot sall r~ certain emount of property without Iimiting the) ~ parking. then that is thei~ p~oblem;, and that this is al~ead~- s mess and anythi~g tl~o Plar~ning Commission could do to improve It sliould t~a done. She felt an access go{ng throuyh th~ mlddle of the prope~ty, with cars going to the drive- up windcws~ would not be fensible. Commisslone~ JohnQon indicated he felt the petitioner was providing N~hat tha Planning Commlssion is asking for; thet he (s requ~stiny thc south AS feet of che property wi 11 be an essement ad)~tent to thc panhandlc af the p~operty to the rear. Chai ~man Tolar pointed ou t th i s was where part of the parki ng for the bank Is located. Mr. White potnted uut the Planning Comrnisslon a~uld makp r conditlon af approval that the parkin~ would hav~ to be r~1~,~Ar~d on the balance of the property. ACTION: Commiss(oner Ba~nes offere:d a motlon~ secoRded by Cammissloner David and MOTION CA-RRIED UNANIMOUSLY~ that the Anaheim City Planninq Comnlsslon has revicwed the prooosat to esteblish a two•lot subdivlsion with waiver of requirement that +ill lots ebut a public street on a rectangularly-s!iaped parcel of land conslstln~ of approxima~.ely 1.7 ac~es havfng a frontaye of approximetcly 115 feet on khe west side of H,rbor ~loula~ard~ havtng a maximum depth of :ppraxirnately 405 feet, being loc~ted approximately ~8:~ foet north of the centerl inc of Ora~igcwood Avenue, and further described as 204; South Har•bor 8oulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratian frcxn the requirement to prEpare an environmantal impact report on thc basis that there would bc no s(gnificant Individual or cumulative adverse envi~onmental irnpact due to thc appraval of this Negative Decla~atior. since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject pr~percy for gener,a) commercial land uses cornmersurate w( th the proposa 1; that no sens i t i ve envt ronmental imp~~cts are i ~voi ved i~ the praposal; that the Inttial Study submitted by the ~~titioner indic:ates no signifi cant (ndivldual or cumula[ive adverse enviro~mental impacts; and t:hat tha Negat(ve De~leratlo~ substontiating the foreyoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commiss ianer ~arnes offered Resolution No. PC7G-59 and moved for its passage and adoptlon~ that the Anahe(m City Planning Commission does hereby gra~e Petition for Varlance No. 3003. subJect t~ the st i pulatto;~ that the access easement wi l l be locatPd on Che south prope~ty 1 ine and that any parking el iminated by said easement wi I1 be relocated and sufficisnt parking wi 11 be provided tc~ meet Code requirements~ and subject to Interdepa~tmental Conmi ttee recommendations. On rol l cali~ the foregoing resolutlon wes passed by the following vote: AYES : COM1115S IOI~ERS : BARNES, ~AVI U. HERBST, JOHNSON ~ KING ~ L I NN ~ TOLAIt NOES ; COMM I SS IONERS : NONE ABSEN7: GOMMISSIONERS: NONE Prior to votlny on the preceding resolution~ Camiissioner Herbst indicate~i he was bothered by the el imination of the parking in the 45-foot strip~ and Chairman Tolar clarifted that the condition would provlde that any parking el imi~ated waulci have to be n~oved to other parts of the property, which would mean the bank would have to move the !at ]ine of the parce t they intend to sei l. 3i2~i~a 4 ' M I NUTES ~ ANAHE I M C 1 TY PLANN I NG COMM I SS I ON ~ MAitCH 2 7~ 1 q78 18-Z 11 ITCM N0. 10 ICAL EXEMPTION-CLAS5 I PU~LIC 11EARINf,. OWNER: JOFiN R. TOWt~SEND, 8~1Q CUNUITIOt1AL U E ERMI N0. 1 Cerritoa Avcnua~ Stanton, CA 9~f~H0, A~,ENT; RALPH BELLAIS~ 132H2 Wi l~on Street~ Ga~den Grove~ CA 92h4~i. Petitioner requests permisslon to ESTA9LISN AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY on property descrlbed as a ~ectangularly-shaped percel of land co~sisting of approximately 0.3 acre loceCed et tlie southeast carner af Ball Road and Westarn Avonue~ havlnc~ apprqximete f~ontag~s of 125 Pcot on thc ~outh side af ~all Roa~i a~d 115 fcet on the cast side af West~srn Avenue~ an~l further described as 3174 wnst ~dl) Roed~ Property presently classifiec! CL (COMMERC~AI~ LIMIT~U) LONE. There was no one indicotiny the(r presence in oppositton :o subJect ~equest~ and although the staff report to the Planninq Commission dot~d March 27~ 1~~t1 was nat rnad ~t the public hear(ng. tt i~ referreJ to and r~ade a part af tfie minutes. Ralpti klellats} a~ent, was present to answnr ~ny questlnns. TIIE PUtiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEG. Comnlssio~er King asked the reason for the toning Enforceme~nt Officr.r's Action. Mr. Hella(s replied that he had bcen told thot .•n automobile rcpeir fac111ty needed t+ cond(tional use permit (n a canmercfal zone. Jay Tash(ro, Assistant Planner~ pointed oul th~t the autanobile upholstery shop at this lacation was allowed with a variance (n 197'~~ but cl-at automobile repair and automobile upholstery were different types af businesses and that a conditional use pe rmit wauld be rcqulred. Cortmissioner Jofins~n askecl the peticioner how lo~g hc h~ad becn in business at this locat(on~ and Mr. ~ellais replied that he had started {n September of 197J. Gomnissloner Herbst asl.ed the hours of operat(on~ with M r, Bellais indtcating they were opened f~om fi:OU a.m, ta 5~30 p.m.~ Monday through Setu~day. Anntka Santalahti~ A~sistant Uirector for Zonfng. point~ d out that the Zoning ~nforcement Officer is awa~e of former servic:e stations which have bcen approved for an automobile repair facility anJ had prdbably driven past and hed seen this business. Commissioner King aske~i Mr. Bellais tq stipulate that al l vrork would be conducted in~Ide the buildtng~ which he dtd. anu that tr~es would be pianted in existing tree wells~ and Mr. Bellats pointed out M~. Townsend, the owner, had indicated he wauld plant the trees. Lommissioner Barnes asked about work on weekends and noise after 5:30 p.m. or before ~:00 a.m.~ and Mr. Bellals replied that there ts noc v~ry mu ch noi~e~ even durtng operatien, but that the business will be closed on Sundays and closed at 5:3~ P•m. weekdays and Saturdsys. Commissioner Tolar pai~rted out that there is commercial develapment around this site. and Commissioner Linn potnted out two-story apartments are going in next door to the east. 3/~7/78 MINUTES~ ANAt1E1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 27~ 1978 78-212 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLA5S 1 AND CONDITIONAI USC PERMtT NQ. 1808 (COnttnucd) Commissioner Johnson statcd ~lie Plonning Commlisi~n h~s been very strict when they have •llowed bustnesses to go into ~bandoned service statlons end r~quired extensive renovatlon of the lend~ ciostn~ of driveways~ addttion~l pl~nters~ etc.~ so that the stte does not look Itke en abandone~ service station. Commtssloncr ~tnn po(nted ~ut the apa~tments bein~a constructed on the east si~o are very Glose to the exlsttny bui I~liny and tt~at any nr~isc would be I~~ard et the epartments. Chairman Tolar indtcated i~e d(d not feel the noise would be a problem due la the~ hours of operation. He Indicated he would like to see a time limtt pIAGlSd on this condit(onal use pe nntt, tf apprnved. It wes nnte~l that the P!anning Director or hfs authortzeC ~epresentative has det~enn(ned that the proposc~ proJcct falls w(thin t1~C ~Setiniliun uf Geteyurlce~l ExemE~lic~ns, Cless 1, es def f ned i n paragraph 2 of the C( ty of Anahe i rn Env I ronmentA I I mpac. t Report Gu t c1c 1 I nes and is~ therefore~ cateyoricallY exempt fron~ the requfrert~cnt to prepAre an EiR. ACTION: Comm(ssioner David offe~ed Resalution No, PC7fs-60 and movec~ for Its passage and adopt on, tfiat the Anaheim City Pla~ning Comrnlssion does iiereby grant PGtit(on far Cond(tional USe Permit No. 1$0~ for a trro-ycar period~ subJect ta revlew by the Planning Commissiori to determine whether or not tl~e use has b~~n detrimental to the surrounding area; subJect to th~e petiti~ner's sti~ulation t~ provide trees in tfx existing tree walls; that the hours of operation will be u:OQ a.m. t~ ~:30 p.rn.~ Monday throu,yh Saturdoy; that al) work will be conJucted inside ti~e builciing; end subJect to Interdepartmental Con-mittee recomnenda[lons. On rull cal1~ the foreyoing resolution was passad by the ~ollvwin~ v~te; AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVIU~ HERBST~ JOHN50N. KING, ~I~fN~ TQLAIt NOES : COMM I SS I Of~~RS : NOt1E ABSEN7: COMMIS510NERS: NONE Miss Santalahti recommended thAt Cond6t~un No. 3 be modified to tndicate that the trees will be pla~ted within 60 to 90 days. Chairma~ Tolar pointed out to the ~:et(ttoner t~~at this item could come up automattcally at the end of tlie two-year p~riod under the reports and rec~mmendations portlon of the agenda lf there have been ~o coriplalnts, and that the use could be extended automatically~ but if there have been problems~ the conditional use permtt could be revoked. 3/27/78 MINUTCS, ANANEIM CItY P U NNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 27~ 191a ~8'2~3 ITEM N0. 11 E1R CATEGORiCAI EXEMPTION-CIASSES 1 b PUtiLIC IIEARING. OWNE:r~.S: ROBERT AND ESTHER J. . ~ CARLIN~ 3672 Llggc+tt Orlve~ Sen Ulego~ CA 92106. - AGENT: JONN P. HARRINGTON~ ~25~ Bergh Urive~ Anaheim~ CA 9Z~07. Petitloner requests parmission to ESTABLI511 AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY WITII ACCESSORY TRUCK RENTAI, on property described as on irre~aulsrly-shapad parcel of land consistinc~ of approximete.ly O.y ecre located a[ the northr.c~st cornar ~,f llncoln Avenue ~nJ W~ast Street~ hav(n~ approximatA frontag~s of 19n feet on ttie north side of Llncoln Avtnue and 6~ feet on the esst siJe of West Strcet~ end fu~ther described as 1025 West Llncoln Avenue. Property presently classificd CG (COMMERCIAL~ GEtiERAI) ZUNE. There were tw~ persuns Indicatiny their presence in opposltlon to subJect request~ snd a;thaugh the staff ~cport to tl~e Plen~i~y Commisslon detecJ March 27, 197~ was not read at Che public hearin9. It ls rcferred to and made a perl of the minutcs. John Har~ington~ agent~ indicated I~e wlshed to operAte an automoblle re~alr faciltty with accessory truck rental at 1025 West Linc~ln Avenue. Fle asked perrnisston to leave the West Street drivew.~y op~n beceuse he did not feel I~is business wou!d qenerate enough trsfflc to creeCe A problem. He state~tfie woula be inc.urring tremendous expenses to make the exlstfng property w~rkable. Jay Tashiro~ Assistant Planner, pointed out that one letter had been submitted in opposttlon. Ron Neumsn, 1111 West L(ncoln Avenue, indicated he felt ~ truck repair facllity for blg trucks in the redevelopment ~r~ea would b~ a detriment ca the area and pointed out West Strect is a busy strcet and ihcre are a lot of accidcnts there ~lready. He felt the petltioner would be using the alley~ even though he says tie will not, and that wuuld be a safety factor. Ne indic~ted ne did nUt see haw he would t~ave enough room to wo~k on big trucks in tli~t little service statlon and pointed out therc are nr.w buildings and shopping centers going into the area, and that this wou1J dawnyrade the area because he d(d not think the place would be kept clean. Melvin Bussey, 1104 West Genter Street~ Anaheim, pointed out it is difficult for him to find a place t~ park at the present time, and he felt this t~usin~s~ would create a greater problem for those peopl~ who live in ttie area. He did not fee) there would be adequate room to wnrk inside the facility and vehtcles would be parked on the streets~ creating further problem~ for the residents. Mr. Harrington pointed aut that the truck rental business is for twc+-axle rigs only and not the la~ge semi varlety. Ne stated thc bulk of hls truck rental business ts through Ryder Ent^~ortses and that he is not authorized to work on the vehicles mechanically; that Ryder dispatches mobile mechanics to d~ thc minor repairs anei maJor repairs are sent to the Santa F~ Sprtngs facllity. Ne stated he had been in the truck renta) bvsi~ess ~or five years and dtd not see where it would c~eate a mess~ and the appearance would nat be detrimental tu the :urrounding area. Commissio~er ~ohnson referred to the appllcation for the use. i~dic~ttng the request is fcr automotive repair and truck rental~ and Mr. Harrington replied that the automotive revalr is the prima~y business and the truck ~ental is secondary. 3i2~i~a MINUTES~ ANAHElM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 27, 197A 7a-214 EIR C1ITEGOaICAI EXEMPTIQN-CLASSES 1~; 3 AND CONOITIONAL USC PERMIT N0,__181_i (coi~tinued) Cnmmlssioner Jnhns~n pointed out he felt tl~e opposttion was to Che truck r~apalr at thts locetlon~ and Mr. Harrfngton rapil~: that the only repairs to th~ trucks would be of the small variety; lhet the truck rentals are prlmarily one-way~ out~of-stste ancf that any minnr ad)ustme~t~ such as a defective brake lemp,would be taken cere of, Commissioner Barnes asked if the descriptlon of the proposed use as "spectaliztng In automottve repa(rs~ suci~ as air-ccm ditlon(ng~ tunc-up~ and brake work" r~eant there would be n~ ma)or nqtor overh~ul(ny~ et~:.~ and Mr. Nerrlnr~ton replied that it did. Chairrr~n Tolar Indlcated the Commission has allowed conve~sions of existing servlce statlon5 tn an automotive repalr facility~ but that [hey hevc always required quitc a blt of Ghanye In relat(onship t~ Lhe service st~tion st~ndards~ plu~ landscapin~ ig requfred. He polnted out the Fetlttoner proposes ta remove tl~e pump islands, wt~ich i, re~uired~ but no landaceping is proposed and he fel[ landsr,apin~ shouid he a part of this proposel. ~ie was also concc rne~ about che pnrki~~g. Mr. Harrinytc.n pointeJ oul thal ite ~IU~S h~ve 11 parkinc~ speces indycatecl on the plen and that the parkin~ off-s,te will t,e custanere, for pick-up or ~ielivery of automobiles for repatr, Chairman Tolar Indicated he re~~lized tt~~ls was a problem piece of propercy but did have sorne reservation about this type use. with no landscaping on this corner~ N~iich he felt some day would bt an li~tr(~ate pa~t of tl~e redevelopment ~~f dflvr~~tnwn Anaheim. Nc fslt it would be a double use ln rela[ionship to c~nverslons witF the truck storage and automotlve repair fac(lity, anc; he d(d not know of any that r~aJ b~en appr~aved for dual use. He waa also concerned about vet~icles befng stored on Lincoln Avenu~. Commissioner NerbsC askec~ why there was no landscapiny propo~~.~d on thls pr~J~ct~ and Jay Tashiro p~intecl ~ut tliat In the CG Zone there are no setback reQuirements~ therefore~ there would be no landscaping require~f; that Lhe building c~.~uld actually be constructed to the property line. Commissioner Linn indicated he felt thls Iocatlon was very danger~us and indicated he drives past this co~ner eve ry day and there ts a probiem ~~~itn perking. Ne pointed out that students from Anal~eim Higt~ Schoo) use the alley for ~iccess to the parking lot to avold tt~u left turn on Llncoln. Ne fclt ff the drivnvay on West Street was left open, it would be a very dangerous situation. He indicated he co~~ld not suppart the proposed dual use in any way with the plans as presented. Cummtssioner Barnes indicated she recalled a ~equest fr,r another dual use~ which was not nearly as in:ense as this one~ wliich was denied and felt thEs would 'ue the ftrst time a dual use had been granted. Chalrmen Tolar pointed out that the Plan~iny Commissio~ ha~ been eltminating quite a few of the truck rental places from several gas stations. Comnissioner Johnson pointed out the truck rental would have to be incidental to the pri~~~: use. Commissioner Nerbst stated the Planning Commission has ellowed tr~~ck re.~tat and autonwbile rentat In conJunctfon with a service station in many a~eas, but that he did not feel this 3/2717$ MINUTES. ANAIIEIM CITY PL~NNING CQI~WISSION~ MARCN 27~ 1~)8 18-215 EIK CATEGORICA~ EXEMPTIUN•CLA55E5 1 6 3 ANn CONDITIONAL USE PCRMIT N0, 1811 (conttnued) locetlon f~r a cruck rental fac{lity is In thc best tnterest of Anahaim; that thls is e maJor tharoughfa~e end will bn evem m~~e so when Lincoln Avenu~ is mc~dlfted, Conwrilssioner Linn Indiceted tliis was ~ p~rticula~ly b~d arer~ especially In c0ose proxinilty to the school. Commiasloner Johnson tndicAted hc Jlcl n~t feel the property a~vner Yhould be requlred to prohlblt the uac of hiy lnncl because of stucicnts using that ~~~llev fur access. Commissioner Llnn Ind(c.ated he felt the public sefety is invalveci here and thls use w~uld be detrimentol co Che publtc safety. CommisRionr_r Herbs[ indic.~tnd hP f~it tf r-.p hr~~prry ts crnvNrt~d :hat IAnrlacs~lnc~ chnuld be required ta beauclfy the corner. sucfi as eve~y othtr se~•vice statlon wl~Ich has been converted. Rose Noey~ 115 N~rth Wast Strcer. Anahelr~~ incftcated she lived on that corner f~r 22 years and that everything thac has b~•ti~ discussed Is crue; that the drivew~ys would be tc~o close to the corner; that there is -; ot of trafflc and accidents; and that school children do use thc elley. She Indtcate~ = proncrcy is in ba~k ~f M~. Newman's service staclan and she dld not fcel ther~ wou' ~~nouqh roorn at t~~s location for the irucks. I~r. Harrtngtpn state~! he ~~+ +v-~, ~ thls area for 15 years and had s~c~ a lot of changes in Anahetm ~s far as ira? ~ ~c~w• r^-s and growth~ ~nd hc fcl t that any corner would ha~re acctdents. Chairman 7olar ind(cet .. n~,t wan[ to see any businessman not be able to operate his b~si~esa. but that in ., hit~^~f~+cy he felt this lucation was not the best spot For th(s business. He indicatrc ^*.,: ,-~ ,~ctitioner was talking ~~Gout converting thts to an automot(ve repair fac.i ~•: r~n~~, he might have a different pcr,pective~ but ha could not support the applicacic,~ ~ -•~esented. f.cx-Wnission~r Herbst .,g~kr: the appl icant wauld bo inte~esced t~ an appl icatlon for Just automotive repafr~ eli7itirtt;:tng the truck rental, and Mr. Harrington replled that at the present time the tr~ck •~,~ia1 ~C4cflllCg a~c definitcly necessary for him to be able to survive; that he had s*a~~:r.~ his automotive repair business five ycars ago and it takes a consiJerable amount c~f t~~++c to get that type of bus~ness yenerated~ especiAlly to cover today's high cos[ of r~r ,and that he does need the truck rental as a suppl~ment. Lhairman Tolar indic:+tea that ,r. Harrington told hlm Just what he did not want to hear~ that this is not An in~~denta use. He indicated that rtuiybc the pro~i~rty uwner would have to lawer the rent in ~rdcr fur businessmen like Mr. Nar~ington to bc able Lo offord it. Conmissioner ~Inr. indicated he would Iike to offer a motion for denial because the public safety is involved and this is a dual use of the property,and he feit an over-use of the property. Ctw.~rman Tolar indicated before he would vote on a denial that he would llke to see if Mr. Narrington wni~ld like a Cantinuance in order to consider eiiminating the truck renta) from the p~aposal. M~. Harrtngton indtcated he would like a two-week continuance. 3/27/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PUINNING COMMISSION~ MARGH 27~ 197~ ')8-21 h EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSE5 1_6 3 AND CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0,_I811 (continued) ACTION; Commisstoner Lfnn offcred a motion~ seconded by Com~iissioner David and MOTION ~I~~D~ that con~ideratlon of Condltional Use Permit No. lgll be <:ont(nued to tho r~gular mecting of the Anahaim City Planning Commission of April 10~ 1978~ in order for the petittoner to reco;-side~ t~is application. Chalrman Tolar pointed out to thosc pcrsons not be readvertise:cl but would be considered 1978. pres~nt In opposition that thls maLter would at ttie beginning of the meeting of April 10~ Cc~mmissioner Flerbst affered a motion, seconded by Co:nmissioner Linn and MOTION CARRIED, that the A~etieim City Planniny Commission doc~s instruct tiie P~aniiing Oepartment staff tht+t any conv~rsions of service statlons in any zc~nP hr. re~u(red to meet the landscap(ng stAnd~rds ~nr a s~±rvic~ statlon. 17EM t~0. 12 E-TIt~ATEGOR I CAL E;:EMPT I ON-C1A55 1 PUIiL I C NEARI NG. ONNERS : KEI~NARU C. ANI) BETTY M. 0 ~RMI N0. ~;i HAVERSTICK, 12n2 Nnrth Alamo Street~ Anaheim~ CA 92301. AGENTS: Mr. ANU MRS. JCSUS L. PEQROZA~ 11572 Victlia Street~ Garden Grove~ CA 92641. Petitir~ncr requests permission to ESTAEiL15~1 A BOARD AND CARE FACILITY FOR SIX PHYSICALLY HANOICAPPEU CNILUREN on property described as ,in irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist- ing of approximately ~.~ acre hav(ng a frontaye of approximately ~2 feet on the northwest side of Diana Place, having a rrwximum ~lepth of approximately 128 feet~ b~sing located at the nortnerly terninus of Flilda Street~ and further described as 2b~9 East Dlana Pl~ce. Property prasently classified RS-72~0 (RESIDENTIAL. SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. ~'~ere were six pe~sons indicatiny thei~ presence in oppositlon to sub}ect request~ and aithaugh the staff report to the Planniny Commission dated March 210 197~ was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a pArt of the minutes. Jesus P~droza. agent~ was present and indicated they are requesting a conditionai use permit ta allow six train~ble, handic~ppea children between the ages of 3 and 12 years oid at 2603 East Diana Place~ Anaheim. Euge~e 8uxton, 2635 D(ana Place~ Anaheirn, stated thls arca ts zon~:d for singl~-famlly residential anJ the mere fact ti-at they are applying for a conditional use permit indicates they are attemptlny to change th~~; climate from residential to business~ He sta[ed he did not beiieve the owners of this property are the legal parents of these chlldren, and questioned if they will have legal contro) af these children. Ne polnted aut there wil) be a monthly cha~ge for these services; that all af these things are characteristics of a business and they are opposed to a business tn this neighborhood. Betty Greene, 727 South !lilda Street~ Anahaim~ stated her propcrty adJoins tha subJect proparty a,nd they were the original purchasers of the h~use 1-+ years ago; that theq ha~ie made addttlons to the property ~nd she is concerned that small y+~ungsters at subject praperty will be climbing over her fence. and that she does have a swimming pool and is r.oncerned about the liability. She pointed out the block wal) is only 4-t/2 feet high i~ certatn areas in her back yard which is ad,jacent to the back yard of subject property. She pointed out the~e have been numerous f~milies living in the subject property in the past an0 *hey ha~ve had pro~lems with chlldr•en climbing on the fence~ wanting to swlm in 3/27/78 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 27. 1978 78-217 ~IR CATEGORICAL EXEMPI'ION-CLASS 1 AND GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1813 (continu~d) thetr pool. She was concerned tl~e chtldren might be able to pull furnit~~re ov~r to the wal) and gnt over the wall and it would b~ a tremendnus responstbility f~r her to tzar. She stated sl~e wnuld not be able to leavP her property~ kncywlny there wer~ y~ungstcrs there. She also indtcated she did not understand how one woman coul~ care for six hei~dicapped ch(idren. She prese~ted a p~tition which had been signed by 25 adj+~cent nelyhbors on Hilda Street and Diana Placa who we-e opposed to the subJnct request. She polnted out the propcrty had been us~d for th~ board and cere of elderly gentlemen and that they had not bothersd the nciyhbors at all; that she was not opposed to elde~ly people living in this hame. She indicatcd concern tfiAt (f thts venture of taking care of yaungsters is not profitable for th~ pet(tioner~ tFiey -niyht want to havc delinquent Ceen~gers or reformed aicohallcs, etc,~ on the ~r~rPrty. Jack White~ Ueputy City Attorney~ pointed out the condit(onal use permit, if approved~ wuuld be fo~ that us~: only~ lu have a mexluwm of six physlcally-hnndicapped children and would not ~ermlt any olher use~ such as juvenile del(nquents, neglected childr~n~ or individuals of any other type; that any other use would rEqutre a conditional use permit and another pu;.~lic hearlny. Chairman Tolar potnted out he felt tl~e use fo~ elderly pec~ple p~c:viously mentioned was probably not brought before che Planniny Cnmmission for approval. Bonnie Glynn~ 733 Soutt~ Hilda Street~ Anaheim~ referred to previous s(m(lar requests brought before the Planning Commisslon which have b~en tricd in other areas of Anahelm and which have met with drastic result~ because the citizens had marched into the City Council r-~etings and the conditinnal use permit had bee~ denied. She felt this is what is likely to happen here and she would like it stoppcd at thl~ point. Mr. Pedroza pointed out that these chtldren are not delinquent children And referred to two chi ldren who tiacJ been at the meeting since 1:25 P•m. whu were c~etting restless but who were controlled. He pointed out these children are not drug addicts or children who wouid climb walls; that they would havc supervision 24 hours a day and they were not allowed to go into the streets; that the chlldren are taken care of inside the house and tn the batk yard. Ne po(ntsd out sub,~ect property is a ve ry good locati~~n for ttiese children b~cause there is a big yard ~nd there ~re enough rooans necessary to k~oard these children. He indlcated he fert the main concern was the children~ but poir~ted out they are supervised 24 hours a dey and that the only difference noted in the neighborhood will be that a bus picks the children up to go t~ a speci~i education school; otherwise. the operation is supervtsed and the children are taken to the dottor monthly and there are no problems with these children. Chairman Tolar asked Mr. Pedroza if he waa buying the property and if he would be the person providing the services for these children~ and Mr. Pedroza replied that they would be iiving on the property ano taktng care of the children. CortmissEoner Johnson asked Mr. Pedroza if he had done this tyF~e work before. and he repiled that they had been Joing this work for severai ycars; that they had worked with newborn babies, delinquent children~ etc., but had decided to take care of the trainable. handicapped child~en. Chairman Tolar asked if thcy were licensed by the State of California. and Mr. Pedroza replied that his wife is Iicensed. 3~z7/78 f MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMIPIISSI~N~ MARCH 2J~ 1978 78-218 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONOITIONAL USf. PEftMIT N0. 1813 (continued) ~_ Jeck Whlte~ Daputy City Attorney, asked if the locstic~n would be Iic~nsed by tlie Stete. Mrs. Pedro~a indlcated she would Iike to answcr some of the questlons; tliat sameone had been concerned that the Pedroze's wore Just trying tliis p~agram out. She polnted out they have baen foster parents for chtldren who were nc~t ~roperly carecl for ir~ their awn homes fo~ about 18 years for the Cou~ty and that later they had worked with th~ Probatlon Depart:nent and were also Iicensed for dclinquent chlldren~ but they had changed progrems naw to physically handicapped cfilldren who are trainable and who are leqally placed in their h~m~; that they are IicenseJ by ttie State and are mcmthly supervised by different behavfor specialists~ tralned nurses and teachers who come into tl~e hrxnP. She stated they were not Just try f ng tlie ;~~'og~en~ out to see i f i t would work; that they knaw 1 t h~s wurkrJ. Sli~ 1nJl~aleu she hos a li~r.ns~; fur fuur so-ail Iiaii~llcaNN~J ~ay5~ aya5 3 lu 12; that they would like to present the 1? year old boy who is present toc'oy. She polnted out she w~uld not be allowcd to have alder chlldren and r~ferred to the article menttoned in thc neNSpaper re-~arding xhese hames with thc young adolesc.ents and she was ~n agrecrnent with iC~ but that her children are diff~rent; that at prescnt sf~e has a blind hoy and this is the type of chi Idren she works wi th; tt~at thcy do nat go to rec~ular schools; that they are cUnstantty supervised; that she has an 1'S year old gir) ~ho will be work(ng with he~ in hc:r home; and that sl~e is not alonc with these chlldren. ~he pointed out her husband helps with the children anJ they are nat new in the proyram and that they are not the natural parents of these children,but they cto hove all thc leyai papers giving them permisston f~r emergency medical attention and ttie responsibility for the schools; that they are playiny the part of the parents wh~ will not put up with han~icapped chlldren; that these are not delinquent, violent c~~iidren, they are called "trainable~ rt-entally retarded" and they are no: Just reCa~ded~ 5u~: that she work5 with tl~e physically deformed~ blind. etc. Mr. 3uxton stated th~t neithcr he nor tl~e ladies who spuke tn oppositf~~n were in any way questioning the qualificatians or intentions of Che petitioners or the ~~ature of the wards; that the poinc i!;~ chis is n~erely a business and they should be located in a buslness commun?ty an~ felt tl~e points brought up by Mr, and Mrs. Pedroia only substantiated his concern. Ne pointed out that ti~ey liavt had a young fellr~w in thetr neighbo~hood about the same size and apparent capabilities af the hoy present, and even though he does upset the yarbage cans and yoes through the yards and has been a co~cern of the nefghborhood. they have tolerated and put up w(th him because the natural parents lived in ttie neighborhood. Ne stated I~e objects to these peoplc coming in and that they are not the awners of the pruperty. Ne stated he applauded them for the great work they are doing, but he d1d not feel this was the location for their business. Jack 1Jhite indicated he would clarify the point reyarding this being a business; Chat Sections 51•ly and 51.1~ of the Welfare and Institutic-ns Code provides that family homes or group homes that are used to baerd and care si,c or fewer children are noe to be considered a business~ reyardless of the zon(ng; that it is considered a single-family use of the property. He pointed out this is a State regulation an.i the Cit~• does not have jurisdiction ~ver the State~ and th~t it is quite clear the decision is applicable to Lhe City of Anahcim. Mr. Buxton asked if the owner of th~ property can bring in anyone else to operate the business and if they must be residents. Mr. White pointed out that any persons operating the business must be licensed by the State of California. . 3/27/7a ~ -~ MINUiES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 27~ 1978 18~219 EIR CATEGORICAL EXENPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONOITIONAL USE pERMIT N0. 181 (continued) . Mrs. Pedroze polntad out that they are 1~ escrav+ tn buy this horn~ and chnt the awner Is present to find out whether or not the City of A~eheim is g~tn~ to allow the conditi~~a) use permit~ and Cha(rman Tolar clarifieJ -.hey were buyin~ the property subJect to appr~val of the conditional use permit. Mrs. Padroza pointed out these children ar~: supc:rvisad 2~~ hours a day, which the natural pa~snts are not requi~ed to do; tiiet they are lfcensed by the State and have to follow all the rules; that they yet monthly v(sits from social wo~kers and teachers who come tnto the home tu see that they are follawing the rules an~J teaching the sE~ecial educetion closses; and that this is n~t considered a business but Is called a famlly homc: far disable~S childrtn. TfIE PU4LIC HCARING WAS CLOSED. f,hai~man 7olar stated he was vc ry impressad wikt~ the petitloners eind the type of work they are trying to aGCampllsh; chat it certotnly needs to be dane and neesds to be done in the CiCy uf Anaheim, but that he would questio~ putting this type of tiusiness or use right in the middle af a residential ncighborhood; that lt seems therc would be a better location~ more conduclve, in an area that is in a transitlanel zone, somethtnc~ between comme~clal and resldential. Mrs. Pedroza pointed ~ut thac the Stete does not want these children in anytl~ing uther than a residential area; that they want to introduce them to a normzil famlly liv[ng environment. She pointed out Che two children who had been sitttng in the meettng ell afternoon. She indicated she understood the lady's conc~rn rega~dtng the wall and her swirtmi~g p~~ol. but these crfldren are not able ta climb the fence to get into the pool and that they ar~ very close~y supervised. Chairman Tolar pointed out there arc bigge~ problems in hls neighborhuod with the chlldren who are healthy~ but that ther~ are other places where he felt this use would be batter suited. Commissinner David indicated he disagresed with Chairman Tolar; that he t`alt these chtldren need to be in the serenity of a good residentia) home. He asked how many bedrooms were in sutJect property~ and Mrs. Pedroza replied there were six bedrooms and the State inspector had inspected che t~ouse and a member from the department had pass~d out c~erds to the neighborhood indicating if anyone had any questlons, they could call the Health Department. Comnissioner David asked ~f these children were court~app~inted to Mrs. Pedroza~ and Mrs. Pedroza ~eplied that some a~e placed by the parents~ but sanc were gtven up to the State and the State finds homes that are cepable of working with their dlsabilities. Comnissioner David indtcated iie did not know how the other Cortmissioners would vote, but that he was very deeply mc~ved with the presentation~ and his only regret is that they a~e not living next Joor to him. Commissione~ Johnsnn inJicated he Jid ayree with Commissioner Davld and that hc would like to offer the resolution for approval. Corrr-~issioner Barnes indicated she has listened very carefully and pointed out tn the past the Commission has turned down rsquests far homes for elderly people~ teenag~rs, And for 3/27/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 27~ 1978 78-220 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPi'ION-CLASS 1 AND CONOITIONAI USE PERM{T N0. 1813 (c~nttnued) the atcoholtcs~ which was very h~eart-rendering, but si~e felt in thls case the ages of chr children were limitesd; that legally a famtly could move in nexr, doo~ with eight or twelve children and their chiidre~ could run havoc witfi tl~e neic~h~orhoad. She asked M~s. Pedroza if she was licensed for four children~ a~d Mrs, Pedr•oza rsplied that at thH present tlme she is Iicer~sed for four~but does have hhr appllcatt~n in for six child~en and it is subJect to approval nF a conditional use perm(t by thc Clty af Anaheim. Commissloner Barnes asked if Mrs. Pedroza would be willing ta ga along with the stipulatlon to have only four childrsn for a certain amount of time in ordar for the Plan~ing Commission to determine whether or ~ot there are any pr~blems with the nelghborhoud~ and then if therc are no probiems, tli~y cuu1J dpprove a conditional usc permit for more children~ but thAt tt cauld he approved for a certaln emount of time for a certaln number of chlldren. Mr. Buxton polnted out he llves in the same kind of house as thts one and there Is no we~ 10 people could live there. Mrs. Pedroza poin~~~ out the inspectar from the State Ltccnsing Departme.it came In and measured the bedrooms; that three bedrooms wtll be occupled by six bays a~d th~ other three bedrooms will be usPd by her fam(ly~ and that she has a teenager almost 19 and a 10- year old boy. Commissloner Barnes indicated she could go along with this if there was a stipulaxion that there would be only four children for a certain amount of time so the Planning Commisston could taka a look at it again to make sure it is not ir~pacting the netghborhood. Chalrman Tolar pointed out he felt a time ltmit was uut of the question since the petitioners are buying the property for this specific use. Commissioner Linn indicated he dtd not see any problem with six chlldren, but that would be the maxlmum and potnr~d out the conditiona~l use permit could be revoked at any time if there are problems. He poinCed out he has livPd In a neiqhborhaod v+here there is a trainable. mentally•~starded person for 10 years. but that he had more problems with the other childr•en tn the netyhl~orhood who were wanderfully normal childrer~ aRd polnted out they t~ave bee~ do~e pushers ~ etc. He stated that everyone wants the faci 1 I ties, but -'~ot next door to them. Commissioner Johnson polnted out he wished to offer the ~esolution for approval and that he did not apologize; that lt was nat a hard decision far him to make; that he realized !t was a dlfficult thing t~ accept; that t-e wanted the citizens in th~ neighborhood to know that these people are doing a wonderful wurk which he cauld not do. physically or mentally~ and pointed out that he felt there would be some b~tght moments ahead for those ^.elghbors. He also pointed out he did not feel the Comnission could legally deny the request since the Stete has sald It is not a buslness. It was noted the Planntng Ofrector o~ his authortzed rPpresentattve has determincd that the proposed p~o,ject falls within the definition of Categorlcal Exempt(ons~ Class 1, as defined in paregraph 2 of the City of A~~heim Environmental ~mpact Report Guidelines and is~ thorefore~ cetegerically exertpt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Comnissioner Johnson offered Resolutian No. PC7~-61 and moved for its passage and a'~tron~ that the Ar~aheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petit~on for 3/27/7a MlNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ MARCH 27~ 1978 78~22~ EIR GATEGOa1CAL EXEhp TION-CLASS 1 ANp CONDITIONAI USC PERMIT N0. 1813 (continue~) Conditio~a) Use Permtt No. 1813 to permit the board and cnra of slx~ three to 12 yeer oid~ physic~ily-handicap{~ed cl~t ldren. Jeck Whito, Deputy City Atto~ney, stated thare is a Iltlgdtion at present es to whether ~r not the City hes the right to de~y xuch a permit a~d it hes not yet been dactded~ and that norm~liy any condittonal use permlt cen be subJect to revocation for violetlon of conditiona or If it becomes a nulsence. Commissioner Ile~bst IndicntPd he agrePS with Comm(ssfoncr .Inhnson and felt the City of Anahelm doos hdve an abl(yat(on ko these people. He polnted out that other well-knawn adve~tised r~cquests were for humes for people ~f di~ferent classltlcatio~s of chlldren, thet ltiay wnre i~ut fur pliysically-I~ai~J(capped chlldren. Ila f~+lt thts was ~ totaily different kind of use and~ as citl~ans~ werc obligatcd to find the rlght place for those chlldren and agreed that nqst people fecl there is a ne~d for this type of home ss tong as it is not next door to thcm. On roll call~ the foregolny resolut(an was passed by the folicywing votet AYES: COMMISSIONERS: bARNES, DAVIt~~ I~ERE3ST~ JOHNS01~~ KIrIG~ LINN NOCS: COMMISSIONERS: TOIAR ABSENT: COMMISSIONEKS: NONE RECESS There was ~ five-minute recess at 4:50 p.m, REGONVENE The meetin~ reconvened at 4:55 p.m.~ all Commissionors being present. ITEM N0. 1 EI E ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 PUaLIC FIEAkING. OWNERS: ARTHUR H. AND ROSE MAY COND IONAL SE ERHIT N0. + KAPLAfI, STANLEY ANQ JOYCE BLACK~ 6430 Sunset Boulevard~ Hoilywood~ CA 90028. AGENT; HUGN J. CQNROY. JR.. P. 0. Box 1738~ San Pedro, CA 90733. Petitioner req~ests permissinn to ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE TRANSMISSIbN REBUILDING AND REPAIR FACILITY on p roperty ck scribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consist(ng of approxirt~tely 0.4 acre having a frontagc of apprnximately 130 feet on the south slde of Katella Avenue, having a maximum deptti of approximately 148 feet, beinq located approxl- mately 190 fnet east of the centerline of State College Bouleva~d~ ~nd further describe~i as 2020 East Katella Avenue. Property presently classiFled ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMiTED) ZONE. Thtre were two persons indicating thelr presence in opposition to subiect request, and although the staff report to the Planninu Commission dated March 27~ -78 was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and madc a part of the minut~es. Jay 7ashlro~ Assistant Planner~ pointed out that tvro letterx a~d one teleg~am ha~d been submi*ted ~n oppositlon to subJect request. Nugh Conro~•, agent, pointed out tt~ere is a correction to the staff report; that they plan to work ~ix dayS a week rather than flve as reported. Ne referred to the Interdepertmental Committe~e reconrnendations and pointed out tha owner af the p~o,~erty would have to cwnply with Condition No. 1 and asked why Conditlon No. 3 had been made a 3/z7/7a ~ ~' ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ MAaCN 21~ ~978 78-222 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•ClASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PCRMIT N0. 1814 (wntinued) pert of the report sfnce this property is presenkly (mproved ~nd no additlonal lmp~ovements are planned. Anniks S~ntelahtl. Assistant Dir~ctor for Zo~ii~y~ explalned tl~at this la ta guarantee the petitlone~ w(I) not come in and add onto the structure without a~pprovsl. Mr. Lanroy polnted out h~ would be happy to answer any questlons end tfiet he had submltted two letters outlining baslcolly the type of business this is. Ne polnted out the bullding has been previously usod for o cdr eare center with a co~d(tional use permlt and that this is onother car cere centor of less maqnltude. Phill(p Quarre~ H~rtrrwnn Corpor~itlon~ 5~6 West Lincoln Av~~ue, Aneheim, statcd they wern tha awners of the 2.~-acre parcel adJacent to the south and east of subJect property. ~le stutad the Nartmenn Corporatlon Is opposed to installAtion of an eutomobile transmtssion ~apair facility at thc subJect site for a number of rcasons. Hs refc~red to a letter submieted to the Planni~g Commisslon Iisting tl~e reasons. Ile read those fivc reasons 1 Isted (n the I~tter dated Mar~ h Z3~ 19ia: "1. It would not be compatible wlth existing or proposed use~ in the Immodtate ares which presently includes banks. dinner house rrstaurants~ mot~ls~ ofrtce butldtnc~s a~d oth~r harmonlous cammerc(al uscs that are attractivc and pleasing to the eye. 2. The subject building and site has not becn successful when previously utlllzed as an automotive rCpa(r and service facility unde~ an or{ginal conditional use permit. The charaGter a~~d demngraphics of the Immedlate area are not appropriate or suttable~ and as h~s been prevlously proven~ wtll not support chis type of buslness. 3. The general plan far thls area. adopted in 1969~ wt~ich supers~des the present IndustriAl zoning~ is Comme~cial/Recreational (Ca). An autanobile transmisslon rebuilding and repair facili[y would not be canpatible wtth p~esent or future intended use. 4. The subject site~ by virtue of Its proximity to Anaheim Stadium, has er.tremely high visibility ta tourists, visitors, sports fsns nnd dignitar~es who arc ettracted to tl~e area or are j~~st passin9 by. An automobile rebuilding and repair facility at the subject site v+ould presant imnndlate and permanent visua) blight and would effectively arrest the conttnued development of highly d~sirable and attractive uses which have begun and v~ill continue in the area. 5. It is the avowed pollcy of the City of Anaheim to bring the Los Angeles Rams to Anaheirn Stadium. The existence nf an unslghtly automoblle repairfactlity~ virtual{y at the f~ont door of the stadium, could have a definite adverse effect on the dec 1 s i on af the Rams mana~ement to rrbve to Anahe i m. The dec 1 s tan whi ch you make today may well determine whether or not the Los Angeles Rams come tn Anaheim and OrP~ye County." dick ~radshaw~ employee of Ktley Corporatton~ indtcated they were basicAlly in agreement with the gentleman Nho had previously spoken and were opposed for the same reasons. He stated they are planning to construct a two-stary office building Just esstnrly of subJect 3l27/78 MINUTES~ ANAI{EIM CITY PIANNING COMMI SSION~ hWaCN 27~ 197~ ~8"~~3 EIR CATEGORICAL EXENPTION-CI.ASS 1 ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 181A (conttnued) prope~ty. Ile fe 1 t th i s I ocat i on wou 1 d not be conduc i ve to tli i s type of usage and wou 1 d be a dlsm~l fotlure. Mr. Conray stated he felt tt~is woulc~ be n competible use ~ince thero ore other commercta) developments in the arQA; that this is bosically a retall us~ and thnt was the rees~n thoy were interost~d In thls location~ that they must havc r rctai 1 locatlon; that thts ~ype of bus I ness appeal s tu the t rnf f i c and they mus t tiav~ t ro f f I c to meke the bus 1 nes ~ prof i tab le. Ne i nc~i cated he cou t d not at test to the i r comments regardt ng the prev ious opersto~s in this facillty not being successful. He lndlcated the type of ~pc~ra~i~n prevlously at thls location wds an ex~~ertnxntal oparAtlon based on a seml-ratal l~ seml- menufacturlny use. Ne stated It was his undcrstanding it was a retail outlet for a mer acturer nn State Col lec~e Boulevnrd, Ne stated tho General Pl~n c~t 1969 indlcated '~is area as comme~cial-rec~~a!lonal uge end he d i d not see whAt damaye th i s usc wnuld d~ ca thc ::,~JI um. Na i ndl cated hc waa e sea~on tick~t holdor for the Ra~ and he d id not think i~ was a poss ihi i i t•y they would be moving to Anahelm Stadium. Nc polnteJ out the bui idtny is existing and wos ,yranteJ o condl tto~al use p~ermlt in November of 1972. Ha polnted out t.he Hartmann Corporetlon~ whose property adjoins th(s prop~rty~ have not developod t~ieir ~~roperty; that (t was because elther this is not a good location or they have ~ot found the right user yet; thet they have lndicated they plan to develop a motel or hotel, but that hQ has not seen one yet. He Indic~ted they can only ~ae that the buiiding is there end that the builJtng is perfect for the purpose as prooosed by the ap~licant; that the business would be conducted entlrely inside and the landscaping wi I1 t~e providGd and cared for; and that the property is in en unsightly conditl~n at present but wlll b~ clesned up when the n~v t.enant. moves in. THC PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Cor~ml!si~n~r Johnson asked staff the exact zaning of this corncr end stated there seemed to be a lot of corrimercial uses at this location. Jay ?ashiro~ Assistant Planner~ pointed out the z~ning on subJect prop~rty is ML (Industrial~ Limited) and that tt~e General Plan indicates this property as bci~g C-R (Commercial-Recrcation) . Chalrman Tolar asked if the conditional use permit previously appro~'~roved fc',auteomobile vaiid. and Mr. Tashiro pointed out the eonditional use permit was ap~ repalr and that if all the rcquirements werc met for that variancc~ then they could have somc type of automobile repair fac(Iity. He indicated It was staff's fe..i(ng thAt sutomobi le transmi ss io~ rebui ldi ~g and ~epal r is a di ffcrent use than auiomobi le repal r. Commissloner He~bst pointed out that one of the reasons the co~dittonal use permit had been approvad p rev t ous 1 y wss beca use i t was fe 1 t th i s was a rni no r b rake repa i r and reta i 1 outlet~ rathc~ than automobile repair, and it was intended this wou1J be a light use for this Rartlcular location. He indicated he felt ~f the variance ~eq~est t~~ad been far a transmisslon repalr faciltty~ it would not have baen approved. He pninted out tha appearance of the everage transmi ssion repai r l~cat Eon i s not good and he dl d not feel i t would be sultable for this site; that they general ly have a lot of signing on the bui lding and the appearance is not good. Ne poi nted out i t is t~~ei ~ des i re to attract busi ness from the street because generally when a transmission goes out. the ~erson looks for the nearest location fo~ repair. Ne felt the orig(nal conditional use permit was a lot lighter and that Lhis was much rr~re (ntense and did not lend itself to this location. 3/27/78 r s t ' MINUTES~ ANAMIEIM C ITY PLANNING CQMt~I~SIUN~ MARCH 27~ t978 78-224 Ela CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CIASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 1814 (conttnuad) Conmisslonar J~hnson indicoted f~e wentec' to defend th~ appltcant ~nd that hQ did not appreciate che coenrtionts made tn the Hartn~ann Corpo~atior; lettcr; that he thought they were trying tu preJudic~ thc Commlssion by sayir~g tho operation would be unstghtly and It ls ~ot known that the use wou 1 d be uns ( gh t ly ~ anJ he hoped tl~e res t of thc Cam~) ss i on was not aNayeJ by tliose wa rds . Cornnisa(oner Herbst tndiceted he was not swayed by the wo~dx, b;~t he was basing his Judgment on other tranmission pl~ces hc has seen. Chal~m~n Tolar indic~ted he appreciated the Input a,~d neede~i t~ knaw the reason tne orlgional condi t i un~+l use p~rmi t wns yranteJ, Commiss ioner d+~rnes pc~inted out that th~~. a, ea has eF,an~,~u anc: I~as ber~~ u{~yr~a~Je.1 ~'~ ~~ce the oric~ina) conditlona) use pcrmit was granted~ and shc fel. thls kind ot devr.loomer gaing into this ares would not be the best use f~~r the property. She did not feei the use of this corner should be increased; [hat slie vlpwed this a~ea i~ sor,~etf~fny sheclal and hoped tfi~ developers would constder ft as son~ethinc~ special, Mr. Conred introduced thc operator of the transm~ssfon shop~ R~ ~crt landrum. Mr. l.andrum stated that ttie automobi lr repal ~ sr~op c~ndl tional us.e perm( t wo~~id bt for a he.~Wler• use wi th someone comi ng i n f~r a two-hour Job on th@i r ~ rakes ~ etc. ~~~herc.as the transmi ss~ ton ~e~olr would be about a flve t~ ten-car-~-day businest; that this ~s a rranchlse opei~atlon and that the horne office tn Detroit has looked at the iocation anc; talt It was p~rfect; that they do have hlgh standards an~ thc bulldings have 'u be malnt~~l:~ed. !:~ pointed out they wauld be spending approximately S90,~(10 to open the business; t~,a: they have operated a bus i ness for 18 yea~s i n the C 1 ty of Downey and th 1 s use ~~ou 1 d nol t~.. r down t`+e nelghborhood. He potnted out they would want onc sign on the bulldtng; ;.~~at thls !s not a b 1 ighted operat i on; that there are servi ce stat lons on the corr;e~ and he ~.•~oed t~> ma~ e the appearance of th i s bu i 1 d i ng as go~d as any i n the ne i ghborhood. Ne pa i~~ te: ~~u t tt;ey p', an to have a garde~aer and the existing planters will be landscAped and matntain~:! and they planned to have a sweeping service. Chai rman To) ar asked whe rc the cars waul d be stored wh i l e wa 1 t 1 n~~ to b~ repa S~ ed ~ a~d N!', Landrum repl ted the arca wi 11 hold si x automobi les; that usua! ly they a~e capa~le .~f getting most of Clie cars that come In out in one day, but nthrr'w~;e :ney would tie st~~ed internally; that there was a possibility one or two ~~uld be ~torcd ouiSid.:, but no n- ~e than arry service station. Cortimissloner King asked if photographs were available nf their op~:retion in Davney~ ar~d Mr. Landrir.n r~pl ied thi s was a d( fferent type of operat ion; that thci ~ busi ness in Down~y was a l~ck anJ key ~peration rlyht across the street from tl~e City Hall. Zhai rma~ 7olar asked what would the S90~000 expendi ture entai 1, and Mr. Landrum repl !ed it w~uld ali be internAl and constst of hoists. compressors~ and parts. He pointed out they were ~~eyotiating for a 15-year lease; that they had luoked at the sl te and the area beh(nd i t and thought maybe tl~ey coul d c ~ ean Chat up to rnake i t better for the i r transmi ss ton operation. Chairman Tolar point~d out i~_ was h~s op3ninn that since ttie building does exist and ~here is an opportunity to do somethiny with an existing structure and~ as he viewed It, it could create a great deal rn~re blight and cars to tl~e area than at present, the partlcular 3/27/78 ~~ ~ MIN~~TES, ANAl1E1M CITY PLANNING COhWiSS10N~ MAaCtI 27~ 197~ ~a-22y EIR CATEGORICAL ~XEMPTION-C~ASS 1 ANp CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1814 (continued) tenant of thishe~~~esYthdtmcouldhqoetn~~andnhcrwos goTn~etoESUpports~~f the City thAn most of the ot Commissioner Barnes P~o^that~ahownAinithehoxhiblts'asapresentedmby thc~petit~Q~~rhe would like slgntny similar t Mr. La~dr~~m pointed out kiie algning is all pre-formed plastic which eosts about $3,~00 and that they were Phensinn wouldvbeypl`astic~dwf thedouble'~aised lettersnacroashthcufront9af He poi ~ted out t g tFie bu i ldi ng. Comnissloner Barnea po~nted out she felt this cornar is very crucial to che stadlum and that areo, and sl~e would I ike to sc~ li-r samc klnJ af sl<~ninu as shawn on the photogr~ph and asked the petitluncr to stipulate to the kind nf s~9whichahesdid~. ~n the photograph and that lt ~•~ould be only on the front of the building~ Nr. Conrad polntea c~~t those are ralsed lecters to stand away from the building and are muCh better than beirty peinted. Camrr.issionur Nerbstspe1machlnetshop operatloni5wouldthe~allvwedeto goeintoethAtlbulld(ng the Ml. Zone, such a which wouid not require a conditional use permit. Mr. Tashiro polnted out al l uses allc~wed in the Nl Zone wauld be allowed (n this locatfon. Ghairman 7olar noted the ~•'.~ssion does have sane control as to the uses end a use~ wha l s g Q i n g t o d o su, tfi~~~ - an unsight~y p1ece of prnperty. It was i~~~ted h~ Planniny ~r ur his autF~orized representative has determined that tfie proposed ,~.ject fa~ls r~~thin the deflnltion of CategoricAl Exemptions, Class 1~ as ~I~finad {n p~~~agraph 2 of tt~e Clty of Anaheim Enviranmental impact Raport Guldel ines a~d Is, therefore, cateyorically exempt from the requlrement to prepa~e an EIR. AC710N: Commissioner Ltnn offered Resolution No. PC78-G2 and rroved for its passage .~nd a ocTptTan~ that the Aneheim City Plannin9 Comniss(on hereby grants Petition for Conditianal Use Permit No. 1814~ subject to the stipuiation by the petitioner that raised plastlc signing woul;i be provided for siyning on the front of the bu(ldireg only; that the existing plantcrs wi 11 be ~andscaped and malntalned; anJ that al l work wi 11 be donc Inside the strueture and ti;eLe `t~~obinLerdepertmentaloCommitteerrecommendatlons,~e of the building overnight. and su ,1 On rall call~ the forEgoEng resolution was passed by the follawi~g vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: E3ARNE:S~ OAVID~ HERSST, JOHNSON~ KING, LINN~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIOt1ERS: NONi Al35ENT: COMMISSIGNERS: NONE Commissloner Herbst pointed out hc had voted in favor of tliis project inasmuch as he felt the previously approved conditional use permit allowing a light use had been a mistake and that the building was pleced in an industrlal zone, and he felt a heavler use would be allawed other than a transmis~sion repair service wt~tct~ would be detrtmental to the area without coming before the PlanfonerCdoessnotnlivedupkt~~ the.sconditionsdof the eo ditional witl~ a handle and if the pettt use permit. it could be revoked. 3/27/78 ~ 78-226 MII~UTCS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCtI 27~ 191~ ITEM N0. 14 ~~''}~'~ RECOMMEIrOATtONs A. ABAkUONMENT e0.ge6~ni Ro`~~Q~ north~of Ca~rltosiAvenueanwestsofnWalnut Straet. sa~ n~tary sew Tha steff ~eport to the Pla~n~n~n~~~fs~°~ubltcdutlllltyzeasnmentWis subr+lttA~i~fortaction that subJect requast for aban by the Plannfng Camnilsslon in complianco with the provisinna of Saction 5~k3S of tho State of California Government Code. Commissloner Kinc~ noted hc I~ad a canflict of interest as deflned by An~heim City Planning Commisslon Resolution No. PC7~'157. ad~pting a Conflict of Intereat Code for the Planning Commisslon~ and Governrnent Codo S~ction 3~15 et seq., In that he own~ Paclfic Llghtlny Co~poration stock nnd Fredricks Devclopment Corporation Is affiiteted with PAhef~~~~ared Liyhting Carporatl~n~ and that pursuant to the provlainns of the ~h~ve codes. to the Ch~irmnn thac. he was with~discusslon<~or~thchv~ting the~eoneCend,~thathheth~dtn t and w( i l not take part i n c I Ll~er the discussc~d this mattcr with nny member af the Planniny Commission. It was notad the Di~ector n'' *.he Planning Department or hts authorfzcd repre.sentattve has determined that the preposed proJer.t falls withln the definition of Categ~rical Exemptlons~ Class ~~ as defined in paragraph 2 of the City of AnahNtm Envir~nmentAl Irt~act Report Guidelines and is~ thcreforc, cat~gorically exempt from che rr.quirement to prepa~e an EIR. ACT{ON: Commisstoner Uavicf offeinin3 ~that~theCAnaheimYCity~Planning Commission do~gON CA RjEp (Cornnissioner K(ng absta .~)~ hereby reconxnend ko thc City Counortt~toftCerrritosuAvenue~awest~ofaNalnut~Strect~, beisting sanltary scwer easernent located approved. ki. RE UkST FOR SPtC IMEN 7RE.E REMOVAL - 24~i Souih Ov+ens Dr 1 vc ~ A~ahe. m~ a ornia. ft~e staff report to Ct~e Planning Commfssion dated Ma~ch 27~ 1~78 wa5 presented~raximatelY that subJect property is an (rregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app 0.43 ~~re haviny a frontaye of appr~xicnetely 117. ~eet on the east side of Owe~s Drtve~ located approximately 53~ feet nor~. the centerl(ne of MoRiler Drive, and furthtr descrlbed as 244 South Orange Dri~. ~~: that the applican~ requesta removal af 17 specimen trees 1n order to bui Id a private ~.:~~~~ ~~~9~ Ccxnmissioner King referred to para~~raph (7) in ihat the app~t~ant has not speGlfied to the .lie appl icant repl ted he replacement of the stand of specimen trees to hbuiemovwoul~ ~C impossible to plan': 17 would be wi111ng to replace par[ of the trees, trees. Lommissioner Herbst askeJ hvw many trees could be replaced, and the appllcant rep:.ed that i t wou 1 d be harc~ te ansveer' ~ that Che 1 andscape arch i tsct woul d have to answer that question. 3i2~i~a ,. ~N MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COKMISSION~ MIIRCH 2~~ 1918 78-227 ITfM,~H (continued) ACTION: Commissl~ner King oFfereJ a mocinn~ secondcd by Commisstaner David and MOTI0~1 ~t D(Commisslonar .lohnson voting no)~ tl~at the Pl~nntng Comntsst~n does hereby recommend to the City Council thac the specimen tree removel be appr4vecl. Annika Sentelet~ti~ Assistant Olrector for Zon(ny~ pofnced out the tree r~emoval request requires Plsnning Commisslon approvat and that wauld be forwarded to tho petitioner. C, CONUITiQI~AL USE PERIIIT N4. yll - Request for te~minotlon. The staff repurt to the Pl;~r-niny Con-misslon datcd March :7~ 1'?7~' w~s p~esented~ netinq ttiet subJe~t property Is a rectanyulr~rly•shAr~d pa~cel af land consistiny of approximately 1.G acres located at the northeast corner of Ninston Roed and Mo nolia AvPnue~ and further descr(bed as 1274 South Megn~lla Avenue~ and tl~at the applicant ~Joseph k. Caruso~ age~t for Fredricks Uev~lnpmr_nt Corpor~tion) requests terminetlc~n of Conditional Use Permit No. 911. Crmmissioner King nuted hc had a confllct of lnte rest as def(ned by the Anaheim Ci Planning Commissto~ Resolution No. PC7G-157~ adopting a Confict af I~terest Code for the Planning Commission~ end Governn~nt Code Sectlon 3G25 et seq.~ in that Fred~icks Development Corporation is a brancl~ of Pacific Lighting Corpnration and he owns Paclfic Lighting stock and, pursuant ta provisions of the above cades, I~e was hereby declaring to the Chairman that he was wl[hdraw(ng from the heariny in co~nect(on with Item 14-C and would not take part in either tl~e discusston or the v~tin~ thereon~ ancS he had not discussed this matter with any member of tt~e Planniny Commission. ACTIOt~: Camm(ssion~r Herbst offered Resolution Nc~. PC7~-G3 and moved for its passage and a~opt~~on, that Che reyuest for termina[ion of Conditional Usc Permit No. 911 be granted. On roll call~ thc foreyoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES : COMMI SS I OIJE RS : BARN~S ~ DAV I D~ f~EREi ST, JOiiNSON ~ L 1 N~J, TOLAR NOES : COMMI SS 10!~ERS : NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: h~ONE AE3STAIN: CUMMISSIOt~ERS: KING D. SECTION 58.22.061.010 - Recommended Code amendrnent. The staff report to the Planning Commission dated March 27~ 1978 w~s presenteci by Anntka ~3ntalahti~ Assistant Direc[or for 2oning; that as a result of discussio~s with a potential developer in the Peral[a Ni~'s area. it had come to staff's attention that the wnrding in Sectlon tu.22.~61.010~ pertaining to the minimum lot area in the RS-NS-43,000 tone~ does not exclude privatc ingress and egress easements from the minimum required lot area; that dedicated streets and public easer~ nts are ex.cluded as the ~esult of a 1~76 ~mendment~ and it is staff's recollection that when the amendment was approved (Peralta Hiils residents requested it)~ it was intended that all streets and ingress and egress easements were to be excludcd, resulting in a mtnimum net lot size of approximately ~ne acre in P~eralta Hiils. 3/27/7a MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION. MARCN 27~ 197$ 78-228 ITEM D (tontinu~d) After a brtef dlscusslon~ (t was the general c~nse~sus of th~ Planninq Commisslon that they woul~i prefer mnre stsff input prinr to takiny ack~on on thr_ rer.ammended Code amr.ndmen t . ACTIQM: Cammissiono Herbst offered a motion~ s~conded by Commissioner Ktng and MQTIOFI ~0 (Gommisslunar Barncs ~nd l.~nn votin,y no. and Commis~ioner Johnson abstaining). that the recammended Ca~e arnendmr.nt be continue.~ fc~ further steff in~~~~t. Miss Sa~talaht) exnlaineci that tf~is Item c~uld ae discussed at the work session to be held at the canclusion af tt~e regular Plann~ny Gommis5i~n rkseting on April 24~ 197~. E. buILDiNG PERIi1T A('f'LICf~TlQ!~ - 5!?U E~st f.yprPSt Strcet. The staff rtpart to the Plannin~~ Comm(ssion frnm tt~e Anaheirn Redevelopment Agency dated -~arcli 2~~ IaJE :~oted a builcfing ~~°rmi! aapiic~-+tion t~as been filc~ by the ~wner of the property st ;;07 Eest Cypress Strcet. The proposed improvements conslst of remodeliny tl~e kitcl~en and taath. u~~rading electrical servlce~ new floor covertng~ and painting the ~xterl~~r; that tt~e Ex~cutive Directur of the Re~levelopment 1lgency has reviewed the buiding pc~mit applicatlon and itnds that the improve~ne~nts are corr~atible with the standerds set forkh in theRedevciapment Plan and recomme:nds tl~at thr. suG}ect building permit be approwed. AC""""'~ L~I~iI~iShe~Anaheim~Planning Ccmission~does~cancurCwith~thenBuildinq~Perm~itlRevit,wv CARRiEU* c at t i~eport ~s submitted and recomrnei~ds approval. F. REGlA551 FIGA?10'~ NQ. 73-7~+-:5~1) - Reyucst f~r approval of speci f ic plans. Cc~ntssio~ar King note.d he ha~i a cunflict of i~terest as defined by Anahtim COty Planning Commission 6iesolucion Nq. PC76-157~ aU~~Pti^9 a Gonflict of Interest Code for the Planning Cortanission. a~d Government Cucie Section 3625, ec seq., in that Dunn Propertles Is a branch of Pacific I.igh[ing Corporation and he owns Paci`ic Lignting stock and~ pursuant to the provisions of the abov~ codes. does her~by declare ta thh Chairman that he is withdrawning from the hearing in con~eccion witli Item 14-F and would not take part in eithe~ the discussion ar the votiny Chrreon~ and that he has not discussed this matter witti any member o1` the Plannin~~ Co~ramission. Jay Tash~ro~ Asxistant Planner, explained the staff report to the Plan~ing Commissian dated March 27~ 1978, noti~sg sub~ect property is a recta~gularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ap~roximately 1.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 271 feet on the west stde of f~agnolia Avenue, beiny located apa~oxirnately 2~i0 feet north of the centerli~e of La Palma Avenue~ and that submitted plans do n~eet all the requirements. ACT'Otl: Commissicner Linn offer::d a motian, seconded by Commisstoner David and MOTION CARRiEU ~ A~nd;toethe`iC9tybCouncilythatt~thetspeciFhciplansyforaReciassificatton Noes hereby rec 73'7k'S~(7? be approved. 3/27/78 ~ ~.. MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAitCN 21~ 1978 78'229 G. RECLASSIFICAI'ION N0. 7~•77`60 - Request for approvel oP revis~ed plans. ~ The staff repurt to tha Planning Commissto~ datnd March 27• 197a Wea presanted by Jay Tashl~o, AssiutAnt Plannar, noting tha subJect property ls an irregula~ly-sh~ped percel of land conststin~ of approxlmatelY 6.9 ac~es located soutl~ and east of the southoaat corner of Ball Rosd and State College Boulevard~ having app~oximato frontages of k58 feet on the south s(de of Ball Road and 4~c~ fea+c on the east side of State College Boulevard~ dnd having s maximum depth of approximately GA7 foet, end that the appltcant requests approvel of revised plans f~r a conm,e~cial office complex. Mr. Tashiro polnted out previousiy ap~roved plans include a commerclal center consisting of nina butldings ~nd thot th~ propnsed devclopmant will be in confa rnience with the CL site development stanclards. ACTION: Commission~r David offered a motl~~~ tPCnnclyd by Commissloncr Barnes and MOTION C RRIED. that the A~eheim City Planning Comnfsslun does hereby recomr-cnd to the City Council that the reviged plans be approved for Reclassfficatlon No. %G-77-60. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business. Commissloner David offered e nrotion, seGonded by Commtssioner King and MOTION CAilR1ED~ that the meetlnc~ be adJourned. The menting a:fiourned at ~:55 P•m• Rsspectfully submttted~ ~o pl.~"'~- ~ l~. f -t` Edi tl~ l. Harrl s~ Secretary A~ahcim Clty Pla~ning Commission ELN:hm 3/27/78