The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1978/07/17City Hall Anaheim~ Cal(fornia .July 17, 1918 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PIANNINf COMMISSION aEGULAR - The regula~ meeting of thc M ahelm City Planning Commisslon ~as called to ,~ETING order by Chalrman P~~ Tempore Barnes et 1:32 P~m.~ July 17. 1978~ in the Counc(1 Chamber~ o quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO 7EMPORE: Barncs COMMISSIOMERS: David, King, Llnn~ Johnson~ Tolar AfiSENT - CHAIRMAN; Nerbst ALSU P RESENT - Jack White Jay Titus Paul Singer Jack Judd Annika S~ntalahtl Jocl Fick Jay Tash i ro Edith Harris Oeputy City Attarney Office Engineer Traffic Engineer C(vil ~nyineering Assistant Assistent Director for toning Ass~clate Planner Associste Planner Planntng Commisslon Secretary PLEUGE OF - The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Commissloner King. ALLEGIANCE GENERAL PLAI~ AMENpMENT N0. 147 __.__.__._.. Chairman Pra 7empore Barnes explalned reyuests havc been received that Areas 111 and I'J of General Plan Amendment No. 147~ It~m No. fi. be terminated and rescheduled. ACTION: Commiss(oner Linn offered a motion~ secondad by Comm{ssio~er Oav(d and MOTION ~A~O (Commtssioner Herbst being absent). that Areas III anj iV of Gene~al Plan Art~ndment No. 147 be terminated. ITEM N0. 8 PUBLiC HEARING. OWNERS: HARQLD HENP,Y, 360(1 Wilshire E R NF~ATIVE QECLARA710N Boulevard, Suite 1114~ ~os Angelea. ~CA 9~10~ AND . .79-4 STANDARD BRANDS PAINT~ 430o Nest 190th Street~ V ANCE N0. 302 Torrance~ CA 90503. AGEMT: RONDELL HOMES, 1NC., 9774 West Katella Avenue~ Suite E~ An~heim, CA 92804. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of approximaLely 9.5 acres having a frontage~ af approximately 50 feet on the nort' side of Lincoln Avenue~ having a ~~~ximum depth of approximately 720 feet~ and being located approximately 1026 feet east of the tente~line of Brookhurst S~reet. Property pr~sentiy classified CL (CqMMCRC1Al, LIMiTED) ZONE. REQUESTF.D CIASSIFICATION: RM-1200 (RESIDEN~IAL, MUL1'IPLE-FAMILY) Z0~ ~a-s4o ~i~~i~$ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 1976 16-;49 EIR NE6ATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIfICA710N N0. 7~-79~4 AND VARIANCE N0. 3024 (continued) REQUF.STED V~RIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM BUILaiNG SITE WIDT1~ TO CONSTRiJCT A 143-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Chatrman Pro Tempore Barnes explained thls (tem should he continued in order that tt can be readvertised. AGTION; Crxnmissloner Uevid offered a motion~ seconded by Comm(ssioner linn and MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner Herbst being absent)~ that Petitiuns for Reclasslflcatlon No, 7a-79-~~ and Variance No. 3Q24 be continued co the regular rneeting of the Anahelm City Planninq Commisslon on July 31~ 1y7~~ in order to be r~edvertised. (TEM N0. j CONTINUED PUt3LIC IIEARING. OWNERS: RQBERT A. AND EIR CA GORICALLY F~~riPT-CLASS 11 ROSEMARIE SMITN~ 13729 Rosecrans~ Santa Fe Springs~ 0. U ~ CA 90F~70. AGENT: AMOS J011NSTONE ~ 1140 We+s t Hampshire, Anaheim~ CA 92802. Petit(oner requcsts WAIVER OF (A) PERMI7TED LOCATION OF FREE-STANDING SIGN, (B) MAXIMUM HEIGH7 OF FREE~STANOINr, SIGN~ ANO (C) MAXIMUM AREA OF FKEf-STANDING SIGN~ TO CONSTRUCT A FREE-STANOI~~G SIG~I on property described as a re~tangularly-,haped parcel of land conststing of approximately 4.2 acres h~ving approxirnate frontages of 31~ fGet on the south s(de of Winston Road a~~d 155 feet on the west side of Sunkist Street, Property pres~ntly classified ML (INDUS7RIAL, I.IMITED) ZONE. SubJect pet(cion was continued from the meetin~s of May 22~ June 5 and 19~ and July 3~ 1978. at the request of the petit(oner. There was no one indicating tlietr presencP in opposltion to subJ~ct reques[~ and although the staff repo~t to the Planni~g Commissiun dated July 1~~ 1973 was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Gec(1 Wrigh~~ attorney, 65 Plaza, Oranye~ explained this req~est is for waiver of tho height of the sign fo~ 8 feet above wh~t the ordinance v+ould alla+. He stated a herdship has been caused as the result of a mobilehome park constructed adJacent to this property. He referred to rPsidential propert~ occupied by Mr. James Gregg which is within 360 feet of the proposed slgn and that his structure is on a triangula~ly-Yhaped piece of property and is desiynated on the General Plan for industria'. u5e. He stated Mr. Gregg has no inte-•est in keeFing these premises as a residential use. Ile rcferred to a letter from Mr. Gregg indicating he intends to develop his property or dispose of it for industrlal purposes. Ne polnted out this residPnc:e is the only reason the stgn is be(ng restrlcted to the 27-foot height and (f the resldence were not there, the stgn could t,~• a lot higher and be in .ompliance wikh the Zoning Code. Mr ~iright presented pictures teken from the high pnint of the Qrenge Fraeway an~i painted o~: the f~eeway is constructed at a higher level than the property, and stated the pictures would lndlcate the sign at 27 f~et c4uld not be seen from the freeway overpass. He stated this property is unique btcause it ls totally within an industrial ~one; that Mr. Gregg's property is bping used for reside~tial purposes an a tempora~y basis as indicated by the letter submittecs and he did not feel that property needs protection. He re~.:rred ta the questions on the Justific~tion statement concerning whether or not the property d(ffers from other property in the same vicinfty and zone, and i~dicat~d it doe~ differ because of its location. Concerning the use of the pr~~erty without the varia~cc 7/17/7a MINUTtS~ ANaHFIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSIUN, JULY 17~ 1"78 7a-55~ EIa CATEGUa1CAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0, 3013 (continued) en~ whether or not the praperty wauld be deprived of privileges enJoyed by other propeciles In the same vicinity and zone~ he indicated it is deprlved because of the fact It is adJacent to the one si~gle-family resldence and would be nntitled to a much hlgher siyn If the residenc~ wcre not there. Concerning the yuestfon of whether ~r not the hardship was self-~~duced~ he pdinted out Mr. 5mith had been npposed t~ the mob(lohomc park constructlon because he was afraid it would afF~ct tlie use end Impact h1s property and potnted out hc dld not bslleve staff was rccoyniztn,y that conscruction of the mobilehome park t~~as caused problems because the City i~nposed a strlnyant requirement concernlny the construction of a noise-attenuatlon wall (approximately 20 faet high) along the freeway s(de of the property; that this wall is~ ln fact, blocking the vtew of the siyn from the freeway. Fia ii~Jicated hc fclt the Plannin~ C~nunission could assume the uaage of the Gregg property w~uld be eventually el(minated and In that event~ the sign could be r,is^.d ~~wch hiyher. Ne indicated this is a single-face stgn facing the freeway away from .~ • Greyg propcrty~ and he did not think the slyn would have any nffect on the re~,lence and dtd not feel the i~ardsl.ip could be controlled by the applicant and was not self-Induced. tle did nat think the variance would have a detr(mental effect on the public -Elfare and wou~d not damaye the adJacent property values~ and he beltev-d slmilar variances have been allawed in the area and pointed out~ ag~tn~ th~ey were only asking for an 8-foot variance~ which is a ve ry small lncreese over what ts allowed. THE PU4LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Comm(1si~ner Tolar a~ked the height ~f the sign allowed if Lhere was not an adJa~ent residenee~ and Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ pointed out if there were no stngle-femily residen:es within 750 feet~ the si~n coula be as high as 70 feet, but that within 30G feet. the maxlmum height would be 25 feet. Cortmissioner Tolar asked if mobilehomes count as restdential structures, an~ Jay Tashiro replied they do not. C~rnmissioner Johnson a3ked for c1PriFicatlon regarding the basis for the variance rsquest~ restricting the heiyht to 27 feet~ and J~ Tashiro po~nted out there is a structure (Mr. Gregg's property) located ad~acent to '~,yton Road on the south side of ~he property ~nd that the structure (s ~pproximately 3~ feet away from the propoSed sign and indicated there are no o'her residential structures. Commissioner J~hnson asked for clarific~tion concerninq the locaiton frcxn which the photographs were taken and ind~cated picture No. 1 appears to hdve been taken from the off-ramp, and Mr. Wright replied there wes a map indicating the locatians from which tne photographs were ta~en. There was a orief discussion conctrning tliese photogrr~hs and locations from which they wcre taken~ with Amos Johnstone scating ne had personally tak : the photographs ar,d explain(ng the locations. Comnissioner Barnes pointed out that If industrlal properties across the strect had been built as two•story units~ the same problem would exist~ snd t1r. Wright pointed .ut there would not be any residential structures and ~gain related h~ uia not feel this residence deserves the protectiort si~ce it is a temporary use and Mr. Gr~gg stated he does not particu;arly car~~ about the heignt of the sign. It was noted that fhe Pla~ning Director or his autharized representative has determined that the proposed pro)ect falis within the deFi~itio~ af Ca~tegorical E~:emptions~ Class 11~ as defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Anahelm Environmental Impact R~port Guidclines and is, tt~erefore~ categoric:ally exempt trom th~e requirement to prepare an EIR. 7/17/78 MINUTES~ ANA~~EIM CITY PLANhING COMMISSION, JULY 17, 1978 EIR CATEGOa1CAL CXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. Ol (c~~~tinue~) 7a-55~ ACTION: Commissioner 7olar offered Reaolution No. PC18-158 and mav~d for its p~ssage and ~~optfo~~ that the Anaheim G{ty Plann(ng Commisslon does hcreby grant Petlilun for Variance No. 3~~3~ ~n part, yranting watvers (b) ond (t) on thc basls that elthauyh the property to the west is developed with A tempornry single-famlly structure~ thc property is zoned fo~ Industrled that walver~,nnd sub]ecthto~lntPr~`~~rtmen'talbCommittee revised plans submitted delet rccommendntions. On rol) call~ the forcyoing res«lutlon was passed by the follawing vote; AYES: COMMISSIONCRS: BARNkS, DAVI~~ JuHNSO~~ KIwG, LIMN~ TOI.AR NOES: COMMI SS I OI~ERS : f~ONt ABSENT; COMMISSIOIJCRS: HER~S7 ITEM N0. 2 CONTIPIUED PUgLIC HEARINf. OWNER: EQUITEC ~7-REAL E~~~ L , RICAL EXEMPTION•CI.ASS 1 ~ST~Tt ~NVESTORS, P. 0. Box 1106~ Lafayette~ CA Cp_ NpITIONAL ti~E PERMlT NO 1„1 945u9~ AGf`1T: ~IM'S DISCOUNT WAREHPQ~itlon~e~ South - ~ Sunkist St~eet, Anaheim~ cn 9zSo6. requests permission to ES7ABLISN RETAIL SALES OF FUkNITURE IN AN ML ZONk: ar~ ~ropeYty described a° a rectangular~ ~oxir~ate1pa1022 feetaon the consisting of approximately 11.8 acres having a fronta9e pfroXPmatel 5~7 feet~ being south side of Katella Avenus~ hAVlny b maximu:n depth of app Y located appr~ximstely 66Q fe.et west of thc centerline of Strte College 8oulevard~ and further descrlbed as 1't0U East Katella Avenue. Property presently classifled ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. Subject pe*.j~.ion was continuect from the meeting of June 19, 197~~ for further Input to Clarify City Co~nc(1 pollcy regarding this matter. There was no one indicatP~ennlnirCcxnmission,dated ,J~~yo~~to1978jWas noturead atdthetpub9ic the staff report to the 9 hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. gi1) Pulver, P~esid~nt af Jim's Dtscount Varehuuse~ revle~+ed the situatlon~ potnting out this issue evolves around the fact that on July 28, 1976, hls firm requnsted a buslness litense for retail sales of furr~iture at 1200 Eest Katella .venue; thbt theroximatel 1lcense request was reviewed a~d approved by the P1anning Uepartment on app Y Augu~t 30, 1976~ and the license was ultimately (ssued on 4ctober 1~ t976; that in M~y of this year, they had recetved a notification ~rom Mr. Walp, Zoning Enforcrment Officer, that their sto~e needed a conditional use permit since the area is zoned industrial. He pointed out Mr. Walp had tald him he had not done ~nything improper~ that City staff had made an error in issuing the business license. Nc ir~Jicated he had quickly contacted Mr. Tashiro~ and he al~ verlfted that staff had made an error~oval ofdaGCOnditionat usen told ret~il furniture sales are pe~mitted tn this zone upun app permlt. Mr. Pulver gave some history of their coi,~pany and indi^ated that prior to moving to this location~ they had occupied a site in the City of O~ange and had moved to this a~ea betause they needed mc~re storage area. He sttted in add(tion to this facility they currently oc~upy 34~000 square f~et of warehouse space at anotEOr~e~andipointedhout the business license for that use; that they currentiy emoley 35 P P ICatella P-venue store is the foundation of their busi~ess. He tndicated he had consulted i/17/7a ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 197a ~~~5~2 EIR CATEGORICAL E_XEMPTION-CU1S5 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.~1842 (c.ontinued) wlth their accuunting firm and esked the consequence~ of closi~y the Anahelm store end was told It would force them inta bankruptcy. Ne Indicated he falt their busine~s proJec.ts a posltive imaoe along Katella and is a~ asset to the araa. Na stated It was his feeling ~t the last discussion w(th the Planning Commission thet they wer~ viewiny this as a new appllcatlon. Ne pointed out he felt this situation ts diffe~ent because of tho ctrcumstances and they had madn the (nvestment based on circumstances end fQ1t the sftuation was not quite the: same ax a new locatio~r which had not made en Investmenr.. I!e Indicated he had gotten thz impression at the last meeting that the Commtsston wAS somewhat ~p~et wlth the developer in this parttcular case end po(nted out, ~mfc~rtunately~ the orlginal developer had sold the ~-roperty and is no longer tnvolved~ and he felt tlie new developar wuuld likc to have thpm out ~f the location slnce he could rent the spac9 at a higher price. H~ felt the oniy parties who woul~.! get hurt In thls situation would be his company and t~is p~~ple~ and asked the Plenn(ng Cammission to look favorably upon this request. TNE PUB~IC NEARING WAS C~45~D. Commissioner llnn asked staff if 1200 Eest Katella Aven~e would be in the same zone as 140Q East Katella Avenue~ and Jay Tashiro pointed out tt~at on thc south stde of Katella the maJority of the property is zoned ML. Commissioner Linn po(~ted out there is a physician operating in this area who had just recently rtx~ve~f there~ w!~ic~~ is not on the appraved li~t, and painted out there are other v(olatlons in the area. It was noted that th~ Planning Oirector or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed proJecL falls withln the definition of Categorical Ex~mptlons. Class 1, as defined in paragraph 2 of thr. Clty of Anahe(m Environmental Impatt Report Guldelin~s and is. therefore. cate9orically exempt from the requ(rement ta prepare an E1R. ACTION: Cortnissioner David offered Resolution No. PC7E-159 and moved for its passage and a~optTon~ that the Anaheim Gicy Ptanning Commisston does hereby grant Petltion for Condittanal Use Permit No. 1~4?., sub)ect to Interdepartmental C~nmittee recoim-endatlons. Priar to vottng on the forec~oing ~~sotution~ Comnissiflner Johnaon indicated he could appreciate Commissioner David's positlon and he did not want to be on the negattve stde~ but would like to be convinced; that he would hate to see the Planning Commission falter since they do haye certain crlterla to follow in tryfng to protect the industrial zane. H~e pointed out ther.: nave beWhu have cri[icizedithe~Planning Commi~onefo inotfp~otecting ptonee~s of the City. etc.~ the industrt~l areas, especially pertaining to f~~rniture stores. Commissloner David potnted out he did not think this application sn~~uld be viewed as a new application~ and lie felk there was enough substance in the backgrou~d to merit favorable consideration by the Commission. He felt the petitioner in this case had been a viGtim of cirtumstances and he did noC think the Planning Cammission should force them to relocate. He fclt the problem had been caused by sta~f issufng the business licensa, and Just He because an error had been nade, thts husiness should not be forced into bankruptcy. stated the keeptng of the integrity of the industrial zone could not be done i:~ rhis particular case~ but in new applicat~ons the Planning Commission could and should be strong and consistent with their ~olicies. 7/17/7~ ~ ~4. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISStON~ JULY 17~ 1978 78-553 EIR CATF.GQRICAL EXEMPTION-CIASS 1 At~D. CONaIT~ONAL USE PERh11T NG, 184~~ ~;~~ntinued) Commissioner Tolar pointed out he was going to suppart the ~esalution for appraval~ but did not feel staff was responslble even though an er~or was ~rwie and a buainess license was lssued; Lhat the ariginal devaloper was qiva~ a ltst of allowe~! uscs (n the induatr(al park anJ the person responsible Is the person who lcased this property in direct vlolatlon of the C~cy codes. Hn polntec' out the bustnesa 1(cense situatto~ is o probinm end Is o~o ;hat the Planning Commisslon has had to dQal with for e lan,y time; that eve~ thouqh someone cen ~btain a license far operating in an i~dustrta) 20~e~ it does not negate the responsiblllty of tl~e owner to vf~late the lea~e. He indtcate~ he: wes in favor of Mr. Pulver's request~ but I~e was not sa~isfted t.hat io close the business would cause the compeny to go bankrupt. Ne fclt the petit(onar wouid 'neve a tremendous lewsuit agelnst the ownar ~f the industrial park~ and ta ~pprove this would be condoning th~ ection of the vtolator or thc ~crs~n whc owns th~ p~~k. He tndtcated he was supporttng approval of the ~esolution becausr af the fact that the south side of Katella is developed with canmercial businesses~ but that under diFferent ctrcun,.stances in ch~ fucure~ particularly wlth commercial and r~atail in rn industr;al parK, he was qoing to be very adamantly against any such usP. C~mmisatc~-,er Barnes lndicatcd there is en additional problem in thls particular case; thax the prevlous property owner had cause~i the problem jnd tl~e pr~sen[ property owner is going to cause problems with the tenants now~ and thts is going to be an ongo~ng problem and the Plenning Commission should start dealing with it noa.~. She indicated she felt very strongly both ways in this particular case. Ccxrrnissioner Johnson indicated he was going to support the resalueior for approval slnce he did nat feel the Planning Comntsston shoulJ f~rce the petitioner into bankruptcy and affect the c:mployment of 37 Persons. He felt the Planning Commission is supposed to help the citiz~ns in Anaheim as well as provide a servtce for the City. Commissioner Tolar pointed out concerning the comments reyardinq the pliystci~nn being in the industrtal xone. a retail furniture store would be morc compatibie with the industria) zo~e. but a physiclan is an apcn violation. On roll call~ the foregoin4 resolution was pass~d by thc following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: DAVID~ JOHNSON~ KING, LINN. 70~_AK NOES: COMMIS~IONERS: BARNES ABSENT: CGMMISSIONERS: NERBST Cortimissloner Barnes indtcated she wanted her "nu" vote to reflect her prote~t against commerclal users in the Industrlal zones. 7/17/78 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COHMISSION~ JUL Y 17~ 1y)8 7~-55~ ITEM PIO. PUBLIC I~EARINr,. OWNER: BERNARDQ M. YORBA~ JR.~ '~j~~RICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 5~+~+0 East Santa A~a Canyon Roed, ~nahelm, CA 92°:.?. ~ AGENT: RONALD E. ALLEN~ 1582 Parkway Loop~ Sulte A, Tustt~. cn 92680. Petiti~ner requests WAIVER OF (A) PERMIT TED SIfNING~ (~) MAXIMUM SIGN DISPLAY SURFACE~ AND (C) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA~ TO CONSTRUCT A FRE E-STAI~DINf~ GaOUND-MOUNTED SIGN on property dracribed as sn irrcgularly-shape~i parcei pf ic~nd consi:,ting of approximately ~.8 ac~e l~ocated at the sautheast corner of Ssnta Ana Cenyan Road and Impe~ial Hlghway, haviny approxiinate frontages of ~0 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Roed and 580 feet oi~ the e•.st slde of Imperlal Highway~ and further de~crlbed es 10~ South Imperlel Hlghwa~y. Property presently classif(ed CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE. There was no ane Indicating their prese~ce in opposltlon to subJect request, and although the staff ra~ort to the Plannin~~ Commission dated July 17~ 1~)76 was not road et the put~l ic hearing~ It ts referred to and made a pert of llie n~lnutes. It was n~ted the H(11 and Canyon Municipal Advisory Commi~tee (HACMAC) revlewed the proposal on June 17, 1~7&, and ttidt cuncern was expressed relative to recomnending app~oval of subject w alvers when no hardsiiip cxists~ but tt wos patnted out the applicent had orlg(nally plAnned his center prior to th ~ formation of f1ACMAC and was given the impresslon a monume~nt si-yn ordinance for the canyon wouid soon be adopted~ and with fives members prusent~ the ComnitC~P voted unantmo usly to recortmend approvt~l of Varlance No. 3031. Rnnald Al1en~ ayenc~ explained that in April of 1977, when kht City Counctl ha~:~ approved this pruject, they had ind'cated o monum~nt sign ordinance wes heing prepared and that the project will be completed in October and the ordlntnce is not In effect,and the hardship would be that he haJ built his proJect aith the thought in mind that he would have a mon ument sign. He pointed out thls partic~lar plece of property is on a valuable corner and a styn is necessary. Ne indicated he ha d designed the building to accommodate the monument sign rather than haviny a lot of fr~ntage in order to have a bigger sign. Ha referred to other businesses In the area an d the signiny on their frantages and indtcated he dld not feel the element of square fcwtag~ should apply in this :,Stuatton. He indicated this rrbnum~nt si gn woul:l have the i I lusion of baing a part of the but lding because of the way it Is desiyned and the th ~ee surfaces referred to are the three sldes af the monument stgn~ and pointed out a S3~00 digital clock wi11 be Incorp~-etecl as a result of the NALMAC recortmendations. I1~ in d(cated this sign would be 4 feet high and v~ould be similar to the. one at the Anaheim Nills, Inc. entrance to their property. Jan Hall~ representing ~4ACM4C, p~inted out that In all fa(rness to Mr. Allen~ she r.ould (ndicate this matter had been before FIALMAC and they had aucceeded in havi~g Mr. Allen remove this sign reyuest frorn his orlginal p ermit; thbt they were assuming the monument sign ardinance in the canyon area would be impleme~ted, which abvtously has rot happened. She in~lcated NACMAG had reviewed the plan a nd felt very good about tt; that it looks like tha other monument signs and they are pleas e d with the clock. THC PUf~LIC HEARING NAS CLOSED. Commissloner Tolar asked for clarificatton regarding whether or not the monument sign with the cle:k could be used for any additional adverttsing ar.d asked if thers would be any additional wall signs proposed. 7/17/7a }, MINUT~°~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 1976 7~-555 EIR CAT~GORIfAL EXEMPTION-CLA55 11 AND VARIANCE N0,__:___303_1 (co~tinued) Mr. Alle» potnted out thc three surfaces referred to are the three s(des of the monument siyn; that acco~dtng ta tho plan ic does ongle sround so thet the aree with tha clock Is feclny the corner and would be very much like the sign for Anaheim Hilis~ Inc. st Anahelm Hlils Road. Commisslonar Jahns~n incft cated he was c~ncerned about tF~e square footage Involved; that 1 t is t'efreshing to see e developer come in with something this nice~ but felt the Planntng Commisston shnuld be very careful. ttiat y0 square fePt ia a larye s(gn~ end this ls a very choice location. He asked haa high the si~n letters of Anaheim Rnelty would be. and Mr. Allnn painted out they are 8 inchess high and ttiere would be 3d squere feet of letters and the(r background is stucco and appears ta be part c,f the building~ end that the siqn is less than 15 feeC long. Gommiss(oner Tolar indlct~ted he feli this sign is what the Planntny Commission has becn looking for. It (s somethinc~ needed (n the conyon~ an~ he Eareed wtth HACMAC th+~t the squa~e footeyc~ shuuld be allownd hecause it is Incorporated as part of the building. Mr. Allen pointed out t~~e siyn haci been moved back from the street and is in ltne with thc corner of the bullding; tl~at you can only see it at one angle from the lntersection~ but that the r~st of it looked like part of the butldtng. Chairman Pru Tem~ore Barnes asked if the Traf`ic Engineer had looked at the sig~ end if the tr~ffic visibility would b~ blocked. Jay Tashiro polnted out tf~e Traffic Engineer had bee~ sent a copy of the plans. but had indicated no problein. It was noted that the Plan~~ing Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed p~a~ect fells wichln the definition of Cateqorical Exemptions~ Class 11. a~ defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim E~vironrr~ental Impact Report Guidelines and is, theref~re~ categorically exempt from the req uirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Cortxnissioner Johnson offered Resolut.ion No. PC74-160 and mov~d for (ts passage and adoptio~~ that the Anaheim City Planninq Comnission docs hereby grant Petitton for Variance No. 3031 on the basis that the proposed monument sign is visualiy low-profile and has a substantial setback fr•an Santa Ana Ganyon Roed; that the design of the monument sign i~ in keepi~g with the design af the building and landscaping end will be located close to the building, creating the illusion of being an inte~ral part of the butlding; and subJect to interdepertme~tal Commiitee recommendatians. Commissioner Tolar ind6cated he could support the resoiut(on if Commissionwr Johnson would add the condiiion that the sign will t.e consxructed and built to the plans as presented and that no ochcr advertisiny would be inco~porated fntn the lighted slqn. Cwnmissloner Johnson indicated he would add that conditian and also that the plans must be approved by the City T~affic Engineer, and Pau{ Singer~ T~affic Engineer, indicated he had not looked at the sign, t,ut he would review it. On roll call~ the foregoing resoluiion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVip~ JONNSON, KING, LINN~ TOL.AR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A6SENT: COMMISSIONERS: IIERBST 1/ 17/ 78 ~ i q, MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION~ JULV 17~ 1978 78'i5b ITEN N0. G PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; RAYMONO G. AND ESTELLE K. ~'~~VE Dk.f,LARATlON SPEt~AR AND MARCIA ANN IIALLIGAN~ 913 Paloma P1ece~ WA1 VER OF CODE RE UI REMENT Ful I erton~ CA 92635. AGEIJT: CARL KARCHER ENTERPRI SES ~ p p~ ~; . IL64 INC. ~ i 200 North Narbor 9ouleverd, Anahetm~ CA g28A1. " Pet(tioner requests permission to EXPAND A ORIVE- THROUGN RESTAURANT WI TII WAI VER OF N 1 N(MUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on proparty dcscribed •~s an i r~eyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatoly 0.9 ecre located at t;~e northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperla) Hlghway~ having approximate frontages of 250 Feet on ihe north side of Li Palma Avenue and 1$0 feet on the east slde of Imperial Fiigl~way, and further described as 5I0) East La Palm~ Avenue. Propcrty presently classified CL(SC) (COMM~RCtAI~ IIMITED-SCEIIIC CORRiDOR ~VERLAY) ZON~. There was ane person indicating their presence in oppasition to subJect requast~ and althouyh the staff report tu thc Plannln9 Commlssion det~d July 17, 1978 was not rcad at the publlr. hearing~ lt~ is referred to and madc a part of the minutes. Don Glenn~ representing Carl Karcher Enterprises~ I,~c.~ agent, ind{cated their desire Is to expand thol r existinq faci I i ties to lncrease the effectlveness of the unl t. Fie indicated they felt the Internal ~ustamer floor problems wouid be altevlated with the additt~n nf mora balanced seating; that tl~ey eurrently have 4R seats and want to add 52 s~+ats~ for a total of 140~ plus additional storege space. 11e felt the hardship is created by the exlsting zoning requlrert-ents of one parking stall per 5~ square feet of floor area. He indicated they are operatin~ under a condi tfonal use permlt requiring 57 parking spaces, snd that with the expanded pnrtion would requlre ii2 spaces. Ne indEcated c~ the adJacent parcel a ncw restaurant is being constructed which is classf f ied as a sit-down restaurant wi th parki ng requi rements of one space per 125 squarc feet of f 1 oor area. He fel t an inequi Cy exi s ts becausc at a s i t-dawn restaurant thc serv ice t i mc i s about 45 minutcs~ while with the(r type restaurant the servtce timc is 20 to 25 minutes. He pointad out 39~ of their use Is througt~ the d~ive•through facllity. He stated a slt-down restaurantwould requ(re 33 parkir~g stalls and thcy currently have 40 statls as a drlve- through rastaurant. He sta[ed the Reglonal aperations Mar.ager~ Mr. Berna~d Karr_her~ was present to answer any questions. Raymond Spehar~ owner, Indicated his name appears o~ the agenda as a property owner as though hewer~ requesting the application~ but hc Is opposed to this request. He indtcated he was not ~ware of the request unti 1 he had recelved his nattce in the ma(l; that Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. holds a lease on the property and has the right to eKpand~ but thPre is no ~ect~arocal parking agreemenc; that they do have easement agreen~ents ta allow for tfie free flc~w of trafflc~ but thak is not to be construed as the ~ight to use the p~emises of t_he shopping center for park(ng, Ne indicated that at thc present time they are overlooking the use of the shapping center parl:ing lot by tt~e empioyees mnd customers of Carl's Jr. as they have ample parking at the present time~ but that the sltuatlon wl ;1 change wt~en other developments are finished in Auqust~ and there is a posstbf)ity theywill be policin~ the parking lot toaccommodate their tenants. He stated that at the time the conditional use pcrmit was granted in 1974 for the development of Ca •1's Jr. wi th 40 parking spaces. the park~ng seemed adequate, but the business has 1 ncreased and th i s un i t 1 s one of the i r mos t product 1 ve. Nn po i n ted out i~ the i r employee~, use their premises for parking~ they could not accommodate thetr cust~mers. He fe1C if a request for expansion was granted, some of their parking spaces would t~e eliminated by the additlon and by ncw employees~ creating a la~yer problem. Ne tnd(cated the~e ls no off-slte parkin~ allawed In the immediate area and tht leaseholder has to accommodate his own business. He pointed out that when their proJect ~as approyed~ they had shown surplus parktng but these spaces will be utilized in the future when Lucky ~ii ~na ~ t MINU7ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS~ON. JULY 17~ 1978 18-557 EIR NEGATIVE~ DECLARATION AND CONpITIONAL USE PERMIT t~0. 1864 (contlnued) Market end Mari~; Callender's aro cc,mpletea and Marle CAllender's is also consider(ng ad:~ing e patlo t:o thetr tacillty. He Indicat~d thay have an obl(gatfon to the tenants of the :happinq cent~r and could nat Jaopardi ze thei - busine~s by qiving permission for Carl's Jr. to use more parktng spaccs. Mr. Spehar read ihe following 1Ntters: a) a lettcr from Pedtcini-Bell Development Campany~ 4405 R(vers{de Drive~ Toluca Lake~ Burbank~ Californla~ dated July 11~ 197$• pointlny out thelr concern regardi~g the reactian of Sav-On since they are extremely sensitive about tl~e pa~kinq, and encourqed Mr. Speher to exercise extreme caution tn dealing with Sav-(-n since If they determi~ed they had violat~d the plot plan~ they could abate the rent an~ jeopardi ze the loan ~ and i f the parki ng lot load i s i ncreased wi th these two restaurants~ there may be a future probler~i wlth Lucky's since they also hAde the ~~lylil lv rxNanJ an•J have assumed th~t oarking wi i l be avai I+~hlp; h) ~ l~rter from Jc~hn Ralnhardt~ ^roject Manager for ProJect CoorJinators~ A Divislon of Marle C~+Ilender Pte Shops~ Inc.~ 1535 East 17th Street~ Santa Ana~ California~ dated July 12~ 197~~ Indicating they ar~ not opposed tu the expansinn of Carl's Jr. tf their proposed addition and perking v~ere confined to thpir lease area ond that a reciprocal par{:ing agreement was in effect; c) a letter from Rol~ert D. Selleck II, Di rector of Real Estate~ Sav-On Drugs~ Inc.~ 481~ Lincoln Boulevard, ~!arina Del Rey, California, dated July 12, 1976~ tndicating any expansion would requfre parkiny for customers and employees. end if the proposed expanslon c~uld be accommodatcd wt thin the confines of the existing parcel ~ then Sav-On would not be (n opposl tlon~ howev~er~ i f the C1 ty of Anaheim cietcrmines more parking than what Garl's Jr. al ready has woul.i be rieeded~ th~n 5av-On would have to go on record as strongly oppostng this vt~rian~:e; and d) a letter from MiGhael .1, Messlna~ Southern Reglona) Real Estete Department~ Lucky Stores ~ Inc. ~ 656; Knott Avenuc, auena Park~ Cal i fo~nfa~ da•ad July 13~ 1978~ concerning Lucky Store 629 at 5755 East Le Palma Avenuc. polnting out they were distressed to learn of the plans to expand the Carl's Jr. operation; that it wes their understanding Mr. Karcher's parcel was a separate parcel from the shoppin~ center wi th cross easement rights for access, and It was thei r understanding that Csrl s Jr. has no rights for mutual aark.inq arrangements, and they would be opposed to cxpansion of Mr. Karcher's bustness. Mr. Spehar stated~ in conclusion, he did not feel the request should be granted beGause: 1) the property under lease does not have adequate parkin.~ at the present ttme and they would not be allowed t:o use the shopping center parking lot; 2) a definite area of land was leased upon which he was to comt+ine his optratio~; 3) they dc~ not have a reciprocal parking easement agreement which wnuld ent(tle hlm to use the parking lot; and 4) if the permtt is granted~ appraximately 42 additlonal spaces would be necessary a~d could not be p~ovided by tl~e property c~wner because ihat would Jeopardize his business with the shoppiny center. Mr. Glenn indicated they were aware of possFble oppositton to the applicatio~~ but they had decidtd to g~ forward with thei~ expansio~ application~ knowing full well the facfiity as it is designed to be expanded would adequately handle any additional traffic flow they might have. He stated they have had no particular problems wtth their parking and are not ut(lizi~g the fui) parscing currsntly availabls. He stated there are a few tlmes when the totat number of stalls are being utiliz~d; that the g~eater perc~ntage of thetr business is done between 11:30 a.m. ar~d 1:3A p.rti. and betvreen 5~3a p•m, and 7:30 p.m., but they have not expericnced any parking problems at those times. TNE PUBLIC HEARING wA5 CLOSED. 7/17/7$ MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMWI5SION~ JULY 17~ 1978 78~558 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT N0. 1864 (co~tinued) _._.~..~.. Commisaioner Ltnn asknd how many ~mployees are perking 1~ the spaces curre~~tly~ and Mr. Glenn replled they normelly hsve 1A employees on a~y maJor shtft and of that percentage~ 7 to 9 would be uttltzing parki~g spaces~ end Comnisstoner Linn potnted aut they would have only 30 spaces~ rather than 40. Chairman Pro Tempore Barnes asked Mr. Sp~har if he hed obscrved any pa~k(ng problems et the Carl's Jr. operatlon, and he replte:d Carl's Jr. employees are evidently Instructed to park on the shopp(ng area parking lot. and he has never seen any of their employees parking in thet partlcular lot~ but thay a~e going to stert policing that area very shortly a~d they should confine thac operatlon to their particular area af qround. Mr. Glenn polnted out the centcr has rece~tly opened an d they had been confined to parking ~n their own premtses nrior to the shopping center openiny with no problems. Mr. Speha~ polnted out he had counted lts employees working (n the arca behtnd the c,ounter and felt the number of employees working on the sltc wo uld be closer to 35 on a datly basis. Comnissioner Johnson indicated when he sees a difference of apinion from the public regarding the ba5ic figures for parking~ that he has to gu right back t~ the ordlnance~ and asked Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ ta review the ordinance. Mr. Tashira potnted out that orlyinally the drive-thraugh resturent was permitted in 1975~ Conditional Use Permit No. 1~-)2~and they had requested a parking waiver from 57 spaces, with 46 proposed~ based upon tlie calculations af one sp ace per 50 square feet of floor area for a drive~throu~~n restaurant~ and that In the new application they are prapostng ko ellminate 5 of the exlsting parkin,y spaces which they nvw heve and are proposiny 40 spaces, and $2 snaces would be requtred based on ane space per ~0 square feet af gross fiaor arca. He pointe~l out if thc calcula[ion were Dased on en cnclosed restaurAnt~ one space pc~ 125 square feet of gross flaor ar~ea would be ~equlred. Commissioner Johnson (ndicat~d tl~ls is a very reputable firm and pioneer inst(tution and the Planning Commi~~ion wauld want to be ve ry agreeable with them~ but it appears they are asking for about one-half of the parking spaces required. Canrnissioner Tolar indicated it would be hard to approve the request when the property owner is saying he has leased the prapprty to Carl Karcher Enterpriscs~ Inc. and he is the opposed to the application because of the other vlAlstions that are going to occur at the shopping center; that thc additional 1300 square feet af space requires an a,dditional 10 ta 14 employees~ which will further reduce and complicate the problem of parking. Ne tndicated he could not suaport this application bec~us e of the park~ng problems in the conxnercial ce~ter, and that his opposition is not dire cted toward Cari Karcher Enterprises, but that the request is too much far him to even consider it for this typ~ facility on this co~ner. Commissioner Kiny asked Mr. Spehar if there was eny way he could provide some portion of employee parkinc~ for the Carl's Jr. employees. Mr. Spehar replied he had originally had 34 surplus parking spaces; that there were 3~+ spaces allocated for the shopping cente~ and he has an obligatlon fo~ all the laases and to protect the plot plan submitted to the tenants. He tndicated he realized Cerl's J~. is a very gaod tenant, but he has no available spaces an d has a b(gger ~bligatton to his other tsnants than to Carl's Jr. 7/17/78 ~~ MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNINI; C~iMMI5SI0N~ JULY 17. 1978 ~18•559 EIR NEGATIVE Of.CI.ARATION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0,_,,1864 (cont(nund) Commisstoner iolar indicated he felt this plece of property has more cortxnerclal dnvelopmnnt than tt needs. Commisslu~er Jahnson tndlcated thc only w~y he could support this request would be If there was a t~emandous amount of evldanco sl~awing the car count which would Indlcate xtaff's figures ~re not accurate. Mr. Bernard Karchcr, Karctier Ente~prises~ st~ted th(s Is tlie first tlme he has had a landlord oppose a request for on addit(on. He Indicated they havn 226 operetlons up and dvwn the state, and he was responsiblc fo~ slyning m~st of the loases, and that In almost all the operatlons they da not have ta have more than 35 stalls and they heve units doing as much or morN bustness than th(s o~e; that chey ar~ askfng for en addltion ta the bulldiny and for rrx~re storage eree~ wi~ict~ wuuiJ Nrut,ai,ly tak~ oi~e more employcc. Nc steted it would not br~ ahnarmrl t~~ t~kP a unlr Ilke thts a~d have (t app~oved, so Chey are not tou far off in their requcsc. Commisstoner Tolar referred to xhe Carl's J~. opcration at Harbor Boulevard and Broadway end polnted out there is a constant parking problem gt that site. Hc stated that tn look(ng at the number of parking spaces thls unit is goiny to need~ he felt they have gotten es mucl~ mileage out of that corner as posstble. He stated he could not Justify In his own rnlnd a;2$ violetion af thc parkiny code as It is presently written. He felt the expans(on wouid be rdding employ~nes and would be adding that much n~ore to thc problem~ and people wo4~d stort parking tR the strcet or +: ound the corner on a residential street. He did not feel the i~la~nlr+y Cortmission should alinw a vlolat~on of the code thls much. Mr. Karcher indicated tt~~at throughout the state they have units with 35 parking stalls ~nd the need for parki~ig spaces will vary at the ciifferent ~ocettons ~nd that the operation at Harbor and Broaclway (s an ex~eptlon~ but most ordinances in other cit(es will accept 35 parking stalls and Anaheim is the exctptlon. Commissioner Tolar asked Mr. Karcher if he felc the Ctty of Anaheim ordinance is out of llne~ and Mr. Karcher replf~d he had always thouyht it was out of line; that tt is too restrictive for a drive-thr~uyh restaurant and chey do not need this meny parkirg spaces. Gnmmtssioner David wondered if a reasonablc alternative could ~e found In this situatfon and if a time frame could be attached to the approval, and Nr. Karcher replied that would not be scceptable; that once a butlding is there it cannot be taken away. Comsnissi~ne~ Linn suggested that n-aybe there were other places for employees to park; that he would agree 82 parking spaces sounds hiqr~ for this type of use~ and wondered if employces were ~equlred to park off the property~ then the request would seem more reasonab le. Chalrman Pro Tempore Barnes pointed out letters had been received from other bualnessts in the area regarding their concerns for the parking sit~ation and that other businesses in the area would have the same npe~ation hours as Carl's Jr. Sh~ stated stie would agree the ordinance at times seems to be unreasonabie concerntng drive-thro~gh ~aataurants. Commissioner Tolar suggested the petitioner rcquest a continuance to er;,~ and work out s~ome of the differe~ces with the preperty owner and to see if other parking arrangements could b~ made . 7/17/78 v ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, JULY 17~ 197a 78•S6G EIR NEGATIVE U~CLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMII' N0. 1864 (continucd) Commisala~er Johnson indlcated h~ would support e rcquest for continuance and suggastad M~. Kercher brtng ~n some supportive informatton concerniny the number of vehictes us'ng the factlitlea. Mr. Glnnn f~dicated they would ilka to request a continuance. ACTICN: Cc~mmissioner Tolar offered a motton~ saconded by Cortmisslaner David end MOTION R~D (Commissioner Nerbst being ebsent)~ that constderation of Condltional Use Permlt No. 1t364 be continued to the regular meetln,y of the Anehelm Planninc~ tommisslon on July 31~ 1978~ at the requQSt of the petitloner. ITEM N0. 5 PUBLIC HEARING. OEVE.IOPER: WESTFIEID DEVELOPMEMT EIR- N~f,AfIV~ DECLARATION COMPANY~ 17402 Sky Perk Circle~ Suite 104~ Irvine, LA EW A I E MAP C 9z714. ENGI~IEER: IIUN;AKER 6 ASSOCIATES~ INC., 30Q1 NUS. 10442 ANU 1044J Red Hlll~ Building V1. Su(te 212~ Co~ta Mesa~ CA 92626. SubJcct pr~perty~ consisting of An lrregularly-shaped parcel of land conslsting of approximatcly 16.7 ac~es located on the north rnd south sides of Canyon Rlm Road, having approximate frontagas of 555 feet on thc north slde of Canyon Rim Road and ~i69 feet on the south side af Canyon Rim Road~ having a maximum depth of approximatety 997 feet, and be{ng located appraxtmately J25 feet northaast of the centeriine of Noh) Ranch Roed~ Is proposed for a two-lot~ 3ti-building, 108-untt~ RM-1200(SC) (RESIDENTIAL. MULTIPLE-FAMILY-SCENIC CO(tRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE subdivlslon. Thern was na une indicating their presence in opposltian t~ subJect request, end although the staff report. ta the Planning Comnission dated July 17~ 1y78 was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. W. E. Mitchell, 11282 Orange Vicw, S~nte Ana~ partner in Canyon Rim I~vestment Company~ stated their plans have been presen;ed to the HI11 and Canyon MunicipA! Advls~ry Committee (HACMAC) and had gained their approval, with ~ne concern being the landscaping of the natural slopes. Ne presented an aerial photograph of the area and referred to the slopes being discussed. He indlcated he had talkcd with Mr. aettencuurt and they had agreed to install a sprinkler system and Anehelm Hllls, Inc. would provide the funds for shrubs and planting in the area. He indiceted they d(d not feel the natura{ terrain should be thanged; that the bank itself had been beautiful when there had been sufficiGnt raln; and that they were willtng to Install the sprinkler system to relieve th~ concerns of HACMAC. TI~E PUBI.i C HEARI NG WAS CLOSED. Cortmisslo~er Tolar indicated he had a concern regarding the malntenance of the slopes by + hanev,vners assoc i at (on, but the C i ty Astorney had answered that ques t ton i n pot nti ng out the covenants, conditions and restricttons would be pravided prior to approval of the final tract map fo~ mainte~ance of the slope araas. Commissioner Johnson asked if the slopes above the market wauid be !mpro~red, and Mr. Mitchell replied tfiey had improved the uppe~ half which wnuld be maintained by the homcowners association. AGTION: Cortimissioner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Oavid and NOTION CA ED (Commtssioner Herbst being absent). that the Anahetm City Planning Commission has revfa~ed the proposal to establish a two-lot, 34-building~ 108-unit~ RM-1200(SC) (Resldentlal~ Multlple-Famtly-Scenic Corridor Overlay) subsilvision on an Irregularly- shaped parcel oF land consisting af approximately 16.7 acres located on the north and 7/17/I8 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 1~)8 78-561 EIR NEGATIV~ pEGLA M TION ~ND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10442 AND 1Q443 (contl~uecl) south sides of Canyon Rirn Rood~ havlny opproxlmatc frontages af 55S feet on the north slde of Canyon Rim Road and F~69 fect an tha south side of Canyon Rlm Road~ havinq a maximum depth of app~oxlmatcly 'j97 feet~ and being loceted approxlmotcly 32S feet nartheast of thc cenCerline of Noh) Ranch Road; and ~es hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requlremant to prep~re an environmental impact report on the basis that there would he no slyntflcant InJividual or cumulatlve adverse environmental impaGt due to the approval ~f thls Neyattve Uer.laration s(nce the Anaheim General Plan desir~nates the subJect property for residcntlel h(llsldc medium densicy land uses commensurete wtth thc propasal; that no sensittve enYlronmental tmpacts ure involved in thc prap~sel; thec the Iniklal Study subrnitCed by the petitl~ner (ndicatcs no siyntf(cant indlvtdual or cumulatlve adverse envlronmental in~pacts; and that the Neyative Declaratlon substantiacing the foregoing ftndlnys Is on fi l~: in the Gity of Anahei~n Plannli~q Department. Cornmissionr.r Tola~' offered a motion~ second~;d by Cammissioner Linn and MOTIOT~ CARRIED ((,ommissloner Nerbst bein,y absent)~ that the Anat~eim Ctty Planninq Commission daes hereby find that the pr~~poseci suhdivislon, together wtth its desiyn and improvement~ is consistent with the Clty of M ahefm Ganoral Plan, pursuant to Government Code Sectian 6G473.`> and doe~:, thereforc~ approve Tcntative Map of Tract No. IOt+42 for a one-lot~ 17- buildiny~ RM~1200(SC) subd~vfslon~ subJcct [o the f~~lloa~ing conditions: 1, That sf~o~ld th(s subdivision be develaped as rx~re than one subdlvislon~ each subdivision thsreof shall be submitted in tentativc form for approval. 2. Tha~: prlor to thc: introducti~n of an ordinance~ a flnal tract map af sub.~ect property shall be submltted to and anproved by tttie f.ity Council and ;hen be recorded ln tlie office nf the Orange Caunty Recorder. 3. TI•at tl-e covenanxs~ conditions, and restrictions shall be submftted to and approved b~ the Clty At2orney's Office and C~ty Engineer pr(or to Ci[y Council approval of the final Cract map and~ furtMrer, that the approved covenants, condi[lo~s~ and restricti~~~ns shall be recorded concu~rently with the final tract map. 4. th~t the covenants. c~ndit(ons. and restrictlons shall contaln a provisio~ prohlbiiing the sale of 3ndiv(dual units with(n tl~e apartment building. C~mmissioner Tolar offered a motion~ seconckd by Ccxrmiissioner Lavid and MOTION CARRIED (Commi~:~sioner Herbst beiny absent). that the Anaheim City Planning Commission docs her~by find t.t~at the proposed subdivision~ together with its design and improvement~ ls consistent with the City af Anaheir~ General Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Section 66~+7?,.S a~d does, therefore~ approve Tentatt ve Map of T~act No. 10~+43 for a one-lot, 17- buil~9tng~ RM-1200(SC) subdivislon~ subJect co the follvwing conditions: 1. 'f~at should this subdivision bs developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivlsian thereof st~all be submitted ir, tentativc form for approval. 2. 7hat pricr ca the introduction of an ordinance, a final trect map of sub,ject property shall be submttte:d to and approved by the City Council and then bc recorded in tFie ~fftce of the Ora~ge Countv Recorder. 3. 7hat the covenants~ conditlons~ and restrictions shalt be submitxed to a~d t~pproved by the City Attorney's Office and City Engineer prtor to City Council apFroval of the final tract map and, further, that the approved c~venants~ co~iitions, and restrictlons shall be recorded concurrently witt~ the final tra~t ~p. 4. Thac tha cflvenants, conditions, and restricttons shall a~ntair., a provislon prohibiting the sa~le of tndlvidual units within the apartment trLilding. RECESS There was a ten-mirute recess at 3:05 p.m. ~~ RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 3:17 P•m., all Conmissioners present except ~"~~- CommissEoner f~erbst being absent. ~i »i~a MINUTES~ ANAtIE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUI.Y 17~ 1378 78-562 ITEM N0. 6 PUBLIC NEARING. To consid~r alternete propasols of i ,~VE pCCLAfU1TI0N ultimate lnn~ uses (sln~le-Pamlly restd~ntlal~ ~W' ~ AW MEND~ N0. 1W7 multiple•fam(ly residentlal~ cortxn~~clal~ oFflce, industrial~ opcn s-,~ace~ and combinatlons of these for tha fallnwing areds: 1- ~lpp roximetely 3.2 ecres at the southwest cor~er o~ Ketella Avenue and Ninth Street. II - ANpraxlmately 13.~+ acres south of Miraloma Way betwaen the Riverside end Orange Freeways Intarchange. III - App roxlmately 47.7 acres south nf the Riverslcic Frceway~ north of the 5anta A~e R(ver~ betw~:en Glsssell Street and Tustln Avenue. IV - App n~xirnately 5.8 ocres at thc northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Hlghwoy. Joel Fick~ Ass~ciate Planner~ expla(ne~! that Arr.a II! encompassin~ ~~proximar.ely A7.7 acres so~,th of thc P,ivcrside Freewey A~d n~rrh ~f the Santa Ana R(ve~ betwr.en Glassell Street er~d Tustin Avenue had been recorm~ended for termination earlier in the hearing because it was generally felt by the Plannlny Commisslon that this itcro should be consl dar•ad af ter p~~nd) ny zon f ng act ions i~aws bee~ f i nal 1 zed, and th~t I t woul d be reheard at a later date; and thot the P1anning Comrnfsst~~n hed recommended termination of Area IV at the request of the petitioner and would be considered if the applicant refiles for a General Plan amendment. AREA 1- SOUTIM EST CORNER OF NINTtI STREET pNU KA7ELlA AVENUE Joel Fick exalained the staff repc~rt concerning Area 1~ noting this is a property owner- inittated Generel Plan amendment to ch~ange the Gurrent General Pla~ cammercial dasignation to medium densicy ~esidential and that (t is the intent of th~e propPrty avner to seek RM- 1200 zoniny and construct an apartment comp~ex of approximately 100 unlts should the General Plan be amended t~~ reflect n~edium denstty. He explained sub)ect prope~ty is a rectangularly-sh~ped parc.el of land consisting of appraxirt-~tely 3.2 acres at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Ninth ~trcr.t; that the Land Use Elemert of the General Plan designates the subject property anci the area to the west for ge~eral commercial (single- family res(:ences and offices)~ low density resident~al and commerc(al-professional to the north a~cross Katella Avenue (single-family residence, church and office uses)~ and an elementary school and parl: site to the south (Stoddard Element~ry and park); and that the sub,ject property is zoned RS-A-43,00~ and is partially developed wbth a single-family residence. detached pump house, and avocado grove, and followEng dedication~ the property will have approximate frontages of 565 feet on Katella Avenue and 220 feet on Nlr~th Street. He stated there is a>0-fooC wtde Orange Counky Flood Control District chann~l on the west side of the subJect property which serves as a buffer for this portion of the site; that Katella Avenue is designated as a major arterial ~~iyhway and Ni~th Street (s a s~condary arterlal; and that currently Katella Avenue is carrying approx(mately 33,000 vehicles per day in the vicfnity of this pr~ject. Ne stated four alternattves have been p~epared for Planning Commission's consideration. three resident(ai alternatives have been prepared far purposes af comparison of residential (mpacts with the reques[ed residential designation by the p~operty c~mer, and one cor~imercial alternative of lesser intensity has been prepared fo~ purposes of comparison with the adoptEd General Plan. He explained that Exhtbit ~i reflects the hi~hest residential i~tensity an the G~neral Plan. AQartments or attached units would typically be located under this designation. Exhibit B would typic~lly permit a lower density apartment cumplex, as well as duplexes or 7/» /7$ ~ ' MINUfES~ ANAHE',IM GITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 1~, 1978 78-563 EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENpMENT N0. 147 (continued) triplexe~. In additlnn~ condominiums~ townhomes~ and attached single-family homes not exceeding the maxlmun, denslty rang~ as prescribed by the General Plan or zoning would also be permitted. ~xhib(t C reflects the lc~- densi ty residential desic~netion wlilch is customarily -'~9arded as single-family resldential category of the General Plan. A proJect wtth tndivldua) resldentlal loCS would hav~: to be carefully ~eslgnesd as ~~11 lots abuttln~ Katella Av~nue and hinth Stre~t would be requlreci to have dspths of 120 feet or setbacks of 4~ feet~ and ~ound attenuatfon measures in acc~rdance with Council Pollcy 542 would have t~ be complled with in all residentta) proJects. Exhlbit U would permit commerclal uses of lesser intensity tf~an presently indicated on the General Plan. Office Aiid professl~nal uses (buslness servtce firms~ agencles, offices including financlal offlces and instltuttons~ etc.) would typicAlly he permitted. He indicated a citizen resident survey wos ~nailed t~ i(36 residents uf Che KaCella Avenue/Ninth Street area on May 22, 197t3; that 52 respc,nsss were received~ of whlch Z4 favo~ed single•family devclopment~ lE favored comm~rclal stores or offices (S of wh(ch indicated a definite preference for commerc(al offlces)~ 3 proposed a combination of comrnercial/sfngle-famlly residenttdl (commercial shops on Katella fro~tage), 2 favored park expanslon (open areas mnd parkiny)~ 2 favored general open spacc with exlsCing trees to remain~ and 1 favored construc[(un of tennis and/or handball courts. lie indiceted pos(t{ve conments from the citizens about the nei~t~borhood included the cenvenlent location and qood maintenance of the homes~ as well as the amenity of proxtmity to Stoddard School ar~d park~ and many respa~nses were rece( ved vri th adverse comments addressing existing trafftc conditlons~ noise from vehicles~ vehicula~• sreed, and hazardous Intersec[ions. A number of respondents indicate~l a desi~e to see st~eet llqhts~ stop signs or turn pockets at various intersectlons, as weli as general street improvements sucl~ ~s the installatfon of sidcwalks, street lighting~ and repaving. Helen Sweet~ representtng the engtneers warking on Lhe apartment project for thc property owners~ stated the use ~~roposed for this property (an apartmcnt cortiplex) would ccrtalnly gene~ate less trafftc tr(ps per day than commercial development. Regarding the desire of some property owners for an additi~nel park in the area~ she stated she had contacted the City's Parks Department and wa~ infarmed they are not ready te annex any more land into the City and they have pr~pe~ty Just nortli of thts area~ but due to budget cuts, are nat offering an extensiun nf a park in that area at this time. She steted traffic is a big concern with everyone involved and the Ctty will be getting the needeci dedication for street improvements and sidewalks which are needed. She stated ther~ are school children in the area and it is a ha2ard because there ar~ no sidewalks. She stated the Traffic Engineer has indicated there will be ade~uate access on both KaCella Avenue and Ninth StreQt and that the apartment complex would be completely welled for prtvacy and sound attenuatlon. She stated there are many restricttons on this property whtch they understand and they are willin~ to work out any problems; that a great deal of thought and pla~ning had gone into this plan and prevlous plans being worked on for commerclal ventures were dropRed after the research was completed and all the restrictions were known. Tf~E PUBLIC HEARINT wA5 CLOSEU. Commisstoner Tolar indicated his concern reg~erding the environmental impact negative declaration~ and he did not want ta vote befo~e krsowing whet the proposed project would be. 7/17/78 ~ 1. i MINUTES~ AN NIEiM CITY PLANNING CUMMISS~ON~ J~LY 17~ 1978 78-5G4 EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION ANU GGNERAL i'LAN AMENDMENT N0._147 (continuenj Jack Wh(te~ Deputy City Attorney~ expla~in~d tha negative decleratlon relatos to thc Gsne~al Plan espec:t and ~ot prec(se ple~~s; lhat (n loaking at tl~e General Plan and the maximum type nf d~velopment permltted, the Commisslon shauld assume the proJect would comply with al) code requlrements. He stated thr State low takes tnto considerat(on that tl~~ negativc declaratlon for a Gencre) Plan emendment by Its neture+ is very broad and genera! In neture and tt~at when spccific rlcvelopment plans are submitted~ the envlronme~tol inopacts of that p~o]ect muit be considered e~t that point and th~ Commisslon would have the opportunfty t~ give a morc detalled analysis. He also explelnad separatc negative declaratinns have been prepored for each area of ~the Generel Plan amendme~t. Commissloner t3arnes askad~ again~ if there was anyone desirin~ to spcak cithcr in favor of ~r tn oppo~ltlon ta this re~uest, and there ~+AS n~+ res~+nnse, ACTION: Camrnissioner Llnn offsred a motlon~ e~ecvnded by Cornmissloner Ktnc~ and M0710N C~D (Gommissioner Herbst beinq absent)~ thnt tf~e Anahelm Clty Planninc± Cammisslon h~s reviowed the proposal for a General Plan ameit.ln~ent ~n a rectangula~ly-shaped parcel of land c~nsisting of approximately 3.2 acres located at the southwest corner of Katella Avnnue and Nlnth Stre~t; and also an irregulerly-sheped parcel uf land consisting of app~oxirnately 13.4 a~res loc~ted soutl~ of Mlraloma Nay Gctween tlie Rlverside and Orange Freeways; and does hereby recommend to the City Councii thAt Negative Ueclaratlons frcxn the requirement to prepare enviranmental impact r~~ports be approved on the basis that there would be no sign(f(cant indlvidual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts due to the epproval of these Neyative Declarations; th~at no senSltive environmer~tal Impacts arp 1nvolveJ in the proposals; that the Inlci,~l Studics subrni[ted by the petitloner and staff indicate no signlficent individual or cumulaclve adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Ueclarations substantiating tl~e fo~egQing findings are on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department, The Commisslon disci~~sed the fou~ exhibits~ and Commisstoner Totar indlcated he was co~icerned because of the [raffic and the proposal for ~~ large apartment cnmplex would be puttiny a lot af units onto this property and ^Jditianal traffic. I~e polnted out he felt thQ CO Zone rather than th~ CL Zone woul~.1 gcnerate less traffic and he was not sure this was the proper place for a large apartmr.nt complex since the corner of Ninth and Katella is already heavily conyested~ and Commisstoner Johnson p~~inted out he felt the requested zoning amounts to an actua) down-zontng on the properxy since it has a heavier zoning currently than apartment use. Commissioner Tolar indicated he reallzed this woutd be dc,~~n-zoning~ but he did not think the cxisting zoniny shauld have been allowed in the first place, and asked how many units wauld be allowed under the different alte~natives. Jo~el Fick explalned Extiibit A~ as sharrn~ woulci allaw apprc~ximately $8 unlts p~r-acs-o basecJ on City-wide averages~ a~d the appitcant has indicat~d e cleslre to build a 100-unit complex; low-n~edium density would allow from approximately 22 to 59 units; and low denslty would allaw from approximntely 15 to 20 untts. Commissione~ Linn ind(cated he liked the proposal because it Is screened and has a school and perk as a buffer, with CO and professional office uses across the street; that there are other apartrnents alony Katella and ic is not zhe most desirable location far single- family res~dences or a commerc(al office bullding slr~;.e it is loceted next to an elementary school. 1/17/7a ~1 MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUL'~ 17~ ~918 7Q•56S ~IR NEGATiVE UECLARATION ANO GENERAL PLAN AMEND~IENT N~. 147 (conttnued) Commiasloner Toler indiceted ha would support ttie mntto^ for epprovel for medium density restdentta~l uses an this wropurty~ but he would not be interested In looktng at any proJect with any varlances at all. ACTION: Comm(ssloner King offered a motiqn~ secanded by Commiss(oner Odvld and MOTION CA RIEQ (Commissio~er Ilerbst befng abaert)~ that the Anehelm City Planning Commisston reconanenda to the City Councll thet Exhiblt A far Area I of General Plan Ame~dment No. 147 be epproved. AkEA 1~ - AREl1 SOUTFI OF MIRALAMA WAY aETWEEN 'TNE RIVERSIUE AND OFtANGE FREENAYS INTERCNANGE Joei Fick expieined this is a City~initiatecl reyucs~ l~ brin,y tlie Grnarnl Plen inlu conformsnc~ with exlsttny zon(ng end land uses in the a~ea; that suSJect area is an irregulorly~sheped parcei of land consisting of approxim~tely 13•~- ~~res located souCh of Mlr~loma Way betwccn thc Rivcr:,iJc and Orangc Frecways; that thc Ge~~c~al Plan currently designAtes thc property ior medium density residential land uses and the property to the n~~th and souttiweSt across the Rlverside Free~way far medtum denslty residentlal~ general industrial to the east acroas thc Orange Frecway~ commerclal to the sc~utheast across the fr~ee;wey (nterchanye~ and low density resiclential acrass the Riverside Freeway to the west; that subJe~t praperty Is toned ML (lndustrial~ LlmlteJ) and (s devrloped with (ndustrial uses wlth th~: exceptton of one vacant parcel; and that the ado~ted Generel Plan i$ inconslstent with extstiny zoning and lan~ uses. He expl~ined Exhtk,it A reflects the exlsting zonin,a and land uses in the area ~~nc~ proposes a general Industrlal designation for the entire property. Ct~alrman Pro Tempore 8arnes indicated she felt this Item of tlie General Plen ame~ament was a housckeeping matter and did not see any problems. ACTION: Commissloncr King offerr_d a nx~tion, seconded hy Commjsstoner Ll~n and MOTION CARRIED (Gommissioner Harbst being absent)~ ~hat thc Anahelm City Planning Canmisslon does hersby recommtnd to thc City Council that Exhihit A be approvcd for Area 11 of General P) an A~nendment No. 14 J. ConWnEssfoner Tola~~ offered Resolution No. PCjB-161 and moved for its passage and adoptlon~ that the Anaheim Ct~y Planni~g Commisslon does hereby recommend to the City Council thPt Exh(bit A be adoptcd for Area I and Exhiblt A be adopted for Area II of General Pla~ Amendment ho. 147; and that Aress III and IY bc terminated at this tlme. On roll call~ the foreya(ny r~~solution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONER5: SARNES~ DAVID~ JONNSON, KING, LINN~ TOI.AR NOES : COMMI SS I ONERS : NOP~E Ak3SE~aT: COt1~~l SS IONERS : HERBST 7/17/78 f. ~ MINUTES~ ANAilE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ JULY 17~ 1938 ITEh N0. E~ EG IVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICAI'101~ N0. ) -7'- PAiz~S'. ~_.. frontages of 127 feet an che north Walnut Street. i'roperty presently 78-5Ga PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSt SPIERS E. AND MARY C. WILSON~ HERMAN H. FLUM~ ANO KENNE'M U. HINSVARK, 14205 Natteras Street~ Van Nuys~ CA ~1~+11. Property described as a rectnngularly -shap~ed pnrcel of lend conststl~g of approxtmately 0.6 acre loc~ted at the northwest u~rner of Katella Avenue and Walnut Street. havtng approx(mete slde of Katella Avanue and 203 fcet on thc west sid~ of classlfled RS-720Q (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED Cl,ASSIFICATIUN; CL (COMMEKCIAL, LIMITEO) ZONE. REQUESTEU V/1RIA~ICC: 4lAIVER OF ~A) MAXINUM STRUGTUR.AL NFI(:HT A~~I~ (ki) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA 70 CON57RUCT A CONVENIENCE STORE. There were two persong Indicaf.ing their presence in opposition to subJe~cl requast~ and althou,yh the sf.aff report to the Planni~y Comnisslon dated July 1J, 1978 was not read at the public hearing. it fs refr.rred tu an~: made a part of tl-e minutes. Harman -1. Flun-, own~r, staterl he has owned th(s property for 24 ycars and that througl~ the years the a~J~tE~nt propertles and the cortmuni[y around t.hesr. three lats have ch~nged; tha~ tiie zonfny was originally rr~sidential, wt~icf~ is no longer suitat~le; ~and that the Plannin~ Conmiss(on and City Council ~assed a Gencral Plan amrndment design.~ting the property for limlted comme~cl,~1. He str~ted at that time he had su~mitted an outldne of his intentlon to builJ an apprc-xinu~tely 600~-squa~e foot c~nv~enlence ma~ket and small retail stn~es, and the plans presently b~ing presented are b~sically the sarr~ except soeciFic details regard(ng parkiny~ handicapped spaces~ buffcr zones~ landscaped areas~ etc. have been worked out. He ~tated that prior to ettemptiny to get a Gene~al Plan a~ndment~ he had contacted his neighbors and the ;tu~rounJing property o~ners and explained his (ntcntions and, byand large~ had thctr support in chang(~g the use of tt-is propercy~ and he had submitted the petiCion with hIs oriyinal petitlon~ bui thac he noticec! some of th~e people who had signed the petltion were present, p~obably to s~>eak i~i opposition. tle Indicated the rdJecent property owners~ Mr. nnd Mrs, Haley~ had spoken at the CiCy Councll meeting In favor of changi~q :he use of this property because it has been vacant a~d is a nuisance~ and thls has been the expresst~n of most of the abutting property a~vners~ that they are in favor of having some~hiny donc with the ~roperty; that Mr. and Mrs. ~laley had indicated they would l lke to come and sp~:ak In fevor of this pro)ect~ but tl~ey were unavei lable. !le indicated that in working out the detail5 witl~ staff~ he realized that when he had originally looked into do(ng sort~thing with the p~operty, he would have been permitted to build a 7500- square foot buildtng on 30.000 square feet of land, but r~ow he is Crying to ubtet~ approval for a 600J-square foot Jevelopment. Ne po(nted out approximately 3p$ of his land area ts now committed to green or open space areas. He indicated he was making a request for a 17°foot buffe~ zone on the west and norih sides lnstead of the 20 feet requtred. He stated that tn rrarking out the flnal plans, the estimated ceiling height would be between 9 end 10 feet~ and he had submi:ted the plan for 10 feet to be sur~ that whrtever construction plans are final, they would not have to come back to the plenning Cortimission for review. and thls requires a 2a-faot buff~r zone and he is requesting a var!ance for a 17-foat buffer xo~e. He po(nted out the th~ee houses abutti~g this property are about 60 feet from the property lfnes and none of the prope~ty vwners saw any kind of problem with the amount of green space being requested. He indicated he has been advised by staff that a 3-foot landscaped area wvuld be required and, in onp case. he ls showing 2 feet~ and this is contiguous with the 12~foot landscaped areas un Walnut~ making 14 feet of ta~dscaped area on the ~Iminut s(de. 1/17/78 7~-567 MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN~ JULY 17, 197~ ANO VARIANCC N0. 026 (co~ti~ued) Ela NEGATIVE UECLARATI~N~ RECLASSIFICATIdN N0. 7~'79~3 He reFerred to tho southerlymost d6~,~~et fromathetcorncrtofnKstGlle~and W~lnut~~dnd,the p~opos~l the driveway was located ~ City Cnuncil hae' indicated they wouadiv~av has~been relocatedmin~hlsCPresentaplens~totbe locetion of the driveway; that the , 80 feet ~t~y from the intersection rether than Gy feet. Ne folt to move the drlva dYheny furth~r to the north would t~ difficult since this is a small piece of property~ would Ilkc to request P~r^'indicated thea20-foot~spaceale~has~shawn«istdedlcated and~n raCher than 110 feet, He i availablc when Ketclla is widened~ and that a c~ndittan requlring that a s~dewalk be Installed Is rPcc~mrnended. Ile lndicated if this Is a general requirement of any new development~ he woulcf complY~ but lt represents 120 feet of sld~walk an Katella~ ~nding dlractly in someane's back yard~ but when Y.atclla Is w~~~P~e~, that s(dewelk would disappear and sugyested maybe that conditian could be held off unti) dcdicat(on Is needed. He indicated there also is a requlrcmcnt to instnllbutd~~'`'CAwould beethesonlydsidew»lknon Street, and hP would ~e happy to canp1Y with that, the ent{re west side of Walnut Street since the prop~erties adJacent to the north and south have no sldew alks. Pau) Possemato~ 70~+5 East Country Club l.ane~ Anaheim. lndicated he is the owner of the center across the strect; that he is speakln9 in opposition since his convenlence center has nfne stores and fie felt to add another convenience st~uL't~~e°tm~etant~y~bK.atella mistake; that his center serves the ccxnmunity verv well~ and Walnut is a difficult traf`ic ara~dsheGfeWt,puttiny an ohereconvenienceemarket w~~h~or tharoughfare into the stadium area~ lts traffic pattern into anraf~~a~he areautoehaveeaelow densityaty~c useuinitermsNof suygested tt would be bette traffic such as a professional buildtny. Iieverly Wells~ 1115 Holgate Urive~ Anaheim. stated she was s~+eakiny on behalf of her ncighbors and he~• family and w°ef~t~ieeof businesstthatewould bedconducive to l~tter~date a convenlence market or any oth YP for oung people to hang out increased nolse pollution. traffic hazards, or any place Y or congregate a~d loiter. She polnted out Mr. Flum had brought around a petition ann many of the neighbors had she~n~iihborst~tanted~'that heast~tedhedwou1d,nottputDlnpanything in accordance wtth what t 9 violetlon of how ~hey felt; thatWan'~'eapconveniencetmarket~suchnascae 7vE1pb~~ao e~~nit ~a made tt very clear tl~ey did r~ot Market~ especially somethiny that would have late hours~ and Mr. Flum Indicatecl he wou put in sc~mething ~r~ ~~ed theupetiti~naontthatrbasis1Qn~pncerniny litte~r,tshe~indicated qutet, and they had slg any kind of convenience ~a~het alrea~ynhavettheirnshareefromatheuNonderbawl1and thes~ paper wrappers, etc. ~ an Y existing Wonderland Llquor store ~nd Mario's Pizza. ~ of conve~.~~~nce market or st~re where young people Regarding the noise~ she felt any typ ~~~ in the evenings this would be can congregate ar loiter can create a noise factar, especially disturbing to people wo° the Katellatand1Walnuthareahewlthvshoutingnandrearsms with loud and boistrous peop~e f-' that squeal out onto Katella and filter i~to thetr ~u19wbYhh~em becaus~ythey cannot^doto add to any of these prablems~ that ihey are putting ~re problems intn the area. She anythi ng about them, b:.t they can try to prevent any stated any businesses that would ~eed to depend upon trade before 8:0~ a.m. and after 5:00 7/17/78 MINUTCS. ANAl1EIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIOt~, JULY 17~ t978 7E~-Sf~B EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO~~~ RECLASSIFI~ATION NU. 74'79'3_ANp VARIANGE NU. 302fi (continuCd) ~.m, would possibly impose a dlsturbanca on the neic~hborhood. Concerninn traffic~ any business ttiat would create a fair amount of traffic in end out of the perkiny lot would eroate p~oblems and potentlsl trafflc ha~erds. She pnint~d out that If cars exit onta Walnut~ It would be extremcly hf~zardaus; that wlth an exit onto Katella~ thc driver would at least have the bcnefit of tha signal~ but left-turns onto Walnut left-bound would be ve ry hozardous slnce tt~a right turns frorn Katella Anto W~lnut north-bound are executed at high rates of speed, She indicated she and her husb~+nd cross the straet almost every day and often ftnd lt d(fflcult to get acrass. Shc felt any bustness thet would be cnnduclve tu a continual flow of trafflc in anJ out of tt~c pArking lot could create overflow parki~g into thnlr resident(a) area. 51ie s[ated sl~e woulcl like to rnake sevcral rccomrt-endr~tlons~ ~eoltzinq Mr. Flum has a problem piece of propcrty that cannot be develop~d residentially; that they were not tryiny ta prevent him from devcloping his property~ but w~re asking h'~n to give them e break end put ln something conducive to mAktn~ n nx~re h~rmonious atmosnhr.re (n thelr neighbonc~.od and not [o give them any nxare problems. She made the follaviny recommendations: 1) no commerclal enterprtses that serve food or beverages be allowed; 2) no businesses be allowed that would attrac; ;~ung people to hang aut or loiter; 3) no business that wouid depr.nd upon tradc before 8;00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.rn.; and ~i) that the entrance be on Walnut and tf~e exit on Katclla. She indicated her nelghbors and slie had made a few retomnendatians as to the type of businesses they thougF~t would bc rnore suit.ablc for thelr neiyhborhoud: 1) ~tationery store, 2) professlanal offices~ j) e~crc~w ~ffice, etc. ~ and ~xpressed her app~eciatton to the Commissio~ for bein~ allowed to voice hcr ob~ect~~ns. Mr. Flum indlcated he would Ilke to clear up th~ alleyatEon of decepti~n un his part made by Mrs. Weils; that at "he tlne he submitted his ~.tltion to the Plan~ing Department~ he had presented a drawing ~howing th~e proposed development which included a convenlence mat-ket. He stated he recalled a discusston wlth Mrs. Wells, sp~ciftcAlly regarding the question of a convenience market c~us(n~ iltter and the fact the operators allow youngsiers to hang out at these locations, and he had said he realized thls could posstbly be a ~roblem but that a convenience markct wou1J be useful to the nelghborhood~ and Mrt. Wells agreed it would bc fmportant to the cortmunity~ and at no ttme had he shawn any other information than what was presented. He indlcated she had brought up the question relative to traffic~ anci approxlmately the end of May hP had been witness to an accident on his own property whizh was one of a typical series of eccidents which have occurred of westbound traffic on Katella, gaing over the cu~b and crashing through the wali. Ne pointed eut these eccidents are ~~imarily caused by the misalignment of Katella. Ne stated tha;: to request of him that the shops have a restriction of being open frosn 8:OQ a.m. to 5:00 p.m. is unreaiist(c in terms nf what a businessman would expect in privileges of using the property he 'cases. He lndicated he had speciffcaliy stated there would be no fast food operet(ons uveloped at this site; that he had turned dawn requests from McOonald's. Arby's~ Der Wiene~schnitze', etc.; that there was i~o way he could say there may not be litter or noise; that in connection with Mr. Paul Possemato's con~nents statiny there is enough commerclal development in hls n(nG st~ops across the street~ in mest areas the businesses th~lve on additianal sf~ops being in the area, and he believed that would be the case ii~ thls sttuatian~ that people coming to the statlonery store might shop across the street at the liquor store, and that bringing shops tagether halps Improve a~y given area and he fett this area could use more shops and ~e convenienct market would not take a~ray the business from the liquor st~ re which sells grocery-type foods across the street. He indicated he could b~ing adJ~cent p~operty a+ners to speak on behalf of this development. 1/17/78 • ~. MINUTES~ ANAHFIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 197~ 78'569 EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION~ HECLASSIFIGATION N0. 78-79-; AND VARIANCE N0. ;016_(contlnued) Joseph Haker~ 177~ Neather Lane~ Anaheim~ stated he owna o~e of the propertl~s refe~red to earlle~ where the cer had crashod tntn the wall. F1e polnt~d out the driveway planned 80 'eet fram Katella and W~lnut is tUO close; that he hes Ilved at this location for 18 yaars~ bofore Kat~lle was wldenad, And this is a hazard on the cornar and I~c would prefcr to see tho driveway 110 feet~ where it Is rnquired~ instPad of An feet from the corner. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSkD. Cc~nrnissionnr Linn Indlcoted this site reminded hlm ~f the prevtously-dlscussed p~ojcct at Broadway and H~rhor wltn a denverous trafflc patter~~ and feft if a~y kind of entrencA o~ exit was allvwe~J on Katello~ it wauld be Invleing the same type problems. ~ stated he would disogroe wlth the ~etit~oner i~ this case and ~upF,urt the Traffic ~nqineer's recommendatton to move tl:e driveway. Commissioner Kiny stated the riyht-hanJ lane is a right-turn-only lane practicelly the whole le~gth of thls pro;~erty on Walnut Streset. Pau) 5inger, Traffic Enyinecr~ stat~d he did not t~ellevc the petitioner was ~equestinq any type of access onta Katclla~ tu~ was only request(ne~ access on Walnut, nnd he felt that should be 1~0 feet from the rlgt~t•of-way 1(ne, Commissioner Jol~nson ~isked Jay Titus~ Office En,yine~r~ that If ~he $0 feet on Katelld is ~equired~ how much would be taken off this particular property~ and Mr. Titus repll~d It would t~ke an edditional 20 feet on Katclla and they are suqgesting that it be an irrevncable offer of dedicr~tion until the City needs it for street widening. Comniss(oner Tolar asked about ttie sidewalks in Che area, and Jay Titus replleJ there Is a praposed condltion on this item for the cnnstruction of sidewalks both on Ketella and an Walnut~ and he would lfk~ to see that condition left in~ and the appllcant could apply fUr a sid~walk walvrr. Commissloner Kiny asked the petitioner if he had consldered other structures for this location, and Mr. Flurn replied he had, but the pr~perty is tc~o small for professlonal develapment and other uses are not viable for chis area. He stated *.he restriction for an 8:00 a.m. to $:QO p.m. operation would be very detrimental i~ leasinc~ the(r prope~ty. Cc~nmissioner Tofar pointed out the~e are a lot of other uses that would be alivwcd under the CO Zane which wauld bc more detrimentai to the residents than the proposed use. Commissioner Ltnn stated he was still conce~ned about the traffic circulation~ polnting out this is a ve~y bad corner~ and he felt there could be some oiher uses which wauld genet-ate less [raffic. He poEnted out to the petittoner the Camnisslon had not said this has to be an 8:00 a.m. t~ 5:00 p.m. operation and felt they would be wliling to support normal commercial office hours~ but this particular proJect~ with the tyRe of traffic~ would not be possible. Commissioner Johnson tndicated he felt this was a typlcal example of development many years ago when property uwners had trted to capitalize and hold out a little corner for future developr~~ent, but the needs navc changed as the years go by and that this propertY had been saved and Jus~ is not big e~ough for developrt~nt. M~. Flum stated the property ow~er had tried to sell this prope~ty and the initial developer had sold from the inside out because of the nature of the development; then 7/17/18 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ JULV i7~ 1978 78-570 EIR NEGATIVf. DECLARATIO_N~RECLASSIFtCATtON N0;78-79-3 AND VARtANCE_N0. 3026 (conttnucd) other devolopments~ such ss the drive•tn theata~ acrass the street~ Wonderbowl. etc, ~ had been developed end no one wanted to buy the lots for reside~tlal use and this propNrty owner had been caught with tha property and could not develop (t as the area becsme more comnarcial. Chalrn~an Pro Tem~wre 6arnes indlcated the Plan~~i~c~ Conrnlssion agrees the driveway must be in accordence with the Trafftc Enu(neer's recommPndatton; and she asked the Commisslon~s fael(ngs regarding tl~e wa(vor requested concerning the 17-foot setback and the use of thls property, po(ntiny out thc property owncrs had not rt~entto~~~d thc setback walver a~d assumc:d the 17 feet would be ~dequate with the lands~;aped buffer~ but they had mentioned the hours of operation and thQ kincls of comnerclal es~tabl (shme:nt~ they would pr~fer to see and she felt it rcaso~able that the prvperty awners heve som~ rfghts~ at least In tha hn~~rs of oporation. and stated she would Ilkc tn see r.he i~ours of operatian limited lu deyl (qht Iwurs to no latcr than 10:00 p.m. ~ wti(ch would precludc on al 1-niyht~ 7-Eleven type operatlon~ whtci~ c~u1J be controlleJ by requiring a stipulation from the petl tioner concerning the hours af oper~tlon. Caci l Stowers~ 1212 Halgate Street, Maheim~ indicated hEs r,roperty meets thls property at the corner and tlie other three houses being referred to are stratght do-~n on Heather Lenc~ and he thought the ~.1lstan~~~ discussed was the distance between the fence and the dwtlling~ which is atout 40 feet~ so addiny the 1) feet and the 40 feet would be ~ery cloae to 60 feet. Commissioner Joh~so~ stated he felt thts is a bad ~~kage no matter which wey it fs put logether and he would not make a motian fu~ apprc ,I. Chalrman Pro Tempore Barnes felt the problem residential nor com~~erctal~ and shP could not fa~; that the Planning Commissfon is supposed but (n this case (t is very difficult. ts that this property is not sultable far th(nk of anything else it would be suitable to judge what is the best use ef the ~and~ Mr. Flum polntdd out when It ~aas originally hrought before the Comnis5lan ther~ h ad been the same dtlemma; that it was determ(ned the present use is thc worst use~ ke~ping the pra~erty vacant; and that his earl ter peti tlon was based on 1(rri teci comnxrcfal snd this was the way he had ap~.roacl~ed the community. Fie indicated he would be happy tu go back and discuss this wlth the community~ especially ehose peopie most specifically in volved~ those four or five dwellings, Including Mr. Stc~wers'. Cammissioner Johnson ind(cated he thought the Commission sh ould act on this praposai. ACTIDN: Commissioreer Toiar offered a mc~tion~ sec~nded by Commissioner King ~r~d MOTION CAR~tIED (Commissloncr Herbst being absent). that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviared the proposal to rcclassify the property from the RS-1100 (Residential~ Single- Family) to the CL (Cornmercial, Llmited) Zonc to construct a convenlence store with waivar of maximum structural height and minimum landscaped area on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.6 acre located at th e northwest co rner of Katelle Avenue and Walnut Street~ having approximate frontages of 127 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and 203 feet on the west stde of Walnut St ~ect; and does heraby epprove the Neqative Declaration from the requirer-~rit to prepare an environmencal impact report on the besis that there would be no signif(cant individual or c umulative adverse environ mental impact due to the appraval of this Negative Declaratlon sin ce the Anaheim General Plan destgnates the subject property for general canmercial land uses comnensurate wi~fi the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts a~e in volved iri the proposal; that the 7/ 17/ 78 7-~ MINUTES~ ANAHEtM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, JULY 17~ 1y70 78-a71 EIR NEQA?IVE DECLAilAT10N~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7a-79-3 AND VARIANCE N0. 3026 (continued) Initlal Study s~6mltted by the ~etlttoner cumulattv~e sdversc envi ronmental i-r~acts; the foregotng findings !s on file in the Co~rnissloner Tolar off~ered Resolution No. th~t, the Mehe(m Clty Planning Conmiss(~n Na. 7a-79•3~ subject to Intcrdcp~rtmental (ndlcates n~ signif icent (ndlvidual or and thst the Ne~atlve Declsration substantlatt~g City of Anahetm Pl±~nning Orpartment. PC74-1(~2 and movr.d f~r Its paasage and adoption~ does hereby grant Pet(t~on for Reclasslficatton Commlttee recomnx~ndatlons. ~n roll cal l~ the faregoing resulution was passed by the follawln~ vote: AYES: COMMI5SIONERS ; pARNES~ l`AVID~ KINf,, TOLAR NUES: GUMMISSIQI+ERS: JOHNSOt~ ~ IIJN ADSEWT: COMMISSIONERS : HERHS7 Commi4sioner Tolar inciicated before offerina the rESClution for the variance he weuld like to know whether or not a t i mr. 1 iml t c~~ncern(nc~ the hou; s of operat lon caul d be tied ta the variance~, and Jeek Whi te~ Deputy Clty Attorney, p~in;e~ aut o time limlt eould not be tied to elther the reclassi flcatlon or the variance and eauld only be imposed on a canditional use permi t and the va r i ance ( s re I a ted to the use for wh i ch [he v~rt ant~ I s reques ted ond it would be hard tc~ tte a time restriction to a t~eigfit Ilmitatlon or a landscaped setback. Commissioner Tolar indicated he has cuncern fur thrse properiy c~wners and thts is a very dl fflculic piece of property; that tt~ere are a Ic~t of uses ttiar Goul~ bc more detrtmental than the proposal. Cortmissioner Linn indi eated he had voted ag~lnst the ro.class(Ficati~r, fv-cling it is up to the appl lcant to bring ln a plan that Is acceptable. t9e i~dicate~ '~: 1~ rot agoinst development~ but just oppused t~ thts particular pr~ject. Commissioner tolar asked scaff what would happen if the hciyf~t limita ~n walver were denied~ and Jay Tashi ro poTnted out ;hey would tiave to set the bulld4ng bac.k an addltional 3 feet from the ~+P:L end north proper;y 1lnes and meet the requircments f~r Lhe j-foot landscaped are~. CMr«~~iss(nner Tolar offerc~i i;esoiucion No. PC7d•163 and moved for its passaye and adoption~ that the Anaheim City PlannFng Comnission does her~by deny Petition for Varlance No, ~.~26 on the basis that sub; ect property would not permit the pr~)ect to co,~ly w(th the Planning Ccxnmisslon pol icies and Zoning Code requi ~ements. On ro) l cal l~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo4la~ing vote: AYCS: COMMISSIUNERS: BARhdES~ DAVID~ JO~INSON~ KfNG~ LINN~ TOLAR NOES : CdMMI SS I ONERS : NONE Af3~ENT: COMMISSIONERS: NERE3ST Jack Wh i te. OPputy C 1 ty At torney ~ presented the pet i t ioner wl th the wri t ten r i gh t to appeal the Planning Commission's d~•cisfon wlthin 22 to the City Counc(1. Chairman Pro Tempore 6arnes explained that due to the length of the agenda for today's meeting~ lmmedietely ~ollvwing consideratian of Item No. 9. the Planning Carmission would b~eak for dlnner and ~econvene at 7:00 p.m. to consicie~ Item Nos. 10 through 19. . ~ ; 't~ ~~ 7/17/78 r• ~ MINUTES, ANNiEI M CItY PLANNING COMMtSS10N~ JULY 17~ 1978 78-572 ITEM N0. PU6LIC NEARING. 041NER5: CARL CISSkLL A~~IU NII.LIAM N. ~~ID~~TAL 1 MPACT REPORT N0. 212 AND DEtTY JO CLOW~ 2 Rue Vsibonna~ Newport Deach~ GA R CLA ON 0. -- 92660. Property dexcribed as an irregula~ly-shaped M~N percel of land consisting of approximately 4.N acres D ~ 1. 1866 located north and edst af the northeast wrner of 5lmmons Avenue end Haster Street~ heving approximate frontages of 7~B feet on thc north side of Sirtmons Avenuo end 9~ f eet on the eest stde of Naste~ Street~ ~nd being loca[ed Approximately 295 foet Qest of th e centerl(ne of fls,tP~ 5tre~t and approximately 21ii feet north of the cen~er- Ilne of S(nm~n s Avenua. 'Aroperty prasently classified RS -A-~~3.~~~ (RESIDENTIl1L/AGRICULTURAL) ZOI~E. REQUESTED LLASS IFIC~,TION: RS-SOGO (fiLSIUEN7IAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZOt~C. REQUESTCD COrtD! TION~L USE: TO PER~tIT A 36-UNIT PI_ANNFfI IINIT ~EVCLOPMEt1T WITI~ WIIIVER OF MININUM dUILDING StTE AREA PER UNIT. The~e wcrc 12 p ersons indEcating the(r pres~ncc in oppositton to subJcct request~ and although ths staff report to tfie Planning Commission dated July 17, 1y73 w~s not rcad at the publlc hearing~ it is referred to and rn~dc A part of the minutes. Dan L, Rowl~ncl~ 100~~ West La Palma Avenue~ Anaheim, Indtcated the st~,ff report had b~een recelved and revi~wed a~d he had only o~e questlon regardlnq the indicetlon in the staff report that th c p~oposal would yic~ld a net density of 8.9 unlts per acre~ and st~ted the nec dens(ty of this proposal would actually be. 6.97 units per acre. Jay Tashi ro ~ Associ ate P I anner ~ exQ 1 a i ned the ti.9 f i gure I n the s t~f f report 1 s a net fiyure and th~ 6.9 units per acre would be Che gross fiyure. Mr. Rawland stated the recommended conditlor,s are acceptable to the petitioner. He referred to th ~ requirement for walve r of minimum building site arca required in the RS- 5Q00 Zone~ w hi ch is necessary because the zane is not to their choosing; thrst the a~plicatlon w as made for RS-5000 for the c~nveni~nce of tl~P City; that the best vehicle to use for this p ~oposal would be the RM-•40Q0 Zone fo~ which the pro}ect would be sl ightly over qualifie d. He potnted out the application is based upon the plan submitted and revie~ed by th e City Council at the General Plan amendme nt hearings and since that ttme, Mr. Glow has a equired tf~e adJacent one-acre gross parcel of land which has been included in this plan~ thereby reducing the density to G.97 units per acre. He presented a colored rendering of the proposal and p~intecS out the simi larity between this plan and the one app~ovad by t h e Plannin~ Commiss(on under RM-4000. He polnted out Mountain View and the property acq uE red a~d stated the City Council had been told at the C~eneral Pla~ amendment hearings that the zoning rcqutrements~ shape, size and dimensions of the property, etc.~ would probably require a lot of waivers. but Mr. Clow had been able to find a deve,opment that would work wi~h a 2$ va~riance in the RS-5000 Zone. Ne pointed ~:ut the proposal has adequate rec ~e atlonal and parking facilities and the only thing lost by the General Plan amendmant was an amenity i~ the proJecC of a tennis court for those people wha will be liv~ing there. He lndicated he would be happy to answer any questions. James Thets, 21;1 South Spi~naker, Anahetm, Pr~sident of Tri-Cities homeowners As sociatlon~ indicated the association is still adamantly in favor of single-family~ separc~te ciwell ings on this property and their opinion has never changed sl~ce the whole matter aerte d, He stated at the City Council meeting reference to the planned unit develu~~uent was spec(fically referring to the er.isting shape and size of Mr. Clow's 1/ 17/ 78 1 MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PL!-NNING COMMISSION~ JUIY 17~ 137~ 7a•573 EIR N4. 212. RECLAS5IFICATION N0. J8~79'6 AND__CONUITIONIIL USE PERMIT NO.._1866 (contlnued) property~ lass the one acra recently purchaatd~ ond the maln arqun~ent h~d been thet thoy would not heve enough land t~ slyr-lflr,~~ntly develop sinyle-famlly untts. Ile polnf.ed out now they have acquire~ an c+dditlon~l acre of land and b rought back the sAme pinn the City Counctl had prevlously denied becausc~ of the ~enslty ancf the way the ~ro)ect was la(d ~ut on the land~ and have adcied one more unit. 11e stated Nr. Clow nc~w h~~s an extra acre and the p roperty is no longer the samc shape and sfzr.; khat the plAnned unit dr.velapment looks Ilke e very goa~l Jevcl~~ment which Is campletely wlthin or exceeds all zoniny requfrements fo~ a pl~~nned unit ~acvclnpment, but that thc residents feel the proJect ts not within the spirlt the Ctty Counc!I hes requcsted ~1r. Clow to develop his praperty. Ne stated 7 unlts per acre arc allowed (n the RS-5~00 Zone; thr+t thc Plar~niny Camnisslon knaws that figurc is not realistlc because almost 2()~; of th~ land arca ls teken up for streets ~ione~ so you coulcl nevor get 7 unlts ~er ~~c.r~, H~ strtr~i rhis .irPn Is one of the rnost denscly pnpul~ted areas of Anahe(m and Lherc are a lot of ~~partments and co~domtniums ln that arca~ and polnted out u~ndaninlums have been bull[ and there are no s(nylo-famlly houses avallable. Fie stated if It is the iob of thc Plonning Cor~xnlssion to plan the Clty to rnake sure everyone has whet they want~ tiiey should n~~t allow any more apertments; that there are condc~minium units at Analieim Shures whtch are still vacan[ and s(nce there arc not en~>uqh si ngle-f~~ni ly cfNcl l i nys ~ the re~ i dents woulc! l ik$ tn sec single-family dwellings in tli(s area. Lucy Foster~ 12Sf3 Jetty Dr(ve~ Anaheim~ scatcd she ls a member of the Tri-Ctticss No-neowners Assotiation anJ at the City Counctl mceting on Apr~l 1S~ 191~~ a p18n was approved for a planned unit developn~ent for Mr. Glow's proper!y ~nd because it is a smoll~ trrsgularly-sh~ped parcel of 4.3 acres~ the Council had approved .he pro)ect with 5~~0 square feet per dwelliny unit for a maximum of 2~ unlts. She pointed out the propasal now has enlarged and the property is no longcr irregularly shaped and Mr. Clvw (s submitting a plan for 35 units~ consickrahly less than the 5~00 square fee~ per dwelling. She stated they would like to suggest tlie follawing: 1) a sllghtly lower density with a few attaehGd, stnyle-femily hnmes to get away fram the row-housing effect; 2) decrcase the units to 30 ar 32 which would sti~l be a planned unit development for single-famtly ~wellings and increase the area for ea~~~ residence; 3) they would like to see a sidewalk 4 feet wide In the green area betwcen the curb end the wall alon~ Simmons Avenue since the last plan does no~ allaw for sldewalks; 4) on-street parking is severely Inadequate~ especlally for campers, bo3ts~ anJ guests~ and they would like to see some of the additlonal area saved by reducing the number af units to reduce the on-street park(ng p~..~blem; 5) they would like to sec a solid wall without gates along Simmons Avenue ta deter parklny on Simmons and walking through to the back of the units; anc+ E>) Chat the repo~t calls for a 3~'unit deveiopment~ but the Tri-Cities tlomeowners Assoclatton wuuld like to see th~ project approved with the above changes and not th~ previously requested 36 units. She indicat~~' ,pPaking as a private citizen~ she had lived in her home fuw 17 years an~ It is a very pleasant plece to live~. She stt+ted the Introductlon of higher development in the areas tend to bring about deter~orat(on of t~ie area; they have a beautiful community and would like to preserve it; th~' hey are planning to invest a large amount ~f money tnto improvement of their resldence and would not like to see this pr~ject app~oved. Rose Hindman~ 501 East N(lken Way, Anaheim~ stated when this battle hegan for single- family dwell(ngs, the residents had M anted 7200-square foot lots because on the east and south there arc 72A0 or beCter lots and on the west there are 7200 and 5000-square foot 1ots~ and they wanted to maintain that kind of atmosphere in the neigl~borhood; that they were forced~ reluctantly, to go with 5000-square foot lots sa they could have single- family dwellings; ~nd *--~••~ due to the size and shape of the property~ Mr. Claw was allvw~d 7/17/78 ~ ,~ ~ MINU1'ES~ ANAI~EIM CITY PLANNING COhWISS10N~ JULY 17, 19/8 78•574 EIR N0. 212. RECLASSIFICATION N0. '8~ -6 ANb CONDITIONAI US~ P~RMIT HO,..~~4 (~ntinued) to have some type of Gluster hau5lny. ShQ stAted ane of the Plannln~ Commission's concerns had bnen Mr. Clow's rlc~ht to develap his property end they would agree wlth that rl_yht~ however~ in the last few months Mr. Claw has acquired morr. property~ so it is not )ust praparty bought many years ego; that he Is enlArg(ng the area and hrs conter,trd mo~y paople; th~t it bothers them because thnre is no chanc.e of gottinq h~uses such ss exlst todoy~ but they do have the opportunity to gut 50~0-squa~e fnot lots and if that is t:he best t:hey can yet, ehcy w~uld ap~reclate consideratlons stnce there .:re 5~00-square foot lots west of Nastcr Street r~ith nice brick homes that are s~lliny for a lot of money. 5he stated they do not went duplexes~ trl~lexes~ or evcn opartment-Iooking buildinys; thAt they wont sinryle-family homes end she dld not think tl~is wes eskin~ for tc~o much; that they have comrromis~d and if they can mafntaln che look that would fit into the netqhborhocad~ th(s ts whet thcy would like ta see; and that duplexes and t~l~lexes w~~IGh happen io be uwned by indivlduals stlll have an Apertment house appeArancN nnJ lndlviduals would havt the ct~ance lo buy two or [hree of them and rent them out And it wc~uld be n llttle communlty of its own ar.d nut related to ihe reat oF tf~e commun(ty. Sh~ tx~inted out they would Iike to have a little considcratlon nuw ttiat thcy havc comprcmis,cd. Ge~ald ~elfle, 451+2 West Simmons Avc• ~e~ Orange~ which Is across the street cn the r..ast of the propcrty. stated thcy would prefc~ ~ingle-famlly h~mes nn 7200-squAr~ fnot lc,ts; that if they have RS-~~UO lots, tf the hauses facc Simmons Avenuc~ the~•c wc~uld 1~c a Aot of traffic conacstion~ and if the houses face inslde the wall~ therc wou~c; be less w n~estion on Simmons~ and some people would rather see tF~e wall thAn ti~ve traffic c~ng~stfon, but that RS-7200 would give better breatiiing roan than RS-S000. Mr. Rowland responded to che opposition's comments as follaws: a. Slnyle-famtly resldential developmcnt has never been ~ropo5ed fbr thas pro~pcrty; that ln his profcssional oplnio~ tiie sl~apc and depth nf ttie prop~rty Fr~rn ~~imrrxrns back precluJes the orderly develo~~t of sir-gle-family u~lts; that s.'his is a sinnl~-famity proposal which has been refcrred to as raw housing; and that these are attached hauses and of the 35 units~ 11 would be attached (n the mlcidle and would have cam~n boundarles and the rest would have cne common boundary. b. The ap~eal for a compromise to 30 to 32 units is tatally un~~c~:eptable because there is na reason for it since at this point tl~ey are mandatcd ta 5«00-square fQOt density with a planned unil development whicli was apprnved~ ana trey intend to pursue that. c. The sidewalks are proposed for the development and are a part of the ccandttions Included in tt~e staff report all the way alony between [f~e propcr.~r line and the curb, d. The lacl: of parking is a problem; that the world lacks parkin~ in our rt-atflrized society. and the parking has been analyzed by their stsff and parktny for lk7 vehicles in~ on and around the site is provided, which is about the sarn~e requirement p1~+ced on sinc~le-family housing tn the canyo~; that boats anA carn~~ers are prob1ems in other areas, but will not be a problem here since the CC6Rs will control that situati~n. e. A 6-foot high, solid watl is proposed which is broken ca~1y at the enLrance on 5lmmons Avenue. f. Mr. Rawland presented colorsd renderings showiny t~e block wall and the sidewalks and explained the setback exceeds the setback on the opposite side hf thP street~ with a minimum setback of 27 feet from the property line. iie stated the acquisit(on of the adJacent property does not add to the development putentia) of this prop~:ty for single-family units. that it further aggravates it. Ne referred to th~ ccxnrr~nts from the p~erson in opposition In Orange requesting more breathing room i~ this devclopment and polntcd out that on Simmons Avenue there is 7A8 lineal feet of fro~tage~ of wh!ch 390 feet is in bu(ldtng area~ which represents 55~ open space on Simmons Avenue~ and Chat the 60-foot lots across the ~treet with normal setbacks repres~~t 17$ open 5pace and the 70-foot wide lots with 60-foot buildings represent 14~ open space. He stated 7/17/78 MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PL.~NNING CAMMISSION~ JULY 1J~ 1978 18-575 EIR N0. 212. R'_CLASSIFICATtON N0. 7~~19~6 AND CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0~ LB~, (continuad) .~_ - 1n p roviding more apen space and the I~ck of overcrowding, khe vehtcle to galn those umenittes is not in sinqle-family restdentlal on 5000-square foot lots, It Is e Rlanned unit development whicii they have been charged with and which thoy want to d~valop. c, The statement cOnCe1'r~ing no houstng being ~vallable fs true; there is no affordable housing; that In Che July issue af Professianal liousin Ma aztnc~ Hal Goldbar~ 5outhern Californla Marketing Analyst~ ~o ntc out n na e m t at In 1g70~ 5~ of the people (n tt~e area were f~rced c~ut of tlie housing market because of salary and today tliet number is SO~b. He stat~d if S12;~000 houses were built tn thls area~ It would not be provfding housing for anyone~ it would Just be precluding more peopte from the hausing ma~ket who cannot affard those houses. fl~ stated they are Crying to provide housing that has amcnities and dues nut th{nk tlis City of Anaheim hos sccn any other developrnants th~zt havc bccn more gcnerous in apen s~±a~e. Ne pUintsd out they are providing the most open space and widest pussible vistas to the exterlor~ but also in the insi~ie of the proJect where nobody can see. the smallest separatlon betweQn bulldings exceeds twice that in the Area; that khe average is four tinxs the separatlon batween houses; and that it (s true thesp are attached houses~ but as littls attached as ~ny you could provicic. TtiE. PUBL I C HEAR I tdG WAS CLOSEU. Chalrmar Pro Tempore Barnes askecJ for clarification of Counc(1's wishes on this property~ end Jay Tashiro expla{ned General Plan Amendmenl• No. 14; was acfopted on April 18~ 1~78 for low densicy residentlal desiynation~ with the specific stipulatic~n that a planned reslc~entlal de~ielopment with a density not to exceed 7 units per gross acre would be allawed~ ~nd this plan meets that crlteria with G,9 untts per yross acre. Commissloner Tolar asked haw many units arc allvwed in the RM-4A00 Zone~ and Mr. Rawland ~eplied they had originally requGSted 40 and then tt became 34, and they have added one acre and it f~as gone to 35~ and the proJect sti l l cronforn-s to the RM-4000 stand~rds. Chairtnan Pro Tempore Barnes asked in light of all the problems which the pet(tioner has had on this property. why he did not come in with a proJect with no waivers. and Mr. Rowland replied thts is on~y a 2$ waiver~ snd in today's n~arket thst means a lot. and pointed out that is what happened to the tennis courts and stated they were going to stlll request the waiver. Commtssicmer Linn asked if a price tag was available on these units, and Mr. RowlEnd replied tt is impossible *~ pr(ce because of che coscs of materiai and labor. Commtssioner David indicated maybe this could be considered low-ta-made~ate tncome housing~ and Mr. Rowland replied this is Anaheim's low-to-moderate housing. Jay Tashiro potnted out a conditton had baen omitted in the Intc~departmental Committee recommendattons for the reclessification which should state that a block wall would be required on Che east, west~ and south property 1lne~ adjacent to the single-family residential areas. It was noted Envl~onmental Impact Report No. 212 was previously approved under Genera) Plan Amendment No. 145. 7/17/78 :~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JU~Y 17~ 1978 78•516 EiR N0. 212. RECLASSIFiCAT10N N0. 78-7g-6 ANO CONpITIONAL_USE~PERMIT N0. 1866 (conttnued) ACTION: Commissianer King offarcd Resolutton No. PC7~-16~~ end moved for tts pessage and a~opt~an~ that tho Anaheim Clty Plenning Commisslon doea haroby grant Petitlon fa~ Recissstfication No. 78•79-6~ subJpct to Interdo~artrn~ncal Committee recomnendatlons~ including the recommcnclatlon made by staff. On roll call, the foregotny resolution was paased by the fallowing vate: AYCS : COMM I S510l~lERS : OAR~JES ~ DAV I D~ JpHNSOlI, K I NG ~ L I NN ~ TOLAR NOES: COMMiSSIONEkS: NONE A(i5ENT : COMMI SS 10-IERS : HERBST Commissloner King offered a motlon~ secc-nded by Commissioner DavIJ and MOT10:~ CARRl~G (Commfssfr~ner Narbst beiny ~bsui~l), tlat the requcst for ~•~atvcr of minimur± ~~.iTl~in~? ,ite area per uniC be granted c~n the basis af the stre~ shape~ and locatian of th~ p~'~~perty, batween multiple-family and sinyle-family horr-~s, and tu providc low-to-moderate 1nGOme I~ous(ny in the City of An~hcim. Ccm~~niss(oner King offered Resolutlon No. PG78-16~ and moved far (ts ~•+ss~ge ar.d adoption~ th~t the Anahelm City Planntng Cor~misston does heret.y grant Petition for Gonditional U~e PermlC ~~o. 1i366~ subject to Interdepartmental CommttteP reconxnendatlan,. Prfor to vot(ny on the resolution~ Cc~mrnissloner Tolar asked for clz+rtflc~tton regarding the fenctng on the south stde of Simrtions Avenue focing north~ ~as fc Nould appear a 780- faot fcnce would be a pratty long walk to see nothin~ but a vra11. Mr. Rvwland presented the render(ng showing the block wali nr~f the landscapin~, and Commissioner 7olar clarlffed the landscaping outsi~le tfi~ xall woulci be taken care of by tl~e homec~wners association~ Mr. Rowland replying thls is corr~cr. On roll call. the foreyoing resolutlon was passed by t1~e following vate: AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: D/1VID, JOHNSOtI, K1NG~ LIN;~~ T~~LAk NOES: COHMISSIONERS: BARIlES AI3SENT; COMMISSIONERS: HERBST Ch~irman Pro Tempore HarnES clarified her negative v~te reftects her fe~ling that 2herc could be a compromise fiar a single-family development. TEMPORARY A DJQURNMENT The meeting adJourned for dtnner at 5:14 p.m. RECUNVENE Tha n~eeting reconvened at 7:00 p.m., all Commissioners ~einq ~~ present ~xcept Commissloner flerbst. 7/17/78 MINUTES~ ANAIiCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ JULY 17~ 1978 ~9-577 ITEM N0. 10 PUBLIC NCARING. OWNERS; MOTEL ~ OF GALIFORNIA AND ~~~ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 MARANCO MOTEl5, INC.~ 51 F1ltchcock Wsy~ Santa ARIANCE N0. 302 ~~~ Uarbara~ cn 93~~5. AGEMT: FEUERIIL SIGN COMPANY~ 110Q North Maln Sxrcet~ Los Angeles, CA 90012. PetlCioner requests 1JAIVCR OF M~XIMUM HEIGHT OF FREE- STANDING SIGN TO CONSTRUCT A FREE-STANDING SIGN on pro~erty Jescribed ns a rectangularly- shapnd parcel of land consistiny of epproxlmately 1.1 acres having a front~gn of approxi- mately 160 faet on thn west side of 8aach Doulevard~ having a~.:aximum depth of epproximately 298 feet~ being lacated approxtmotely 200 feet north of the centerllnc of Ball Road, and further descr(bed as 921 South Deach Boulevard. Pro{~erty p~esently classifled CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. There was no anh Incitcatinc~ their presence in opposition to subJect requesC. and althouqh the staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 17, 1978 was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a port of the r~iinutes. Jack Gray~ 11Q0 North Maln Street, Los Angsles~ po(ntPd out this request is for additional hetght because going north the. sign is blocked by other signs in the area and the type of sign to be u5td needs more helght than the allowable 25 feet. He stated the sign next door is probably 40 feat hlqh, and there (s a simllar sign around the corner In Stanton; xhat it is a standard type sign uSed throughuut the country and is not the biggest sign~ but driviny up and down the street the helght is needed in order to be seen. He pointed out they w~uld nnt have asked for a varlance if there were not ocf~er signs in the area elready abusing the residential ar~a, THE PUHi.IC HEARING WAS CLQSEU. Commissioner Linn aske~i stAff hc~w tall che sic~n next door is~ and Jay Tashiro pointed out he did not know, but he hed che cked for zoning actions in that erea to find out whether or not any varlances had been granted Fo~ signing~ and wlthin 3G0 feet there were none. Ne stated it was possible this propertv had been in the County when the s(gns were constructed. Commissioner David asked what generates the request for a bigger sign fn this case, would lt be becausc the Motel 6 Corp~ratfon just wants a larger slgn or because this particular moCe) Is suffering fram a lack nf b usiness. Mr. Gray replied that primarily Motel 6 Corporation has established a standard identiflcation sign ~atlonwide and it (s amazing that when sic~ns are put up peopl~ do tome in, especially since this is a budget-Cype motel and durinq certain seasons tf ~~meone sees the price~ they will come in; that the firm has spent SS milllon In the last three years in slgns and he dld not think they would lay out this type of money unless they were guaranteed of getting an immediate refund. Ne potnted out they could probably livc with the smaller sign but found spending money on large signs has made their businesses prosper. Commisslor+er David pointed out this area is very heavily signed with all different sizes of sig~s~ and Mr. Gray renlied the size of the si~n they have requested is pe nnitted, but that the height is the only question, and they have asked for this walver since other signs in ~he area are higher and there is a billboard next cbor which blocks the view of this sign. 7/17/78 ~ ~ M{NUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 1978 78-578 EIR CAT~GARICAL EXEMPTION~CI.ASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3028 (conttnued) It was noted that the Planning Director or hts authorized representattve has dete nritned that the prapoacd proJect falls withtn thn definitlon of Catego~ical Exemptt~ns~ Cless 11, as defined (n paragraph 2 of the City of Anahatm Envtronrnental Impact Report Guidelines and (s~ thereforo~ categorfcally exempt from tha requirement to prepare an EIR. Commtsaloner King offered a resc~lution ,qra~nting Petltion fnr Vari+~nce No. 3oz8 on the basla that ft would be depriving the properky a p~lvllege enJoyed by the property ne~xt door~ and subJect to cc~ndltions. Prfor to voting on this r~solutlnn~ Commtsstoner Johnson asked the petittaner if he had measured the stc~n next daar~ that It did not look llke 40 feot and the picture could have bee~ taken at an anglc. Thc Commisston discussed the photograph and how hi~h Che other s(gns in the area were. On rol) ceil~ che for•eyolny rc:sulution FAILCD TO CARRY by the following vote: AYES: COMMI5S IONERS ; DAVI D~ KI I~G NOE9: COMMISSIOPIERS; BARNES, LINN~ JOHNSON AgSEtIT: COMMISSIONERS: ~IERBST ABSTAIt~: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR Commissioner Johnson indicated I~is negative vute was on the basis thmt there ts o proliferatlon of signs in this area and he would need i~formation ott~er than pictures taken et an angle In order to determine whether or not th~e signs are higher. M~. Gray asked if the Planning Commis~lon would grant a continuance ln order for him to measure the othcr signs In the area. Commissioner Johnsoc~ indicaxed he felt that was a fair request since he did not wish to grant a sign height walver slnce others in the a~ea would be requesttng the sane he(ght sign~ caus(ny a chein reactlon. ACTION: Commissio~er ,lohnson offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Qavid and MOTION ~tT~U~ that consideration of Varfance No. 302& be continued to the regular meeting of the Anaheta~ City P1annlna ConKnission on July 31~ 1918~ at the request of the petittoner. It was noted the petitianer was not present tn conn~ction wltl~ Item No. 11~ and the Commiss(~n tabled the matter until later In the meeting. 7/17/78 ~ ., f MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONMIS510N~ JULY 1J~ 197~ 78~579 ITEM N0. 12 PU~LIC HEARI'IG, OWNER; CLYpE E. STIRFS~ 21~~4 E~R NE AT~IVE DECLARATION Ambushars Street~ Dlemond Bar, CA 311~`i. Pntitl~ner V /1NC N. 0 requests WAIVEROF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PAP,KING SPACES TO COt~STRUCT A RETAIL CONHERCIAL BUILDING an proparty dcscribed as an irrTqulArly-shaped parccl of land consisting of epproximakely 0.5 acre locnted at the southeast corner of Wilshirn Avenue and Loara Stro~t~ having a frontage of approximately 3G2 feet on the south side of Wtlshtre Aven~e~ liavlny a rnexlrnum depth of epproximetely 115 feet~ and further dsscribod as 35~ ~~prth Wilshlre Avenue. Property presenily c1.7ssified CG (COMM~kCIAL~ GENERAL} ?ONE. There was no one indlcating tfielr prese~nce In op~osition to subJect req~est, and alth~ugh thc staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 17~ 1~78 was nat read at the publlc hearing~ ic is referrad to end made a part of ths minutes. Clyde Sttres~ awner~ pointed out he needs fewer parktng spaces for nis bullding than reyulred; that lc is mostly a waret~ouse and small retail, THE PUBLII: NEAItING WAb CLOSED. Commissioner David asked Hr. Stires to exnlain why I~e fclt he only needed 7.2 parking speces when the codc requires 4~~ anc' Mr, Stlres replfed he lias only abaut 19~0 square feet of showroom and the rest is wa~el~ouse. Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ expl.ained the cade req uires one space pcr 200 square feet for reta(1 use. Cammissioner Kiny asked Mr. Stires if he had reviewed the Tr~ffic Engi~ieer's recammendatlon concerning the driveway; that the drivcway would be moved 110 feet east from the west property iine and the drlveways havc a maxlmum width of 30 feet. 11e referre~~ to another driveway which is 150 feet and asked (f ttiat could be uttlized~ with Mr. Stires replying (t could, CortimissianPr Barnes asked what kind of rental would be planned for the other part of the building~ with M~. Stires replying he would be moving into that himself eventually~ but righk now he needed to lease it out. Chairman Pro Tempore Barnes pointed out that part of tlie ~roblem is actually that the variance goes wit~ the property and it may be sufficlent for his type of business~ but he could move out and anothe~ business could mc,ve in requiring lots of parking spaces. Commissianer Linn indicated thts is a dangerous corner ano to encourage furthe~ developrnent w(th so few parking spaces would create addltiona) problems. He Indicated he agreed with the Traffic Engineer the drivcway must be closed and~ additionally. he fe~t this is just too much building on this size parcel. Gommissioner King polnted out customers wauld not be able to park in the street since that is a trsvel lane. He steted he recognizes this is a difftcult piece of property to devclop. Commisstoner Tolar indicated he knaws this is a dangerous corner~ but he cannot think of anything else the land could be used for. He felt the land will control the type of ~,ser and that parking is only a small problem. He stated the mere conditidn and uniqueness of the property are going to cz~ll for some type of variance and he can support this type of 7/17/7a ~~ MIt~UTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 17. 1978 7a•S8Q EIR NEGA7IVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3030 (continuesd) usn. Ne stated he did not think the~e will uve~ be any heevy use t~ this ere~ thst woutd requlre a lat of parking and did not think this use would have a detrlmental effect on the surroundiny ne(ghborhood. Commissionpr Johnson pninted out this gentl~man is golny to build on this piece of property and the Planning Commission is trying to help to develop th~ property~ but that he (s build(ng rtare thAn he needs and is going to rent part of the property out and the development is blgger then the parcel wlll ,tand. He asked Mr. Sttres If he had looked ~t building more in the size he needs. Mr. Stire~ replied that with tha cost of building today~ he rPalixed he had be~c~r do ir. naw bacause the cost Is gettinq out of reach; that he is not a very biq company, but is trytng to look to the future. Chalrman Pro Tempore Barnes stated she agrced this is ~n irreguiarly-shaped piece of property end creates a hardshtp, but that she ts worried when she looks at 22 spaces proposed and 49 required~ ~bout half of what Is needed. She stated she probably would be willing to go along wlth a lesser number than requlred, but thts much of o varlance co~cer~s her ~nd sha was not sure chere wnuld not be a parking proble:m i~ the fuiure. Commisstoner Johnson asked what type of business M~. Stlres had~ and he replled it is a three-whenl mc~~orcycle business; that they distribute them all ~ver the world and is basically a mail order business. Commissloner David ind~cated he fclt the pr~bl~m is the use that vrould be allowed in the other part of the bulld(ng and whether or not it would infringe and cost heavy an the parking~ and polnted out the Plannlnc~ ComnisSion could not hold the petitioner to anything spectftc. Cammissianer Tolar stated that with cx~ly 22 park(nq spaces~ the user lcasing the b~~llding will recognize haw many spaces there are and if he needs a lot of spaces, he is not going ta lease this property because it w(11 be obvious therc are only 22 spaces on the site. Mr. Stires sugge§te~i he could tease to a small company that would se11 samething big~ requiring a lot of warehouse space and not very many custon~ers. ACTiON: Commissioner Kiny offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION ~R ~ED (Commtssi~ner Herbst being absent)~ that the Anaheim C(ty Planntng Ca~mtssio~ has reviewed the proposal to construct d retall ccmmercial building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregutarly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre located at the ~outheas~ corner of Wllshtre Avenue and Loara Street. having a frantage of approximately 362 feet on the south stde of Wtlshire Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 11S feet; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to pfepare an environmenta) impact report on Lhe basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulativ~e adve~se envtronmental Impact due to the approval of tt~is Negative Dec~aration since the Anaheim General Pian designates the subJect property for general commerc(al land uses carnnensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive enviro~mental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submttted by the petitio~er indicates no signifirant ind(vidual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the C~ty of Anaheim Planning Oepartment. 7/17/78 ~' r ~~- MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 1J, 1978 78-~81 CIR NEGATIVE pECLARAYION ANp VARIANCE N0. 30;0 (continued) Commisslaner Klny offered a resolutlan that thc Anelieim Clty Plenning Commisslan do~s hereby grant Petitlon for VAriance No. 3030 on the basis of the size and sh~pe of th~ property~ subJtct to Interdepartmental Commitkee rec~nme~dat(~ms and also the stlpulation khat tha appl(cant work out the Jriveway location to the s~tisfaction of the Traffic Enqineer. On roll call~ the foregoing rusolution FAILED TO CARRY on a tic; vote as follows: AYES; COfiMIS;IONERS; DAVID~ KING~ TOL11k NOES: COMMISSIOIIERS: BARNES~ LINN~ JANN501~ AaSENT: COMMISS I ONERS : IiERIiST Commiss(oner Linn Indicated t~4 felt ttiis corner is toc~ he~vily congested with traffic to allaw this type of use. Cha(rmAn Pro Tempore Barnes indicatecf she felt this man's business would be flne. but the~e was no guarantee he would be there forever and she was concerned ab~ut t~aving less than half the requlred ~arktny spaces fc~r future uses and f~lt the property was bsing overbu(lt. She indicated she would llke to see another pi~n~ decreasiny the size of the bullding, and asked the ptstttloner lf he would Iike to have ~ continuance In order to subrnit a reviseJ plan and add more parkiny, She stoled she would be more willing to look at something closer to two-tt~irds of the parking rcqulrement Instead of less than half. She felt that when peoplc ~re looking for a plac~ to lease, they are not looking at the parking but mora at the pricc. Annika SAntalehti~ Assistant Direct~r for 2oning~ potnte~i out in (nstances where there is wi~olesale space~ although (t has usually bean on the second floor, the Comn(ssion hes modified the requlrements a iittle~ but sta~ff would have to look at similar uses in order to maka a reconxnendatlon. Cortmissioner Johnson pointed out tl~at while th~s usc is for sales all over the world and people would ~ot be cominy in excepc for an occr;tonai customer. he did not think e?1 the parking spaces would be requlred~ but that the P~anning Commisston has to look toward the future dnd what use might be gotng into that property. Commissioner Tolar indicated he was amazed that the Planning Comnission is talking ab~ut having this man reduce the size of this butldiny for a commerstal vanture when they have Just approved a retail furniture store far 1t3~000 squnre feet for commercial use~ and asked how many parking spaces that buildtng had. Commissioner Oavid asksd staff If the~ were counting the number of spaces on a strictly commercial endeavor~ and Jay Tashiro ~eplled that in the general commerctal zone there is a code ~equlrement which states that two-thlyds of tt~e sub}ect prope~ty shall be parking area. Cammissio~er King pointed out that mast of thls gentlsman's business would be by mail order. Chai rn-an Pro Tempore Barnes potnted out the Planning Comm~sston is not only talking about this gentleman's business. but about something that goes wlth the land ttself fortver. She pointed out the pntitloner has offered to accept a continuance in an attempt to reduc~ th~ size of the building and increase the parking. She felt this piece of property is 7/17/78 ~ ^~ MINUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 1~7A 7a"582 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU VARIANCE N0. 30~0 (contlnued) ve~~ strangely ahaped and would allow for a varlance. but the Commission Is hung up on i~ow much ~f e varirnce, and Mr. Stlrns indtcated he wauld Ilke a continuance. ACTION: Commissloner Devld offere~~ a motlon~ seconded by Commtss(oner KinS ana MOTION ~p (Commi~stoner Herbst being absent)~ thet consideratlon of Varlance No. 3~30 be Gontinued to the regular rn~eting of the Anaheim City Planning Conmisslon on July 31- ~97~3~ es requeste~l by the petitloner. Jey Taslilro poinLed out the revised plans would have to be suUmitked to the Planning staff by Friday and pointed out Cn the Netiliun~r tl~at he understood thc Pionning Commtssion has irdlcateJ a deslre to :ee the sixc of thc butlding reduced~ which w~~~1.1 cr~AtP :+~~irl~nAl parking spacas. Cathy Gleason nsNed if she co~.ild s~P~k and asked the Commisslon If they were concerned ab~ut the iuture use of thls pr~~erty~ would thcre be any wey after it has been appr~ved that it could be revok~d or changed if deemed necessary. Jack white~ Dcp ~ City Attorney~ pointr.d out the variance. as stated by Chatrman Pro Tempore Barnes, ~c.es with the land~ which means thc vartance 1~~ for thls parttcular use on this property and if anyone else wants to operate this p~rticular us~ on this property~ they could do so~ but If the use were to change~ the variance would not still be appllcable but the bu(lding would still be the~e and some use w~uld have to be made of it, and the pr~blem then arises as t~ what usc is going to be allowed with that much deflclenry in parking. Fie stated altl~ough the variance would be termtnated upon terminatton o!' the use of thc propRrty. the butlding would still be therc of a particula~ size that was built ,o much larger ~hat It cut down on the ~umber of requlred perking spaces. and he f~lt that is what the Comntsslon is concerned about, havtng a"white elephant" for general cornmercial purposes or having a large building with little parking. and while it suits the purposes for this usc~ somewhere ln t he future i t maY no t b e sut tab le. Ms. Gleason asked if there would be nx~re taxes for a lar9er bullding or a smaller building. and Jack White pointed out he is not the tax assessor, but felt the taxes would be higher for a larger floor area, and she indicated she felt it would probably be bette~ for the City to have the larger bui3d(~g and rec~ive more taxes. Commissioner Johnson pointed out the furntture store approved earlier in the mceting had 1$~000 square feet with 71 parking spaces. 2/l7/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIIJG CQMMISSION~ JUIY 17~ 1978 78-583 I TEM N0. 1 PUE~LI C f1EARl NG. OWNER; GRCG GEORCE ~ 110 Mles t Las EI~ R NE~E UECLARATIOIJ Tunas~ San Get~riel ~ CA 9177~i. AGE~JT: P. F. STANGER~ . NT 18433 Amistad~ Fountaln Valley~ CA 91)76. Peti tloner ~~~~~ r . IJ~6 roquests pennissl~n to ESTA(1lISN A DRIVE-THRAUGII RESTnunANT WITii WAIVER OF MINIMUM ~~UM~ER OF PARKING SPACES on p~opcrty described as a rect~nqula~ly•shep~ed parco) of land c~nsistinc~ of epproxlmstely 0.1., acrc locatcd ~t thc northcast corner of Llncoln Avenuc and Western Avcnue~ haviny approx(natc Fr~ntaqes of 1)2 feet on th~ no ~th sido of Llncoln Avenue and 1~-7 feat on thc, ~ast side of Western Avenue~ and having a maxlmum depth of approxin-ately 1~/ feet. Pr~pcrty presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIM{TEO) tO~IE~ Thcre ~~as no un~ ( ndi cat i ny the t r prescnGe i n oppas I t lon to suh )~~ct request ~ end e I though the stoff rep~rt to the Pl~nning Carcunissf~~n .fatea July 17~ 1~iJt~ wdy nul rea~f at the public hr.aring, it is referred to and made a part of thc min~tes. Pete 5tanncr, ayent~ was rr~srnt tn an~wer any ~~ursttans, THC PUtiLIG HEA(tING WAS CLOSEu. ACTION: Comrn(ssioner Kiny offered a nx~tion~ ~econcled by Conimissioner linn and h10T10N CA-RR ED (Comr~lssiner Herbst being absent), th~t the Mahe(m City Planning Commissi~n has reviewed thc: propcsal to est~blisfi a drtvc-throuyt~ restaurant with waiver of mfnlmum number of parking sp~ces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consl,tinc~ of appraximately O.G acre located ~t the northeast corner of l,incoln Avenue ~nd Western Avenue~ haviny approximate frontages uf 1~2 feet on tl~e north side ~f L(ncoln Avenue and 147 feet on the east sidc of Western Avenue; and does hereby approve tl~a Negative Geclaratlon from tho recuirement to prepar~e arf er,vironmenta) Impact reNort on the basls that there would be nn slc~nificant indtvidual or cumulative adverse environmtntal 1mQact due to the ap~ rova 1 of th 1 s~~ega t i ve Dec 1 ara t I on s i nce the anahe i m Genera I P 1 an des i Qnates the subJect pr~perty for general commercial land uses comnen,urate with the pr~pc,sal ; that no sensitive environmental fmpacts are involved in thc propu~al; that the initial Study submitted by tha pet(tioner indicates no siynificant indtv(dual or cui ~latlve advers~ environmental (mpacts; and thac thc Negative Declaratlon substanttattng the fore~.~oing findings is on flle in the Ctty of Anaheim P;anning Department. Cc~mnisslo~er Kiny offered ~ mc~tion, seconded by Commissio~er !.(n~ and MOTION CARRIEO (Cc~mniissioner Nerbst beiny absent)~ that thc Anaheim City Planning Corrwnission does hereby grant waiver of minimum number of parking sp~~+ces on tfie basis tf~at the size and shap~ of the parcel makes it Infeas(bla co prnvide thc required parking and ;he use does not generate thz need for the requl red number of parking spaces, and othcr walvers have been granted tn the a~ea. Commissioner King offered Resol~t~on No. PC?s3-if~6 and moved for its paxsage and adoptlon, that the Anaheim City P;anntng Commission doe, hereby grant P~tition for Canditional Use Permit No. 1856~ subject to Interdepartmental Committee reconmendations. On roll cel{~ the fore~o(ng resolution was passed by the follc~wing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ JOfiNSON, KING~ L1NN. 70LAR NOES: COMMISSiQNERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST 7/ 17/ 78 yym• 'i ~1~ , MINUTES~ At1A1~EIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ JULY 17~ 1978 78•5~4 (TEM N0~ 11~ PU~I l G NtARI NC. OWNEa; THE LUTVIERAN HOME ASSOC I 1171 ON E EG TIVE UECLARATION OF CALIFORNIA~ 2312 South Fremont ~venue~ Alhamb~a~~ _ Q~_ ~b~1 CA ~+1d03. AGENT: C. L. SENCFELD~ 31~~2 Wllshire Bo~~l~vard~ Los Anqeles, CA 90010. Petitloner ~eques ~s permission t~ CXPANU A RETIREMENT NQME on property describad es a rectanyularly-shapad parcei of land consistlnq of approxtma~oxime~teafrontage s ioc~ted at the northwest corner of Bell Road and Walnut Street~ havtng app of 71G foet on the no~rt~g ~~d~South~WalnutdStraet09 Prope~tytpresentlyiclassifleduRSSAr~~3~00Q and further describe ~ (RCSIDENTIAL/AGRICUL7URAL) ZONC. lhere was no one ii-Jicatinc, tf~etr presence tn opp~sitlon to subJect request~ and altl~ough the staff rPport to thr Planninq Con~nlsslon daked July 17~ 1~7(~ was no~ read at the publt~ hearlny, it ls ~efcrred to anJ made a part of the minutes. Ralph Luwis and Kirk Latham~ ~591 5outh Walnut~ residents ~f tl~e retirement hr~n-r~ potnted out Mr, Lindsey~ the ~,dmintstrator~ would be arriving latcr~ but they wauld be happy to answcr any quesciors. TNE PUUL: C NEAKING '~IAS CLu~LD. AC710N; Comm(ssioner Tolar offerec! a nx~tion~ scc~nded by Commissloner David and M0710N A,R ED (Com~lssioner Vierbsi being absent) ~ that tl~e Anahetm City Plannl~g Commission has revt~nwed the requcst to expand a r~tirernent home on a ~ectangularly-shapcd parcel of land e~,~~~ -sting of ~pproximately 1~).0 acres located at the northwest corner of Bal l Road and Wa~~, :`~ ~ reet~ having approximate frontayes o` 71f~ feet on the north side of f3a11 Road and 609 fe~c on the west sidc of Wal~ut Strect; aiid does hereby approve the NegativP Decleration From the re~uirement tn prepAre an envlror~mental impact report on tl~e basis that there would be no signlficr~nt individua~ or cumulative adverse ei~vironmental impact due to the approval of tl~is NEyative Ueclaration since the Anahelm General P1an designate s the subJect property for low density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal ; that na sensitive environmentai (mpacts are involved in the proposal; that the I~itiAl Study ~ubmitted by thc pesitfoner lndicates no si~~nifica~~ individual or cumulativc adverse. envtronrnenta) {mpacts; and that the Negative Ueclaratio~ substantiating the faregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commission~r Tola~ offered Resolution No. PC73-167 and rnoved for its passaye and adoptfon, that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon dpes hereby grant Petition f~r Condit(or~al Use Perm(t No. 1i~61~ subject ta Interdepartmental Lommittee recortmtndations. On roll call, the foregaing resolution was passed by thc follo~~ing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BAFit~~S~ DAVIU, JOHNSON~ fCING~ LINN~ TOLAR NOES; COMMI SS I+LRS: I~Q~IE AEiSCNT: COMMI SS IUNERS : HERiiST 7/l7/7~ ,/. HINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING COl~MISSION~ JULY 17, 1~?7~ )B-5A5 ITEM N0. 15 PUaLIC NEARING. OWNkRS : ALE~IRT DE MASCIII AND DALE I C EGO~tIGAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 FAMILY TRU5T, 113~ Arboleta Orive~ La liabre~ CA ~0631. . AGENT; KARL NIELSEN~ 12~ North State Colleqe Boulevard~ Anaheim~ CA 92COG. Petit(on~r requcsts perrnisslon to EStABLISN A PUBLIG plltdGlNG FACILITY un property describnd as e rectengula~ly-st~aped percel of land consistiny of approxirn~tely 0.7 acre havl~g a frontage of aparoxlmately l0U feet ~n the Mrest side of Stnto Col lcqe Boulevarci~ having a maxlmum depth of epproxlmately 33~ feet~ belny located approximetely 11~ feet north of the centerli~e of L(ncoln Avenue~ And further d~scr(hed as 12~ North Stote Collene Bnulevard. Property present ly class(- f(ed CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITE.U) ZONE. There was onc person indiwting his presence in opposition to subJect requcst~ and although the staff report to the Plenning Commiss(on dated July 17~ 197~~ was nc;t reac/ a[ lhe public heorfr~y~ it Is referred to and mede a part of thc minutes. Commissl~ner King declared to the Chairman Pre, TCU~or~: tl~et he has a possibie canfliet of interest as ~efineu by Anal~eim Ctty Plannlnq Cammission Resolutlon No. PC7~~ly7, adopt(nq a Canflict of Interest Code for tl~e ~'lanning Commfssiun. and Governmen; Code Section 3625 et seq., (n that his wife is ossaciated w(th Ketelle Realty which is located ad~acent to sub)ect propcrty~ and th~~t pursuant to the ~rovisfons ~f the above codes~ he declared to thr. Chai rman Pro Tempore tl~at he was w( thdraw~ng from ttie hearing ln connection wi th Condi~lonal Use Permlt No, it3G2 a~d would not tnk~ part in either the dlscuss(on or th~ voti ny thereon ~ and that he hAd not cl i scussed th is mat te r wl th any member of the P 1 a~ni ng Commission. THEkEUHOtl, ,.OMMISSIOt~ER Y.ING LEFT TNC COUIJG (L CHA~4EP At 7;45 P,H. Fioyd Farono~ attorney representi ~~ thc petittoner, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Ful lerton~ stattd the bus iness woul~ continue i ts current operation as a d( ning-dancing f~ci l i ty and that they are asking for a condi t ional use permit in order to permi t the opr.rAtlon of a pub 1( c danc~ ha 1 I and co be ab 1 p to cha rye an adrnl ss i on fee ~ hup i ng tn d i scouroge the younger crowd who basically do not conform to thelr cc~des and IIAVC no mnney to spend. Also~ a younyer crvwd creates at[ itude pr~blems anJ uccaslonal drink:ng problems. Ne presented pl~otoi~raphs showin,y the facility~ indicating this is n~t a cheap bar, but a high-class establishment very expensively furnislied, N~ polnted out tt,is area is basical ly commercial and f-e had talked •aith almost al1 operators of the businesses wi thin the b lock, and there werc no 4b J c ct ~ ons to the i r use. He s ta ted. aga i n~ the operat i an would continue basically the same. but they w~uld he able ta assess ~n admfssion charge to try to appeal to the 30 and over crowd who have better dres~ eodes and better conduet. Fie referred to The Crescendo and Sunshine Meat and Llquor Canpany~ Indicatiny th(5 wc,uld be the same type operation except fczr tl~e food service. H~ also passed out advertlscments from a var(ety mag~zine and indieated this establishment would have the same type of entertainment; that they spend between S1.a0~ and S4,000 a week on mustc alone. Gerald Grlffln, 213 Curtis Way, Anaheim~ stated his property is approximately 250 feet f rom th i s es tab 1 ishment; that (n December 1977~ the us~ was t urned down by the P1 ~n~ i ng Commission and by the City Couneil In January 1978~ and now they are back in again. t~e stated Che staff report indicates there Is a fast-foad ~estaurant across State Cr~llege 8aulevard and a single-fami ly res idence, but there are actual ly five ~`ast-food restaurants plus Carrows. He steted they have had ter~ible traffic and noise problems in tht area and with the neyw Wendy's~ which is two-thirds completed~ the medical building, etc,, there is no more room for paricing, and there would be add(tlonal probl~ms with cars racing a~ound at 2:00 a.m. He felt there is too much commercial in the area and the request shouid be turned down bec~use of potential noise, light, and parking probiems. 7/ 17/78 .- ~ ' MINUTES~ 11NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 1978 18-586 Elk CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 AND CONOfT10MAL USE PERMI_T NO_ 1$6? (continued) Mr. Fa~ano stated tl~e st+~ff report indtcot~s thc request is to convurt en axtsting rostaurant~ but that there arc na physical changes propos~:d, lie stated the petitioner would bo willing to accept any stlpulations the Commi~s~on wishes to impose; that the nature of this business will nc~t cl~anye at all and will be tunducted ln the seme manner a~s it is presently being conducted under the dinne r denc~ permit. He stated there are no parking problems at the present time and tl~elr parklny exceeds code by two spaces and the grantin~~ of thls request would have no i119effects on the surroundfn,y area. Nhavin~eanthe only way t~ limtt ar control thase nnterln tl~ta b~s~ness est~blishment ts by edmisslon charge. TNE PUULlG HCARINf. W/t5 CLOSED. had been contacted Gommissl~ner David asked Mr. FarAn~ if the Katella fteAlty ne(~~hbor~ ~ an~i 11r. Farano rcplted t1~At he had talked wlth Mr. Burchett~ explaintny thc request to charye an admission fee at this est~+blishmcnt and th~y knvw vet~icles use Katclla Reslty'S parking~ but thot does not mcan tl~eir parkinc~ lot Is full. 11e stated Mr. Burchett's response was that he knrn~s they are us l n!; thc park f n~~ lot and di d not th i nk they shoul d be us!ng It wi th4ut Katcl l~~ Re~~ty being reimbursed. He stated tl~cy c~uld ~~et together and work out an arrangernent or they co uld put a fence around the rraperty. Ne stated th~ hours of operation are not conslstent with Katella Rcalty's hours~ but they do have tha lunch traffic since they sprve food, but there are no larye crowds at noon. Chairman Pro Tempore Barnes aske~l the hours of aperation~ with Mr. Farano replyiny tlie hours would be Monday from 4:OQ p.~». to 2:00 a.m.~ Tuesday throu~ah Thursday 11;00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.~ and Saturday and Sunday 1~:00 ~.m, to 2:00 a.m.~ and that the occupancy would be 13Q persans. ([ was noted that the Planniny Ulrector or his authorized represcntative has determined that the proposed proJect falis within the definitton of Categorical Exemptians~ Class 1, as deflned in parayraph 2 r~f the C(ty of Maheirn Environmental Impact P.eport Guideiines and ts~ therefore~ categorlcally exempt frorn the requirement to prepare an EIR. AC710N: Commissfoner Devid offered Resolution Na. PC78-if+F and moved for its pASSage and ac~o~pi~on~ that the Anaheim f.ity Planning Cornmission dcyes hereby grant Petition for Conditional Use Perm(t No. 1b62 oR the basis [i~af charging an admission fee wauld probably contr~l Lhe agc and numbPr of ~a[~ons and would benefit thc surrounding arca aiid bu~inesses~ subjett to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregotng resolutfon was passed by the f~llowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONCRS: BARNCS~ DAVID, LINN~ TOLAR NUES; COMMISSIONERS: JOtiNSON ABSEI~T; COMI115SIOt1ERS: FIkRBST, KING Chairman F'ro Tempore garnes polnteJ out to Mr. Griffin that his comments had been considered, but becauxe the operation could continue exactly as it Is currently operating~ ttiat maybe charging an admission f~e would help eliminate some of the traffic and parking problems. Commissioner Jotinson stated since this is the CL Zone ana a cc~~ditional use perm~ requlred to establish a restaurant with on-sale beer and wine, he wondcred haw they . c1d set up a dance hall operation. 7/17/78 .~• ~~f MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLJINNING COMMISSION~ JUIY 17~ 1978 78-581 Elk CATEGORICAL EXE1~ TION-CLASS 1 AND CONOITIONAL USt PER,MIT N0. 1862 (conti~iued) ..__._._..__ Jack 4lhtt~~ Deputy City Atto rney~ explalned they have s dinne~-dance permit (ssued by thQ Clty Councll and one of thn restrictions (s thet there c~n be no admisslon cherge; that the dancing has tu be In conJunction witli e bona tlde restaurant with 25$ of the flaor area devoted to kitchcn space end tf~ere I~es to ba live entertoinm~nt. Canmissioner Johnsan (ndicated he did not support thls request because of the obJections of the nelghbors~ but hopad chargtny an admisslon fce would help allcviate some of the problems~ and also reflected his feelings that the petltianer had ccxne in throuyh tha back dpor by callinr~ the business anu;t~er name and obtetning City Council ap~roval. Chelrtnan Pro Tempo~e Barne~ •.t~ted she: h~d been in the vici~ity of the establishrne~nt latA in the evening after 10:3~~ p.~~. on Sunday end from thc autside she could not hear any noise and the parkinq dIJ not seem to be a problem. COMI~ISSIOI~ER KING RETURNL'U TO TIiE COUttCIL CII/1MBER. 1 ITEM N0. 16 FUBLIC IiEARINC. OWNERS: DANNY L. KIKER~ ET AL~ EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 b 3 770 North East Street~ Anahelm~ CA 92a05. WAIV~R OF CODE E~UIREMENT Petitioner requests permission to EXPAND A SERVICE CON~~ YTb~L S M . 13G3 STATION WITH WAIVER AF MINIMUM LANDSCAPEU AREA on property described as a rectangulerly~shaped parcel of land conststing of approxtmately 0.; acre located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue end East Str~eet~ having epproxtmate frontages of 17U feet on the south sidc of La Pelrna Avenue and 1J0 feet on the east sicie of East Street. ar~d further described as I7() North East Streei. Prop~rty presently ciassified RS-7200 (RESIDEr~TIAI, SINGIE-FN~iLY) ZONE. Tiiere was no one inJicatiny their presence in opposition to sub)ect request~ and although the staff report to the Plann(ng Gommisslon ~ated July 17~ 197`; wss nac read et the publlc hearing~ it is referred ICO and m.adc a part of the minutes. Dan Kiker~ owner~ indicated he ~ould itke a waiver of the minimurn landscaped area requirement far onr. planter area whlch is near the two isia~ds and that in order to have enough roam for the plan[er~ he would have to movc thr (slands and aftNr the rGmodeting Is fintshed~ there will be quite a bit of iandscaping and the appearance will be impraved. He referred [o the stateme:nt in the staFf report concerning the determination as t~ whether or not the prima ry use is a servi~e station or an automobile repair facillty and pointed out that prior to construction work going on La Palma Avenue wlth the storm drain irstaliat(on, e[c.. he wAS pumping 70~00~ gallons of gasoiine a month~ which wauld average ~ gallons per custome~~ with 300 ~gas customers per day, but he has lost about 40~000 gallons per month during the construction wo~k. He stated if he doubied Che average qf 10 cars per day for repatr work, there still would not be a traffic p~oblem. He stated they are doing a lot of landscapiny on the sit~. but not in the locations requi~ed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was not~d that the Planniny Director or his authorized rep~esentative has determined thet the proposed proJect falis within the definition of Categori~al Exemptions, Classes 1 and 3, as defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Env ~ nmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore~ categorically er.~mpt f rom the ~equirement to prepare an EIR. 1/11/78 Y~ ~ r MINUTES' AIWIiEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 1~~ 1978 78-588 E 1 R CAT~GORI CAL EXEIIPT ION•CI.ASSES 1 b 3 ANG COND I TI bNAI USE. PE RM 1 T N0. 1863 (cant I nued) ~~. ACTION: Commissionar Johnson offered a rnatlon~ sec~nded by Cortm,Issioner Devtd a~d MOTION CA-RRIEU (c:ammisslone~ H~rbst being abse~t), that the Anat~e(m City Plahntng Canmtssion daes hereby yrant th~ request for walver of mintmum lAndsca~ed area requtrement on the besls that aqual landsc;epiny will be provid~d elscwhere on the site. Commisstoner Johnson offered Resolutlon No. PG7:i-1G~f and ,noved for its pessa~e and ad4ption~ Lhat the Anahelm City Plenning Commissi~n d~cs hereby grant Petttion for Conditiona) Use Pe~mit Nu. 1$G3~ subJect to Interdepartmentel Commietee recomrrrndations. On roll call~ th~ foragotnq rrsolutlon was passed by the follow(ng vote: AYES: C011MISSIONLRS: DAiiN(:S~ DAVIU. JOt1NSON~ KI-1G~ LINN, TOLAk NOk~S: GOMMISSIONkRS: NOI~E Af~SEP~T: COMIIISSIONERS: NER~ST ITEM N0. 17 PUfsLIC 11E~RING. OWNERS; D/1N SIIOZI ~ ET AL~ 8370 EIR~NLC~11rIVE DECLARATION Co-m~anwealth Avenue, f~uena Park, CA 9GG20. AGE~~T: R 0 E E U REMEIITS PAC 1 F I C 7ELEPHONE b TELEGRAPH CAMPA~IY ~ F. 0. Box 52~~ ~ ~OTU I ~~t_Tl'f~0. 1~6~ Ssn Dicgo~ CA `~211?. Pet(tloncr rcquests p~rmission to ESTl~E3LISH OUTUOQR STORAGf: OF LARGE EQUIPMENTS WITN WAIVFR OF (A) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGNT ANU (B) PERMITTED ENCROACNMENT INTO REQUIREU SET~AGK or~ property descrlbed as an irreyulArly-sl~aped pa~cal of land consistiny of approxim~tcly 16.(, acres located at the northwest corner af Caronado Street and V~n Buren Strect~ tiaviny approximete frontages of 840 ftet on the north sids of Coronado Stree[ and 96; fcet on thc wr_st sldc of Yan f3uren Stre~t. Property presentiy classlf(ecl RS-A-4?~000 (RCSIOENTIAL/AfRICULTURA~) ZONE with a resolution of intent to the ML (INUUSTRIAL. LIMITEU) ZONE. There was no one indtcating their presence in onposition t~ subject requ~st. and alChough the staff report to Che Planning CommiSSion dated July 17, 1978 wes n~i read at the public hearing~ it ls referred to and made a pa~t of the minutes. Commissloner Kt~g declared to Chairman Pr~ Y~pQre Barnes tha~t he had a conflict ~f interest as deflncd by Anaheim Clty Pla~ning Commfssi~n Resolution No. PC7G-157~ adopting a Confllct of ~nterest Code for the Planning Commission~ and Government Code Section 3625 et seq.~ in that he owns stock in the Pacific Telephone Company and~ pursuant to p~ovisions af the above codes, he is hereby declaring to the Chalrman Pro Tempore that he was withdrawning from the hearing tn connection with Conditlonal Use Permit No. ~865 and would not take part in elther the discusSion or the voting thereon, and that he had not discussed this matter wtth any member of the Planniny Comm(sslon. Tt~EREUpON, COMM15510NER KIPlG LEFT TNE COU~~CIL CN~M4ER. Jay Teshiro~ Associate Planner~ pointed out a condition had been omitted in the Interdepartmental Committee recamn~endati~ns requiring that Rwclassification No. 65-66-24 be f(nalized. He pointed out the proposed proJ~ct had been cvaluated under the industrial zone. 8111 Watts, representing Pacific Telephone Company~ agent~ ind(cated he was present to answer a~y questtons and A~Sn other representatives were avAilable to answer questlons. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 1/11/78 ~ .._..~... . ., , . ~` ~ MINUTES~ Af~AHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMNISSIUN~ JULY 17~ 1~78 78-589 EIR NEGATIVE UECIARATION AND CONDIT1UNAl USE PERMIT N0. ifSby (conYinued) Conxnissioner Tolar stated the Planninc~ Commissinn has tried to s~e that lanrisceping~ the p~oper setbacks~ enJ r~o perking In fr~nt of the structures in the industr(al nrees are carrted out; thnt this parcel has G.4 acres and the plan shows perki~g for empl~yees, tower trutks and otfier equipment in front of thc bulldtng and he felt with this much area moro lendscapiny could be provlded and ~quiprtw~nt parked In the b~eck of the building. He xteted this proJect would be an Improvement for Coronodo Street~ but In looktng at other (ndustrta) s(tes with th(s mucli areo, he felt the petitloner could nccomplfsh the same type of development. Mr. Wotcs repl(cd chis plan was laid out by experts to promote efficiency wlt'.in the conftnes of the operatir~n (tself; that the waret~ousin~3 {s locoted so that surplies are readlly available, etc. Cammissloner Tolar atated tt~ere are otlier peopie (n the area who have asked for storage In front of their operatians~ buc that the Planc~ing Commission required aii equipment to be parked in the rear; tl~at parkinq has been ailava~i in Che frUnt af the struccures for err~loyccs~ but na cyuinment of Chls type has becn allowed. Mr. Watts stated he did not th(nk there is a compar.~ble facillty to this in the ar~a; that this use is permitted (n th(s zone and a cond(t(onal use permit is ~equtrsd bece~use there is a gray area as to whetlzer or not the vans and tcxvsr trucks would constitute ~utd~or storaqe. Commissioner 7olar stated he has no Nroblem witt~ tliis use~ only wtth the plan itself and the parking of vans~ tower trucl;s, etc. in front of the bu(ldiny since th~s has not been allc~wed in this area~ and referreJ to Autonetics~ Rockwell~ etc.. pointing out they are satisfled with their development, and the Planntnq Commissiortfias rectived a tremendous amount of input from them i-idic~cing this is a nice industrial area. He tndicateA he did not think this would help the surrounding area to develop the way it ls expected to develop. and he felt the parking should be behind the buildiny. Mr. Watts stated there had been scxne question as to whef.her or not these vehicles would be considered outdoar stora~e and staff had suygested a variance be requested t+nd referred to a neurby facility with employee parking in front, noting that vans wo~ld be the same as employee vehicles. Hc felt this plan~ whicl~ was submitted after muci~ review~ offers the greatest effic(ency for titi(s type o~eration and felt it is a viable plan with the screening and slattiny pro~osed. Chai~man Pro Tempore Barnes stated this is a very cor~cise pl~n and is probably one of the b~sk plans the Planning Commission has scen and shows ~ow evcrything is to be located, and the Planning Commission is very excited to have this operation in Anaheim, but she agreed with Comm(ssioner 7olar and stated although Coronado Street is undeveloped across the street and alony Van Buren~ the Planning Comrtiission is try(ng to attract this k~nd of industt'y ta this area, and the build(ng to the west was requireci to meet t;~ese requirements and she felt the storage of vehicles should be in back of the structure. Mr. Timothy Mead~ archttect with GPRA, Santa Ana~ stated this is the most functional plan that could be provided and~ as the Commiss(on deslred, they liad proposed all yard storage behlnd the screening so visibility is not a p~oblem. He stated the fact there is a bullding on the stte is almast ~n inr.idental probiem to yard sto~age and if the building were not there, there would not be a question of where to put the storage; that they would have ta disagree that since there is a building~ it belongs in front. 7/17/78 ~ •1 MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 1978 78-59Q EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU ~ONUITIONAL USE PEaMl7 N0. 1~65 (contlnued) Commissloner Tola~ Indlcated he did ~at ca~e whether Chere was a bu(1dtnA or not~ hut In this area thick landscap(ng w'ith proper setbacks Is generally rsquire~~ with employee parking only sllawed in front of the structure. He felt en industrla) user coming down the street should not bc able to sQe towe~ trucks~ vans ~nd ather equlpment that should be hiddsn and polnted out cars would be hidden witt~ lrndscaplnc~ of th(s height~ but the tsller equlpment woutd not be hidden. Ile felt the bulldin~ could be moved ~nd parking providcd bchtnd the building. Commissirn~er Llnn pointed out there is an encroachrnent her~ and he would not vote for it unlcss the petitione~ is willlny to i~x~ve the butlding. Conxnlssloner Johnson oslced st~ff about the encro~~chment, ~~~c~ Jny Tash(ro pnlnted out Coronado is a collector screet and the 25-foot setbaclc is requlred, of wl~ich 10 feet would havc to be landscape~. Chalrmmn Pro Tempore ~arnes indicated she realized this pr~bably was the best functlona) design avallable and thc Planniny Conxniss(on is saying they do not likc it. Mr. Mcad stated he was sure it was their duty ta try ta please eveyone and they would be happy to try and da that (f the Plannln~ Commission would like to grant a contlnuance. ACTIOtI: Commissioner Johnson offereci a motion~ seconded by Commiss(on~r David and MOTION CA~R ED (Commissioner Herbst belny absent) ~ tl~at consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 186; be continued to the reyular meeting of the Anaheim C(ty Planning Cumn(sslon on July 31, 1978~ as requcsted by the pet~tio~er. Commlssioner Tolar potnted out he is not opposed to this usc. Just to the deslgn of the plan. Chairman Pro Tempore Barnes ind(cated if there is no other way to design chls proJect t~ make it Just as functional witli storage of th~ tawer trucks and equipment in the rear rather than in the fronr~ stie would like to see the logic behind that so it would help her make a decislon. Commissioner Johnson indicated it was hfs opinion the problem here is Che restricted area where there should be lan~scaping and the request is encroaching into that area, and if there is an encroachment~ ic should be with so,nething palatablr~ and the Pla~ning Commission would not want the petitioner to encroach with something that Is not palatable. Mr. Watts ~sked if tt would be acceptable to have th~ vans parked in front without the tower trucks since that seems to be the main problem. ~inting out there are employees parking vans ad,jacent to this s!te. Gommlgsioner Tolar askeci the w(dth of the landscaping~ with Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning~ replying the requlrement is 10 feet and the setback is 25 feet~ and tlie chalnlink fence sh~uld be at the 25-fout tine and the storage area should be behind the 25 feet and it is locatecl at 10 feet~ and the landscaping is provided. Comm(ssioner Oavid pointed uut maybe the problem is with the tower t~ucks and the Planning Commission's thinking this would appear as outdoor storage~ and pointed out they would be out during the day. 7/17/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ JULY 17~ 1~78 76-591 EIR NEGNTIV~, DECLARATION AND CONQITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 18G5 (conti~ued) Annika Santalahtl pointed out gener~lly vehtCies are consldered Fs tha normal conveyance far people and somehow towEr trucks d(d not seem t.~ bc a regular vehicle. Commissto~ar Toter suggostc:d that the petltione~ teke a ioak at porking all equipment tn the bsck somawhere so th~t if somebody wei~t by~ he would rn~t soc a lot of equ(pment p~rkcd at the facility~ and t~e d{d nat feel a 1~-foot landscaped buffer woulci hlde tower trucks~ bnd potnted out he wauld iike tn sec something aesthetlcally pieasing f4r che Industria) pa~k and suggested moving the tow~r trucks end othcr equipment to the rear~ and mayba that would be thn only chanye thcy would hevc to make and the Plenning Gommisslon mA~ tind that ecceptable; that he Is not saying to reJo the whol~ thinca~ but tf they could move somc of the la~ger rquipment~ pertfculerly tlie larycer trucl.s, somewh~re whcre lt would not bc seen~ maybe thc vans would be alla~red bel~ind tl~e !Andsc,~~tnn, Mr. Watts polnted out nx~st ~~f the bigger equl~ment is located In the back for functlonal reASOns~ anJ the tower trucks are iiut muchi hlgher than the normal vehicles. CO M 1 SS t ONER KI NG RETURNED TO TNE COUI~C I L CH~'~UER. ITEM NQ. 1J3 PUBLIC HEARING. 041NER: STANLEY JOI~N BETZ~ 5291 Paol l ~TEGORI CAL EXCMPT 10~1-CLASS 1 uay ~ lang Eiesch, CA ~O+i~?. AGENT : FEt~DCR BENDER. I NC. ~ WA VER F CODE REQUIREMENT 153~ West Broaciway. An~heim, CA !32802. Peti[loner COPIDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. I~~E~7 rc:quests pcrmiss ton to ESTABLISN AN 11UT0 BODY ~Np PAI~JT SIiOP WI T~I WAi VER OF M1lX 1 MUN AREA OF WALL S I~N on property descr(bed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of iand consist(ng of approximately 0.3 acre havtnc~ a frantage of appr~ximately 60 feet on the north siJe of eroadvay, liaving a max(mum depth of approximately 1$; feet, bcing located approxirnately 83& fcet east. of the centerllne of Loar~ S*.reet~ and further described as 1531 West droadway. Pro~erty presently classified ML (IN~USTR.IAL, LIMITEU) ZOtJE. There was no one indicating their presence +n opposition to subject ~equest, an~l although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 17, 1'aJt3 was not reod at the public hearl~g, i t is referreJ to an~i maJe a part of the min~~tes. Dan ~lanch~ ~gent, indicated he had invested a considerabls amount of money In beautifying his location~ including the loyq and smaller sign that says "Paint and Body Shop," and he would like to be abl~ to keep tt~e logo. TH~ PUBLIC NEAfiING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King incJicated he did not think the sign was harminy hts neighbors since the building is set back 57 rteet~ and that a siyn was granted for Pcpper Tree Faire in the same area. Corrn~issioner Tolar indicated he felt this was probably one of the nicest places in Lhe area, the only one with the landscaptng taken care of~ and if oLher businesses would do as well, the Planning Commission would probably b~ more receptive to more signing. Commissioner David a~ked if the~e was any ca~nectlon wtth Fender Bender•, Inc. on Central Park, and Mr. Blanch replied only that they have a lawsuit ayainst them; ttiat they were Incorporated two r~nd onc-half years ago, ~i ~ ~i~a ~ M111U7ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 1J~ 1978 78-592 E1R C~ ATEGORIC11l. EXEMPTION•CLASS 1 ANU CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO,L 18G7 (continucd) It was n~ted that the Planning Diroctor or his authorizcd representet(ve has determinecf that tho proposed p roJect felis wlthin the definitton of Ceteqortce- Ex~mpttons~ Ctess i~ as defined I~ pareoreph 2 af the Gity of Anahnim Envlronrnentnl Impect Report GutdellnQs and is, thn~efore~ cateyoricnlly exompt from the requlrement Gu prepere dn EIR. AC710N: Commisslaner King ~ffered A mc.tion~ scc~nded by Cmmiissioner DaviJ end MOTION CARRIEp (Cornmissl~~er Ne,rhst betng Absent and Comm(ssioner Johnson voting na)~ that the r~quest f~r w~iver of minimum area of wsil sl~n bn granted on ti~e basls that den(al would bc depriving a privllegc grantcd to ~thers in the area. Commissioner Kin,y offered Resolutfon ~lo, Pi,7Ei-1J~i end moved for its passnge and ~doption~ that thc n~~r~~im Cicy 1'la~ni~r, ~omnlssloi~ d~es t~~:ref,y ~~rant 1'eticlon for Condltlonal Use Permlt No. 1~3G7~ s~ibJect to Interde~~artmente) Committee recommendations, On roll cAl l~ the f~r~~~oln~~ resol~.itlon w~s ~asse~i by the foll~K~in~~ votet AYCS: C011HISSIO~JERS: E3ARNk:S, DAVIU, JOIiNSOrI~ KING~ IIiIN~ TOIAR NOES: CQMM15510NER5: NONE A(3SENT; CQMMI SS IONE.KS : IILRtiST ITEN N0. 11 PUt3LIC HEARIP~G. OWIILR; D~ U DEVELOPMENT COMPANY~ E~~R CA~~ ftICAL EX~MPTIOPI-LLASS 11 1100f; Norwfllk 9oulevard~ Sant+~ Fe Springs~ CA ~l06JQ. RIIINCE N0, 3U29 Petitloner r~qucsts WAlil[,R OF NAXIMUM NEICHT QF A FREE-STANDING SIGN Tn COI~STRUCT A FREE-STANDING SIG~~ on property ciescr(bed as an frrec~ularly-shaped parce) ~f land consisting of epproximately I.0 acre havin~~ a f mntage of .ipproximately 146 feet on the south side of Ora~~gewood Avr.nuc~ havtng a n~aximum depth of approximately 415 feet~ being located approximatcly 20, feet west of thc centerline of Harbor t3oulevard~ and fu~ther described as 620 West Orangewood Avenue. P~operty presently class(fied CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONl:. It was noted the applicant was not present and it was tha gene~al tonsensus of the Planning Commissicm thar. the matter should be tabled. ACTION: Commissloner King nffered a motlon, secandcJ by Commissioner Linn and MOTIOFI CARR1~0 (Commissianer Herbst being abaent)~ that consideration of Variance No. 3429 be continued to the regular mcettng of the Anal~eim Ctty Planntng Cortmission on July 31, 197$~ in order for the petltioner to be Fresent. 7/17/78 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANNiEIM CITY PLItNNING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 1~~8 1~-593 ITEM N0. i ~pQ~7_ D RLCOMMENUATIONS A. C~IJDITIONAL USE PERMIT Np. 4b6 - Rtquest for termtnatian. The staff report to the Planniny Corrmission dat~d July 17~ 1y7L was presented~ notiny sub,~ect property (s a rectanyularly-shaped parcel of land cnnsistin~ of approx(mately 0.~ acre loceted ~at the southeast corner of flroaciway a~cl 1lnahe(m aoulevard~ havtng appr~xi-rbte frontsges of 90 fcet on tl~c so~tli side of Broadwey and 135 fc~t on the east s{de of Anaheim doulevard; that thc applicant (Rtchard li. Bingham~ Dank of M~crica) rcquasts terminatfon of Conditional Use Perm(t No. 48G {to construct nea. servicr. statl~n facilities on tl~e exiattny swrvicP sCat~~n) which was app~oved by the Plenning CormiSSion on September 30, 1963; and that Condillonal Use Permit No. 184~ (to ex~and an eutomoblle sales agnncy on subJect ~+roperty) wds yranted by the Planniny Cortmiss(on on June 19~ 191II~ anJ one uf the conditions of approval was that thc property awner submit a reGuest for tarminatton of Condittonal Usc Perrtiit No. 4~;G~ and said letter has becn submitteci. ACTION: Commissioner Talar offered Resolutton No. PC7F~,-171 and moved for its passage and a7coptTon~ thet the Anaheim City Plann(ny Commissinn does hcret,y grant tf~e request for termtnati~n of Conditional Use Permit I~o. ~~tsb, On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follcri~inq vote: AYES: COMNISSIONERS~ [3ARtiES~ D/1VIU, JOIfN5011, KING~ LINII~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSEIJT: COh1M15SI0NERS: NEf~sST B. VARIANCE N0. 2720 - Request for termination. The staff ~eport [o the Planning Comn(ssion dated July 21~ 1~78 was presented. notfng subJect property is an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land consistlnc~ of approximaiely 0.3 acre located at the southeast corner of La f'alma AvenuG and Narbor Boulevard; that the applicant (Joseph M. and Mary M. Anton~ property a~wners) requests terminatian of Va~iance No. 2720; that subject variance was approved, In part, by the Planning Commission on August G~ 1975t that on May $~ ~972, the Pl~nning Corrmission granted Conditlonal Use Permit No. 1Z29 ~to permit a tire sales and installation facility) and one of the conditions of approval was the requirement that the property owner submit a l~tter requesting termir~aCion of Varlance No. 2720~ and said letter has becn submitted. ACTION: Comnisstoner David offered Resolutio~ No. PC78-172 and mnved for its passage and a opt on~ that the Anahetm Glty Planning Commission cioes h~reby grant the request for termination of ilari~~nce Na. 272~. 0~ roll call~ t~e foregoing resolution was passed by the followtng vote: AYES: CONMISSIONERS: BARt1E5~ DAVID~ JOIINSON~ Y.It~G~ LIiVt~~ TOIAR NOCS: COMMISSIONERS: NO~~E ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: tiERBST 7/17/78 ~ ~'e MINUTE~~ ANANEIM CITY PLA-JNING CQMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 197$ 7~~594 C. CONDITIONAL USE PEFIMI~f N0. 1567 - Request for tC~inlnAtlO~. Tho sta~ff report to the Planning Comnissicm dated July 17~ 1978 was presented~ nottng subJect property is en Irregul~rly-shaped parcet of land c~nsisting of approximately 21 acres locatcd on the south sidc of la Palma Avenue betwcen Whito StAr Avenue and Armando Streat~ heviny approximate frontag~s af 14~8 fe~t an thc south s(de of Le Palm~ Avenue~~ 13$2 feet on the cast side of Whlte Star Avenue~ and ~(10 feet on the west side of Arr~b~do Street; thot thr. applic!~nt (Richard A. Droadvtay of I.P.S.) requests termination of sub)ect conditl~nal uae pcrmlt (to per~it outo sales agencies and lots with walvers of front setback and requiretl s(te screening) wtitcli was approved by thr. Planning Comnisslon on Septcmbcr 29~ 1975; that tl,e City Counci) appraved Conditional Use Permit No. 1831 (ta permlt a reste~rant ancl co~,un~rcial us~s In a proposed Industrial complex on subJoct property) un June 1~~ 191~~ and onc of thc conditions of approval wa~ chat the property owner submlt a Ietter I'~~tN!ctinn t~+rminatton of Conditlona) ~se Pprmit No. 1567. and said letter hes been submltted. ACTIOtJ: Commisslc~ner Johnson offered Resolution ~~o. P~:7$-173 anci moved for its passage and adoptlon, that the Anaheim City Planning Conrn(ssio~, does hcreby ~~ra~nt the requcst for terminatton of Conditional Use Permit No, 1~GJ, On roll cal1~ the foreqaing resolu[ion was passed by the follc„~ing vote: AYCS: COI~MISSIONCRS: 9ARI~ES, DI1V1D~ JUIiNSOt~, KING~ LINI~~ TQLAR NOES: COMMISSIONEftS: NOI~C A13SENT: C011M1 SS IUP~ERS : IIERf35T D. CONDITICl~AL USE PE.RPIIT NC. 1~71 - Re~~uest f~r extensinn of timc. - The staff repart Lo the Planning Comm(sslon dated Jul~• 17, 1~JE was presented, noting subject property is a rectangularly-shapcd parcr_) of lan:i consistin3 of approximately 1.1 acres locat~d at the northeast carner of La Palma Avenue and AcacleStreet~ having approximate fronta~~es af 2~2 feet on the north side c~f La Palma Avenue and 169 fe~et on the east side of Acacia Street; that tt~e applicant (Williarn R. and Barbara L. Whitla~ awners) requsst a two-year extension c~f time fo> Conditional Use Permit No. 1b71 (to permit on- sale b~er and wine in an existing restaurant) whic`~ wa:: approvecf by the Planning Commission on Decernber G, 1976~ that approval was ~~ranied subJect to the follawing conditions: a) that tl~is conditlonal u5e perrnit shail be qranted for a period of two years~ subj~ct to revic.~w and consideration for possibie time extensions by the Planning Camnissian upon written rec~uest by the petitioner; h) that the SAIe of beer and wine shall be in ~onJunction witt~ *_he servi;ig of ineals only; and c) that the hours of operation shall be from 1Q:00 a.m, to 9:00 p.m.; and that nr~ previous extensi~ns of t(me have been reques ted. ACTIOt~: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissio~er Tolar and MO?10~: ARR EU (Gommissioner Herbst beinq absent)~ that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Cc~mnissinn does hereby graryt the request for an extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 1671, to expire December 6~ 1g80. 7/17/7a ,~~' MINUTES, ANA';~IM C'TY PLA~INING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ ~~7~ 78'S95 ~. RECIASSIFICATIQN N0. 72-73-51L~7) - Re~u~,st for app~nvel of apeciPlc plans. Thc_rtrff report to the Plan~tng Commtsslon deted July 11~ 1~73 was prese~ted~ noting subjoct proparty is an irresgularly-shaped parcel ~f land consistinc~ oF ~prroximately 1Q.2 acres heving a fro~tage of approximately 1~2n feet on the north and east sides af Country Nill Road~ having a maximum depth of approxim+~taly 120Q fect~ and beiny locoted approximately 11;U feet south ~f thc cen[arltne of Mohler• Drive; that tha apptlcant (Lrrry E~ :eens, Shamrock Cantrnctors~ Inc.) ~equestt a~P~oval of srecific floar plans and elovations; that Tentative Map ~f Tract No. 10167 (to establish a 15-lot~ RS-HS-22~000(SC) subdivialon) was appraved by the Clty Council on Feb~uary 14~ 197~. ~ai~~+~ng thc rsc~rtmendatlon for approval by the P1an~Ing Commission; that Reclasslficatlon No. /~-73~51 was approved by the City C~uncil on June 2G~ 1973~ following the recommendatlon fo.• approvat b~~ the Planning Commisgion whlch included the condltiun that prior to thn ad~pti~n of an ordinance reclassifying tf~e proper~y or prior to the approvA) of the finAl tract map~ wh(chever occurs last, floor plans and elevatlon~ for the prupc-se~1 houses ^,ha~~ be submitted to and approvc~i by ti~e CiCy ~lanning Cortmission a~~~1 ih~ CiCy Councll; tliet the appllcant has submitied floor plans r~nd elevati~ns for custom hort~es lo be conttr~cted on Lots 1 through 12; th~t a ne~ative declaration was approveJ by thc City Council an February 1A, 1~7f~. It was noted thc: Hill and Cany~n Mun(cipA) Adviso ry Camnittee (Nnc-~ncl had reviewed the above p~o~osal on June 27~ 1~7II~ and with five members present~ votcd unanimously to recommend apprnval of spec(fic plans for Tentative Tr~ct ~ao. 10167 for Lots 1 through 12. ACTION: Comm(ssioner Kiny offered a motior~, seconde~i hy Cor~xnission~r Tolar and MOTION CARittEO (Conrnissioner Ifsrbst beiny absent) ~ ttia= the Anaheirn Clty Planning Comnission does he~e+by recommend to the C(ty Council that specific flcx~r and elevation plans fot Lots 1 through 12 of Tentativc Tract N~. i~1G7 be approvec!. F. AE3AN[~r~MEt1T N0. 77-2GA - Request to aband~n existing publlc utility easements nurt-"'" h~L,ncc~~r~ Avenu~~ east af E3rookhurst StrPet. The staff report to the Pianning Commissfon dateJ July 17, 197~'~vas presenced~ notlny sub,ject request (s to abandon existing ~ublic utility easements located north of Lincoln Avenue, east of ~rookhurst Strcet; that the reGuest has becn revlewed by all departments of the Gity and affected outslde ag~ncies and approval is recomrnended; that the subject easements arc former Edison Campany easemcnts acquired by the City at the time of acquisition of Edtson Company facilities; that the Electrical Division of the City indicates there are no existing electrical facilities in said easement areas nor a~e there any contemplateci nvw or in the future; an~ that an e~vironmer.tal ~evle~e of the ~equPSt indicates this Yo ~e categorically exempt fran the requlre+~nt to file an EIR. qCTION: Commissioner David offered a mntion~ second~ed by Commissipne~ Johnson and M0710N CARRIED (Cornnissioner Nerbst being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does hereby recongnend to the City Council that Abandonment No. 77~2GA be yranted. ~~ i ~iya ,i MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PLANI~ING COMMISSION~ JULY 17~ 1~78 i~"596 G. A(iAN00NME-~T N0. 77-2'~ - Request to abandon public utlllty and water llne ease ients And e~n cqucstrtan nnd hlking easement ir~ Tract No. 9524 lucatod sautheastcrly of yantA Ana Canyon RoAd~ c~st of Mo~ta~ncra Road~ north of Vla Arbolos. The statf ~epc~rt to the Planning Commisslon lated Ju1y 17~ 197fj was presented~ oting the request to abendon an existing public ut(lity ~nd wster line eesemants end sn equestrian and hiking easement, all (n Troct No. 9a?.A located sUUtheASterly of Santa Ana Canyan Road~ nast of Montanera~ north uf Vla Arboles; that tf,e rr_nuest has bee~ r~vlewed by all departments of ehe City and affected outslde ahencies~ and approval is recomnended; that the public utiltty and equestrien and h(I.inc~ easements were ~fedlcated to the C(ty via recordatlon of Tract Na. ;24; that the water line easement Is ~~+n old easenxnt a~evlously acqu~ red by the Ci ty to prnvide water service tc~ this ~rea; ond that the w~ter 1 ines hava been relocated withln thr dedicated ~treets in Tract No. yS~l+. therefor~~ the old water {ine casemcnt is nn I~~nqer needed; and that thr utility easements ~1~~1(r_~tCd viA Tract No. 9521, are no lonaer needed due to the de~l~n of electrtcal f~ciltties in Tract No. 9524. In acldi liun~ tl~c ~s~~ucslrlan an~l li(4.iny ~ascin~nt lacatc~.1 in Lot 1G ~f '~ act t~o. ~;2~~ was prroneously d~dicated, therefare~ abandonr~ent of same ls reco~n-ende~i~ and an envlronmental review of this request in~lfcates this ta be cAtey~aricilly exempc frcxn t~~~~ requlrement of the fi 1 ing of An Elft. Chalrr~an Pm Tem~rr. Barnes (nJlcated her concern re~~nrdinu the ahandonment of the equ~strian and Itiikiny e,asement ~nd asked furcher tnf~~rr~tion ~~rlor to vo[ing on this request. ACTIQN: Comm(ssioner Tolar off~red a motion, secanded by Conmissioncr i(tng and MOTIQN C~t I~U (Commissioner Nerbst being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Pl~~nn(ng Commission does hereby rccoiMnend to the C i ty Gounc i 1 that t1~e re~~ucs e to abandon the pub 1 i c ut i 1 i ty and water Ilne easert-ents be approved for Abandonment t~o. 77-13A~ and that nbandonmen~ of the eyuestrian an4 hikiny cas~.n~ent in Tract No. 952~+ bc ccmtinucJ for furthcr informatton to the next regularly-schecluled Planniny Commission r.~etfnq c~f July 31, 19%8, N. CONDITtONAL USE PER111T N0. 1037 -.".eque~t for terminat~on. The staff repnrt to the Planning Comnissicm dated Jul~~ 17~ 197ii was prescnYed, noting subject property is a rectangularty-shaped parr.el of land consisting of approximately ~.S acre having a frontage of approxirt~ately 133 feet un tl~P ea~t side or I~arbor Boulevard, having a maxi~un~ depth of approximately 20) feet, and being located approxfrnately 395 feet south of the: centerline of Orangewood -.~~enue; that the applicant (Leonard G. Muskin ar~d Donald T. Leahy) requests tsrmination of Conditfonal Ust Permit Plo. 1~97 (to permit a semi-encl~sed restau~ant with waiver of helght of the base of a free-standinq sign) which was approved by the Planning Commisslon on January 13~ tg69; and that on Jun~ 5, 1975, the Planning Commission a~prov~d Condltional Use P~rmit No. 1839 (to permit a~ automobile rental agency on subJect pr~perty) subJect to >he conditlon that thP property owner submit a letter requesting term(nation of Conditional Use Permit No. 1087~ and said letter has been received. ACTION: Cortxnissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC78-174 and moved for its passaqe and ~tTan~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant the request for terminatfon of Conditiunal Use °ermit FIQ. 1087. 7/17/78 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAMNING COMMISSION, JULY 17~ 1978 78-597 I TC1~ Fi (cont I nued) On roll call~ the foreyoing rosalutiun was passeci hy ttie following vote: AYES: CONMISSIUNEkS: BARNES~ DAVIf)~ JUIiN50N~ KING~ LINN, TOLAa NOES : COMMI SS I OI~ERS: NdNE AUSENT: CONMISSI~NERS: NERBST. I. EIR REVILW PROCEDURES - STl1TE:MENT OF QVEItRIDING CONSIDERA710NS it was notec! the P1Anntnri C~mmlasE~n haa receiveJ and re~d the staff rep~rt dAted July 17- 19/~i, a~~d does hernby ac~ree wi th the recommendat ic~ns. J. RECLASSIFiCATION NU. 1l-18'~7 1~~~U VARIANCE N0. 2')95 - Reyucsi for approval of rev~sed l an. 7he staff raport to the Planninq Commission dated July 1J~ l~l7fs was presented~ noting :,ubjec: property is an irregul~rly-shaped parcel of land Consisting of approximately 3.0 acres located on thc east sidc of Euclid Street~ approxfrn~~tely 25i; fect south of tha canterline of Romneya Drivc; that the anplicant (Bob Mlchelsan~ Planninc~ Consultant) ~equests approval of the revised plan f~r Reclassitlcation N~. 77-7~~~~7; tl~at the subJect property (s currently vacant and is zoned CL under Reclassificatio~ No. 6~-7d'17 and Reclassificati~n N~. 77-%~-~~7 and Varta~ce No. 2~t~5 (waivers of minimurn building gite wldth and minimum buildinq slte area to construct a 3()-unit~ RM-4Q00 condominl~.im ccxnplex) were qranted March 13, i~)t~ by the Planning Coimnisslnn; thrt Condition No. 16 of Resolution F!o. PC7t3-42~ approving the reclassification~ specifled th~t the petitioner revisc the originally submitted plans to reverse tl~c project to provide a 2f~-foot wide access Jriveway along tfie south property line instr.ad of the north; and tF~at a revised plan has been submltted and the Planning Uepartment staff recommends tht Planninq Commission approve trie revised plan. ACTION: Commissioner Y.ing offpred a motion~ seconded by Gommissioner David and MOTION ~U (Commissloner Herbst being absent), that tlie Anaheim City Pl~nning C~mmission does hereby approve the revised s~te plan for Reclassification No. 77-7a-47 and Variance No. 2995• K. COtID1TI0~lAL USE PERMIT NUS. 1166 ANp 161~$ - Request for approval of ,evised p ans. The staff report to the Planning Comnission dated .luly 1), 1978 was presented~ noting subJect property consists of two parcels totaling U.9 acre in size~ being irregularly- shaped and located on the west sidc af Mountain Vt~r Avenue~ app~oximately 300 feet sauth of the centerline of Katella Way~ an~ on the south sid~ of Katella Way~ and further descrfbed as 3~n Katella Way and 1325 Mountain Ulew Avenue; that the ~roperty is currently zoned RS-A-43~000 aid CG; that a petitlon has beei filed for reclassification ~o the CL Zone on the RS-A-4s,~00 portlon; that adJacent ana nea~by properties to the no~th~ cast a~d south are zoned CI1, CL and RS-A-43~000, and several of the R5-A-43,000 parcels have resolutlons of intent to CL zonir.g; that the applicant (Michael L. Vale~~ President of The Town Tour Fun Bus Company. inc.) requests approval of the revised site plan for t!~e Fun 8us facility; tha; the Fun Bus terminal was originally established in conn~ctton with 1/17/7a ~' MINUTES~ AN~IEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 17~ 1978 ~$-598 I T~EM _K_ (cant i nund) Ca~dltlona) Use Parmtt No. 116G~ epproved by the Plennlnq Commisslon on J~nuary 21 197G~ to sllow bus storage and repatr f~ctlttias; and that Condtttonal Use Pormlt No. 16~+5 ts en expanston of the activity ellowed In connection with the preceding use permtt and waa approv~d by the Planning Cammtssi-~ o~ August iG~ 1q7G; and that both use permits sre subJett to yeerly revlew to determine wtiether the use has had any adverse effects and tlme extanstons hav~ regulerly bnon grantc~f. ACTION: Commtsstonor King offered a m~tion, secanded by Cortmisstoner Davld and MOTION ~~D (Commisstancr Herbst being absnnt)~ thet the Anahntm Clty Planntng Commisslon does tinrnby approve the revised plans (Revistun No. 1 af ~xhibit Nos. t and '2) for Conditiona0 Us~ Permi t No. 16~±5 • AOJOURNMENT There being no further bustness, Conmissfo~er King offered a mation, seconded by Commissionar Johnson end MQT1011 CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst being ~bsent), that ihe mect~n.y be adjourned. The me~ting was adjaurned at 1):50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~.(,G"~ ~ ~~+-~~ Edtth L. liarris~ Secretary Anaheim Ctty Plann{ng Commtssion ELH :hm 7/ 17i 78