The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1978/11/06~ ` City Nall Anahetm~ Celifornla Novemb~r 6~ 197~ REGUT AR MEE' I ~~G Of' TIiE AIJANE I M C I TY P LANN i NC COMI11 SS I ON R~GULA~ - The reyular mecting of~the M aheim CitYNovembcrU6C~ g~~si~n the CounctltA MCCTIt~G order by Chairman Nerb.t at 1:35 p•m•~ Chamber~ a quorum b~in~~ present. PItESEt1T - Chairman: tlerbsl• - Commissioners: E~arnes~ ~usiiore~ Dav(c1~ Kinc Af35ENT - Cortnnissioners: Johnson~ 'Tol~~r A150 PRESEII i - Jaek Wh i te Norman Priest Jay Titus Ja~es Kawamura Annika Santalahti Jay Tasl~ i ro Edlth Narris Ue~uty Ci ty Attor~~ey Executive Director-R~~~evelopmer~t Agency Officc En~~ine;er Traffic Enginecr(ng Assistant Assistant Directar for Zonin9 Associate Planner Planning Commission Sccretary PLEDGC OF - The Pleclgc~ of Alle:gian~^ to the Flac~ was led by !:ommissioner David. ALLEGIANGE The pettzioncr was not present for Item tlo. 1 and subJect matter w~s tabled ~.~ntil later in thc rr~eting. ITEM N0. 2 i.OPlTINUFD PUBLIC NEARI~~G. OWNERS: H01~lARU D. R NEG IVE DECLARATIOt~ ANU JEAN GAR~3ER ANU ~~AROl.U 5. ANi~ f~ETTY N. FROYTAS, ER G COuE RE UIRCNE~IT 2~08 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim~ CA 928oh. C~NUITIOIJ~L U E ERMIT NO 1,%9~ AGENT: THOMAS C. GOCIIRAt,, 2325 Sequoia Street~ A~aheim~ CA ~2A01. Petttioner requcsts permission to ESTAaLISN AN OUTOOOR CONSTRUCTION YARD WITiI WAIVER OF (A) HAXIHt;M FENCE HEIGIIT. (E3) MININUI'~ ~ANQSCAPIfJG~ AND (C} REQUIi;ED Sl7E SCR[:Et~ING on praperty described as an irregularly-sha~ed par`efeet onnthe~northisidef~f appraxiinately ~.3 acre having a frontage of ap~+roximately :~6~ ~ being located appraxt~ Sequoia Avenue~ I~avtny a maximum depti~ of approximately ~3~ feet, mately 24~+ feet ~outh of the centerline of La Palma Avcnue, and further described as Y3~~, 5equoia Avenue. Propcrty presently classif'.ed C! ~COMhfERCIAI~ LIMITCU) ZOIIE. Subject petition was cantinued from the meeting ~f Uctober 23, 1978 in order to acivertise an edditior~al waiver. Tt~ers were seven persons in~ficating their pr~sence. in oppositton to subject reyutst, and aithough thu staff repo;~ js refe~r~cinto and~iacieianpart of~then1minutes1978 wa~ 'not reao at the public hesring, 78-895 11/6/7$ ~8-b~b R I,OMMI SS 101~, NOVCMLiEFt E~ 1Q7 ~ontl nuad) -ik.lM CITY P~ANNING p~,RMIT NU. 1898 ~ ~ CArs; M~NUT~s' ~~. CONDITIONA~ ~S~ _ ~i1 propertY for 5 Y a 1arly shep ointed out E~R NEGATIVE D~CIARATION ANU ears (he P ~d9 was stated hc has owne~i this tripf9 u~e~ over thc Y USe permlt N~. ~n~r~ varietY Conditional ~d be H~ard Garber+ h~s been utilized f°rre h~y~ in thAt c;orrectlon shau the property tn Para9 p ~• 11e~J that tlo~l) d constructed e a orivate s~' rented ~het yn the staff r~p°rt ~halrma~~ N~rbst r p hA correction ~~ty ~oun~ll. a~`~ ~~vious users ~ that the pr~perty of5the ~pprovecl bY the th~~t the P h~ extsting fence; one~f~a~F th~t in the staff report); Sa~ as t ~,~~n utiliz~~9 robiems; made essentl ~l ly thc eA~ a~~o ar-cf he h~s us~~ and has had weed P c~mP~Y wf th cha1~11nk fa~Ce roximatel~! a Y bee~ bc happY Co Arcel tias not ~hat he would fence; that the to the pettitioner ~PP pf the P ~ny uses; cl~ejnlink to hutlding and the remalnder ~ ,x~st~"g ~eratlon 3^d 1 ancl i tse 1 f t° ve rY he h i s o,~ on th~ ro erty Jo~s not redwood slats ~~ ` to c~ntin~e of uses the P P rovidli-u ermit the p~z~tioncr ha~ trled a varietY r~adlly .^,~en the requirement °f ~cst ~rtY; tl~at tie not very purPasO of this re~ ~sr~;nt~tl,c praP the building ls thc o~wner, ~~ rl~rist, a~.J that o~ SeQ~aia. permit hlm, 3 Wh~lt5a1° uch t~afflc thc property lncludln9 ~~ thcre Is ~~ot m S Jirect~Y 3cross qVenue ~n stated he ~f~e' b~~~g used as from La Palma Anaheim, the property used foi• a Street, is oGFos~d to 15 ~~„~ being 1~ 1~ NQrt-, ~) af11° i cated he the Nroperty res 1 due f rom patrick Satter~Yect ~~rop'=rty and ind that h~ve been from subj ~~ being Pr~~~`~~'`t~ for mixing Plastpr and tt-e street b1o~.k Wa m}rer ~SP'~ that only two attempts pr~poSed without thethat there ~g a far fo~~r m~nths; th~ Site. Ne indlcated h~ ~~~`{' on the yro~nd b~en left o" e t~nks, indicatin9 he truck stora9e '~been left a~~ the Jebris hay ~~ th~ storag that mixer has thc, property t~r~al {s stor~~ made to clean ~P What typ~ of ~ Qt combustl~~~~• has questlon ~S tO ~f the pettit~oner a is stored there ~5 ~' to tl~e propos~l of neW hoped that W~at~~~r Anaheim, referre~i a be utiliz~~ for the stora us~d for 1011 North Mo; a`la ~ j s not Pa{me-'~ stara9it is~a~ unsic~htly ~ss en~ urrently Mrs. James eo ~e are ~ ~Ant~~9+ an outdoor con anduP~`~nted out adeq~ate a~~not have adequste P p the to retain tl~e parking ts not ob ect t cor~st~ucti~n matcrlals, that ~stio~; that they do d~nd f ~~ materials; con9 She stated she would n~t ~hborhoo storage ° reet Pn~ ~t creates residentlal ~~~g identlal In the 5t only two sma~1 P~~m trees•n~e this is a o that res parkin9 there ar'~ tietely e~'~~OSC~~ Si ~5 the maln entrance tould not attend the ~ndicatin9 coinp d out Se~~~o~a wh~ ~ use if the yard would be She p~inte ~ signatures of individuals an unsightly uS~. ~t i5 resented a petitic~n with ' rcial She p uest. area. but who also °PPps~ the req he ow~ed the cortme on~erned ~eeting. Yorba linda, ind{catedop~rty, an~i ~e Wes g~~Ge there qv,nue~ of g~bject P on the propertY ding and an, 4(~~8 ProsPad}ac:ent to the wesand exit anywhere hts bu1) Robert PaY corne~- ente~ ~ lks between js ~ot heaW Qraperty ~~riv~w~ys; that the trucin~ across the citY and tha*_ the sidewalk he ~i they are driv the bulld~ng' care for the eY^5^re and area about the haS hit and the are no dri veways a~ S~~onp di d not ~onstcucCe~1 ~ the telephone pole and raffic. tle stated h~ yi~ewalks e^ou9h t~ ha~i~~e vet~icular t sQe the ProPerty cAmN~etely enclosed, would ltke to ectlons bY landscap~~. to remedY tt~e visual oba~y difference in ProperlY willing ~ia not really see j Is there, but 5tat~d he ++o~ld be marer a a ent~ {enc~ and ir,di:ated he do 5tore new ~oole who ThomaS Cochran- 951ats ;~ th~ He explainc.~ thay etltion of P provlding re`~"~~'od end a block wall. He presented a P t~1e 5latted fencc f the weathea•.ea. have deterioratedbusiness staY ti~ this they see hi: n+oui d 1 i ke to drivewaY aPP~oaches i~dlcate pUgLIG Hk:ARIt1G WAS G~OSE~• concrete 1 ied the p,an T11E ~~ -fooi ~+i ~e, Garber ~eP refetred ~~ the tWO ~ cor~str~~`r~~ and Mr. Chairmen Herbst 11/6~7$ n the plans an`~ asked if those w~~~d be 0 ~ MlNUltS~ ANAHEIFI CITY PIA~ININC COMMISSIC~N~ NOVf.MBEa 6, 1978 7g~891 EIF~ NECATIVE DECLARATION l,ND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 16yf3 (c~nttnueJ) presented was epproved 12 ycnrs ae~o; that there Is a drtvcw~y currently o~ the property; snd thst a prevlous tenant had driven on the siJev+alk~ but h~ Is nn longer there. Chmlrman Herbst pointed o-~t the plfln shows two~ 2~•t'oot wlde concrete approaches and asked if there are r,urb cuts there currently. and explained if this request ts approvcd as submltted~ kwo drivcwAys woul~+f~AVe to bo constructtd. Mr. Garber repllc~i thurc is only ~ne clrivch~ay there at tl~r. pres~ent time and one drivRway should be edequate. Ne explalned tt~e plan presenteci was a p~rt of the origlnal proposal which inclu~lc.d a propaseJ structure wl~ich was never constructed~ and t'he other drlvevvay was to service thnt structur~~ .~nd the plan was presented to de~ict the parkin,y spACes. H~ ct~tr.d th~reis currently one driveway next to the rear y~rd and it is emplp for use wl th~u'[ yoi ng over ttic curbs . C~issloncr Klnc; expl.~ined thc plnn st-aw~ the drivewny (nto thc storage area blocked off, but that he could yo In thc current drivewny and par~. 'i front of th~ hutlding or qo into the parkln,y lot. Chai rman Ilerbsc st~tc~ i f tl~e cirl veway is use~ as shcn+~n on tlie plan, four parking spaces would bc climi~ated~ and Gonxnissioncr Kiny pointed out the extsttnq drlveway on the plan and stated Chere are amplc pArkiny spaces on the propert~. Ghairman Herbst ask~d if staff hau ev~luated the plan es presented and counted those Qarking spaces as part of the parking~ and Jay Ta~hiro~ Associate Planner, replted staff had evalunted the entirc ~I~n es presented and 15 spa~eR do r+~ect the Cod~ requirement. M~. Garber stated tl~ere is no walk-In busine5s at this location and with the ather tenant gone~ there will har<ily be any parkinq on the ~+roperty and Mr. Lochran hes indicated to hIm that his vehicle ts thc only ono using the drivewey and there ere plenty of parking spaces. Ne poinked out Nr, Co~hran wants use c+f the entire buildiny and he will clean up the a~ea and an obsc:ure fence wiil be provide~i; that there are three large palm trees tn the front and there ~ere more plants than wcre referred to, but he would be happy to provide more plants~ palnt tl~c build(n~a, and clean up the a~ea t~ tmprove the appearance. Cortimissioner King statc~I thc Pxisting 6-foot hiyh~ cha~nltnk fence should be straightened vertically and slatteJ to screcn the view from Sey~aoia Street. and the 4 or 5-foot parkway should be cleaned up since there ar homes across the street and the ove~pass which can view the site. Ile askeJ if a row of trees I~ad been cansidered along the north property line. Mr. Garber replied that he haci not Gonsidered trees on the north property line, but he would be happy ta wu~k sor.ething ~~ut with the Ctty of A~aheim and provide funds for tree pla~tiny (Cnairman Herbs[ indicated tiiat area may be~ong to the State of California rather than the City of Anaheim). Commissio~er Barnes referred to the mention that employees are parking on the street, and Mr. Cochran inofcated there would only be i~is secratary and t~imself in the office~ but. it is possible workers park their cars on che street and take a truck. He stated~ !f necessary, he could reguire t`~ern to park on-site; that there would probabiy be only six vehictes pa~ked there at one time; that probably fau~ cars could be parked between the street and the affice. He explained the diivcway is at the east end of the building and also there is a fence opening at' th'e Past encl of the building and cars could be parked in the yard itself ar in front of the buil~:fng. 11/6/7~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMHER 6~ ly7A ~g'a98 EIR NEGATIVE QCCLARA'ION AND CONDITIONAL USE pERMIt N0. 1tI~~~(continurd) Mr. Cochren ex~.~alnod the fence is a ~ented fence since tt~ey wcre not sure whether or not they would be able to gct this conditionsl use permit. Conmissionesr Elushore askeJ (f th~ cawncr And tQnant would he wGlling to work out an dgreament to put up a block wall~ put In landsceping~ provlde on-site pnrking~ :,nd ~tipulate [~at no combustiblc -ru~tertals would be stored on-site. Mr. Cochran stated one of the s:orage tanks Is completety crtwty and the ~th;;r one is almoat HePsta~ted he didlnottse~,any edvantageito having«thegblock wallrinst~ad of~apn• site. sletted fence. Commissti~ner aushor~ replled that he would see the adventagc if hc was living on the other side of the fence. Mr. Garber cxplalned he lias had thc property for 15 yPars and most of the people havc come into the a~ea since that time and they ~~P~ve never had Anythinn hut a chainlink fence; that he dld not know whdt the future f~r this property wauld be~ but ~+ block wAll would not only be prohibitive in cost but wvuld be in the wey If there ts const~uction tn the future; and that thc prope~ty is not suited fo~ resiJcntial uses since everything araund it is industrlal or cortmerciol and It ls an odd-shaped parcel. Cortm~isslo~er Bushore indicated, Judging from the condition of the property he had observcd~ hr. did not think slats would be adequate. Ne steted I~e cou7d not support the request; that the petitione~ is asking for a condit(onal use permit for a nonconforming use and the rights of thr: neighbors must be considered. Mr. Ga~ber indicated he could assure the Commission chat the slats would compietely block the vlew. F~e stated this has been dane before; that the previous schc~l had a conditional use permit fo~ the same type of fence and that use created mare traff'c and nolse. H:.• stated they would i ~rcAect=h~eaPearinGfronttbecauseetheybdld`'not~wan~indivtduelsnacross necessary~ wou~d lan s p the street to look at something unpleasant. Cc misst~ner Bushore ind~cated he thought a scnaol use would !~e a lot different than a constructlo~ yard. Chairman Herbst stateJ the vic~w cannot be totally screened with redwood siats and you can actually see through them; that the~e are a lot af re~wood-slat fences in the industrlal a~eas, but they a~e not adJacent to ~ residenttsl area and he would not support the use unless there ts a block wall across from the hemes~ but he would hav~ no obJection to a slatted fe~ce alon,y the freeway on the back side of the property~ and he also would want the peti'ac~o~,s°storaueayarclhls encroaching into agne~~hborhood whereepeopfenli~~~ause the can t y Commissioner E3arnes indicated she would ayrc~e, and pointed out all other storage yards s~ch as this which z~re located next to the frecwaY have provided everythiny possible to sc~een the view from the freeway~ and she wauld like to see trees planted along that arca ~nd shs felt the property would be much more valuable with a block vrall. Jay Tashiro explatned if the petitioner wishes to construct e 6-foot high block wall and meet the requirement for minimum landscaping~ waivers ia) and (b) would be eliminated. He explained code requires that if two~thirds of the property on the opposite slde of the street is developed with resSdential properties~ the 6-foot high wall would be required by coda. and this only applies t the south property line. 11/6/76 Mltll'TCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEHBER 6. 1g78 78-89~ EI R NCGATIVE DECIARAT ION AND CONbITIONAI USk PF.RMIT NO. 1898 (continued) Mr. Garbcr repiled hcrdicl nor t-n~r the future of this prop~rty ond t~c did not wisi~ tv eonstruct the block wall ;ince Mr, Lact~ran Is only e tenant encl is not buylny the bulldlny~ and 2hc ncxt ten;~nt mt~~ht not w+~nt tl-e wel i. Commissioner Barnes asked what type of businesses w~uld no~ want the block wall und pvlntnd out previous uses of the prop~~ty would havc benef i tad from a block Nri 1. hl~, Garber polnted out tl~e ori~,~inal proposal on the plan shows four storrs that would not haVo parmitted A blo~k wall. ACTION: Cortmissiur~er Bushore offered a motinn~ s~condGd by Cammissioner Kinq and MOTIQN ~U (Gommissioners .lohnson and Tolar be(ng absent), that tt~e Anahelm C(ty Planning Canmissio~ has rev(c~red the propasal ta per~nit ~~ outdoor conetructton storflge yard on an i ~reyularly-shaped parccl of land consisttng of approxlmatcly Q.3 Acre h~vlnc~ a frontage of approxln~~t~ly 3ba fect un the north side of Sequ~~ia Avenue, havlnq a maxirnum depth of approximetely t~5 feet, being locnted approxlmately 21+A feet south of the centerline of La Palma llvcnuc; and daes h~rohy Approve the Neqative Uc~clarat(on from the requirement to prapare ~~ znvironmental impact re~ort on the basis that there would be no signtficant individua) or cwnulative adverse envlronmental irrpact due to the approval of this Negativc ~eclarotlan stnce tF~e Anat~eim Gene~~) Plan desi~~~ates thc subJcct property for low density ~esidantfal and ye~e~al commercial l~nd uSes comnensurete w(th che proposal; that no sensltivic envlronmental lmpacts arc involveJ in the ~~-;oposal; that the Initial Study submltted by thc petiti~ner lnd~cates no s~~anificant indlvlJu~~) or cumulatlve adverse envir~nmental impacts; and that tl~e Nr:gative Declarat(~n sut~stantiatiny thc foregolny findin~~s is on ftle in the City of An~helmPlanning Oepartment. Gommissloner Busr~ore offerecl a mc~tion~ secanded by Commissioner David and MATION CARRIED (Commissioners ~ohnsan and Tolar being absent) ~ thai the Anahe(m City Planning Commission does hereby deny the request for waiver ~f code requirements for maximum fence het~ht, m) nimum 1 andscap i ng ~ and requ i re~! s i te screen i n~~. Commissloner Bushnre offered Resolution No. PC73-2~1 end moved fc-r its passage and adoption~ that the Anahcim City Planning Commission docs f~erCby g~ant Pecitia~ for Conditlonal Use Perrni[ Wo. 1ii98~ In part~ denytng thewaivers and ~ranting the use, subJect C~ the conditions that no combust(bla matereals shall be stored on the property; that nv materials shal 1 b~ stored above thc fence t i ne; CP-at al 1 employee parking shal l be provided on-site; that a(~-foot hiyh block wal l shal t be constructed on the south property line behi~d the 3-foot landscaped strip along Sequoia Av~nue; that trees shall be planted alony the r~o~th property line~ screentng the view from the freAway, and all condit(ans shall be complieJ with within 90 days; and subject to Interderpartmental Cortmittee recomne~dett~ns. On roll call~ che fare~oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: ~ARNES~ NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NOt~E ABSENT; COMMi5SI0NER5: JOHNS~N~ BUSHOKE~ OAVIU~ HERDST~ KING TOLAR Jack White~ Deputy City ACtorncy~ presented the written ~ight to appeai the Plannin~ Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Countil. He also explained Zn answ~r to que~tions from the a.udlence that the petitioner must comply with al l code requ i rements w) thin 90 dAys. 11/6/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI ON, NO VEMBER 6~ 19~8 78-900 TEM N0. 1 COI~TINUkD PUDLIC IICARINC. OWN~RS: ARNO N, STOVaII~ ,L EXCMPTION-CLASS 1 JR, ANU DpROTNY M. '~IILEM~IN FULLER~ 11~75 Sante N IVER OF CODE REQU R~1~1~~ M~rya~ita D~ive~ Fa!lbrook~ CA ~x02U. AGENT; COND I . I~O~ FRANCtiISE REALTY INYERSTIITE CORPqRATION~ 1~)6~ ~lllsi~i re 6oulevard~ Los Angeles~ CA 9~024. Petitic:ner requssts ~~ermisslon to CONV~RT AN ENCLOSEO RESTAURANT I NTO A DR I VE-THROUG! i R~STAURANT W 1'':I WA! VE R OF M I P~ I MUM NUN6ER OF PARKING SPACES on property describod as a rectanyulArly-shaped parcel of land cansisttng of ~pprnximately 0.5 acrc havtny a frontage of approx(mately 16~ feet on thc south stde of Lincoln Avenue~ having a rtxixlmum depth of approximately 1,35 fe~t. being located approxlmately 1 J5 feet west of the centerl ine of Western Avenue, and further described as 3210 West llncol~ Avenuc. Propcrty presently clas~ifled LL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. SubJect ~~~tltlan was continucd frnm the meetln!t of Oct~hnr ~3, 1~78 in order for staff to study r~v(sed plans. 7hcre was no one Indicatfn~~ thc~tr presence in op~oslttnn to subJect ~squest, and although the staff report to the Planniny Commisslon datcd November 6~ 1979 was ~~t rend at the public I~earing, it Is referred to and made a part of the minut~~s. Chairman Herbst indicated he has a~ possible confllct of incerest as defined by Anaheim City Planniny Commission Resolution No. PC7F~-i;7~ adopting a Conflict of Interest Code fo~ the Pi ~nning Commiss(on~ and Governrr-~nt Code Sectior 3~~~25 et se~~.~ and~ pursuant tu the p~avislons of ti~e abave codes~ is dectarlny to t~~e Conmissinn tliat he Is withdrawing from the hearing and would not t~~kc part in elther the discusslon ar th~e vo!iny thereon, and that he had not diswssed the metter with any n~en~ber of the Plar~ning Commi;aton. TNEREUPON, CHA1 RMAN HEitBST LEFT TNE GOUNCI L CfiAMBER ANU CNAI RMAN PRU TEMPORE BARf~ES ASSUMEU THE CNAIR. Scott Dunklerr~n. ~16 South Ridgecrest, Anaheim, tndicated two se~arate plans have been presentcd and they fee) either plan ts workablc and they Are not proposing anything unusua) compared wi th other drive-throuyh faci 11 tics in the C i ty of Anahcim, and presented an exhibit showin_y similar d~ive-through restaurants tn the City; that there ts a divlder directly In frant of the facllity on Ltncol~ Avenue which acrmits~ r,nly ~0$ of the normal trafflc to enter their facility, whict~ precludes them from any trafflr gaing westbound on Lincoln, and they have an easement on the rear of the propcrty. THC PUf3LIG NEAROt~G WAS CLOSED. Commission~r Kiny referred to the Traffic E~gineer's indication that there is tnsufficient vehicular storage on the property, and Mr. Dunklemen explained they do not feel there is any problem since there ts a divider c~n Lincoln Avenue anJ a max(~num Af only 50$ of th~e normel business can enter through tha t entrance. James Kawamurr~ Traffic Engine~riny Asslstant, indicated he personally aqrees with the petittaner th~at there ts the p~s~ible Iikel ihood tliere wl ll not be a probiem bPCause no left turns aPe permitted into their drlveway off Llncoln Avenue b~_causc of the median~ but tha.'. is not to sey there will not be a problem durihy pcak hours .jnd this would be v~ry diffieult to prove~ one way or th~ other. Ha did not feel the Traffic Engineer cauld make a deftnite statement that there would be a problem. Can~nissioner Barnes feit by compariso~ wi~h other drive-tF~rough ~~staurants presented, the stacking area appears to be adequate. t t/6/18 MINUTES~ IWIWEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSI01~, NOVEMBER 6~ 1978 ~a'9~~ EIR WITEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA55 1 AND COiJDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1')00 (co~tinued) Commissionar David ask~d Mr. Ounkleman to clarify the dlstances batween the stroet snd the drive-through wlndnw and the ardcring device. and Mr. Dunklemon raplied Che distance from the street to th~ dr(ve-throuyh wl~ciow would be 1,35 fect. Commtssionnr David a~ked abaut the nurciner of emplayoes ond number of pe~king speces requi rad by ernployecs, and Mr. Uunkleman pointed out there would nev~er be more than 17 employees on the premises at any one tlme; that the Gf1 employaes Indiceted in thR steff ~oport are part-time hclp. Commissionor Bush~are (ndicotcd thc plans d~ not indicate ;~arking s~~+cea~ and Mr. Dunkleman replted thrre Is adequntt• pnrking locatecl on b~th stdes of the lot. Commissin~er Darnes indicated st~c dicf not see any problem witl~ tt~e proposal since thc lrafflc E.ngineer has inciic.alcJ li~c scac.~.ln~~ problem has becn taken c~rr. of~ +~n~i rnlntr.d out the Commissi~n has dectdnd that t~~e codA is not adequot~ concerntng drlvr-through ~estaur~nxs. Commissioner Bushore indic~ted his only conce rn is that traffic might be hacking up on llncoln Avenue, but if the Traffic Engincer ~ioes not feet tt wtll be a problem~ he could support the rcquest assuming the Cornmiss(on could review tt~e sttuation at a later date If a problem cloes develop. It was noted that the Planntng Otrector or his authorized re~reseniativc has determined khat the proposed p roJ~ct falls w(thin the~ definltian of Categoricel Exemptlons~ Glass 1~ as deftncd in parac~rapl~ 'L of thc City of Ana-ieim E~vironmental IITI~ACL Report Guidellnes and Is. therefore, cateyorically exc~mpt from thr_ requireme~t to prepare an ElR. ACTION: Commissioner Uevid cfferecl a mation~ secnnded by Comrnissioner Bushore end MQTIqN C~tR~O (Cr,mmissioners Nerbst~ J~hnson and Toler being absent), that the Anaheim Ctty Planni~g Comnission cloes hereby yrant thP request for walver of the code requtrement on the basis thet the n~ture of Cfie use cMes no t warrent the required parking spaces and also on the basis that similar walvcrs have becn grAnted to othcr drive-through restaurants and denial would be depriving su~ject property of privileyes being en~oyed by othcr properties in the saine vicinity and zone. Commissioner David offere~i Resolution No. PC7~~-2;0 and movcd for its passeyc and adopxio~, that the Anaheim City Planntnc~ Commisslon does hereby grant Petition for Conditianat Use Perm(t No. 1900~ subject to Interdepartmcnzal Committee recornmendations. On roll call, the foregaing resolution was passed by the followtng vote: AYES: CONMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BUSNORE~ UAVID~ K1NG NOES: COHMISSIONERS: NONE AaSENT: C011111S5IONERS: HEftBST~ JOHI~SON~ TQIAR CNAIRMl1N IiERBST RETURNCD TO TNE COUNCIL CftAMBER AND A55UMED T11E Gt1AIR. it/6/~8 ~' S MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY "LANNItIG COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER f~~ ~9~8 78•9~2 M NQ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSi FftANK 11. AND MAaiLYNI~ R. EIR CATEGORICAL ExEMPTiON-CLASS 1 MAC EWEN~ 523 North Sunk(st Street. l~nahelm~ CA R A1 . 9Z~306. PetitlUner rcquests WAIVER OF' MAXIMUH NUMBER OF CATS TO PERMIT EIGHT AQULT CATS on property describcd as a rectanguleriy-sh++pad parcel of land consisttng of opproximotely 150~ square f~et having a f~oncage of aaproximately 75 feet on the west sid~ of Sunkist Street~ having r~ max(mum depth of epproximetely 10Q feet~ being located approxlmatply 2Q0 feet south of tl~e centerllne of L~ Palme Avonue~ and further descrlbed ds ~23 Nortli Sunkist Street. Property presently classifled RS-7200 (RESIDENTIIIL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZO~IE. There was no one Indicating tlielr presence in opposltlan to subJect r~quest~ and although thc steff report t~ the Planning C~mmisslnn datcd November (~~ 1978 wes noC r~ead at the public hearlnq. It {s referred to and made a part of the minutes. F~nnk Mer.Ewen, petitiorier~ was presnnt to answcr any questlans. THE PUBLI(. HEARING WAS GWSLU. Commissloner David {ndicatecl concern whetl~er or not ttils item had been properly advertlsed~ polntiny out there was no one indicating their preRenco in ~ppositlon. Jay Tashiro, Associate Plannc~~ explained the matter had heen praperly advertised and that tt~ts actlon wa~ the result of a complaint wh(ch was recctved concerning the number of cats. Commissioner Oavid referred to the statement in the staff report thnt the petitioner has indtcated the cats are ~ot allowed to ~oam out of the house and yb~•d, painting out he did not feel a 6-foot hiyh~ concretc black wall would stop the cats~ and Mr. MacEwen replted the wal) would not stap the cats. but would be a detcrrent. rle pointed out all of the cats have been spayed or neutered and they mostly eat and sle~p, and indtcated mest of them are locked ~p aC night in the yarage. Commissloner Bushore referred to thc applicant's statemen[ regarding the junk yard~ and Mr. MacEwen explair~ed he fel: the zoniny in this area is a littl~ b1t "Mickey Mouse" with a gas statton across the stre~t and liquor stores between two e~ea~entary schools and a gas station being usec~ as a garags with disabled vet~icles in the viclnity, but pointed out he was not camplAtniny. Gommissioner ~ushore ~sked staff to chetk into thi~ situatlon wlth the disabled vehicles in the area. He stated he had observ~d the cats gaing into the neighbors' y~rds and assumed khe neighbors had complained ~nd the neighbors ~robably feel it 1s the Planning Commisslon's responsibility to take some sort of action. He stated he personally would not want ta 11~~e next door to eight cats anct felt ihere are too ma~y c~ts at this locatton, l~r. MacEwen pointed out that s~ve.ral of the cats are very old and probably will not be around very long. Cortanlssianer Barnes cl~rified that the petitioner is not tn the business of raising cats and asked him to explain haw he had atqutred these cats. M~, MacEwen explained that some of the cats had been d~opped off at their home; that they had tried to flnd homes far them and !f they could not find a home~ they had F~ad them t~/6/78 ~, . MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLqNNiNG GOMMISSION~ NOVEM9ER 6~ i17$ 7g.9p3 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLi1,iS 1 AND VARIANCE N0. 05 (contlnued) ~peyed or neutared; And that same af the cats had belonge~l tc+ hls own childr~sn who hevo stnce rn~vod from the residence, leav(ng the cats. Commissioner Bar~os askcd the ages of the caCS referred to os beinq old~ and Mr. NacEwen reulicJ that son~ of them are probably f5 or 19 ycers old. Cortmisslo~e~ Barnes stated sha tnuld sympatf~ixe wlth the petitlon~sr's situatlan since sho has acqutred antmals un~er the sane type of circumstnnces and felt stnce four of the cats are v~ry nid~ they wil) ntit be around very long anJ (ndlcated sl~e could support the requ~st for a llrnited perlad ~f ttmP:, Cortxnissionc~ Hushore was concerned thot the Commtsstc~n would no[ kr~c~w when these perticular cats are uon~ and whPrh~r or n~t they wo~_ild ,ye~t r!rorp caxs~ and Commissianer Barnes felt this situatton could be controlled by tellir~g the ~etltlonen c~ could have a permtt for a certain number af cats for a certain number of yFars, Commissl~ner Busleore aske~ the petitioncr if he felt it would be sufftc(ent if the p~rmlt wes grantcd to allow tiim to keep the cats he currently has for ~ne yea~ and bfter that he wou{d ga back to tl~e three permitted~ and Mr. MacEwen replied hr. thought that would be sufficicnt. It w~s noted that tl~e Planniny U(rector or h(s auth~rized repr~senLat(vc has determ(ned that ChN proposed proJect falls withln the definition of Categarical Exemptions~ Class 1~ as defi~ed in parayraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Gu(delines and i s~ tlierefore ~ categori ca 1 ly exempt f rom tFie requi r~ment to prepare an E I R. AC71UN: Cornmissinner fiarnes offered Resolution NQ. PL7~-2;2 and moved for its passage end a~optTon~ that the Anaheim City Planni~g Commissi~n does t~ereby grant Petition for Variance No. 30yy ta permit eight adult cats for a period of one year on [t~e basis that evtdence presented at ttie publ(c heartng indicates the exist(ng cats have been s~ayed or neute~ed and several of the cats are ve ry maCure and the petitto~er stipulated no more cats will be acquire~i to replace thUSe pets; s~bJect to *.h~ petitioner's stipulaCion that eve rything possible will be done to keep the cats confined to the house and yard and the cats wil) be locked up at nlght; and sub,iect to Interdepertmental Committee re conmen da t i on s. On rnil call~ the foreyoing resolution was passed by the follow(ng vote: AYES: COM~115S IONERS : BARNE:S ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOME ABSEN7: COMMiS51QNERS: JOHNSON~ BUSHORE~ DAVID~ HERI35T~ KINr TOLAR Mr. MacEwer- indicated he wished to ~ompliment tkie City Planning De~artment staff because they have been very courte~us and helpful in xhi~ situation. 11/6/78 .1 MINUTES~ ANAHEIH CITY PLA~NING CCMMIS510N~ NOVEMBER 6~ 1978 78-904 PUl3LIC 11EARING. OWNERS: ROBBIE KAUFM~tJ ANU JAMES ~~uR~NEQAyT,,IVE CECLAf~AT1pN NOItMAN MbRGAN~ ~0~ Sauth Harbor 4ioulevard, Suite VAttIANCE N0. 306Q 5~~~ Aneheim~ CA 92fi05. Property dcscrlbed as W VER OF CUDE R~ UIRCMEWTS Portinn A: A rectangul~rly-shAped parcel of land COND L U . 9~~~ consisttng of approximotcly 0.~~ acra laGet4d at thc southeast corner af SQUth Street and Ilarbor Bouleva~d~ hAVing approxtmate fronxages af 93 feet on the south slde of South Street and 20~ tect on ttie east s(de of Na~bor Boulevard~ and further descr(bed as 800 5outh Nerbor Boulevard~ and Porti~n li: A rectengulariy-shap~s~1 parcel of la~d consist- i~g of Approxlmately ~.; acre located at the southwest cor~er af Sout~~ SCrGet and Helena Street~ havlnq op~+roxlmate frontages of 103 fr.et on the soutt~ side of South Street and 200 feet on the west slde of Hr,lena Street. Property presently classifted RS-72Q0 (RE5IDENTiAL~ SINGLE-FAHIIY) 20t1E (Portion A has A rPSOlutlon of intent to CO (tiOMMERG1Al~ OFFICE AWD PROFE55I ONAL) ZQt~E) . REQUE5TCD VARIANCE: WAIVLR OF (A) MINIMUM NUME3ER OF PARKING 5P1~CE5~ (ti) NINIMUM SITE AREA~ ( C) MAX 1 MUM STRUCTURAL IIE I Gl~T ~ ANU (U) RCQU I RED S I TC SCREEN I NG ~"TO CUNSTRUC7 A THREE-STORY OFFICE EiUILUING. CONUITIONAL USE REQUEST: T~ PERMIT AN AUTOMOHILE PARKING LOT W1Tf1 WAIVER OF (A) PEAMITTEU ENGROACHMENT OF A ti-FOOT NIGH WALL IN 1'NE FRONT SETBACK ANO (H) PEaMITTEU ENCROACHNENT OF PARKING SPACC~ IN THE FRONT SETBACK. There were seven persuns Indtcating thelr presence in oppoaftlon to subject rec~uest, and althouyh the staff report to tlie Pla~niny Commisslon dated November 6, 1'37G was not read at thc publtc I~eariny~ it is referred to and made a parc of thc minutes. Jay T~shira. Associate Planner, pointed out a letce~ had been recetved signed by seven persons request(ny that this motter be co~tlnue~d and res~:heduled for an evening meeting. Floyd Farano~ Attarney~ 2;~5 East Chapman Avenue~ Fulle•ton~ repre~entfng the petttloncr, indicated essentially this pruJect is the same as prev'ously submitted tc~ the Planning Commlssi~n and City Councfl as far as the bullding is r:oncerncd and the yeneral desig~ and use of the total property. He stated that the differ~~nce lie~ in the fact that instead of commerctally zoning the entire parcel. both on Helen~ and Na~bor~ they are proposing a commercial office (CO zoning) on Harbor Boulevaro an~~ have requested a conditianal use permit to ptrmit an automobile parking lot. He stat~ed th~ waivers requested are necessa ry because they are asking for a co~dltional use permie for the lielena ~esidentlal property and the commercial office zoning on Harbor; thax b~:cau~e of the proxim(ty of these two parcels, since they abut ~ach ott~er~ any kind of c.irtxnercial use on the Harbor Boulevard property would require these kinds af weivers and p roduce precisely khe result of this proposal. Ne pointed aut he felt these waiv~ers are really technical in nature because the parcel Is being used in total. Mr. Farano indicated they have spent a consldera,ble ar.~ount of time talking with the rtsidents in the a~ea and have visited them sev~~ral times and knaw their attitudes and doubted vrry much that their ettitudes hAVe ch~nged at at) Since the last time th~y appeared before the City Council. Ne sLated t~~e petitioner'3 positlon has not changed either; that they have ~ot been able to determine a use for the commcrclal office parcel on Harbor 8oulevard tha+~ would result in any less inten~e use than the one proposed. He stated tha~ single-family residences~ multiple-family r~sidences, townhouses~ etc.. on tleiena Str~et would result in a suhsta~tially ~reater intense use wlth more traffic than this property is gotng to produce. Hp pointed out they have provided a buffer strip on Helena Street and presented an extiibit shc~ving 12-1/2 to 15 feet of landscapad~ sprinkled area whir.h would be self-sustainina along Helena Street. Ne stated the s~me is true along 11/6/78 MINUTES, ANAN~In C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ NUVEMHCa 6~ 1978 18'9~5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ VAk1ANCE N0. 3060 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1905 ~~ontinued) South Street; hc~wever~ thr~t strip would be e l lttle nnrrc~w~r~ but tl~e property wi 1) be surrounded with landsceping and the IIe1Qna frontagc will be heavtly ln~dscaped. Na stated cantrary t~ some af the Impressions crPatecl~ thrre Is nat ~Joing to be any street widantnq on Nelena Street; knat the str~et 1~ currer,tly r+t its ultimate width; that thare will br, no trees removed; that ~+ curb line will bc :onstructed alany tt~e cast sldc of the p roperty. -le slateJ another d(fferencc In the appl(catlon (s that they hnve pleced a red- ltghted si<~n with a spike fixture on the 5outh Street ar:ces~ to prevent vehicles ieaving on South Stree[ and that access would be ingress-anly. He indtcated they would be wllling to do whatover the Commisslon wishes on th~t~ but it f_ thelr personal attltudc that (t would be a i~~lscake to make that access inyress-anly; t~»t traffic would be encou~aged to gv out on 1larhor 8oulr.var~i ~ncl, k~cin~7 unahle tu maHe a 1Pft turn onto Herbor Houlevard~ wuuld come arouncl Sout~~ Stret:t and would a~ctua) iy use IiGlena Street for the purpose of turning sc~utl~ on Narbor, Ne indicatrJ tl~e petitiontr dld not thtnk this wauld solve the p roblem a~d fr~m the tr~iffic stand~ainC, the circulation as proposed would be much more approprietc and mucti more effective by allowing both inr~rtss and ec~ress from South S[reet. He polnted out Soutli Street (s a cnlfector st~eet and lias a signal ot tl~e corner of Harbor and South. He statc~d 6n an.~lyzin~, this matter very closely~ thcy could not see where this use is yoinc~ to have on~~ ~~~ta of ~dverse effcct on thc pr~perties; that there wlll b~ no entrAnces~ inyres~ ur e~+'~ss~ oFf Helena Streec; that the buildinq anrl the grounds will be shlclded by heavy lancis~ ~~i~y ancl a blos:k wal I~ and pointed out a f,-fcx~t htyh block wal l wauld ~ravi~e a much *~ • prok~•cteJ atmuspherc for the r~sidents. Ne indicated there y ~Y,g~;lt,le pr_51em mencioncd regerdtng graffiti and stated tf th(s is such a qui~t st^~~ ~s '~~~~~cated~ hp doubted very much lf the~e would be any graffitt problems except thc, ~~~A- ~w ccxne from the ~eighbors themselves. He stat~d he had ~ot talked with his c' ~ ~e woulJ ser. nc~ problem with ~aerhaps plantiny some vines that would completel~- ~•• 'ence. Mr. Farano stAt~ -~~r~:hniqur: ~~f development is nothing new to Anaheim and i~,~iicAtrd lr' you drive arour~. ~• '~y you will see a number of residential streets that front on the rear of a cor-x-w~~ ,- .-~sVhere and if devel~,pers conduc! themselves pro~eriy and the development i, :,.K, nn~~ and if the amenities are installeci anJ retained and the entire Rrajece is dpve t~~~r-° ~~~~ th integrl ty, there is no reason why this~ would not be a yaod developmcnt. ~c rrr:.~~~ he has lookec ot such neighborhoods and has talked with people who llve across the ~~-~r: fr~~m such developments who have appe~red betore the Cam~ission In protes~. of ccrtai~ ~cems~ and f~~ur or five years lat~r he has talked wlth th~m, end aven talked with s~~r+e as~ week who xhuuyht there would be a problem with traffic~ etc.. but the truth is~ chuy -:~ve not had the pr~blems. He stat~d a lot depends upn~ the way the development ~s ~~~, He statcd this use is absoluttly the least fntense one they could ima~3one and .sia ~: thir it would be possible to achleve a less (ntense use from the standpoint of t~atftc i-and-out than an archttectural office and law offite. He stated there Nill be n:; ~~to s' offices In this bulldiny; that the building is not constructed w- th the a~neni t i+~s that wi 11 accommodate ei ther a doctor or a dentist ~ o~ anyone af that profession; tf;.}t it wi I1 be ordinary offi~es appropriate for iawyers~ any(neers, architects. e[c. He sr.atecs he felt it would be difficult to justify t.he (dea of developtny this parcel with sir.gle-fami ly residential on thP Helena Str~eet side~ that it would not be c~cx~d plann~ng; tt~at this particular location does not have an alley and has absalutely no separation betv~reen the Harbor and Nelena frontages and tf they were ro constr~~t single-fa,rily residences, as the qpposition proposps, they would be creattng a situation which (s equlvalenc to what the apposEtion is afraid of; that there would be single-family resldences abutting comme~cia0 o`fices and he did not believe t'at would be better or more appropriate than havtny s(ngle-family across th~ street from a commerclal office parking 11/6/7'8 ,~ . ~ ~~. ~8-906 MIIIUTES~ i~NAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMM15510N, t~OV~M~ONUIT10NAl USC FC.RMIT N0. 19~5 ~cA~t~nued) Elft NEGATIYE DECLARAYION VARIANCE N0. 3060 ANO f traPflc. He ~tat~d the 1lghting wi11 bc lot which would receivt ve ry little in thc way w~y l~fringe dvwn-llyhting end there will be natl~ing ehout ~h~s He'statedtittls'truenthat the ~riqhhars upon the enJoYr~esnt ot the hcameavne~s ~n the a~ea. w~ 11 see e pert oP the v,ill see a block waWhenbthei landscaplnqnlstmature~,ehendoubtedhvery much lf they wlll be bullding. He fclt able to see the bui ldiny. Adrian Qesncdict~ ~~3 Soutl~ 1lelena~ Anaholm~ asked if t.hls matter wou~Shee~~resenteddaa requested, and Ghairmon Herbst indicated It would not be contl~ueci. eC.ition ~ontt+ining 5b si~n.~tures whlch we~enobteinecl in the st~r~rt tlme after notlflcat on from the petitlon: "Thls pctition is from P was recQlveu~ and ruad the Pollowing staten+e f~a~ghi~e St.~ Dickc) St. ~nd ~~~~~onal lli~ citizens in the nPl~hbarhood on Helena St.~ St.; who are oP osad ta tl~ejti aStAu~~r~~ilc ~ 3 Stgry Office aulldt~9 w t a ~ P - Perkin Lot with walvPrs of permitted use Permit No. 19~5 to perm encroachrnent uf a G•ft. P~i9h we~~ a^d Perkinc~, spaces tn thc front setback•~~ cation of She stated sl~e is definitPly opposed to a tt~ree~story bu~ever~~onedlnsAnaheim and many the windaws. She sta[ed this matter is beth9~ neighborsYarc pposing thls beceuse th~y people have indicate~i tt~ey r~re ve ry hePPY ~e are bcing shoved aslde. feel most of ~natieim is going into concr~te and the peop Ted Brazil~ 822 Soutl~ Hclena~ Anaheim~ ~^~~~Neest'atedaa statementrhad beentmade etn~+ he rd a~d his wlf~ are opposed to this prnp~isal. ravious hearing that property will beco~ so va~~~~~ aLath~°north1endtofeNelena,~the ~ p Ic wili bc to livs in it. lie fe;~ en~tbecausekof9thetcommerclal p~operty on Harbor~ peop whole blo~' will topp on thc west side of presented w~~h offers that they rirna°L conce~nfbece'u5erherlivesYon the east side. He Helena. Fle stateci thfs Is his p Y thought the property awners o'F subject P~pendt~eatveuthe`landdto the~castnresidential and ecccss for thc southern portion on Ilarbor develop hcxnes therc. South Helena Street~ Anahetm~ stated she has been a restdent of Bernadette Heinz~ ~5~ Areheim all of her lifc. She indicate~ ~he wo n~who are working and alsovthose whotare had been dctlinec~ ~ecause she. had hop hborhood wo~king to prepare f~r tomorrcyw's election ei~dandtp~oceedhwith~thei~'tnextaneig ~~hange their minds and they will yather together ag mecting. Gee Hoffman. ~39 South Nelena Street~ Anahelm~ sLated her maln concerns are Just like everyone else's; that she has lived in the neighborhood 17 years and at th~ time they on Helena Stree~t thr.y thought it was the best neighbarhood in bought their p~'dperty Anahelrn; that they had lived Just twc:~ door~ '~OY1~have raiscd their9childrenethereaand'they the neighborhood so well they stayed; that they d a healthy upbringiny; that most o' them havc their mortgages paid off and are afrai ha W~~~ have to start all ~ver agai~; that thay do not if this area goes commercial, they want to see the extra traffic; that they are not so much against the building +~nd think t is beautiful, but are a~ainst the traffic e+~s~~~~c,~andsthatustometimesrtfythereaisY an~ not know how heavy the traf~ic can get on South ~ accident on Narbor. they have buses and l~rge pruus~ keepnthe~ a~eahregid~ntia~and this s dangerous. She statecl she mainly would like t J 8~ South Helena Strec[, Anaheim, indlcated a member of the Commission has Helen Cherry, 5~ sald in a previous hearing that the ;~etitioner did not w,~nt to da his share towar s >>ib~~a ~ MINUTES~ ANAi1E1M CITY PLANt~ING COMMISSION~ NOVEMOER F,~ 197A 78-901 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA710N~ VARIANCF N0. 3060 ANO CONUITI4NAL USE PERMIT N0. 1905 (cont(nu~d) compromising and yet wantod approval of his raquept,9and she fa~t huildtng~tloner should do the same thiny and should compromise by develo in e two-sta ry John Stokes stated he owns thc propcrcy next to subJnct property on Marbor and he does not have anythiny agalnst tt~c proJact, but would like a 6•foot high wa11 so thet he wauld have more privacy; that thc propcrty is m~=ssy the way it Is rlght nav. 11e Also asked about the wi ndc~ws . Chairman Il~rbst polntcd out the pians reflcc.c a 3-foot~ G-inch block wall at this time. Comrnissioner Farano indicatc;d concerning t~~e cc~mments about comprom(sin~~~ he Felt t1~ey have campromisecl; tl~at ttiey have to develo~ oc ~>~~ilu~upl~y fur a piece of propcrty and the whole develapment whicl~ has a sche~me and pr4duces e meanlnqfu) result; that they have trled ve ry hard to look at dlfferent uses; that tlie smatl number of people here ln opposition heve not c:I~anyeJ their minds and belleve they have not comprc~misfd In any way. but that is not really true; that they have made wh~tever changes they could thet would be littletmoreWprivacytand~maybe arlittie~more~assurancetthat this pr Jectvwillenotmcreates a that much of a problem. tle stated he felt the only developme~ners~rwouldrbeeatsinylehstory~, ommercialaoffice Qf acceptance of the adJacent property buildiny on Harbor and sinyle-fanily residential on Helena. I~e stated the subJeet property is zoned with resolutions of Intent for CO zoning on Harbor Boul~vard and this 18.7~5'square foot piece of property was created by ehe Cfty of Anaheim and after the dedicatlons are madc, there would be less than 10,00~ square feet~ less parkln,y~ and is nothing more than the size of a single-family lot. He felt the neighborhood property owners would be violently opp~~sed to other uses~ such as A fast-food restaurant, and f~lt that would create a ve ry detrimental effect on the nelghborhood; that this project~ with an ove~all low-intensity use, is a use tl~at will not involve itself wtth Nelena Street and will not spill over onto Helena Street whatsoever and felt it would be a mistake not to cunsider this a~ approprtate plan. N~ pointed out~ again~ that South Street is a collector street and according t~ traffic :.ounts has 5.000 cars a day, and polnted out the natural flow of the traffic from tl~is proJect is not going to go east on South Street unless they are going through the neighborhood. He pointed out if the access on South Street is allowed for ingress only~ tl~en there is a possibtllty that problems could be created, and asked the Commisslon to direct the developer to make that access avallable for ingress ana egress and this problem would be solved. Sylvia Lantz~ 34tS South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim~ indicated she is in favor of this buildiny and what they are plannlny to do anci f~elt it would improve the area from Disneyland to the redevelopment area beGause the property is an ayesore now~ and pointed out Narbor Boulevard is cortmercialized and va~lanc~s have been grar~ted for differenears build(ngs In the area. She indicated she has lived In this areA for the past two y and did not se~ a problerr w(th this development. Dan L. Rowland, 1000 West La Palma Avenue. Anat~eim, stated the oriylnal proJect was submitted without variances a~d met ali the zoning requirert~ents, but it did not w~rk out the way they had planned; that this proJect is essentially the same and confarms to the spirlt and intent of the CO Zone and incorporates the land assembly idea; that the building has fewer windows than it would have had five years ago because of Title 24 which requtres the buildi~g to be designed wtth e m(nimum amount of glass to conserve energy. however the inhabitants of He stated the buildiny has windaws on all four elcvations; ~ this building are S:Od to 5:00 people and there w(11 be no one there An Saturdays and S~ndays whcn people are enJoying th~ privacy of their own homes; that the windows 11/6/?8 s - ~~~ ~ i MINUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COHMISSION~ NOVEMBER G~ 177H ~4"9~~ EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION. VARIANCE N0. 3060 ANQ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1905 (cantinued) themselves ere small and sot bsck~ except on Narbor Buulevard~ with an engle cucoff so that It would ba very difficult to tnvade anyone else's privacy from both directlons; that people in thel~ liomcs lookiny out wll! nut sRe the first floo~~ and only pert of tha second fioar because of the bloc~. wa11~ end pEOple above that will be set bsck 6 to 6 feet on the balcony bafore the windows stert and the dcsks would be back from that area~ so he felt the p~lvacy aspect is still quite adequate. tte prasented exh(btts showing the glsss ar~sa~ that are oxposeJ ta Helena Street and po~ntnd out the glass arens that are skylights whiGh ~ra not vlsible from the outside. 11e stat.~d the building is essentially blocked in its entirety from He1Gna Street. ~-o presented the other elevatl~ns af Herhar Ooulevard and indtcated tl~e gmt+il lights that are recessed an the south elevation. indicattng Ic would be virtually lmpossible to see out and down. He stated he would be the architect occupying a portion of this structure and he has been in prar,tice for over 2~ years and he is the only person who works overti-ne ~~n~1 I~e du~s n~ust of that at home. THE PUDLIC NEARIN(; WAS CLOSED. Chatrman Nerbst puinted out tt~a tr~sh disposal ere~ abuctiny the fence llne adJacent to tfie single-famiiy residential pa~cel and tndicated he thou-;;~c that mtght be obJectionablcs to tfie neighbors~ and Mr. Rowla~d indicated that could be relocated. Cha(rman tlerbst asked Mr. Rawlend to discuss the 3-foot~ t~-tncli fence~ a~d M~. Rowland replied there is a resalution of intent to CO on the adiacent P~ inchYwall~to~provlde is no wall requirement whatsosve~; that they proposed the 3~~~t~ owner had askcd them to separatlon between the two propertles and thP adJacent property replace his fence which ls about 42 inches high. Commissione;dK8~9~~InCress an~1 egress9or`itiwouldebeCCreatirg ahdangterous'sttu~tlon5outh Street shou 9 Mr. Farano (ncilcated they thinl, this is the most effiGient plan and the City Trafflc Engineers may agree or disayrce; that they P»d provided thls with ingress only a; a result of some of the ob}ections that we~e raised and the opposftion wh~ wanted South Street closed off and wanted the spikes installed~ but that if the Pianni~g Commission agrees, th~:y ~hc.~ld direct them to utilize the South Street entrance for ingress and egress. Mr. Rowland pointed out exhibits f~rnished at prevfous hr.arin~s would indicate a great bulk of the people irm~ecliately adJacent to this Froperty are on record as being in favar of the proJect and the ones mast vividly upposed are some: distance fram the proJect. Chatrman Herbst stated as long as he has been on the Planntng Comn-issiora it has been the policy that any time there is a corronercial project and/or CO project, the~. Comnission does their best to try to satisfy and protect both property awners~ and one of the things to consider fiere is that the property is on Narbor Bouleva~d and Lhere are certain growth patterns which must be recognized. He stated he would not be in favor of hnmes in back of this parcel, that tt would not be gaod plz.~ning and it would not work~ and this has been proven over and over ayain. t~e stated it is the Planning Gommission's intent to make a proJect work for the property vwner that is going to build it and still give the property awners in the area the prat~ction they deserve~ and he thought this has been dcone tn this proposa~; that it has protected the property owners from traffic~ from visual iratrusion~ and has glven them a much better l~oking proJect and it does increase the value nf their property. He felt this proJect without medicat offices wautd provide more protection for Nelena Street than many other ~~ses as far as traffic is concerned~ and would be one of the ilghtest uses that could go on this property. He stated he felt this proJect Is worthy of Anahelm and gives e hameowners maximum protection. 11/6/7~ MIIIUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ NOVEMBER 6~ 1978 7a'9~`~ EIR NEGATIVE UECLIIRATION~ VARIANC~ N0. 306~ ANO CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 19~5 (conttnued) Commissloner King (ndic~tcd he would A~fCe with Chatrm~+n Nerbst. Commisslonar Barnes Indicatad slie would ayrec and stated she has not aeen a proJcct that offers tl~ls ~nuch proccctton; that a buffer zor,e is provided and It wlll bc lei~~sceped to screen the view~ the wlnd~ri+s will be recessed on the east sfd~ and the accupants of the building could not sit c.losc enoucsh to thP windcw~s to have a view of the res(dences; Chat there will ~c no one thcre o-i weekencis and no traff(c aftr.r 5:00 p.m.; and that a residenttal development would have traffic all the time. She stated this property (s xoned for r.onrnerclai office uses and she thought thls would be a g~od devGlopr-r_nt; that the Frnpcrty wtl) hove sprinklers ~nd wlll probebly be keCt ur better them m~st homes that could be devgloped on the property. She stAted sl~e dfd net think this is e pla~a far resicJential hun~es because Anahelm has chanyed and Harbor Boulev~rd is n~ lc,nc~e~ the rural atrr~sphere I t once was an~i fe I t the bes c the rr.s 1 den ts cnu 1 d hape for wou 1 d be son-eth i ~g they could Ilve wi[I~ anci be comfortable witl~ which will prutcct them~ and she felt this proJect does that. ACTION: Commtssloner Etarnes offe~ed a rn~tion, seconded by Commissloner King a~d MOTI0~1 CA- Rk rED (Gommissioners Johnsoi~ and Tolar bcing absent)~ that the Anahetm City P18nntng Commisslon fias reviewed tl~e proposal to construct a three-story office build(ng with waive~s of mininu~n nurnber of park(ng spaces~ minimum site nrea, maxfmum structural height, and required site screen(ny on a rectangularly-shaped porcel ~f land consfsting pf approximately 0.4 acre located at the soutfieast corner of South Streec and Harbor Soulevard~ havin~ appruximate frontayes of 93 fect on the so~~th side of South Street and 200 feet on the east side of tlarbor Boulevard, and to permtt an automo~ile parking lot wlth waivers of permit[ed encroachrt~ent of a l;-faot high wall into the front setback and permltted encroachment of parking spaces int~ the front setback on a rectangularly~shaped parcel of land consistiny of approximately 0.~ acre located at the sauthwest corner of South Street and Nelena Str~ct, having aE~proximate frontages c~f 103 fecc on the south side of South Street and 200 feet on the west side of Helena Street; and does hereby approve the Ney~ttve Declaration frcxn the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that the~e wauld be no slgnificant irtdividuai or cumulat(ve adverse environmental impact d-~e to the approva) of this Neyative Declaration since the Anahel~n General Plan designates tt~e subject property for cortxnercial-professional and law density restdential land uses cortxnensurate with ttie proposal; that no sen~;itive environmental tmpacts are involved in tlie proposal; that the inittial Study suhmitted by the pet(tloner indicates no siqnificant Individua) or cumulaLive adverse environmental lmpac.ts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing ftndings 1:; on flle in the City of Anaheim Planniny Department. Commissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PG7f3-253 and moved for its passage and adoption~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Comnission does Frereby grant Petltton for Yariance No. 30G0 on the basis of the long, narro~w-shaped parcel and that the accumulation of property makes g~od land planning; grant.ing waiver (a) on Che basls that additiona) park(ng spaces will be provided on an adjacent parcel and the petitioner stipulated the offices will typically be leased to arct~itectural~ legal and/or engineering tenants wEth no do~tors' offices or other me~f(cally-related uses; that waiver (b) is granted on the bas(s that the walver is minimal, resulting in a parcel which is oniy 6'G smallPr than requlred, and, although zoned residentially, will be utilt~ed for parkfng and tandscaping; and sut+ject to Interdepartmental Gommittee reccxn~nendations. On roll call, the faregoiny resolution was passed by the foltowtng vote: AYES: COMHISSIO~~ERS: BAP,NES, BUSNORE, DAVID. HERBST~ KING NOES: COMt1155IOPJERS: N~I~E ABSENT: CONMiSSIONERS: JOt1NSOP~, TOLAR tt/6/7~ ~~ MINUTES~ AI~AHEIM CITY PLAN~IING COMMiS510N~ NOVEM~Ea 6~ t978 1a"9~h EIR NEGATIV~ DECIAMTION~ VARIANCE N0. 3060 ANQ CONDITIONAL USE_ Pi E_ RMIT N~.,,r, 19~5 ~cnntinued) Commisalaner aarnes affered a motion~ sec~nded by CoRmisgioner King and MOTION CARRIE~ (Comnissinners Joh~s~n and 7olar beiny absent)~ thaC the .'~naheim City Plannln~ Commiaalon does hereby grant tl~c request for watver of cvde reaulre^iants on the basls that subJect proparty is ~ long and ~arrowly ahapad and the propcsed 6-foot hlgh wall provldes an effoctive buffer ancl the parking encroac~m~ent wlll be behlnd the wall and not vislble from the adJace~l street. James Kawamura~ 7raffiz Enginccring Astistant~ asked that thc Planning Commission please aJdress thc issu~ of on~rethatntlisnwrouldhcreatetmo~e~ipr°b~~msnsndrthAt'entrance should,d agr~+e wlth the petlti allaw ingress and eyress. Commlssloner King asked th~t the stipulatlon that the t~ash be relocated in accordance with the City Sanikation Ulvision be included. CAmmisslnner darnes offerc~i Resolutton No. PC7f3-25~ en~ ~~~'~ f~franL Petlttonefor adoptlon~ tl~at the Anahcim City Pla~ninc~ Cormisslon does hcreby g CondltlonAl Use Permlt No. 1:a05 on tl~e basis that it is the highest and best usc of the property and }rOVIdNS maximum protection to adJACent resfdential areas; sub,ject to stlpulations ot the petitioner thac ttie usc wtll be solely for the tenants In the adJacent building on Herbor Boulevard typicallY conststin~~7 ~f architectural~ legal and enginer.ring professions, wlth no doctors' offices or other n~edlcally-related us~s; that the tresh enclosures sl~all be relocated and that the Helena Strect frontage shHl1 be heav(ly landscaped; that the drlveway on South Street shAll provlde both tngress and ec~ress to sut,Ject property; and subJect t~ tntcrdepartmental Committee recommendations. Qn rall call~ the foreyolny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOIJERS: BARNES~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMf11SSI0NfR5: JOIiNSON~ fiU5tI0RE~ DAVID~ NERBST, KING TOLAR Jack White, Deputy City Attorney, presenteJ the written right to appeal th~. Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to anyone aggrleved with thc abov~ declsion. Cortmissioner dushore painted out to those present In opposition that he is a new Commtss+oner and only ~na~h~she~Opertys that thpreearcpuses~whichdwouldtbenmuchemoreaitzed what could be located P ob,jxctl oneb 1 e. RECESS There was a tr_n-minute recess ~t 3:25 P•m• _.._. RECONVENE 7he meeting reconvened at 3:35 P•m•~ a11 Commtssioners being present except """-"'-" Johnson and Tolar being absent. >>ibi~a #~ ~ MINUTLS~ ANAkEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION~ IIOVEMUER 6~ 1~76 7b'9~~ ITCM N0. '~ ~'UISLIC NEARII~G. OWNER: FIaST CONGRE~ATIQ~IAI CHURCN ~~E DEGLARATION OF ANAlIE1M~ !,1~ North State Col ic ~e aaulevsrd~ p. 1~J5 tn EXPMIU AN EXISTING CHURCH WITM WAIyER OF MAXIMUM NUMBER OF S I GNS AND (t)) MAX I MUM S I GN AREA on property described a~ a rectanc~ularly-~haped perce) of land consisting of approxim~tely ~.2 ecres locetod et the northwest corner of Sycamc~re Street and 5tatu College Boulev~+rd~ having aprroximete fronteges of G2Q faet on the narth side of Sycomore Streat o~d l6„ feat on thc west slJe ot State College Boulevo~d. and furth~r doscribed as ;i; I~orth State Coll~ge; BAUICVd~d. Property presently classified RS-A-W3~~~0 (R~SIUEI~TIAL/AGkII;ULTUP,l1L) ZONE. There was no ane indicatiny ti~elr presance In opposltion to subject requtsl. ond although thc staff report to thr Planni~g Cnmmisalw- aate~f Novcmbc~ 6~ 191~ wflt n~t r~ad at the publ(c ticerlny~ it (s rpferred to nnd made a part of ttie m(nutes. Reverend RonalJ Shackelford. Pestur of the First Conyrec~ativnel Church of Aneheim~ the petitloner~ indicoted tliey are (ntirested in beln,y good nelqt~bors and think this proposel is a plus to the envlronn~ent; that thr..y ore proposl~q a new sanctuary wlth londscepinq provided on State Colleye Boulevard and Sycanare Street. Ile stated the varience Is betnc~ requested because the code permits [he maxlmum of one slgn dnd thelr stgn consists of three crobses~ which is considered te~chnicaliy as onc~ sign. Ile stated they have a smati, tempora ry siyn on the corner which wlll be removed; that they knc~w St~te Gollegc Bouleverd is ~ jungle for siyns ancJ have had their archltect deslgn a bell tower marquee as an integra) port of the entire structure; tl~at the maximum stgn area they Are proposiny (s 30 square feet; and that tl~e Anaheim National Bank to the north, e real estate ~ffice~ and other business~s In tt-e arca liave signs thls larye o~ larger. He stated 3A square feet sounds biy, but it Is rcally an II-foo[ by 4-foot marquce And tney think it is reasonablc and would h~; an integral part of the bell tower, THE PUt~I I C NtAR I Nr, WAS C Lo5 EU. Chairman llerbst referre~t to thc expanslon and tlie srea for ;~andicapped people to sit in thetr automobiles an~ take p.irt ln the services and asked wh~t type of speakers are planned fo~ this area, Rev. Shackelford replled that since they have filed the applicetlon~ they have been studyiny vartous types of speaker systems for drive-in churches and there is a ~adio transmitter ty~e systern so that people can listen to the servtce or~ their car radtos a~d woulci not be heard by othcrs. Harmen Jelsr~~a, 15~0 East Sycamore Street. Maheim~ in~icated he had talked with the Pastor ~bout his opposition to having drive•in Ll~e~ter type speakers on posts bccause sometfines they are left on and there would be laud noises if ten speakers werc itft on. Chairman Herbst poin[~:d out whatever type speaker system ts used, they would not interfere wlth tl~e privaey vf the neiyhbor5. ACTION: Comrt~issioner Kiny offereJ a motion~ seconcfCd by Commissio~er Oavid and MOTION A~ RR~D (Commissioner5 Johnson and Tolar being absent)~ that the Planning Commission has revlewed the p~oposal to expanJ a church with watvers of maximum number of signs permittad and maximum sign area o~ a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lend consisting of approximately 5.2 ecre~ locaie~ at the nurthwest co~ne~ of Sycamore Street and State Gollege Boulsvard~ having approximate fro~tages of 620 feet on the north side of Sycamore Street and 268 feet on the west side of State College Bc~ulevard; and does iiereby approve the Negativc Oeclaration from the requtrempnt ko prepare an environmentel impact repc~rt on the basis tt/6/78 : :~ ~ ~y . MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ I~UVE.M~ER G~ 1978 18-912 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PEftHIT N0. 18j~ (continu~d) that thure w~ulc: be ~o significant in~ividuel ar cumule~ive adverse e~vironment+~l impect due to the approvel of thla Ne,yAtive Oeclaratlon slnce the An~+helm Genorol Plan deslgnatas the subJect propcsrty for ccm~m~:iclal and medlum density rosident~sl la~d uses comn~ensurate with the proposal; that nn ~ensitivic eryvtronmenta) lmpacta are involved in the proposal; that tho Initlel StuJy subnttted by th~ uetitloner indlcetes no st~nificant Indlvldu~l or c;umulativc advoin~`n~g~ isnonnfi lc~ (~nethe~City ofaAnehe(mePlanningeDep~+rtmentsubstantleting the foregoing f . Rev. 5liackelford aske~ about tV~e cc~nciltl~~~ requfr(ny assrssmant for 1 i~~htlnc~ on State Collcyc Boulevard~ and Ghairman Herbst ~ointed out ft is a standArd eondltton and is included on a~~ ~L'~~~~,Ian~ninysCuPx~issio~~duesinot11hnveethesrlqht taiwalve~thAtlcand(tlan. char~e; however~ Annika Santalahti, Assista~t Dlrectur far Iontng, pointed out many times the ll~hts are put i n by the G 1 ty and h:ivr. nu[ becn pa I d f~r ~nd th~: pet i t i one r v+~u 1 d be requ( r~d ta pay the fee retroactlvely. Comm(ssloner Kiny offered a rr-otion, secondecl by Commisston~r Uavid and MOTION GARRIEU (Commissiuners Johnsc~n and ?olar beiny absGnt)~ thet th~ Anah~Im City Plannlnc~ Commission does hereby grent the rc~quest for waiver of the code re~quirements on the basls that othe~ businesscs in thc area h.~ve si~ns of this si~e~ and denial would bc d~privinq this property of a privilegc being enj~yed by ocher p~~perties in this s arne.vlcinity dnd zone~ and the proposed secun~ slyn consisting of three crosses~ although t rchnically considered a sign~ contalns no wordNCf advertisiny or tdentification. Gommissioner Kiny offered Res~~lution ~~o. P~7~-2>5 and maved for its passnqe And adopt(on~ thaC the Anaheim Ci cy Pla;;ninc~ Commission cloes h~r~by grarst Petttion for Conditlonal Use Permit t~o. 1n75, subJect tu the conditian that Lhere will be no autdoorloudspeakers which can ba heard at the p~operty line utiliz~d in the "worship-ln-automoblle" outdoor parking area~ and subject to Interdepartmental Cormittee recommendatlons. On roll cali~ thc fore~~oinci resolution was passe~f by the following votes AYES: GONMISSIONERS: dARNES~ NOES: COMMISSIUNERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOfiNSOtI, BUSNORE~ DAVIU, HERIiST. KINr TOLAR ITEM N0. o PLBLIG HEARING. OWNE:R: P, A. CASSEI~ P. 0. EIR-CA ~RI~AL EXEMPTIUNS-CLASSES 1 b 3 8ox 6260, Anafieim, CA °2b03, Petttioner I~D ON U E E M . requcsts permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING - FOUNURY on p roperty descr i bed as ing of approximately 1.~ acres side of Curonado Street~ haviny app roximately G12 feet west of as Z74n East Coronado Sireet. ZONt. ELECTRICAI an irregularly~tt~aped pai'cel of land consist- haviny a front~ge of approximatel~• 14U feet on the south a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet~ beiny located the centerline of Blue Gum Street~ andfurther descrlbed Property prese~tly classified ML (iNAUSTRtAL. LIMITED) There was no one indicating their p~esence in opposition to subje c t request~ a~d although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 6, t978 was not read at the public hearing. it is referre~ to and mede a part of the minutes. Mr. Cassel~ petitioner, was present to answer any questions and re aJ the letter he had prr.viously submitted in connection wlth thts request. 11/6/78 ')8-913 MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, NUVEMNCR G~ 1~78 1903 (continued) EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPIION-CLASSES 1 b 3 ANU GONDITIONAL USC PtRMiT N0. ~ T~IE Pud~ I G H~AR! NG WAS CL05E o, It wss noted that the Planniny Ulrectar or hls autl~orized representetive t~es determined that th~ proposed proJect falls wlthln the definitlon of Gste.gorical Exemptlons~ CleaseR 1 and ,3~ as dand"is itliarefareph~ateyorlcellyrexempcafrom the'requlreir-entmtotprep~retan EIR. Guldeilnes ~ ACTION: (.omm) Ss i uner Darnes of fc: red Resol utiun No. PC78-25~~ an~ ~ved for i ts passege end a~~optTo~~ t>>at the A'ChMpm 19~ 3~Psubject tornlnterdep~rtm~~talt~CommltteeEt~comr+~endetlonn. Conditional Usa Perm On ro) l c+~l l~ the foreyoing resalutton was pass~d by khe fal lowiny vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS; BARNF.S~ f3USHURE. OAVID, 11ERDST, KING NOES : COMI~I S~ I OI~CRS : t~ONE At3SENT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON~ TOLA~c ~~.E~ ~~~~ PUgIIC NEARING, OW~ERS: w~~nnane~im ACA 92b SF• ~ R~_ VE DtCLARAT 101~ SHOEMAKE ~ 22 a E~st B roadwey ~ ~ WA{VER OF CODL RE U ftEM NTS AGENT: CI.ARENE BALLARU~ 9G~ Peary Way~ Anahelm. ~ p ~ ~~qq ~q ~Z~p7. Pet'tioner requcsts permisslon to - - ESTABLIS-i A CIIURGN 41iT11 WPIVEK QF (A) MINIMUM NUMUER OF PARKIN~~ SPACES AI~D (B) MINIMUM STRUCTURAL S-•7F~ACY. on property descriwed as a rectangularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approximately 0.2 acre located at the sauthw~st corner of 8roadway and Ph) ladelphia Straet. haviny ApproxEmate frontages of G') fect o~ the south slde of Broadway and 13k feet an th~ wost slde of Phi ladephia Strect. and further descrlbed as 2~~~ East Broadway. Property presentlY classified CL (C~MM1EftCIAL~ I.IMITED) IO-~E. There was one person indiceting their presence in opposi tio~ to sub,Ject request~ anc+ although the staff repoit is referredntu9and~~adeianpa~rteofNthe minutes1978 was not read at the public he~ring, Clarene Ballard, agent~ stated tl~ey wished to operete a church an t~is prope~ty and they wi 11 have ctasses three or faur nighta a wsek~ and nqst of the use would be on cvenings end weekends and sc~me usan~20i to thep~ P ~cs~n~thef prea~i sestat any~on~ time.indlcated they would not expect n~ore th ~` Captaln tteal tlogan~ The Salvation Arrry, pointed ~ut he was represe~ting the churci~ across the streat from subject property and they were conc.erned about a passible parking problem. Ms. E3al lard repl ied that they were aware there ls a churon the sitehtoscaketcare of~thei re schoo) there. She tndicated they have adequate parking daytime needs. She stated tt~e Traffic Department has recom»ended a few cha~ges to the original plan which would a11ow more parkiny ~n the propert}~. Sf~e stated the only services which would be held at the sarn~ time ~s the chu~ch across the street would be ~n Sunday morning and. addly enouyh~ that i s thei r smallest turnout; that most of thei r paople come to Ft'iday evening meet(ngs. Tt1E PUBI.I C HEARI NG WAS CLOSED. CQmnissione~ 8ushore indicated the Justification stateme~t submitted by the applicant indi cates othcr homes have been converted into businesses or clubs wi th 1 i ttle ur ~o parking off the street, and asked if this reference was to homes in that area. 11/6/78 MINUTES~ Af~AIICIM CITY PI.ANNING COMNiSStON~ NOVfNUER 6~ 1'~78 7g-914 EIR NEGATIVE UEGLAMTIUN ANU GONDITIONAL USL PCAMIT N0. 1',~04 (contlnued) __._._~ Ms. Ballard reQlled that in Just drivi~q cfawn tha stre~t thcy have soen hc~mes ca~verted Into varl~us types of bus znesses and referred to an est++blisi~ment o couple of blocks sv+ey where a r~ther large I~or,~e has bnen converted Into a{~rtvately awned club. Cortmissir~ner Busliore IIIG~~ GdCPd Ilf: WAS feml iisr w(th most af the uses astebll~hed in the area nnd the cl~urch ac~rss the street has been tl~rra far a lo~g t(me and wda one c+~ the earliast churches In A~ah~im, tie steted he has problems with perkln9 also end di d not th (nk si x park i ne~ spaces wuu I d be Adeyuate and fe 1 t the ger~~e wuul d be used for storage rather than a parkin!~ spacc. lie fol t as thc cliurch !~rows ond Acqul rPS more memb~ rs~ there wi I 1 be ~ park iny lrt~act on tiie: n~lghborhoad. He fcl t there scrms tn be en ext~ssive nun~,~r of classes nnticipnteJ for the niitn~~rr nf inembers. Ms. t3allard painted out they are a new church without a moth~r church t~~ support thein and they have not had feci I i t les In thc past whei•r. tiicy cuul d~il 1 mect at th snme t i r+e. Sh~ (ndicated they have d(vi d~d th~mselves into snial ler gr~ups an~l classes ~.,.~ I sueh time +~s they can get toyethar enc~uyh fun~is t~ afford thr. prop~:~ church buildin,y. Commiss~one~ kiusl~ore indi cat~J tl~at churcli yroups ar~: co~str+ntly luo'.iny for l~rc~er facilities and there are not any arounci; that nccasional ly a church will movr to a larger facility~ leaving tlie old churcl~ avai lable, but those are few and fer betwee~ and when this smal l bui IJfn~,; on thi~ small lat for a sinAll group of people at thP present time grows' (t wil 1 becoroe a parl:iny ~-rablem ~nd the problem will be bullt (n. Ms. Bal lard stated thci ~ growth rate for the last four ~r flve ycars has been epproximately 54~~10u a ye~ir and ths grawtti has taken Flace at their prasent lncatlon in Santa Ana wl~i eh is smal 1 er tlian the 1 iviny rnom ~f the home proposed for this use, and unti 1 such ti me as they can yet t~,yether enaugi~ funds to bui ld a ct~urch~ they wi 1) hav~e to meet (n a sma) ler faci 1 i ty, p~inting out comn~ercial property is very expensive. Commissioner Eiushore asked if tl~ls wes the first proprrty the.y had considered~ and hs. Ballard replied thcre are Rot many structures that can be altere~~ for their use and evan in this strueture, if thky qra~+, tt~~:y wtll continue dividing themselvos until they can get finances together for a lare~er facllity. Commtssioner E3ushure. asked if they wou1J be willing to -•emn~;c tne garage and put In more parking spaces~ and Jay Tashtro~ Associate Planner~ p~~-nted out th^ staff h.~d n~t dlscussed these possibi 1 ities with the pecir.ioner, b~t woula be willln,q to dc so. Commissioncr aushorc asked lf there are other smal ler c4,~~rcl~cs operating in the area with inadequate parkiny, and Jay 7ashi ro ~epl ied that hc was not Aware of any In the area. !ie ~ointed out there are s i tuations where churches are operatiny in e commercial Zone or in a comnercial bui Iding wi tl~ adequate pa~king, s~+ch as in a shoppinq canter. Chai rman Nerbst polnted out he feels this is the wrony use far this property ber,~use when a church has started wi th a smull bui idiny with inadequate parking a~d thcn grows, it eventua) ly ends up wi th parki~g prob lems for the a~ea ard the Clty af Anaheim has had several serious parkln~ problems with churctias. Commissioner Bushore i~dicated that with the information he personally know~ of churehes and after the d(scussion with the Pla~ning Commission, he feels the same ~~ay~ that this may not be the right place for this church, realizing they wlll have a ~~ard time ftnding something else~ and the~e are a lot of groups beating the paths looking for facil(ties and the Planning Commiss(on wlll be getting mc~re and more of these requests. t1/E/78 ~ q_. ~ MINUTES~ ANAr1EIM C1TY PLAN~~ING CoMMISSION~ NOVEMBE.R 6~ 197A 7~•915 EIR N~.GAYiV~ uEGLARATION ANU CONOITIQNAL USE PEP,MIT N0. 1~A4 (continua~l) Ms. dallard indicated they havC spplled beforn for conditlonal us~ pcrmits at fecllities ~uch as shopping cent~rs and have ~u~r into the ssme nroblem with perking~ even though they would not be uslny the faclllties wt~en thc other users were therQ. Commissioner dushcsre ~intPd out the church prevlUUSly cor~stJered had had na parkinq problems and hed re~wn tu y~c~w. He In~lcated he r~alized it is golnq to bo h~rd for thts Ghurch to flnJ a location ~nd pol~ted out ho is not ayalnst new churches esteblishing In the area. but did not th(nk this is the rlght property for this use, thet it could cause problens in the neighborhood~ evcn thouc~h there is no opposltion ~resent; that he has senn these p ~ob l erns I n the ~~as t. wl~e rc the ne I yhbo~hood ttiougl~ t the use wou I d bc f I nc and found out later th~r~ woulu be o proble:m and ht+d askPd thet the pcrmit bc rerealed. Commissic~ner David aske~ if th~ church was conter~plating bingo or any activity ~f that type far reisinq tuncls fn thia fac;ility~ an~ t1s. [tallard ru~~llcd th~t whcn ttiey meet so~l~lly tt~ey usually d~ it in o park or larger fectltty since there ts not enough room at this location for a soclal yatlicring of Any kind. Commi~sioner Uavid indicate~ he w~uld ayree with Commissl~ner Bushore that parking woutd be a detrlmi:nt to tlic cliurch itself ond fc~lt surc If the neighbors falt the ptnch af pa ~king~ it would not be conJucive to the servlcas being canducted at thls fACllity. l1CTION: Commissloner Bushore offcred a mntlon~ aecunded by Commissioner David and MOTI(~N CA~R-iE.D (Gommissioners Johnson and Talar bc:ing ah~ent) ~ that the Anah~im City Planning Commission has rcvi~wed thc pruposal t~ pcrmlt a churc~~ witl~ waivers of minimum number of parkfnq sp~~ces and minimum structu~al sr.tback ~n ~ rect~nqularly-shaped parcel of lend tonsisting of apprAximately ~.?. acre loca~tcd at the southwest corner of B~oedway and ?hi ladelphia Strr.et, hAVing ap, roxi~nete f~ontec~es of bci feet on the south side of Broadway and 13k ~~et on ' .~~::t siue ~f Philadclphla Strect; and does heraby approve the Negative Deelarati.. ~ f-• reyuireme~nt to prepare an environmenta) impact re~rt on the basis that there w...., ~ 7 signif(cant individual or cumulative odverse environmental ~mpett Jue the appr~~~ .~~is Ne~~ative Declar~ti~n slnce the Anaheim feneral Plen designates the ~.:;~ aect prc,perty for ir~dium density resldential land uses commensu~ate with th~ propr~al; that n~ senSitive environmental (~i~acts are involved in the proposal; that the Inittal Study submitted by che petiti~ncr ir~dicates no slgnifiGanl indivldual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; ar~d that tt~~: Negative Deciaration substa~tiating the foreguing finciings is on file In the Cit.y of Anaheim Planntng Departrn~nt. Cort.missianer ~usl~ore off~red a motion, seconded by Commissioner Uavid a~d MOTIAN CARRIED (Com-~issloners Johnson and Tolar being absent), khat tf~e Anaheim C(ty Planning Commission does t,ereby denY thc r~;quest for waiver c*f the code requl rert-ents. Cor,xnissior~er ~ushore offered Resolution No. PC73-x~7 and moved for its passag~ and adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Patltion for Conditianal Uss ~ermit No. 1!1~)4 on the basls that subject property is developed in a mannar which wnuld b~ substandard f~r a church in thaC there would be inadequatQ parking a re as . 0~ roll call, the forey~ing ~esolution wes passed by tf~e follawing vote: AYES: GOMMiSSlONERS: BARNt'S~ NQES: GOMhIISSIONEkS: NONL ABSEtIT: COhMISS10NERS: JOIiNS01J. BU5HORE. DAVID~ NERBaT~ K1NG TOLAR Jack White, Deputy City Attorney, presented tt-• written right to appeal the Planning Commission's dectsion within 2"L days. 11/6/78 MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSlON~ NOVEH~ER f>~ 1~~f3 78'3~~~ ITLM_N0. c~ PUbIIG NEARING. OUtJCR: ANAIlEIM REDEVEIOPHENT E I R CIIT~GORi CAL EXCMPTI ON'~LA55 1 AGENCY ~ lOG ~~orth C 1 eudi ne Street ~ Su( tc ~~~0 ~ wA1VER OF COUE REQUIREM~NT~ A~ahcim~ CA ~2rpa. AGENT: E~ SCNNAT2MEYCR. CO~IGITI~NAL USE PERNIT.NO. 19~1_ I11 East Llncoln Avenue~ Annhelm~ cn 92d~;. Petitloncr requests parmisslon to ~sYna~is~~ n~i AUUL7 OOOK STORE WITII WAIVER 0~ MININUM NUMkiF.R OF PAR~:It~G SPAGES on property descrlhed a~ a rectsnyularly-shapecl parce) of land consist~ ing of approximately fi750 squ~~re feei having a frontA~e ~f enpr~ximntely 5~ feet o~ the south side of Li~~coln Avenue~ hAVing e maximum depth of epproxirn~~tely 135 f~r_t~ being located ~ppr~axfmately 1~5 feet west of the centerline of Philydel~hie 5treet~ and further described as 23~ ~,~t Llncaln Avenue. Pr~perty presently clossifled Cf+ (LQMMERCIAL~ CE:Nk:RAL) ZONl.. 71~~re wr.re two pcrsons indicattn~~ thpir ~rnsence In o~positl~n to subJec[ reryuest~ and aithough the staff report to tlie Planning Commis~ic~n dated ~~ovember 6, 1~7tS was not rcrd at thc public he~~+rfng~ It is referred to and made a ~a~t of the mYnutes. Cammissioner Bushore indicated a possible conflict of interest as Aefined by Anahrlm City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC7(~-157, A~~pt{ng a f.onflict of Intcrest Cnde for the Plannfng Commission, and Government Codc Section 3625 et scq., in that he has An essociation witl~ tl~c: An~heim Redevelapment Aqency and~ pursuanc [o the provisions of the above cocle5~ declered to the Chalrman he was withdrawing fr~m the heArinc~ and w~uld not take part in clthcr the discuSsinn or the votinc~ thereon~ and that h~ had not discussed thia metter with any member of the Planning Commisslon. TIIEREUPON~ COMHISSIONER BUSIIOPE LEFT TNE COUNCIL CNAMRER. Jay Tashiro~ Associate Plnnner~ point~d out a letter ha~i been rece(ved fram che Anaheim Redevelopment Agency rec~omnxnding denial of Conditional l~se Permit No. 1909. Richard l3ehn~ Attorney, 26Q1 East Chapman~ Fullerton~ representing the ayent~ Ed Schnatzmeyer~ indicate~i bec~~use ~f his client's physical conditlon he has be~n asked to speak on his behalf; that the bu~~~ess has been at its present location for nine years and rectntly because of rt~developm~: t!af the building n~xt to it~ the build{ng has been structur~lly damaged su that Ir. ~y no longer safe and that h(s cl(ent has been put on notic~ by the City that he must ~nuve out imn-edtetely; that a site was found far his client by the Redevelopment Commissl~n; that it is across the street And down about a block and a half; that the nature of the area is such that his rravement across the street would not affect the kind of use~ pointing out that three doors down the street is an adult theater end next to that is another adult boo~ stare. 11e indicated his client is asking that the conditional use permit be gfanted on ~ t~.rporary basis; that he is looking for a pe nnanent place to move and he daes ~~ '~ntemplate this move to 23$ East Lincolrt Avenue would be an a permanent basis and woul •~:, at the rr~st~ for a year and at the least around 9~ days. -+e pointed out if the cona,~.~.~.,al use permit is denied, it would put his client in a ~~sition of I~aving to move I~is obJects into storage until he coutd fi~d a permanent place and deceasing in business until that happens. He ind~cated this locatio~ has be~r~ `aund for his client on a temporary basis by the Redevela~°. ~t Agency ttself; th-~t his cllent did not flnd the location and he did not prepare tl~: paperwor~; for this canditional use permit, this was cione by tlie Redevelopment Agency. He stated~ again~ thac they are asking that this permit be granted on a tempora ry basts to give his client an ~pr "tunity to find a permanent location fo~ his business and pointed out his client is a G3 y~ar old man and has been in this business for nine years. He stated with regerd to the parking, it is his underst~nding there ls substantial parking directly around the corner. Ne stated the nature of the busin~ss~ while it i5 not one they befieve to be in the best light for the City. it Is one that has very little profile; 11/6/78 MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITV PLANNING COMMISSIO!~~ NOVEMBCR G, 1978 78'9~1 ~.CATEGOKICAL EXEMPTION-GLASS 1 AND COND11'IONAI USE_ PER111T.1~0. 1 j0~ (continucd) that he does not permit nnyon~ undcr the aye of 21 t~ freyuent his place of business and the neople wt~o comc therc ~try for just a few mi~utes at a ttn~e ~+n~i then le~ve; that {t Is not a high-dens(ty bus(ncss by any st~etch of the ima~inetlon ~+nd h~ !s telking about two ar thr~e paople at a time who frequent the location. I~c stat~d they do not believe by allvwlnc~ his client t~ move for a very short perlod of time~ there would be any adverse effect on the Clty. Norman Prlest~ Exccutive Dlrector~ Commu~ity Oevelopment~ clerif(ed that the cortrnunicatlon referred to by Mr. Tashiro wAS from the Communlty Redevelopmcnt Comm(tsion and n~t the Anaheim Redevclapmrnt Agency; tliat the Cornmisston Is an ~dvts~ry group to the Agency and did rQVlew thc Plann{ny Commission ac~enda and made the r~commendat(c~n f~r denlat. He steted a commont was made th~-t this site was fou~d by the Radevelopment Gommisslon when, Indeed~ it wns found by the A~ency st~ff or by their ~unsultants; that !t Is an oblic;~tlon they hnve~ not becausa of anv actl~,n relative to the existinc~ structure~ but because of the fact they havc rnade an ~ffcr to purchase the propcrty. Ile stated thero w~re twa oth~r businesaes loca[eJ in this bulldlnc~ which h~ve. been relocated prlor t~ this tirr~. Ile stated the obligatlan to affer relocatl~n asslstAnce occurs when they mt+ke an offe~ on property~ wliich thcy have d~nc in this situation~ and therefore thcy do have the obllgatton on eith~~r a temporary or permanent besis~ rcg~rdless of the action taken by the Planning Commiss(on. Ile stated they did not observ~ damage to tfie structurc unti) the acijACent demolt'ton occurred, but they ar~ not at thls time able to ascertain when that damage occi,rr a~r to what it mi~~ht be ~~tt~ibuted. Ne statcd~ however, they arc awere thcre is a struccural hatard in thp building and that they and the Agency staff did take this action as one mcans they had available tc~ assist the business in relocatln~; that If this Commission does not cl~oose to act iii favo~ of the petition~ their obltc~ation to relocate the buslness does continue t~ exist and they will seek to rel~cate tlie buslness. Cl~airman liQ~bst Indicated the applicant has stated he would desire to move for a period of 9U days to one year and asked tf thc Redevelopment Agency would still h~ve that obligatlon to ftnd him a permanent location, even though lie had moveJ teMporarily. Mr. Priest replle~f that tl~ey waulJ have that ol~ligatlon; th~t their obliqati~n is to offer relocatt~n assistance either in finding A permanenC stte or acceptance of an in-lleu payment which is a lump surn ~~ayment in settiement. Gaptaln P~eal Nogdn~ The Salvation Army~ 201 East Cypress Street~ Anaheim, scated he bslieves since thera is a pc,tentlal for moving a[ this tlme~ i: should be a move th~it Is flnalized and not a partial move which is being recorrnended. lie stated the clfent is not being moved because of the condemnatian of the building~ but that an offer h~~s been made as previously explalned and he thought thls is the ttrne to finalize the actiars, rather thnn a temporary settler~ent inbetween. lie noted they would be moved in close praximity to other buslnesses of this nature and it is his understanding other comnunities are trying to combat this approach as it :.reaces new difficult(es by concentratfng this type of clientele tn one place. Ne stated thoy tried this concept of havl~g the businesses concentrateJ in one area on tl~e East Coast, thinking it would help contafn the problem~ but it created even a larger problem, so most cities are attempting to disperse these businesses and keep theni separated and further apart. lie stated he believed thc low proftle is not Idw enough because there is still the statement of what the establishment is with the sign on the outslde, and it is still part of Lhe lnfluence on the youth of our nelghbonc~~od. He pointed out several youth centers in the immedlate area~ with The Salvatinn Arrtry conducting o~e only two blocks away~ the City is conducting one right on this street~ and the 8aptist Church is conducting a youth center in the next block and there are quitc a few youths in the area wha wauld be influenced. Ne stated the present ~~~bi~a ~ MINUTES~ NFINI~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMdER G~ 1~70 /u !!18 ~GAtkGORIGAL EXEMPiION-CLA55 1 Ar~O CO~~a~TI0t1Al U~C PCRMIT !10_ 13~9 (contlnued) court ,yuldeline, n.~tionelly havo been glven that tho locelltles are t~ s~ep In and e~tablish some ~utdelincs abaut what is appr~~priatc and inappropriate materlal that Is cor~gf~fared parnograpi~y tu be accaptoble in thelr nelghbarhoods~ and ho belleved It is Importent the-L tl~c Gtty acknawledge this And estebtish this es innpproprlata. -~e stated the City image is one of clean~ famlly entertalnme~t ~nd thts~ af course~ would not comply with th.~~ (mage so it is nc~t worthy ~f the Clty of 1lnahcln~. Ne steted th~r~ are severa) Ghurchas In thu area; that thc Baptist Church previausly n~entioned onc b1oGk down the st~eet has two youth centers which rne.. on eveninc~s and thcre ere c.l~mentary school children in tl~is ~rce. Ne stated tlie concentratlo~ af imrnoral items is ~ detrlr~ent as prevlously stnted. Ile pointed out Dr. Uan Davidson~ P~stor of the Anoheim ~aptist Church, hnd nttended tl~e maatin~~ r,arller but could not wait unt(1 t1~is lete~ and wAnted to mako lt known chat he is in oppositlon~ as wefl, 41~ 1rnA Q'Leery~ 50~ Buckinc~h~m Street. Anahelm~ indlcated she ~iad talked wlth Mr. Frank~ in tt~ie City Att~rncy's Office in 5eptember concerning a store tn the eren which was se~ling pornogrephtc rtegezines an~1 they had 9~ic:crPdrd in gettin~ those magazines behind tne counter anei out of v(ew of tl~e chi Idrpn, She stAted I"r. Franks was tel l tng tier that one of the severe problems is makin9 sure tha chlldren can~ot buy this ty~e of ineterial, and even if you Gan provc (t~ usually the parcnts have t~ mak,e the cornpialnt and normally they do not wa~t to be~cnuse they I~ave t~ say th~ir child bauyht the materlal. He stated It is a problem wt~(ch is qra+ving anci tl~at 'ha~ing a thance to stop a store like this from coming int~ tlic area could solvc thc problem, Mr. tichn stated with reg~rd tn Ms~ Q'teary's comnents regArdinc~ bring(ng thts store i~to thc area. that t~~is store i~ csCablished and has been F~ere f~r nine years and they are not talkin~ ~bout settin~~ up ~~ perman~nc store ut 23~% E.ast L(ncoln Avenue~ but are tallc(nc~ abuut a temporA ry Iacr~Lion ~~ntil his cllent fi~ds a perman~nc location. Ne stated tt~at If he can find a permanent locatlon in Anaheim that wo~~ld b~ flnc. but if he has t~ go to Santa Ana, Fullertan~ ~r sc~n:e place else, that wlll be fine, too. Rec~arding the sic~ns, he indlcated L~1P. statcrncr~t is necessary not to ~ffend people who do not want ta be offended; that thNre is a lar?~e siyn in front of the establishment tndicating no one under 21 will bc permitceJ; that it is an adult book store; tliat th~ windows are blocked ~ut and there is nathiny yoL can see from the outsiJe; that the displ~+y racks on the inside are set up so even i f ttic: daar I s open ~ I[ 1 s contc~mp 1 r~ced that no one woul d be ab l e to see ths mat~:rla! other thar~ thc zide of th~ boak~. Concernin~ the concentration. he stated they aro not talki~g about establisliing a new store, but a busin~ss that has been On the area for ntne years and Hants to rnove on a temporary basis up the street. less than two blocks awey~ so the City is not being asked to confine this store or this type of establishment !;,to a given area; all they arc asking for is a perlod of ttme to find a pe rn-anent 1oC8tion for thls buslne3s, whether it be in Anahcim or someplace else. TNE PU6LIC HEARIt~G 41A5 CLOSED. Commissioner Dayicl staxe~ he thought thc Redevelopment Agency has an obligation to mode thcs busines5 and he did not think it i, the proper time to questio~ the nature of the business; that [hc; obltgatlan is inherent by the fact ttiat they are in the redevelepment area and thcy s~iould be permitted the new lacat(on on A tem~+orary basis and given an opportunTty to elther rnove or flnd a permanent locatio~. Ile stated the question he has would be es to the lenytk~ of time it wauld take to find a pl~7ce. Mr. nehn indlcated he did not believe hls client had checked into that; that Mr. Lyons fran the Redevelopme~t Agency ha~ been assisting him~ and his clienL belleves if given a shart pe~tod of time~ ~0 deys. six months~ etc.. he is tonfident that wtthin a year he wouid b~ able to find a new location. Ne believes it can be done much sooner and he would like to do it as soon as possible. Fle stated the resson the.y are asking tu have 11/6/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVENBER 6~ 197a ~g_g~q IR CATEGORILAI. EXEMPTIO~~-CLASS 1 ANO CO~~DITIONAL USE PERMIT_NO..1~Q~ (cnntinued) thls conditional use permit granted at thts time Is because his cltent had recelved a lett~~ from the Clty dated Noven~er ?.~ 197L~ givtny hlm until the 13th of November t~ move out of that structure~ that the structure is defective and may fall down~ end if he Is not out by the 13th +~nd if he c.annot rr~ ve to the new locatlon by the 13th~ he ts gofng to have to move into storage~ wt~icli is alsn a cost th~t will be borne hy the Agency a~d n~t by the cllont. tle steted the C~ptoin from Tho Salvation Arny had sald s anething about finalfzing the mave; that they woul~ like to do thst and there is no questt~n about that; that the urgnncy (s the structurr~l damayc ceused by removal of Che corner butlding and not somathing his client h~as done, and it ts not ~n attempt to get eround thc finalized movo~ but Is an attempt to continue tf~e busln~ss untll he can find a permanent place. Commissi m er David indicated hc would Ilke to make A comment chat these businesses can exi,t. and ha th~uyht eJu~atlon may ~a tlir enswer to tiie problem end suggested the ene~glas of those pecaple fn oppositi~n be dtr~cted to th~ linu~r stores where these mayazines or otl~er nb.Jectioneble mAterlal i~ readily in slgt~t of anyone buytng a piece of gum or candy, II~ felt thts operatton~ as Mr. Behn has statad~ ts very unAS~uming and control of the younc~sters being in there is abs~lute. Fle indicdtcd hp was reacly to meke a motion yrantinca a terr-~c~rory condittonal use permit f~r 9A days. Commissioner Kin.-~ askeJ Mr. Priest if it would bc khe obliyation of his group t~ pr~vtde premises and what woulc! happen tf they did not provtde premises. Mr. Priest repl(ed that. as indlcAted by the attor-sey for the buslness, they would store the material ar invento ry and seek ~c~ find a permanent location~ and u~on findtng that pe nnanent locat<<m~ then wnuld pay for the cr~st of the rr~vc to that locatton~ physical improvements~ etc.~ ali unJer Che rules and regulattons theY have~ but in the interim pcriod they w~uld pay for stora9e. Mr. Priest pointed out this ls a business and they are 1(censEd to operate in the praject area and at khis rr+ament the Redevelopment Agency is under the obltgetton not necessarily to provide a place~ but to offer relacatlon assistance~ the dtstlnctfon being to provlde r place would imply they must, If necessa~y~ build it, and under the law that only applies to low and modcrate incomc housing, Fie stated they offer the assistance to the buslness which normally comes out to the same thln9. Commissioner King asked if the Agency would be subJect to a fine if this location is not provided. Mr. Priest repi~ed that tn a c~se like that they would stil) provide the assist~nce end will w~rk witli the client ta ftnd another location and~ depending upon the Planning Commisston's finding~ they wtll either work in the temparary location or store the inventory~ equEpment and fixtures, but would not be subJect to a~enalty. He stated It is just a part of their practice wtth any business or eny resident~ for that matter~ to offer that ~ssistance and it is not a matter that they could refuse~ to the best af his knowledge, and he did not know what the penalty would be. Commissinne~ Barnes asked if the cost of storagc will be more expensive for the Redevelopme~t Agency or would it be less expensive to relocate the buslness twice. Mr. Pri~st indtcated that tn using the number which has been estirr+ated of three to s(x months. in all likeliho!id it would be less expensive to store the merchandise than it would be to move it twice. Ne indicated he is estimating that it wo~~id also probably include proper packing because fn a thing like this it must be done either by the individuals themselves or by professionals who can do it properly. t1/6/78 ~ M111UTE5, ANA~IEIM CITY PIANNING CQMMISSIQN, NOVCMDER 6~ 1979 78-~20 ~IR_CATCGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLA55 1 11ND CUNDITIONAL USE pERMIT N0. 1903. (continuod) Commissioncr H~ rbst aak~d~ In regard to the temporary timc wlilch hahpbcionqai~°wQUldmtaka throc manths to a year tliat tf~ey would be utilizl~g this locatlon, the Rec. velopment Agency t~ relocate tlie bust~ess. Mr. Prlest Indlcated tl~at normally they ~~perate on a 90-day time span; that upon acqulsition of the property~ tl~ey normelly glve the tenant t+~)0-day notice end with very few exceptlons ere Able to make relocatlon ln that span of time. Cammissioner King Asked what would happen if they did not find new premises in 9~ days. Mr. P~lest explAlned if tt~ey were storing tfie materials they would continue to store them, and if they did not find a~ permanent location and tliey were in a given locatlon on a tetnporery basis~ then they would contfnue to seek a lucatioi-~ but lt obviou~ly could r~~ch the point where if they were on a tcmpvrary basls and the tirn~ explred~ then the kedcveslopment Agency would pr~bably find themselves in a ratlier ewkward positfon of having to sto~e the busin~sss since the busine:ss hes no autliority to continue under Clty rulr,s, but they have not been faceo wfth that situation ln the past. Ne stateci they h~ve no~ had an occasion where they were unable to flnd a I~catlan unless there are very unusual or spccial circumnotnhad aeclrcumstancteesuchiaSgtl~eynfaceeakllthl5hmome~nt~se or two 11ke that~ but they have Commissioner Klny indicated [he attorncy had mentioned something Abaut perhaps relocating t~ another city~ and asked if the Redevelopment Agency does go to other cities to help the business rclocate~ and Hr. Fricst replled that normally tl~eir radius for relocatlon is 5Q miles and they do not have any probiems anywtiGr~ within ;0 mlles. Commissioner David asked how the Redevelopment Agency addresses the loss of InGAlnB while thc merchandise Is in storage. Mr. Priest re~plied that they do not address the issuc of loss of Income; they stmply store the merchandise and at such time ss the business ftnds Its permanent location~ they then pay the cost nf moving and such things as physicel changes or changes in the new location~ suct~ as W+~>> mQV°~nses s~the client~isiln afpo5itionttoeopent~hbusinessnagainCebut they thoy pay those exp do not normally paY loss of income. CornnissionerdB~~~ePrfestdreplied~thatihepdidtnotahaveiaddateiatgthis timee but.itswould locat1on~ an probably be the~e for a long tlme. Chalrman Nerbst indicated he did not khink thEs type of business is conducive to downtown Anahrs(m; that he did not like wh~t he had seen there and he felt if this business can be stored end moved to s permanent ~ocation withi~ a perlod af 90 days~ this would expediteNe the mave to a permanent location rather than Jumping mround from building tn bu3lding. f~lt inasmuch as this buflding at 23~ East Lincoln Avenue will be there for qulte some 41me~ it could be a foot-in-the-door whcre they will be asking fo~ exten~ions downstream and he dld not think it was a proper place for this use. Commissioner 7avid t"~G~usedthe bulldingtnextit eitNwasgtorn dawnnandSmadetithunsafes ~oss of income be damned be ~ack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ pointed o~~~ the fact has not been found that the building C~~9sston s ouldebc ~n~a p sltion ofidaterminingewhat caused the damage;hthat it Planning 11/6/78 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLIW NING CQMMISSIOti~ Novcr~Ea 6~ 197g ~$-~21 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONOITtONAL USE PERMIT N0. 190~ (cantinued) is clear from the facts ttiat the bu(id(ng Is dertu~e~ed~ but what c~used It is not within the Pl~nninr~ Commission's Jurisdiction. Chatrman Nerbst raf~rred to e prevlous hearing befare the Planning Commisston for enother adult book store which was sh~rt of parking and fplt he would ~dve s hard time explaining to hlms~lf that thry denied that ~~~a for the samc re~son. Ccxn~nlsstoner David (ndicated he dfd not think the ctrcumstonces werc the same and he would like to mal:e a n~otlon to allaw the use for a 9Q-day period. Commis:ioner Barnes indicated she feit strongly both ways~ but yuestioned why retocate this pet~tioner for ?0 days if hc cauld be relocated perm~ncntly s~oner. Commissioner Davld indicated he laoked upo~ thts as Just a stop-gap measure; that the business Is being f~rced into mc~vin9 ~lrnost ~vei'ni~Pub And xhis ~s temporary ~u~rt~crs and the business owner has said it is t~~n~orary quarters and he wili seek e permanent locatton somewhere eise whcre he is wantr.d~ but I~c dId not think he should be forced Into It~ partlcularly with the circ~~mstances as explained by Mr. Priesst, and he did not think It ts felr or reasonable. Commisstoner King polnted out Redeve{o~ment hAS bee~ going on for some time ~nd the ow~er knew thls was cominy, Commissfoncr David patnted out that under normai circu~stances he wAUld have had 9~ deys to seek a new location and reccive relocatlon asslstance for thAt, but I~e hAS to move and a pl ace tias been found and he ( s say i ng "g 1 ve me ~30 days to sack perrnanent qua rte rs" ; that he looks upon thts as a bustness~ nu mattcr hvw obnoxious ft is, and he fs being encroactied upon by the Redevelapment llgen~y. Commissioncr aarnes esked Mr. Behn what would the f~eling of his client be about having to move twice. Mr. Behn potnted out his client is G3 Years old~ has a heart conditlon, and nn one will hire hlm at Xhls time; that he I~ns no other source of income~ no retirement benefits, and he wishes to do whatever he c~~n to contirue hls income; that he hes an invalid wife to support and tie has indiu~ted he only has a savings of about $8~0.~~. Cotnmfssioner garnes clarified that Mr. 8ehn was indicating che cltenC would rathe~ move twtce. Mr. Prlest indlcated he would like to clarify that thls ecti~n wAS not undertaken because of any condition of the structure. but would normally be undertaker~ for relocation assistance because they have rtsade an offer lo purchase the bulldin~; that tlie ~~azardous condtti~n~ from whatever cause~ iias led to thls action by th~ City and they did not perticipate (n that actton~ and it cauld not be said the Redeveloprnent Agency has ~ncroached upon I~is business. He indicated tl~~y have ~'elocated a substantial number of business~s in the downtown area; tl~et this is a very unusual circumstance and the conditlon of the structure does not impact what they would do. Commissfoner Uavid affered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barnes and 'MQTION FAIIED TO CARRY (Commtssioners tlerhst and King voting no~ Commissioners Johnson and Tolar being absent~ and Cortimissione~ Busho~e abstaining) that the wstver of the codc requirement be granted on the basis that simtlar wsivers have been granted in the same vicinity and zone a~d denial would be depriviny this property privilegcs being enjoyed by other property ttl6/78 MINUTES, At~A11CIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVCMliER G~ j~i78 78-q2x Ela CATCGOaICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 194~ (conttnued) ownora In the seme area~ tndicatiny that ha would offer a motian far granting the ~.ondttlonal use pcrmit fnr a term of 9A days. Commissioner Barnos Indfcoted she lias suppqrted the motion sincc Chis is e tomporary arran,qement. Jack Nhite~ Deputy City Attorney~ stated since the motlon falled to carry~ the Planning G~mmission could Qither offer another motion for npp mval or denlal~ or a motion for a continuance t~ a time when the full Commtssion would be presQnt. Coimnissioner Darnes Indicatr.d she felt the mntt~r should hp c~n~ir„iP~i until the full Cor~miss ion is present. Mr. fiehn sta~ed hts cllent was currently ~eceiving emergency med(cal treatmr.nt In the lobby and he would Ilke to request a two-week c~ntinur~nce. ACTION: Commissianer Harnes affered a motion~ seconded by Commissloner Oavtd ~nd MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bushore abstalning r~nd Coirmisslon~rs Johnson and Tolar being ebsent)~ tt~at consideration of tlie aforementio~ed Item be continued for two weeks at the request of the petltianer. (TEM N0. y PUBLIG HEARIt~G. OWNF.P,: LEW L. BOllERS~ 17300 EIR CAT ORICAI. EXCMPTIUtJ-Cl,ASS 1 Cork(II Road~ Oescrt liot Springs~ CA 32240. . AGENT: ROOERT P. HARDIr~G~ 1733 West Le Palma Avenue~ An~heime CA y28Q1. Petitiorter requests pe rmi ss I on to ESTABL I S11 A TIIERAPY ANU MASSAGE FACILITY on property described as a rectangularly-shaped partel of land consisting ~f approxlmately 0.6 acre haviny a fronta~e of 20~ feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue~ liaving a maximum depth of 13~) feet, being located ~~pproximately 350 fect west of the centerllne of Euclid Street, and furt~~cr described as 1733 West La Palma Avenue. Property presently classified CL (CONNERCINL, LINITE(~) ZONE. There was no one ind(cat;ng [heir presence in oppositton to subJ~ect request~ and although the steff repc+r~ to the Planniny Commiss(on dated November G, ly)& was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a oart of tht minutes. Robert P. liarding~ agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARI;~G WAS CLOSED. Chalrman Merbst asked what type of faciltty this will be~ and M~, Ilai•Qing replted that lt is Japanese "Shiatsu"~ not a rnassage parlor; that there are other facilitfes on the West Coast which are classified as rnedical or therapy centers. Commtssioner ~ushorc pointeci out this buslnrss is Iisted in the phone book under a Japanese massage parlor at 924; Euciid and asked if it is the same type of ~uslness. and Mr. Harding replfed it ts not the same type of business. Commissioner Bushora potnted out thet in the staff report~ paregraph (5~ states the petit(o~er (ndicates sub,ject business would be based on referrals from medical doctors only with approximately three cuSto~arrs per hour. He pointed out he called the busineas o~ Friday afternoon about making an appointment and coming i~ for a massage and he 11/b/78 ~ 4• MINUTES~ IWAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMdER 6, 1y78 78-923 EIR CATEGGRICAL CXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANU CONDITIpNAL USE PERMIT N0. 1910 (conttnued) questloned the stater+ient tl~ere would probably be three customers pPr hour to be medlcally referrad~ p~int(ng c~ut the propc,snl Ic to put (n ten cubicles~ and questloned the need for thls much of a factllty with anly three customers per hour. Mr. tlarding repl (sa thAt they h~ve three custcxn~rs per hour arlio n~e medica) doctor referrals. but there arc peopl~ who are referred by someone else and they ~1o eccept those cltont~~ but they havc about threc from doctors only per h~ur. Cornmissloner austu,rr: pointed out stnce the st+~ff report indicates the cllents would be ~afcrrals from mcdical doctors only, If the permit ~s granted the petitlon~r would be !lmtted to th~t anJ cou1J only tak~ [f-usa ~~atlrn;s ~~c:fr.rrCJ l,y Jocturs. bul nuw he is indic~tiny this Is ~ot tl~e cese. Mr. Ilerdina in~licat~d tie had not incflcatea rnedlcal dockors only in his proposal. lie polnted out they are a far~lly-operated business with h(s wtfe, d~ugher-in•law and s~ster- in-lew a5sist(ng. Commissloner Uovid polnted out thc F'lann(ng Department had recPived tele~hone cells from n~any people indicoting [hey were in support of [his canditionnl use permit. Commissloner Bushore polnted out tie was only pointing out contredlcttans betweQn the staff rep~~t and the petltioner's testimcm y~ and Mr. Harding tndicated the word "only" hAd not been ln his lntter to the Plann(ng Department. Vivian P(etrok polnted ou[ she has bcen g~in,y to tl;is p1ACe of business fo~ the last five years for treatment of muscle spasms and thCy cio a terrific Job, and she has ~eferred al) kinds of people io tl~is estat.l isl~m~:nt. It was noted that thc Planniny Oirector or his auth~rized representatlve has d~term~ned t{~at the proposed proJect falls within tt~e definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1~ as defined In parayraph 2 of the City of Anahelm EnvironmentAl Impact RCport Guidelines and is~ therefore~ cate~~arically sxempt fram the requirement to prepAro an EIR. ACTION: Comnissioner King offered Rcsolution No. PC7fS-258 and moved for its passege and e opt on~ that the Anaheim Clty Planntng Commisslon does hereby grt~nt Pettt(on for Condttional Use Perm(t No. 1~~10~ subiect to the prtitioner's stipulation that the hour3 of operation shal l be fror~ 1c1:0~ a.r~~. to G:00 p.m. ~ Monday through Frtday and 10;00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Saturday~ and cldsed 5unday; and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call~ thc foregoiny resolutiun was passed by tf~e following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BUSHOP,E~ QAVID. HERE35T~ KING NCES: COMMISSIQNERS: NO?~E ABS~NT: COMMI SS I ONEftS : JUHtlSON ~ TOI.AR 11/6/78 .{ ~. ; MINUTES. ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMtiER 6~ 1978 78-92h ITEM N0. 10 ~R~'~~ RE:C~MMEI~~AT10!~S A. I. GENk:RAL PIAIJ AMLi~OMEI~T N0. 1~- - Two ecres u~nsisting of ep~roxim~tely 2.0 acres on t~ie east s da o Knotl Straet~ approxtmetely G5~ feet north of the tenterllne of Ball Road - Rcsquest to set for publlc heering. The staff report to th~e Plann(ng Commission ~ated November 6~ 1~78 was presented~ noting this Is a property owner Initiated request t~ chanye the currPnt lnw den~tty residentl~l d~slgnatton to low-n~ed(um resldentiel; that the parccls are currently zoned RS-A-4~,OQ0 and develope~~1 witl~ a vacant single-f~mlly residence and a real estate office; and that tt Is the intent of the property owner to seek RM-4000 =oning ancl to construct an 18-unit condomtnlum complex on 1.7 acres Af the s~bJect property should the General Plan be amendeci. ACTIQN: Commissioner E3arnes affered a rr~tion~ seconded by Cc~mmissioner Davtd and MOTtON ~D (C~mmissionPrs Johnson and 7alar betng abaent)~ that the Aneheim G(ty Planntng Commission has determined th~3t General Plan praceedtngs are Appropriatc at this ttmc and reconm~~d that a publ tc hearin~ bw set for General Plan Amendm-~nt IJn. 14~ for December 4~ 197$. 11. NOISC EI.CML!~T - Request to set for public hearinq. 1'he staff report to tl;e Planning Commis:.ion dated November 6. 1978 was presented, nottng lhe Planning Departme:nt has reccived and approved for submitta) co the Pianning Comnission the I~~lse Element of the General Plan which has been prepared by John J. Van Nouten~ Consult(ny Engincer In Acoustics; that the Noise Element was prepared at the directian ot the City Council in compifance witf~ Section 6~302(g) of the Govermene Code as amended Janu~ ry 1~ 1)J6~ and guidclines prc~ptired by the Office of r~oise Control~ California Oepartment of Nealth; and tt~at it has been prepared te replace the NoisP Element whtch was prepared in 1y74 in compl(ance wlth the regulations which were in effect at that time. ACTIOt~: Commissioner Barnes offered a motion, seco~ded by Cartmissioner David snd HOTION ARf~ D(Gorrmissione~s Johnson anc.+ Tolar betny absent) ~ that the Anaheim City Plannina Commission does hereby set the ~ate of December 4~ 1y7~ for a ~ublic hearing on che Notse Element of the General Plan. I3. AaANDONMEtJT N0. 7~-2A - Request to ahandon the City's road and public utllity easement over a port~on of Fee Ana Street from aapror.imat~ly 59~ feet so~th of the centerllne of La Palma Avenue to its present Southerly terminus~ appraximately 1350 feet south of the centr.rlinc of ~a Ralma Avenue. The staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 6, 19J~ was presented, noting the Department of Public Norks/Engtnecring Division r~quests to abandon the City's road and publlc utility easement over a portion of Fee Ana Streei from approximately y90 feet south Af the centerline of La Palma Avenue to its present southerly terminus. approximately 1350 fee[ south of the centerii~e of Le Palma Avenue; that thls request has been revtewed by a11 departments of the Ctty and a'fected autside agencies and approval is recam~ended subject to certatn conditions; that the applicant is wiliing to meet the conditlons and they are pres~ntly working with the Street Design Section en plans for an offset cul-de-sac; that the otfset was requested by the applicant so that tr~e entlre cul- de-sac can be built on Nrope~[y tt:~_; ~~vn wh(ch will elim(nate the problem of getttng an easement fram th~: property owner to ti~e west; end that abandonment of subject property >>/6/78 ~ ~~~ ~ MIHUTES~ ANl1HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NpVEMdER G~ 1978 78-925 REPORTS 11ND RECOMMLNDATIONS - ITEM B(continuad) will eli-ninate continuod malncenanca snd pocential ltabillty to tho City and will provtde a needed service to the Oreng~ County WatPr Dtst~ict by co~nectinn their extsting ground wator replenishrr~r~t pond to tl~etr new pond purcha~e:d ~rom Conrock. AC710N: Comrnissioner Kinc~ offgred a ution~ seconded by Cortmisslonar D~v1d and MOTION ~0 (Commiss'~~ners Jolmso~ a~~f Tolar being ~bsant) . that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commisalnn does h,.reby recomrnend to the Ctty Counci) th at Abandonmont No. 78-2A be granted, subJect to th~ follavtnc~ conditlons; 1. That a cul-da-sac: be constru~ted at the nr:w t~ ~m(nus of Foe Rna Strdet anJ that plans for the cul-du-sac ba approved by thc Ci ty Enc~ineer prtc~r to c.onstructton. Ail at nn cosC to the City of Anaheim. 7.. The UrAnge Countv Weter DtstrlGt annex t~ the t'Ity of Anohnlm the lrnd required to c:onstruct the cul-de-sa.~. 3. An easc;ment be grantecl to the Ci ty of /lnaheim for rc~ed and pub) i c utl 1 tty pur~os~s over, un~ler and across the new right-of-way ares requ(red by the cul-de- sa~. C. CONUITIONAL USE PERHIT N0. 1712 - Request fo~ appraval of revised pls-:. Commissioner Kiny declered a conflict of Interest as def(ned by Anahetrn City Planning Commiss(on Resolution No. PC7ti-1S7- adopti~sg a Confltct of Interest Coda for the Plannfn~+ Commission, and Government Gade Section 3G25 et seq.~ i~ that h~ owns stock tn Pactfic Lightiny Corp~ratton which awns Uunn P~operties~ and Ou~n Propertles Is the developer of tlie pro,ject and~ pursuant to tl~e provislons of the abn•~r codes, hr. was hereby declaring to the Chalrrnan that he was wi tt~drawing from the hearing . n connection wl th this item and witl not take pa~t in elther the discussion or the voti~g thereon and that he has not discussed this mattcr witFi any member of the Flanning Gam~isslon. The staff report to thE Planning Commisslon dated November 6, 1978 was presented~ nattng subject prope~ty is an irregularly-shaped parcel of lan d consisting of approxtmately 0.9 ac~e having a frontage of approximately 359 feet o~ the southcast slde of Woodiand Drtv~~ having a mexlmur~ depth of approximately 1~7 feet, and being located epproximately 26~ feet west of the centarline of Magnolia Avenue; that the appl(cnnt (Gary Rinr~on, Presldent of Profess(onal Oesiyn Concepts~ Inc.) requests approval of revised plans; end that Cond) tionel Use Permi t No. 1717_, to permi t a recreational faci 11 ty, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 6. 1~77. Chalrr~an Herbst pointed out he had ~evtewed tt~e plans and fele they were (n conformance. ACTION: Commissioner David offered a motion, seconded by Comnissioner Barnes and MOTION ~R~O (Commissloners Johnson and Tola~ being absent and Commissloner King abstainingl, that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston has determin~d that the revised plans are in accordance wi th the urtyinal approval of Condl tional Use Permf t No. 1712 and does, therefore, approved the r~vi sed pl Ans. 11/6/18 ~ ~ MINUTES ~ NJAHEIM G ITY PIANNING C~MMISSION~ NOVEMNER 6~ 1!)78 1~~9zF REPORT_ S AN~ RCCOMMENDAI'IQNS (co~t i ~ued) 0. CONpITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1vJ6 - Request to~ epproval of revtsed plens. ---_---....~- Th~ atafP report t~ the Planniny Commission d~+tcd Novomber 6~ 1~7~ was presented, noting sub)act property i s+~ rPCtanyularly-st~eped pArcel of land conststing of approxime~t~ly 0.7 acre having e froncaye of a~pproximatQly ~a fe~t on the soutli side oP Llncoln Ave~nues, heving a maxtmum depth of approximately 330 f~et~ and belnn IocAted epproxlmately 1060 feat east of the eenterf (ne of Reacl~ Doulev~rd; thAt the appl Icent (KalyanJ i K. Mota) ~dquas ts approva 1 of revl ,cd D~ Af15 ; that Cond i t lona 1 Usc Permi t No. 1846 ~ to permt t c;cpensinn of an exlstinq motel with waive.r of minlmum structura) setback, was grr~nt~d by tlte Planning Commisslon an Saptember 25. l~~~ti, with tho re~uestc-l welver beine~ dcnied; th~t Condition No. 4 st~tes that revisr.J pla~~s shall bc submitced fb~ Planntng Ccxnmission review and approval prlor to the tssunncr af bullciiny permlts~ said plans showing the nacessary ruduction in tl~e number of unlts to coi~,ly with che setback. requi:•arnents of the C 1 ty of Anahe i m l.ode ~ and ti~al a i-~:~~at I ve dec l arat ion wes a~+~r~va.c1 by the P 1 ~nn 1 nc~ Commission (n con_junctlun witli subJect candit ional use permit on September ~5~ 1g78. IlCT10N: Commission~~r Klny offcred a mot(on, seconded by Commissloner Dav(d and MOTIQN C R EU (Commtssiunc~s Johnson ~nd Tolar being nbsent), that t~~e Anehc(m City Plan~ln~ Cc~mmisslun does hereby ap~rove the r~vised plans (Rovision No. 2) bdsed on the reductlon of two unlts ana tonfo~m~nce wl th the buildi~y setback requirort+~nc. E. COI~UITIO~IAL USE PERIIIT_ N0._l~~~s - R~c~uest for retro~ctive extenston of [Ime. 1'he scaff report co tt~e Planning Comrnisston dated Novemhcr 6~ 197u was presented~ ~oting subJect property is a rectangularly-shap~~ parcel of land c~nsistiny of approxlmataly 1.3 acres located at tl~c~ southeast ~c~rner of Santa t~na Street a~d Atchison StreGt; that the appl ieant (Ray S iegele) requests a retrvacti ve ex[enslon af time far Condi tional Use Permit I~o. t5>3; that subJect e~nditional use perrnlt~ tc~ pe~mit metal reclamattan and outdoor storage of rays and metal wlth waivers of minimu~n front setback and minimum number of parking spaces~ was granted by the Planning Commiss(~~~ on August 1~~ 197y, for a three- year ~.eriod~ subject tu revlew and consl.ieration for possible extensions of time upon writte~ requesi by Che petit(oner in order ta deterrnine wf~ethe~ or not the use is det~imenta) to the surrounJing area; tha[ staff in tl~c Fire Department hAS indicated that subJect business has had fire violations in ti~e p~st and ts presently in the process of correcting the viotatinns; and that the Zoning Enforcement Officer has indlc.•,ted tFiat there is ~o on-s Ite parki~g area due to the storaye of rags ancf inetals~ that the appllcant is parking and load(n~ large trucks on the public riylit-of-way~ and the existing fence n~eds repair on tiie east prope~ty line. The applicant. Ray SieyelP~ was present to a~swer any questions~ and Chal~man I~erbst pointed Qut the Zoning Enfarcement Officer has stated thsre are proble~ns with the pr~pe~ty . and as ked Mr, S 1 ege I e to rep ly to these commen ts . Mr. Si~gele rep) led that they do have on-site park(ng and hAVe only flve employees who drive cars and they have 17 pa~ki~g spaces. ~hairman Herbst asked for clarification regarding the fire violations. Mr. Siegele indicated they w11) have firc violations as long as they are in business; that they f~ave go~e over them many times wiih th~ Fire Department and they have generally resolved the problems they havE had, He indicated he could not st~te they will never have any confiict of opinlon. 11/6/18 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINf, COMMISSION. NOVFMBER G~ 1978 REPORTS AND RkCOMMENDAT10N5 • ITEM ~ (cattinued) Chai~man flerbst polntcd out the Planning Comm(ssion has ta F) ~a Depdrtment and i f cl~ey l++y dc~wn rules end regul ations ~ with thoaa rules and i~e~ulatlons. /8~~!17 take thc rccommen c!a t I ons of the the petitioner must comply Commissioner Busl~~~re st~t~d he hsd boen to the faci 1 ~ty a~d there had been a fire from drying rAgs and a persc~n was tryln~a to put out ttie f lames by hand end th~re w~s e potenttel danger th~re,ancl there seemed t~ be a total Jisregard for thc ~=ople In the are~. Nc pa{nted out pe~ple wha did nat went to st~y In the line for unloeding their cars had parked on ths public right-of-wey and unloaded thair cars and walked the merchendise into the facillty. He ststed those were thc thinys hA I~ad observed when he had been at the site anJ thusc: are oll the thinc~s the staff report had (ndicate~d~ and he could nat Justify grsnting an extenslon of time. Ne stated 1~e wauld fsel persunally responsibl~ if one person was burned as the r~sul t of a f 1 re at tt~ i s lc~cetlon. Coirini ss ioner 6ernns i deAdthat he~waul cf 11 ~ve th i sPmuehbbus I nessgwl~enghe hadhmoved~ tonth i s asksd if he had a y lacation. Mr. Sleyele stAted they i~a•~e not outgrcawn thc slte; thiet they have encount~rcd a great deal of Jifficulties; lhat they ~+nre rushed Inio the Iostettciretotaltfi~a~ciAlrpackage the ur9ent rsquest of the F1 re lk~partmer-t; thet they and could not develop the w~y they wanted to; that the prevlous accupants nf the property had left a lot of trash; ChAt they had a di ff ic~~l t ttme getting the electri enl e^d°~hat tu~ned on and had co rent a generator and also had lost money in a bankruptcy; they had h~d many dl f f I cul t i es wi th thr Fi re Oepartment and the C1 ty. Ne s;ated he nor.+ has the operation ir a workable con~,:~•~n; that they did hqve a fire of materlals In the dryer~ but the fire was put out tn th., ~-~"~ Ine and the smoulJerinq rags were taken out. and to someone not fam(laafire,hazard~~heJwouldthaveutakenPt~e approprlateaaCtlon~ stated if he had constd~reJ it Commiyslaner Bushorefinanclalipr blemsss1Ncefelt tt~erewseemedstasbeua~{trert-endoushi~ventnry sympath i zc w i th tl,e just sltting th~~re. Mr. Siegele indlcated the inventory is t~rned over frequently; that the material all looks allke and tf~ey handle a tremendous amount of material on a daily basls. Cfiairman flerbst stated it is not the intent of the Planning Cortim6ssl~n to c~ntine out the applicant out of business. but felt there must be 3ome corrections made, p 9 busi ness t s na'+ ~ n nenci al rt r b lemsanbuththe useeshoul dj becl n~eccordance~w i thrthe,or glna) slide because of fi P conditional use permit. M~. Sieyele indlcated he felt wlYhin one year ~hey would probably have a mc~del recycl ing cen te r. Commissioner Bushore indic~ted afCer seeing the fi~e and the condition of tl» property and because there are cc.~~dttio~s that could never be clea~ed up and the Fi~e V.:pertment could never be sat! sfied because of the type of materi a ls handled~ that he coul d not support the use specifical~Y aveabeen~f roblemsr9n theuPast~~+i th drying1thearagsaand eatchingtthemuon there obviously h P f t re. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEM6ER G~ 177$ 7~-928 REPORTS AND RECOMMEI~DAT IONS - I TCN E(cont t ~ued) Mr. Siogelo stated that 1~ the ~lyht years they havn been in business they heve hed cwo dryor f i ros snd the f 1 res were ~ut out bofore tl~e Fi re Despertment arri ved on thR scane end th~ Fi ra Oepartment has responded wi thtn o~e and one•hatf minutes aftcr the cal l was made. Conn~issiono~ push~~re asked iF ttic vtolatians referrcd to in th~ statf report had baon co~reclcd. Jay Tashiro~ Assoclate Planner, in~ficated staff t~ad tdlked wtth staff in the Fire Dap~rtment and they had indicated thEre would be canttnutnc~ *ype vtolfltlans~ and there had been vlolatians with stacking ttie material above cercaln limits. Mr. 5legele (ndicated the F1 re uepartment was taiklnc~ el,out tt~e stac{:tn~ of the beles and they wanted everytl~Iny t~ be sta~kNd in stcel bins. which they lir+ve compl ted wi th, and evarythtng is naw in the metal bins and they had spent about 57.0~0 ~n these bins, Ne statod also the problem had been stackiny ti~c bales too tiiqh~ but they now stack. thpm R feet hlyh, whicl~ is wltliln thr liinlts. Commissionar Bushore tndlcateJ he could n~~t support tlie rec~uest; that he realized this applicant has a lot of money tied up in this business~ but he felt he would be committinq stxneone to his death and denial r~ight be a favor to the petitloner. Mr. Siegele indicaked he appree iat~d Commissfoner 8ushore's concern and he also app~eciated h(s lack of knowladge; Lhat many people would think sny recycltng canter would appea~ to be a mess. Chalrman Herbst Indiceted he would 1 ike to havc the hearing continued ~or a period of two weeks in order for staff t~ re~x~rt back on the violations and get recommenJatians from the Fi re Department as ta wl~at they woul d 1 i ke to see dc~ne wi th the s i te and I~e woul d also like to review the conditi~ns eoncerning on-sitc.~ parkiny~ etc. Mr. Sieyelr point~d ~ut he woul d like to clarify that customers do stop in front to buy 50 pounds of rays and park in thc yellaw zones and they carry the bundles out to them on a hand truck. Cfiairman Herbst in~iicated large trucks have bee~ observed in thp public rtghY-of-way. Mr. Siegele indicated delivery trucks will pul) up and, instcad of going into the property~ would stop in tf~e ifont to unload. fhairman Herbst indicated he w4uld like to clarify he would have no opposition to the use as long as it is done safely snd properly. Gommissioner Bushore indicated he would like to go along with the Fire Department to get their professio~al optnlon. ACTION; Commissioner Kiny offered a motion, seconded by Commiss(oner Davtd and MOTION CAltRIED (Commtssioners Johnson and Tolar bei~g absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continu~ consideration of the afurementioned item for twa weeks~ to the regularly-scheduled meeting of t+ovember 20~ 1y7~i for furttier staff input. Commissioner Barnes suggested to the petitioner that he find out what thc Fire Depa~tment has to say a~d what the regulations are and be prepared to tell the Cortmission whai he is planning to do about these probtems. ~1/6/78 ~ ~`,;. MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOV~MBER G~ 1978 18-929 REPORTS ANp RECOMMENDATiONS - ~1'~M E(continued) ,,...... Mr. Siegele pointed out the FI re Oap~rtment usu~l ly tomes out far sn Inapectian after they hsvo had an exceptionally busy weekond and there (s a lot of mate~ta) on tha property. and que~tions heve been eaked ~f them wheGhn r they sre srving the mat~ertel until the merket goss up and tl~at is not the cASe. Chairman Nerbst indicated there is e naed for a place llk~ this a~ d he would bo wtiling to go along with the use if it ts dono In e manner thet Is safe. Commiss lo~er Devi d askeci i f ti~a FI re Departm~snt ,y) ves a 1 1 st of co~rections when they lYSUn a vlulatlon. and Mr. Slcgele indicated thet someclmQS they dr~. OIR~CTIVE aEGARDING STUDY QF PARKING FO R BINGO GAMCS. Commissioner Bushore inst~ucted staff to r-ake a stu~iy ~agarciing the ordfnance for bingo geme parking; thot there seems ta be a problem wi th these operations. AD.lOUaNM~NT There belny na furthar business. f.ommisston~r King offe~ed a motlon~ secondad by Conunissl~ner Oavfd and MOTION CARRIEU (Commissloners Jahnson and Tola~ being absent)~ thbt the mecting be a~Journed. The meettnq was edjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respect~ully submitted, ~ K.~ ~ ~, ~Z/`~l.`.~~ Ed th L. Harris ~ Secretary A~aheim Ci ty Plenntng Cammixsion ELH:hm 11 /6/ 78 4'., - ~ 1 1..L'... ~-..tlh.':'