The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1979/01/03i. ~, ~ ~ l C I ty I~e 11 Aneheim. Galifernia Janua~y 3~ 1979 REfULAIt MEETING OF THE ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR ~• The regular mneting of the M aheim Clty Planning Comm9ss;^~th~s~ouncil tp MEETlNG ordor by Chalrma~ Herbst at 1:3A p.m.. Janue~Y 3~ Chambe~~ a quor~im being present. PRESk.NT - Chairman: Herbst Commtssla~nrs: Barnes~ Bushore~ Uavld~ Johnsan~ King~ Talsr ABSENT - Comm(ssionrrs: Nonr. AL50 PRE~ENT - Jack Mlhl te Jay Ti tu!~ Annikr~ Santalehtt Joet Fick Robert ICe11eY Jay Tashiro Edith Harris Ueputy City Attorney Officp Engin~~r Assistant Direct~r far Zantng Asscciate Plan~er Associ~-te Planner Associate Planner Planning Commisslan Secretery PLEuGE OF - The Plecf~e c+f All~giance to the Flag wes led by Commisstoner Tolar. ALLEuIANCE APPROVAL OF - Commissloner King affered a motion, seconded by Commt~sioncr David snd TNE '~INUTES MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioners Herbst,, Joh~son and Tolar aborovedna~c~ that thc minutes of the meeting of December 4~ 1976~ be ap. submitted. ITEM N0. 1 CONTINUED PUbLIC HEARING. TO con~ider: I- EIR NEf,A7 VE pEGLARATION (I) Alternate proposals of ultimate land uses E kP C E 0 N~. 2't2 (11) including~ but not limited to, sinqle end ENE L L N MENUMEN NU. 9 multiple•famtly restdenttal development for apnroxfmately twc~ ac.res on che east side of Knott Street, approximately 660 feet north of the c:enterl ine of eal 1 Re~ed; and II - Noise Element of che General Plan - autiining obJectives~ Qolicins~ st+~ndards and crit~rta whfch are applicbblz to the ~oise tnvironment of the C!ty of Anahelm. SubJect petitlon was contin~,e~ frorn the meeting of Oecember 4~ 197~ at the request of the petitioner. Chairman Herbst explained to the three people present in oppnsition to the Land Use Eiement for Area I, the east side of Knott Street~ that the petitioner has requ~sted a twQ-waek continuance due to ili~ess. AC714Nt Commissloner Tolar offered a nx~tion~ seconded by Commtssioner Johnson and MOTION CA- RR~ED. that consideratio~ of tl~e Land Use Eltment for Area I of G~neral Plan Amendment No. 1y9 be continued to the regularly-schedulad meeting of the Pianntng ~ommission on January 15, 1~79, at the request of the petition~~r. 79-1 1/3/?9 MIN'JTES~ pNAHE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1979 19'2 ITEM Nb. CONTINUED PUE141C NEARING: PLOTKIN-R(1SEN DEVELOP- EIR NEGAYIVE DECLI1RATfON MCNT CO.~ 13352 Washington Bouleverd~ Lo~ Angeles, p L .R 0. 1920 CA 90~66. A4ENT: FRANCHISE R~ALTY IN~ERSTATE ~ CORP.~ 1096~ utlshlre Bou lava~d, Los Angeles~ CA 3~024. Petitio„er reque s ts permt~sl~~ to ESTABLISH A DRIVE-TIIROUGH RESTAURAN~ on property described es s r~ctangu!a~ly-sheped parcel of lend co~sisting of epproxirt-~tely O.G acre haviny a frortage of approximetely 125 fe~st on the ess t~iJe of Euclid Street~ having a maxtmum daptl of •ppr~xtma t ely 272 feet~ and being loeated approxima;ely 995 feet north et the cent~rl tne of Cresc~nt Avenue. Property p~euently classified Cl (COMMEkCIAL~ LIMiTED) 20NE. SubJect petitlon was contlnued frnm the meetings of December 4 and 18~ 1976 at the request af the petitioner. {t was noted the petitioner had request4d A tw~-week continuance. AG TION; Commissloner King offered a motlon~ secunded by Commis sloner Davld +~n~1 MQTIQN ~T~D, that conside~ation of Condit~onal Use Permit No. 1920 be co~tinued to the re g ulerly-scheJuled mceting of the Planning Commtselon on Janue ry 15. 1979. at the request of the petltioner. ~EI~EML PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 149 ' PART 11 - NOISE ELEMEN7 Robert Kelley~ Associate Planner, indlcated the Ga~sulta~t who prepared the Notse Elert~ent, John van Houton, was p~esent. John van liouton indicated che staff report wes very prectse and he would be heppy to snswer eny questions. F redna Jackson~ 431 South West Street~ Anahelm, stated a notse study had been proni(sed for' the Santa Ane St~eet a~ea because of the trein traffic end tht+t study has never been done; th at the s(tuatlon has become a ntghtmere with the trucks and trains. She stat~d she had co~tacted the City~ State. ~ounty~ Federal and railroed oftiGials and they have all referred her back to ~he Clty of Anafieim; thet shc 5elieved th~~e is aome ~rorkablc salutlon; that it is not unusual for seven or etg!~t treins to ga bY beMeen 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.; that the track curves in the a~ea of Manchester an d West Street and the e~ gineers really have to 4tast the whlstle for traff~c; that a signal hes been discussod fo r that area whtch would aliow the tra(n to pass through with the trafftc stopped, ei iminating the neeci for blasting; that there have bee~ accidenta at that location; that she has been told there Is no applicable speed llmit for the trains; that the streets are clearly marked, prohibiti~g trucks, but It is ~ot unusual to have one go by every ten ta fifteen minutes for two to three hours at a time; and ~hat sh~ thought sc~bodY should help wlth this situation. She tndiceted she had filed A petition in t976 containing 150 signatures and tt was not acknavledged for e year. She state d with the houstng situatlon in Orange Caunty she could afford tQ move~ but felt at a late r date she would have ftnanclal difficulty and st~ted unless there is ~ome help for this ncighborhood~ it will become a slum and then the City would have to cor~ect the p~c-b lam with another rcdevelopment proJect. She stated they realize they have to ttve with some noiss~ but that thty heve not siept in years. Sh~ indicated she does no t understand whether the City of Anaheim or thd ~ailroad company awns the streets~ and nobody has been able to ansvror thase questlons. 1/3/79 ... _ _........._.._...._....,- ....,~..w..o.e~...~.w...r..:~wo.w.w~r,r...w~N~..,..»,...d.,..awlClil~lii...l+~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1979 79'3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 149 - ~AR7 11 - NOISE EIEMENT (so~ti~u~d) Cha~~~aen -+arbst palntnd out signalization Is not the Pla~ntng Commtsston's prerogative~ tf~at the Clty Councll must meke that deciston~ b u t the Pianning Cornmtsslon can look tnto the problem ~nd see what has to be dona. Ma. Jsckson steted she had been told the truck traff tc -.roblem cennat 6a en~arc~d bec~uae of l~ck af msnpc,wer and fnlt if these trucks were paa;ing In f~ant ot the poltce chlef's hous~ or Mayo~ Seymour's house, the speod limit would be entorced. Chatrman Herbat asked staff tt sfudles hevc heen ~de regarding the sltuatlon. Mr. Kelley replted Cfty staff recagnlces the pr~blem extsts. but they do not know v+hst the solutions are. He indic~ted they h~ve not studled the prob lem extensivnty end have not prepartd any form~l rcports, Ch~lrman Herbst asked tf the Plann(ny Commtss(on could nwke e racanr~ndritton co ths City Councll that a study b~ prepared~ and Mr. Kelley ~eplled h~ belleved .hey could, THE PUtsLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACT~QN: Commtssianer Tolar offered a moti~n~ sec onded by Cortmissioner Ktng snd MOTION ~Q (Commtssioner .lohnson obstetnfng), that Envl ronrt~enta) tmpect Repart No. 222 for the Nolse Elen~ent of Generel P1-~n Ame~dment No. t~g, heving been considered this date by the Anahetm Ctty P1Er,iing Commission and evidence ~ both wrttt~n and oral~ havfng been presented to su~plement drafc EIR Na. 227.~ finds that any significant envtronmenta) impacts would be mitigated by the requirement fo r canformance with establlshed Clty a nd State codes~ pol(c(es~ plans and ordinancas; e~d the Planning Ccrnm3ssion ~ecammends to the Clty Council th~t ~hey certify EIR No. 222 as t,eing In compllanca wtth the Californla Environmental QualltY Act end wtth the City and Stete EIR Guldelinas. Commiss(oner Tolar o'fered e motton~ seconded by Commisstuner Dayid and MOTION CARRIE D, that the Anahe(m Clty Planning Commissf~n does h+ereby rec:ommend to the City Councll that the Notse Element as recommend~ed by Ctty staff h^ edopted. Commissloner Talar offered a motion~ seconded by Comm(ssionnr David and MOTION CARRIE D~ that the Anaheim City Planntng Commtssfon daes h~reby continue Gene rel Plan Amendmen t No. 149 (i and II} to the regulariy-scheduled meetin g oF the Planning Commission on Ja~ua ry 15. 1979. CommTssioner 8ushore asked Ms. Jackson to expand upon her commenr. that there are sole~ttons to the train problem if a noise study finds it i s adverse ta the a~eea. Ms. Jackson replled the only salution she could see would be a light and there might also be a modification of the train schadule~ but tha t would be up to the ratiroad company. She pointed out there is a switching yard behin d her house. Cammtsstoner Bushore aske~ Ms. Jsckson how long 3he had fived at this locatia~+~ and she replied she had ltved there since 1968. Commissioner 8uahore pointed out the prob~em was there when she had bought the prc~e rty~ and Ms. Jackson replied tt wa$ ~ot nearly as bad . Coim~Essioner Busho~e indicated he lives in the s ame erea a~d dons not flnd the ~otse to be that much of a problem. Ne stated he lives Jus t e lictle further south than Ms. Jackson and at night there is some noise and he is clos ~ enough to hear the belis~ but he did not ~ee hvw a signal would help the p~oblen and felt A study would be wasting tax dollars. t/3/19 ^ s, , i ~ I M I NUTES ~ ANAHE I M C I TY PLANN I NG COMM I SS I nN ~ J ANUARY 3. ~ 979 79'~~ GENEAAL PLAN AMENDNENT N0. 149 - PAFIi I I - NOISE EIEMENT (continueJ) Ms. Jeckson polnted out the City ~f Ana~heim would only havn to pay 10$ of thc cost of the sig~aling devfce~ and that shc had d!scussed thla matter with the Publtc Utilitles Cort~lsslon. Cae~rnissioner Bushoru asked hvw a slgn~~l would cut down the nols~~ end Ms. .lackson repl(ed the traln cngi~~er would not hav~ to blest as much because of the curve. Com~nisstoner Bushore felt if th~ engtneer Chtnks there is a problem~ regardless of whether or ~ot there ts a stgnal ~ he would ~tt 11 blow his whlstle. Jaek Whl te~ Deputy Ci ty Att~~~~~eY~ expla~tncd there Is a legal requi,•ement that when the t~a in comes to an unsignalized Intersection they hdve to blow the whtstle and~ as he und~rs tends ( t. the rei 1 roed company re 1 1 es on that provt s lon ea be i ng the on ly reason the~r are blavtng the whistle~ end lf a~,1gna1 is instalted !t would not bc necessary to blvw the whistle. He stated ins~alll~g a s(gnal would avoid the whistle blawing~ but It would not avotd the train nolse. Caranlssloner Toler tndicated he did not fedl this would requlre spending a lot of tax dol la~s for a study and there may be mit;gating moasures whict~ would solve the problem. He fo1 t staff needs to poirst uut samc sol uttor.s so the Plann(ng Commisston cen make a reeommendat lon to the C 1 ~:y Councl 1. He s tated there may be m( t t gat i ng measures other than a s ignal ~ and he would not recommend spenjing a iot of Cax ~k~l lers and J1 d not envision he was talktng about a lot of staff time to help this particular residential area to make this a more Itvable situation; that evidei~tly these people have tried to do s~methtng about I t and have been gI ven the run-around. Con~missioner Tolar stated he would like to affer a motlon to dlrect Ctty Planning staEf to iook into the sltuatton and present threa ~r four mitig,ating measures to the Planning Commission which wauld make this a mare con~patible s(tuatian for the residents. Con~nissioner Johnson indicated he would support the matlon; that many tlmes stsff identifles the problem but ~aes not offer nny solutions~ and it takes a dlrect motlon such as this In order to get the. problem solved. Con~missioner Tolar incilcated he was not putting sny time 1Smit on the motton, but he was not talking about three os `our months~ and would 1 ikcs to have e report as soon es posstble. Commisstoner Tola~ offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Kl~g and MOTION CARAIED UNl1NIMOUSIY, dtfecting staff to pre~pare a report nn ihe noise problcros at thls location and rec~mmending mitigating meas~~r.s. iTEM N0. 2 PUBLIC HEARING. 041NERS: ROBERT D. ETCNANDY, ET AL~ VE DECLARATION 650 South Western Avenue~ Anehein, CA 92804, AGENT: 0. 1902 ELDEN 11. BAI NBRI DGE , GOLD KEY FURN ITURE C0. , 616 t 5epulveda Boulevard~ Vsn Nuys, CA 91411. Petitioner reque~ts permission to ESTABL~SH RETAIL 5~;1_FS OF FURf~(TURE IN THE ML ZONE on property described as a~ i rregularly-snaped parcel of land eoc~sisting of app~~~ximately 5•3 acres hev(ng a frontagp of approxtmately 800 feet on the east side of 7ustin Avcnue, having a marimum depth of approximetely 3b0 feet, and being 1 ocatcd approximateiy 565 feet south of the centerline of la Palma Avenue. Property presentiy ciassified RS-A-43~000 ((:ESiDENTIAL/A~RICULTURAL) ZONE ~+~+ith a resolution of irstent to the ML (INUUSYRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. 1/3/79 ~ ~~ '~ i MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1979 79-5 EIR NCGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAI USE PEaMIT N0. 1902 (continudd) Subject petitio~ waa Ganttnued from the meettng of Ottober 23~ 1978 for further study; from the meeting of December 4~ 1978 beceuse of a vle vate; +end from the meeting of pecambe~ 18~ 1978 at the ~equast of th~ petictoner. There was no one Indicating thetr presence In opposttt~n to sub)ect request~ end although the statf report to the Planntng CAmmlssla~ datad Janue ry 3~ 1g79 wes not read et the put~ltc hes~tng~ It ls refarred to anJ madr A part o? the m(nutes. Floyd L. Farano, r~p resenting Gold Key Furnlture Company~ Indtcatcd he was present to answcr any yuestiuns and stAted he would Iike to clarify the pr~posed condltions which t.he ~pplican[ has submltted if the Plann(ny Comm-sslon feels incl(ned to move f~vorably on thls request. He stated he would Iike to clarify Condltion No. 14 regarding the sAle o'` apcclalty items; that li~is is a word of art fn the advertising buslness and means specielty ltems not gener~lly sald wh(ch are p~rt of advertfs(ng or promotions only. ile sta~ed they will not be g(ving children balloc~ns or selltng bean b~gs for 95 cents~ etc. Mr. Farano stated he would Itke to add Condition No. 15 whlch would provide far the spp roval of landscape pla~s by the Plannlnc~ Commtsslon and Condltion No. 16 that the stgning wauld olso be :~ubJe~t tn approval of the Planning CommisslAn. Ne st+~ted the conditions Include that the signs would comply with the size and lracatlon requirements of the ML Zon~~ but that they are wllling to go further than that and brtng the plan back to thP Plannlny Commission for approval. Mr. Ferano sCated tf~ere was a questfon regarding afflces tn the other bulldtng; that one of the butldtngs hAS ~ series of offices on the second floor~ which face the lake and the entra~ces to ttiosd affices are f~om the (nside and they are intended to be used tn co~nectton with the industrtel buildings tt~emselves~ artd that they are willtng to sttpulete to that. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. Commtssioner Bushore referred to an advertisement he had teken f~om the newspaper and asked tf tne applicant Is aware that if this request ts approved and there ts a sCipulatlon there will be no deliveries from the Anahetm ,to~e and the hours of operation are llmited~ the advertisement will heve to refilect rhet information. Mr. Farano replied that that advertisement concerned a hol(day clearance of o~t-of-stock items and would not appear in connection with the Anehe~m store. He stated they have stipulated there wl11 bc no deltveries from thls locatian and ali items wfll be delivered frvm another warehouse; that this warehouse Is ve ry small and they will not be able to stock items. Canmissioner Bushore asked how the petltioner wlll oddress the situation if a customer comes in and has a van outstde and wants to take delivery of a~ ttem. Joe Flynn~ Gold Key Furntture Companys stated ihat type clearance program ocs,urs once a y~ar and that an asterisk will be placed in the advartisement that no items could be ptcked up from the Anaheim stare. Commissioner Bushore referred Co the parking informatlon which had been fu~nished at an earlier hearing and asked why tt was stated this store would not draw as much traffic. Ke esknd why there wer~ so many blank spaces in the treffic survey pres~nted and asked why Saturdays and Sundavs were not included. 1/3/79 0. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISStON~ JANUARY 3~ 1973 79'~ :IR N~GATIVE pECLARATION ANO CONDiT10NAL USE PERMIT N0. i90~ (co~tinued) Mr. Flynn statod this type of busfness does ~ot attract a largn amount of tra}ffc; that the cuaton~ rs who came in a~e in the merket to buy; end that they close appr~xlmetely 3S~ of all sales, with a~ average aele of S6A0. He state~i these ftgures were based on the traffic survey in existing storeA in Coste Mesa~ Van I~uys. and Sa~ Jose. Ha explaln~d the blanka were because for some reason or the other the !itares had not reported on those particular days; thet the flgures were take~n from thelr accounting ~ecords. He explalned that Saturdays and Sundays were nat lncluded because t~hey dtd net consider the~e would be trafflc problems on those days. Commisaiono~ ~u~ho~c potnted out tt had bcen report~d the averagc sale would bc approximately $600~ but tliat tlie petitianer had tndtceted they we~e talktng about selling roonrs ful) oF furnitur~. He aske~i what kinc+ ot accessory iterns are Involved. Mr. Flynn replted they are telking about lamps~ pictures~ mirrors~ etc.~ but they do not have appllences such as televislon sets~ radios. etc. Commissioner Bushnre asked about tha referenc~ to "Unity" at the Coste Mesa store~ and Mr. Flynn replled that they lease A portion of that facility to the Unity operation wh(ch Is a cetalog- ty pe operation~ but they wtll not be leasing any space to Unity tn che Anaheim factlity. Cornn~issione~ Buahore asked how this store differs from the n~rmal warehousing-type merchandising of furniture such as Wickes~ Levitz~ etc. Mr. Ferano stated the normal way of displaying furnlture is tn rows, but tha~t Gold Key does not display mercha~dise In tt~at manner; that they have their fur~ltu~e in ~roup settings; that the o~ly plac:e you wtll find dintng roum furnlture is in the whole setting; that there are certaln places in their Costa Mesa facility where they have almost dn enttre home on display. Commissioner Bushore indicated he hacl been against thts request ~nd that the Planning Cc~nmisslon has since gorten some diraction from tha Gity Council. He stated it had been potnted out this operaticm would be different tha~ the norrnal wsrehousing-type operatlon and asked haw tt is diffe~cnt. Mr. Farano stated this operAtion is dtfferent in that you will see fu~niture displayec; in group setttn~s and that merchandise cennot be delivared from this store. Commissioner Bushore stated he had gone to the Costa Mssa stare on Sunday. Oecember 31, 1978~ and he did not see any differe~ce in this operation and the operatlons at Wickes, LevitZ~ etc. He stated there were approx~mately 35 or 40 employees' cars at the store ahen he hed arrived and another 6 to 12 cars waiting for the storc to open, and approximately 31 people were waiting to get ~n the door~ and tfie smployees we~e entering the faciiity through another entrance. Mr. Farano stat~d the Un(ty operation do~s draw thet klnd of cr+~wd. Commisstoner Bushore stated appruximately 2~ customers were waiting tn Itne at the Unity stall and h~ did not like that way af nx~rchandising; that he had soen the dtsplays and had haa~d sales~nen discussing the daJly tallies and he did not see any difference In this operation and any other rctail operatian. Mr. Farano felt the difference would be they are sttpuiating the furnicure would be displayed tn group settings only and there would be no deliveries from this facility. 1/3/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CUMM15510N~ JANUARY 3~ 1979 ~9~ 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION ANQ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1902 (contl~ued) Mr. Flynn Ytated even t~~ough there ware rows of furnlture in tt~e Costa Mesa store~ they stil) have the room aettings for dlsplay and furniture wlll be displayed tn the Anahelm store In group settings only. He stat~d thetr whola oparation is geared to sell wholc roomsfull or hanesfull af furniture, en~ Mr. Farono added thot does nat msa~ someone cennot came In ~nd buy a single pl~ce of furniture. Commissioner Bushare polnted out again the petitioner has been stating this ts a diffQrent type of operatlan end he could not see any difference end that Mr. FarAno had suggested he go to the Coste Mesa store and he had gonc there and still did not see any difference. Commissioner Tolar stated he has been studying different ereas in relattonship ta ret~il sales tn industrial zanes and a Int of the areas have a multl-zone o~ buffer betwe~sn the freowey and the htgh-intensity industri~l uses~ and cl~ie maJor d(fference he sces with this operetlo!~ is that the m~rchandise cannot be delivered f~Atn this factilty. Fle stAted he would like to sec thesc seme conditlons as prnsented imposed on th~ furnitur~ stc~res now in the tndustrlal zones nnd felt when those restrictions wpre applicd~ it would be a pure~ multl~zone buffer which the Plenning Comnission has becn looking for. He stated he is supporti~g this request b~cause the petitloner hos agreed tu butld to the ML standards end has agr~sed to use the ML standards for parking~ signing~ architectural destgn~ etc.; and thak the~ major differencc between Wickes~ Levitz~ Jim's~ etc.~ end this operation would be in merctiandising. He felt th~ one thing that makes this us~ pdsslbie in this buffer zone between ~che freeway end ttie industrial uses fs thar, the customer cennu[ pick up the merchandtst. Ne felt this stipulation by che peticioner dtminlshes the retall aspect be!ween the tndustrlal 3nd retall zones. He did not thtnk ather furnitufe stores In other areas hav~ stipulated to thesc demands whlch will be put on thts user. He statGd hc would like to see these condltlons become a criterla for furniture stores fn the industr(al zone and ~elteved thls would provtde a good buffer zone. CortmissEor~er Bushore stated he had loaked at the multt-use zones in Costa Mesa and I~vine and those zones do not all necessarfly fr~nt the fr~awsy and some are conpletely impacted by i~dustrial, and they hrve bcen care{`ully studicd; th~t this would b~e the only retat) operation we would have at th~s location and thought putting one here and anather one tn some other place would ba a mistakc. Ne felt tF~ situatton ghould be studled. Nc stated he did not believe the petitinne~ could 1(ve ~ith thcse stipulatia~s. He did not believ~ any businessman wauld be able to live with these restrictions. Commissioner Tolar stated if they could not live up to these conditions, then th~ use Goutd convert to industrtal use si~ce they will be bu(lding to the ML standards. Ne stated he would not support a change and if they have to move out, then there would be ~ nice industrial ~utiding left. Conmissioner Ba~nes stated she basically agrees with both Cammissioners; that there is a general agreement that perhaps there ts room in our industrial areds for thts type carnnercial develnpmenk~ but she is concerned about the truck traffic since she travels th rough this erea datly. She asked when the deliveries t~ tF~e store would take place. Mr. Flynn stated the store dcliver(es would not be made out of this location and dellvsrtes to the store will be made probably sround 9:30 a.m. and there w(11 be one t~uck a day. Ne stated ~he maJority of the truck trafftc will be their truck and o~(ginally the naw merchandise will come into the Costa Mesa store and will be delive red to this store, and it will teke place every day, hb nday through Frtday~ with no deltve~les on Saturday or Sunday. and the truck will be coming in between 9:J0 a.m. dnd 10:30 a.m. and teaving befo~e noon. 1/3/79 ~ ~ MINUTES~ A°~AHEIM C1?Y PI.ANNiNG GQMMISSION~ JANl1ARY 3~ 1979 79~8 EIR~NEGATIYE DECLAflATION I1ND CONDITIONAL USE PF.RMIT NQ. 1902 (con~inued) Commlasia~~r 9a~nes stated thes Industrtotista ^in th~ erea need the time bet-teen 7:Q0 n.m. ~nd 11:00 a.m. end when a~ industrialtsk goes into nn are~a th~+t is ane of the things h~ looks at~ Sha stat~d ~he would like to ltmtt tlie t~uck traffic~ esper.lally an Tust~n~ ta thoso ho~~~s When the ott~er traffic I~ not thera, Commissloner Johnson dld not think lt would be nosslble tu llmit t~uck tr~afflc tn rn Industr~sl area since trucl• traffic belongs 1~~ ;m induatria~ xone. He felt retbtl automobiles Is the pollutian of tha industri~l .rcme rather thnn cruck trafitic. Commts~.toner Barnes statad truck trafflc wo~~ld E~robably n~t be ~+ problem with only o~e truck por day. She s~tated she was concerned abnut ~il trafftc~ Rspeclally becausn of the acceas to subJect property. Mr. Fa reno stetcd the d~ltve ry trucks sre relati~cly smc~ll. Comnlssioner Darnes stated sl~e was also concerned about the l:~ndscaping and pot~tieed out tf~era is no landscaping shawn adJacent to thc frec~re~/. Mr. Farano statcd he does have a la~ndscape plan ~•-~Ich was not pre~,ented becaus~ the st~ff has not had a chance to revlew it and ~~uygestrd tr~at the Commtssian appr~ved the use subJect to the conditlon that a landscapfng plan be approved by the Camisslon. Canmisstoner Barnes statrd she was also concerned cl~at the slgntnc~ wAUid be a detrtmcnt to the area and did not perticularty li~Re the idea uf the gatewey to Anaheim's Inaustriel area becoming a huge neon city. She. pointed out the c~th~r Areas she ht~d revieNe:l had rsther strtn,qent sign ordinances. :.ihe stated she ~roul~ like to see the Cfty of Anahe~m establish some type of sign ordinance for the industrial area for cammercial usess. She asked Mr. Farano (f he would agree to having thr samr signing re.yul~tions as in the Scenic Corridor. Mr. Farano stated they have agre~~~~d to comply with the ML Zone requi rert~nts and hc would be a little btt concerned to agrae r.o f~alding the signing dcwn t~~ 1n0 ~Guaar~ fpet, and is not sure the peti t tone~ coul d 1 ive ~:I th th~t. Ne stated he: thought the squa re foc~t~+gr of the signing 1s around 300 sq uare fe~=t. maybe mo~e~ and they would certainf~,• be wiliing to reduce the siz~ af the sign an~.', stated the Planning CorrM~ission cautd apc~rove the rr.quest sub)ect to the condition that the applicant would subrnit styn plans to the Lomm(ssion far approval. Cortanissioner E~arnes s~ated sEnte the petltioner has in~iic.~ted they a~e nuc seeking foot t~affic~ 3~0 square feet ~r more of identtficatfon stgn is rati~e~ large. Mr. Farano stated he would not went t~ agree to comply with the Scenic Cor~tdor requl retnents ~ but they are wi 1 1 i ng to ~educe tfie s i ze af the s f gn prc.pcsed and ~ f the Scenic Corridor signs would ba adequate~ they would be wil~ing to go wi[h that. but rvou;:9 llke the opportun(ty to wa~k wlth it. He stated they sra amenable to gaing at least ane^ half lsss than what is pr~posed. lie st~ted they are in compliance with the ML Zane in that khe sign prnposed ts betrveen 300 ~nd ~(10 squara feet. Commisslaner Tolar ssked staff the ML standerds for a wall sign on that building, and Jay Tashiro, Assotiata Planner~ polnted out the maximum would be 20$ of the wall arca. Ne stated the mdximum size of a free•standing sign tor tfie cammerc~al zone is 300 square fine: and (s based upon the street frontage. t/3/79 MINUTCS~ ANAH~IM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3, ~9~9 79' 9 EIR NEGAT~VE DECLARATIQN ANO CONOITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 1902 (continued) Ccxnmissioner Toiar stated this ts sr~ opportunity to get a nicer sign with less s(gninc~ on the property rtght now than with th~a ML stand~rds~ end stated he would like to t~ee it tied down to a spectfic sizc on the bullding ~ather than a percentage of thE building. Mr. Ferano statsd that a sign which does not really identtfy anything is a we.ste and feit the Commtsaton should lo~k at the actua) bullding itseif and where it (s located; thet this bulld-ng may require l~ss stgning th~n othe~ hulldings. Ne stated they would reduce the size of the sign and bring it ba.k to the Commisst~n far review. Jay Tashiro potnted out there are no sign requlrements ln r.he Industrlal z4ne In the Sccnlc Corridor. Gommlasic~~ar earnes stated she felt pertiaps we should have those standards because the Scenlc Corridc~r ordlnance ts a g~ood one and everyone I~as praper identlfication. Commissi~ner Tolar suggnsted ~~utting A restrittlon on the slze of the sign of approxtmately 250 sq uarc feet ln one stgn and then bri~ging the ~.iyn plt~n back for app rova i . C^xnmissi~ner Barnes stated she was not pleased with the dccess thraugh an tndustrlAl ~~operty to get to cammercial property~ and she wa~ also noc pleosed wlth posstbly having ~~ig c~oid key on the gateway tn the tndustrial area. 'hat~- Hcrbst stated he was going to oppose the proJect bncause he felt it ts blccking ~r-rr rrr our maJor artertals and would be bad planning and the tndustrlal area destrves more ~•~e~a.:~tion, and he feit instead af ecting as a buffer it would ect as a block. ;~.~nrissioner Tolar asked what the indust~lat zone ts being protected from. and Chatrman +~a•rbst stated retail uses are strictly not compattble witl, industrial traffic and room for ~n~ustrl~l g~awth is diminishing ve ry rapid{y, Commissionor Ba~n~s stated tha Commission~ for a long time~ has bee~ voting against any camiercial uses in the Industrial zones unless they ~re industr ally releted and that vldvs are changtng~ which is creating the problem. CommissiAner Johnson stated he had ~ece(ved e special letter from Mr. Fara~o referring ta hts absence at the previous meeting when this was discussed end pointed out~ from his revia~+. very little had beon discussed at that meeting, and he hes been at other meetings where this was dfscussed and itlt he was adequately info~med. He stated as much ss he h~ted to oppose a good friend, he is opposed to this proJect on much the same grounds as nalrman Nerbst. He felt furniture stores going into business )ust about have to go Into the industrial area and he reatizes furniture stores are nat going to go downtown~ and it becomes s decision oi' whether or not we went furniture stares In Anaheim. He felt thls would be a bad loretton for this use. ACTION: CommlYStone~ Tolar offcred a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTt01~ ~D, that the Ansheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the prAposal to permit retail sales of furnlture in the ML tone o~ an irregularly-sh~ped parcel of land cansisting of approximately 5•3 acres having a frontege of approximately 8~0 feet on the east side ~f Tustin Avenue. having a maximum depth of approximately 3G0 feet. and being located approximately 565 feet south Af the centerline of La Palma Avenue; and does heraby approvo the Nagative Declaration from the requir~ment to prepare an environmenxal impaci raport on the basis that there would be no slgnificant t~dividual or cumulative adverse environmenta{ impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration Since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject p~operty ~or general i~dustrial land uses commensurate 1/3/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PIANNING CnMM15~lON~ JANUARY 3~ 1979 19~10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATtON AND CaNDl1'IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 19Q2 (r.cmtinued) with the proposel; that no sen~itive envlronmental tmpacts are Involved tn the prop~sal; thet the Initlal Study submitted by the pet(ttoner Indl~atea no sign-ficent individual or cumul~ttve adverso environmental impacts; and that the Negetive Declaretion substantteting the foregotng f(ndtngs ls on file in the City of Anahetm Pla~ning Department. CoMmissioner Talar stet~d in respnnse to Commtssioner Johnson's cormxents, he thought this would be e batter use At this locat~on tlian an rndustrla) use because he thought It would b~ a buffer between the fr~:wvay and tl~e Industr(al uses. Ile felt less truck trofflc would be generated by this use than a pure industrtal use. tle stetecf as far as the sianing (s concerned~ he wauld Iike to limft the slgn to 250 square feet on one sign rather than 10~ or 20$ af the walt area. tle ststed, obvlously~ it ts warking in other areas to have these buffers between thP freeway end the Industrlal z~ne and they do make ntce developments~ and ho felk this would ytve a better appearance ttian o purely Industridl user. He st~tnd the property is going to bo landscap~d and and the appllcant ht~s stt~,ul,ated tn e lot of things that would makc this bullding aestl~etically better looking than an Industrlal bu(lding and tf it doss not wcrrk out, then a nice fndustrtal park wtll he created. He statbd the huurs of operaCton would a'so have to be ltmited as part of the condltfons~ polnting out the hours of operation as referred to ln the staff ~epart: Monday through Frlday - 10:00 ~.m. to 9:00 p.m.; Saturday - 10:~0 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and SundAy ~ 10;00 a.m. to h:00 p.m. I~e Stated he felt this would be a gc~od use for the property and that it could be convarted to industrlal uses At a later date. Comm(ssioner Tolar offered a resolution gra~ting Petition for Conditional Usp Permlt No. 19~2. s~Ject to the following stipulattons by the pe[itionar: 1. The minimum site sl~all be one acre. 1. The single use shall occupy no less than 40.OOQ sq. ft. of building spa~e. 3. The buildin~ shall be of industrial style architecture normally used in M-L Zones. No dlspiay windows shall be permltted. 4. All sales shall be conducted withir~ the b~t~ding. 5. Such use will n~t create vehicular traffic greater 3n volume than that which Is creaCed by M-L uses In the (rtmedlatr. area. 6. The hours of operation shal) be: 14:00 a.m. to 9:04 p.m. Mc,n. thru Frlday; 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday; 11:OQ a.r~i. to 6:0~ p.m. Sunday. 7. The pedestrian traffic generated by such use shatl not exceed that whfch ts cr~ated by M-I. uses (n the immediate area. 8. That actual parking required to accommodate the patrons of t{~e appltca~t shall not exceed the roqulrements of the M-L 2one. q. That all signs erected by the applicant wtll comply with size and location ~equi rements of the M-L Zone. 10. Tha~t no ttems purchased by the patrons or the applicants shall be delivered or carried from the store, but rather shall be aelivered fran other warehouse locatlons. 11. Th~-t the sale of it~ms by the applicant's business shall be restrtcted to hausehold furniture ftems only. No appliances, ~uch as stoves~ refrlgerrtors or other household eppllances~ electronic iterts such as televisions~ radio set~. etc.~ shall be sold from this location. 12. That only continu~d and currently available items wil) be sold from this locatio~. No close-out Items or end-of-produ.t lines will be sold from this lacat(on. 13. The dfsplay of inerchandls~ to be sald from th(s lacatio~ shall be by room or setting grouptngs only, and that such groupings shall consist of furniture whlch is generaliy used in cortbtnatlon with other pleccs of furniture in the furnishing of a~ enti re home or an e~~tf re room. 1/3/79 d MINUTES~ ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMFIISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1979 79^11 EIR~ N~IVE DECIARATION AtdD CONDITIONAI~ USE PERMIT N0._ 190.: (continued) 14. The sale of advertlsing speclalty or leeder itertrs not ganerelly sold by th~ sto~a desig~ed to p~oduce w~lk-In trafttc shall be prohtbltad. 15. Lsndscape plen shall be subJect to the approval ot the Planntng Commtsston. 16. Signing sliell bc subJc,ct to approval of the Planntng Commisston. Prior to votl~g~ Commtssloner Barnes ~tated any other commercial estdbiishments In this area would lmpact it. Mr. Farano stated this conditiona) use permtt tnvolves Gold Key Fu~ntture Company only t~nd that they are stipulettng there will be only one use tn that bulldi~c~ and that Untty wtll not be pert of thls operatlon. Commtssioner Batnes askeJ about tMe bu(idings to the south. Mr. Farano repitcd that those are tndustrial buildings~ but they are not a part ot this ~pplicatton and suggested that the Llty could protect themselves 5y not permttttnq the subdivtslon af bulidings wtthout Planning Commisa(on approval. Cammissloner Herbst stated those buildtngs can be built u~der a bullding permtt without coming be~o~e the Planning Commission And will probably be divided (nto smal) sections~ and he felt because of this commerc(al use the Commisston wtll be receiving all ktnds of applicaticx~s for commercial uses. On ~oli call~ the foregotng resolution FAILED TO CARRY by the fol!owtng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID, TOLAR NOES: CONMISSIO~IERS: BUSIiORE~ NERBST, JOIi~~SON~ KING ABSENT: COhiMI SS I OIIERS : NONE Commisstoner Bushore offered Resolution No. PC79-1 and moved fqr its passage and adaption~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commissio~ does hcreby deny Petitlon for Condittonal Use Permit No. 1902 ~n the basis that tt is a purely retall showroom esteblishment with truck delive rtes into the area a.~d would not act as a proper bu}fe r wTth one access to ihe p~ope~ty; that it is necessary to drive th rough the lndustrtal prnpe~ty to ~et to the conn~ercial property; and thst it tS not compatible wtth the surraunding area. On ~oll catl~ the foregofng r~solution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSiONERS: BUSHORE~ HERBST, JOHNSON~ KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ TOLAR AOSEN7; COMMISSIONERS: NONE M~. Farano indicated he appreciated the Cammissior.'s eff~rts. Ja~k White, Deputy C1tY Attorney~ presentcd the petitioner the wrttten right ~o appea) the Planning Commission's declsion within 22 days to the City Council. 1/3/79 MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNINP COMMISSION, JANUARY 3~ 1979 79~12 ITEM N0. 4 CONTINUED PUBLfC HEARINGt OWNERt BILA FAMIIY E t ~aICAL EXENPTI4N-CLASS 1 7RUST, 761 Teakwood Ave~ue~ La Habra; CA 90631. AT1~~~'~E' AGENTSi FMNK A. ANO RUTH BILA~ 1511 Ea=t Lincoln 0. 1926 Avenue~ Anahetm~ CA 92805. Patitloner requests -~ ~ - pe~misslon to ES1'ABLISH AN OFFICE USE IN A RESI- DENTIAL STRUCTURE WITI~ WAIVER OF (A) LOCATION OF PARKING SPACES ANQ (B) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA on preperty de~crtbed as a rectengulerly-shaped parcel of land conslsting of approxtmately 665U square feet located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Av~nue and Larch Street~ h~ving approximetely frontages o~ 7Q feet an the north side of Ltncoln Avenue and 95 feet on the west side of Le~ch Street~ and turther described es 1511 Eest Lincoln Avenue. Praperty presently classlfted CO (COMMERCIAL~ OFFICE AND PROFESSIOIJAL) ZONE. SubJect petitl~n was continu~d from the meetln~ of December 18~ 1~~78 at th~ request of the petittoner. There was no ono tndicating their p~esPncr in apposition to sub)ect request~ and although the staff report to tt~e Planr~ing Commissinn dated January 3~ 1979 was not read a~t the public heartng, It (s referred to and made ~a part of the mtnutes. Jay Tashtra~ Associste Planner~ polnted out two corrections to the staff report: Condition Na. 3, deleting the Hord "Housing" and Condttton Na. 5~ changing "onc year" to "90 days", Frank Blla, agent~ Indlcated he had checked wlth the Traffic Department and they have indtcated they see no problem wtth tt~e slde street driveway; that he has rearranged th~ parking and added the greenbelt area to the revise~ plans. Chalrman He~bst clarified the blacktop area wou!-1 be tak~n out and landscaping would be provtded~ and pointed out five cars are E~roposed to be parked in the rear and two in the front~ and Mr. 811a replied this was corrr.ct, and Chatrman Herbst asked why all seven cars cannot be parked in the rear. Mr. Flila ~eplied that a guy wl~e is located alony the alley and this is the o~ly way he can get in and out and that the driv~wry un the s(de vrou!d be for entranr~. Ne stated it would be difficult to have to back into traffir, alang the Lincoin Avenuy frontage. He indlcated he has photc+qraphs of the othe~ properties which are ustng th~ front fo~ parking. Chalrnnan Herbst felt the parking as sh7wn wouid rui~ the wh~le concept of turning a residential structure Into commercial property and that the whole front area would be blacktopped. He felt the front po~tion should be re-landscaped and pointed out only six parking spaces are required by Cod~. Commisstoner Bushore asked what woulci ~e the big obJection to having al! the parking in the ~ear. indicating he dld not t~el the guy wire should be a cunsideratton since th~re is a drtvesway there at the present time. Ne felt all parking should be located tn the rear. Cort~missicu~er Johnson pointed out to M~. Bila that he could get by with only one parking space in the f ~on~t and wich the five in thG rear~ he would he within Code and then he would have more room for landsceping. Mr. Bila pointed out his pro~erty is only 70 feet wide and cars were goin~ to get )ammed up in the back and that east of him there are properties whare all the parkfng is i~ the front. 1 / 3/79 MINUTES~ aNANE1M CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1979 79-13 EiR CATEGORICAL EXEMPYION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.~~26 (continued) Commtssloner Bushoro referred xo the slyn ~equest and ssked why he n~eded 48 squsre feet of sig~ing~ end M~. Bila replied h~ had reduced that request to 24 squa~e feet. Commiastonor 6Arnes indicated if parking space No. 1 as shaw~ on the exhibtt is eltminated and landscaping is provlded In f ront of the garsye ell the ~ay ac ross the front of the property~ she did not see any problem. Cammtasioner Bushore asked the purpuse of the driveway on L~rch Street tf he ts allawed t~ keep the one pa~ktng space up front. He also indicated he did not belfeve a larger sign is neceasary. He stated it is his desire to improve the aesthetics. ~ir. Bila rPplied that he has improved thP aesthetlcs of the property considerably and that he hes photographs of other propcrti~~s along Ltncoln Av~nue wlth larger stgns. Commtssioner Ba~nes indicated she felt 24 square feet for the signing (s too large and 18 squar~ feet w ould bQ adequate. it was notnd the Planning Directnr or his authorized repres~entative has dete nnlned that the p~oposed proJect falls within the definttion af Categoricel Exemptlons~ Class 1~ as defined (n parac~rapl~ 2 of the Ctty of Anaheim En~ironmental impact Report Gufdelines and is. therefore~ categortcally exempt fr~~m the requlrement to prepare an EtR. ACTION: Commiss(oner Barnes offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION CAR ED (Commtssto~er Bushore vnting no)~ that the request for watvar (a) be granted, pe~mitti~g one psrk(ng space in the front~ and allcw{~g waiv~r (b) for a maxtmum sfgn area of 18 sa uare feet on the basls that other signs in the area are la~ger and dental would b~ depriving thts property of prtvtleges being enJoyed by others. Commissioner ~arnes offered Resolutton Nu. PC79-2 and moved for its passege and adoptlon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission ~bes hereby grant Petitlon for Conditfonel Use Perm~t No. 1926~ in part~ subJect to the spplicant's stipulatinn that one parktng space as propostd will be ellminated in the fro~t srea anci landscaping will be provided from Lincol~ Avenue to the garage and across the front to Larch Street; and sub}ect to Interdapertmental Commlttee recommendation~. On roil call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followtng vote: NYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES~ BUSNORE~ DAVID, HERBST~ JOHMSON, KING~ TOI.AR NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Chairman Herbst polnted out the driveway on Lincoln Avenue would have to be removed~ and Mr. Bila indiceted he unde~stood. Jack White~ Oeputy Cfty Attorney~ presented the petttio~er with the written rtght to appasl any part of the Planning Comnission's decision withtn 22 da~s to the Ctty Council. RECESS The~e was a ten-minuee rece~s at 3:15 P•m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 3:2~ p.m. w 1/3/79 MINUTES~ ANAi~EIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N, JANUARY 3~ 1979 79~1G ITEM N0. ~ CONTINUEp PUBLiC HEARING. QWNERS; ANAHEIM HILLS~ ~-~VE DECLARATION INC.~ 38~~ Anahetm Htils Road~ Mthelm~ CA 92807~ . ACENTs INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS~ 17942 Sky TRACT Park~ Suite A. I~vinc, CA 92714. Property descrlbed NOS. 10585 AND 105~~ aa I~~egularly-shaped parccl of land ~onsisting of approxtmately 21 acres having a front~ge of approxt- mately ~A7 f~ei on the west side of Noh) Ra~ch Road, having a maximun+ ~Pnth of app roxlmately 1914 feet, e~~d being located appoximately 271 fe~t south of the cenCertine of Cenyon Rim Road. Prope~ty preaently classified RS-A-k3,000 (RESIDENTiAL/AGRICULTU~AI- SCENiC CORRIQQR OVERLAY) ZONE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGNT. TENTATtVE TRACT RERUESTS: TRACT N0, 1~585 ~ One-lot~ 50-unlt condomtnium subdtvislon. TfIACT N0. 10586 - One-lot. ~)-unit condominfum subdivision. SubJect petition wes continued frorn the meettnys of November 2~ and Oecember 18~ 19 78 at the requesi of the petiti~ner. Ther; was no one Indicating their p resence tn ~pposliton to subJect request~ ancf slthough thc staff report to the Plannin~ Commtssion dated JanuAry 3~ 1979 was n~t read at the publlc hearing~ it is referred to and made a pa~t of the minutes. Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ pofnted out the folla,~ing corrections to the staff report. page 5-c, paragraph (11)~ line g~ "2.~ spaces" should be corrected to "2.9 space!,"; page 5-d~ paragraph (15)~ Itna 6. "25 ~pen spaces" should be corrected to "31 c~pen spaces" and line 8~ "(orlginally 3.1G)" should be corrected to read "(originally 2.17)". Wally Geer~ Pres(dent. Innovative Development Concep;s. stated three primary (ssues were dtscussed at the prev(ous heoring: 1) the height variance~ 2) the rec~eattona) areas, and 3) the parktng. Concerning the height variance. he pointed out due ta the terrain~ the htghest roof point is spproximately i-1/2 feet lawer than [he adJacent pad and spreads from 1-1/2 feet to G5 feet difference between their highest roof potnt and Lhe pad on the other end of the tract. Concerning the r~creation centers and the conce~~ expressed ragerding some secondary recreation centers in the tract~ he Qointed out the main recreation center has nc~t been altered from the o~igtnal plan~ but that a small Jacu2zi and recreation area has been added to the upper pad and they have incorporated into the maJor path system a recreationel/picnic type area; eiso, across the street they have (ncorporated a seconda ry re~reational area wtth d smai) Jacuxzi a~d ptcnic areas~ etc. He stated parking is still avatlable adJacent to the main recreatlon csnter so that any indlvidusls from the otlier levels may us~ the maln recreatien center. F!e stated he disagrees wlth the staff report which tndicates they have provided 117 perking spaces, which is 3•16 spaces per unit, and indiceted they have prov(drd 122 parking spaces which comes out to 3.3 spaces per unit. He referred to the larger or uppe~ tract with 50 units and stated originaliy there were 151 spaces provided as opposed to 125 spaces requtred~ and polnted out they have altered that to 164 spaces, and tf two primsry spaces are considered for each unit, there is an Increase in the uest parking spaces from 51 to 64, an increase of approximately 30$. and the tract with 16~ ~paces avatlable averages 3.32 parktng spaces per untt. Concerning the smaller or laver tract~ he stated they initially provided 99 spaces and have increased that to 122 spaces; th~t 18.5 guest parking spaces we re required and they initially hsd provided 25 and are now p rovtding ~48~ an tncrease of ~8$~ and the 2.7 spaces per un~t has increased to 3.3. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ; j r 1/3/79 ~ ~ 1lINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ JANUARY 3~ 1979 79• 15 E I R NEGAT 1 VE DECLAMT~I O~N VARI~AN~NO. 3U5 ) AND TENTAT I VE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 105t35 ANO 105aG Cholrma~ Herbst stat~d thst tandem p~rking spscss could not be Included tn the average stnce the netghbor cennot use them. He stated eech tract hes to ~t+nnd on (ts avn. Mr. Geer placed tha dtspl~y c~ the wall~ showiny how the psrking Is dlspersed throughc,u t tha trscts~ and peinted out he felt they had satlsfled the parkinq requlrements rnd explelned the ltnk plan whtch Iln~s open space to specltic un~ts. He •nplained the upper tract is 20 units wlth 19 guest parking sp~ces. Jay Tash(ro explalned the plan prese~ted to staff indicated only 16 guest pa~ktng speces •nd potnted aut the perking spar.r.~ on tho plan es count~d by staff and exolal~ed that tendem spates cann~c be counted, Mr. Geer explai~ed that if you dc~ not c~unt lfin LenJem perking •s gues~ parktng spaces. steff is correct, and Chetrman flerbst ~e~) ied they c~+nnot b~ c.~~mt~~i ~s guest parking because th~ neighbors cennot use them. He expla(ned he Ilves tn a stmilar development and knows the parktng situation, Mr. Geer indicated he would dtsagree and felt guests could park in those spaces~ and Cornmisstoner Hushore Indlcated if guests parked In tl~~se spaces~ the owner of the ~mit could not get hts car out of h(s garage. Chalrman Herbst axplalned that tf~ere Is no on-strcet parking in this dCVelopment end It would be a very serious perking problem. Mr. Geer askad if the request cauld be approved sub,ject ta the condition that parking be provided on that one partic~~lar pad, tndicating he would be willing to comply with the Commisslo~'s concerns. Cheirman Herbst replied he felt tf~at would be possible as long as the {~lans would be brought b ack before the Commission under Reports and Recommendations. Commissloner Johnso~ asked if thc Hi ll and Canya^ Municipa) lldvisary Comm~ttee (I~ACMAC) had rev(ewed the revtsed plan~ and Jey Tashlro replied they had reviewed the original proposal and had had the same concerns regerdtng the parking~ but had not ~evfewed the revTsed plan. Mr. Geer cxplatned that he did not havc suffictent time to prepare a revised plan befo re the HACMAC meeting~ but he h ad contacted them by phone and notifted ther~ of today's heari ng. Chairman Herbst stated the plan has been imp roved and the recrcational facilities hav~ been improved and felt. wtth some slight m~difications. the plan would be bccentable. Commissloner BarnGS asked if pic~ic tables would be provided tn the ptr.~lc areas, and Mr. Geer replled that they wouid. Commissioner Joh~son stated this is a difftcult parcel to develop thatc on a hardship parcel a~nenittes are left out, a~d he felt the one to pay the price~ not the buynr. Il~s fe1C the Conmission woul not ltsten to HACMIIC's strong obJec~ions eo the proJect~ but felt modified and the plan is reviewed by the Commission under Reports proJact would be acceptable. and he wes concerne d developer should be the d be remiss tf they did t f the pa rk i ng i s and Recommendt+tions, the Commissioner Barnes pointed out the plan proposes m~re than th~ requtred parking. 1/3/79 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC GOMMISSlON~ JANUARY 3. 1979 79'lh EIR NEGATIYE DEf.LARATION. VARIANCE N0, 3~)57 AND TENTATIVE MI1P OF TRACT NOS. l0y$S AND IQ586 Jay Tast~) ro explalnod in i ao~:ing st the pro~ect vn the baats ot the ga~aqe spaces and open spsces~ they ars pravtding ~pproximatnly 2. o~ 2.9 sp~c~a pe~ unit and the Code raqul rement is 2.5~ ~o they are n~t very fa~ ,~ove the requt rement. Chelrman Harbst fel[ we are I~ remiss In tha Code concernlnq parklnq for condamintums~ eaper.i ei ly wt th the 18-fuo t wl de, private ~oad with ~o perktnq a) lvwed; that he 1 1 vas In e almil~r proJect ~nd e lot of peopl~s uso thAlr gerages for ~torsge and park parellel in fro~t of thelr gareges ~nd there is not enough guest parking~ and he felt changes should be mede to the Code becaus ~ adequate p~rking i s not bei ng provl ded at the p~~sent tlme. He fe) t Co have a good pro Ject nare p~rkt ng shaul d be pr~v) ded end ti~e un I ts shoul d ba moved back so rtqre parki ng coul d be provi ded. Commissioner Bushore polnted out the Commisalnn had previously dtscussed requlring 3 spaces per untt~ and Mr, Geer repliQd thet he had tried to excced that requi ~ement. Chelrman Herbst asked staff i f thei ~ calculetions show the project is meett~g the 1:1 ra~lo as raqueste.t. and Jay Teshl ro rapl ~ed,wi thout tandem parking~ approximat~ly 2.8 spaces pe~ u~lt are being provided~ and with tandem parking~ approximately 3.6 spaces par unit providod. Cnmmissioner Barnes asked (f any studles heve been done an how much parking is requ(r~d for thls type of untt. an d Jay Tashiro replied steff Is (n the process of do ing a study because the Planning Commission had directed staff to study condomintum requirements~ and this sh~uld be cnmpleted in approxirnatcly one mon~h. Mr. Geer stated without h is calculator he had counted 268 guest spaces~ withc~ut counting tandem spacea. and 1 t corn~s out t~ 3.b5 spaces per unl t. He stated he r+oul d be wt 1 l ing to stlpulate to a condition that each pad will stand on (ts awn with a minimum of 1 non- tandem guest parking spac~ per unit. Commtssloner Johnson usked for clarif!cetion regerdiny the height va~iance~ and Chalrman Herbst explained th~ yrade differentlal. AC710N: Commisslo~er Dav id offered a mntion, seconded by CorMnissionar King and MOTION C~D~ that the Anahelm City Planning Cummisslon has reviewed the proposai to establlsh a two-lot. 87-un(t~ conda~nintum s~division with waiver of maximum structural height on an irregularly•shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 21 acres havi~g a frontage of epproximately SB7 feet on the west side of No~il Ranch Road~ having a maximum depth of approximately 1914 feet. and betng located appraximately 271 feet south of the centerllne of Canyot~ Rtm RQad; and does hereby ~npprove thc Negative Declaration from tF~e rcqui~ement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no signlficant indivldual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the a~proval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect property for hi l lside medi um dens t ty res i dent 1 ~:1 1 and uses comnens urate wi th the proposal ; that no sens i t t va anvlronmental impacts are invnlved in the proposal; that the Initial 5tudy submitted by the petitione~ tndicates no signiflcant individua) or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substdntiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anah~Im Planning Department. Commissioner Uavid offer~d Resolution No. PC79~3 and moved for tts passage and adoptlon~ that Lhe Maheim City Planning Commission does hGreby grant Petition for Va~lance No, 3Q57 on the basis of the unig ue topog~aphy of the land with the grade dlfferenti ~is ltmittng one house f rom be i ng viewed by another ~ sub ject to I nte~depa~rtmenta 1 Cortimi t tee recomne~ da t 1 or~ s. 1/3/79 MINUTES~ ANAFiE1N CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1g~9 79'~7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. VARIAt~CE ~~0. 3Q~7 ANO TENTATIVE M11P ~i ~MCT NOS, 10585 AHD 1~5Rh ~ - -- On ro) l cell ~ the foregotn~ rasolutlon w~s passed by the ~ol lor.ing v~te: AYES : COMN) SS I ONERS : BARNES ~ BUSHORE ~ DAV 1 D~ HERBST ~ JONNSt7N, KI N1; ~ TQLAR NOES: COMMISSIONEaS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIQ~ERS: NONE Commtssloner David offered a motion~ sccondcd by Commtssioner eer~es and MATION CARRIED, thet tha Anahelm City Plt+i~ning Commission daes hcraby flnd thwt the propoxed subdlvislan~ togethe~ with Its design ana Impraveme~t~ is consistent wlth the City of Anahatm's General P1An, pursuent to Government Cod~ Sectfon 66~-73.5 and does~ th~refore~ approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 1U~35 for a one-lot~ 50-uni t~ RM-1i0A0(St) u~n~lominium subdlvision~ subJect to thP condttton that one non-tandem parking space wil 1 be provide:d for each unit~ and sub.ject .o the conditio~ that ~evi~eJ ple~~s sl~all be revte~nd and approved by the Pl~nning Commtssion~ +~nd ~uAJPr,t t~ the following c~ndttions: 1. That should thts subdtvis(on be developed as more tha~ one subdtviston~ each subdivtslon theraof sf~al l bn submitted In trntative form far a pproval. 2. That all lots withtn this tract shal~ be servad by un de~ground utilities. 3. That prl~r to the Introductl~n of an ordinance, a flnrl tract mep of subJect property shall be subm(tted to and approved by the Ctty Counci I and then be recorded In th~ office of the Orange County Recorder. 4. That the c~venants, condttlons~ and restrtcttons shal I be submitted to and approved by the Ci ty Attorney'~ ~and C1 ty Engi neer's Offlce pr= ~r to Ci ty Counct 1 approval of the flnal tract map and~ further~ that the appreved covena~ts, condt tions~ and restrtctlans shail he recorded concurrently with the ffnal trar,t map. 5. That street names shall be approveS by the Clty Planr~ing Oepartment prior to approval of a final tract map. 6. That dralnage of said proprrty shal l be disposed of in a menner satisfactory to the City Engir~aer. If~ in the preparation of the s(te, suffielent grad(ng ts requlred to necessttate a arading permtt. no work on yradinc~ will be permitted between October iSth and Aprll 15th unless ~11 required off-site drainage faclliti~s have been tnstalled and are operatlve. Positive assurance shall be provided the City thAt such dratnage facillties will be completed prior to October i5th. Necessa~ rlght•of-way fo~ off-site. d~ainage feclllttes shall be dedicated to the City, or the Ci !y Council shall have inittated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of whieh shall be borne by tha developer) prlor to the commencement of grading operat(ons. Zhe requtred drainage factitties shall be of a size and type s~fficlent to carry ru~off waters oric~~nating from higher properties through said property to ultim.~te disposat ~s approved by the Ctty Engineer. Said drainage faci l tt(es shal l be the fi rst Item o f constructton and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate potnt of disposal prior to the Issua~ce of any ftnal building inspections or occuparcy perm(ts. D~ainaqe district relmburs ement agreements may be made available to the develapers of said property upon thelr requ~st. 7. That grading~ excavation~ and all other constructiors activtties shall be conducted in such a manner so as to mintmize the poss(bility of any silt originattng from this p~oJect being carrisd (nto the Santa Ana River by storm waLrr originating from or flawtng thmugh this project. 8. That all prtvate streets shall be developed tn accordence with the City of Anaheirn's standards for private streets. 9. I f permanent street name si gns have not been instal ~ ed, temporary street name sigr+s shall be Installed prlor to any oCCUpancy. 10. That the ewner(s) of subject propercy shall pey to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be approprlate by the City Counctl~ satd fees to be paid at the time the building permit is 13sued. 1/3/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ JANUARY ~~ 1919 79'1$ CIR~ ATIV~ DECLARATION,_~ IANCE N0. ;0 5 7 AND TENTATIVE MA~ P~OP TRACT NOS. 105~5 AND 10586 11. Th~t the sight dlstance ~t all access polnts to Anahe~m Hills aoad shal) be approved by the City Treffic Engineer ~rto~ to beglnning ~.onst~uct(~n cm any walls or other ~tructures at thesa locatlans. 12. Thst flre hydrants shall be lnstalled anJ charged as requtred and datermined to be necesaary by the Chief of the Flre De pa rtme~t prlor to commencement of structursl f ramt ng. 13. fiat all requtremencs of Ftre Zo~e 1-. otherwtse identifled as Fire Administ~ativA O~der Na. 76-01~ will be met, Such requirements tnclude~ but are n~t limlted to. chimney spark arrestors. protected atttc and unde ~ floor openings, Clas~ C nr better roofing material anJ one-hour~ fire-resistive con s tructton of horizontal surfaces if withln 2~~ feet of ~dJ accnt b rush 1 and. 14, That netlve ~lopes adJacent ta newly-constructed homes shall bn hydroseeded with a lc~w fua) cortbusttble seed mix. Such slopss shall be sprlnklered and weede~ as required to establlsh 1n0 feet separation of flar~nable vegetation frnrn eny struclure. ly. ThaC in accordance w(th the requi~ements cf Section 18.02.~~~7 pertalning to the inttial sale of resldential homes In the City of Anahelm Planning Area "B"~ the seller shall providm each buyer wi th wrttien infarmatian concerning the Anaha(m General Plan and the extsting zoning withi~ 3~0 feet of the bound~ries of subJect tract. 16. That any specimen tree remaval sh all be subJect to the regulatlons perta(ning to t~ee preservatlon (n the Scen(c Corrtdo r 0 verlay 2one. 17. That one non•tandem parking space shall be provided for each unlt and that revtsed plans sh~~ll be revic~wed and approved by the Planning Commisslon. Commisstoner David offerr.d a motl~n~ secon~'ed by Commtssioner ~arnes and MOTION CARRIED, ehat the Anaheim City Planning Commlssion does hereby flnd that che p roposed subdivtsion~ together with ~ts deslgn and improvement. is con~istcnt with the City of Anaheim's General Pian' pursuant to Government Code Section 6G473.5 ~nd does~ therefore, appr~ve Tentatlve Map of Tract Nn. 1058fi for a one-loc~ 37-unit~ RM-W000(SC) condomtnium subdivision, subject to the condition that one nan-tan dem parking space will be provlded fo~ each unlt, a~d subJect to the conditlon that revise d plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commisslon, and subJect to the following condtttons: 1. That should thls subd(vision be developed as more than one subdlvision, each subdlvislon thereof shall be submttted in tentative form for approval. 2. That al l lots wi thln this tract shal l be served by unde-g!n~;.^.:i uti ~ Ities. 3. That pr~or to the introduction of an ordinance, a'lnal tracc map ~~f sub;ect property sha) 1 be submitted to and approved by the Ci ty Cow~ci 1 and then be rec~r•:?'d i~ the office af the Orange County Recorde r. 4. That thc covenants~ cond(ttons~ and reserictians shall be submitced to and approved by the City Attorney's and City E ngineer's Office prior to City Coun:.tl app rovai of the fina) traet map and, further~ that the approve~ covenants~ condtttons~ end restrtctlons shall be reu~rded concurrently with the final tract map. 5. Th at street names shell be epp ro ved by the City ~lanning Department prior to approvat of a ftnal t~act map. 6. That drainage of sa~d ~ro~erty s hell be dtsposed of in a manner setisfacto ry to the Ci ty Engineer. I f~ in the preparation of the si te~ suff icient grad(ng is requi red to necessltete a yrading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and Aprll 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilttfes have been Installed and are operative. Positive assur~nce shall be provided the C~ty that such dratnage facllities wili be campleted prio~ to Oetober 15th. Necessary r(ght-of-way for off-stte drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have inittated condemnat(on proc~edings the ~efor (the costs of whlch shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The requi red c+rai nage feciltttes shall be of a size and type s ufficient to carry runoff waters ori5inating from higher properties through said property to ultlmate disposal as approved by the City t/3/79 ~ ,.., -~ MIIJUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JANUMY 3~ 1979 ~~'19 ~IR NEC~'~iIVE DECLARAT~ ION_ VARIANCE N0. 3057 AND TfNTATIVE MAP OF tRACT NOS. 105$5 ANO 105~6 Engineer. Sald dralnege factlities ~h~ll !,e tha first Item of construction and shall be co~leted and be functional throuqhout the trrc~ ~nd trom the civwnstrearn boundary of the proporty to the ultlmate polnt of disposal prlor to tl~e isaua~ce of any fi~dl bulldtng i ~spoctlans or occupancy perml ts. Drel nage dl s trl ct relrrbursemant agreeme~ts m~y be m~de avai lab le to the develope~s of sald property upon thel r request. 7. That g~adtng~ axc~vatlon~ and all other conatructio~ activities shall ba conducted tn such a msnner so as to minimize the posslbility of any silt origlnatlnq from this project being carrled tntn the Sente Ana Rlver by storm water origin~ttng from or flowing through this p~o)ect. $. That all private streets shall be dcveloped in accordence wlth the Ctty of An~helm's standarcfs for private streets. 9. I f permanent street name slgns have ~ot been I~stAl led. temporery street nsme siyii5 st~a11 be Installed prlur to any occu~ancy. 10. That the owner(s) of subJcct p~op~rtY shell pdy to the City of Mahetm the approprtate pa~k and recreatlon In-Ileu fECS ~s detcrn~ined to ba approprlate by the Clty Councll~ sald fees to be paid at tho time the building parmtt Is issu~sd. 11. That tiie sight disCence at all access points to Anahalm Ntlls Road shall be approved by the Clty Trarflc knglneer prior to beginning construction on any walis or other structures at these locatlons. 12. That fire hydrants shall be Installed and charged as requircd and determined to be ~ecessery by the Chief of tl~e Fire Department prtor to commencement oP strutturat framing. 13. That all requirements uf Flre tone 4. otherHise Identifled es Ftre Administrative Order I~o. 76-01~ ~Ni 11 be r~t. Such requtrements tnclude, but arc not limited tA, chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and under floor openings~ Class C or betcer roofing matorl~l ~nd one-hour~ fire-reslstive constru tion of hortzontel surfaces if wlthin 2~0 f:~et of adJa~cent brushland. 1~. Thai natlva sl~, s Ad c t~ neti+ly-co~structed homes shall b~ hydroseeded with a la~ fuel cort~ustible seed ~ch slopes sha11 bc spr(nklerpd end weeded as required t~ ~;9r.t~blish 1^0 fe~ ~eparatio~~ ~mabls vegetatl~n from any structure. 15. f;.at in ac~ ~:ance wi ch tne requl rements of Snction 18.02.047 pertalnlnq to the 'nitla~ ~ate o'D ~cs~ 'ential homes In the City of Anahetm ?la~ning Area "D", the seller shal' ~rovide each buye~ with wrltten lnfor-nation conce~ning the Anahelm General Plan a~d the existing zoning within 300 feet ot the boundartes of subJect tract. 16. ''hat any specimen tree removal shal t be subJect to the regulatlons pertaln(ng to t~ea pres~rvatlo~; in the Scen(c Corridor Overlay Zone. 17. That the ~vner(s) of s~bJect prope~ty shall dedicate and ~mprove e 6-foot wide equ~strian and htktng tratl as required by the City of Maheim, and Improvement plans for said x~ails shall be Submttted in c~nJunctton with the ~rading plan. 18. That one nan-tandem parking space shall be provlded for each unit and that revised plans shall be rcviewed and approved by the Plsnning Commisslon. CNAIRMAN HERS57 IEFT THE MEET'N~ AT 3~55 P•M. AND CHAIRt4AN PRO TEMPORE BARNES ASSUMED THE CHAI R. t/3~19 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 19'l9 79-20 ITEM N0. 6 PUgI~C FiEAR~NQ. OWNCR: LAS TIENOAS DC YOaBA~ 363 ~~ ,OitlCAL EXEMPTION-GLASS 1 S~~ Mlguel Drlve~ Newport Beach, CA 92G60. AGENT: VER OF CODE RE~~UIR ~N MICHAEL J. GENOVESE~ 1~20 North M~nzan(ta, Orange, ERMIT N0. 1927 CA 92667. Petttioner requests ON-SALE OF ALCOHOLIC ~~~ 9LVlRAGES IN A pROPOSCO RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER AF MINIMUH NUM~F.R OF PARKING SPACES on p~operty descrlbed as an irregularly-sl~ep~d parcel ot land consixting oF approxlmetely 5.n Acres located at the northwest corner of Santa An~~ Csnyon RoaJ anJ Imperlal Hiyhway~ heving epproximate frontages of 700 feet on the north stde of S~nta Ana Canyo~ Roed and ~20 Peet on the w~st slde of Imperial tlighway~ and further described as ;h65 Easc Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property prosently c~~ssifled CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITEf3•SCENIC CORRID~a OvERLAY) ZONE. There was na one Indicating their presenr.e in oppositlon to sul,Ject request~ end although the staff report to the Planntny Gommissian dated Janue ry 3, 1979 was not read at the publtc heariny~ il (s referrcd tu ancl ~r~aJ~s a part oP lh~ mi~-u[es. Mlchae) Genovese~ a~ent~ puinted out th(s reque~t is for :+ Uon Jose restaurent simllar to exlsting restaurants (n Anahetm on La Palma Avenue~ In Fullerton on Placentla~ ~nd in Orenye on Kateila. THE PUDLIC NEARIt~G WAS CL~SEU. Cumm(ssloner King stated the problem with this rcyuest is the ovailabil(ty of parktng spaces. Mr, Gcnovese stated the plans were submitted severa) months n,yo to the Building Dtvislon and approved and the bu(ldiny is approximately q5b completcd. Chatrman Pro Tempore Bar•,~s inJicated she dld not remember a perktng ~roblem when this was originally before the ~Omm~55lot1. Jay Tashlro~ Assoct.te Planner, exrlalned tw~: •~~taurants were orfgtnally proposed and the pa~king was b~sed ,n une space per 1~~ square ~c~et ~f gross floor area because the developer had indica~ed he did na[ know what typc of ~estt~urants would be developed And, suhsequ~nt to tha-, a pizza restaurant wss approved for su~~Ject p~operLy whicii wes not orlginally indicatea a~d which r~quired one space per 12; sc~uare feet of grass floor area; a~d that the cocktail IAUnge ~~oposed for the Don Jose ~estaurant has to be based on one space for eve ry 35 square feet of gross fl~or area. He stated the parking deficiency has been created by one additional ~estaurant on the proper~y and the cocktail lounge for pon Jose's. He stated in looking at the ent~ -~oj~ct es it exists and based on the future develapment of the additional restaurant ~~:~poscd~ 237 parking spaces are requlred and they have proposed 2~5 parking spaces; tr,;•~. ,: the additional restaura~t is not constructed as -roposed, the center wouid be in canformance with the parktnq code. Commissioner Tolar stated he felt the whole problem ts that the er ~ t corner is bpinc~ impacted and overbuilt f~r the area; that with the pizza restau~Ant~ Uon Jose's and an additional fast-food restaurant, the corner will be heavily impacted. He stnted he was ~~ favor ~f this rest~urant proGeeding predicated upon the conditic~ that no additlonal fast- food restaurants w~uld be allowed an this praperty. Ite indicated he has no problem with the fr~ct that a fast-food ~estaurant is needed in the area, but fe-t this corner ls being overbuilt. He stated the problem arose when tha pizza restaurant +vas altowed. Jay 'Tashiro explained that the MacOonald's representattves are aware of the parking problem and that the Planning staff has meetings scheduled with them to discuss this p rob 1 em. `• . 3/ 79 .,. ~, ~i MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 3~ 1979 79'Z~ EIR CATEGORICAL EXFhk'TION-CLASS 1 AND CONQITIONAL_USE PERMIT N0. 1927 (co~tinued) Commisslone~ Tolar stated th~+ prc~lom wi'1 be passed on t~ the homeowners wha abut the property to tlie north; that the cr;playees wlll be perking on thetr strcets~ atc.~ end he was nut Intaresced in the developnr getting another resteurant on the property. f1e atated he woulA not m~ke ~ resolutlon for eppravel unless he could in~lude the conditton that no addltlonal fast-fond rest~ur~nt would tA devel~ped. Jey Tasi~iro explsined if the rostaurent proposed 1~ developed a~ an enclosed restaurent~ the requirement would br. for 237 spoces snd the deficioncy would be 32 spaces~ hut if a fast-food restaurant ts developed~ 273 spacas woulJ be required and the deflclency would be 68 speces. Jeck White, Deputy Clty Atr.~rn~y~ explelned e condition cou{d be added that any subsequent development sliall conform ko the perking code requlrements; however. If the develaper can to~struct a restaura~t that wlll meet the perking requirament~~ he did not tfii~k it would bc approprlete :o prohib(t restaurents in thetr entirety. Chairman Pro Tempore ~arnes suggcsted d~nying the request for walv~r af parking. Jay Tas~~iro explalned that lf the waiver is dented~ MacOonald's or eny other fast-faod restaurant would have to request a pr~rkiny varla~cG. He did not think thet that restaurant had been constructed aC this ttme and felt tt could be stopped when they apply for a bullding permit. Commissloner Johnson stated he was concerned they would build the restaurant and then ask far the yariance leter. It wa~. noted the Planning Director or his authori2ed representative has determined tha~ the proposed proJect falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions~ Class 1~ as definea (n paragraph 2 of the City of Anaf~eim Environmental Impact Raport f,uldelines ancf (s~ xherefore~ cetegor(cally exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. AC710N: Commissio~er Tolar offered o mot(on. secanded by Cortx+~lssloner King and MOTION C~RR~ED (Commissioner Herbst being Absent) ~ that the request for weiver c~f cod~ requlrerc~:nt fo~ min{mum parking spaces be deniec3. Commisstone< Tolar offered Resolutlon No. PC7Q-4 and m~ved for its passage and adoptlon~ that the Anahe(m City Planning CommissloR does hereby grant Petition for Co~ditional Use Permit No. 1927~ in part, subJect to Interdepartmental Commtttee reconanend~tions. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMM{SSIONERS: HARNES* BUSHORE~ DAVID~ JOHNSO'~~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST Jack White~ Deputy Ctty Attorney~ presented the petitioner with the written right to appeal any part of the Plan~ing Comnission's decision within 22 days ta the City Council. 1/3/79 ~„ MINIITFS~ AI~ANEIM Cl1Y pLANNING tOMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1979 79'22 ITEM N0. 7 RLADVCRTiS~D PUISIIC HCARING. IAWRENCE W. ALIEN~ E R ~ IVE AEGLARATION 2~2fi South Fllppen p~ivc~ An~hetm, CA ~28Q2: AGENTt ,- 0. 1901 PURU PATEL~ 20~'~ South flarbor Daulevard~ Anaheim~ CA q2802. Pettttone~ reque~ts ~serMlsslon t~ ESTABLISH A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK IN CONJUI~CTION WITtI AN EXISTING MpTE.L on pr~perty descrlbed as e rectangulerly-shaped parcel ~t lrnd consisting of npp~xfmately 3.7 acres having n frontege of appr^Klmetely 272 feet on the wast slde pf Harbor tio~~levr~rJ~ having a-naiximurn d~ptf~ of epprox(mete!y 525 teet ~ being loceted epproximately 65~ fee[ north of the centcrltne of Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 1A2~~ Sauth I~arbor Baulevard. Property presenGly clnssifir.d C-R (C01•IME:RCIAL-RECREATION) ZOI~E. There was no one in~lc:ating their aresence in onpu~itiun ta aul,ject rr,r~uest~ and slthough the staff r~po~t to th~ PlAnnin~ f,~mmicsl~n datn.d Jenua-y 'i, 1~'T9 wa~s not rerd at the public heariny~ It is referred to and rnade a psrt of the minutes. Harry M:n~sely~ tJ~+1 South Cucltd Strect, An~~hetm~ representing tlie ayent~ stated the p~~posed par~: was deslyned by Jahn Swint, who desi~ned Travelers Mlorld on Qall R~ed~ and that the cancet~t and cksign ~re almast (dentical; that they have exceeded tfie requtrtrt~nts for la~dscapiny ~and recr~ationa) areas; th~t this is a commerclal-recreational use (n the cortKnercial-rccreattonal area. Ne reF~rred to the slte dPVelapmcnt standards proposcd (n i~70 for t~~+vcl t~aile~ parks and lndlcated they would gladly sclpulatP that there wfll be no travel trailers occupying these spnces. I1~ stated slte dr.velopment standArd "A" re~qulres 3 gr~ss acres for a p~rk and the proposed park is eppraximately 1.4 acres; that standard "(~" requlres ~ minimum orea of ~t0~ squarr. feet tor each lot and thfs is where he fslt it ls tmpartant to talk abou[ th~ differ~nce between recreational vehicles and travel trsi Iwrs; th~at $?.6 of thei r lots ere smal ;er than E(10 square feet~ buc that 1a0~ of Travelers 1~vrld's loc~ are smaller ihan $QO ~quare feet; that they exceed the requirements fo~ standards "b", "E", "F"~ and "G" t~nd ~tandard "N" r~qulres thet access be 5~ feet wide and they have props~sed 2(~ feet and have been tald Paul Sinqer~ Traffic Engineer~ has indicate~ 26 fe~t is more than a~equace~ however. they ca~ increase that access; and that sC~ndard '"1" requi res 5~ square feet of common rccrc~tionr+l-letsur~ space per lot and they F-ave Pxceeded thet requi rement. He sta+ted this is a use whicli is in demand and they are in cort~liance with the parks that have been devei~ped; th.~i 2his is a comrnercial•rec.-eatlonal area and the use is compatible with the zone and area. THE PUHLIC Hf.ARit~G WAS ~LOSEp. Commissl~^c-.r Tolar stpted the appllcant I~as talked about the design being tdent(cal ta Travelers t~or'.:! ~+~ C~a:~ Road; Ehat the design may be the same, but the area is entirety differenk. and ;hat pa~k was designed as one project ~nd this one has a res aurarst tn the front of (t and the or~e un (3a11 Road ~id not; that hc served on the Cortmission when Travelers ~lorid was ~pproved, but thought tl~at proJect iS a mess and could not be considered a good cri~taria; that ;he Planning Commission has iearnesd from that project; and that the parking is terriblc and the in9ress and egress is bad. He stated this project would be even more compacted because the access has been reduced from SO feet to 25 feet :.long5ide a restaurant. I~e indicated the applicant's willingness to stipulate that there would be no tr~ilers housed at this proJect is d(fficult to imagine because he did nc,t think it wou{d be possible t~ police that typc situecto~; that if a travel tratler pulled in after seeing ~n RV siyn, he di6 not see tiow it could get back out according to the plan as presented~ and he could not envision that the operator would turn it away if there were a~y vacant parking spaces available and thought the operator would let them stay anyway; that, economically, if there was no ~ne there~ he would allow the trailer to 1/3/79 r- f. 1 MINUTC~~ ANAlIE1M CITY PLANNIf~G COHMISSION~ JANUARY ~~ 1~~/y )y-23 EIR NEGATIVE OECIARATION AND CONDITiONAI USE PERMIT NA. 1~01 (contt~ucd) - ~.~~.~.__. __. occupy twa spaces~ so that stlpulntlon ts not valld; that tha ~p~ltcent moy be st~cere (n mektny this stipuletion~ but tl~ere would be nu wey to police It end lie dId nat think the operetor w~uld anforcr it. Ile steted the proJect on Batl Rood hAd a bullt•In huffer zone; thot the new Marriott Ilotel (s going to be bu(lt in th(s erea and the homeown~rs had made s lo= of rnyuests end bu`fers hAd boen butlt into tt. He stated tn looking et the pro,Ject and the woy (t is used ri~ht na~w~ (t would be a va ry poor pinnnlny us~ Por the land. Commissioner Tolar indlcated I~e has tried to evaluate th(s frnm the owner's standpolnt And~ in looking st the differences ~f the tratlers parks anci RV parks allowed ln Anahe(m~ the Plan~(ng Commtsslon ts finclin~~ some ~f the resldents are becom(nq permanent and some peaple hoJ decided a cheap way to Iive (n Cal(f~rnia (s to buy an RV end rent spece and attend our schouls. He Indicat~:.~ he is up~u~ed to th~is lanci use~ but would be wl l l ing to listen to see If the applfcant cuulcl changP hfs mtnd. Mr. Knise:ly IndicAted thls is a C-R use tn ~~ C-R Zone and he did nor see whr.re the restaurant would be a detrlment~ but rather thouglit It complements tt. Ne indfcated they could rn~ke some changes wtth the ingress anci egress~ but that it hos been revlewed and he has been cold that (t ls sat(sfncto ry. Gancerntng tfie stipulation no trallers would be allowed~ fic indlcateJ this would be d~ie to the manage~rm~nt. Ile painted aut thts managernent does run a motel and certainly does nnt reni to permanent tenants. Ile asked where you would locate an RV park if not tn the commerclal-rk~craation area. ffe st.~ted he falled to see where the Marriott I~otel could be consl~ered as opposition; thet they knew thts property was vacant when they bougl~t iC and knew whak ehe potentlals were. He stated by rights the landavner cauld extend the rtx~tel operation i-~to the 1.~~ acres and then they would be looking out onto the roof of a rrqtel with ~robabiy some atr-cond(tioning unlts instead of an area wtth 3a6 landscapinca. He stated they would he allowed to have a parking lot end he d~d not thlnk their paved area would be attractive either; that it would be without landscapfnca, He rPferred ta the permane.nt residents and ind(cated that also depends upon manaqemcnt. F~~ stated this property owner wants An RV park, not a trave) tratler park~ to wmplement what he elready has~ and F~e th~ught it was a natura) for this property. Lommissioner Bu~hore asked why the property owne~ daes not want to expond his motel~ and Mr. Knistly replied it was probably due to economics and he thought this was an interim USP,. Commissi~ner Tolar tndicated that since he has been ~n the f,ommission, all mobilehorr~ parks and similar uses have been ~resented as interim uses~ but they are permancnt uses because they have prQVen to be very prafitable. Mr. Kntsely indicated he was familiar with that argument since he had bcen involved several years ago in a mobtlehome park 1n Anaheim, Commissloner Bushore indicated he was glad to see there were 147 total parking spaces, which is over the ~equired amount. He indlcated he was sorry Travele~s World had been dlscussed because he had been to that park and seen all the problems there and he had planned to question h~w this petitioner would mitigate some of those problems. Ne stated if the access was expanded to SO feet~ more parking spaces would be eliminated and indtcated he did not see how the avner could ksep trailers from goln~ into the lot, and Mr. Krtfsely repl ted that would be a matter of management. Chalrman P~o Tempore 8arnes indicated she sees this as a v~ery elite area with a multt- mtliton doilar motel going tn, the Quallty Inn~ and Crocker Bank~ with an RV park in the middle of it across from the Convention Center~ the Inn at the Park~ etc.; that it is a ve ry nice area and what she wvuld like to see and what the landownc~ proposes are two 113179 MINUTES~ ANAfiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANIIARY 3, 197~ ~9'24 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1901 (co~tlnued) diffe~ent things; and th9t ~he c~uld understend the hroperty owner needing to rut srxnething there, Cor.Nnlssione~ 7olar indicated he felt the Planning Commtssion has to make a decislon on the highest and best usd of the lr~nd; that if the property owner had come tn with an addition to the motel~ as Mr. Knisely hed elluded to~ he wauld be In favor of that~ but he c~uld not see this as thc hfghest and best use of the land. Commissio~er Johnson f~lt the Co-nnisslon has been sldestepping tl~e ltsue~ trying to find some technical problems, and the only thtng he has tn hang hls hat on (s that he does ~ot belleve thls use is compatible with the surrounding areA; that we do need RV parks and this Is the C-a Zone and a C-R usc~ but It sti~l dcmands some corr~atihitiltry with the n~tyhbar~ and hc did not belteve this use (n that area would be cc~mpat(ble~ therefore~ he wouid be in opp~siti~n to thts requcst. Comnis~~o~~r aushore ind-cated che area does not bother him as much aa the fact that these are tl~s ssrrM plans as prevtously submitted; thet he had expectcd to see something A ltttle dif~errnt. but the semP thing was submitted; that hc had looked et this agr-in wlth a very opcn mind and the p1Ans are the same and he saw no reason t~ changc hls votc at this time. Mr. KnSsely potntc.; out the dlfferences in tt~e revised plans. Chairn~an Pro Tempore Barnes indicated it bothoreA her to turn down a proJect lik~ this bccause it is a privately-owned piece of proRerty and th~ property owner f~as the right to devtlop It and the Planning Commissian is caughL (n the mlddle. trying to do the best for the City; that here is a private person asking to do something with his property ~nd she felt it really is a probtem and wisheA he could come in with a nice, b19 restaurant, Mr. Knisely submitted tliat he felt a motel expanslon with atr-conditloning units on the roof would n~t be acceptable. Commissloner Busfio~e indicated wh~t kilied the projecc for him was the fact that It Is similar to Trav~lers Worlci and that he pl~nned to ask staff after this hearing to determinc whether or nat we are requirin~ enouyh parking at these parks. It was noted a Negative Declaration was approved ~n the subject proposal by the Planniny Comnisslon at their Octobar 23~ 1978 meetin9• ACTIOPJ: Commissio~er Tola~ offered Resolution No. PC79-5 and moved f~r irs passage and adop lon. that tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition for Conditlonal Use Pe~mit Nc. 1y01 ~n the. basis that the proposed use is not compatible w(th the surrounding area and is not the h(ghest and best use of the land, and that the proposed plan dnes ~ot provide aciequate ingress and egress ~nd traffic ta the area must pass through a restaurant parking lot. On roll call, the foregoing resolution wes passed by the following vote: AYE~: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BUSNORE, UAVIO, JOHNSON, KI~~G~ TQLAR NOES: COHMISSIONERS: NONE AI35ENT: CQMMIS510NERS: NERBST Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ present~d the petitioner with the written right to appeal t4~e Flanning Commisslon's decision withtn 22 days to the City Council. 1/3/79 4 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN~ JANUARV 3~ 1~79 ~`~"25 ITEM NQ. 8 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: HiIMER ANU MABEL H~ITMAN~ E DECLARATION 3~83 West Ball Road~ Anehelm~ CA 9280~~. AGENT: p M ~~T LEROY HEITMAP~~ 3~83 Wast Dall Road, Anahelm~ CA 92804. OIJDITIO A USE ERMIT 1~0. 1922 Petitioner ~equests pnrmlastnn to ESTABLISI~ A CONTRACTOR'S STOi~AGC YARD WITN WAIVEP. QF P;:RMITTEO STRUCTURES on property descr(bed as o rPCt~ngularly- shaped parGe) of IenJ consistlnc~ of appruxtmately O.A acre hHVtng e frontage ~~f approxlmately 155 teet on the narth side of Bell Road~ havtng a rtu~xlmum depth of approximately 211 feet~ being located approxlmately 1145 feet west ~f the centerline of Beach Boulevard~ and furthc~ urs;.~tbed as 3083 W~st Be11 Road. Prope~ty presently classificd RS-A-43~~~A (RE:IDENTIAL/ArRICULTURAI) ZONE. There were il persons indicating their presence In np{,ualti~n to sub)ect request~ and sithough the Staff rep~~rt to thc Planning Canxnlssion deted January 3~ 1979 Wds not ~ead at the public t~eariny~ it is rpferred to and made a part of the mtnutes. l.eroy He(tman, eyent, stated he has aper~ted his business et 30~3 West 9a11 RoeA for the last 15 Years; thAt he feels the problem is that the buslness hAS yotten out of hand as far as volume gnes; that he has been tn business for 22 years, 15 years et thls locatlon; thet he started the servlce of erosion contro) ditches, benci~es and down-dratns about six or eight years ago and his gross revenuc at that tiine for onc year w~s S1i~~~00Q~ and now it is just tess than S3 mlllton and his operatio~ is almost a day-and-nic~ht operatf~n and it is not offensively visible from the street~ but that they do have nolsc; that he h~s knawn for over a year thet he would have to move to another location because he Just does nut h~ve the room at thls location and he knaws he Is making too much noise and there is no questlon of not wanting to move; that thts operation is not any e'm~tr~ntorder tohfind in the area sxcept In sizc; aid that he is asktng fo~ a temporary p a naw location. Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ pofnted out a correction tn the staff report~ paae ~-c. Conditlon No. ~ of th~recteddtoereedntwithinmetper(od`ofTnlnety daysifromethehdater1Od of one yesr should be c.~ hereaf." Dan Halden, Attorney with Nolden and Devins~ 300 South Narbor Boulevard, Anaheim~ representing Mr. and Mrs. Ken Brock~ 30E37 41est Ball Road, Maheim, immediately ta the :rest of subJect property~ stated the Brocks do not have anything pe~sonal against Mr. Heitman; that they heve lived here for many years and are independent buslncss people, but do not conduct their business on the adjacent pru~erty and are receptive to the problem; that in the past two yea~s this bustness has grown substanttally and, as tndicated by Mr. Heitman, it Is a 24-hour operation; that he uses bac~:hoes substantir~lly in his buslness and uses a torch and hamrner and fabricates equiprr~nt on the property and they are dumped in big sheets in his driveway~ and commencing around ~+:3~ a.m. or ~:00 a.m.~ hamrnr~ing comrnences righc tn the ears of the l3rocks; that M~. Neitman has been awsre of the problem for the last two years when the toning Enforcement Officer had potnted out this is an illegal operation. He statea probbbly 1a years ago the City did not ob,ject as the Brocks did not~ but did not think they h~ve waived any rights~ particularly when the situAtion became aggravated; that 1n October of 1976~ a trailer was il~egally moved onto the property and the Zoning Enforcement Officer i~formed Mr. Heitman he would have to move (t~ and nothing hes happened; thet ~eNeral months ago Mr. Brock requested action and~ ultimately~ Yhis meeting today; that this is clearly a restdential area~ and stated he was surpr(sed staff hes indicated there are no significant env(ronmental impacts so that an envlronmental lmpact report is not required~ especially because of the noise. He stated there are approximately 30 employees who come in each day, most of them parking on the street~ with 8 or 10 vehicles coming in an out each day; that th(s is not a standard repair shoE~ y 1/3/79 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ ~919 79-26 EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1922 (contfnund) •dJecent to somebody else's pronerty; thet he w4uld resp~ctfully sub~~it that the petlttone~ t~ss been aware of this prohlam for severel years and tt~et he must relocate and urged the ?IAnniny Commission to deny tho applicfltlon; and thet the Zo~ing Enforcement Officer be r~quested to frm-~dtately enforce the zoning ordtnances. G~o~ge Joh~~!on, 313 fl~lliday~ Anahelm~ d(r~ctly to the east of sub,~ect property~ steted he had lived there for nlne years and wh~n he bought the propcrty tf~erQ were ~ne or two tractors an this property, but that the buslness hfls grown qultn large; ihat they have been an~oyed with thP n~tsos~ but quita rece~tly ft has come to a head; thet the patltloner ls requesttng permisston for a contractor's storaqe yard, but~ obvlously, th(s Is nut a contractor's storege yarJ; cfiat ~nost of che noises have occurred after thn hours when ttiey arP home (r~ the ev~ninc~ wtth commr_~cial trucks coming on the property to repalr tractor tlres wlth thelr pneumattc equlpment to remc~ve them~ etc., and this hrs ocCU~rad pest midnight; that the weldiny operetlon produces a light wh(ch Is right in their back yard end ts annoying, but probebly the greatest annoyancc is the dlesel fumes from the idling tractors t~nd~ obvlously~ Nr. He(trnan has I;nown for quite sort-e time of this situatton and that he must move from th~ prc~p~rty. Phillp Krum~ 31A3 We,t aall Road~ Anaheim~ stnted he hos '!ved here fnr 2~ years in a 1!ve-and- i~t- 1 i ve cl tmatc; that the pru~erty was develaped wi th that ktnd of atmosphere~ but over the last few years tt~e resident(al denstty has increased tremenclously wfth the mobilehome park across the street end apartments down tt~e street; and tl~at a day-and-ntght manufacturing aperatton is r,ot compatible with a residPntial area, Mr. Neitma~ steted he had not comc here to dispute the fact t~iat he is operating a business that should not be hcre; that tf~e opposltion is exAggerattnq tn some tnstances~ such as the macliinery fumes~ because they are not operating machtnery at this location~ but briny (t in and leave (i for a sho~t pe:riod of tirrw and takc it out ag~in; that there are 8 or 10 tractors at th(s locatlon at the p~esent tlme and there were only 2 0~ 3 t~actors several years a~a; and that they do not manufacture day and niqht, but that they do do s~me late repatr work. He stated that wl~en he started hts business~ several in the neighborncxad were ape.ratfnq exactly the same type bustness ~ and Mr. Brock h~s since moved his operat(o~ and he has not e,cpanded as mucl~ as th(s oper~tlon, and other people have retired. ~le fndicated he ha~i phctoyraphs of similar businesscs in the area; that the area wlll be a resldentfal area for a long time because tlu houses are very nice houses~ but that the lots are ve ry extreme; that further dewn the strect there are operatlons that are undesirable both visually and notse-wfse; that he has been operating at a very te~rtfic ~ete of increas~. each year and it has been d(fficult; that he is considering iwo or three places to relocate; that he has been 1n the Ctty of Anahelm es long as he has been (n business and wants to keep sn Anaheim address; that he has talk~d with real estate people about three locati~ns In east Anaf~eim, buc cannot say exactly when he can move because he has nnt purchased the praperty as yet. TNE PUBLtC NEARING WAS ~LOSEU. Commisstoner Johnson stated it appe~rs t~ htm this is a case where not exectly "pioneers" but nefghbors have yrown anJ.,their needs have chenged a lot~ and he has a lot of sympathy wlth that and felt the entrepreneur ls the backbone of the city; that if this we~e a request for a new operailon. the answer would have to be a c~id "no"~ but the fact that the us~ hes been there for all these y~ars lent some credsnce to khe request; end that h~e was ready to alla+ a one-year perlod far relocation, but whe~ he heard the petitloner had been under cansiderable warning from the Zoning Enforcert~ent Offtcer and the trailer ~as moved on the property after he was advtsed it should not be d~ne, he felt the petiti~ncr had had his probation period. 1/3/79 MINUTES~ AI~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1979 79-27 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1922 (c:onttnucd) .~~ Mr. Hettmen stated he hes had a very dtfftcult tlme Just matntalning the volunxs and f-e~ not spent aa much tlnrs es he should In long-term planning. Commisstoner David aaked Mr. Neltman how much t(me he would have to have to move considoring ttie deen-rooted end valid completnts of the opc~os(tion. Mr. Heitm~n stated he w ould like to have e year, but did not thlnk tt would take mnre thAn s(x months; that he has three te~tative alternative locatlons and one Is on public prope~ty end it would take h(m approxlmately tf~ree months to pursue that possibility; that he will present a proposal to the C(ty and County and if he does not get a very posltivc reaction~ he will drop that pr~posal and buy a piece ~f property~ realizing that every day he waits the land bccomes more expcnsive~ but also reallzing It is to his advantag~ to m~ve~ es well as to his ncighbor's. Commissloner Tolar steted eve ryone is tn tatal agreement thet the petttfoncr is going to move and the only questton Is how sc~on it will be. He asked wha~t it w(I1 do to th(s operation :f th~ Cammission were to appr~~vc the permlt fo~ stx months or 90 day~, subJect to a time ltmtt on thQ hours of operation f~om 8;OA a.m. to ;:Of- p.m, Mr. NeitmAn replied that it would be almost tmpossible to operate on an 8:0~-5:~)0 basis because this is a construction buslness~ but ttiey could stipulate to a ttme. Commtssioner Toler stated the petitioner recognizes he has had his probatlana ry perlod and whtle he sympathizes with thc fact that the petittoner has a grawth problem, he could not agree to allvwing any further discamforts to the netghbors; that maybc they could ltve with the condttion for a few morc rr~nths prav~d~ng there are no further vtolations ln the late hours. lie stated he was surprised it had taken the City this long to get to this point, but unless there is some agreement in ~erms of hours of ope~ation~ regardiess of what it does to this business financtally~ f~e could not support any time extension. Mr. Ileitman stated they do come and ga from the office area earlie~ than 8:~0 a.m. because they have to be an the Job by 7:00 a.m. and they have made a number of adJustments over thP last twa years~ such as not allowing anyone ta work on a normal manufacturing type of oper~tion after dark and only emergency repairs are done at ntght, but he could eliminate the emergency repa(rs at ntght; that they have chenged the operatton of the incoming machine ry~ such as gasSiny up and moving of implements from machine to machine~ so that they du get the rt-achinery out every morning wtth the least amount of noise; end t{~at he ~equlres the truck that moves the machine ry at night to only come and go from the property as tav t(mes as possible, and they do most of the repairs in the evening hours. Commissioner Tolar asked Mr. B~ock whet hours of operation would he consider he couid live with for an interim per(od of apprQximAtely 90 days to 180 days. Mr. Brock stated this operatio~ ts a 24-hour-a-day operation~ 3E5 days a year including Saturdays~ Sundays and holideys~ and when they have guests over they are out there ba~ging on buckets ~nd he did not think tlie hours could be restricted nn this type operation. ChalrmA~ Pro Tempore Barnes asked Mr. Brock if he could itve with 90 days of the same thing ne has been livfng wlth because she did not thtnk the petitioner could move out tmmediately and felt a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Mr. Brock replied that Mr. Heitman has known this fo~ six years and has pronised him for four years that he would move out in one more yea~. 1/3/79 ; ~ A MINI'TES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CONNISSIOt~~ JANUArtY 3~ 1979 79-28 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATtON ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~~0. 1y22 l~~tlnued) Chstrma-~ p~o Tempo~e Barnes atated sh~s could not aqrao to the permit for ane yenr, but felt he should be glven a reasoneble amount of ttme. Comnissioner Tolar stated he understood the discomforts the nelghbors hr~ve suPfered dally and asked Mr. Brock if he could ilve wltf~ the sltuatlon If the Commisslon approves thl~ psrmtt for a short period of t(me wt th the hours of op~ratton restr(cted from approx(mately 7:00 ~.m. to a;0!1 p.m.~ excluding Saturdeys~ Sundays and holidays. M~. B~ock stated this would halp the situation, b~t that he would like to s~ee the hou~s of operatian from 8:f10 a.m. to 5:0~ p.m.~ polnting out f~c runs his buslness from 3;~0 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and is home nfter ;:00 r,.m. Commtsstoner Tolar ~sked Mr. Johns~~n if he cauld live witti the situ»tion tf the hours of opGratlon were Itmited and ttie rermit were granted f~r a short period of tlme. Mr. Johns~n replied th~it last Sunday~ New Years Day~ they were operating; that he had asked Mr, Heltman's father to shut ofF the tractors because they were (dling ad,)acent to his fence and abaut 2~ feet from his back door~ an~i they had rtaved those tractors to the othcr side of the property; Chat he is reasonat~le r-nd he could llve with extended m~rning hours because they do not bother him in the morn(ng since he is up by G:30 a.m,~ but that 5:~0 p.m. would certainly be the limit tn the evening. Commissioner Tolar asked Mr. Heitman his feelings after hearing the questlons and answers gtven and indtcated hc could support the request only on the hasfs of lim(ted hours. Mr. Heitman stated limit(ng tl~~ hours would be a difficult thing; that he does not operate the s ame type busin~ss as Mr. Brock ~and they do work in Anaheim Nills, the San Fern~ndo Valley~ and as fa~ no~th as Santa Barbara~ a~d thc men are based at this locatian and there will be times when they witl not have equipment bock tn and gone by 5:0~ p.m., and thls is not the type operation you can put an hour time 11mit on~ and stated if the nours were a little longer, fie couid probably live with the situattan. Commlsstoner Bushore stated he had dri~en to the property and you cann~t see the operatlon from the street; that he has never sean an tndividua) nare willing ta cooperate and felt a 90-day tlrne limit would really hurt the petitioner and he should be given at least six months in arder to relocate; that, hopefully, he will find a location in Anaheim and to process the paper work wouid take a minimum of six months, but he would not support anything beyond six months; that he is familier with the construction business and realizes they start early and finish late~ bue that he would have to get his equipment out a day ea~lier~ ur something; that he could support some type of hours of operatlon and a short period of time In o rder for the petltioner to move and felt six months is the mfnimum; and that he felt Mr. Heitman is the type of indtviduai who wtll cooperate and if he does not cooperate, the neighbors wi 1 I let us kncyw. Commissioner Bushorc asked Mr. Brock about the sign in fro~t of his property concerning gyrocopters end wtiat the building in th~ rear is used for. Mr. Brock replied that he had a vartance to operate his business a. that locatlon, but has since naved it and the sign is buried tn cement and the buildi~g tn the rear is used for storage. Capmisstoner Bushare stated he had thought the ho~~~, ~f operation shoulc be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. which would allaw the netghbors to sl~ep ~ate anc: to sit down to dinne r without noise, and it means the petitioner will have to get hts equipment out and In a little 113/79 MINUTES~ At~1WEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUnaY 3~ 1974 79'~9 EIR NEGATIVE D~CI.AM?'ION AND CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0. 1922 (~~+tinu~+d) esrller then ha ~ormelly would. but folt thc petltto~ar could liva wlth that t'or slx months. Ch~irman Pro Tampare Barnes felt the hours of opere~~on are tc~tally unrealistic for someone (n the construction bus ess; that tl~ey cannot bring the nquipment in f~om far sway placas In thac time framc. Canmisslone~ Bushore steted the+ petitlone~ could Ic++ve the aqulpment on the site If he could not get it In beforN those hours. Mr. Neitman statrd the oquipn~e~t does not come to the yard every day. He stated he could l ive wi th ths hours of opcration f rom 6:0f1 a.m. to ~3;A0 p.m. and stated l f thA ho~~rs of ape~atlon are too strtct~ i t would not ,~atter what the time p~riod is Chalrman Pro Tempore Barnes felt if th~ ~ommission ap~l~e~ strict llmitaclons~ then the petitloner will luok herder an d faster for a new location; th~t she did not w~nt to put the petttloner ouc of busli~ess and shP wented his buslness to b~ 1ncAted tn Mahetm. Commiss{onr.r David state~ the ~ppositlon hes indicated the sit~ tion has been going on for at least slx yenrs and he did ~ot think It (s rcesonatle and war*.~d M~, Heltman to reeliz~ the u~gency of the situatl~n. Ne Indicntcd hc w~uld supp~rt a,ree-month time period and dld not think it Is the right of en individual ta infrtnge upon others, He scat~d h~ could not understand why It h as taken so long to br(ng the matter before the Commission. Commissioner Johnsun stated he wou1J agree and asked Commissioner DAVid if he w~uld agree with hours from 6:00 a.m, to 6:04 p.m., recognlzing the petitioner cannot operat~ wtth an $;OQ a.m. to 5:~4 P.m. restrictlon. Chairman Pro Tempore Barnes stated she could support tl~e rrc~uest fo~ 9~ days from 6:40 a.m. to 6:0~ p.m. Conmissloner Bushore stt~ted e ven if the petitioner found another plece uf property. he could not get the necessary permics and mave in the 90-day period. Comnissione~ David po(nted out this has been geing on for a ~umber of years. Mr. Heltman statrd 20 years aQO he had operated the same type business ax another netghbor and other neiyhbors had operatied bustnesses twice as large as his~ and since that time. some have retired and some have relo~ated; that 15 years ago the neighborhood was not quiet at all. Ne stated this is a situation whe~e hls business has grawn dnd he has knawn for over a year thaL he has to move. Commisstoner David pointed out Mr. Brock had goCten a variance and legitimized his oper~tion. Ne asked what would be reasonable hou~s vf operation and a reasonable time to relocate. Commissioner Johnson stated he hes felt for a long time that contractors' yards have contlnually been a source of real prob~ems a~d there is no plece for them to go. and they a~e bad neighbors because they are noisy anc! he felt they should be instde a building. Ne asked Mr. Heitman if there w as any possibility that he could lease a butlding and put at least a part of his operation inside. Mr. Heitman replied that fie has some good ~deas which he has discussed with Canmissione~ Bushore :hat could be a solution to a number of th~ problems. but nothing is concrete, and he would be nappy to dtscuss them later. t/3/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNit~C COMMISSION~ JANUARY ;. 1~~~1 79-'~Q EIR NEGATIVE DECL1lRATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERM17 NO~I (continued) Commissto~o~ Johnson •~kr~d if the no(sy part of the opc ~etlon could bs nx~ved tnside, and Mr. Haitman nxplalned that all pt+rts af his operatt~n a ce notsy. Commisslonor Johnson explalnad he thought workin~a on eqaalpmcnt at nlqht would be a blgye~ p roblen than the t~actors idllny. Commissloner Tolar offPred a motlon~ seconded by Commissic+ncr P.ing for approv~l af the tJegatlve Declaratl~n. Chairman Pro Tenpore Barnes stAted tl-is Is a ptece of p ronerty thAt hos h~~d an advorse trr~pact on the area~ but that she would i~ot want to requ ire ~ ful l environmental Impact report. Jack White, Ueputy City Attorney, stated the Comm(ss(on could not approve the Negative Declarat(o~ leyally If ei~ey feel tf~ere is an edverse impact. He stated if the condlt~onal use pern~it (s grrnted for ~1) days or s(x months and if the conditions are violated, In order co legally procoed they would have to go through the process af revoking tha permit and would have to have anc~tl~er public hcaring with the advertlsing~ rlght to appeal, etG.~ wh 1 ch cou 1 d take es much as 1&1 days J us t t~ ~o th rough thc process. Ne s tated 1 f the Commisston wented ta grant the permit for a very 1(mite ~1 perlod of ttme~ they could cans(der denying the cond(tional use permit and~ by separate actlon, m~ve thAt the petltloner has a certaln periori uf time ~ub,jact to limi ted hours nf operaelon and whatever conditioi~s they wish to (rr~ase to abate the operatfon~ and the City Attorney's Office could immediately proceed tf tl,ere Is a violation of the co~~ditions. Ccxnmissloner Tolar wlthdrew his motion fnr approval ~f the tJegative Deciaration and Commtss(oner King wlthdre,w+ his seeond. ACTIQN; Cammissioner Tol~r offered a mc~t(on~ seconded by G~xmnissioner King and NOTION t~EA (Corrnnlssioner Nerbst b~~ing absent), that :he Anaheim Clty Planning Commissiun h~s r_vlewed the proposal to perm(t a wntractor'S storaqe yard with wa(ver of permitted srructures on a rectang~~larly-shaped parce) of land co~ssisting af approximdtely ~,0 acre having a frontage of approximatcly 155 feet on the north side of Bal l Road~ having a maximum depth of approximritely 211 feet. btir~g located approximately 1145 feet west af ~the cc,nte~line uf Beach aoulevard~ and does hereby disapprove the Negative Declaration from the requf rement to prepare an Cnvi ronmental Impact Report on the basts that there would be significant (ndividual or accumulative adverse env(ronr*~entel impacts due tu the approval of this Negatlve Oeclaration; that there are sensltive envirorn~.•ntal impacts involved tn the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted 5y the ~etitlorer indicates signlficant indlvidual ot cumulative adverse environ,mentel impacts _ Commisstoner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Commissfoner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst being absent). that the Anaheim City Planning Canmtsston does hereby deny the renuest for watver of permi tted structures. Commissioner 7olar offere: esolution No. PC79-6 and moved f~r its p~ssage and adoption, that t~~e Anahetm Ctty Planning Commissi.~~ does hereby deny Petition fo~ Condittonal Use Permit No> 1922 on the basis that the use is not ccx~atible with surrounding land uses. On roll call, the foregoing resolutlon was passed by tt~e foilowt~g vote: AYES : COMMI SS I ONERS : BARNES ~ BUSIiORE ~ DAV I D~ J4HNS ON, K I NG, TOLAR NOES; COMMISSlONFRS: NO~~E A85ENT: COMMISSIONERSt HERBST t/3/79 MINUTE5~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ JANUAR~ 3~ ~379 79~31 EIR NEOATIVE DECLARATIQN ANO CONQIt10NAl USE PERMII' N0. lg2? (continued) Commissioner Tol~~ offered s motlon thAt the operat.tan af thR contrsctor's storega yard be parmitted f~r a maxlmum of six mont!~s and then they must caa~e ~nd desist. He stated the hours of operstlan shall be llmitad ta ti:00 a.m. to 6t00 p.m. Jack Whlte, Deputy City Attorney~ cler(fled that tl-e motlan Is to allow Yor a po~lod of 180 days Par the ab atement of the existing~ ille9al use on the property on the condition th~t the h~urs of operutlon thall bo llmited to between 6s00 ~.m. and 6tA~ p.m.~ and (f there is a violetlo~bef'm~d18 elytturned ovc~dtontheeCftyiAttorn~yhs Offlce fo~orCament Officer. the matter approprtate action. The Commtsslon c.la~ifled that the haurs of operatlon shell be 6t00 a.m. to ~~:~~ p.m•, Monday through Srturdi+y ~ excl udi nc~ Sundays and hol i deys . Commisslon~; King secondFd the motion and MOTIOt~ CARRIED (Comm(ssi~ner Hesrhst belnq absent) . Jeck White presented the petitioner wlth the written righc to appeal ihc Planning Commission's decision w(thin 22 days to tlic C(ty Council, Commissioner Johnson ~~dthetCheveSbeeniac cont(nualusource`oftlrritatlonat~• co~tractors' yards In the City sinc y Mr. Nettman fndicatecJ he woula be wi 11 ing to talk ~~~ith staff about his ldeas. CommlASioner Bushare palnted out '~r. Ifeitman does ~~.~~~P an Interesting proposal regerding the dump site. Annikja Santalahtl~cACountanhastdecidedit~ sellnandelt1isnan uncontrolled~landafll~ e~aahe 1 and f 1 11 wh i ch th Y Mr. fleltman explained the problem he has with this site is thet he has discussed it with the County and because of their tight budyet they are going to sell it and his proposal includes some large be rnis Around a portion they would use on en experimencal basis for the prevention of erosio~ slips whlch have occurred in the City and County and which will cut down the amount af ua~c~eheac~~lJnnothcompeteewltfieother peoplebbiddingeo~bthe land slnce 35 feet high. Hc st he di d not p ~ an to usc the 1 and the way they woul d. Commissioner Joh~son stated~ agatn~ he would like to have a ~rvlew from the staff ~u:~cerning ways to hide contractors' yards. I TEM N0. 9 PUIiL I C NEARt NG. OWNER: K~ ~NETI~ KALLMAN , 1741 Wes t E R NEG IVE DECLARATl0~1 Lincoln Ave~ue~ Anaheim~ LA 92a~~• Peiittoner ~ t~T requests permission to E5TABLISI~ AN AUl'0 UPHOLSTERY ~~'1 L I E RMI .__ 1924 SHQP WITN WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARY.INC .,P..~ES on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acre having a frontage of app~oximately 132 feet on the north slde of Lincoln Avenue~ having a maxlmum depth of approximately 2!~0 feet, being locat~d approximetely 5z2 fee[ west of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as 17~+3 ~1est Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL, LiMITEO) ZONE. 1/3/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIN ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 19]9 79-~2 €I~R NEGATIVE DEGLARATION AND CONOITIONAL IJSE PEMI1~ 1~0. 1924_ (continueJ~ Ther~s was na one tndicating thair ~+resence (~ opposltlon to subJe~t ~equost~ and elthough the stsff report to the Pl~nning Cemmisslo~ d~ted Jenuary 3~ 1979 w~s not reed ~+t the public hearing~ tt (s referred to and msde s part of the minutes. (t was noted thQ petltloner was nUt present. Jay Tasi~lro, AssoctAte Planner~ polnted out the only pr~blem with this request Is the parking watver. It was no~ed the uses in this ared are mixecl with commercial and industrlal. The Commission dlscussecl the parktng briefly~ wlth Cammissioner Tolar pc~lntln~ out that he had nevcr s~r.~~ a Narkli-y pru~lan~ at tl~is localiur~ AnJ suygesteJ grar~ting tlia roquest for a limltHd time. ACTIUFI: Comm(sslonr_r Tolar offered a motion~ sec~nded by Commissio ner Davld and MOTI~N ~D (Comm(ssloiier Hert~st beiny absent) ~ that the Anahclm Clty Planning Commissi~n has rev(ew~ed ttie proposal to permit an autumobile untiolstery shop with a walver of mtnimum number of parkiny spaces on a rectangularly-sh~aped parcel of innd consistinq of approximat~ly 0.9 acre havlny a fruntayc of approxlmetely 132 feet on the no rth stde of Llncoln Avenu~~ I~aving a maximum depth of approximately 290 feet~ b etnq located approxlmately 522 fe~t west of thc centerllne of Euclld Street; nn d doas hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the rGquirement to prepare an envire:n mertal Impact rasport on the basfs that tl~ere would be no signiflcant Individual or c-,mulative adv~rse environmenta) impact due to the approval of ti~is ~legattvo Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates che subJect property for general commercial and general (ndustrial la~d uses commensurate with the propasal; that na sensitive environ nental Impects are invc~lve~~ in the proposal; that the Initial Study submltted by the petltfone.r ind(cates np signiflce~t (ndividual or cumulattve adverse envtronmental trr~acts; and Chat the Negative Ueclaratinn substerrttatiny the f~regaing findinqs is on file in th e City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commissloner Tolar offered a rr~tion~ seco~,ded by Conxnissioner I:ing and MOT10N CARRIED (Commissioner Nerbst being absent) ~ that the Anaheim GI ty Planning Commission does he-eby grant the reyuest for watver of the code requ(~ement for ninimum number of parking spaces o~ the basts that the proposed use does not warrant the need for the required nunber of parking spaees. Commissloner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC79-7 ana moved for its passage and adoptio~~ that the M aheim City Planniny Commission does hereby grant Petftio~ for Condttional use Permit tlo. 1924 for a period of one ycer, subJect to review by the Planni~g Commission upon written request by the petitioner~ and subJect to Interdepart mental Committee recommendations. On roll cell, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMIS510NER5: BARNCS~ BUSNORE~ DI`.VID, JOHNSOta~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A(3SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NERBST 1/3/79 ~1, MINUTES~ ANANE~M CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 19~9 79'33 ITEM N0. 10 0 aE COMMEN 0{~T I 0~~5 q. VARIANCE N0. 2454 - Requesc for an exton~lo~ oP tima. - Jey Tashiro~ Assoclate Planne~~ presented the staff ~eport dat~d J~nusry 3. 1~79~ noting the var I ence was granted for two yeers and no ment lon wss made at thet t tme concern 1 ng the posslDiltty of an sdditional period c~f time being q~anted; that dlscusston at the Plennln~ Commisalon p~i+lic hearing indicat~d that conttnuatlon of the existl+~g nonwntorminy bullding was being requnsteJ on an interim basts untll the restdenttal struct~ro betn~ utilized as an offlcs wes removed a~d replaced wieh a building contonni~g ta tha induxtrial site developme~t steRdarJs; and that the a~plicant has indiceted the pres~nt business size does not warrant additional buildings et this time and (s requesting ~ two~ yea~ extension of time. Fu~thernx~ra~ cl~e prescnt use ar~d development of subJoct p~operty is not e detrinK+nt t~ the conttnued (mprovement of tiu surroundinq propertles. ACTION: Cammtsstoner King offered e mucion~ seconded by Commtssi~ner Devid and MOTI~N ~D (Commtssioner Bushnre voting no and Commisstc~ner Herbst betng absent)~ that the Anahetm Ctty Planning Commisslon does hereby grant th~ request tor an extenslon of tlme for one year~ to expi re on January 8~ 1~180. AOJOURNMEIiT There being no further busin~ess~ Commissloner Ktng offered a motlon~ seconded by Cammissionr.r Davtd and MOTION CARRIED ~Commiss(oner Hnrbst being absent)~ that the meeting be adJourned. The meeting adJau~ned at 5:35 P•m• Res~pectfully ~ubmitt~d~ `~~~ .~° . Edl th L. Har~is ~ Secretary Anahetm Ctty Planning Co+nmisslon ELN:hm 1/3/79