The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1979/01/15Ctty I1a11 Anahelm~ Callfornie Ja~nuery 1 S. 1979 REGULAR MEfTtNG OF TNE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - The regular meettny of the Aneheim Ctty Planning Commisslon was called to MEETINC ordcr by Chalrman Herbst at 1:3Q p.m.~ Jenuery 15~ 1979, in the Councl) Chember~ a quorum be(ng present. PRESEHT - Ch~irment Nerbst Commissioners: Barnes~ Bushore~ Uavid~ Johnson~ King~ Toler ALSO PRCSENT - Jack White Jay TI tus James Kewamura Annika Santalahti Joel Fick J ay Tas h i ~~ Edlth Narris Deputy City Attorney Offlce Er~glnrer T~afflc I:ngineer;ng Ass(stant As~lstant -~irect~r for Zontng Associate Planncr 1lssociate Plenner Planning Cnrm~ission Secretary PLEUGE OF - The Pledge of ~lisgiance to the Fla~ was led by Commissioner King. ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Jot~nson offered a motton~ sec~nded by Ccxnmissloner Barnes THE MIPJU7ES end MOTION CRRRIEU (Chairman Herbsk abatalning an the minutes of January 3, having not been ~r~sent for the entir~ mrtting)~ thet the minutes of the meeting~ of December 1~~ 1'~73 and January 3~ 1979 be approved as submitted. ITEM N0. 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAafNG: PLOTKIIJ-ROSEN DEVELOP- EIR HEGA IVE DECLARATION MENT Cn., 13352 Washington 8oulrverd~ Los Angeles, COND T 0!J L USE ERMIT N0. 1?2Q CA 90Q66. AfENT: FRANCHISE REALTY fNTERSTATE CORP., 10~60 Wilshire goulevs~d,LAS Angel~s, CA ~0424. Pettttoner requests permiss(on to ESTABLISH A URIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT on praperty desc~ibed as a rectan~ularly-sheped parcel of land conaisting of approximately 0.3 acre having a frontage of ~pproximately 125 feet on the east side c~f Euclid Street~ haviny a maxlmum depth of approximately x72 feet~ and betng located approximately g95 feet nvrth of the centerli~e of Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL~ LINITED) 20NE. SubJect petitlon was conttnued from the meetings of D~cember 4 and 18~ 197£i dnd Janua ry 3~ 1979 at the ~equest of the petitioner. It was noted the petltioner h~d requested a two-week c~nttnuance. ACTIOM: C~--' ;loner King offered a mottan, seconded by Commissioner Johnson and MOTION ~D, nsideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 19~(1 be contlnued to the regularly ied meeting of January 29~ ~979~ at the requ~st of the petitloner. ~s-3~ ~i~si~9 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMM15510N~ JANUAaY 15~ 1~79 79-35 ITEN N0. 1 CONTINUCO PUDLIC 1lEARING. TO conslder: t- E~R~N~f; IVE DECLARATION (1) Alternate proposals of ultlmatp land uses~ ENVI ONM N MPA OR N0. 222 ~II) IncluJtng t~ut not limlted to single and ~E~~~~L~1~RE~A~6N~"R'F . + mulkiple-famlly residentlal development for appraximately two acres on the: esst stde of Knott Street~ appraximatoly 6G0 feet north of the centerllne of Bal) Road; and 11 - Noise Elemcnt of tl~e Ge-ieral Plan - oukltninq obJectives. pollctes. scandards a~d criterla which are appltceble to the nolse envtronment of the Gity of Anaheim. SubJect petltlon was continued from the mcettng of December ~i~ 1~78 and January 3~ 1979 nt the request of the petitione~. There were nine persons indicating their prssence in oppositton to subJect requegt~ end although thc steff report to Che Planning Commission dated J+~nuary 15, 197q was not raad et the public hearin,y~ It ts referred to and m~+de a part of the minutes. Joel Fick~ Assoclat~~ Plann~r~ ex~lained tl~e t~oisc Element p~rti~n of ttic General Plan amendment had heen prevlc,usly discusseci and a recommendatlon was ma~e thrt the City Councll approve the Noise Elcment as submltted and that the Lend Use Element portlon fiad been continued from a prevlous I~earinq in arder that th~ applic~nt may meet with the surrouRding resiJents. He suggested the publlc hearing be re-opened. CNAIRMAN HERttST RE-OPENED TNE PUBLIC NEARING. Jack Pekar, 310 Laur(ndA Avenue~ Long Beach~ t1~~ petitinner~ presented a letter from the adjaining prop~rty awner indicating agreement with thls development. He indicated he had met wtth tl~e neighbors and attempted to worl: out an accn_ptable solution, Ne st~ted the opposttian has tli~ee maJor objecttons: 1) two-story units lnoking down into their back yards; 2) the apen space recreattonal areas against their bar,k yerds; and 3) the density. He tndlcated they would prefer 7?.00 square foot IpCS and woutd not obJect to ona house on the entire lo[. Ne stated they are also against condomintums and they rationalized th~n as apartments and liave indic~teri tiiey feel it is a higher otcupancy rate than wtth single- famlly homes. He stated he has been able to satisfy their concerns regarding the two- story untts and the open space areas~ an~f expiained if he built stngle~fami~y homes~ he could bui ld two-story units wi thin 10 feet of tf~ei r property 1 ines and they had no obJections; that he had oriyinally pl:,nned the open recreattona) a~eas to mitigate the effect of the housinc~ backing up ta their praperties and providing a buffer for nolse, and the opposition had indicated they wouid p~efer units adJacent to thrir propertles rather than recreational areas; that one of the adJoining neighbnrs is planning to build a two- story aJdition in the fuCure and wfll be looking ~nto their ~ear yards. Concerning the density, he quoted from a Planning Department report that "single-family homes have a 30~ hlgh~r population occupancy thon a condominium; that a single-family home has 3.44 population per dweliing unit and a condaminium lias 2.G6 population per dwelling unit." He stated a 16-unit condominium proje~t would have the same nurt-~er of occupants as 12 single- family homes; that the average price of a new condominium in Orange County is S81,689 and contains an average nf t471 square feet~ indicating those figures were taken from a report published by the First Amertcan Title Insurance Company in March 1978; that the average single-family home is now S133~000 in Orange County and that informatton is from a report in the Orange Coun ty Register. Mr. Pekar stated he has attempted to produce these sondominiums within the averag~e condominium prlce range and will maintain that price when he comes on the line with them in about one year; and that this is affor~able hous(ng. He yuoted Thomas F. Riley~ retiring Chairman of the Orange County Board of Supervtsors~ "Orange County's maJor need 1/t5/79 MINUTES~ ANA~IEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 15~ 1~79 79•36 E!R NF.GATIVE DECLARATION, ~IR N0. 222 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. lb9 (continued) is affordable housinq.~' He exp'alned effordeble housing o~ todey's market w(th the htqh prlce of land ls eccompltshed by denslty; Chat he has a small parcel Af lend consisting of 1.7 acres d~stgned with 30~ coverage, which ts lass tl~an mc~st single-famtly homes ~nd 25$ less then the 40~ allaved by code; a~d that it Is an odd-sheped~ flag let left over from pr~vlous lend s~~bdivtsion. Mr. Pekar reod an article frorn the Los lingeles Tlmes~ January 1~+, 1979~ written by Dtck Turpln regarding Greative, : igl~er-denstty rCSident(al housing In order to bring h~~using wlthin the rcech of more people. James Yeaqer~ erchitect~ 2-~551 Raymond Way~ E1 Toro~ wes present tu exvlatn the revised plans. Joe) Fiek, Assoc(ate Planner~ stAted tfie Commission hos not had the: opportunfty of revlewinc~ any of the site development ~I~ns and are dealing with the issue of the General Plen amendment to low- medlum density. Ne steted revtew ~f thc~ plans typically takes place when the reclassiftcation for zo~in~ is submittc~d. Mr. Yeac~er pointeci out thc two-story units on ths plans and the recreattonal areas as orlglnally proposed~ (ndicating it was originally thought that that wuuld creete a buff~r~ but efter talkin~ w(th the ad)acent I~omeowners and there were obJectlons nu~de spectflcally to the recreational area being nrxt to the(r pr~pertie~~ revised pians were prepar~d wi*.h the single-story~ duplex type buildin~s whiGh would mitihate thc ob)ection to the recreatlonal areas abuttiny cheir properties and the twA-stc~ry units facing ad)ecent properties. He explalned Chey have atterr~tecl t~ make the turn-around area large enough to have an enclosed pool and restroom facility for recreation. Ne pointed out a second revtsed plan witl~ a simllAr lAyout except [he two buildtnc~s wauid be turned around the corner with the ~arking at ttie encf and the center• area enlarged for more recrer~tlonal area; th~t bas(kally the revised plans hevc removed tfie recreat!onal area fram the property llne and eliminatea Che two-story units adjacent to the stngle-family residences a~~d the density hes bee~ reduced from 1~ to if~ units; and that both revised plans propase II single-story units a~d ~ twu-story uniCs. Art Roycr~ 835 South Canoga, Anaheim, steted baslcally the tssues presented by the opposition previausly are thp same; that they are opposed ta anyth(ng othe~ than RS-7200 primarily because there is no assurance the cor;ractor wtll abide by the proposed building configuration once he i, permitted the RS-500n or RM-4400 development; that none of the residents were opposed to the two-story~ single-family ~esidences because they woutd be lookiny at a total of ~i to 11 units as opposed to 18 to 22 condominfum unlts. He ~sked to revlav the ietter submitted hy the pccitioner in support of the proJect (the letter was presented to hirn for review). Mr. Royer asked where the writer of the letter lived~ and Con~issianer Tolar r~plled that he lives in Villa Park. Mr. Pekar stated he does ~ot have the add~ess~ but the wrlter owns the property adJacenC to the subJect property. and Chai~man Herbst potnted out he owns the real estate office. Mr. Royer stated the writer of the letter is ~ot going to sell i~is property and he has an tnteres2 in this tssue because he awns part of the property. He steted the ares of Knott and Ball is an ex;remely congested area and a development, as proposed~ would put mo~e strain on single-f~mily resi~fentlal pr_ople in the community bECeuse of the number of people and the type df ~devel~,pment; tfiat some people are consi~ert~g moving tf thls development (s approved; that this particular area Is the last buffer zone between residential liviny and condominium and apartment living; that the amount of traffic on Knott Street is approxtmately 22,~~J0 vehicles and with the establtshments on the corner such as The Sting~ and with a paramedic unit rece~tly located near their community and 1/15/7.9 MiNUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ JANUARY 15, 1979 79-37 EIR NEGATIYE OECLARATION. EIR N0. 222 AND GCNCRAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 1~ (continued) wtth the convelescent homes thc the fact that they are ln the dtrect flight path ~f the Las Alamitos Neva1 Alr Station~ they are co~tinually bombsrded wtth awrie) and street nolses Irom City services, en~ they rec~gntze thoae services are needr.d. Ne stAted he is elso ~oncerned because both of the tndlvlduals d~veloplnq this proJect do not ltve in the neighborhood and he fclt tf they were planning to restde there, they would be more ~esponsive to the tssues. Mr. Royer pointed out on the map the locations of tndividuals he had persanally contacted who oppose the ~roJect. anJ indicateci they haJ submitted 27 petltt~ns at thc last Planning Cumn(ssion meeting and 2~' pcrsa~s had attend~d that rn~~tin~. He sr.aced ~ project with 8 t~ 11 two~~to ry. sin~le-family units would probably scll for 5110~~~0 eech, a~d that would be an asset to their communtty. plus it would remain a restdenttel community. Ns stated all along Knott there are a lot of Ap~rcrnpnts and commercial est~blishments and on weekends they suffer fram a lot of traffic and Juveniles who race :hetr vehlcies and City hellcopters trytny to get thc kids off thc dcreets~ and some of the property owners have el~cted to sell their I~ortx:s and develop apartment b~ildinqs. f~e polnted aut the community (s all residential and ~hc propc,sed proJect shunts ftself (nto their community and they are opposed to the devetopment becausr cc+ndominlums are just one step above apartments~ and he fc 1 t shuu 1 d the ~~et t t 1 oner be yr~~n ted a zonc chanc~e to 1 uw-mrdi um dens i ty ~ tliey have no assurance he has to abld~ by whatcver he praposed t~ the Commission. Ne stat~d. hawever~ the petitioner is flexible and has been h~nest with the o~nosition. Dennis Glownlak~ 345 South Canogo~ Anrhe°~n~ pointed out on the map the location of several persons in the naighborfioc~d wh~ had attended the previ~us meettng wl~o are oprosed to the proJect but could not attcn~i today. Paul Merget, 849 South C~noya~ Anaheim~ ind(cated f~is cancern was security. He pointed out the l~cation of hIs property on tf~e map and potnted nut people from the c~ndominium proJect woulci have access over one fence into t~ls back yard and then into his house. He stated he is opposed to the proJect because of the crirr~ element lt lntraduces. Mr. Pekar stated, in rebuttal. that the references made to the west slde of Kr~ott StrAet~ The Sting~ the helicopters~ convatescent homes~ etc.~ were irrelevant to tl~is issue. F~e poJnted out the origtnal proposal was for 18 units (not 2Z and not approximate) and after discussion with the ~ppositton, he is proposing 16 unics an<J noted the revlsed plans on display. He Indicated cither plan could be slightly ~rtodified. He stated if the plan is approved~ the approva) would be based an precise plans and he wouid not be abie to c~evelop anything else. He pointed out, again~ that lE~ units would produce the same number of people as 12 single-family units. TNC PUf3LiC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chalrman Herbst clarifted that the meeting today is i~ist to consider the General Plan amendment and not the p~oJect ftself~ and if the Comn,~ssion sees ftt to change the zone, precise plans would have to be submitted when the reclassification is filed and there would be another publlc heariny and the opposttion would be entitled to voice their aptnions at that time. Comrhissioner Tolar stated it is obvious there is ~ need for hous(ng in Orange County and SouthPrn California~ but there is a iot of inerik <~ the comMents made b~• the oppnsitton; that he has revidved the property again and that he is in total agreement that condominium-type housing and low-cost houstng are needed~ but he did not consider $51,000 per untt low-cost housing; that this proJect would be bc+rdered on three sides by single- family residential homes and he would be opposed to medtum density on this property t/1S/79 MIIIUTES~ AMNIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N~ JANUARY 15~ 1~79 ~A"jg EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ EIR N0. 222 ANU GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 14g (continued) be~aw e(n the paat If praperty is designated on the Gene~al Pla~ for lavmedtum de~slty~ tha developcrs come ln and ask for the meximum number of units and~ with low den~ity~ wp would be assured of singlc-famtly dwellings~ whicli he felt the area deserves and needs. Ne felt edditlonal homes could bn utilizc•d in thts areo end regerdtnq tha nWnber of people who would be in a 16-unit condominlum proJect versus 7 or g singlr-family units, the trip count on 16 unlts would far exceed che trtp count of 7 ~r 8 units oP single-family, tlo felt anything beyond the Gene~al Plan desic~nation of low denslty wculd excaed whr,,t needs to be cione In thls area an~i thought the developer ts Just tryt~g to get too much on the property. 11e stated he (s not opposad to RM-4000 or lvw-cost huusing~ but would be opposed to doing It at the expense of the hoolth end safety of the othar peaple eround It end in~p~cting tha arca more th~n It alreadv Is. He stated hc recognizes two-sto ry strucxures c~uld be built en the property and ti~at they could abut single-tamtly homes which would maybe invade the pr(vacy of the cur~ent rosidents~ but it would not be with the same number of people. Ne steted evc~ thouyh a law-medlum density dcslgn~tion does not n~ean RM-400Q development hAS to be bu11t~ once the deslgnation is made~ tha develope~s bring ln plans anJ explaln they meet tho ordlnances and esk wt~y they cannot develop RM- 4000~ ~nd I~c felt thc rcquest for low-rnodlum denslty designatlon sh4uld not be given at this time and then the Commisslon will not be faced wlth that problem. Cortmissloner King asked Commissia~er Tolar his feeltngs regarding RS-5000~ and Commisstoner Tolar replied he would nc+t be oppased to that because it wauld offer the residnnts the same protection. Commissi~ner Johnson asked ta see the letter fr~m Mr. Preem and asked Mr. Pekar if he was sura he wanted to submit that letter ss evidencp. Jack Nhtte~ Deputy City Attorney~ explained thls (s e legisl~tive hearin~ and the Commission could consider letters ~hich no~melly wouid not be constdered (n r,on}unctton with condittonal use permlt or variance hearfngs. Ccxnmissloner Johnson tndiceted he understood Mr. Preem is the owner of the real estate office property at the front of subJect property and he tt~ought Mr. Pekar was trying to indtcate the letter was frnm one of the residents around the property who was not obJecting to the proJe4t and feit If that was tlie impresston he was trying to give~ that was not fair. Mr. Pekar replied that was not the imp~ession he was trying to give; that the writer of the letter is the owner of the property adJac~nt to his property. Conmissioner Johnson stated as far as he is concerned~ that property is consldered as part of this proJect. Ile stated he agreed with Commissioner Tolar; hawever~ he a,yre~ed with the arguments presented cnncerning the condition of housing nteds in Anahelm and stated the Commission ts painfully aware of what needs to be done~ but did not believe a violation of the General Plan is khe way to accnmpllsh thls. He stated the State makes It difficult to have a Genera) Plan amendment because tt is not considered good planntng to make these changes~ even though he realixed the petitio~er has gonG to a tremendous amount of work. He stated sinc~ this property is completely surrounded with R-1 development, he felt it would be an error to make this change and he could not s~epport the General Plen amendment. Conmissioner Bushore stated he woulci support the gcneral feeling of the Commigsion~ but felt later on there Nill be a problem because RS-7~00 would be too expensive for the neiyhbarhood and economically would not be p~ossible~ and felt with thts size parcel the Commission will be faced with app~oving apartments i~ the future. Ne stated he felt the petitioner has tried to work wtth the neighbors and has made concessions and he did not think the project looks that bad. He indiGated he fett he should respond to the comment 1!15/79 ~ MINUTFS, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUIIRY iy, 1~79 7~-~9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ EIR N0. 222 AND GEt1~RAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 14g (continued) that condominlums are Just ane step above apertrn~nts; tl~at tl~ere are a tot of young peopl~ who cannot afford to buy stngle-family homes and condomtnlums do pravlde home c~wnershlp~ and felt Juat because che current restdences are fortunate enouc~h to have bought thetr homes earller and live in e single-famlly resldent(al area, they should not degr::de condominiums because if they hed iiot bought their hames when they did, they probably could not afFord them today. Camm(ssioner David felt the statement regerding the crime aspect merlted son~e comment and did not thlnk It was rlght because thet ts where some young people wfll be stert(ng out thetr llves. He stAted~ liowever. he could not support the pr~,ject because of the Impact on trafftc and not because of the crtme element as me~ttoned. Cheirman Nerbst stat~~d the oppositt~n should go into the Anahetm H(lls breA and loak at the mix of condominiums and single•family dwelltnc~s and they wlit see they do mtx; that thts is a wey of life anci the Commissi~n will be looktng more favorably on condominlums; thnt in many instances people have had homes and are looking for smalter places or conciominiums because tf~ey do not want the yard work~ etc., but they stlll make good nelghbors. He stated there is a need; that thls pro)ect does go into the residential area~ but If it were not f~r the traffic problem~ he wouid be tn f~vor af a condominium proJect because bACking up to residential homes with condomtntums has bGen done and is acceptable. He felt because c~f the traffic on Knott~ tl~is proJect would be detrimental to the area; that this is a good d~v~lapment tf it were not for the trafftc impact, but that some changes would have ta be mad~ in the specific plans. Jack White~ Oeputy City Attornesy~ stated the~e has becn some discuss(on by the Commissi~n as to whether or not FtS-50~0 zoniny would be approprlate and in order to implement RS-5000 zoning~ a low- med(um density designation wauld be r~quired on the GenGral Plan~ but if the dasignation remains 1~.~•; ~ensity~ the only zones which can implement that designatlon ere RS-10~000 and RS-720Q. ~ommissinner tierbsx stated the Commission agre~s that RS-72~0 will never bc built on thts site and that RS-5000 would provlde single-family homes and would aliow mare houses on the site, which would probably get the c~st dvwn to where peo~le could afford them. Jack Wh(te sta[ed (f the Gensr~! Plan is changed to low-medium denstty, it says the City would be witlir~g to allow development on the property in accordanc~~ with one af the zones that implements that destgnation af the General Plan~ and he belicved there are three zones which would apply~ the RS-50~~~ RM-4000~ and RM-2400~ and telt the dcveloper would be hard-pressed not ta realize the way the Commission is leaning as to the zone they would consider to implement that parcicular classificatlon. Chairmen Herbst stated he was looktng at the future and what could happen if this developer decides to sell the property. Jack Nhit~ stated if the property were reclassified to low-medium density and this developer or any other developer came in wtth a plan for RM-400~ or RM-24bb, he would have no problem in sayiny the Planning Cortmission and the C(ty Council were legally able to deny those zone changes~ but if a developer came in with a development for R5-5000, which is the most restrlctive of the zones that e~ould implement the low-medium density designation, he would find it difffcult to deny that classification if all the condttions were m~t. Chairman Netfist stated the minutes would reflect that it Is the intention of the Plenning Conxnission that the property b~ developed as single-family~ deEached homes. t/15/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ JANUARY 15~ 1979 ~q_p~ EIR NEGATIYE DECLARATION~ E!R N0. 222 ANO GENERAL PLAIJ AMENDMENT NO^1~.(contlnued) Commisnloner Tolar asked (f this request were dented and the develoAer went~d to develop tha property end requested a Genaral Plan amendment from RS-A-43~0~0 to low-medtum denstty w(th speclfic plans to RS-5000, cnuld the zonr change be tled to thase spr.ctfic plsns~ Jeck White explained the General Plan could ba chanqed to low-medium denslty and then the reclassiflcetton tied to spectf(c plans. I~e stated the dlfPerence here ts that no reclassiflcetlon has been submitted at this time. I~e explatned before the Commission c~n legally act to approve a recla~sificatio~~ the General P1an emendrt-ent hrs to be effective~ which requi res Ct ty Counct 1 act lon. Chairman Fie~rbst stetPd hc has no problcm wlth changing the General Plan desiynation to 1vw-medium density br.ceuse the developer would h~ve to c~me back for o recl8ssification and the Commfsslon would have the rlyht to d~ny th~ reclasslftcation at that time. Commtsstoner Tolar indicated he would support a resalutton to low-medtum denslty provided the resolutlon lncluded the Commisslan's (ntent to low-medlum density wtll only be for RS- SOOQ development. Commissloner Johnson felt hrndling the requpst In thls manner wouid be rather dangerous and indicated he dld not remember ever se:eing r~ property wfth such a restriction included. Commissioner Barnes st~ted the petltioner can ask for anythtng he wants; however, if the Commlssion makes the statement nnw t~~at it ts thelr Int~nt to only support a project for RS-SAO~~ (t is doubtful the devel~per would ask for anything other than RS-5000. Chalrman Nsrbst askP.d Mr. Pekar tf he wtshed to have [he Commisslon pracepd wfth the RS- 50~0 designatlon at this timc~ and Mr. Pekar replted th~t he would. He stated there may be a po~sfbility to cievolc;n the praperty to RS-5000 nnd I~e would llke to have that optio~. Commissioner Talar s~ated thc dtsc~mfort he has with this is that Mr. Pekar may decide he could not economtcally develop ~he property with RS-500f1 and may then decide to setl the p rope r ty . Chairman Herbst stated a continuance coiil~ be gr~nted at this time and the petittoner could bring back plans for an RS-5p~p development. Jack White stated the Ctty Counctl would have tn adopt the General Pl~n amendment prtor to the Planning Commission approving the reclasstficatian. Chairman Herbst stated he did not thlnk there wauld be a prahlem wtth gn RS-5000 proposal; that two of th~ Cornmissioners are uncomfortoble wlth granttny this desfgnatton at this ttme and would like to see a rcclassif(cation ftled concurrently~ and suggested the petitton~r request a conttnuance in orde~ to make the RS-500~ study. Commissioner Tolar explained to tfie petitioner that he was not getttng ths run-around and if he were to request e Genpral Plan amendment to low-medium density and at the same t(me p~esent a tract map for an RS-5~~~ tract~ na would support it. Mr. Pekar stated it was F~is understanding that he could not technically apply for a reclassificati~n until afte r a General Plan amendment was actually approved by tfie City Council. Commissioner Barnes stated since he cauld not submit ~ reclassification at the same time he submitted the General Plan arr~ndr-~nt~ he would b~ in the same sp~t he is in ~ight naw and the Commisston could not approve the reclassification. She stated the Commisslon 1/15/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CqNMISSION~ JANUARY 15~ 1919 1~'~~~ EIR NEGATIVk DECLARATiON. EIR N0. 222 AND GENERAI PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 149 (continued) ayrees that dua to aconomtcs snd due t~ the area~ they dc~ not went very f~tgh de~stty on Lhis property~ r~or do they want the lowest dens(ty; that what they rbally want Is R5-5onn~ and she felt the o~ly way t~ ~et there is to chang~ the General Plan to reed low-medlum density snd thet It should be done today with dire:ctlons to the City Louncil thnt the CommtYSion wants en RS-~0~0 development. She Pelt the develop~r would come back wlth RS- 50~0 plans~ if he comes back ~Nlth anythtng. ACTION; Commtssioncr Barnes offered e mot(on~ seconded by Comm(ssioner Kinq and HOTION ~D~ that thc Anohelm Clty Plann(ng Commisston has reviewed the subJect proposal far an ~mendment to the Land Usn Etem~nt oP the General Plan on the property consisttng of epproximately 2.q acres an the eae[ slde of Kn~tt Strect~ approxlmotely 6G~ feet north of thQ centerllne of Bail Road; and does hereby recommend ta the City Counctl th~t a Negattve ~eclaratlon from the requiremt:nt to prct~Are an e~vtronmcntal Impnct report k~c apprayed on the basis that there would be no significdnt t~dividual or cumulattve Adverse envtronmental tmp.~cts di~e tn tt~e approval of this Negative Declarattan and th~t no sensitlve 4nvironrnental in~pacts are involved in the proposal; thAt the Inttlal 5tudy submttted by the staff indlcates no signiftcant tndividual or cumulative adversP envtronm~ntol impacts; and that the Negative Declarat.ion substantiatinc~ the toregoing ftndlnys Is on file In the City of Anaheim Planning Department. it was noted that Envirc~nrr~enta) Irnpact Report No. 22? was recomrnended for certtfication at the January 3~ 1979 rnGeting. Commissioner Bbrnes offered a mottan, seconded by Commtssione~ King and h{OT10~~ CARRIF.D~ that the M ahetm C(ty Planntng Comnlssion doPS hereby racommend to the City Council that the destgnation 'for Area 1 of the Gen~ra) Plan be cha~ged to lc>w-medlum denstty, Prior to voting. Chairman Nerbst asked that the resolution ~eflact tt is the Planning Commiss~on'S intent that this property be developed as RS-500~. Jack White stated thet the motton could include that the Ceneral Plan amendment be Implemented by the RS-50b0 t~ning. Commlssione~ Barnes affered Resolution t~o. PC79-3 and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby adopt and recommend to the City Cnuncll that Generrl Plan Amendment.I~o. 14~ be ad~pted including I- Land Use Element. Exhiblt A~ ana II ~ Notse Element. On roll ca11~ the foregoing r~solution wss passed by the follcrwing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BuSHORE~ DAV1D~ HERBST, JOI1r~50N~ KIt~G, TOLAR NOES : COhSMISS I ONERS ; NON~ ABSENT: COFIMISSiONERS: NONE Commissioner Barnes asked that the minutes reflect that the Planning Commisston had RS- 5000 development in mtnd and that is the reason the resolution was made to change th~ General Plan designat(on to low- medium. Mr. Royer asked tf the resolutlon means this prope~ty wtll be develope:d as singie-famlly res(dentlal, and ~hairman Herbst stated the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Cauncfi ts that the General Plan amendment b~ implemented with the RS-5000 zo~ing~ which is stngle-family, detached residential houses on smaller lots. Jack White explained that net~ces will be ~.ailed of the C1ty Council's hearing date to those persons who received notices of the Planntny Comrntssion's meetings. 1/15/19 79-~~2 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 15~ 1979 ITEM N0. PUBLIC HEAa1NC, 0~lNERSt SANO ~OI.LAR OEVELO~MENT~ ~1~'~'TAL INPACT REPORT N0. 22 INC.~ 16371 Be~ch Boulavard~ a24~~ liuntington d~+ch~ ~ ~ . CA 92bi~7• AGENT: JAMES ASKINS/ARC DEVELOPMENT~ 54~ AR N• . 0 ~ North Golden Circle Drive~ Santa Ana~ CA 92105. EI~'4T~TE MA OF P~ope~ty descrtbed as an { r~egularly-sheped parce) TRACT N0. 1Q476 of land conslsttng of approxir,ately 17 ac~es heving a frontagR of approxtmately 510 feet on the north side of Cha~+~nen Avenue~ havtng a maximum depth of epproximstely 327 fe~c~e'~~ bresently',classi4`1edICGt(CONMERCIALt GENERAL)tZONEcnterllne of Nsrbor Ooulevard. P rap Y P RCQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOIJ; RM-4000 (RESID~NTIAL, MULTIPLE-FANILY) ZONE. aEQUESTED VARIAi~CE: WAIVER OF (A} MINIMUI~ QU1LDIfIC SITE AREA PER DWELIING UNIT ANO T0, ESTABLISH ARTWO~LOT~,"235'UNI TDCOND4M~1 ~~AUMESUBDI VI StIONYS ~ There was no one tndicating thelr presence in opposition to subJect request~ ~nd although the staff repo~t to the Planniny Commisslon dated January 15, 1979 wes not read at the public hearing. it ts referr•~d to and made a part of the minutes. Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner~ stated that Conditlon No. 6 nn page 3-h should be deleted fram the staff report. Randy Blanchard, President of Sand Dollar Develop~~-ent~ inc.~ explained Ph(1 H~ve~ architect~ Dave Wood~ engineer~ Eiil) Foley~ environmental impact consultant with WESTEC~ and Chuck Ball from austness Properties were present to answer any questions. He expiai~ed Business Propertfes and D~vney Sav~ngs b Loan are deveioping a conmie~clal p~oJect an Harbor Boulevard and that Sand Dallar will be deveioping a commerciel p roJect on Chapman Avenue~ along with a residential proJect. N.~ stated this property is approxlmately 17 acres and he has owned it for about one and one-half years. Ne explained a zoning change to residential had been proposed originally to the Ltty of Anahelm and at that time they were consldering an apartment proJect with a~proximately 50 apartm~nt buildings to be sold~ but after meeting with the homeow~ers, decided to modify the development plan to condominium or townhouse development. Hr stated he had met wtth staff and indicat~d the City of Anaheim steff is one of the easfest to wo~k with. Ne pointed out the plan proposed has one varlance. Ne referred to an ea~ller petitioner's presentatlon regsrding density and the housing market ~nd indicated he wished to deal with tt~is speclfic project and why he feels it is an attractive ~rolect and why the people of Anaheim would be proud to have this pr~.lect in their city. Mr. Blanchard stated this was a difficult proJect to put together and they did try to acquire the adjoi~ing 11 acres; that they have developed what they f~el is a vtable proJect a~a ct~: wHekstated theytare onlypaskingsfortw,hatathey~feeliis fairiand k~hat'has recreation~ been allawed before in other legal precedents. Phil Hove~ architect~ 3g40 South Plaza O~ive~ Santa Ana, pointed out the location of the property a~d the su~rounding uses on the map plan. He Pxplained the proJect itself wi11 be surrounded with a 6-foot high block walt. He stated the current zoning is general commercial and could be allowed for development as RM~1200. which would ajlow 36 unit5 to the acre; tha~ thelr concern is with the marketplace and meeting housing needs and they wish to develop this pro,ject within the RM-4000 zaning with the variance requested. tie painted out the publlc street right-of-way section on the p~lans and pointed ou't the looped streets throughout the proJect. He stated they had abandoned the altry co~c~pr c~rigtnally t~t5/79 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. JAfJUAKV 15~ 1979 79•43 EIR N0. 223~ RECLASSIFICATION I~O. 18-79-76~ VARIANCF N0. 3071 AND TENTA7IVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10476 (continued) ~_ propased. Ho explalned the p mJect consists of fr~~n ~+ to 7-untt bulldlnqs with two-car~ enclosed go~ages •t the back and ttie front area hnvin~ e pat.lo spsce with crtry to the qraenbclt systcm; that thay have trled to separate vehicu;ar trafflc fran pedestrlen traffic and explatned the clrculatlnn gyst~m egaln~ pointtn~ out the elleys would serve as servlce alleys to th~~se people Ht~o llve there in ordnr t~ pravlde Access cllrectly Co thei r unlts and ere not Intended for ~ rbllc use. He pot~ted out the o~r_n space nc~r~etlone) ares (n thn centr.r~ a swlmmfng pool and other recreational factllties~ such as Jacuzzi~ parkinq~ and two tennis courts. He explalned the loop stre~t syst~m w~s davolopecl Irt con,iunct(~n w) th the FI re nnd Trasl~ Departments. He polnted out thp fl rr., access fram Harbar Boulevarci. Me refarred to the perking an d expiained ther~ wlll be 2 coverPCf spacns ~~~ each untt tn a gerage and additional parking on tl~c m~.jor skrcets, with approxtnatcly ?.~i parking gp~ces per ~~~1 t. Ne ..ated the strert Is currently beiny requested as a publlc rtqht-of-way street by the Clty kngtneer and that tl Is 6~~ feet wide with 4~ feet of pavement, whlch w~uld allvw parkln, on b~th sides, and th~f r figures show 39 spaces rather than 30 es indicated in the staff report. Ile stated with e 3Fi-fuot prlvate s!reet 1n the same l~c~t(on wit1~ ~~-de~gree parktng r~~nJomly on each slde and some ~arAllcl park(ny, they ~•~ould heve an addttlonel 1~2 spaces. or ~.7~ with ov~:r 3 spacrs per unit. I~e stated thls f~gure ls cferived from constdering the street ~~rivate r~tt~er than publlc. He explalned 2~-~ of the unlts are one-bedroom~ ~2~ are two-bedroom~ and 24~ are three- bed~oam units~ wlth 47~ bedrooms~ or 1.25 parking spacc~ per bedroom. Ne stated th~ RM- 12~0 zoning woulJ allow a net density of 36 units per acre~ wtth 1-1/2 spaces required fo r parking and 12Q0 square feet per unit~ witt~ a coverage of 55ti and recreatt~n space of 20 n square feet per dwelling untt. He ~tatecf th~e RM-4000 zoning shows a densi[y of 1~.9~ 2- 1/2 parking spaces per unit~ ~i000 sq uarE feet per un(t~ and 4~$ caverage; and thet thetr project on i7.2 acres is for 138 units~ a density of 18.2~ ?.-1/? parkin~ spaces plus the additlonal parkinq potnted aut~ a 2397'sQuare foot minimum area~ coverage of 37~~ end a ~acreattonal area of 1203 square feet. Ne referred to a similar ~roject whtch was approved in March 1978 on 7.7 acres for 13$ units, or a density of 1~i.y with 2-1/2 p~~rktng spaces and ~riYs ~f 2b03 squere feet and 43$ coverage~ with A recreation~) spxce of 1~56 squarc feet. He referred to thc last page of the infarmatior~ presented on the analysis of parking and polnted out they have 173~5~5 square fPet of paving and their proposal would indicate almost identi~A1 figures in sq~:re footage. He stated they qre nat asking that the puhlic strcet be private. but are po(nting ~ut what would happen to the p~rking. THE PU~LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED, Chai rman Flerbst asked whera guests would park v(st ttng the back units. He stated hc loaked at this as a s(ngle-family, attached home proJect and felt with this design there is ~o ple+ce for guests to park for the bacl~. ~nits, and asked how guests would get to t`~e units, polnting ouc visitors would probabty uttll=e the alley to look far tf~e person th~y are visiting~ and that no on-site parking is provided for khe guests. Mr. Hove steted tt is not their int~nttcn that vis~tors would drive down che alley and that he w~uld assume the person living there would give dtrections to a guest o~ how to find his unit, and that there w~uid be directortes in the front an~ pointed out the o~~s t parking locattons. 1/15/79 4~. .~ MI NUTES ~ At~1~4HE1 M C 1 TY PLANN I N(f CONNI SS I ON ~ JANUARY 15 ~ 197~ 7~-44 EIR N0. 223~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-26~ VARIANCE N0. 3Q7) ANO TENTATlVE MAP QF TRACT N0. 10476 (c~ntinued) Cl~atrn-en Herbyt stetad he does not ag~e^ wlth this c~ncept 1'or singie-fr-mily, atteched dvell~ngs baceusr, it does nat allaw the ewner of thG secluded units in thG back any access for hls guests, i~e e~kr_d hnw ta~ guests would hsve to walk to e~et to the first raw of ho~r-s~ pointing out that w~s nne of tt-e worst cond(ttans. 11e stateci he telt a lot of the profact is bad ~nd (t has to be recogntzed tliat sinc~le-famlly people da f~eve guests a~d pa~tlea and should be entitled t~ some aecessibt llty to thefr Ilvtng qut+rter~. Cnnmissioner Harnes indicetad stie hed the ssnx~ reservetion as Chei ~man Ilerbst; that she llked the eondominiurn proJ~ct~ but did have two concerns~ c~ne being the guest parking. She s tated i f the re was ~i~ou~h qucs t park 1 ng , she cou 1 d go alo~g w i th •hn dens i ty and pointed out the Cummissi~n hes asked fdr mnrP rwrktng on ~ther pra)ccts, and thnt thc Commissian Is now in tfie process of studytng the ordt~.~nces for pl~nned communtty develupn~nt and the ord(nances wl I) probal~ly be chan~ed to create rn~~e parking. She Indlcated she recoynlzed this was not fair to tt~is deveioner, but slie wes sure stAff wes aware of th e Co~r~mi ss i on's des ~ re~ . Chali-man Herbst polnted out th~ petitloner is hcre because th(s Is RM-21~~~ devplopment rathGr than RM-A000 and if thc pro~ect was not quttc so dense, there would be edequate parking~ ~nJ stated he recognizes RM-4Q~0 would ailow mc~re guest parking and more flcxibility in design than RM-2400~ and that he is not opp~sed to condomtnium developmcnt. Mr. Nove s tated fie would i ike to comply i f he knew wlierc tf~ey should be going (nta the proJect. Chal~man Nerbst statcd the ordinance was for RM-4000~ so the developer knew where he shc~ul d be, but that he had ~ rouyht the Jevc l+~pment down to RH-24n0, He stAted he recogni~eg the ordinance for RM-4')00 is too great and the Cammisslon hAS been analyzing the ordt-+~nces In the area of RM-3000 to givt: the devel~pe~ more flexibt I ity. Ne stated there has been a serious study regarding conduminfums and tt h~s been found the 2-1/2:1 ptirking rat lo is not enough; that every one that lias becn dPVeloped has ended up wt th parking problems; and that sin,le-family ordinances require 5 spaces per unit~ Including street ~a~king, Mr. Nove pointed out code requirss 2-1/2 parking spaces per unit on this proJect. Ch~irma~ Herbst explained code suggests minimums, which does nut mean che developer has t~ nacessarily develup to the minimums; that if an RM-4n~n proJect was placed on this property, there would be a s~~rplus of parki~g. He stated the Gomm(ssion is findtng out thbt the n~i nlmum i s not enougl~. Mr. Hove statad that (t makes it difficu! t to clcsign a proJect without gutdel(nes. Chairman Herbst stated tl~e develop~r had guideli~es for RM-4000 and if the design was tor RM-4000, there would be a lot more parking spaces. Mr. Hove stated the proJect would not be ecx~~~omically feasible at RH-40!J0. Chairtnan N~rbst stated the Commission reeognizes that fact and that is why they are discussing an o~dtnanGe clirnge ta RM-30~0 with the parking requiren~ents being reised in ordrr to make ~ good 1l~~tng envi ronment. Mr. Hove asked ~o~ a definite answcr rega~dtng the parking (f the plans were redesigned somewhere around RM-30~0. t/15/79 MINUTES~ AH/WEIM CITY PLIINNING CQMMi5SI0N~ JANUARY 15~ 1979 79-~~5 Ela N0. 223~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-26, VARIANCE N0. 3071 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO_ 104Z6 (oo~tinued) Cammi~sioner Tolar replled that the Commission has been studying the sltuetton and recognlzos RM-400~ Is n~t +~ fe~sible proJect. He stated tt is not totally true that thd developer dld not have any guldelincs becaus~s hQ did have the RM-4~00 standards ~nd if the plan was for RM~-40~0~ there would i~ave baen plenty of pn~king. Ile st+~te~l he is totelly In favor of conciominl ums and (s l~vking at Rti-3000 ratl~er thAn R14-4000~ and taktng the 5~0 feet difference from the RM-21i00 as ~roposhd and RM-30A0~ thP develaper could probsbly provtde 3 to 3.2 porking spaces per unit. He statcd the Commisslon wants to make this p~oJect better than those that havc been daveloped and there are pro~lems wlth the 2.5 parktng spaces per unit because people do have guests. Ne felt (f thp praJect Is brought up from 2400 squara feet to 3~~~ square fceG. with aprroxlmately 3.2 pa~king spaces per unit, +t would prov(de t; ~r 1G units per ~cre. Ile stated it Is nlnrost Impossible to get ;6 units per acre es Allow~d by codc. He stated the c~arkin~~ could include tandem parking spaces as long as it places the per~:ing within a reasonablc dlstance of the units. He felt~ also, the recreationa) areas should not be so close toctether end suggested IF the plans ere going ta be redestgned, ttiat the recreattonal ~reas be redtstributed. Mr. Ilove asked the Commisston's feelings regarding tlie private street versus the publtc strett~ polnt(ng out he Itves in Iluntington Beacl~ a~d referred to a successful developme~t there~ the Iluntington Landmark~ whtch is a prtvate community with p~ivate straets and (s als~ attractive hr,cause of the securicy element. He statp~l tl~ere had been staff con~ern with the privat~ street because of servicing with fire~ pol(ce~ r.tc. Commissfoner To;ar stated he woul~f ba oppc~sed to a private street with 1(3 units~ but if the plans are presented wf th 1G units closer to 3~00 square feet with adequate parking~ he might suppo~t a private street. Commissioner Johnso~ ~skecl for an oplnion from the Traffic Department~ and Cheirman Nerbst potnted out the proJect dumps all the trafflc out onto Chapmar I enue and that would be creattny some problems. Jim Kawamura~ Treffic Enqineer(ng Assistant. stated he has no guiclellnes for privote streets in the City of Anah~im; howevcr~ the County has ve ry rigid standards wtth respect to private str~ets and they basically foltaa the Idea they should be cieveloped to public street standards. He stated 40-degree ~irking as proposed with pr(vate streets is recommended against~ particularly with a traffic w unt of ~are than 5a0 trips per day because of a traffic safaty problem. Ne stated if a devetopmPnt generates less than 580 trips ~er day, then 90-degree parking on ~rivate streets ls acceptable, but that this development is considerably more th2n t~~at ~nd tt~ere is also only one way out of the proJeet. Chadrman Herbst referred to the traffic report in the environmental impact study which ~efers to a problcm with traffic haviny diffttulty ge~ting onto Chapman Avenue during certatn times of the day~ and askPd what the backup would b~e from 7:00 a.m. to ~;00 a.m. Commi~sloner Barnes asked if the street would align ~rith existing streets~ and Mr. Blanchard stated that was the reason Mr. Sin3er tiad recommended a public street and expleined that they do not own the other pro~,erty. Ile explained that they had developed another layout Just i~ case they were ab!e to purchase Yt~e othor property~ and the~e would be ro problem wlth the street alignmenc. Commisstoner King referred to the ease-r~nt ~unning westerly from the property to Karbor Boulevard and asked if there wes a chanca they could get the right of ingress and egress through that property, and Mr. 9lanchard replied that they cauld not. 1115/79 ~. MINU't~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ JANUARY 15~ 1979 79-46 EIR N0. 223. RECLASSIFICATIQN NO. 7a-~9-26~ VARIANCE N0. 3071 A~~D TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0, 104y6 (conttnued~ M~. ~love explained thet the st~~et does not align with Madrid Way; that thcre are twc~ parcel~ which are zoned differently end polnced out they c~uld not move the street any further east. Mr. Blenchsrd stated he felt any developQr whu acqulres that prope-ty wtll look at. a pa:io-cype home or a zero lot 1 ine develapment due ta the nature of the General Plan~ and indtceted that waa thelr (ntent ion for e 1lttle lass densa proJect because of the single- faml ly rest denttal development. Ne ~xplatned in his markettng study he had looked at tha m~re mature type buyer, which i s the reason fo~ the two-bedra~m untts~ nnd felt theres wou) d be a 1 arge demend for the~ ~ne and two-beciroom un i ts and the three-bedraom un 1 ts would bc the least attraccive. (~~ stetcd next yeAr rrost lenders are lookin~ at e maxlmum sales price of $92,0~0 and I~e obvlo~sly wr~nts r.~ be ~mder that pr~ce nt ap{~roximately S62~000 t~ S7~,00~, Ne stated he hes gottcn the feel (ng ot the Comrn(sslon and w~uld 1 ike to reque~t a cont(nuance In order to rcvic~! hts plans. Commtssloner Tolar asked liaw ic~~g he would need~ and Chai rmen I~erbst polnted out that any plans would have t~ be Into stz+ff by thls Friday (n order to be on the next agenda. Mr. Blancharcf stated he will probably need two wee'~s to ~et ihe pl~~ns tn. Commiss(oner Tclar stated sinc~ there Is no oppos(tinn present. hr would suggest a two- week contlnuanc and (f th~ rJeveloper does not have the plans roady by Friday, thev could request anothcr two-week contir~uancp. AC710Nt Commisstoner Tolar offcred a motlon, seconded by Commissloner 8arnes and MOTiON ~D, tl~at thc llnahe(m City Planning Commisston does hereby grant a two-week contlnuance an th~ aforementioned Item to tl~e regularly-stheduled meettng of January 29~ 1979~ at the req~~st of the pet ltioner. Mr. 8lancha~d stated he had heard from two of the Commissioners end asked (f he could get the feel Ings of the other Comrni ssio~ers. Commissioner earnes stated if any af the other Commissioners had any atfferent thoughts than those expressed~ they wau~ d havr_ voiced thetr opfnion~ and Commission~~ J~hnson agreed. RECESS There was a ftve-minute recess at 3t25 p.m. RECO~ NVENE The mecting recon vened at 3:30 p.m. Chairman Herbst indicated he f~lt the Commission shuuld instruct staff to complete their study on condominlum standards and the other Commissioners agreed. Chairman He~bst offered a motio~, seconded by Conmissioner David and MOTIQN CARRIEO. that the Anahetm Ctty Planning Commt ssion does hereby (nstruct the City Pla~ntng staff to complete the study for condominium standards for the City of Maheim reoomnending 3000- square foot minimum per unit and parking af 3.3 to ,3.5 spaces per unit. 1/15/79 MIIIUT~S~ ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JAIJUARY 1S~ 1~79 ~-a~ ITEM N0~ 4 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSt ROBERT R. ANU BETTY J. ~~'~,~~ l tICALLY EXEMPT- CUSIiMAN Af~D RELONDA L. CUS~IMAt~~ 190$ Victorie Avanue. CLASSE5 AND ~ Anahei m~ CA 92~Q-~ . Pet I t i ono ~ request~ WAI VF.R OF (A) V~~IMLr.__ 0. 9 MINIMIfM LOT AREA~ (D) MINIMUN LQT WI DTH~ (C) MINIMUM FLOOR AR~A AND (D) NIt11MUN REAR YARO SETBACK TO CO~ISTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE on property deacrlbod ss e ~a~tangulerly-sheped parcel af land conststing of approxlm~tely 0.3 acre locateJ at the nortf~east corner of Romneya D~ive and Lewollyn Avenue. hevl~g sppraximata fronta~ea ot 1~0 feet on the north sl de of Romncya Drive and 129 faet on the eest side of Lewellyn Ave~us. and further descrlbed as 120~~ ond 120G Lewellyn Avenue. Property prE~sntly classificd RS-7100 (RESIUENTIAL~ SlNGLE-FMIIL.Y; ZONC. There was one person prasent t~dicatf~y (nterest in ti~e subJect request~ end although the steff rnport to the Plannlny Gommisslan dated January 15~ 197a was not read at the ~uhlic hearing~ i t i s referred to and made a part ot the mtnutes. Robert Hostetter~ 2129 Vlctorl~~ Avenue~ Mahetm~ n~ent~ InJicated the prr.vious ownar had retained two lots and had constructed a garage whlch encroacliGd tnto Lot No. 2 by 8-1/2 faet and this Interfered wtth the minimum bulld(n~ slte~ khereby requiring a waiver. He stated the petttioner is wlltin~ to st(pulate to cor+~ly with the recnmmerded conditlons of the staff report. The perso~ present in the audlence indicated he was not opposed co the proJect and was interested Tn flnding out If his property will be affectPd, It was elerlfted that he owned the ecijacent praperty to the north. TI~E PUHLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chatrman Nerb~•• •oferred to the ad~ilti~~nal 2 feet of dedica•ton requi reci and asked if there was any Nrablem wi th thls requirement~ and Mr. Ilostetter repl Ted there wbs no p rob 1 em. Chalrman F~e~bst stated hc recogniz~s :his is a substandard lot and f~lt thts would be a good usc for the property. Con+missloner Davld esked the intended use of the addit(onal structu~e~ and Mr. Hostetter replied the property awner wll) retatn it; tha[ the~e is a GO-faot~ unlmproved lot at the present ttr~e and tlie petittaner had baught the property with the intention of building a structure; thAt his daughter I ives in the existing hause and this Ts a family proJect. Commissloner Johnson stated it appears tliat more than the garage is bul lt on the old proparty 1 i ne. Mr. Nost~tter indlcaLed he has a w~eple of recomrr-ended changes that they would be wi l l i~g to make and presented a revtsed plan. He stated they would not 1 ike to make these chanyes, but ere wi I 1 t ng to do so. Fle ~tated the garage extends ove P 8-1/2 feet and they are wilitng ta remove that portion ~nd relocate it to the front of Che existing gar~ge~ but that wauld be a great deal cr expe~se. He expleined the total is 129-1~2 feet f~r the two lots. Chatrmen Nerbst stated he has no problem wlth the proposal; that the plan shows garage-to- garage and 1 iving quarter-to-i ivf ng quarter; and there is actual ly 18~1J2 feet between the 1 iving quarters. t/15/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMNiSSION~ JANUARY 15~ 1g79 79~N8 EIR CATEGORiCALIY EXEMPT-CLASSES 3 6 5 AND VARIA~~CE N0. 3064 (conttnued) Mr. Hoststter statad the ~lr-conditloning end heattny untt~ ara locatod to the rear and could be relocatod~ brfng(ny thc setback to 19 feet. Commlssioner ~arnes asked the wldtl~ of other lots ln tl~e nciqhborhood~ ar~d Mr. Ilostettor replled the lats averege 60 feet. C~mmlastoner 8ushore t~dicatecl he could support thla pru~ect if the garage ls removed and relocsted. CommisslonPr Tolar cla~rtfiec~ th~t wtth thr. revised p1An the existing garaae would be reallqned wlth the existinq house~ and Mr. Nostette~ (ndlcated that wes correct. Jay Tashiro~ Assoe(atc~ Ptanner~ stat~d ll~at in 1oo{.ing at thc rEVised ptan~ an addttlanal watvar of Lhe side yard setbeck would be necessa ry be~-use the structure woulcit~e on the property llne. Th4 Comnission Jlscussed the ortgtnal plan and the revised plan presented at the me~ting and it Has determined the propcrty Ilne slioulcJ be moved 5 feet so th~t the slde yerd setback walver woul~l not be necessr~ry. Jay Tashlro expla(ned al) waivers still would be necess~ry~ wtth wa(vers (a) and (b) being modlfied. It was noted the Planning Dlrector or his authorized representative has determined thet the proposed proJect falls within the deft~ltton of Categurlcal Exemptions~ Classes 3 and $~ as deftned in paragraph 2 of thc City of Anahetm Envfronmental Impect Report Guidelines and is~ therefore~ categortcally exempt from the requtrerrxnt to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Comm(ssioner Tolar offered Resolut(on No. PC7q-9 and moved for its passage and a~optTon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commtssion does hereby grant Petit(on for Varlance No. 3069~ in part~ granting waiver (b) for a minimurn lot area of approximately 5400 square feet, and grantin~~ waiver (b) for a minimum lot width of appraximately ~4 square feet on the basis that dental would be deprivln<~ subJcct property of prlvlleges enjoyed by other p~operties tn the sa~ viciniCy and zone; granting waivers (c) and (d) as requested on the basis that denial would be depriving subJect praperty of privi{eges enJoyed by othe~ pmperties; and s j'~}ect to the stipulation by the petitloner th.~t a porttan of the existing qarac~e will be remc~ved and relocated t~ align wtth the existing st~ucture and to provide a 5-faot rnlnimum side yard setback; and sub,ject to Interdepartmental Committee recommenciations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by t!7c follvwing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: tiARNCS~ UUSHORE, DAVID, HER85T~ JoHr~SOrl, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIO~tERS: tJOr~E Ak15EMT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 1/15/79 ~ 4 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 15~ 1979 7`~'4~ ITEM N0. ~ PUdLIC NEARIt~G. OWNERS: ELMER C. AND ,IANETTE M. C TEGOR~l:~1L FXEMPTION-C~.ASS ~ 11ENUa1CKS~ MOJI4VA DU~I,DERS~ INC~~ 27~~f~ west Stanybr~ok ~ Drlve~ A~ahelm~ CA 92NOA. Netttioner requests WAIVER OF M{NIMUM FRON'T SETUACIC TO CONSTRUCT !+ GARAGE on property ckscrlbed as a rec• .ngularly-shsAed pa~cel of lend consisting of appr~ximetely 0.3 acre havtny ~ frantAge of approxlmately 117 feet on the sauth side of Stonybrook Urive~ haviny a maximum depth of approxlmetely 100 feet~ betny locatad epp~aximetely 705 feet east of the ccnterline of Dale Avenue~ ancl further descrtbed as 27G6 Wast Stonybraok Drtve. Property presently classifled RS-7200 (RCSIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) tONE. Th~re was no one indicatinq their presence In oppostttor~ to subJect request~ and although tlie staff report to thc Planning Cornmissiun dated January 15~ 1'1J') ~aes not read at the public hear(ny~ il (s referracJ to acid madc a p~rt of thc minute:s. Dr. Charles Hendrlcks~ petitloner~ stateJ three years ago he had rr.qur.stad Che City Councll t~ abondon the sharp segment ~~f MacDuff because of the tremendous amount of property damage thcy were experiencing from the stu'ants a[ Dale Jun(or Niqh School~ and the abandonment was yrantad sub,ject to the conditi~; s that t1~ey put curb and gutter across the front of the scrcet and hold tt~e City harmless nr loss of aGCess to chetr garagc. t1e stated tliey have devcloped a plan end thst he hed hoped to go ehead and put in curb and gutter and lay the foundatlon for the qarage at thc samc Clme~ but coul:i see that Is not feasible. Ne added ttie nroblem tl~ey I~ti~l encountered ls that the house sets 20 feet from 'he sidew alk anJ the co~e requires a'l5-foot setback ar~d they wouid lfke the garage tA be the same distance from the street as the house~ so the va~Iance ts to allow them to encroach y feet Intu the setback. Ile st~ted in orcier to tie the~ h~ause and qarage t~gether and leave a breezeway and afford more prlvacy~ tt,ey I~ave as~:cd for permissiun to construct a separate wall higher than tl~e 4:! inches allowed. THE PUBLIG HEARlNr wl~5 CLOSCU. Comrnissloner aarnes asked 1 f any of the neighbors heve c~-,,Ject~d to the propc~sal ~ and Dr. Nendricks replied they h~xci not objected. Commissio~er Herbst statr.,u he cc~uld see Che necessity for alignfny the garage properly and that the 20-foot driveway was built to the requirements at the time of originsl conscruccion. It was noted the Planning Uirecc.or nr hls authorized representatlve has dctermined that the proposed proJect falls witt~{n the defi~itian of Catr.gorical Ex~mptlons. Class 5~ as defincscl in paragrapt~ ~ of tne City of Anaheim Environmental impact Report Gutdelines and is~ therefore~ cata~,~orical'+y exr_rr~c from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered Resalution ~Jo. PC79-10 and moved for its passage and a-~opt~on, that the Anaheir, City Ptanning Commission dacs hereby grant Petition for Varlance No. 3072 on thm basis th~at denial would he depriving subject property of a privi lege enjoyed by oth~r ~+roperties in the same: viclnity and zo~e, and sub.)ect to Interdepartme~tal CommlLtee recommetidatians, On roll call, the `oregolny resoluCion w~s passed by thP following vote: AYES: COMMISStONERS: BARNES~ BU5HORED DAVID~ HCftBST, JOHNSON~ KtNG~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CONMISSIONERS: NONE t/15/79 i MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMISSI0~1~ JANUARY 15~ 1979 1~'50 PU8L1 C HEARING. OWNF.R: AMAI~~ ~~' ~tEOEVEL(1PMENT AGEt~CY, ITEM N0. G 106 I~orth Claudln~ Street~ Anane m. cn 9z8~5. AGENT: E'('~'J~TVE DECLARAT I ~N OND 0 U E Ei~MI N0. 1~2~ ROBERT E. BENTLEY~ ~i33 West Lincnln Avenue, Anaheim~ ------! --~'-""""- CA 92A05. Pet 1 t t one r re~ues ts pcrmi ss lon to ESTAE3l I SN A1~ 1 NSUitlltlLf. O~F I CE I N A RES I DEIIT I Al. STRUGTUaE on p~operty descrlbed as a rectangularly•sliaped pa~cnl of propnrty cansisttng of approxi- mstely 713~ square feet loc~ted rt tl~e~ southwest corner af Chartres Street dnd Nelena Strect~ having a~proximate frontages of 1~5 feet ~n che south side of Chartres Street and 46 foet o~ the west stde of ilelena Strc~et~ and Further describe~d as 125 North N~lene Strcct. Property rresently classifled PD-C (PAaKING DISTRIf.T-GOHMERCIAL) ZONE. There was no one Indic~ting their presance in opNusilion to subJcct r~quest~ ++n~i althouah thc staff report tu thc: t'lanning Commission ~tat~d ,1e~uary 14~ 1~79 Was not rer~d at the public heartng, It Is referred to and ma~e a part of the mtr~utes. Conmisslaner Bushore declared ta th~ Cha(rman thet he had a conflict of Interest AS deflned by /~~~at~tlm City Plann(ng Cornmisslon Resolutton No. PC16-157~ adopttng a Confltct of Interest Cod~: for che Plannin~~ Commission~ and Government Code Section 362~nc~ ofQ~~ in that he has a contractual tnterest w(ch the Anaheim aedevelopment Agcncy~ subJect property. and~ ~>ursuant to the ~~bove codes~ he was hereby withdr~wtng f~om the hearing (n connectl~~n wltl~ Conditional Use Pcrmit No. 1325 and w~uld not t+~ke part In ei theenthe~rd~i e~~ f~ thP°P1 anni n~tCommi ss ionn ~ T IEREUPOIIheCOMMISSIONCRcBUS~OREhLCFTaTI Er w I th y COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 3:5~ P.M. Jay Tast~lro, Associ~te Planner~ indicated one le[ter had been received in opposit(on~ and Jack White. Deputy CEty Attorncy~ ~intecl out that since thls hearin~ is for a condict~nal use permit~ zhe lettcr would not bc adr~issible since Lhe writer is not present. Norm Walters~ representiny the A~aheim Redevelapment Agency~ reviewed the letter which had Bentlcy has an been subm(tted ln oppositlon. fte stated thrt at the present t(me Mr. lnsurance off(ce on Lincoln llvenue and thei~ agreement w(th him cells for him to redevelop the block bounded by Harbor poulevard, the ne+a Lincoln Avanue~ Nelena and Chartres as banking facilities and office spaces and he will ~elocate from I~is present office space facing on l.incoln into tl~ls rc~sidential struct~~re whicf~ had been purchased by the Rede4elop~from9residential toroffice spacerfor~adperiodaofetlmehwhileeconstructioni~s the use change taking place. T~iE PUBLIC ilEAR11~G WAS CLOSEU. Chairman Herbst asked when tha construction would take ~lace. Mr. Walters stated the move will ta~e pl~ce right away and the development of Mr. Bentley's proJect Is scheduled to coincide with the Anahelm Redevelopment Agency's construction ef Phase I of the Alpha project and the realigr-ment of Lincolr. and the widcntng ot N~rbor Boulevard; that it is critica! that the reallgnm~nt of Lincoln and the widening of Harbor be at least Paid yut and start~ed before he can c~mmence ~~S PrPhase~l and the City Engineer is antici atin advertisin for bids on the. Alpha project, . in 1979• Commissioner Tolar asked the projected date for this prUject to be completed. Mr. Nalters stated construction would probably take approximately six months and depends upon the real ign+nent of Lir~culn. 1/1S/79 a 4 "INUTCS~ ~~IA~IEIM C17Y PLANNING COMNISCION~ JANUARY 15~ 1~~9 79- S 1 LIR NEf,ATIVC OECLAMTION AND CONDITIONAI USE PERM17 NQ. 1~25_ (continuesd) .. _~._... -- Conmissioner Tolar asked the proposed use of the p~operty At 125 North I~elenn eft~r the petltloner relocates. Mr. Walters replted thal ares will be the banking fr~cility ~nd off(ce spaces and Indlcated the Redevelopment AgAncy a+ns all the property in that block. M nike Santalahti~ Assistsnt Dlrector for Ioning~ expl~ined the block Includes everything between Cha~tros ~~ Lincoln ~nd Harbor and Nelen~+~ and the residencrs on subJ~ct p rop~rty w) I1 be derrol ishe:d wi thin the next ane year. ACTIOIJ: Commisslone~ Kiny u~ffe~ed a motlon~ secondeJ by Cwnmiss(~nc•r Uavid and M~TI~N ~0~ that the Anaheim City Planning Comm(SSinn h~g rPVtewed thc nro~osal to permit an lnsurance office In a residentlal structure on a rectangularly-shaped ~,arcel of l~nd Gonsisting oP approxim,~tely 1130 squ~re f~~t located ot the zouthwest corn~r of Cha~tres and Helena Strpets~ havinc~ approxirnate frontages of 155 feet on the sauth side of Chartrns Street and 46 feet on the west sidc of Hnlcna Strect; and daes hrreby approve the lJegatlve Declaration from the requirement to prepflre an envtronmentel Impact report on the basis that th~re wou1J be no siqniftcant indlvidual or cumulative adverse envtronrnental impact due to the ap~roval of this Ncgativc Declaratton since thc AnAhetm G~neral Plnn designates the subJect property for general commerclal and medi~m density resldcnr.lal land uses conmansu~ate with the pronosal; tl~at no sensltive environmentel impacts are involvad in the p~oposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the ~etitt~ner inclicates na stc~n(flca~t indtviduAl or cumulative adverse environme~tal Irr~acts; and that the tlegetlve Decleratlon sutstanttating the foregc~ing findings is on flle (n thc City af Anaheim Planning Department. Commissioner King offerect Resolutlo~ No. PC79~11 and moved for its passac~e: and adoptton~ tiiat the Anaheim Clty Planning Corrrnission dc~~es he~eby qrant Petitlon for Condttional Use Pet~mit No. 1925 for one year~ s~~bJect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendattons. On roll call~ the foregotng resolut(an was passed hy the following votP: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES~ DAVID. HERBST. JOI~NSQN, KiNf~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIO~~ERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORC ITEM N0. 7 PUBLIC HEARIt~G. OWNERS: FLOYD V. AN~ HELEN M. EIR- NEGATIVE UtCLARATION IIAROING, 55q South Anahe(m Boulevard~ Anahelm~ CA CONO T ON L I;SE ERMIT ~~0. 1Q2~3 92~5• AGENT: LEROY 0. OWEN COMPANY, 500 South Main Street~ Suite 500 Ct.~ Orange, GA 92F68. Petitlone~ requests permission to ESTA8LIS1~ A MOTOR- CYCLC SALES ANU SERVICE FACILITY on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxtmately 0.4 acre having a frontage of approximately 150 fee: on the ~ast side of M ahelm Douleverd, havinq a maximum depth of ~pproximately 108 feet~ being locatecf approx(mately 1iiQ f~et north of the centerltne of South Street~ and further described as 710 South M aheim Baulevard. Property presently classified CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) ZONC. Thero were three persons fndicating their presence in opposition to subJect request. and although thc staff report to the Planning Cammissfon dated January 15~ 1979 was not read at the public hearing~ it Is refer~ed to and made a part of thc minutes. Eugene Rounds~ LeRoy 0. Owen Company~ agent~ represGnting Arvil Sparks~ Anaheim Cycle~ Inc., 22h Morth Anaheim Boulevard~ A~aheim~ stated the petitioner fs betnc~ asked to t/15/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLl1NNING COMMISSION~ JANUAR.~ 15~ 1979 79~52 ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION IWD CONDITIONAI, USE PE(WIT NOy1~2~ (continued) relocato by the ~edevelopmcnt 1lgency; that hR proposes a ne~w butldtnq on a general commerc(al zone parcel at subJect property~ about 200 feet north of South Street end that property has been useJ as e used csr lot fAr mar~y y~ars. Ne polntad out the surroundinca uses~ indtcating th1S srea. In general, Is e mix of commerclal with seme older resldences. He ststad Mr. Sparks plans to develc~p a new bulldtnry far o satas a~d service factltty; that he has three othar l~catl~ns and a phdtograph is eva(lable af the most recent one on Eeat Katella in Orange, which Is about two years old. I~e steted the staff report Is corrprehensive and factual and detalis thc petltloner's plans for sub]ect prope~ty ve ry wetl. He stated Mr. Sparks has be~n in this business for ovcr 1R yerrs. Edward Campbel I~ 7~7 South Claudtna~ Ant~helm~ stated they are not r~al ly ~p~,r~sr. d tc- r.h~ proJect~ but were concerncd ahouC the notse that cuuld come fram a motorcycle shop; that in the aroa there are several retired and alder persons and they do nat want to be to~me~,t~cf by motorcyclc n~iap, H~ St~t~d th~y we~~ als4 c,.~ncerneci Abaiit th~ fumr!g which could come from tunlny up the mot~rcycles and ne~tse fram the intercom on the outsld~: calling persons ta thc telephone~ etc,~ since In most case.s those ere quite loud. He referred to paragreph (12) on pagc 7-h of the stt~ff report and statad they would not Ilice to have a c~ate on the alley because of the possibiltty of racing motorcycles through the alley to detPrminQ wheth~r ~r riot they are tuned up ~+ropc;ly. M~. Rourids stated thc points Are wel 1 taL:en; that regardtng the n~ise facior~ there. wi 1) be an 8-Foot hioh block wall at thc rear of the praperty; that there have been conslderable irrprovements madr. tn :he manufacture of motorc;~cles and the new madels have better mufflers. ~le ~tated Nr. Sparks would have to nnswer the concern reg~rJing the (ntercom s{~eak~r on the outs(de, hle stated all work will be done inside the faciltty and that the apentng in the wall at thc rear (q f~r the trash trucks and is not to be used for any other purpose~ and that tlie 20-foot gatc ls tt~e service entry (n order to allcnv for del tve~y of naw motorcycles and tl~e dcl ivery trucks wt 1 I back up to [he doc~rs ~ and the 20- foo! gate would also be an emergency gate. Ile stated there wlll be no racing of motorcycles up and dvwn the ailey. THL PUI3LIC NEARING NAS CLOSEU. Chalrman Herbst pointeJ out the plans shaw a G-faot high wall and he would agrec that an $-foot high wall would be better. He stated wdth a 20-foot opening in thc wali~ the sound ~eduction would be less. He suggested one c~ace. Mr. Rounds stated the sr-~I1 gate is needed for the trash t~uck. Arvi) Sparks~ 20~4 Oranye~ Costa Mesa~ stated he had ltve6 in Annheim for 28 years and he is aware of all the problerns moto~cycles can c~eate; tha*. he has three operations at the present Yime and started working at the Anaheim lacation In 1~61 and irter p~~rchased the business and he is involved in the redevelopment p roject and has been trylny to ftnd anather suitable location and feels this property woufd be sultable. Hc stated he has been 1n motorcycling for a long time and the noise pr~blems have come a long way. Ne stated his business depencis upon the community and people's ~GCeptanGe of nbtorcycles and he has had virtually no complaints In the past five years conce~ning noise. ke stated the motorcycles are worked on inside and tt~ere are no fun~e p~oblems. Ne feit he ~ould be compatlble with the netghborhood and pointed ouC this is a clean and legftimate operatlon wtCh a limited amount of noise. Hc stated he had requested the service gate at the rear, but that there wtll be no motorcycley ractng up and down the alley. Chalrman Ne rbst asked if he would be willing to stipulate that there will be no motorcycle testing in the alley and to provide an 8-foot high wall. t/15/19 MINUTES~ ANAN~IM CITY PLANNtNG CQMMISSION~ JANUARY 15~ 1979 19~53 EIR NCGATIVE DECLARATIOW AND CONQiTIONA_ L USE PE,lMIIT NQ. 1929 (continued) Mr. Sp~rks 1 nci) ceted 1 t would be tetter to h~ve an ~3-foot wt+l I fo~ securl ty purp~see end he would stipulete t an a-f~ot wall and xo the fact the~c will be no testing in the alley. Commtsslonr.r King asked (f the~e would be an inte~com spcaker an the outside of the building. Mr. Sparks indicated It is posslble they would hevc a speaker in the frant of the store but not an the back slde nf t~~e facility. Ne tndtcated he could almost guarantee the nefghbors would r~oc I~ear the Intercom and. If they cin hr.ar It~ they could tell hlm end he would be happy to ~dJust thc volume. Chalrman ilerbst pointed out thts ts e conditlonal use permit and if the conditions are vlolated~ ir can be re:vc~ked. He stated getting along wfth the nelghhors is very important and he thought the notse factor was the maln concern and {f that can be wntrolled~ there wl 1 1 bc no prob lem. Commissioner 9arnes Indicated she was c~ncerneJ about the pollutlon~ And Mr. Sparks Indicated as far as the fumes and testtny of mc~torcycles Is concerned~ thet hes not been e big p roblem~ but in ig78 State laws were enacted requirtng smog devtces on motorcycles and he felt that problem had been eliminated~ but tie understoo~ what they were talk(ng about. He stated they aill be working on motorcycles, but that matorcycles would not produce es much furt~s as a car would. Commissioner Bus~~ore asked the hours of the service clepertment~ and Mr. 5parks Indlcated tlie hours would be from ~:00 a.m. to G:O~ p.m. ~ Tuesday throuc~h Saturday. ACTION: Commiss;oner King offered a rnotion~ secc~nded by Cor-missfoner David and MOTI~fJ ~~D. that the Anaheim Clty Planning Cortmtssion has reviewed the ~ropnsal to permlt a motorcycle sales and service facil~ty ar~ a ~ectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0,~+ acre havin9 a frontage af opproximately 15~? ~eet on the east side of Anahefm Boulevard, havinq a max(mum de~th of approximately 1~~ fee~t~ beinr~ located approxtrwtely lE0 feet north of the centcrline of Sauth Street; and dAes herr.by approv~ the Negatlve Declaratlon from ti~e r~qutrement to prepare an ~nvironMental impact repo~t on the basis that there would be no significant indivtdual or cumulacive ~dverse environmental impact d~~e to the apnroval of this Negattve Declaretfon sinc~ the Anaheim General Plan desiynates the subJect property for yeneral corwnercial land uses comnensurate with the proposal; that no sensltive envlronmental impacts are invalvcd in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by th~ petittoner indtcates ~o stgnificant individual or cumulative aiverse environmental imoacts; and that the Negative Declar~tion substantiat(ng the foregoinc~ findinys is ~n flle in tlie Ctty of Anaheim Plannin~ Department. Commissio~er lting offered Resolution No. PC79-12 and move~ for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commfssion does hereby grant Petition for Conditianat llse Pec-mit t~o. 1929~ s ubJect to the petitloner's stipulation that tnere will be no tes ting of the motorcy cles in the elley to ~he rear; that an a-fc~ot high w all will be provided on the ~r.p: prope~ty l(ne; that the hours of operation of the service faci l tty shal l be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday; and subJect to Interdepartmental Commtttee recommendations. On roll call. the fore~o~ng resalutio~ was passed by the following vote: AYES: C4MMISSfONERS: fdARNES~ I3USNORE, OAYIU~ NERaST, JOHNSO~~~ KtNG~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: hlONE AB5ENT: COMMISSIOt~ERS: NONE 1/15/79 MINUTES. AlIAtiEIM CITY PLAN~~ING COMMISSION~ JANUAftY 1~, 1913 J~)-y4 1 TEM N0. 9 PUUL 1 C H~ARI ~JG. O~.JNCRS t ED' -ARD R. RESN I CK APJI) CARL E a N GATIVE UECLARATIOt~ F. AC,RE~I, /~~n2 Via Car~na Drive, Himttn~Jt~n e~nch~ 1 I~TS CA a2(>~~7, ARE~IT: LLISIJ~C TIM~ PRObl1CT5~ 2~70 Mlraloma CONUITIONAL ~S~11T N0. 1,i0 Way, Anahhim~ C!1 'a2~,Ai,. PetittanFr rnquests perm(ss(on to E5Tl1al I SH T~~C QuTUQOR STORAr,E O~ NEW VEH I CLE CHIISS I S WITiI WAIVER OF (A) MIt11MUr~ NUrI~ER OF P~RKINr, SPACkS~ (u) MIIIIMUM LAt~US(,APL~ 5ETuAC~;~ AND (C) RCQUIREU ENGLOSUkE OF OUTu00R USE5 on property described r~s on irregularly-st,aped parcpl oP land canslstinc~ ~f ~ppraximately 1,~ acres hav(ng a frontage of epproximately 19~) feei. ~n tf~c soutli sidP of Miraloma Way~ having a max(mum depth of approximAtely ~u3 fset~ beinq lucated approximately 3(irl feet west of the centerline ~f 5unshine Way~ an~/ further ~Jescrihe:~i as 2!,3~ Mlraiona Way. ~roperty prssently classiflc~l ML (INi)I!STRI/tL~ L11~11'Lu) 1.~1~ik:. There were five nersons indic:.~tin~ tl~rir presence in op~ns(ti~r to subject request~ and aithough thc: sCaff report tc7 the Pl~nninc~ Conrnission c~ated JanuAry 1~~ 1~)7.`~ was not rcrd at the pui~lic he~rir~g~ it 1s rcfrrreJ tc+ an~l ma~le a p~~i•t <~f [he mtnutes. Robert F~rdycc, General Man.~g~r, leisure Tin,e Products, a~~ent~ stated he is the ncw mana,yer of this particular o{~eratic~n; tl~at hr. is loo{.ing t~ ~~x~vc ~~pprnximAtcly ?.~Q cutaw~~y chassis which are an the 1e~ase~1 v~~cant Ic~t adjACent to this faci 1 ity; an~J that he understan~is the property shoul~ be fence~i and landSCa~ec! and have prnper irri~~ati~n in order to leave the chassts on the ~roperty. He stateu they have t,een informeJ Gy the c~wner of tf~e property tf~at coristruc,tion is plArined on thls nr~{~erty in a~proximAtely tf~ree munths; that the previuus man,i~er~ Mr. Jeffers, had researched tt~e rec~ui rerr,ents and det~~rmine~ thc cost would he approximately S1i~1~0 to n..~kr_ the 1r~r~vements and thls cost is not unreasonahl~ exc~:~>t th~~[ i t would be for threc rrxmths. He stated he is not asking to leave thm chassis on the pr~perty indefin(Cely and continue to violate the ordinance, but is tryinc~ to resolve [fiis problem anci find anattier site. Richard t~, Montc~ 4~62 Palor~a l.an~~ Yorba Linda~ statt~d he and his wife own fourplexes at 13~'L Lawrence ana "L»0 and 2;~3 Par4: Lane in the vicinity of subject property; that ever since Leisurc Tirie ProJucts st~rte~i their operaticn they havc been complatnin~ and have tried to advise them on huw to operate tt~eir business so that it would be acceptable to lhe neiyhb~rs an~J Leisure Tir~e had paid no attentioh to thc complaints and suggestions; that originally th~re was landscaping on the (nsfJe af the see-through fence~ but have since starteJ usiny ttiat ~round for storage and repairs; tt~at numerous delivery truck~ are in and out of the plant all cfay l~ng; tl~at tf~~re ~re no spaces for employee parking and no place for en~ploye~ lunches and brea~s and the e~nployees parl: all over thc streets And eat the i r 1 unchr.s i n [i~e i r veh i c 1 es an c1 1 eavA ttie t r h on tf~e s i de of thc road or th row i t over the fence into thetr pro~erty; Lf~a[ the g~.e overlc~oking Lawrence is lefit open all day long and the winci blows the trash all over tl~r neighb~rhr,od; and that the repairs or alterations to the vans are some[imes cJone in the street and they use all the streets In the area far turn~ng their trailers anu trucks around~ with no consideration to the people living there. tie statcd ~~iast af his tenants have complain~d constantiy and some have moved because of the problems. Ile sta:ed lie Joes not objctt to the opcratioi~ of ttie Philadelphia Gear Company in this same area because tl~ey maintain their property tlnd do not cause disturba~ces to any of thetr tenants~ but Lefsure Time Praducts is using the entire neigF~borhood fo~ their operation and their operakion seerns to be expanding and the situation wi{1 get worse. He stated he rents to farnilies with children and they are sometimes playing in the streets nr in their yards and ttiis is very unsafe for the cf~lldren; that some of his co-owners have re~ommended he Just rent to adults, but he loves chtld~en and wants to rrnt to familles with children. Ne referred to the statement tn the staff report concerning the 1/15/79 J f111~UTCS~ AI~IUICIH CITY PLA~I~IING COMMISSIUII~ JANUP~RY 1~~ 1~7q 7~1-5,ri EIR f1EGATIVE DECLARATIOtI At1D CnNDIT10NAL USE PE.RNIT t~0. 1 b(conttnued) negetive dc~clarati~n and stated I~e Jid nnt ur~cier~tnnJ and askocl if the Cort~mission has alrcady d~ciao~i this ls noing to pas~. Chal rme~ -ierbst stat~ ~l th,~t statement r~fcr4 to the ciivi ronmental irnpact report on thAt partlcult~r busln~.ss ar,.1 tl~c information t~einy ~r~~ented (s necc:ssary far the Commission Co meke a ciecis(c~n~ ~ut that thcy definit~~ly hrvc n~t m~+de; u~ the.•ir Minds. Mr. Nonte state~l this is :~ ~c~~utiful are~i and ts ~~ettinq better every Jey and is ~ place for pc~oplc to livc who c;annot affr~r~l t~ huy a horne~ Uut (f I.eisurr. Tlnx: Products is allowed to continue the same sloppy type op~ratlon~ ti~is are~ will be lc~st and turned into a n~anufacturir~y drad, Mr. Fordyce explained when he li~~d arrived at th(s factlity tliere were a lot of proble^ that he was ~I~e man.~ge r of the I nci i ~na p I an t and i~onc of the i r ather p f ants a~e i n th i s condi tion; that this faci I 1 ty was a p( ~i sty; tiiat the ~fum~ster was outs icfc and he t~ad s(nc~ moved it tu ics ~roper locati~~n; that the vehicles have been rnoved off th~ ~rea that is supposad to bs IandscAped; that he liad his em~+lnyees clet~n up the lut where the chassls are s tar~4 bec:ausf~ i t w~~s a mess an~1 he a 1 sc~ had che arca r i yht outs i r1e the bui 1 d( ny clean~,d up and hc is [rying t~ improve thc nrop~rty. Ile stoted the former r,~n~c~er was usiny the street~ but therc is a~1e51!~n~~tr.d r~c~ivin,y doc4•, areA and he has instructed hls supcrtntcndent tu usr, that area anJ tl~cy ar~_ nc~w usli-y it, Ile stated he h.~+s noC spoken wi th the gentler~-an whu s~~~ke in opposi ti~n~ but he lias al ready tal.en SCC~S to correct thosr situations menkiuneJ and he ayreed that you have to <~et t~long with y~ur neighbars and Indicated the manayer before him had ma~ie a lot of ncoplr. unh~~py, but -~~e does not work for [hat company anyr~orc. THE PUHLIC NEIIP,ING IJAS CL~~SCU. Chalrman Nerbst statr~~f workiny on the vans (n the street is (n violation of City ordinances. Ne ~uintecl ou[ thc petitioner is requesting a minimur,~ F~mount of time to move the vans and asked Hr. Fordyce wiiat he w~ul~~ c~nsicler a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Fordyce replie~l fie thought 9c) ~ays wauld be adequat~ because he does rtot have a site at the present time~ but wantecl to mc~ve as s~on as poss(t~le. Mr. Monte stated hc has offered his professlonal services to this company and they have ignored hls offer; that lie built and manayed che Duena Park Nabisco plant which is an example of how a well-operated plant sl~ould be run ~nd t~ow a plant c~n cet along with its netyhbors; that he fiad talked with thc previous rianaye~ and he hod talked with the home office and tney had refused to du anytliiny about these prot~tems, so hc did not believe th ( s man I~as the back i ng of Ir i s company . Chairman ilerbst stateJ Mr. Forctyce is in the process af cleaning up the property at the p~esent timP an~i seems to be on the right track. Mr. Monte statecf tie coul~ acccpt this (f thc Commission will promise to look. at the property in GO days ta see that he is cl~aning i; up. Chalrman Nerbst sCated the Zoniny Enforcement Officer coulct be requested to inspect the property in (i0 days. Commissio~er ~arnes stated t1~e Commission could deny the re~uest and allow the petitianer g0 days to vacaCe the property~ and Hr. Fordyce ~eplied this would be acceptabie to him. t/t5/79 MINUTIS~ ANAlIE1M CITY PL~NNINf; COMMISSIUN~ JAI~U/1KY 15, 1`l7~ j9•5G EIR NCGATIVE DECLARATION Ar~D C~NDITIOI~AL U5E PERMIT t10. 1930 (continued) ....~.....- - Mr. Fordyce steted In answer to the yentleman's comments regordi~g the compeny~ thc~t the pravious managor had resigned b~cause of his attitudr An~i t~ecAUsc of answc~rs h~ had gfven tn people p~lor to this, and I~c felt sure ttie owner of the compnny wauld nnt ignore this gentleman's wmn~cnts. ~tr. Monte Asked About einployee ~~rkinc~. Mr. Furdyce staked thcy 1»ve a deslynateci brr.ak areo for thc employecs. b~~t many of them prefer to stt in thei~ cars. Ile stotPd tf~e area bctwcen tl~c lot thPy are 1ea31ny and the bui ldiny was desiynetecl ~arkiii~~ and other item~ tiad he~n storecl fn this are~~ but he n~nw hos th~t areA cleanecl up fc~~ c~nMloyee par~:ln~. Commissioner 7olar askeJ what thc~ ~ro~erty wlll t,e used for when the chASSis havc been rernoved. Mr. Fordyce uxplalned the area behtn~l tl~r fenced areA would ~robably contair- 1~ to 1`r raw chassis~ plus everythiny else he needs~ and he would i~e usiny u{~ two to Chrse pcr day s~ that the 1~ to ly waulJ last approximatcly ane week; that clic otl~er ~~lac~s he fs looking et are w(thln one mtle of this factlity. ile ;tat~.d thc~y will always continue to have chassis at the location, ~ut not as close. Co~nnlsstoner 7olar state~l tho~e 10 to 1;; chassis slioula not he parked in those p~~rking spaee:s des i gnatea far emp loyse p.ar~: f ng. Cornniss(~ner Uavid asl.e~ Mr. F~rJyce if he was the top officer for Leisure Time Products in this area~ ancl Mr. ForJycc replied khat t~e is. ACTIUN: Commissi~ner t~arne~s offerecl a rnotion, sP~onded by Cnmmissic~ner Y.ing and MOTION C~RRICO, that the Anahcirn City Planniny Conx~iission has revica~ed thc proposat to permit the outdoor storage of new vefiicle chassi:. with waiver• of number of requireci parking spaces~ requi red landscaped setl~ack, and requi red enclosu~e of outdcx~r uses on an i rr~~ularly- shaped parcel of land c~nsistin; of approximat:ly 1.C acres hnvin~, a froncAye of ap(~roximately 1'~`1 fect on the sou[h sicle of Mlralcxna Way~ having ~ maxii~um depth of a~proximately jt33 feec~ l~einy located approximately jE~~ f~et west af the centerline of Sunshtne Way; and does hereby ap~rove th~; Neyative ~eclaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental irr,pact report on the hasls tliat tl~ere w~uld be ~o signlficant individusl ~r cumulative adverse environmental impact ~1ue to the approval of this Negative p~laration since the Anat~eirn General Plan desiynates the subJ~ct property fo~ qeneral i+~dustrlal IanJ uses cummc~nsurate witfi tt~e proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved In the proposal; that thc In(tlal Study submltted by the petitioner indlcates no signif(cant lndiviciuai or cumulatlvc adverse env(ronmencal impacts; and that the Negat(ve Declaration substantiating the foregoing findinys is on file in the City of Anaheim Nlannin,y Uepartment. Commissioner Harnes offered a motion~ seconded 6y Comnissioner David and MOTt01~ CARRIED~ that the Anaheim City F'lanning Comnissiun daes hereby deny the requPst for wafver of code requirements on the basis that the petitioner dtd not demnnstrate that a h~rdship exists on subject prnperty. Camrnissioner I3arnes offered Resoluiion No. Pc7`)-13 and moved for its passage and adoption~ that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Gommission does herehy deny Petitlon for Conditional Use Permit No. 1930 on the basis that the existin9 iilegal use hes created an adverse impact on the surrmunding area. On r~ll cell, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 1/15/79 ~ ~ MItIUTES~ 11NANEIM CITY PLANNIN~ C'JMMISSI~N, .IANU~RY 1;~ 197~ 1Q'`~7 EIR NEGATIVE DZCLAfNT10t1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1)3~ (co~tlnu~d) AYL~ : COMMISS I ONERS t I3ARNF.S ~ B USNqRE ~ DAV I D~ HERB5T ~ JOIINSON ~ KI NG ~ TQLAP r:ors: Gor~tlssio~~cr,s; ~~o~i~: AUSENT: COt1MISSIGNERS; NONE Commissioner Bornes ~ffcrecl e mot i o~~, seconded by ~ommissloner Devid end MnT10~1 CARRIEO~ that the Anai~eim City Plannlnh CUmmissl~n does herehy grant [he pc~tt;oncr 9~ doys In wh(ch to vecece the property. Jack Whi to~ Deputy ~) ty Attorn~y. t~rPsr.nted the pett tt~nar wi th th~~ wrl ttr,n ric±ht ta appeal the Plannln~i Gommisslan's declsion wtthtn ?.2 days to the f.lty Council, Commissioner Johns~n pointecl out ~o Mr, Farciycr. that the Cortxnlss(on will be watchinq the exlstt~n condition:.l usc permf t on chis property ve~~r cioscly. Chetrrnan Ilcrbsr tndicated hc wou1.1 lil:e the 7~:iiny Enf~rccment Officcr t~ revicw thc site in fi0 deys ar~d rep~~rt lo the PiHn~lny Commisslon. 1 TCrI N0. ^ PU~L I C HEARI Nf,. OWNE~,S ; Jh,MES A. AND GRACE L I E3FR I ~~ I, :~A VE UCC~ARATION 172Q Nlr.st La Palrt-a Avcnue. Sutte A~ Anaheim, Cl1 ~12R01. , ,. ~0. 1y31 Petitioncr requests p~ermission to ~STASLiSH COMMERCIAI "~-'" l1SCS iN T11F. ML 7.OtlE on pronerty cfescrtbed as en Irreyularly-shapr.d parcel of land consistinn nf approxim~t~ly 1.; ncres locatecl at the nnrtheast corner of An~halm (ioulevard ind Lemon 5treet~ having approx(mate frontages of 38~ feet on the north~ st~e of Anahetn~ Haul~vard and 1~0 fcet on tl~e east si~ie of Lemon Strer.t~ and furtlier clFSCribe~ as in5~ North Anahelm BoulCVard. Rro~erty presently e1as~Ifled ML (I~IDl15TRIAL, LIMITED) 701JE. 1'here was no one indiceting their presence in oppa5ition t~~ subJect rr_quest, and t+lthouc~h the staff report to the Planning Commissi~n datc~! January 1_, 1~7~ w~s not rcad at the pubtyc hee~ ing, it is referreci tc~ and made A part of thc mini~~cs. James l.ibcrio~ awner~ stated the staff re~yort ind;cates the ~lano sales would reqairc 13 parkinq spaces anJ explained this man lenses one space there already wh~!r~ he repairs~ refinishes, and cunes pi.in~s; th~t this is a one-man operatton and he has another man who helps him accasionaliy and he wi shes to rent another space tn aell recondtttoned or new planoti; that h~~ hs~ a l~catic~n on Cuclld an~i is tryin~ to qet space together. He stated the piano s.~les is shown as 26u0 squ~~rp feet and it would retually be only one-half of that and would requi re only one-half of thc parkinc ~ and tl~at the re~ort sht~ws 5~ parking spaces requi rad ancl they havr ;.;~ snaces, THE PU8L1 C t1EAP,lf~f WAS CLOSED. The ~anmission discussed the parking analysis as included in thP staff rer~ort, and Jay Tash' ,•a~ Associ ate P 1 anner, i nci i c~~tPd thr_ report shoul d be corrected to read: manufacturing - 1!~.a12 sa. ft.~ 1/'S~~, 2?. spaces; piar~ repair - 3130 sq. ft., 1/5~0~ G spaces; warehousiny - 6^ti~ sq. f t.~ 1/10A0, 7 s~~~es; general contractor's office - 880 sq. ft. ~ 1/2y0~ y spaces; auta leasing - 1;F~; ~~a. ft. ~ 1/20~, 8 spaces; and automotlve repalr and air-conditionlnq insiallation - 15hr sq. ft., 1/20~~ $ spaces~ for a total of 2~~,3,97 gq. ft. and ~5 spaces. Mr. Liberlo stated there are t~ speces in the back of the complex which are designated ln front of the yarage doors. Commissioner Bushore stated there are garage doors and t~ash containers in the beck and asked how you coe,ld ge.t in and out of thc garages if cars are parked there. 1/1S/79 , ~ ~ , MIHUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLl1NNIP~G COMMISSION~ JANUARY 1;~ 1~7~ 7'1-~~i EIR ~~EGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PE:RMIT N0. 1g31 (continu~d) Mr. Liberlo ateted tha man who hng the p(~no operr~tlon parks hls c~wn vAn hchlnA his ~~wn door and seld~m u~es thc ~Jarage. Cnmmisstoner eushure Inuicatecl he had counted 4~ an-sitc~ mt~rked spac~~ and he h~+d n~t eountod the ~araya ~fo~rs a~d tfie trasf~ locaticm~~ bnd felt realtsticnlly thcre are -~> on- slte park(ng spaces. lie stntaci I~Q hAd cour-ted tlie 7 sraces fllon~~sidF the building and he did n~t sce nny marked spaccs ir~ t~~c l,a~k. Jay Tash(ro ~xplAined stnff c~,untc~d tl~osc parkiny sn~ces as shc~wn on th~ p1An subMitted. Gommissloner ~iushc~re st~~tcd h~~ woul:l agrer that th~ pieno s~~l~s n~~r.~rr~~ wc~uld n~t necessar( ly requ( re r~l I tl~esc sp.ices ~ hut wondcrcd wt,ere the automohi le leasin~ operation wuulc! park tl~use vehiclcs. Mr. Libc~rio stateJ those vehicles wl l l ~I I I~e ~arL;ed t~~slcle an~ there wi ll be no ~arkin~ outs i d~ ~ and s tate~i thcy cou I d park four Ur f i ve veli 1 c I es ! ~s 1 d~, . Commissloner Tolc~r stateJ hc does nut hav~ ar,y pro6leo~ with thc ~.:se; that the problem Is thc pian~ operation and thc car l~sas(n~~ ~pcrati~n may not always bc: there. Chairman Herbst stated [he conclitlunal ~.:;. perr~-it would indicate automoUilc leas(ng anJ he felt it shouid be stl~uleted as to liow mK~ny cars would bc sc~rcd on che pr~perty inside~ because 1f th~ business yra•~s, hL could put vehicies outside in the parktnr, spaGes. Mr~ Liberio st ~te~i th~re~ wi I 1 be no cars returneJ ta tF~f s agency after the lease periad; th~t these .~~^ a!! ~old by thc bank and they are n~t leASed Just for one day. Ch.al rma~~ ~~erbst state~l there ~re a~t~mobi le le~isinq agcnttes tn Anaheim which stot'P as ma~~y As 2U autanc~bi les to be lcased, Nr, ~iberio explained tl~c van ~pcration has thc~ sa~nr. type of oncration; that they install the stereo anc alr-conditio~ing units end are not sellinc~ vans ~t tliis location. Gortrr~ssioner Dusl~~~re stat~d if this werc a purely industrial building th~ pArkia~g spaces wr, ,! be adequate~ r7Rtj ASI~P.d why this property which was zone~i corm~er:.lal and thsn rezoned to industrial (s na•, yoina back to commerclal. Mr. Liberio stated tF~e nroperty t~ th~; nortfi of tliis property is all ?ndustrial and he Felt the conxnerr_ial zonin~ ha~i nn nei~hborhood te draa~ from and that is why he had chanCed to industrial and tli~ anly other thiny he had in mind was an offtce bullding~ and felt this wouid be the besc use for the proper:•,~. Gommi ss i oner k~ushore s tatrd he has to unders tand wliy we keeR try t ng ~o keep c.ortrnr rc i al uss out of the industrial area, and hKre ,~e h~ve a property going from inAustrial to cart~n~ercial. He Stated it looks like a very good commercial area and al~~ a good buffpr for the Industrial erea. Mr. Liberio stated he could not yo for heavy indu~.trial uses and that this Is a very limited commercial use ar~cl felt he si~ould not Fave to come in for a conditional use ~ermit on the van conversion uperatian anJ potnted out thax tn any other city he would not have to ask for a permit. Gommissloner Bushore statcd this is why Anahelm is a littlc c:tfferen. .,.. ~hy he lives in Anaheim. He asked wl~y the petittona~ is noL using the ~~rope~t~~ for limiteci manufacturing. 1/15/79 ~ .. i MINUTES~ I1NIINElM C17Y PLANNING COMMI~SION~ JANUARY 1~~ 1~)7'~ 7`1'S`) EIR NEGATIVE DCCI.ARAT101J AND C4NDITIONAL USE P~.RMIT N0. 1931 (cuntinued) ~- - - Mr. (.ibcri~ ~~xpldli~aJ hc I~~is ha~ numcr~us P~Cyur.gtl for thesP types c±f uges. ACTIO~~: Commissloner Johngon offcrcd a motion~ seccm ~ed by Comm(sslo~er King nnd M~ ~ ~U~ th+~t the Anahc(m City Plannin~ Commission iias reviewed the proposa) to permit commerclal us~s in the MI, (In~~~~strlal~ Llmitect) 7.one on an irre~~ularly-shAped percel of land conststing of approxlmatP~•; 1.3 ecres located at the n~rthuest corne~ of Anahelm Eioulevard anci Lemc~n Str~e;~ h.ivin-~ aprrox~rt~at~ fr~nta9n_s of 3f30 fe~t on the north :;Ide af Anah~lm ~oulevard anJ 1Q~~ fcet on the CASt ~;~dc of l~mon Street; and daPS hcrPby npprov~ tha Ilegatlve Declaratt~n fra~~i thc requ(rement ta prepere an envlronment~) (mpact report on th~ b~sis ch.~t there wou1~J be iio siqnifi~~.ant individu~l or cumulaclve adverse envi ronmental trip.~ct due to t1~e a~prova 1~~f tlii s Ple~at i.:.~ Dec.larat lon s ince the Anaheim General Plan designates thc suh,~ect property f~r qe~er~) industrial innd uses cor~xnensurate witli tli~ ~~ropusal; tliat r~:~ sensittvc rnviram7cntal imp~cts ar~ Involved in tl~e proposAl; th~t the initlal Stu~~y submitted hy the petltian`r indicates no siqnificant IRdivldua) or eumulatlve advers~~ e~~vironrtx~ntol im~acts; and chat th~~ I~er,Ative Dec.l.i-'atl~n suhstantlating the fo re~3oiny find~n,y~ is an flle ~n tl~ie City of Anahelm Planning De~artmcnt. Comin(ssioner Johnson offered Resolution No, PC)'~-lh and rmved for Ics ~assage And adoptfon, that the ll~ahelri City Planniny Commisslon •:io~.s herehy grant Pecition for Condlticmal Use Permit I1~. 1~31, subJect to the stipulatlons tihat tt~c~ autc,mobilc: leasing operat ion bc 1 imi teJ to f~ur vch f c les s t~re~l i ns i de and the othe r iases I i r,~i teJ t~ speces as indicatec~ in the staff repnrt, an~ suhj~c: tu Interde~~~rtmental Cor~mittee recommendatlons. On rol l tal i, the foregoing resolut(on was pass~~i hy the f~l lc~~inn vote; AYE~: COMF11 SS I Ot~CRS ; aARt~ES ~ BUSII~~RE ~ DAV 1 U, IIEr,l15T, JUNUS0~1 ~ KI N~ ~ TOI.AR I~OES: COMMISSIOIICRS: ~~A~IE ADSC!IT : C0~lMI SS I Ot~L RS : I~0'JE (TE;1 No. t~ PUE3LIG HEARIt~G, 0',J1~E.R5: RUTN AUU MARTIW RON;~~J~ R N~G ~~E UC~,L4rZ;.TIG,~ 21G Nortl~ Ma~chestcr Avenue, Anahein~ Cl1 921301, UE U R-t'~~T Petitioner requests permission to EXPA'~D AFI EXISTI'IG (ONDIT I~A~ USE PERMiT NU. 1)33 WAREIIOUSE WITIi WAIVER OF MINIMUM PARY,iNG AP,EA ~n "' propc~rty described as an irrNgularly-shape~ parcel of land consisting of ap~~roxtrt~teiy ~.G acre having a frantagc ~f approximately 9~ feet un the sast Side of Manchester Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approxi~~~atcly 1~~0 fePt, being lncated apprnxlrnatcly 26n feet r~arth ~f the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, an~1 furtl~er described as 21~~ North Manchester Avenue. Property presently classified CG (COMMERCIAL~ GCNERAL) ZONE. There was no one indicattng tl~eir presence in opposition to sub)ect r~y~est, an~! althougn the staff repo~-t to tl~e Planning Conmission dated January 15, 1979 was not rca~1 .~: tl~e public hearin~,~~ it is referreJ to and made a part of the minutes. Martin Ranson, awner~ stated it is his Jesire to construct a warehuuse, THE PuCLIC ~i~.ARlilr, wAS CLOSEU, Chalrman Ne~bst asked what the warehouse will be used f~r and what k.ind of putlic uses it ~ould hav°. t/15/79 1 MINUTES~ ANAt1EIM CITY PLANN1Nu CUMMISSIO~~~ ~ANUl1RY 15~ l~j~ 19~60 EIR NEGATIVE U[:CLARATION AND CONUITIONAL_USC PERMII' N0. 1~~~ (conttnucd) Mr. Ronson repllecl it wl ll be fur sturlny flooriny n-r~tcrlals; thAt n~q of the(r business ts wlth contrACr,ors and tl~ey do n~t aavertise In Any wey. fle explainr_d tt~et once every two ur thrc:e months he would llke ta hAVe a salc ~n thc wcckenci to gpt rld of remnAnts. Chalrman tiorbst sugges~c~! t~,at thc pcrmlt could be canditlon.:~i to all~xv retail s~lc~ of r~nmants tliree tirnes a ycar. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Uirectc~r for Z~n(nc~~ explalned th~t tt~e petltfoner ts inllctng about outst~ie sales I~hICFi woul~l he CnnSl~trrp~i a S~~Cir) ~vent Pn~i hc wnuld be perr~ltted t~ have only t,~~ sp~ciAl r.vents prr yr.ar~ rnd tt~at he cou1J h~~ve s~ectal s~les es aftPn as he 1(kes ~s lung as hc kert everyth(n<~ insidc thr fACility. Gommissioncr Johr.s~n askr_J if therc is any sl~oa~roam are~ In tl~is factlity~ and Mr. Ron;on ~cpifcd there (s no sk~~+rn~r~. He explain~d hls existfn~~ war~housc has ~~n ~-fc,ot hie~n cei l ing an~f they cannot ~iet ,~ forkl i ft tns fdc;, ~ind thls f~c.i 1 1 t•,• w( 11 ~~Ilow them access f~r a fr,rkl 1 fc. ACTION: Gornrnlssi~ner David offered a motiun~ seconcfeJ by Corrmissioner Kiny ~nd r~~TION C~IED~ that the Anahe(m C(ty Planning Gommisslon has revic,wred th~ rrnpos~l to expand an existing waret~ouse wl th watver of minimum parktng orea on an i rre~;ul.,r ly-shaped parc~l of land consistlny of approx(ma[ely O,G acrc having a front~i~e of apt~ra~~(mately ~0 feet an the cast s(de of Mar~c.t~est~r Avenue~ haviny ~ iaximum Jepth of app~oximately tA~ feet. locateJ approximately ?.G~ fect nortl~ ~~f t1~e centerlin~~ of Lincoln Avenue; and does her~h~~ Approve Che ~;egative U~claration from the requirement to ~~repare ~~n envir~nmental impac.. re.port on the basis that there woul~ be n~ siynificant indivi~fual or cumulativ~ adverse envtronmental impact due to tlie ap~~roval uf ~his Neqative Declaratian sinc~ the Anaheim General Plan designetes tl~e subject property for yeneral commercia) land uses corm~ensurate with the pr~posal; that no sensitiv~~ cnv(ronmental impacts are involved in the prnposel; that the Initlal Stucly submitteJ by tf~e petit(oner indi~ater, n:~ sir~nificant individual or cumulattve aJverte environmertal impacts; an~! tt~,t ttie Nec~ative Oeclaratlon substAn~tiattng the faregotny flnJi~ys Ic on file In the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Mr. Ronson asked if the driveway referred t~~ in the staff report wauld have to be closed~ pointin~ aut tf~rec ycars ago the Ctty I~ad requested th~t it be put tn. lie felt closing the driveway wou.~ create a blind s~ot. Jay Tast-iru~ Assoclate Planner, expl,ained that the Traff(c Engineer had indicated he w~uld l lke to have *he sc~utherl;~ ~iriveway closed hecause of the poss ihl l ity of trucks backing out into Hancf~ester. Mr. Rnnson exp 1~ i ne~i tha t tlie t ruc~ s wou 1 d be back I ng i n t~. the warehousE and pu i 1 i ng out onto Manctiester. Ccx+x~lssioner David offered a rnotion~ seconded by Lo~~mission~r Tolar and M~710~1 CARRIEU, tl~at th~ Analieim City Pl~nning Gommission Joes I~ereby yrant the request for waiver of thie code requi rement on the bas is that the proposed use woul d nat w3rrent the requi red number of parking spaces, and also recommending that thc southerly ~iriveway not be closed. Comnissioner David offered Resolution N• . PC79-15 ~nd nx~ved fvr its passage and adoption~ that the Anal~eim City Planning Commisslon does hereby grant Petition for Conditianal Use Permit No. 1933, subJect ~to Interdepartmental ComQnittec: rrcortxnendatians. On roll call, t~~e foreyoing resalutton was passed by Xhe following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BUSt10RE, DAVID~ HERBST, JOHt~J50N. KING, TOLAR MOES: COMMISSIUNERS: NONE 1/15/79 ABSENT: LO'1M1 SS IONEftS : NONE i MIt~UTES~ NNAHEIM CITY PLANNIt~G COMMISSION~ JANUARY ~5, 1377 ~~'~'~ ITEM N0. 11 PUf-LIC HEARINf~. DEVELOPER: R. L. LEWIS~ 17'~5 Et~V ROlIMEN AL IMPACT REPORT N0. ID6 Ar~ngewood Avenuc~ Orange~ CA 92f~h8. ENGII~EER: . G; SAL~:111 Ef~GI1JEERI~IG CO~P. ~ 121!; East Chepman Avenue, ~"'-'!- Orenge~ CA 92E,G3. Pctitione~ pr~poses to AMEWD CONGITIONS OF 11PPROVIIL on property described as ~n trre~ularty-shapeJ parcel of land c~mslstirq of ap~roxtmetely 5() scres lncated south~rly of Sante Ana Canyon Roaa~ approxlmately 7~0~ f~et cast of Impcrlal Hiqhwa~,. Praperty pr4sently classiftcd RS-HS-22~~'1'~(SC) (RESIDf:'~TI~L~ SINGLE-Fl~yILY HILLSIQE~SGEhIIC CORRID~R OVCRLAY) 7.ONE:. Thare was no one tnfic~~tinq their presenr.c~ in opposltion t~ subJect rec~uest. anJ .~lthough thQ staff report ta thc Plannin~~; l,oi~missi~m dateu Jenunry 1;~ 1^i'% was noL rcad at the publi. hEarin~,~ it is ref~ re-.i to and mA~1e ~ t~Art cif the minutes. The petiti~ner w.is nc~t prc,sent in ~~~~~nectton with this (tem. TNC I'llt~Ll C HEARI t~G WAS CLOSED. It was noted tf~e appilcant is re~~uestin~~ amendr~x:r~t of CanJition I~o, l:i of T'untative Nap of Tract No. 85Ei0 which requ) res a E,-foot hiyh masonry wal l along the west propr.rty l ine srparatiny L~t Nos. 5u thraugli G3 and Fairmont ftoulevard and that Chis is a similar type fente which Anif~r_(rn HI115~ Inc. h~s been alic~~ed t~ umstruct. It was noted the proposed project is covere~f by Environmenta) impact Report No, 136 which was previously certifled ~y the City CouncE! on Octobcr 5~ 1'37~~ and tfiat said report dia not recortxnend a hloc{< w~ll as a no(sc mitigatlon :~sure. ACTIQN: Commissloner Kin~a offered a mc~tion~ StCOn~ed by COmmi55ione~ David And MOTI~N ~~U~ that tf~e A~aheir~ City Planniny Commiss~~n does I~ereby grant the rPquest for amendment of Go~dition No. 1~ t~ cons[ruct an c,pei~~ cross-tie~ wood rail fence with stone pilasters ac the rear of l.oc Nos. ,~ through ~>3. I TEf4 I~Q. 12 REPOR S~1NG RECQMIIC~I I~AT I 01~5 A. VARIAyCE N~. 27~~7 - Reyuest for termination. ~.~.~ r The staff report to the Pla~ning Cor*rnissio~ dated Janu~ry 1~, 1979 was pre~entecf~ noting the applicant (Scott D. Gerland ~f R. G. Garland Carp.) requests termination ~f Variance No. 27fr7~ which was granted to Qer~~~it outdoor cnnstruction equipme~t sales with waivers of pennitte~J outdoor uses a~d rnaximum fCnce hei9ht on property consisting of approximately Z.6 acres l~cated ~t the northeast corner of Riverdale and Tustin Avenues on Jan~ary 5~ 1976; that an July 2~. 1~i1, tt~e Plannin~ Commission approved ReclASSZfi~ation I~o. 76-77- bl and one of the condit~~»s of approval included tlle requirement tt~at the property rywner submit a letter requestin~ ternination of Variance No. 2747, and that suhlect letter has been submi tttd~ Al. Ot~: Commi~sioner ~avid offered Resol ti~n No. PC73-1G and moved for i;s passage and a~optfon~ tliat the Anaheim City Planning l.~nxnission does hereby grant the request for term(natton of Variance No. 171+7. On rol) call~ the foreyoiny res,~lution was passed by the followina vote: AYES: COMMISS~ONERS: BARNES. BUSII~RC~ DAVID~ NER95T~ JOHtIS01~~ KIPaG~ TOLAR NOES : COMMI 55' QI~ERS : NONE ABSEN7: COMMISSiONERS; NONE !/t5/79 MINUTES~ A~~AIiEIM CITY PLAt~NING COMMISSIGN~ JANl,l1FtY ty, 1~;~ 79-62 ?~ ^'~RTS At~D RECOMMENDATIOWS (c~ntlnued) _ .~....~~ U. COl~UITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1'~1J - Request to omend Resolutlon No. PL7u-?.87 nunc pro tunc. Tli~ staff rspart to the Plan~in,y Commissi~n •1~ted Janugry 1;~ 1)J~- was ~resented~ noting Condttion~l Use Permit• I~a. 1'313. to permit a trn(lcr rentAl and leasing faciltty wlth walva~ of roqulred enclosure of outck~ur us~*s) w~s spprc~ved by thc P18nning Commisslon ~n Docember 4~ 1~7ti on ~ropcrty c:~nslstinc~ ~~f approxlmately 1.'~ ~cres haWlnq ap~rox(mate fronteges of 1~' fer.t t~n the south slde of Vernxmt Avenue and 2>~ feat at thc westerly terminus of L-..y l~vr.nuc~ haviny a-~aximum dcpth of a~c~roKirn~tc~ly ~+95 fce.t~ bcin~ located arproximately )5 f~et wect of thP centPrlin~, nf f,ast S'reet~ ~nd that du~ to a clericel error~ ConJltton iJos. 1 aiticf 2 of Itesolution No. PC7~-2;7 werc inaJvertently omitted. ACTIOtI: Conmissl~ner Kinu offercd Resolution No. PC7')-1; and rn~veci for fts passage and a opt on~ that the Anahefm Gity Planning ~ommission ~focs hcre6y amend Resolut~on I~o. PC73- 2d~~ nunc ~rc~ tunc~ adding Gandition Nos. 1 an~l ?. C. AMC;~~~1Li11 TO T~ ~ L~ 11 - SECTIO~~S 1~.7$.OGy.0211_~ 1b.,~5,OG9.(1221 ~ 18.~a.OG~.O?.22 The staff report t~ tl~e F'lanniny Comrnission datc~l January i~~ 1~7~1 was presente~~ n~tinc~ recommended cudc~ ch~~nges to Secti~ns 1 s.O~.~G9.~211~ 13.~5.Oh~),~2:1 ~ 13.05,~b9.02?.2~ and lo.~)y.OG~.0231 wi[h rcgarJ to service stations which ofF~r a c:o~~~~ination of sclf-servlce and full-s~rvice~ and that the present code allows only the sc1F-se~vice nump isl~n~is to be idcntifled with a slyn; that continu(ng canc~rn has f~een expressed by servite station operators ttiat tf~e pr~:sent eode leads to cnnfusi~n 8nonq their custome~s~ and thus to inefficient vehitular circulation at servlce statlon sites; tf~at the recanmended changes wau'.1 allow each pump Island in self-se~vtce ar.d corrbined self-servic:e/full-service stattons to bc identlficd with one double-f~ced sign haviny tl~e words eithQr "sclf- service" or "full-servir_e"~ and these si~ns coul.i be rx~unted ei[her above or in front of the pump islands anJ at riyht anyics to them; and that tl~e proposed amendments woula reduce the size of any self-service or f~.~ll-servicc~ vign t~ a maximum nf 4 square feet per ft,ce from the ~resently allowed 13 square feet~ and this ~ronosed reduction waula permit the Lx2-foot slyns currently in use at ~-~any servic~~ stati~~ns. ACTI01~: Commissiuner Kiny uffered a rx~tion, seconded by COrranissioner David and MOTIO!~ C~~D~ that the Anahei~ City Planning Commission ~ioes hereby recoaxnend to the City Counci 1 that the draft ordl~iar;~e be .3~iap[ed anenainy Sections 1u.0>.0~~9.~211 ~ 18.~5.OE~9.~:'21, 1~.Oy.OG3.022~, anu 1tS.f15.~fs~.0231. D. 4c1UI~DARY ADJUSTME~IT OF SPI~ERE 0~ INFLliE11CE DCTWEEI~ TF1E CITY OF A~dAHEIM lu~D THE c ~r o o~i~c~. Dan Salce~'~~ representiry Anahei~~~ I~ills~ Inc,, ~tated in December the Local Agency Formation Gommission (LAFCQ) had discussed the incorparat(on of the City of Vista del Rio and th~ ~nnexati~n of tl~e ~auer Ranch and t~ad cont{nued that discussion *.o January i~~ 1972 • F~e s tated they have been me:e t i ng w i th the C 1[y Counc 11 membe rs of the C i ty of Orange because their spf~ere of influence includes approximately 3~~ acres which Anaheim Nlils, Inc. feels siiould bc in the City of Anaheim's sphere oi influence because Anaf~eim has service capabiltties along Avenida de Sa,ntiayo. He stated he has worked with Larry Sears af che Water Oepartment to find acreage which they a~n in the City of Anaheim which could bE exchanged for this ~roperty consisting of 295 acres. He stated they feel the 85 t/i5!79 MI ~~UT~S, ANAIIEI M C I TY PLAIIt~ 1 NG COMHI SS I ON ~ JArlUARY 15 ~ 1979 79-~3 1"EM p (cont(n~~ed) ~.~.. a~ress south oP Westrldgs c~+n ba glven t~ the Gity of Qrenge and the ~ity ~f Orange faels v~ ry compACible wi tli this a,yrean~ent. 11e stated th~e ~~xchange is p~edlcotea upon municipd) servlcos. Mr. Salcedo IndicateJ tt~e; draft eyreement present~d for the Comn~'eston's rev(ew hod been sl~awn to Meyor Seymour and I~e was concernGd ti~3t the Ctty Counti) sl~oulc! not sct on the ag~eQment unttl the Planniny Cortmissi~n and Hill and Canyun Munictpel Advtsory Committee had bee~ able t~ revtew it. I{e pulnl~sJ out tli~ City of Oranyc had re~movco tl~cir a~,;cctlon at the L.~FCO r-~eetfnc~ t~fter reviewing thc agree~nent. He pointed nuf the a~ea shc~wn in hlue an the wall exhtbit would be developed as @StAte lat~ ancl was ~+n~~:xeci to the Ctty oP Anahelm, and polnted out the area which 1s pl,:nned to be R7.•6 with appr~xlmately 150 to 1.~~ ~mits. Chalrman Harbst As{.eJ if the City of Oran9~ coulci service the property~ and Mr. 5aicr rnpl(ed the City of Orangc fs satisF(ed they can s~~rvice thP p~oper;y. Chairman Herbst InJicated he could see no problem s,lnce it is alonc~ th~ ridgeltne ond since the City ~f Or~nge can ~rovtd~ services. AC?IQN: CommEssloner E3arnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner UHVid and MOTI(1N C R EU~ tliat the Anaheim City Plannin~ Cammission dc~es hereby recommend to th~ Ciky Councll that the draft agreemert f~r bounJary adjustmenc of sphere of influence bet~een thc C1 ty of Mai~elr~ and the Ci ty ~f Orangc be edopCed. WQaK SESSIOFI ~ _.._ Jay Tastiiro prc~sented tl~c proposed iCinerary for a work session on I~illside grading and landscapiny tour. A brtef Jiscussion wc~s held on the [ime for the tour~ and it was felt a SaturJay would be the best time !o take a tc~ur and then meet for a couplr. of hours afterwards td dlscuss thei r ideas whi le they were fresh. Annilca Santalahtt inJicateci she would present a proposed schedule at the n~xt meetinq. ADJOURNMENT Therc being no further business~ Commissioner Johnsnn offered a motion~ seco~ded by Commissioner David and PIQTIO~J CARRIEO~ that the meeting be adjourned. The rr~eting wa~ adJourncd at ;:20 p.m. Respectfully submttted, ~d~,~ -~ • ~~.:~.. Edith L. i~arris~ Secretary Ar.3heim City Planniny Commission Elt~:hm 1/15~79