The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1979/03/12City Hall Anaheim. Califar~la March 12~ 1979 REGULAR MEETING OF Ti1E ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNING CQIIMISSION RECULAR • The r~9~~~hairmann9erbsthatA183~'P.m`~yMarchnl~y 1979i5in~theaCouncl~d to MEETING urder by Chambcr~ a yuorum bcing prtshnt. PRESENT - Ghairma~: I~e~bs~ Commissioners: Barnes~ ~ushore~ David~ Johnson~ King ABSENT - Gommissioners: Tolar ALSO PRESGNT - Jack White Jec-c Judd Annika Santalal~ti Robert Henninycr Edith Ilarris Ucputy City Attorney Givil Cnglneering Assistc~nt Assistant Oircctor for 'loninc~ Asslstant Planncr Planning Commisslon Secretary ?LEUGE ~F - The Ple~ge ~f Alleyla~~ce io the Flag was leJ by Commissloner David. ALLEGIl11JC~ APPROVAL OF - Commission.~r Johnson offered a motton~ Seconded by Commissioner King and THE MitJUTES MOT10~1 CARRICD (Cormilssloner ~011973ebe`~ap~roved~ashsubnittedn~~tes of the rr~etings of February 12 and Z~ ITE'~M N0.~1 PUaL1C HEARING. OWNERS: HLAt~ R. ArIU MARJORIE S. EIR NEGATIVC DECLARATIQII 7ALS A11D YIINSTON G. At~u L015 L. WALKER~ 615 South ECLASSIFICATION N0. 7-7~-3~ Flower 5treet~ Los Ang~les, CA 90017. AGENT: HORACE GILLETT, Philip A. Homrne Cor~ any, 5545 Eest Telegraph Road~ Los Angeles~ GA 90040. Petitioner requests reclassificatian of property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consfsting of approxEmately 7.1 acres iiaving app~oximate fra~tayas of ~~13 feet on the south side ~f Omega Avenue, 750 feet on the west side of Sunkist Street~ and 27~ fE~= on t~~.'. north side of Winston Road~ and being located approximately 655 feet scuth of t~e centeriine of Ball Road~ from the County A1 (GENE.RAL AGRICULTURAL) UISTRICT to the ML (INDUSTRIAL, '_IMITED) ZONE. It was noted the petitioner had requestecf a continuance. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Curtunissioner Oavid and MOTION C i~t D(Commissioner Tolar being~~bSCheduledameeCingdafathenPlanningaCommissionnon~Mar8h 7~-3Q be continued to the regular y 26~ 1979~ at the request of tkie petitioner. 79-1$0 3/12/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM C11Y PLANNINr, COMMISSION~ MARCH 12~ 1~7y 79-Igt ITEIw~ N~ 0. 2 PUIiLIC HEARII~G. INITIATCp 4Y TFIE ANAl1Elt1 CITY EI R NEGATIVE DECLIIR/1TION PLANNIi~G DEPAkTMENT~ 'LO~~ East Ltncoln Avenu~, 1 0 0. ~79-31 Anaheim~ cA 9z~a,. SubJect property~ conststing o~ approximetely 7.1 acres having approxtmate fronta~es of 61,~ fcet on the south slde c., Omega Avenu~~ 75q foet on the west side of Sunkist Streot~ and 27tt foet on thc north side of Wlnetan Roed~ end boing loceted epproxin~ately 6~5 feet south of the centerline of dall Road~ is proposed for roc 1 ass ( f I cat i on f rom tl~e COUtJTY A1 (f,ENERAI. AGRt CULTURAI) Q I STRI CT to tlie RS-A-43 ~Q00 (RESIUENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZOtJE. it was note~l the petiti~ner h~~1 r~~~,PCt~~i rh,-r ~I,tc item h~ wtthdrawn. ACTION: Conxnissicner King offeroJ a motlon~ sesconded by Cammtssloner aarnes and MOTION ~U (Co-rrn(ssinnnr Tala~ hnir..~ ~b~ent) ~ thr~t PetiClon for Reclassification No. 78-79-31 (s withdrawn at the re~uest af the petitlnner. ITE~M N0: 3 PUBLIG Nk.ARING. OWNERS: FRANK AND MARION MALAVARSIC~ EIR NEGATIVE UEGLARATIO~~ 102 Nor[h Evcrc~reen StreFt~ Anahelm~ CA ~2fi0y. EG 1 IC ION N0. -79-3~ AG~NT: TOM CAMPtfELL~ 1~?~ East Lincoln Avenue~ "H"~ . 30c Anah~im~ CA 92305. Property described es a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conststing of a~p~oximat~ly 6804 square feet located at the no~th- nast curnGr af Linco~n Avenue and Ev~ryreen Street~ having approxtmate frontages of 108 feet on the no~th side of Llncoln Avenue and t;3 feet on thc east side of Evergreen Street~ and furthcr described as 1U2 North Evergreen Street. Property presently classifted RS- 7200 (RESIUE~~TIAL~ SINGLC-FAMILY) ZOr~E. REQUESTEp CLASSIFiCATION: CL (COMNERCIAL~ LIMtTEU) ZONE. REQUESTEU VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) LOCATI;IN OF VEHICLE PARKItJG~ (B) MAXIMUH STRUCTURAL HEIGHT~ Af~O (C) MINiMUM LANDSCAPEU SETBACK, TO ESTABLISH AM OFFICE USE IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. There w na ~ne indicating their presence in opposition tr, subject request~ and although the statf report to t~~e Planning Commission Jated March 12~ 1979 was not read at the public h~ariny~ it (s referred to and made a part of the minutes. Tom Campbell, agent, stated the proposed proJect would be in keeping with the general idea of offlce development on Lincoln A~~nue, and it Is their ciesire to convert an extstin,y residence into a nicer structure, changing the roofltne And addiny additional parking. Chairman Herbst asked again if there was anyone in the aud(ence wfio wished to speak on thts matter~ and tl,ere was no response. 7HE PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King in~icated he thouyhc the driveway onto Lincoln Avenue would be a dangerous situation. Mr. Ce~rp bell explained tha~ driveway wnuid bc used by him or his father only and no potential customers w~uld be allowed to use that drtveway~ and that It would be blocked wiih a gate. 3/12/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 12, 1979 73~182 F~IR NEGATIVE DECLARA710N' RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7(1-7g-35 AND VARIANGE N0. 3081 (continued) . __,....... ~ Canmiesioner Bushore asked why the request ts for rnclassificatlo~ to comm~+rctal lim(ted zoning rather then e canditionai use permi~~ end Mr, Campbel) re~slled he thought hts designer I~ad requested it. Robert Henn(nger~ Assistant Planner~ explalned thc camn~rctal Itmitcd zoning~ as A metter of right~ Allavs +~ wide variety of usos and a conditional use permlt would only ellow a singls uae and the Gity would have more control Qver the types of uses at this loGatlon. Mr. Campbell explained the use proposed would be real estatc~ eccounti~~ a~d tex preparotion offics~~. CUmmissioner Ilushore stated he was concerned about tl~e other uses tha t could gn Into the property if this petitioner sl~ould cfeclJe the proposed use is not desirable~ and ~he reclassificati~n would open the door Co e lot uf ~th~r us~s. Ile felt there was a lot of differenco between a conditional use permit whlch would allaw certain uses condltlonally t~nd a reclesstflcation whtch would open the ~ioor for all the other uses. Mr. Henni~ger explained uses allowed in tiie CL Zone in an extsting re sidential structure are rether iim(te~ and include gen~ral busl~ess aff(ces~ medtcal and dentai offices~ Antique shops or art gallerles, barber or beauty shops~ book stores~ gift ar habby shops~ rest~urants. ur coffee shops. Mr. Campbe 1 1 s tated tl~e way the b u I 1~~ I rig t s deS i gnnd I t cou 1 d neve r be used as a rostaurant; that it could posslbly be a medtcal bulldtng, but there a re only 6 parking spaces. lie stated he intends ko s.tay at this lucation. Chatrman Nerbst asked the petitioner if fie h~ad discussed the prop~sa! with hIs next door ncighbor~ and Mr. Cairpbell replied that he had not discussed it with his nelghbor, but the owne~ had and liad not c~ot te.n a nega t i vc response. There was a response from the audience that the next doc~r neighhor had ,just arrived an~! wished to speak in opp~sition. Chatrman Ne~bst ind(cated his concern reyardin~~ the lrr~act on the neighhors and R~OPENEO THF PU~LIC HEARING. Robert Savaye, 106 Evergreen~ Anaheim~ stated his house i5 located directly next door and that he (s worried about his pr!vacy. He stnted he has two small children and is concerned about the traffic, pointing aut tt~Is is qutte a busy thoro ughfare into the netghborhood. He was also concerned about the parking. K~. Savage review ed the pians and stated he was mostly worried about the paPking and dangerous traffic situation. f1e pulnted out the tntersection of Cen te r Street and Lint~ln has always been a dangerous corner with merging tra`fic and fe't this proposal cnuld cause bllnd spots~ etc., and referred to tf~e crosswalk whtch is used by ihe school children. CAmmissioner Johnson stateci he Chcuyht the Comrnisston wauld be responsive to the opposition's feelings because they try to give the residents the beneftt of the do~~bt i~ these type sit~iations; howev~er~ I~e fel~ thP ~'ommisslon has to be fair. He asked Mr. Saveqe if he relt the property In question could remain a residence~ poin;.ing out the area is basically cammercial alang Lincoln~ witl~ a few excaptions. !ie poin ted out when Mr. Savage had purchased his h~me he must have seen that economic pressu re s would push the subJect property into a c~mmercial venture. 3/12/19 MII~U7CS~ At~N1Eln CITY PLANr~ING COMNISSION, Ml1RCN 12, 1)77 ly-1~3 EIR N~GATIVE _DECLARATION. R~CLASSIFIGlTION N0. 78'79-3 AND_VARIAI~CE I10. 3~~~ ~continued) Mr. Sevag~ replled he coulcl under~tand that for the v+li~le blc~ck~ but not e stn~~lr. dw~lling~ and did n~t think this would beneflt onyon~, Ile stotPd he would ltke to see the structure rotalned as +~ residence es long ss possiblt, Ile state~7 tlils structure haa trees end shrubbery erourd 1 t now and he woul J nut 1 1 ke to have to look et asplial t~ end fel t noise and tra~h woulo be a pr blem. Cornmissloner Johnson stated he ti~ouyht it would be very dtfficult for anyone to ltve ln this dwelliny so cl~se to llncoln Avenue~ and f~lt M r, Savage wAnts the subJect property to be a buffer for l~Is vwn property. Mr. Save~~ aratPd this structure is alre~dy a rsside nce~ not commcrcl~l~ ~nd hc resents tl~r chenye requested. Hn stated the structure was bu( ~ t eti a rasidencc anc! thnt ~ ~~~p~~ Avenue was tlicre wlien ( t was bui I t. Mergeret Suslav~ge~ 124 North ~vcryrecn~ Rnahcim~ s tatC~J shc wlshcd to respon~l to a question as to wliecher ~r not th(s structurc could bc ~etained as a residence. She cxplained slic had livr.d I~ the area fnr 14 yea~s and the structure has becn residentlal and was sol d abuut one year ago and nc~w l~as been so 1 J aga in ~ and asked i f the new owrter was b uy i ng the hous ~ J us t tu nwke~ i t comme rc 1 a 1. S he fe 1 t the house cou 1 d s tay residentlal. She explaln~d she Ilves approxlmately four houses from thc corner. Tom Campbell stated he is buyin,y the property to c~~vert it to office uses; that ~~ did n~t fee) any n~ise woulci be generated by the use; tt~at he wauld n~t live on the property; that duriny inc.ome tax preparation tt~~rc may be one Additiona) car parked on thc s(te; and that they w) l l piant slirubl~ery and trees. TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLUSED. Chai~man Herbst ~efcrr^d to the 5-foot arca fron th e pr~perty line to the structure and asked what type of buffer would be tt~ere. Mr. Campbell stated they plan to add to the existin y biock wall and extend lt to the sidawalk and would have st~rubt~ery to separate this use from property next door. tie stated he did not think there would ba any problem with dust or debris bec~+use he would keep thc property and surroundiny area clean. He explainPd he ls not planning to resell the praperty and intends to stay there and wi I 1 take care ot the property. Chai~man t~erbst referred to the parking spaces proposed~ and Flr. tlenninger explained the plans call for 5 parking spaces in the front in addltion to the 2 in the rear~ and that adequate parkiny is proposed ~r(th 7 total spaces. Commissioner Y.ing pninted out the 5 spaces proposed at the west of the bui lding would eiiminate a lot of greene ry because of the paving, and Mr. Campbell stated he would put En as many plants as possible. Commissioner Y.ing state~l lie was still wncerned abou~. thc driveway onto Lincoln~ especislly (f tl~is p~titioner decldes to sell the pr~perty. Mr. Campbel) stated with the proposed use the drtveway wouid only be used bY him or his father, but that it ts true the property could be sold. Na felt any other tenant wauld use the parking spaces in ttiis same manrer becaus e of their location~ and that the frant parking area would be d~signed for customer~. Chalrman Herbst felt this requcst is premature beeause the residence is a nice-looking structure and wf th commercial xoning. adequate protectic~~ wi th a buffer Zone cannot be 3/12/79 M 1 t~UTES , ANAIiF. l M C I TY PLANN I NC COMFI I SS I QN ~ MAKCII 12 ~ 19 79 79~ 1 a4 EI~R N_E6_ATtVE UECLARATION. RECLAS~IFICAT)~~,0 1~~35 AND VARIANCE N0. 3081 (conttnuod) provlded. He expl~tned normally the Cammisalon would requlro a 20-foot buffer betwaen a~ commercia) use and e restdenttal arer~ and only ; feet ts proposed on this site. He stated tl~is might be adequate for this perticular us~~ but tha property would be rezoned to con~rt~ercl al I Iml teJ, whi ch woul d al low othe~ uses. Conxnisatonur King stated ultimately thts praperty wlll become cortn~erclal because (t Is on Lincoln Avenue~ and Commiss(~ner Johnson stated that wes his concern becausc this would be a substanda~d residentlal property~ but agreed that ths Conmission does not like to change the zoning where the structure (s a nice residence. Chelrmen Nerbst stated if a buffcr could b~ provided for the homes to the rcar, then ho Could go olong with thA rp~u~~;i for rezonlnq. Commissioner Barnes referred to the plans and indtcatecl she did not fecl there wouid be any noise; that the trnffic is on the street side and there ls an existing buffer betwcen the b+o houses; that slie did nat fe~l this offic.~ use would create any more nolse than e family~ end probably less than some familtes; ct~at landscApiny is planned; th~t thero ls an exis ting 6-foot high block wall whtch will be extended and will pravide more privacy; and that tliere is a 7•fpot landscaped area between the street and the parking. Chalrman Herbst stated h~ has n~ obJectlans to thts particul,~r use~ but is concernad about the rezoning. Ne stated he could support ~~ ~equest for a cond(tional use permlt where the hours of operation c~ulcl be controlled~ etc, Ne explatned the use could chan,ye and many other uses wauid be allowed in the CL Zone which would not be compatible wtth the netghbvrhood. Commissioncr Bushore stated f~e was b~thered h~ the rezoning as ment(oned previously, but is als o concerned because this would be converting another s(ngle-family resider, to commercial uses, and there are less and less single-family residences avallable. Commissloner Johnson suggested that the petitioner withdrAV~ his request for reclassiftcation and res ubrntt an appltcatlon fur a uandltional use permit~ even though it would mean a delay. Ile explained the packaye would be basically the same for the nelghborhood, but the use could be controlled wtth a conditional use permlt and other uses would ~ot be permitted if this petitioner should decide to scll th~e propcrty. He asked that the appl(cation fee paid for tt~e reclassification be applied to the new application for a eonditlonal use pern,tt. Jack White~ Ueputy Clty Attorney~ expi.tiined th~-~t decislon is an administrative declsion~ and Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Director fc~r Zoning, explained it has been done in the past and could be done in tl~is instance since a lot c~f Che staff work has al~eady been done. Cnmmisslqner Eiushors sta[ed lie had no abJection to applyinc~ the fec paid Co the conditional use permit applicatlAn~ but dtd not want to see any money refunded since staff has al ready done a lot of work on ttiis proJect. Chalrman Flerbst stated he felt this is a gooJ set of plans and he has no objectio~ to this parttcular use~ but was concerned about reza~ing the property to commercla) and~ in this instance, the locatlon is an e~trance to a re5ldential area, He felt if the use could be tied dc~wn to hours of operatiun with a canditional use permit and then became a nu(sance~ the permit could be revoked. F(e explained the pe~titioner wauld have ta comQly w(th the conditlons of the conditional use permit~ whereas a reciassificat~on would allaw other usas as a matter of right. tle felt the neiyhborhood deserveS that protectlon. He felt 3/t2/79 MINUTES, ANANkIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI01~, MARC11 12~ 1379 79-1By IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICAYION W0. "a- -35 AND VARIANCE N0. 30~1 (continued) the nolse from this type use with lim(tr.d hou~s of operat~on would be less then from o femlly living there. ACTION: Commissloner Johnson oFfered a mation~ seco~ded by Commissloner Davtd and MdTI~N ~D (Commissloner Tolar be(ny nbsent) ~ tt~at Petitlons for Rec:lesslficstlon No. 713-79- 35 and Varl.~nco No. 30~1 bo withdrawn at tlic request of thc petitloner In order that a new applicatiun be submltted for a condltianal use permit. Annika Santalahti explatned notices will be malled to the ~~roperty vwne~s concerning the condl[tona) use permit request. ITfM N0. 4 PU~Lic NEARtNr,, OWNER: TEXACO-At1AHEIN NILLS~ INC.~ ~1~~VE~. D[:CLARATION 3C,Q Mahetm Hl lls Road~ AnahPim~ CA g2.8~7, I1~EMT; RECL SS C ON N0. -79-34 ANANEIM HILLS~ INC.~ 3$0 Anahetm Hilis Road~ Anahetm~ CA ;)28f17. Pet(t(aner rPquesCs that ~roperty descr(bed as an irregularly-sf~aped parcel of land consist(ng of approx(mately 3.3 acres having n~ frontage on a public street~ being located approxlmately ?.O~iS feet southeast of the tntcrsection of Nohl Ranch Road and Imperia) Highway, approxi- matcly 620 feet east of tl~e centerline ~f the proposed soutf~erly extension of Imperlal Htghway~ be r~classifieJ from the RS-A-43~OQ0(SC) (RESIDENTIAl./AGRICULTIIRAL•SCENIG CORRI DOR OVERLAY ) ZONE ta tl~e RS-HS-43 ~00(1(SC) (RES I DEP1T1l1L SI I~GLE-FAMI LY H I lLS i DE-SCEN I C CORRiDOR uVERLNY) IONE. There was n~ one indiceting their presence in opposttion to subJect requetit~ and although the staff report to the Planning Gommission daCed tlarch 12~ 1979 was not reed at the publlc hearin~~~ it is rcfcrred ta an d made a par[ of the minutes. h Dan SalCeda, rep~esentiny Anaheim Hills~ Inc., explained that Tentative Map of Tract No. 10617 was approved on a l~~-acre parcel for a 2;-unlt planned untt developmcnt and that the subJect property~ approximately 3.3 acres In size~ is contiguous to the immediate east and that the property was landlocked and does not front a public street and it is their deslre to ~eclassify the propurty to the RS-HS-43~~(?0(SC) Zone to comply with the requlrements of the tentativc tract rnap approval. THE PUOI.I C HEARI i~G UA; CLOSED. Chairman lierbst askcd what the tntentions are for the property slnce it ts landlock~d~ and Mr. Salceda replied that no developrr~ent i; presently planned for this property and that this action Is only to bring the prapert in conformity with appl(cable City zoning. fie explained presentiy there is an Edison easement ~~-ad ta the rear of the lot and, in a remote timg in the future~ they could have access through ultimately to High Pl~ins Road if and when it is dcveloped. He stated -n~re pa~ticularly tl~e reason for the request is to satisfy the terms and conditions of thc requlrements of Tentative Map of Trect No. 10617~ wt~ich is to bring the property Into con'~ormity. Commissioner Kiny pointed out the staff report indicates site development standards af the RS-HS-43~OOA Zone would require that mutual ingress and egress easements be rewrded guaranteeing access to subJect parcel prior to the time of any future development. 3/ 12/79 MINU7ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 12~ 1979 79-18G ~ RR ~lFGATI VE OECLARATI ON AND R~C~~,ASS I FI CATLON NU. /8~ "/9-3~- (cont i i~ued) ACTION: Commissi~ne~ Jehnsan off~red a rnotion~ s~candad by Commissloner K{ng and MOTION L~IRRTEb (Commissloner Toler belny absent)~ that tho A~alieim Clty Planning Commission has revlewed the proposal to reclassify subJect property from the RS-A-43~OA0(SC) (Residentiel/Agricultural-Sccnic Corrldor Overlay) 7.one to the RS-H5•43.000(SC) (kesiAential~ Single-Fsmily Hillstde-Scunic Corridor Overlay) tone on an Irregularly- shaped parcel of land conaisttng of opproxin-etefy 3.3 acres hevtng na frontage on a public streot~ being locsted approxlmetely 2A85 feet southwoat of the tntarsectlon of Nohl Ranch Road and Imporlal Nfgl~vey snd oppr~xlmately 620 feeC east oP the canterllne of the p~oposed southerly extcnston af Imperla) Hic~liway; and Aocs hereby approve the Neg~ttve Daclaratlon from the requlrement ta prepare an environmental Impact report on tlie bests that there would be no 5lgnlftcant Indivi~ual ur cumulatlve adverse envtro~mnntal impact due to the approval of th(s Negative Decloration slnce the Anoheim General Plan designates lie subJe+ct property far hlllslde luw denslty rasldentlal (and uscs cnmmenyurnle w(th the propoael; thet no sensillve cnvironrnental in~pacts are Involve~l In tl~P proposal; that the Initlal Study submitted by thc petitloner indlcates no significant indiv(dual or cumulatlve adverse envlronme~tal impacts; and Chet the Negatlve Uecl~ratlon substantlrting the foreyolny fin~ll~gs Is on file in the Clty of M aheim Pl~~ning Departm~:nt. Commissioner Johnson offered Resolutian No. PC7~3•~7 And moved f~r its passega r~nd adoptlon, that the Anahelm Clty Ftanntng Cornmissi~n does hereby gran[ Petition for Rectassificatton No. 1~'-7`)•34~ sub]cct to Interdepartmental Canmittee recomrr-endati~nns. On rol) call~ the foregc~lny resolutlon was passed by the following .otet AYES : COMM) SS ( ONE RS : BARNES ~ EtUS110RE. ~ DAV I D~ t1~RBST ~ JOHNSUN ~ K I NG NQES : GOI~MI SS I ONERS : NOt~E ABSEt~T: COhlMISSIONERS: TOIAR Comnissioner Johnson indicAted his resolutl~~ for approval was offe~ed because he dld not see ha,~ this chan~es the re.~l value of the parcel t~ the City arid Jus[ brings it into conf~rmance with the rules. I TEi1 N0 ~ PU1iL I C HEA, I NG. OWNER: TEXACO-ANAHE 1 H H I t,l.S ~ I NC. ~ . ~NV IwRONMENTAI I MPACT REPO?T ~JO. 211 3tf0 Anahe i m N 1 1 I s Raa~i ~ Anahe t m, GA 9z~~ J• ~~~'~T ~ An~heim~ 3b~ Anaheim tlills Road ING S RECLASSIFIGATIO(~ N0. 7`i~-33 ~ ., ~ ANAtiE1M FIILI Property described as Portton A: an CA 3z~7 Rp,~ 520 (RCVISION N0. 2) 8 N0 . irreg~larly-shaped parcel of land cansisting aF . _ approximately 6.6 acres lacated at the southwesC And southeast cerners of Serrann Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road~ having app~oximate fran tages of 41+0 fest on the southeast side of Serrano Avenue and utarly-shaped irre B i 680 feet alony either side of of istin f l ~ l g : an on Nidden Canyon Road; and Port approximately 2G.5 acres having a frontage of approximately g cons an o parce 11~0 feat on thP east side of Htdden Canyon Road, having a nw ximum dcpth of approximately ancl being located 13G~ feet app m xlmately Sk~ feet south of the centerlim: of Serrano ~ Avenue. Portton A presently classlfied RS•A-43,t100(SC) (RE5IDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVCRLAY) ZOt~E. REQUESTEU CLASSIFICATIOf~; (PORTIO;~ A) RS-NS~22~000(SC) (RE5IDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY HILLSIDE-SCEI~IC CORRIOUR OVERLAY) ZONE. TENTA7IVE TRACT r~EQUEST: TO ADD AN OPEN SPACE L07 (PORTION A) TO AN EXISTIf~G 18-LOT SU6DIYIS ION (PORTIO~~ B) . 3/12/19 "- , , MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMFIISSION. NARCN 12~ 1979 79~1~1 EIR N0. 21t, RECLA5SIFICATION N0. ~8-19-~ ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 85_ 20 (REV~ i+`i There w~a no one (ndtcating ~he(r presence in opposition to subJect requcst~ and although the ataff rep~rt to the Planning Commisslon dated March 12~ 1979 wss not read at the public hearln;,~ It ts referred to and mode a pert of the mtnutea. Dan Saiceda~ representing Anaheim Nills~ Inc., Indicated tf~ey are attempting to ennex a 6.6-acre parcel of propo~ty which Is contiguous ta a 2~i-acre~ 13-unit parcel which hes been approved for e tentatlve tract map. Ne ex~lalned more speciftcally the purpose is to add ttils prope~ty to Tentettve Map of Tract No. ~520 and it wtll always b~ an ~pen space area~ and that the propert~ vwners wlll have Jurlsdiction over It when tl~ey enter Into the master hort~eowners associAtlon. TiiE PUBLIC HEi1RING WAS CLGSE~. Chelrman Nerbst asked why tt~is property Gould not be clest~nated for opan space rather than RS-720~ since it will be ottached to the tract and owned by the homeawners as~~clation. Mr. Saletde stated they would be willing to sttpulate that at th~ present time thts wtll be en open ~pace area anu that they wou1J heve no ob,jection to hr~vtny it zoned to open space bocause they have absulutely no plans for development. Chairman Herbst indicatc~ hls concern would be ofter Anaheim Hilis, Inc. no longer has control of the tract and (ndicatPd he real(zes this area is mostly a btg htll~ but was concerned that witii the RS-1~5-22~000 zoning~ there could be some prablem. Jack white~ Oeputy Gity ACtorney~ explained a condltton nf ~pnroval of the tentative tract map could be adcJed that Portion A shall be permanentiy designated as an open spACC area, as stiputated to by ti~e petitioner. I r was nated Envi ronmental Impact Report t~o. 211 was certified by the City Counci l on hlarcli 1~+, I~JE; in canjunction with th~ approval of Tentative Tract No. f3520~ Revision Na. 1; that an acidencJum to EIR No. ~11 has been prepared t~ evaluate the environmental impact of the proposeJ tract ntap revision; that the proposed rev's(or~ wi 11 have no significant environmental impact, and since the EIR for the tract man has ~een certifled and there are ~a proposad chanyes to tl~e proJect wl~lch would involve new environrnental impacts not consldersd in thr previous EIR~ no acti~n on tt~e EIR is re~;ulred. ACTIOtI: Coinmi~sioner King offe~ed Resoiution No. PC7~-4$ and mrved for its passage and adopt~on~ that ti~e Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby g~ant Petitton fo~ Reclassificatlon No. 78-7y-3j. subJect fo Interdepartmental Committee recommendation~. On roll cali~ the foregoin~ resolution was passed by the follawing vote: AYES: COMr~ISSIONERS: BAR~~ES. BUS110RE, DAVIO, HERi~ST~ JOIiI~SON~ KING NOES: COMMISSIQ~JERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR Robert tlanr~Inger pointed out a correction to Co~dition No. 18 of the tract map conditions to read as fallaws: "That the owner(s) of subJect prop~e~ty shali dedicat~e and irt~rove a 10-foot wide equestrian and hlking trail as shown on the Equ~~strian and Niking Trails Compongnt of the General Plan. and that imRrovement plans, in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in tfie office of the City Engineer, shall be submltted (n con)unction with the grading plan~ end that a bond~ in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anahe(m~ shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prtor to occupancy~" and Mr. Salctda indicated they agreed with this condition. 3/ 12/ 79 ~~--~ a~ MINUTES, ANAIICIM CITY PLANNING COMNI5SIUN, M11flGN 12, 1379 ~ja t~0. 211. REC "' IF CATION N0. 7~'7Z33 ANp 7ENTATIVE_MAP UF TRf~GT ~~~• C~i~ (RCY. ~'~L Commlssfoner King offered a motian~ seconded by ~imm~it1OFlanDan9~Commissl~o"doesrhercby ~Commissloner Tolar beiny absent)~ that the Anahe Y flnd thr~t the proposed suhdivlsfon~ tagetl~er with Its de:siyn Anc! improvement~ Is tonsistent with the e~~fors aaahraveGTantatlveaMapPofSTractcrl0~f~~20,~RevislonSNot12~, for 66473•~ A~~ does. th r PP an la-lot~ RS-HS-22,00c)(SC) subd~nan,entls designr~trdhas~an`npPnasf~acc~ar~a~, andts~bJectnto of sub)eft property sl~all be pe Y the following condttions: 1. That should this subdivisl~~n be devcloped as m~r~ than one subdivlsion, cach subdivlsion ther~of sholl be submitted in tentative fc~rm for approval. 2. Tiial all lots withln this tra~•t chAll be served by undcrgraund utilitles. 3, That prlor to the introductiafov~~~b °thenClty~Cuufcfl,aniathcn~be~r~~^rd~dLin property shall be submittcd to and aPp Y the office of thc Oran~se Gounty Recorde.r. 4. That any pr~posed cnvenants, conditions~ and restrictions st-r~ll be submitted to anci appraved by tlie Clty Attorney's Office prior to City Councll approval nf the final tract map and~ furt,her, that the approve~rova~nants, conditiuns~ and restrlctlons shall be recorded prior to the flnal tract maP ap~ved by the Ciiy Planning Departi~ nt prior to 5. That street names stiall bc apE approval of a final tract map. 6. That thc owner(s) of sub ject prupcrty sl~al 1 E~ay to the CI ty of Anahe{m the appropriate park ancs recreation in-lieu fecs as detcrmined to be appropriatc by the City Cauncil, said fecs to be paid at the tirne the buildin~~ permit Is iss~~ed. 7. That drainaqe uf said pro;~erty sl~all be disposed af in a manner sattsfactory to the City Enyineer. If~ in tlie pre~.~aration of the site, sufflcient yrading is required to ~ecessitate t+ gradir~y permit, noe~°vff~siteadrainagelfacilitiesthaveebeenni~nstalled,and and April 15th unless all requir are operative. Fositive assurance shall be pruvi~ied the City tl~at such drainage fa~cilities will be completed F~rior to October l~th. Necessary rlght-of-way for off-site drainage facllities shall be decficated to tlic City. or thc Gity Council shall have initlated condemnation proc~edings therefor (thc costs of whi~h shall be borne by the developer) pr(or to the comn~encement of grading operations. The requ~red drafnage facilities sl~all be af a size and type sufflc.ient to c~~~ry runoff wate~s ori~inating from higher proFerties through said property to ultirnate disposal as ap;?ro~ed by the CEty Engtneer. Said Jrainaqe facilities shall be the ftrst item of co~-struction a~d shall be completed and be functic~nal throu~ahout the tr~ct end from the dawnstream boun~~buildinghe property to the ultimate poi~t of disposal prior to the issuance of 9ny fina~ be made Inspections or occupancy permits. Drainac~e district reirtt ursement a reements may avallable to the deve~~Pxcavation,dand al{~otle~~constructionsactivities sha11 be 8. That grading~ conductGd in such a manner so as to minimize the possibillty of any silt origi~ating rom this project beiny carried into the Santa An~ River by st~rm v:at~r origlna2inc~ fran or flowina through this pro,ject. 9. That the a114^~ ntide~edefinel! PThese~drainsmshallnbeSS bJect toiprecisetdeslgn tract map shall not be co s considerations and approval of the City Engineer. ~q. If perrnanent street name signs have nat been instalted~ tempvra~y street name sig~s shall be installr.d priar to any occupancy. 11. Th at t~ash stfrthe Diractoraof PublicvW~eks~n ac~,ordance with approved plans on f i le wi th the offi ce o the peti tloner sha! 1 makc sc„ne 12. 7hat prlor to approval of Lhe final tract map. provision, acceptable to the City Councll, f~r landscapi~9With the^exceptionfofhlot1oqes within and/or created by ttie development of thts property ' 3/12/19 ~ MIF~UT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARC11 12~ 1979 79-189 EIR N0. 211. RECLASSIFICATION N0. ]8-T9-33 AND TENTATIVE_MAP OF TRAGT N0. B~~Q which shall be malntalned by the Anahelm Nllls Planned Community Assoclotion. Said provisicro st~all tnclude sn easement to alla+ for malntenanca of Lot No. 17. 13. Thet minimum deslgn speed for Av4nida de Santtago shall be 2!; miles per hour. 14. Thet al) requlrenlE~tS uf Fire Zone 4, oth~rwisP tdentified as Fire Admin(stretive Order No. 7fi-(11~ will be inet. Sucti requiren~e~ls include~ but are nnt Itmtted to~ chlmney spark errestors. protc:cted attic and under floor openln,ys~ Class G or bett~r roofing maturlol an~ one-hour ftre-~eslstlve can5tructlon of horix~ntal ,urfaces If wlthtn 200 feot of adJecent brusi~land. 1~. Thet native sl~~pes adJaccnt to ne~wly-constructed homes shall be hydras~ecled wtth a low fu~~l combustlble s~ed mix. Such slopr,s shall be sprinklered and weeded as requircd to establish 1~'~ fect separation of flarmable ve~~tatinn f mr~ any structure. 1h, Th~~t t~~pi i~r~~~l:c sh.~ll be 4~rovided as determined to bc rcquired by the Flre Chief, 1;. That the developer ~f subject trac~ shall cnler iritu a speclal faci'ltles ayrecment wi th the Ci ty fc~r watc:r faci 1 i ties in thc Nigh ElevAtlon Syskem~ as requi red by Rule 15B of the 'rlater Utility Rates~ Rules anc! Re~aulations prior to approv~3) of a f1nA1 tract map es stipulatud by tl~e petitionesr. ld. That the owner(s) ~~f subject pra~~erty shall ~ieuicate and improve a ln-foot wide equeStrlt~n and hikiny trail as shc~wn on the Equcstrian ancl Niklny Trails Component of the Anaheim General Plan~ and that improv~;ment plans~ in acGOrdance with standard p1Ans and sp~ciflcations on file in the office of tii~ Lity En~,~inec~r, s~~all bs si~bmitted ln conjunctlon wl tt~ thc yraJing plan~ an~ that a bond~ in an aax~unt and farm satisfactory to the City of Anaheli~,shall he postecl wlti~ thc City to guarant~e t~~e Inst~llation of the above-mentloned r~qulrernents prior to occupancy. 19. Th at pric~r lo any developrnent on Lot No. 17~ accept~ble vehicular access for said lot shall be provided. 20. In accordance with the r~uiremc:nts af Sectlon lu.')2.~~+7 pertaln(nq to the initial sale of residential humes tn thc Clty of Anaheirn Planning Area "~"~ thc~ seller st~all provlde each buyer with written information concerning tf~e Anahelm Gene~al Plan and the existing xoning within 30~ feet of the boundaries uf s~~bject tract. 21. That minimum street lightlny consisting of safety lighting approved by thG City Traffic Engineer and the Electrtcal Dlvision of the Public Utilities Department may be constructed subJeck t~ a bond boinr~ pc~sted Co c~uarantee Snstallation of complete street lighting at any tir~e durin~j the two-year period follawiny reGOrdation of the flna) tract map, if such ligl~ting is d~:terminecl to be necessary for the health~ ss~fety. and welfare of the resicients in sub,ject tract. 22. That prior to approval of a fi ~I tract maE~~ the portion of suhject property described as "Portior~ A" shall be perman~:ntly designated as scenic open space which (s not to be developed in any n~anner otlier tl~~n wi th such residential community IJentificatton signs wl~ich may be app roved by the Planniny Lommissian or City Council. The means of so 1 imitiny use of the prc~perxy shal l be by a deed restriction w~~(ch has bee~ appraved by the City Attorney and wi 11 be recorJed concurrently wi th thi ~. tract~ or by rezoning ta the "OS" Open Space Zone. 3/12/79 3 , MI I~UTES. ANAHE 1 M CI TY PI.ANN I NG COMMI SS I ON ~ MARCH 12 ~ 1979 I TEM N0. f, . ~~TTVE DECLARATION - ._ 0. property deacribed as being of Nidden Canyon Road~ eppr~ Avenue. Property presently CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONL'. 79-190 CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING. 041NER: TEXACO•ANANEIM IIILLS~ INC.~ 380 A~aholm Hills R~ed~ Anaheim~ CA 92~7~ ~ AGEt~T: ANAHEIM HILLS~ iNC.~ 380 Anshelm Nills aoad~ Anahetm, CA 92807. Petitloner re+quests pe~mission TO ERECT AN OFF•SITE TRACT IDENTIFICATIAN SIGN on on etther slde of and in the media~ between the oppo~ing lanes ~ximatcly 210 teet southeast of the centerllne of 5e~rano classifiod RS•A-43-D00(SC) (RESIpENTiAL/AGRICUL7URAL•SCENIC SubJect petitlon was c~ntinued from the meetiny of February 26, 1979~ ~t the request of the petltioner. There was n~ one Indicating thPir presence In ~ppo~itlon to subJect request~ and although the staff report to the Planning Conunlssio~ dated March 12~ 1379 wa~s not reAd at the pub11G hearin~~ i~ ls refurred to and madc a pa~t of the minute5. Dan Salce~a~ representing Anaheim Hills~ Inc.~ stated the praposal is for identiflcation for the entry lnto the Anahelm Ridge Eskates wl~ich will be locat~d r(ght off Serrano Avenus. TNE PUbLIC HEARING W AS CLOSED. Chalrman tlerbst stated he felt [h~ signs were small~ but questioned why the structures were 10 feet high. Mr. Salcecla polnted out tt~e elevation dlfferences. I~e explaine~i In most placns the wall will be ~o more than 2-1/'L to j-1/Z feet high. ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered e motion~ secondcd by Cammissioner Ktng and MOTiON ~U (Commtssio~er Tnlar bei~g absent)~ that the Anat:etm City Planning Commission has reviewed the propasal :. permit an off-site tract ide~tification slgn on property IACeted on either stcie of~ and in the rncoion between tl~e oppos{ny lanes of~ Nidden Canyon Road~ approximately 210 feet southeast ~f the centerline of Serrano Avenue; and daes hereby approve Che Neyative Declar~tion from the re~ui-ement ta prepare an environmental impact repurt on the basis that there would be no signif(cant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Neg~tive Declaration stnce the Anahelm General Plan desie~nates the subJect propercy for hillslde luw density res(dential land uses cortxnensu~ate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no slgniflcant (ndivldual or cumulative adverse environrt-ental Impacts; and tliat the Negative Declaratfon substantiatirg the foregoing findings is nn file In the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commtssioner Johnson offereu Resolution No. PC79-~+9 and moved for Its passa~e and t+doption~ that the Anaheim ~Ity Planning Commission does hereby grant Petitf~n for Conditional Use Permlt No. 19~0~ subjesct to Interdepartmental Committee r~scommendations. On rall c•all~ the foregoing ~esolution was passed by the follc~wing vrte: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BUSHORE, UAVID~ HERBST~ JOHIIS01~~ KING NOES : COI~MI SS I UNERS : NONE ABSENT: C6MMISSIOt~ERS: TOLAR 3/12/79 MINU1tS~ Af1AHLIM GI'CY PLANNINf, GUMHI5SION~ MARCH 12, 1~79 79-1~1 i TEM N0. 7 PUH~ I C HlAR 1 NG. 011PIER: KI1Y LOP I N~ 16G, South ~~~fVE DECLARATION k3rookh~rst Street~ Anaheim~ CA ~2E30-~. Af,E1~T: LEE U P! 1 0. 1~t~1 A. COPPALA~ t0~E~1 Ed~ewood Lane. Gerden Grove~ CA ~- y2ht~J. Petit(one~ requests permission to ESTABL15F1 A SOCIAI. CIUi~ WI1'N A~E RESTRICTIONS on property describe;d As a r~ct~nyularly•~shaped pArcel of lana consisting of approxlmately 0.(> acre located ~~t the nortliwe~t c~rner of Crestwood Lanc: ancl Eirool.hurst Str~et~ hAVinc~ epproxt- mate fr~ntages of 2(,a fcet on tl-c north sicle ~f C~estwoacJ Lanc and 122 Fcct on the west side uf ~ruakhurst 5treet~ ~~ncl further descrit,e:~ as if~f~; South broo~.hursl Street. Property pre:sently classifi~~~ Gl (COl1~1LRGIAL. LI~"ITC~) '1QNE. Thcre wcre apprc~xli,~at~ly six N~rsu~~s IIi~1Ii.dCllly tl~rlr pr~sancr in oppos{tion t~ sub}~;ct request~ enJ althuugh tlie staff repor[ to tf-e Plonnincl Gornmission date~i March 12~ 1y79 was not read at the publl:, heariny~ it is refcrre~i ta and made ~ part af the mtnutes, Eve Sayrr~ur ~ 100G 1 Edc,~wooJ Lane, Garden G rove, ex~l a i ne.d tlie ex i s t 1 ny c I ub has been ( n operatlon as a social club wlthe~ut .age restrictiuns; that all thetr members are adults and th~y wish to have an a~e restr(ctioi~. Rever~nd Jenscn, Pastar uf tlie West 11n.~heim Ilaptist Churcl~ at tf~e corner of Cerritos and Gilbert~ stateJ the ~•~xmbers are concerneJ about noise in the area at the present time; thi~ they arc also concernc~ ~yith thc termin~lugy of a"social club"~ especialty a soclal club for adults; tl~at tliey JicJ nat lil:e the idea of a social club for teenagers becr~use lhey did not feel it wuuld be a goud influr.nce on thNm~ but felt e s~cial club for adults probably wouid yet wnrse an~ woul~ have less restrictions and regulatior~s and would not be a positive elrment in the ca~m~untty. He indicated c~ncern also reyardiny tt~e "rap sessions" an~ referred Co happeninys tn the Los Myeles area of "sexual rap sessions" and felt these sessions goinn or~ from 11:0~) a,ri. to ?.:00 a.m. is susplcious. He stated he had been inForme:d that na mass~~ge parlor is ~oing tn be establisl~ecl~ but was concerned that it could turn into that type activity~ and referred to similar establls-~ments existing on Brookhurst Street. 11~ stated they wvuld prefer to see none of Ctiese type activities in th(s area and fcit aliowi~g this type of adult sncial cluh w~uld I,eighten the poten~tAl for unseemly thinys to take piace at tl~at location. Frank Doretti, 327 South OLivc Strect~ Anahelm, pofnted out a group home established by the Optimist Club whicl~ is located approximately one block fr~m subJect praperty. He statcd he felt an adult social club with age restri~_tiuns would no longer be a social club and was c:oncerned about what coulcl develop there. Jirn Norst~ 'L176 Grestwood Lane~ Anaheir~~ stateo his house is located almost directly across from this establtshment anci referred to the railroad t~acks~ and indicated there have been yuite a nunber of accidents at chat location. He felt an adult soctal ~lub would create mere traffic, He was concernQd that the Ctty had not installed a gate at the railroad trac~s at this location, wi~ich has legally been determined should be there~ and he did nat feel this use should be allc~~ed. D~vid Day~ 2221 Crestwood Lane, M aheim~ stated he lives next daor to the soclai club and has smal! ~hildren and there are ottier children in the neighborhood who play in the area and, with su~nmer approachiny, will be outside for longer hours and he did not want their safety ,jeopardized. Ne presented a petition containing 29 signatures of persons oppose~ to this request. He stated this was the first notice he f~ad received that there was a social club at this location a~d felt this hearing should have been held prior to the operation commencing. fle stated previous uses at this location we~e respectable and felt this use would decrease his praperty value. He expiained hls wife is a"block parent" responsible for checkiny the area for undesirable elements to insure the safety of the 3/12/79 MINl1TE5~ AI~ANEIM GITY PLAWt~ING COMMISSION ~ MARCH 12~ 1979 ~`3"~y~ EIR NEGATIVE Dk:CLAMTION ANO CONOITIONAL USC PERMIT N0. 1951 (contlnueJ) chilclren. ~~e fclt [t~ere woul~i bc: n noticeoble increase In trafftc and felt this locstion (s not suitable for this tyF~e usu. He stated he was not AgainaC people gotng t~ this type establishn~ent~ I,ut di~l not feel thls lor.atlon is right 9nd the usc woulci be mnre sultable in an arae that is not residPntlal. Ms. Seyr-our stated "ra~ sessi~ns" are na lony~r offe~cd at the cluh; thAt they offer table yamas rlyht now; and that most of tliG parkiny wi 11 be I~~ the rear and the entrancc: next to tha ra{lroad trecks Is not u5ed. Shc staCed thPy hflve l,een operating fo~ seven months and no c~ne has noticed th~m~ ~nd with the aJults-u~ly re.strictian, their operetiny procedures would not chanr~~ ,~n~l tl,~re w~uld nc~t bc anv morc people In [hc area; that it is a very prtvatc club. Lt. Uate I~Ilcox frorn tlie llnaheim Police Departmenc stated a memo had been submitted recommending denial of this r~qucs[ because of informatlon tficy I~ave reccived~ specifically three complaints et tf~is partlcular location of tl~e possibllity of prostitut(on, and point~:d out tl~is has noc yet been d~~terminecl. 11e stated in llke bus i nesses che C i ty t~as had 14 I 1 censc~d estab i I shi~~ents wh i ch ope r~te much ttie same ~ e4 modellny studlos, r~p sessions~ etc. t1e expl~lned the Gity of Anaheim has f~leJ "Red Liyh[ Abaternent"~ whicl~ (s a civil proceed(ny~ against 17 r~assa~e parlor~, and 12 of these have ab~ted ttiemselvzs~ and that they have recently been to court and ~losed one simtlar establtshment for those type vtolat(ons. Fle stated violattons found in these type eSteblishrnents In~ludc pandering and prostitution~ but other than the sex crimes~ they heve robbe ry~ ass~ult~ arson~ disturbances and municipal c~c~e violatic~nc~ and over 100 arrests have becn made ~t tli~se type locations in a perioci of two an~.i one-half to three years. He stated they feel stnce there a~e a number of the5c businesses in the City~ there is really r,o nee~ for tliis type buslness at this particular lucation. Ms. Seyrnour stated they are a private club~ not a niassage p~~rlor or moJeling st~dio~ and they offer tabie yarc~es. She felt tliey are being puc in a category wlth everyone else and stated they have had no a~rests or probiems. TNE PUiiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Busiiore as{:ed if a n~mbership is requtred anci if anyone coul~ walk in off the street, and Ns. Seymour replied tf~at a meinbarship is required, Lommissioner Bushore referred to references madc to n-assac~e ~arlors~ etc.~ and stated he wanted to be sure if this request is approved~ the activities are as proposed, and asked what sacial yooci this elub accornnlishes. Ms. Seymour state~l thcy have table ~ames such as chess, checkers~ backgammon~ etc.~ and a wide asso~tment of games~anJ people can [a1E: with other people. Commissiuner kiushr;re aske~J if peoplP could come tn and wetch t~le~iision, and she replled that they cuuld, t~e ask~eJ the costs to belong to this club, and Ms. Seymour replied there is a standard $2 n~en~bership cl-arge and the cost is S1U per hour. Commissioner 8ushare referred to several things peaple F~ave brought out and clarlfied that there wouid be no more "rap sessions" and pointeJ out the staff reporC indicates there will be ra~ ses~ions, and asked when they werP eliminated. Ms. Scymour explainc:d they had eliminated thc rap sessions after the application was filed and stated they do not advertlse rap sessions and do not have them anymure. 3/12/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANt~ING COMMISSIQh~ MARCH 12~ 1979 »"~9j EIR NEGATIVE OEClAMT101~ ANp CONDITIaNAL US~ PERMiT N0. 1951 (continued) Ccxnmi sa 1 one ~ Bar~es asked wl~ac ( s so bed about a rap srss 1 on ~ exp 1 e 1 n I ncj she hed been +~ teacher in hl~h schcwl and tliny had tiaci rap sesslans whfch were on the up•nnd-up. Ms. Saymo~r explained tl~at is a term usod by nude.-me~cleliny studtas ancl mrs~agn narlors. Commissiono~ Dusl~oro sCOt~c1 he was disturbed because tlie ori!fe~~~rad~t~`the~eStabl ishment buslness 1(ce-ise flle~i ln August by the owner~ Lee Coppala. as "Glasest Encounters" anu n a+ the name '~s changr.d to the "Five Star Sucifll Club" and asE:ed what pc~ople y~t ouC of th Is sur.) al cl ub. Ms. Seynwur ~xplalneJ th~t orl~inally th~c club was established for talk ~r.sslans~ huc they have dropped those scssions and ch~+'~ge~1 the na~~~c. Commissioner~d~vles and~rigl~ttn~awptfieyvhaveaframf MarydPop~InsstoJLaurel and1Hordy.th~y have assorte CcNr-missioner Iiushore stateci Thursday night he had gone into the s~cial club wtth his wife anJ w~s offered a pr(vate sessiun in a room w~~ere he could play yames and watch movles, polntiny out it was not called a rAp session, and hc did not have the Impresslon It was a prlvate club and he was not glven a membershlp carJ. Ms. Seymou~ staskc;dcifrhenw~i~nted~a sesslantafndmwasen~ti9iverc{anynt~pP~catio~~,eAnduhe had stated he wa decllned the sessian. Ms. Seymoer ani~movi~:s,isaexplalnedeand if tl~ey wrantCto Join~thctclub~narc~glvenytheve gamc tab 1 s application. Commissioner B~eshvre asked if the reas~n far the request far age restrlctlon is becaus~ they liave had trouble wi tt~ mi~ors caming inta tl~e club, and Ms, Seymour repl ied el l thei r members are adults and tiiey had decided this would be the best thiny to do. Commissioner darnes stated s.he realizes there iS a need for young people ta havt a place to go and someone to CaShetstatedast~etwculd~llke~todknc~wewhatlpurpose9thisesoctal~ciub~ „~ beverages are served. serves and the focus of the club. Ms. Seymour statcd it is a place fa~ people to meet and pl~Y games. Commissioner Barnes asked how many members belo~g to thehevGb uite~a few members,~ butrshe ~re under tII years of age, and Ms. Seymour replied they q could not give the exact nunb er without counting the ca~ds. She stated there are no members under its years of age. Conmissioner ~arnes asked how many cars wauld be pm~ked at the stte every niyht~ and Ms. Seymou~ replled there wouid probably be three or four cars~ and expiained the site is busier during the day because ftve other offi~.es are open. Camnisstoner Barnes asked Lt. Wilcox if there had bean any p~oblems at this location and if there had b~en any arrests. I.t. Wilcox explained ther~ have been no arrests at this location, but three complatnts have been received reyarding the possibility of prostitution at this location~ and nothing 3/12/79 ,r' . ~. MINUTES~ ANANEIM C:TY PLANNING COMM~SSION~ MIIRCtI 12, 1979 79-~94 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CaNDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1~5__) (continucd) ~~~rr~ir~~~~~~w~~.r~ ~ has been donc about that location because of a su(t filed agoinst th~ City and one of the v(ce officers by Lee Goppala~ the owner. Commissioner Joi~nsun es~:ed Jack Whlte, Oepuky Ctty Attarncy~ the r•asnn for the request to have an age ro:triction at thi~ establlsfmKnt. Jeck White explalned the Zoning Code provides that busincss acttvitles which restrict the ege af the custcxmrs o~ employc~es ere pe nnitted anly by cond(tional use permit; thet this operatto~ could contlnue In ~xlstence if tt~e:y do not restrict the ~~~e of eicher the err~loyees or the cust~n~ers. Ne st.~ted tegtin~ny seems to indlcete that patrons are restrlcted to those over lb years of ~ge~ but if thc oper~~liu~i ware open to membcrs af the public under 1t3~ they wuuld not need a ~Anditional usc ~~crmit and tf~e City would have no control ~ver thelr aGtivities otfier thrn the underlytng zoninct controls as far as stte developr~ent standards. Commissioner Herbst felt I~avtng the ac~e restrictlc~n would allow them co have a wider varlety of activities which woulci be illeyal for manors. Jack Nhite stated it not only opens the door for illiclt-ty~e activities~ but also to tl~ose activfties which the City has determined in the past need stricter zoning controls~ sucti as places dispensiiig alcoholic beverages~ wherr we want to make sure they are not detrir.~ental to tl~e surrow~ding area, Commissioner Johnson asked if they continued to operate without an a5e restrictlan~ would they face problems in ollowing certain types of act(v(tics wherc age might cause some legal problems. Jack White stated~ speakiny hypotl~etically~ if an ~stablishment wers conducting an illegal operation sucit as pras[itution and were allawtng persons under tlie a~~e of 18, the penal(tles would be more scvere than if tl~ey were simply engaging (n those same activities with adults. Cortmissio~er Barnes camplim~nt~d Mr. Uay for st(cking to the f~cts and asked him if he had Fiad any problems with noise and traffic to date. Mr. Oay stated he has h.~d no problems~ but is concerned about what could develop. Ne stated he has heard peuple leaving the establisl~ment I~te at night, starting their enyines~ etc.. but they were nnt rc~wdy. He stated he is concerned that ~he parking lot would be filled and there would be problems with parking and noise~ and he wished to avoid that situation anJ he could n~t see this use at this location. Ne explalned there are chlldren in the area and ttiey ~ide skateboards~ bicycles and skates in the area and cross the street to the market~ and he felt additionai tra~`fic in the area would be hazerdous fnr the children. Commissioner Dushore asked if therc 1s a lot of traffic on the parking lot during the day. and Mr. Day replieJ when he had come home tod+ay to attend this meeting~ there were approximatcl~.~ seven cars there, but he was not sure whether or not they were at the socia! club. ACTiON: Commissioner Joh~son offered a motion, secanded by Gommtssioner King and MOTION CA D(Commissioner Toiar being ebsent)~ that the A~ahetm City Planni~g Commission has ~eviewed the praposal to permit a social club with age restrtctions on a rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately n.6 acre located et the nurttiwest corner of C~estwood Lane and 8rookhurst Street~ haviny approximate fronteges of 263 feet o~ the north slde of C~estwood Lane and 122 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street; and does 3/12/79 MINU'ES, A~~Al1EIM GITY PLANIIINf, COMNISSIUN~ MAkCH 12~ 197y 7~~~95 EIR NEGl1TIVC DECLARA7IAN ANU GON01710NAL U5C PERMIT N0. 195~ (continucd) r horeby opprove the Negativc G'cl~+ratlon from the r~~~utreme~t to prepare en environment~+l irnpact rep~rt an the besls tl~at tl~ere wauid be na sic~nifica~t indivldusl or cumulative sdve~so anvlron~r~entel impact du~ to the ipproval of thi• Nee~etlve pecleration since the An~heln~ Genernl Plan drsinnetas th~ sub)rct property for c~enernl c~nerctel lend uses cc~mmensurate wtth the proposAl; that ~~o se~sltive envlronmental impactx ere Involved In i~~e propos~l; that thc I~(ti~l Stu' submicted by :he petitloner tndic~+tes no signlfltant indtvidual or cumulatlvc: adv~rsc environmental impacts; and that tl~e t~eyative Detleretlon substanttotiny thc for~yoing fin~iln~s Is on fi le in [ha City r~f ^nohelm Planntng Depertrr~nt. C~~mmissioncr iiarnus eskc:~i if ~i~r~l~~l of Lhc conditt~r~al ~~s~ ~•-r~,ir ,~~,n11PC oniy to the aqe rustrictl~n. Jack Nhite explain~J tlie sr~cial club wn~.~ld be p~rmittF~~ in th(s zone as A matter of right co contlnue the operetlon wi thout the a<~P restriction, He explnined that tf the f~ermit is denied~ the applicant h~s tl~< choice c~f etther open(n~~ the operat(o~ iap to persons under the agp ~f 18 or terminat(ng tF~~• existing use. Co~m~lssloner Juhnsa~ uffered Resolutiun No. FC7~~5U and mnved for its passaye and adoption~ th~t the Anaheim City Planning Co~^ ~,sion cioPS hcreby dcny Petition for Conditianal Use Permic No. 19~1 on tl~e bss(5 ttiat t~ie use would not bo corr~atlblo wlth the surraundlny resiucnt(.~1 :cighhorhooJ which has many sm~l l chi ld~en and thAt addltlonal traffic woutd cause further hazards at the ~;.isttny unsfgnolized rAi lroad crossin,~. On rol l cal l~ :he fore~oir~ resolution .~as passed by ihe fol l~iny vote: AYES: COMMISS~ONERS: i~AftWES, BUSNqRE~ uaVlu~ NERGST~ JOHIISON, KING NOES : COMHI SS I Ot~kRS ; NONE AElSf:NT: :OMMI tiS lO~IERS : TOLAk Jatk Whitc presented the petitloner w(tli the wrltten rlght to app~al the Plannfng Commission's decisi~r wlthtn 22 days to the City Coun::ll. ITEN N0. ti PUBLIC I~EARING. 0411::R; NENRY J. LEASON~ ?.0. ~ox EIR NEGA7IVE DECLARATI~N 44J~ Los Alamitos~ GA 9072U. AGENT: ARMAN00 B. AND WAIVER F COUE RE'~UIRE~1EN7 .~U~t~ITA V. SANCNEZ~ 123 Maude ~.ane, Anahe(m~ CA . 1952 92806. Petitio~er requests permtssion to ESTABLI~H A COCKTAiL LOUFIGE WITI~ DAf~CING 411TN WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBEP. OF PARKING SPACES on property descrlbed as a rectangularly-Shaped rarcel ~f land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre having a frontage of app~oximately 130 fPet on the east s(de of Fountatn Way~ liaving a maximum depth of a~proxlmately 111 feet, being located approximately 203 fset nor~ti of the centerl~ne ~f La Palma Avenue~ and further describeJ as 111G North Fountain Way. Property presently r,lassified ML ~iNUUSTRll1l~ LIMITED) 20NE. There were app~oaimately four persons in~licating their presence in apposition to subJect reques t~ and al though the s taff re~ort to the P~ ani~ i ng Cor~~mi ss i on dated March 12 ~ 1979 was not read at the public hearing~ it ts referred to and made a part of the r~inutes. Robert Henninger~ Assistant Planner~ reported Ma t~ttcrs had been r~ceived !n opposlCion to sub ject request. 3/12/73 > r~I~~UTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLIIW~~ING ~OMMISSION~ FIARCH 12~ 1919 79-1~G Elft NEGATIVE DECLAFiNTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1352 ~contlnued) ..~~ Ben Lilienthal. 1;32 East La Palma Av~nue~ A~ahofm. Inditated he would t~e representing the petltlancrs bec~use tliey felt tl~ey would have a lan~uege h~~rler. He explalned they have been operating a restaurant callcd "The Elmontncarlo" tn east llnahclm whore they serva bc~er and wl ne and hAVO entcsrtaf nrnan t; that they have been ewarded a 1 1 cense by the Alcohoiic fieverage Control Board~ subJect ta City ap~~roval, to serve liquo~ and are raqunsting a condittunal use permlt to permit the serving of ltquor rt the existing restau~ant. I~c stated they are ln the process of remodeling the plecc ko convert (t to more of a dinner liouse and w( 11 cuntlnue to serve lunches. Ed Struthers~ Southern Galifornla Optical, 3WS~ East La Paima Avenuo~ Anaheim, Indicated chpir propertY is dircctly in Frant of subJect prc~perty and relatr.d Incidences which I~ev~ been liappening at this place ~t business; l1~di. last Saturday nlah~ h~ was ~ol~~c~ some late watering a~~f a? I the sCreets were fi Iled wlth parking of ~atrons of the restaurant~ end that they pull~:c1 into I~is parking lot~ closing and fiil(ny It; that four gentlemen In twa cars pu!led ~, besl~le him and~ after ~ lrngchy convers~tion, ~~ police car pulled ~n and brakc (t ~~p~ '~rtunatcly; that Sauthern Callfornla Optical has parktng under ti~eir building and Fri~lay eveni~~~ ~t 5:0~ p.m.~ one of the gentl~mcn from the bar next daor came into the area~ rxpased I~imself and urlriaced in the trash bin; that t~~e ercas are constantly f i 1 ied wi th trASh~ beer bott'es, car~s~ etc. ~~~~~v they have to ~lck chem up dai ly on thci r propcrty wi th no help from tl~e beer bar owners. He stAted aince thelr unJeryrounu parking is directly in fronl of the r.staulish~-~ent~ about four weeks ago one of thn windows was used for tnryet ~ractlcm for beer bottles and one went through the windaw. I~e stateJ thcy arc definitely against the proposal. Hcrb Meyers~ c~wner of the property at 1127 and 11'L'1 Fountaln Way~ stated hc has photographs af + can~fitions at thls locatirm. He stated he has spent at least the lasl three years buil~iny his fuilJing and related instances whict~ have crested problems for hirn~ such as the par~;iny lc~t being fi11eJ~ pe~Rle urinating ln the mAilbox and through the wi~daws wht le the bui I~ing w~-~ ~ under construction, broken bottles contln~,~l ly in the plante,'s, vomlt in t'ti~ parkiny stalls~ ~~tc. He stated he hed nut been ~~bl~ ts 9et a final inspection because whcn the inspcctor ~ad arriveJ at th~ slt~:. there we-e brcken beer bottles I~~ the gutters and he had to drive 43 miles one-way just to swe~? them ~ap before the inspection coul~ he madc. 11e pr~sented photograpt-s takcsn at 1:0~ p.m. toclay, sliowing bott~es and a planter at the Dial a Terr~ f~cil~ty which lias been destroyed. Ne stated in the past on Sun~i~y morninys when som~•~ne from tfie beer bar woulu come out to pick up the b~ttles and cans~ he tiad had one of liis Spanish-speaking Grty~loyees ~sk th~m tn pick up the bo[ties and cans on their Froperty and I~aci t~ad a neyative response. ~le stated there are always broken buttles in the gutter and beer cans and botLles in the plan*ers and on all tlie yreenery whi cl~ thc Ci ky has made a reaui rcment. tle sta[ed he ls alv:~ys wo~rted about bnttles comi ng tl~rouyh the. wi ndaw~ ~ but ~ fortunaeQ ~y ~ that has nor happened. He stated he has had his trasii bi~ torn cinwn by people ~arkiny and he has had al l forms of i 11 iclt activitles going on b~l~ind I~is bui lding on r.he weekc:nu~. He explain~ed he had spent three y~~ars building this building hirt-sElf and has wltnessed these things for hlmself, He stated Uial a Tecnp would be sendiny ~ letcer of opposition and would probably have a represe~~tative p~esent to s;~cak ir~ opposltion~ r~lating thls same typ~ of proble~. He stated he hoped the r quest wo..~d :,e denlecl and indicated I~ls tenant, a representattve from Torkon Fastener Gorp. ~ is worrled about what would happen to him because he plans to stand up and speak in opp~-~'tion. He felt th(s expanJed use would create a bigger parking prob lem. John Nolleran, le'~ee~ Tork~n Faste~er Corp.~ statecJ he has had verv little damage done to his propcrty, bu •e has been 3 lot of trash and he fGlt part of the proolem could be the Anah~im pollce bec.ause they do ~ot patrol the area as often as it should ae patrolled; tha : there are peop~e si tt(ng in thei r carS lat~ at night dri nking and th~owing thet r trash in the area. He statcd ther~ are between 50 and 100 p~raons sitting in thelr 3/12/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANANCIM CITY PL~I1111NG COMMISSI4N~ MARf.N 12~ 1979 ~'~~~ EIR NEGIITIVE DECLARIITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNiT N0. 1951. (continued) vehicies~ drlnking an the !~treet~ ,d that his foreman h~ci witnessed this on Saturday nlght. Ile felt expanding th~ us c~uld compound the problern end felt d e~~ntl~ nudge to tl~e NalicQ Department would elso I~elp. lienry Leason~ awner of subJect property, stated since 1~)71 the property has been operated as a beer and wl ne bar end al 1 the cortments whi ch I~ad be~m m~de conf t rmGJ what Is happening wlth the beer and w(ne bar~ but felt if the property Is converted to a cocktoll lounge wi th a faml ly-type restaurant, a lot of thc prob lrms would be el iminated because 3 cucktail lounyn hAS mc~re class than a bcer and wine ba~. lie stated if this rtquest is not g~a~~ted~ the uperation Mill cuntlnue as it is and thc ~rablems wlll remAln. Paul Wt l l iamson~ avner o~ the 10-acre parcc~ 1 acro~s the street at 3~~~a E~st Le Patma Avenue~ 1lnahelm~ stated it seert,s his property Is provi~lln,y per~.iny for thc bccr bar patrans and that his mana,yer is cuntlnually haviny co move tl~e vehicles. tle steted they arc havinn the seme problems wlth the trash. Nc Indlcated he ha~~ reported to the Police D~partn~r,t that they hacl haJ A van parked i n f ront of thet r bar wi th A neon sl ~~ o~ top of it~ pninting lo ttisir place af bu~iness~ to attract morc customers. 11e stated he was ~y~lnst this requcst and dtd not think th~t adding the sale of llquor would eliminate any of the problems. Mr. Lilienthal stated it is pusslblc ther~ are becr hottles and beer cac,s in ti~e streets, and the awnPr has lndicated to him tliey are purchaseci somewhere else and not at r~is fac.( 1 ity. N~ referred t~ supcrmarkets and other markets in Anahefm witl~ trash on thei r parktng lots. Ite stated Mrs. Sanchez I~as assursd him they hAVe had no compl~lnts. He Steted It was no4 the Sanchez's int~nt to create a problem; that they alreacfy havG permissi~n to operat~ a busincss and have becn investi~ated by the A.D.C. and apperently tliey are satisfted they wi 11 Ue able to provlcle the strvicr.s; that th~y have disco music on some weekend even f ngs and tliey have 1 i ve R.~s ic f rom Mexi co. 11e stated the estab 1 1 shment does get busy on Sat urJ~y n i glits a~d the re 1s a parking prab lem, hut that problemwill be there whether or nat this request is granted. Ne stated they would like to upgrade tftie establlshrnent and tl~ey I~ave been serving lunches and llght foods and would 1 ike to ckvelop a dinner house type estab 1 ishr~ent and cocktai I lounye. THE PUBLIC NEARING wA; Gl~SEO. Chairr,.an Herbst referred ta tf~e minutes f~om the meetiny ahen the origlnr~l permit was requested in 1964 for a restaurant with on-sale beer, and pointed out it was stipulated by the pet~tloner's representative that under no circumstances ~.aould this use be canverted to a cocktail loung~ because of the location. He felt from what has heen repc~rted~ ~:he petitioner has been in violatlon of the o: iginal permit because It is not being used as a restau~a~t and the~e is not enough floor space devoted to the kitchen area as required by the ordinance to cualify as a restaurant. Ne expiained the Planning Comnission has the power to have the use invest~gated and it i~ possible to revoke that origlna) permlt if it is determined the cnnditions are not beiny complled Mith. Ne suggested the petltioner should explain wh~t can be done to bring the restaurant Into conformance and how the property can be cleaned up and the condit ions met. He explained restaurents are usually allowed in the industrlal area in order to service that cortmunlty, and he did not sGe how it c~uld be serving the industrial communTty at 2:00 a.m. Ne felt this uae is a detrin~r-t to the ind~st~ial communi ty rather than ar~ asset~ and he would be in Favor of revoktng the per~~~ix unless the use can be brought into conformance with the orlc~(nal permit. He stated the patron h~ve been parking on other peoples' property and an undeslrable element is being brought into the area and is creatinq many problems. Mr. Lilienthal stated the petittoners have been requested bY the A.B.C. and have agreed to change th~ in~erior of the restaurant to meet ttie requireme~ts and were ln tlie process of 3/ 12/79 ~ ~ MINUTES~ At~AHEIM CITY pIAN~IiNG GONNISSION~ MANCN 12~ 1979 73-198 E IR NEGATIVE OECLARATIGN AND COND~TIONA~ PERMIT N0. 1952 (continued) doing thet; however~ when the~y learned t~~ey ncseded a condttlonel use permit. they stopped unt(1 the permlt Is yranted. Ne statud they do serve food et thls restaurant. Ct~alrmen Herbst askaJ how they propose to solve thc par{:Ing problen~ and pointed out thc situatton ls cricical b~cause they lack so many sraces as requlred by the ordlnance. He stated the plans shows ~a s~aces a„J the code r~:qui res ~9 spaces for the type of use p ropos ~ d. Mr. Li l lenthal statecl tlie parking would he~e to be on the strect. Chalrman Ilerbst stat I on-strc~t par4.(ny cannot be used to mret code. Ile explained tha u~p ~s hein~ chan,ed t~~ a cockta( I~oungc~ and thc rec;u(remcnt is h't spaces and a eoektal l lounge requl res nx~re parkin~ thu~~ a restaurant, anu, from thr. testimony presented, it appears the ~~se lias not been f~r a restaurent but a G~er bar. Mr. L) lientlial stat~d tlioy do sc~vc faocJ. Ile stated a portion of tl~e kitchen arca is taken up with a laryc: couler whict~ c,an be removeci. Chairrnan Nerbst .~lalned the ccavler area I~as bee~ inc'udea in the c~IculaCians. Mr. L t 1 i entha) s cated the p ruposed ~emode 1 i nc~ wi I I t~~ke care of [he ki tchen area. ~~e stated they are not trylny to creatc pr~~blems for ttie Clty, but Are attampting to upgrade and convert what tl~ey havc Lo a di- r house. lie stated apparently tfie parkfng is a problem now and always has been a problem. lic stated thc~y haue alway~ Kerved food and plan to c:ontinue t~ serve foud and will be modiFying the menu. Ccxrun(ssioner Bar~es asked why they want to have dancin~~ at a larye dinner house. She stated th~ uric~lnal fntent ~nd primary reason for granttng restaurants in the indust-lal area is to provide a place for people t~ havc lunch. She stated some of them later reques t a perril t to serve b~er and wi ne because some nr:ap le 1( ke to have bee~ and wi ne wi th thel r lunch. She fe~ t(t appears ttiis use has gone from a restaurant with on-sale beer to a beer bar with danc(ng wl thout adequate space devoted to the kitcher arPa, and now they a~a request(ng a E~trmit for a oocktail lounye; that the use is creattng problems in the industria) area which was exactiy what the Planning Commfssian had rx~t wanted to happen. She did not feel this use is what is desired i~ thr. industrial area snd that it ts not compatible w(th the industrial area~ and~ in i~~is instance~ she would be in favor of inveatlgating the use and possibly canGeliny the original conditionai use permit. Commiss(oner Johnsan asked how lony the Sanchez's have been at this locatlon, and Mr. Liltenrhal rcpittd they heve becn in business for approximatety one and one-half ye~rs. Cr-mmissi~ner Johnson stated (t appears the problems referred to have been happening durtng th::i r tenure. He was conce rned because of the language barrier whether or not the Sanchr2's were aware that thei r Conditional Use Permlt No. 5E~~ for the current operatton ts in extreme jeopardy, Ne di~ not see how the parktny dif'icult!es ~. d be overcome with the operatlon as tt nc~w exists and the proposed expans~on would ca,se additional pa~king problems. Fle steted he could not support tha request end would back the other ~omnissioners tn reviewing the existing permit. Ne stated he wantccl tn be as fair as possible to these people crying to sarn a liv(ng and ree~ized it could be a lot of fun to go to a restaura~t or beer bar afte~ hours~ but did not think tliis was the proper place. Commisstoner King stated he wes conce~ned about the pa~ktng problem wiCh beer bar pat:rons parking on other peoples' property~ causiny problems. 3/~2/79 hIt1UTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLl1N~IING COMMISSION~ NARCIi 12. 19~9 79'~9~ EIR NEGATIV~ UEt;I.AkATiON AND CONOtT1~iiAL U C f`LRMIT PIO. li (continuc~~ Cammissioner David expleined~ in ell f~(rness to ~he petitloner, thAt t oxistinc~ oporatlon Is beiny interpreted by thc staff end tt~a Commiss(on ds first bel~g a bmer bar~ wlt~ the service of food b~ing secondery~ end the code requlres ~+9 parkiny s{~ecos. 11a asked Mr. Lilienchal If he sNoke Spanish~ and Mr. Llli~nthal replied tl~r~ he speeks Spa.~lsh a Ilttle~ but not as wel l aa the Sanchez'S speak Engl tsl~, He stated they de speak English, b~it were concerned that questtons might be ~sked by the Commisslon which they did not understsnd a~nd that was tl~e reason he wes asked ta represent them. Cortmissioner DaviJ explaln~d he flnds ik an tntolerable situntion that the patrons o' the beer ba~ nre allawed to mess up sort-ebady ~tsc's property and felt it is the respon~,~bi ity of the prope~ty awncsr and the lessee ta see Chat n~ne of thi~ trash, beer battles~ canc~ etc. ~ spt 11 over onto the nni ~i~~hc~ra' property. Na stetcd he did not undcrstand ha~ the buslne~s can keep gaing with sucii apparr.nt Ii~JlfPerence, and even though the c~~4 ~r bottles may not have been b~u~ht at this establishment. '~e people are aitracted there by the esteblishmr.nt. 1#e stated f~s has i~o problern with tf, dancing on NeJneSday through Sunday nights because tf~at is normally a time when other activ(tles are not going on in the area; hawever~ in this particular instance, it is apparent the primary functton ts tho beer and wlne, with the service of f~od secondary~ and tt~e parking is not adequate for that use. !le sta~ed if thc uae were rtvcrsed and the nrir,~ry use was a ~escaurant, thA parking would be adequate. Robert Henninger clarified that if the use was for a restaurant with no cocktall lounge nor entertAinment, the parking would ba adequate~ hut as l~n~ as they serve be.°r or have a cocktail lounye~ they would need a varlance and the number of parking sp~cea ~equired would depend upon how much area is ciGVOted to the be~r a~C seating area. Commissloner David felt this would explain haw thc permit h~d origin~lly been granted with the number of p~rkiny spaces. Chatrmen H~rbst clarified that the oriyinal permlt was granted for a restaurant with on- sale of beer and later rtq difieJ tu inclucie wine~and now they ar~ proposing to change the use. Mr. Lilientha) stated he did not tl~ink thc situation is a mat:~r nf tn~~ifference~ but a mrittcr of ~ot knawing xhere was a prnblem. Conmtssianer Qavid referred to the photographs presented end the Fact that those problems have been goiny on for quite some. time. Mr. Lilienthal related he tho 3ht he had understood tt~e problert+s had been going ~n for epproximately two weeks~ and It was noted the opposition had indicated the p~obiems have been gaing on tor a long time. Hr. Meyers e xplained the problcros have been going on for at least three yearS and~ during the last one and or~e-half years, he has asked the operators of the establishment to clean up his property~ but har gotte~ a negativc respc~nse. Ne stated he realtzed it ts posslble the bottles and cans were brought to the establlshment and not bought there. but they are stlll thrown anto h(s property. Gommissioner ~ushore stated he felt part of the parking problem could have been created when part of the property was sold. He asiced if the menu presented was existing or a proposed menu. and it was rsplied lt was the existing menu. He asked wt,y the menu ~oes not show prices of the food. and M~. Sanchez replted the prtr.es cha~ge. 3/ 12179 MINUTES, ANAFiL•IM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ MARCI~ 12, 1~79 79-tU0 tIN t~EGAIiYk DE~LARAT101i AI~D CONOITIp1~AL USC PCR~11T l~0._ l~;2 (contlnue~'? Mr. Sanchez stat~d thet wtien hc had taken over thts business, tt was a Junky placa; that .hcy sell beer snd wine onJ heve applied for n ll~uor license from the A.B.C.; that iie ts here from Mexico and wants to makc this businr.ss thc hest In tliiy country; anJ chat thcsre are a lot ~~f peoplc wt~o b~ing thelr own beer to hls ostabitshmenY. lir stated Mr. Meyers' prope~ty has a fence nround ie and ti~ did not think his patrons could park on that proNerty. Ne stateJ he does not I~ave adequr~te parking~ but ttir..y do tcll t!~elr patro~s not to pa~k un the other property. Camn~l3sioner Uusliore staCed he c1iJ not ~t~ink thc (.ommisslon would approve this reyucst f~r a co~~ditlon~31 us~ permit because of problems that cur~ently extst and felt to expand the use to allaw the sale of liquor would cause rt~rc rroblems. rle stated most of thn Commissioners scam to bo In favor of looking Into the existing conditlonal use permlt, which is the pctitioner's Ilvelihoc~d• He felt the~~ st~ouiJ ~~u al-r_e~t wl[h tl~e queatior :t hand~ which Is o conditiona) use perm(t for the Snl~ ~f ltqu~r. He stated he realizes a lot of tl~e undesirable element is circwvn to this est~biishrnent~ but th~t they are creating problems with ttic nr.iyhbors and, because af thesc ~rablems, it is possible that the petitione~r could lase lii~ perrnit for tlie current o~+era*.ton and the Commission does not want him t<~ lose h(s livcliliood. 1ie advis~d Nr. Sanchez tn see that the area is clean~d up and kept clcan and~ if there are no further complaints~ he could request the liquo~ permit in six ir~nths to a year. Ne dld not think the Commission would have a~y prob~~ms wlth granting the permit fur the sale of Ilquor and real(zed people have the rlght to park on the screets aC niyht~ but he did not want to see the other tenants in the area have to lock up their parkiny lots ~~ve ry nlyht. Gommissloner dar~~es stAtr_d the oriy(nal (ntent was to servicc the indust~ial area primartly for lunches and mayt~e dinner~ but tl~is has develo~ed in:o a beer bar and that was nut the intent in the industrial area. She fclt one of thc problems Is thc hours of operation~ from 11:0~ a.m. to 2:04 a.m.~ and felt if the establishment Is closed at a decent hour~ it woulA not attract the u~desirablr. element t~ the area r~d would probably attract people from the industrial area, pointing out there is ^~ nice place to have lunch in the area. She felt (f Che operator would direct hls attention to that type of clientele~ he v~uuid probably havc a good buslness. Nr. S,~nchez inclicated thase fiours were given betause of che A.B.C. iaws~ but they only stay e~en late on weekends. Concerning cleaning up the prup~rty. hP stated it has bsen cleaned up considerably since he started h!s husiness. !~e stated he was t-ying to make a good impression on his neighbors~ and indicated he has photographs of the building when he had first st~rted fo~ir years ego and what the building is today~ which wlil show Che (mprovement. Commissioner Johnso~ asked Mr. Sanchez if he h~d understood Commissiuner 8ushore's comments, and Mr. Sanchez replied that he had. Mr. Leason stated agaEn he feit a cocktail lounge would be better than a be~_r bar. He stated he had made a recor.imendation that the kltchen be braught up to .:ade and that some propErty be leased adJacent to the establishment for park{ng~ wfiich would alleviate the p rob 1 erts . Gommisstoner Bushore stated he would not like to see the property owner obligate the lessee to spe~d a lot of money that he may not wish to spend. Chai~rt-an Nerbst suggested the property awner b~ing the kitchen up to code whether thts permit is grantcd or not. 3/12/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING GOMMISSION~ MARCN 12~ 1979 ~q~201 EIR NEGATIVE.DECLARATION ANU GUNUITI0NA1. USE PERMIT N0. 1~r2 (continued) ,Mr. Loaso~ steted the property had been developed to code stendards when It wes orlginally cans~tructe~l and tha bullding has nevRr been c.hanged. Chalrmen Hen.`t explain~d the requast is fnr e ch~ngc In th~ use~ which would be a diffe~ent ballga.~. Ne stated the Cortmissian has no proElem with the serv~ng of beer and wine with food~ but did not feel th(s establisl~ment Is operating in thrt ma~~ner eny longer. He stated at the presont time the business is a nuisance to the area and~ for those raasons~ ihe original conditionel use permit could be Investiqeted and (f comHQalnts are continuelly reWan*e~a Sepr~hat happcnnand polntedtouththere fsuu~ncrdrforkgooJ stated he did not restaurents In thls arCa. Annika Sentalahtl~ Assistent Ulrector for Z~nlny~ stated cc~~~.tall loun~~s r~~uire higher perkir~,y than restaur-nts and thecharl iwhenrabobfferentbusetis~requesteduand~theSuseeis1t N8S COf14tl'uCted; how~ver~ Godes ~unsidered under t~~e current cocles. Mr. Leaso~ stated food has always been served at this est~blishment and tf.at t'~e petitioner will be sble to upgrade the property ~~tar he hes his liquor license because he will be ~ble to make morc money. Chalrman Herbst stateJ the Co~nmisslon rcal(zes the current usc could rematn~ but if the no more problems wtth prope~ty were upgraded and codes were complled with uested fo i i and the~.. r a liquor Arc license~ the Commisston their neighbors and the s req t n Che perm would have e differcnt attitude. Leason stated therr. (s a time problem invol~ed Mr bccause of the i(quor license and if . the peti tloners do not act shc;rtly ~ cliey wl I 1 lose the 1 r i tcense. Commissioner H~arnes pointed ~ut they could take the license to another locakion. Mr. Leason asked if the petitioners could make arran9ernents to lease other prm erty to provide parking end corne back in twa w~eks fo~ further considerati4n. Coa-~isstcner ~!erbst stated he did not think two weeks would be sufficlent to prove that the area is going ta be I:ept clear~. Commtsstoner Bushc~re stated the petitioner would have to show him more time than two weeks and felt six months wouid be more a~p~opriate. ACTION: Commissioner BUShore offered a motlo~~ second•:d by Commissianer King and MOTIO~~ ~ED (Commissianer Tolar being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission has reviewed the prcaosal to permit a cocktall lounge witt~ ~ancing with waiver of minimum n~~mber of parking spaces on a rectangularlyshaped percel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre havin~ 8 frontage of approximately 13Q feet on the eASt side of Fountain Way, having a maxirnum depth of approximaCely 111 feet, and being located approximately 203 feet no~th of the centerline of La Palma hvenue; and does hereby epprove the Ne9ative Declaration from ti~e requiren~ent to p~epare an environmental impact report an the basts that there would be no significant lndividual or cumulative adverse enyironmental impact due ;o the approval of this Negative Declaration since che Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect property for generai industrial land uses commensu~•ate with the proposal; that no sc~sitive environmental impacts are invo;ved tn r.he proposal~ that the Initlal Study submitted by the petittoner indicates no significa~ individual or cumulative adverse environmenxal impacts; and that the Nagative Declarati~ , substa~tfating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning D~psrtmenC. ~/12/79 ,~- ~ MINUTFS~ ANANFIM CITV pI,ANNINf CQMMISSI~N~ NARC11 17~ 1979 79'?.02 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARl.TI~N AND CONDITIONAt USE PERMIT N0. 1~52 (continued) Cammissloner Dushore offcred a motion~ secor~ded by Commissioner Ba~ncs And MOTI0~1 CARRICD (Commtsstonar Tolar being ebser:) ~ that the request for wt+lver of the cadr requi ~ement be denled on the basis thec the existing use has yc~noreted pdrking neods exc~~ding the avatlable on-slee spaces And p~rking has become a problem in the area. Commissioner David asked if the petitloner could alter the kitchen to meet the Code a~d get the concurrence of the neighbors and come back In in four weeks. He potnted out he do~s liave a tentative approval uf tfie A.D.C. for thc liquor 1(cense~ end th~ lessor has indicated the p~ernlsos could be enla~aed to accomrriod~te the kitchen. Chalrman Herbst p~inted out. he would stil) h~~ve to provirle addittonal parkinn spaces. Robert Ilonninger er.plAlned if this were a restaurant and they served cocktalls at tl~e tat~les to dining customers end did not have entert~tnment, they would hsve adequate park(ng. Commissioner David askeJ wt,at the requirement5 for parking would be if the kitchen facilities were expanded and the dancc area and live mustc were cantinued~ and Nr. lienntngcr repl ied they would be less, but a vartar~ce would sti 11 be necessary. Cortimissioner David indlcated hc wanted the ~~etliioner to know he dfd hav~: that alternative and would be able to get the liquor llcense on that basis. Fle stated if he made sure the neighbors ngree and if the area is expanded to meet the code requirer~ents, it would bring the pa~king requirements in closer pr~ximlty to code reyuirert-ents. Cortnissinner Bushore pointed out the patitioner would also nave the ri4ht to appeal the Planning Commission's decisiun to the Clty Council within 22 daya, and if all [he problerns a~e raso~ved~ it ts possible the L(ty Council would yrant the request. Commissioner Bushore offcred Resolution No. PC7y-51 and moved for its passage and bdoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby deny i'etiti~n for Conditional Use Permlt No. 1~52 on the basis that tFie use is not campatible with the surro~~nding industria) are~ and thc exist{ng usc which includes on-sale of beer and wine has had a cktrlmentai effect on the su~roundiny industrial area in te nns or trash, parkiny, and other nuisances, anc! that furtlier expans(on or intensificatto~~ af s~id use ~s proposed, to include on-sale of liquor, wiil increase the existing adverse con~Jitions. ~~i roll call, the foregoiny resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: CQMMISSIONERS: BAR~~ES, BUSt''"'^F. DAV10~ HERiiST, JONNS~N, KIMG NOES : COMMI 55I ONE:'S : NONE AElSENT: COMh115SIJNERS: TOLAk Jack Whi fe ~ Deputy Ci ty Attorney ~ presented the peti tioncr wi th the wri tten rtght to appeal the Planning Commission's declston wlthln 22 days to Che City Council. RECESS Tht rr~eting wes rPCessed at 3:45 p.m. RtCONVENE The meeting w; reconvened at 3:55 p.m. 3/12i79 ~ MINUTL'S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ MARC1~ 12~ 197~ ~9-203 ITEH N0. 9 PU~LIC HEARING. Qal!~ER~ CQNSOLInATEO CAPITAL REALTY ~EGA~VE OECLARATION INVESTORS~ 333 Negenhergor Road~ M6nt~ Oakland~ f.A CONDI 0 AL ~ E MI N0. 1~170 g4621. AGENT: JONNSTOV~~ PROPEtITIES~ 11~1 Dove Stroet~ 1/12t)~ Newp~~t f~each, CA 92FiG0. Pettttoner re-~uest~ pcrm(sston ta RETAIII A VAN CONVERSION FIICILITY on propesrty descrtbod as e rect~n~ularly-shaped parcesl ot Innd consisttnq of eprroximrtely 0.5 ecre having a front.~~~e of approximotely 105 feet on tl~e eest stde of Natlonal Strset~ having a maximum deptl~ of appr~ximately 18!, feet~ beinn locetaci apnroximately 17~ feet nort'~ of the centerlfne of Lfberty Avenuc. and further described as 1~~8 North Natlanal Street. Propcrty presently classified ML (IMDUSTRI~L~ LIMITED) ZONE. There was no one Indicating thelr pre5ence in np~,ositlon to subJect rec~ues[~ an~i althaugh tf~e st+~ff rerort to the Planninc7 Coim~isslon doted March 1.~ 1~7~1 wa~ not reac: ~t th~ public hoar(n,y~ it is ref~rr~d to and made a part nf the minutes. Chester Martino. Vicc Prrsident af Astro ~uscom Vans~ Inc.~ stot~d I~~ wtshes to renew thP permlt Issued for his operation abouC a ye•~r ago. THt PUl3LIC ItLARING WAS CLOSEU. Cha(~man Herbst clarifiecl that the petitioner was probably ts~ued a t~usiness license rether than a conditional use permtt, Robert Ilenninger~ Assistant Planner~ stated if the ~etittane~ had been i~sued a condltional use p~rmlt, he wauld have ~eceived a copy ~f a r~•,olution and the Planntng U~partment records do not shaw ~ permit was ever issued for a vnn cust~mizin~~ fACtllty ~~t this location, Cha(rman Herb,t explained tt~e petittoner wou1~J hava had to appe~r before the Planning Commisslon at a publtc fearing similar t~ thc one being held today. He stated a husi~ess licen~e does not yive a person the riyht to operaLe~ a business in an area that requlres a conditi~nal use permit. Ne polnted out [he staff re~+or•t indicates this actton is the result of an action takr_r by the Zonfrg Enfvrcement Officcr and asked why the pctlti~ner hed been cited. Mr. Nartino explained h~ had applied to r~~ew his buslness license and was told he could not rsnew (t. Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney, explained if a business license was issu~d In error for a use not lawful under the zoning~ it would not preclude the Planning Comnlssion from hearing the rnatter; that a buslness license is not a regulati~n, but a[ax revenue source~ a~d it daes not give anyone the right to engaqe in bus(ness. Commiss(oner 43arnes stated the petitioner needs a conditional use permlt because ~f the nature of the business, and asked if he customizes the vans for the public ~r deale~s. M~. Martino named several dealerships he deals with and explained he deals 1n wholesale not retail. He explained tl~e customer buys the van~ pi~ks out the interior he wants~ and the dealer writes up a wurk urder; and then he ptcks up thc va~ from the dealer~ customizes tt~ and retu~ns it to the dealer. hle furthe~ state~ tne vans are stripped when he gets them and that customizing could be compared wtth (nterior decorating. Commissioner Bushore asked i" Mr. Mnrtino had rpceived a copy of the staff repnrt~ and he indlcated he had not. (A topy of the staff report was 9lven Co him for his review.) 3/12/79 MINUTES~ ~NAH~iM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ M/IRCH 12~ 1979 7~-204 EIR t~EGATIVE OE~~ARATION A1+0 CONO~TIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 197Q (continued) Commisslo~er dushore reterred to paragraph (~) whlch tndicates the subJect businP~s provtdos wholesale servlcr to autortabile dealers~ but that the dealers send thetr customers directly to s~~c,ject buslness. Ilo a~skecf If the cusearr~rs come to his place of businQss or if thc vans are sent to the facility. Mr. Hartino explaine~l thc dealer flils out a work ~rJer on the ltems the customer wents In the van artd tie works from the ~vork order, unless the customer orders sanethin~ ad~fitionAl. He stated he is p~~a by the dealer unle.s the custcxncr has added an item, then he is patd by tl~c cus tome r, Commissioner E3ushore read the descrlpti~n of thQ business as suhmltted by Anna Mertino~ Secrete ry, as fu!;ows; "This F~usiness is a wholesalc van c~n~~ersion business. In this we mean~ thet car daelers such as Santa An, podys~ Worti~ington Ford and athc~s~ send their customers dvwn here et Astr~ ~n plck the decor for their van. We then pick up the van at one of ~e deale~s~ and start in cuetemi.lnq the vAn. Ne Install tlie complate int~rior of th~ van and sometlmes custnm palnt on the o~tsida. When thi4 is completed we tt~en deliver thc van to the det+ler and present him witl~ th~ bill. Sometlmes the dealer would have us pick up s~me vans to put converston5 on t-~em far their lpt to scil. Our ap~~raxtmate warking hours are ~ I~rs, a day, ~+0 hrs. a week. Nine employees work at '~stro Custom VA/.S~ inc." Commissiuner Bushore pointed ~ut this description indicates cuscor~ers do come tnto the facility to pick out the decor of thcir vans. Hc stated this is strictly an industrial area ancl the Con~isslon's cancerns are wl~h r~tail establishments in the industrl~+l area. He expleined e use is considered retail if c~stomers can cortx~ in off the st~eet~ and he felt this use could ..e considcred ret~il an~! feit sure customers would be coming in to check on the prog~•ess of thelr vans. 11e explrined a conciit~onal use permit is required to pr~tect the Industrlal ~rca from retail uses. Commissfoner Uavid askpd how many vans would be converted in .~eek~ and Mr. Martino replied apprc~cimately five. Commissiu~~er Uav?d txplained lie did not think ve ry mucl~ traffic wou~d be generAted by thts use~ and Mr. Nartino painted out this (s an industr(al park and referred to other uses ir, the area which he felt could be considered corrnercia~. The hours of operation wzre discusaed and it was sttpulated by the petitlonsr that thc hours would ~mally be 7:C~ a.m. to 4:30 p.m.~ Monday through frtday~ and occasionally on Saturday. Ccxnmissionar 8ushore asked the petitloncr if he und~rstood th~~ Interdepartmental Cc~nmittee recomn~endations, and Mr. tlartin~ asked the meaning of Condttion No. 3. Rober[ 1lenninger. Asststanc Planner~ e~plaine~+ that condition requires that the busin~ss be operated accord;ng to the plans subm~tted, wh:ch wo~ld require that all work be done tnsid~ the facility since no outdoor faciliti~s arE shown, C~mn~ss!oner Barnes explafned this condttional use pe noit~ if apprav~d~ arould allow only this type of business ~nd if ttie petittoner evc~r de:.ided to ailow people to corne in from the publtc, the permit could be withdrawn. 3/12/1~ -~ ~. . ~ HINUTES~ A~~ANEIM CITY PIANNING CONMISSION~ MAR~-1 Ii.~ 197~ ~~ ~~~ EIR NEGATIVE ~ECLARATIQN ANp CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I~O. 197~ iconttnucd) Ccmmissioner Uavid asked abuut the tral'Pic si~anal ass~ssn~nt fce. end Annika Ssntalahti~ Assistent Director for Zoning~ explalneci thnt fee would rrabably be ~~praximat~~e%r~1elned •nd esked whether or not the pQtltioner would be wllltng to p~+y tf~at feo, thc traffi. sl~nal assc~~ment fee is far the construction of naw stynal~ all ove~r th~~ ~Q'Y and for an Industrlal bullding the rate Is lawer than for a cammerclal builcling (S3 corn~~ercl ~1 ~,n~1 S36 for Industrial) , and when the use converts fram an industrfal use to a commerclal use. ~~'dsimi lr~rCto~ industrlaluineterns~ofetratficrthan comrr-erc~~~.~~tsslon that tlie use I s Ccxnmissioner J~I~nson was concerned khat staff ls all~wed to (nc'ude that charye when ths zonin,y ls not be(ng chanyQd ~~~d that Che petitiunr,r~ i~i tiiis casa~ is rcyucsting n condi tiunal use peri1ii l In tt~e NL Zone. Annilca Sentalaht( explalne~ thc Traffic fngi~ieer's pollcy is to automa[ically ask thet this condition be added if the use is narmally a commercial-type use, and then if the petlCloner presents testlmony to tf~e Commission whici~ indic~tes the trafftc is rrbre siinl lar to inJustr(al tl~an commcrcial ~ tlie Cormisslon rnay delete that conditlon. Chalrmen -'.~rbst stated he tho~~ght the industrial ~~rea i~ the plac~~ for van converslons as lony es the work is belny ~fone (nside ; e facility~ and as long as it is being done through the dealers, I~e would classify it 3s an tndustrial use. Annika Santalahti explained the Lo~r~mission has deleted this c:ondition on a similar request where the petitlone~ would be dealing with deelershins rather t,han the publlc. Commissioncr Johnsc~n was concerned ti~at when a condltlo~al use permit is raquested i~ the ML Zone and it is in no way construGd tl~at tl~e use is car^ °cial ~ t~~.~c this fee is added in autamatically~ ~+~d he objected t~~ this practice and ,' ~ot think the Lummission should have to search aut each and eve rv ane of the~e ap~licat~ons. Annik~ Santalahti explained t1~e Traffic Engineer wouici base his d~cision on the ~~se requested, wf~ich~ in this case, ~ces for a van customi2ing facility, and it is easfer for hii~ to eutom~ticaSly ado the conditi~n without researching tl~e traffic volume and after the facts are discussed at the public hearing and it is determined the traffic volume would ~ot be si:nilar t~ a Gommere.ial use~ the condition can be delPted. Con~:rlssiuner David stated he would delete that condition from his ~~solution. AGTIOtI: Commissioner Uavid offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissi~ner Kiny and MOTION '~~U (Comm~ssioner 7olar bein~ absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Gommission has revlewed the Nropesal to retaln a van cust~mizing facility on a r~ctangularly-shaped parcel of land consistin~~ of approximately 0.5 acre f~aving a frontage of approx(mately 105 feet on t`~..: east side of t~ati~nal Street, t~avin~ a maximum d~pth of approximately 185 feet, and being lo~.ated approximately 1)3 feet north of the centerline of Liberty Avenu~; and r~oes hereby ac.p rove the Negative De~ aration from the requirement to prepare an envtronmental impact rcport on the basis that t~~ere would be no signific4.,t indtvidual or cu~nulative adverse znvironn-ental impact due to the approval of tnis Negative Declaration slnce thc Anaheim Generel Plan designates the subJect property for general industrial land uses conxnensurate with the proposal; [hat no sensitive environrr~ntal impact5 are invoived ln the prnposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indlcetes no sig~ificant S~stantiatingGthe'foregoingefindingsris ontfile~incthe C~tvtoftAnaheim93tive Decieration Plan~ing Department. 3/12/79 ~ ~- ING COMMISSION, MA^CN 12, 1979 7~-7~6 MINUTES, ANAHE~M CITY PI.ANN ~ p (crontinued) 61R NEGATIVL QECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USC PCRMIT N0. Cortanissioner Uevid offcred ResoluCton No. PC7~•52 and m~ved for its pnssege and ad~ption~ Comnission Joes hnreby grant Petition for Conditional Use delcst ng • hrnve ve r ~ thet the Anaheim Clty Planning Permit No. 197~- ~~.Iect to Interdepartmental Committee recor~xnendations~ ;ndicated recommendation No. 2 on tF~e basisgin"e~e~o~~ni~dust~rtaldu~~ thanpabconmerciaiguse. the traffic volume would be more On roll call, the foreqoing re~olution was pessed by the foll~+in9 vota: AYES : .S I OIJERS : 6AP!IES ~ RUSIIORE ~ DAV 1 U, NERDS'f , ~~F~~~SON, KI NG NOE5 : : 5S lOilERt : NONE At3SrNT: ~ ~tI5510NCRSt TOLAR ITEN t~0. 1o PUOLtC IiE~ARItIr,, Ow~1ERS: RICHARU NYDE h~~U ROt3E; jA NYDE BOTTEMILLER~ ;'1~ South Flfth Street, Apt. EIR tJEGATIVE DECLAR-'1TION San Jose~ GA 95112. AGE13T: SMITIEY 6 IISSOCIATES. VARr (~AN~F ~~~~ ~''TRl~CT N0. 10~~G9 1415 East Collins Avenue, Or~nge. c:n 92fi~1• ProP~rty des~ri~ed as en irregularly-shaped p~~cel of lAnd conslsting of appraximately 3.9 a~~e located at roxim~te frontages the northeast core~nopthLside,ofaLincolnnAvenuchj190 feeteonht~~eneast~side of ~'ilshlre of 191 feet on t~i Avenue~ 109 feet on the east and norPfose'cs ~resentlyS classifiedzRM-120f1 (RESIDENT~q~cu - de-sac terminus oAr+~t C~~C0IMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZOt~ES. NULTIf'LE-FAMILY} REQUESTED YAR I ArICE : WAI V~R OF M i ti' ~11,M LOT 1J 1 DTI1. ?CIITAT I VE T RACT REQUEST : 10-LOT, ~~0-UN1T~ Rli-12~)0 APARTMENT SUI~DIVIS14~1 At~U A 3-LOT~ CL SUtiDIVIS~IOtd• resence in opposition to subJect There were appr4ximately 13 persons indicating their p was requsst~ and altliough the staff report ~ferredPtonandgmademeSPa~t ofttheMminutes. ,~79 ~ot read at the publlc hearing~ ii is r 1.~~`.~ No~th Grand Rvenue~ Santa A~a. stated tnls Jack Davis, Invegtment Oevelopment. request is for tl~e total parcel which is divided witl~ residential to the north an commercial to [he south; that the bu`o~~~shape~ thatxtheynare~negotiating withtUnioib0i~1 restaurant is back in use and is in J Ca~pany to keep the station open; aud r'ade ite ~Ne,explainednthe^reslcientialiportion is condition and they are plannina to pg ert is leased land divided into ten lots instead of one large dPVelopment because~u~dPb~Pdeveloped with a and divtding it makes it flnanceableo tle stated the property have cut +he proposal to 40 units. Ne explalned they have ~t 67-unit complex, but they all the requiremerts of the zoning and are asking for w~18~d themsnuar~ foot teshareGfrom 9 ;mprovements are already in; that the lc~ts are ver! ~e~ with the average beiRg over 10~00b s~~oo~ Se uare~feet and,thetrequgtrementsaaref7200 square feet. approximat~ly 9 q Mr. Davis presented a rendering of a simi lar develupme:nt wi th exactly thc~ same concept leied a roximate~y six months ago in Tustin. He •.,tatad they supP~Y ga~ages wh(ch was comp PP (~ot carports) for most of th uareifeet~,dwhlchtis astlargetase mostd i the hamesebeing built approximately 13Q0 or 1400 sq today in the ~rice range of $7;~000 to $85.000. 3/ 1?./'19 1 . MINUTES~ f~NAHEi 1 CITY PLANN11;3 COMMISSIUN~ MARCIi 12~ 1979 7~-2n~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION VARIANCE NQ. 30$7. AND 1'ENTAT~VE MAP OF TRACT N0, 1Q669 (can~fi;ued) Carn~en Conslno~ 1212 Pesrl Street~ Anehetm, statod they do ~ot went the ~pertments becbus• th^y have so men/ ~~ther apart~nent u~~tts in the areA r+nd feit there Is not ~oc+m 1'or the treffic. She ..t~ted thcre are a lut of motor homes part;ed in the rrea~ plus other troffic and vlsitors to the oxtsttng untts~ end cers ero parked dll thc wsy down her street. She stated a complex wes bullt bnlilnd her whlch hes 1~+ unlts and that she had courrte~i 10 cars parked outside of their parkin~ •,tails and all tl~e units arc not even rentQd yct. She ex~leined th~re is a lot oP trtlrfic ciown thetr street snd tt Is A very danqe~ous situa~ion and she hes hed to ins~rll n ferce around her yard because she has chlldre~. She presented letters from other peoplr. in the erea who were nat ab1P tu etCend ;h's mee.'n9• Jack Nliil~s~ Ue~~uty City Attorncy~ cxplaincd lcttcrs af appositton cu~~l~ nnt h~ rr.ad tnto the r~cord unless the wrlt~r was ~resent; however~ the IettPrs wauld become a pert of the file. Allce Nendershot~ 27~ N~rtr~ Wllshire~ Anahetm, statec! her maln obJectlon is parki~g, explaining there ts not enouyh parking ln the area At the present ttr~e and refe~•red Co a curb which ha~ been cleslgnated fo~ "no parking" since the ~~ndom~ntum shc lives in was constructeJ~ Anci felt two spaces per unlt would n~t be ~.deq~~!e s(nce a lot of people have mo~e than two cars. Fay t4111er~ 121~ Pearl Street~ Anaheim~ suggested a pravision to prohibtt the apar*.ment residents irom parktng on thp street and stateci she )u~t could n~t se~ 5f~ more cars in thelr o~e-block-long street. flazel Werner~ 1202 Pearl Str~et~ Anaheim~ asked why she had not ~ecelved a noticn of the hearing. She also asked haw much of the total 3.~ acres ls devoteci ta the reside~ti~l portton of the property. Shc painterl out tl~ere are no mulri-family dweilings on the south side of Pear) Street. Robert Nenninyer~ Assistant Planner~ stated 3.;~ acres is the total slte and (t was determined that the residential d~v~iapment would encon~pass approximately one-half of th~ si te. ~ts. 1~erner indicated her concern re~arding the setbacks~ and Chairman Nerbst potnted out th~t no waiver of setbacks has been requested. He expiai~ed the only wa'v~r request~d is the minimum lot width on approximately six lots, Ms. Werner felt the nu~er of units proposed ls heavier than a med(~m density use. Robert lienninger ~xplained the General Plan designation of ru dlum density includes any density up to 3~ units per net acre and each of these lots is wel) under 36 u~~its per net acre and range from 19 to 25 units per r+et acre. He explained property owners withtn 300 feet of propertv lines are notlfted af the hearing and it Is possible that Ms. We~ner's pruperty ta furtl~er away than 300 feet. Chairo~an Herbst explained the State r~q~ires one method of advertising, but the City of Anaheim uses three methods, publication in the news~~aper. posting the tndividual prope~ties, and not(ficetion of Praperty awners within 300 feet, tn order td insure everyorie conc:erned is aware o1` the si tuatlon. Ray McWillfams~ 1212 Pearl Street, Anaheim, felt no waivers should be grAnted because tliere ls so much traffic and congestto~ ln the residenttal area already. Burton i~,oore, 124.; Pearl Street, Anaheim~ stated he 1 ives di rectly across the street and echoes the same concerns expressed and commended the Commission because he felt they are 3/t2/79 MINUTE`>~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOt1, MNRCH 12, 197~ 7~-208 EIR N~~ATIVE DECLARATION L VARIANCE N0. 3~82 ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0, 10569 (co~~ti~ued) respo~sive to the outlook uf the neighbors. 11e referred ta the envf~onmental im~±rct repart and stated he thought ti~e proposel would have a distlnct Impact on the envlronment and suqgested the Commisslon co~sider tl~s an adverse anvirenmcntal imp~ct~ and urged the Commis~ton not to grant waivers. Mr. Davls statod hc- c~~~ld undarstand the c~ncerns dxpressed an~i palnted out the propertles in the orea are roned the sarr~ as subJect property. He st~ted the Commisston has dealt with the ~~arking situr-tton befcre and has lncreased the parktng requirnments so th~t ample parking ls provided on the site. Regard(ng tl~e walver~ he pointed out adJacent properttes are only 5n feet wide~ so the requestcd waiver is not even As smail as those lots. Ne stated the propPrty wes origlnaily appr~ve~1 for J2 u~its~ thrce sCorles high~ ~nd thts proposal is for only two sturie~., tIP felt thc proposal wtil be comn~tibic with the ~rc~ and~ backed up to com-~~rcial development~ is a lvwer density huffered use for thts praperty. TNE PU[iLIC HEAitING WAS CI.USEQ. Commissloner David ask.ed h~~w rt-~ny ap~rtrrwnts were pr~posed when Conditiona) Use Permit No. 47Q was granted, and a3ked (f that perrnit w~ul~ still be in effect~ and Annika Santalahti, Assistant Directur for Zontny~ explained that %2 units were proposed at that Ctme~ and that permit was c~ranted by the Clty Councll an~i woul~i not really still be in effect because staff would ask that it come back to the Comnission f4r approval of an extanslon of time. Robert Ilenninyer~ Assistant Planner~ explalned that pe~n~it was 9~anted on the northern half of the property and allowed :he prescnt commercial developnx~nt aiong Ltncoln, and the commercial portfon was constructed but the apa~tmencs were not. Commissioner Bushore clartfied that this ts teasehold land and asked if the individual units wi 11 be sold after tf~ey are cor~structed. Mr. Davis stated they will sall approxim~tely one-half of the units ~nd stated in this case they are llable on thc lease for eacli indfvidual lot for q9 yeArs. Chairman Herbst stated the Commissi~~n has a questi~n abo+~t the alleyway th~t abuts th~ property~ similar to the alley that abuts the corrmercial; that when tt was dCSlgned~ it dead-lieaded into the pro~crty~ probably with the intention that it would go on thrc~ugh, and po(nted out che trash trucks have t~ back up e canside~able distance to a'u•h-around point. He state<i the elley should have a hammerhead ur some circulation elemenz provided in order for them to get ~ut~ similar to the al~ey to the Lincoln side. M~. Davis indicated the City strcet department was not anxlous for the alley to gn through i;ecause it is ve ry narraw. Ne stated there is a drainage easement the~e and stated the~ tr~~cks are not going (n end turning around now. Coimii~sioner Johns~n asked if it wauld be possible to put the alley th raugh to Pearl Street, and Chairman tierbst stated the situ~tion is exi~ting~ bur that it sFw uld be hartmerheaded or an outlet provided. Commissio~ier King asked if the petitioner was aware that the trash trucks were backing out~ and M~. Davis explained he had dlscussed this oroJect with the Sanitation DepartmenC~ but had not discussed the r~tate;' areas. Commissioner Bushore asked if the alley will be ~ejuvena*_e~l~ ~nd statcd a11 alleys in the City are ~eing reJuvenated. 3/12/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANAFICIM CITY PlANN14G COMMISSION~ MARCH 12~ tg79 7q-?.~q EIR MEGATIVE DECLARATION~ VARIANCE N0. 3~~2 ANQ TENTATIVE MAP QF TRACT N0. iQ669 (conttnuod) , _~ ~ ~ _- Mr. Devis stated he had tslked wtth Mr, Phelpa and they do hnve ro~m t~ put in a hamrnerhead where the trasl~ trucks could turn around~ end when thG alley is r~pAlred~ that could be done. Chai rman Herbst stated 12 f~et would f~eve to be provlded~ and Nr. Cavis repl ted they could work somethi ng out, Commissloner Johnson st~ted thc waiver ot lat widtl~ is bcing requested Gecause the lots ere ple-shaped end they ere narrcr~er ~t the curb 11ne; but that the ful) gize of each lot gti l l is a lot larner than other lots In the area. M~. McNElltaros state~l he un~i~~rc~~~~~~i rhAr~ hut felc the petitioner was not polnting out there wi I1 ba fau- units on cach of these lots while th,sre is only one hause on Che othe~ lots (n the are~,. He felt this proJect wlll put a gr~at burden on thc nelghhorhood~ traffic-w(se. Commiss(oner Johnson stAted he Jid rx~t remember any multtple-f~miiy un(ts such as thts on e cul-de-sac and was concerne~ about impacting the cul-de-sec. Chatrman lierbst polnted out tt~is fs an exlst(ng cul-de-st~. Commissloner Berne~ stated she was conccrned about the R~ parking a~+d asked haw many s~aces are propo~ed on the cul-de°sac (Lot 1'1). It was noted there ere ti spaces. Shc continued tha[ these wi 1~ be three-bedre>om units and did not fcel there would Fe adequate parking. She aske~ how m~~ny spaees dre required for a singie•family resid~nce. Rc~bert Henninger replitd that a spaces are requi re~i for a singlr-fami ly residence (2 tn the garage~ 2 in the driveway. ond 1 in the street). Cnrt~missioner Eiarnes stated she thought the complex would be very nice~ but was concerned about the parking and pointed out the Commission has been reviewinq the ordinence concerning par~;ing, 5he feit since this erea is rlready impacted~ tt would be much nicer to have some additional p~rking. She felt pr~p!P ln these three-bedroom units will probably hAVe a tee~aycr who dr(ves ancl they wi 1 I be parktng on thc street. Commisstoner David po(nted out the pet(tion~~r has provided ;~arking ta Code requi~ements~ and Commissioner Barnes state~i she is talkfny abaut tt~is particula~ area because It fs eiready impacted. Sha potnted out the C3ty is ~~ndfng out there Is n~ place to ~ark recreational vehicles in apartment cort~lexes. Mr. Davis replled there are 3 onen ~arkiny spaces in the rea~ of the complex ~n~ that these speces are Included in the caiculations of the 2 spaces r~quired per unit. Chal rman He rbs t s tated i t is typ i ca 1 fo r a husband an~ wl fe to f.~ve a car and a reereational vehicl~~ and that tficy wi 1 I park tF-em an ti~e street. He stated recreatt~nal vehtcles are becoming a national pasttinm end apartmeni complex developers are not providiny any parking for this type vehicle. lie stat~~ he recognixes there e~e areas w~~ere these vehi cles can be ~ tore~, but people do not always war~t to use these faci 1 t ties. 4e felt the problem is furtlier compoundcd by the fact tt~at these lots wi 11 be sold lndlvtdually. Commissioner E3ushore referred to several largerthan-normal recreationa) vehtcles which are currently pa~ked in this area. He felt these open spaces would ~ot accammodate these large siaed recreational vehicles anyway~ and sugge~ted that the petitloner look at his 3/12/79 MINUTE:S, I1~IAlIE111 CITY PLAf~~~ING COMM;SaICN~ MAaCH 12~ 1919 79-210 E_IR NE GATIV~ DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 'OB2 AND TCNTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1b669 (continued) plans ~nd try tn deter~,~~~~a whether or nat he couid rrovide ~ddttion~l parkltig, since these ar~ 1 ~ ~ge l~t~ . Mr, Davls st~~t.:~i fie could see where they could p~ovidr 6 more sp~ces which would eliminaxe s~me of the landsc~pin~, and Commissloner Barnes stated one of tha units ca~ild be el tmtnated rnther t~An the landscsptng. Chairman Harbst steteJ h~ has trouble Justifyl~g the varlance for Lots 1~ 2~ 3 and b, and Cor-~ntssloner liernes stated she could Justify the vt~rtance if onP of thP lots was used for pa rk ( ng , Mr. Davly sto~pd they have spacc bchind Lots 1 AnJ : anJ ~uul~ Nrovicle some spac~s for recreatlona) veh(cle parkinye and Commissioner pArneR stat~cl that would elimtndte a lot of greenery and she cild not ! ike kl~at suygr_stion. Commtssloner King painted out smal ler cars ere cer,~t~sg tnto existence wh(ch wi 11 compensete for th~ space tAken by the larger recreatianal veliicles. Cha( rman lierbs t s tatee± lie I s concern~~J that Pearl and Di amond Streets are e) ready impacted and poi nted out 1 t ts typical for apartrnent dwci lers to park in the street where i~ is conveni ent for them to walk~ and also park thetr recreationa) vehicles in the street, esnectally tl~e larger ones~ because the spaces w( II not accommodate them an~i the sttuatton wi 1) be further tmpacted because tf~ese lots wi 11 be sold indivtdual ly. Cortxnts~ loner Darnes explatned the Commissio-, has been requiring 3.5 parking spaces per unit in pl~~nnod uni[ developme:its in the Anaheim ~~tlls area and even then there is not enough parking. Mr. Davis stated this type of apartment desiyn provtdes parking inside underneeth and the tensnt can go dlrectly from the parkiny to his door or stairway~ s~ there is less ;endency to park ~n the street~ and puinted out th~ usual cnmplex has a raft of carports tocated awey f~'~om the units end tne tenants do r.ark on thc street. Commiss ioner darnes stated it would help tf there werr. parking spaces provided someplacs else, arid d(~' not feel 2 spaces per untt would be enough. She stated she would not be cance rn ed about the pa rk i ng i f the a rea we re not ~ I ready i mpacted. Mr. Oavis asked if ~t additlnnal spaces would be adeguate~ ~~id Chairman Herbst asked h~w the add ltlana) spaces would be distributed so that they could be used by al) unlts since the lots wi I1 be sold indtv(dual ly. Commiss 7oner darnes st~ted approval of the proJect as submitted would be c~eattng a ter~ib~)~ mass and impact the entire area. Commiss 'saner Kii~g was not concern~d about the parking and pointed out nnt many peaple actually usa thelr garages for ~arking anyway, and stated these peaple have the right to pa rk on the s t ree t. Commiss ?oner dushore stated he felt ha~f of the cars currently parked on Pearl and Diamon~ Streets actu~lly belong to the peaple who live on these straets and pointed out thls area is zoned for multtple-famtly dwel l tngs~ and poPnted out the petitioner has stipulated to provide 8 a~ditional spuces. Biii Ph~lps~ 1259 North Batavta, Orange~ stated he could provide an ext~a space on every ~~t except Lot S, and explained ertry from Lot S is directly to the un~ts. He explained 3/12/79 MINUTES~ ANNILIM C1TY PLANNING COMNISSION~ MARCH 12, 1979 79-211 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAPATfO~i_ V,ARIANCC t~0. 3082 ANp TEfITATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1~1669 (continued) he h ad used 1~'foot spaees rAthQr tha~ 8.G feet to give e bigger aree and could reduce the size and plek up an extra space. He s*;,ced h~ ~.c~uld easily provide (; edcllti~nal spsces. Cortwnissi~ner Bushore ssked if staff would have c~nsidered the EIR n~~:+tive declaration tl~e same if thn p~ofect had been proposaci an a single lot~ ond M~. Ne!nn(nger repl led that they woul d have c~nsiclered lt the snme. Commisslonur Johnson polnted out tl~e Commisslon has rer~ufred 3.5 spac~s pQr unlt and the addi tlonol 8 spaces pro~+oseJ for parkin,y w~uld provide ?..1 s~aces for this proJe:ct, whlch woul ~1 ertiount t~ 3 spaGes for every elyhth unlt end the rest would lia~:^ only 2 spaces. He stAt~d he thought thls was a~~ood proJect and flts the are~~ but felt mo~e parking should bs P*ovidc+d In orJer to grant the walver as e trade-off~ es~ecially since the lots will be sold (ndividualiy. Mr. i'helps ststed there are substnnclard locs tn tl~e are~ as far as stendsrds are concerned and it was thcir thouc~ht to kcr.p ttic lots at (•S feet. 11e explAlned they could trke ~ut a lot an the Peari Str~:et front~~e and losc four ~mits~ but would be left w(th an £35-foot lot. ACTI all; Commissloner Ki~i~~ offerecf a motic~n~ seconded by Conxnisstoner David~ that the na e m City P~anntnc~ Commission hos revtewcd the proposal to ~s~Ablish n 10-lot, ~~0-u~lt apartment subdlvlslon anc! a 3-lot~ CL subdivision witti waivcr of m%nimum lot width on an (rregularly•shaped parcel of land consistlny of approxin~~tely 3.~1 acres located at the northeast corner of Ltncoln Avenu~ and WI lshi re Ave:~ue, having approximate frontages o'f 191 feet on the north sidc~ of Lincnln llvsnue~ ly0 feet on the ~ast si de of Wt ish i re Avenueo 70~ feet on ttie cast ancl n~~rth sides af Pearl Street~ and 271 feet on th~ west cui-de-sac terminus of Diamond Str~ct; and aoes hereby approve the ~~egative Declaration froRS the requirement to prepare an environment. Impact repart on the basts th.~t there woul d be no s~ynlfiGant in~ltvidual or cumulati~ ~dverse cnvironrnental tmpaGt due to the appr-vval of th(s Negat(ve Declaration since thr ~naheim Ge~eral Plan designatess the subj ect prape~ty for gencral co~mercial and medium <ie~sity residC~~tlal land uses c~mnsansurat~~ w(th the proposal; that no sensitive envlronmental in~pac.ts are involved in the proposal; that the Inlt(al Study submltted by the petltioner Indicates no sS gnl f(cant tndi vidual or cumulattve adverse envlronmental i-npacts; and that the Negative Dtelaratlon substantiating the foreqoing findtngs Is a~ file in the Cfty of Anaheim Planning Department, Prtor to votine~ on subject motion~ Commissioner Johnson asked (f the traffic should be cpnsidered as an adverae Impact on the proJect, and Chairman Herbst ind!cated he felt the impact of thi s proJect would be less than wi th total commerctal . He felt the proJ~ct wli l cause somc p~oblems, bu[ dtd not think they would be any greatcr than with Gartm~rcial. ChaZrman Harbst called far tf~e~ vote on the EIR negative declaration and the MO~ION CARRIED (Corr~missioner Johnso~ voting nc~ and Commissioner Tolar betng absent). Corr~issioner King offered a resoluti~n and movad for its passage and adoptfon, that the Anal~e(m City P~anniny Commisston d~es hereby yrant Pstit!on for Vs~riance No. 3082 on the basis that the propc~sal would provide efficicnt use of the property and denta) wauld be dep~lving the property of privlleges enjoyed by other properttes in the same vietnity and zone, and the complex woulcl provide low-cost housin,y. Cha"srman tlerbst stated he would oppnse *.he resolution because he could not Justi fy the har~ship and fel t the proprrty is large enough to suppiy the lot width wi thout the var iance. 3/12/79 ~~. MIt1UTES ANAHEIit CI~Y PLANNING CQMMISSION~ MARCII 12~ 1q7~ 79-212 F.I R NEGA7IVE DECLARATION~ VARIA~ N__CC N~. 3ag2 ANU TENTATIVF HAP OF TRACT N0. lOfi69 (cuntlnur,d) On rol l cal l~ the farecpfn,r, resolution FAIIED TO CARRY duc to a tte vnte es follows: AYES: COMNISSIUNk:RS: BU5110R~~ DAV10, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: i3ARNES~ IIFRBST~ JOIiNSON ABSE;iT: COMMISSIOr~EaS: TOI.AR 14r. Phel ps ssked whet the Comm) ss ( on woul d c~ns 1 der an ~cceptab le f~ardehi F~ ~ and Chr) rman Herbst ~eplled he could Justify a t-ardsl~ip an two af the lats un th~ cul•de-sac and that this ts wh8t is imprctiny the erea; that the pra.~ect rnc~ets tl~e mintmum requirements, and thc p~oblem is~ it do~s not have i~ meet the mtnimums~ but could prov(de semc maximum~. Ne stated he could not suppnrt thc t~ardship bec++use the p~rcel is lAr~e enouqh to provide all requlP~~++~nr.s. He c+olnteci out a goc~d percent~~ae of the '~ts in the area have sinqle- famtty arructures~ even though the property is zoncd multiple-family res~denL.lal. Fle pointed out if the r.ontng wcrf: for singlc-fami ly resi~entlai ~ thc !kveloF~mer,t wuulct have to ~rovlde a 15f1-foot sethock~ bul be:cause the ~ropcrty is r.oned multtple-fAmlly, more u~i ts are al lowed. Mr. Phelps stated It takes six months to cnmc baclc with a proJact lf this Is denled and that they could appeal the decision to the C(ty Council~ but would prefer to make the Commisslon liappy. He steted Mr. Davis would tiavc to make tt~~ deci~fon re~ardlnq taking ouc one of the lots. Chai i-man He~bst ex~~~Atned that there was a tie v~tc far arpr~val, which me,+ns the m~tter will automatically '~e cc~ntinued for a seventh Commissioner~ or the petltiorer may wlsh ta ask for a co~tlnuance in order to rev(se the plans, or one of the Commissic~ners may wish to offer a motlon for denial. Mr. Davts stated the proJect was wel l below the nur~~ber of apartrnen~s thet would be allowed on ihis property~ an~i the reason f~r the request for the walve~ is bticause the lots are qui te deep and the square footages are ~~.~er the reyul rement. Chai r-nen Nerbst stated the proJect does not have Yo meet the minimum require~ments and he ~eeognl~es the prnJect rneets the lot c:overage rcquirement. but btcause the lots are to be dtvi ded~ une additional lot is being requested. He statcd recently the Comniission hr~s been revlewi ng the prob lems wi tii apartment dwe I lers and has retently Increased the parki ng requirements in the Anaheim Ht lls area. He stated more parking is necded because of ~ecreational vr.hicles and the chanqe in the living envimnment, and pointed out ~ec~aatlonal vehicles are impactin~ all areas. Co~~issioner Barnes sfa~ed she would p~rsanally 1 ike to see 3•5 parking spac.~es per unit provided~ t~~en it at 'east would nat impact the are~. Chai rman Herbst stated he did not feel we could ask fo~ that many parking sp~aces because Code aoes noc requlre them, but that he cauld not grsnt the v~~tance. Commissioner Barncs asked the petitioner if he w~uld like to request a ccmtlnuancc in order to revise the plans and provide more parkiny~ and Mr. Davis indicated he would like a eontinuance. Chairman Nerbst stated he wauid be looking fo~ something that would provide an-site parking to take the parking off the street. Ha also pointed out thesc tenan~s woul J be having guests and there is no gu~st parking provided. He indicated he was referring to th~ cul-de-sac and pointed out that is the hardship ha could )ustify because it is zn existing cul-de-sac. 3/12/79 ~. MINUTCS~ IINANEIM CITY PLANNINf, CONMISSION~ MARCH 12~ 1979 79•213 CIR t~EGATIVE OCCI.ARA'~10~I~ VARIIINCE NO 30~2 AN_ D TE~~TATIVE MAP UF TRACT N0. 1o66g (continued) Mr. Devts potntod ou~ there arc commerclal propertiess ~n the other side af the cul-de-saG a~d there are no homes an thc othcr si de of the cul-ck-sac. Commisslone~ 6arnes indicated if the peti[loner wist~od to argue ahout the metter~ she would offer a motio~ for denial; otherwise~ If they wish to revise the plan and p~a~vtde more pArklny, she woul.l offer a motion far continuflnce~ and Mr. Phelps IndiGateci he w~uld 1(kc to raquest r tontinuance. ACT101~: Coicxnissioncr Barncs ~ffered a motlon~ scconded by Commissl~ncr 9ushore~ and MOTIQN CARRIEp (Commissioner Tolar bei~g absont)~ that c~nslcier~tton af Vertencc t~o. 3~8?_ and Tentattve Map of Tract t~o. 10(~G~ be continued to the requiarly-scheduled mc+eting of thc Anahetm City Plnnntng Commisston an April ')~ 1~17`.)~ (n o~der f~r the pe[ltlc-ner to submit ~evlscd plans. CONMISSIOtiER BARHES LEFT TI1~ MtETIIJf, AT ;:1f1 F'.M. (TEf~ 1~0. 11 PUf3LIC t1EARING. 01JNER: P~iYLLIS J. DOW. 1173 west EIR C EGORICALLY EXEMP7- Locust Avenuc. Anaheim~ CA 92802. Petitioner requests CLAS5ES 1 A~10 ~ WAIVER OF M1~I111UM NUNBEa AfJD TYPE OF PARKINC SPAGES !1R ~ E N0. 3'~~~ TO RETAIN AN EXISTII~G GARAGE CONVERSION on property described as a reCtangul~rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxirn~~tcly G-~;iE square feet havl~c~ a f~ontage of approxlmately 58 fect on the north si~fe af Locust Avenue, having a mexlmum depth of approximat~ly 111 feet~ be(nq located app~~r.imatcly 3~35 feet east of the centerline of Walnut Street, and further descrlbed as 1173 W~st I.ocust Avenue. Property Qrese~tly clASSified RS-72~0 (RESiuC1~Tl~l~ SINGLC~FAMILY) IONE. Ttiere was no ane Indicatin9 thei r presence in uppositton to sub)ect request~ and alth~-ugh the staff report to ttie Planning Cornnlssion dated March 12~ 1979 was not read at the public hearing, it is rr.ferred to and macie a part of thc minutes. Phyllis Dow~ propercy owner, stated her garage was conve~ted to a family r~om severa) yea~s ago because at the time tt~ey werc a family of six and needed the livinq sp~ce, and she u~derstands a complaint has been filed. She stated she dtd not understand why parking is an issue because shc is single and only has one car and it is always parked In her driveway, And that occasional ly one of her ctil ldren wi ll visft. 5he stated the garege dc~or is intact and could be rec~nverttd; that tl~e garage is cArpeted~ but a car could be parked on tl~e carpet; that the garage was a front-on, attached qarag~ and a door has been cut between the Iiving room and the ~aragc and storar~e added on hoth sides~ but that it could be reconverted in the event of resale of the property. TiIE PUE3LIC 1',EARING WAS CLASED. Chairman Nerbst asked if shc I~ad conve~ted the garage hcrself, and she indicated her fathQr had done the work, Commissione~ Bushore asked if any bullding permit~ were issued, and she repiled that no permlts were obtrined. Commissloner Bushore asked ~aw many children presently reslde at the structure, and she indlcated she hes a 13-year-old and a 16-yQar-old currently living ihere. 3/12/79 .___ _. _ _~. ~l , MIt1UTES~ Ai~NIf.IM CITV PI.ANNIN~ coM~~I55lo~1, MARCN 12~ 197~ ~g'Z~G EIR CATEGORiCALLY EXEMPT-CLASSES 1~ 5 ANO VARIANCE k0. 3080 (continued) Commissioner t3ushore stated tlie iG-yeer-old will pr~bably be askine~ for an automc~blle snon and stated thc petitloncr has al ready adml tted te doing wrong r~nd had )u~t stated i f thc property is sold convent(~nally~ tl~e conversl~n could be l~ft and the m+~tter would bu overlooked again. Chalrman Ilerbst stated a vArlance goes wlth th~ property ~~d rtio time limtt coulcl be applied~ and that is what bothered l~im. 11e statcd he did not want to qrant a variance~ for e geraye convers(on because w~ have tiiis problem all ovcr tc~wn and mast of them have been done Itlegally; that once s vorianc~ has beQn gr~ntPd for thts oraperty~ ther~e is no contro) over whether or not It is reconverted when the property is sold. Gurnnissiuner Dusli~,rr. st.~[ed tl~c cxLra mom i, ~l~o a sr.lling ~o1nC Fnr t(1I~M~Ar1P. Wtth a larger femily. Fle stated there were no bullding p~rmits Issued and tha nced no longer exlsts since part of the family has moved~ and indicaCed he would III:G to see It recnnverte~f. Commissloner David stated tf~ere is n~ way to f~rcc ar~yone to parL, a car in the garage. Nrs. Dow asked if r.!-,e conditlons would be satisfied if the door (s made oper~ble. Chairma~ Nerbst statad onc of the Pianning Commission's problems is setting a preccdent. He stated he agreed this c~eragP should be reconverted and the garage cioar made func~tc~nal. He stated the Cummission has never granted a varlar-ze unless the garage could be rebuilt or other parkinr~ provi ded wi tt~ a carport, etc. Mr. Henni~ger stated as long as there are no permanr.nt structures bullt in the garage which would prevent [wo cars from being parked~ there wauld he no problem. Ms. Dow stated she could point out several other conversions ir her own 3rpa, and Mr. Henninge~ stated no varlances have been grgnted in this neighbarhood for garane conversians. 1 t was noted the Planning Dt reGtor or fiis authorized re:prese:ntative has determined that the proposed proJect falis~.~ithin the definitt~n of Categorict~l Exempti~ns, Classes 1 and 5~ as defined in par~graph 2 of the Gity of Anaheim Envtroncnental Impact Repart Guidelines and Is~ therefore, categ~~rically exempt from the requtremr.nt t~ prepare an EIR. ACTION: Comm~ssioner Davad offered Resolutian No. PC79-53 and movcd for its passage and a~oqtTon~ Chet the Anahelm City Planning Commissicx~ does hereby respecfully deny Vartance h~o. 3080 on the basis that no h~~dship has bcen found and that approval would be setting an undesi rab le precedent. On roll call. the foregoing resolution was passed by t~~e fol lowin~ vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 9USi10RE. NOES : COMMI SS I ONCRS : +~Ui~E ABSEI~T: CGMMI SS I Ot~ERS : ~ARNES ~ DAVID~ NERBST, JOfiNSON~ KING 70L{IR Ms. Dow asked if she was correct in unc'.erstanding that nc~ne of tt~e Interdepartmertal Cc+rimtttee recommendations would apply since the request h3s been rle~ied~ and that in order to comply wi tl~ the Ci ty codes, sF.e must ma~ce the garage ~~r operational . 1 h 1 !~ i tant Oirectur for Zoning explained there must be two parking AnnikA Santa a t, ss s . spaces provided inside the garage and an operable door. JaCk -~hite, Deputy City Attorney, presented the petitioner with the written right to appeal the Planning Gommission's decislon withtn 22 days to the City Council. 3/12/79 ~ MINUTES~ AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION~ MARCH 12~ 1~79 79•215 ITEM N0. 11 HEPOR S A 0 RECOMME~~Dr1TIQN5 A. TCNT!-TIVE TRA(:T N0. 103~% - Request for an extension af tlme. ~..._ The steft report to the Plann(ny Commission datecl March 12~ 1979 was prese~ted~ noting the appltcant (Mike Ven Dscle~ Cuncordia Uevclapment Corporetion) has requestcd .~ one-year oxtension of time f~r Tentative Trect No, 1n337 in order to compiete processing of the final map; that subJett tract (to eytebllsh ~ two-lot subcllvisian wlth ~ne CL lot and ane 30-unit~ RM-4~0~ condominium lot) was approved by tltie Pl~nning Commission an May 8~ 197i3 on property described as P~rtion A- a rectangularly-shaped parcel af land consist(ng of approxtrnately 1.3 ecr~s hav(ng a fronta~~e of approxirnately 2z~+ feet on the east side of Euclid 5treet, havihy a n-ax(mum de~th of approx(mately 2~U feet~ and being located apprflximately 'l5~ feet s~uth of thc centerllne of RonmeyA Urive; and Portton B- an irregularly-shapeci parcel of land consistiny ~f approximately 3.1 acres hivlnq a frontage of approxt~nat~ly ~~ fee;t un tl-e east siJc ~f Euclld Street anJ haviny o n~axlmum depth oi approximately 791 feet; that the subdlvlslun ordinence specifles tl~at an approved tentative tract map sl~all expire tu months from the date the map was appraved~ however~ two one-year exten~i~~ns may be granted; and that no ~re.vious extenslon ~f kime has b~en requested. ACT10~~: Gommissioner Ktng offered a riotton~ seconded by Commisstoner David and MOTION CAR ~U (Cornmissioners ~arnes and Tolar beinc~ absent), that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Cortmisslon ciues hereby grent a one-year extenslon of t(me for Tentative Tract Nn. 103fl7~ to expi re nn Novernber u~ 1)~,(~. B. RECLASSIFICATI~N IJO. 7l-7~~50 - Request for an extension of timc. The staff repor[ to [he Plann;ng Comnissiu~~ datecl Narch 1'l.~ 1'l7~ was present~d, n~ting the appitcant (Bruce Elieff, Sun-Cal Investment Company) I~as requested an extension of time for Reclassificati~n No. /7-7,~-50~ which was granted hy the Plannina Gommission, in part, on April 2j~, 1`375~ to reclassify subject property, tonslstiny ~f a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximetely ~.7 acres having a frontage of aaproximately 551 feet o:- tt~e west side r,f Magnol ia Avenue, having a mar.imum depth of approximately 605 fPet~ and being located approximately j2~ feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue~ from the RS-A-43,~00 Zone to the Rhh400~ Zone; that said reclassification was approved subje~t to certain conditions beinry com~~lied w(th witt~in one year from the date of approval or such further tiir~ as the Pianning Cortar~ission may grant; and that the appl(ca~t indicates the neeJ far more time to meet the conditions of approv~l, ACTION: Commissioner David offered a motion~ secanded by Gommissioner King and M0710N CARRIED (Gomnissioners Barnes and Talar being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planntng Commission does hereby grant a ane-year extenslon of time to allow the applicant time to finallze Reclassification No. 77-7~-50~ said extensfon af time to expire on April 24~ 1980. 3/12/79 ~. MII~UTES~ ANAII~IM CITY PLANNING COMMiS510N, MARCH 12~ 1~79 ~~~Z~~ REPORTS AND RECOMMENpAT10~~S (cantinued) C. COt~uIT1U~~AL USE PCRMIT N0. 17~i0 - Reyuedt for tarminatinn. The staff report to the Planning Commission dated March 12, 1~?73 WeS present~d~ n~ating the applicant (Kay Brawn~ Keyet~ne Mortgage Ccmpany) has requestr.cl termination of Cor~dltlonAl Use~ Permit No. 11~+0 whtch was granted by the Plenning Commisslon on August 29~ 1'~77 to purn~lt a drive-~hrough restau~ant un an (rregularly-shaped p~rcel of land conslgtir+g of approximately 8.1 acres Ic-cated nurth anc~ west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State Collcye Boulavard~ having appr~~ximat~ frontages of 2f>~~ feet on the n~~rCh side of La Paln~a Avenuc and 7.3~ fe:et on tl~e west side of State C~llege Houlevord; andr'ondtttoral tcrmination of subJect condltio~al use r,ermit was a condition af Apr-rova) of UsP Perrni t No. 192kS wh i ch was approved ~y the P 1 ann 1 ng Commi ss Inn on ~ebruary 26 ~ t979. ACTIQN; Commissionrr Uavid offcrc.d Resoluti~n No. PC7~--~,4 and mr~ved for its, passage and adoptlon~ tl~t~t ttie Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby term(nate Petltion fo~ Conditional Usc Permit Na. 1/4u at the rec~ucst uf the petitioncr. On roll call~ the foreyoin~~ resoluCion was {~assed by :he followin~ vote: AYkS: COMMISSIONERS: iIUSFIpRE~ ~AVID~ HER85T~ JONNSON~ KING NOES: COMMISSIQNCRS: NOIJE AI3SE~~T: GUM141 SS I OI~ERS : BARNES, TOLAR D. CONOITIONA~ USE PEaF~~_ T Nn• ~0~~ " RequPSt for approval of specific ptans. The staff report to the Planning Commi~sion da[ed Marcti 12~ 1979 was presented~ noting subJect property (s an irreyul~irly-sliaped parcel of land consistiny of appra:cimately 2h acres located at the soutt~east corner of Jackson Ave~ue and PAr~: Vi~;ta Street, hAVing approximate fPonkaVistafStr~r.eteP~ndnbetin~asloc~a*.eddapproximatelyv13.30 feet7east of thet~~e east side of ar centerline of Rio Vista Strect. The petitloner, Myron M. Rcichert~ Contlnental hbbile t~ousing~ I~~~,. was presenfi and expleined they are pr~pusiny a nc~v manager's area; that the pres,~r:nt manac7cr ~~Vethat it mobllehome on ano[her site in thc park and tiiat they wi11 he ch;~yfng manayers; has aee~ their p~licy to retain a hame for the manayer and malcF that a part of his compensation; and that the pr~sent manage~ wishes t~ seli his ~~x~bilehome on the site and if thEy had to purchase his home, they would be getting an ol~;er harne and paying more money for it than they could pu~chase ~ new one wholesale, il~ stated they do not need the ~ but that they could replace perking because they hav~ excess recreational veiiicle parkin~~ the ~a~king by rearranaing the spaces~ if necessary. He explained thPy have a!arg~ area whith is dormant at the present Lime wiilch the recreatianal ctub had been using fo~ the storaye of newspaper for funci-raisSng wtiich they are no longer using. He stated they have 15 vacant spac~s at the present time. ACTION: Commtssioner Bushore offered a motion. secanded F,y Car~nissioner David and M07fON CARR~ED (Gommissioners Barnes and TQlar being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doeg hereby determine that the proposed addit7on of one rta6il~home park space within the existing 1~i4~unit mobilehome park is s~bst~ntially in accordance with the previously-approved plans, and does hereby recommend to the Clty Cauncil that the eddttion be approved. 3/t2/79 ~, M) NUTLS ~ ANAHE 1 M GI TY PI.ANN ( t~f, CqMMI SS ION ~ MARCH 12 ~ 1~ ]9 7~-217 aEPORTS ANp REC4MMENDATIOt~S (conti~iued) ~_._..~~... E. AME;~UMENT TQ SEGTION 1~5.01.21p TO ADU A UEFINITIUN OF "TR/~II.ER PAP.K". Annika Santalahti presented thc staff repc,~t to the Plannfng Commisslon datrd Merch 12~ 1979, explalniny that bac~us~ of past discussions at City Gouncil meetinge cancern(ng the applicabilfty of the translent occupancy tax to trevel trailer parks~ it came to staff's ettentlon~ vla a conce rned recre~tlonal vehiclc park manayer~ thr~t recreationAl vehicles a~e nat speclfically Identtfied as permitted c~ccupants of travel trailer pr~rks~ ~nd his concern was that futur~ bug(ness ltcenstny and taxin_y problems n~ay arlse because of this lack tn thc Zoning Code; that the term "trailer park" currently appears ir, tha Zon(ng G~de uhder the "ConJitl~na) Uses and Structures" sectiona of al) Clip c~mmrr~tAl ,~n~i in~fustrtwl ~onas~ and tt~e RS-A-43~~00 (Resld~nClal/Agricultural) and RM-1i00 (Resldentiel~ Nulttple- Farnl ly) ~orirs; Ancl tt~at thc term is not def ined anywt~ere. 5he steted that staff concurs it would 5e appro~riat~ to amen~: the T.oning Code to include recreational vehicles, and the simpl~~st n~eans without amendin~ all zunes which permit trave) trailer parks~ is to acid a dPfinition of a trailer park~ s~id definttion identi fying the vehicles which wi 11 I:~e accormx~dateel, ACTI01~: CorTMniss(aner Davfd offerP a morfon, seconded by Commissioncr Johnson and MOTION ~~0 (Conxnissioners Oarnes an~: -olar ~~eing absent) ~ that Che Anaheim Gity Planning Commission does hereby recornnx~~~ ~~at ~ new definition af "trAiler park" be added to Section 1a.01.210 of Chapt~r ' '- pefinitions - Zoning Co~fe to reod: "Traller Park. Any area or Cract of land wh~ .~a~_r ~~, rent_d to accomnodatc one ~r more aut~mobile t~ai lers~ includiny any van, »~,+, ~-,~crentional veh~cle nr other vehicle used or designed for use as lodnfr~y ~ e-•~~~,,, accarirnodations." F. TEtJTAT I VE TRAC' N~ ~ ~~ ,`~ J4; AtJD ~6~ 1- Report on eques t r i an t ra i l s. The staff report to the P~r~~>~~. CommiSSion dated March 12, 1!17y was presented, noting subJect property (s an ir~~ .,;.~~~ly-shaped pa~cel of )and consisting of epproximately 22.5 acres lacated at the n«rt-•~~s.: c:~7~ner of Canyon Rim Road and Fairmc~nt Boulevard~ having approximate froritages of ~ ~°--~.:t on the north ~ide of Canyon Rtm Road and 20~ feet on the east side of Fairmont Bnu~awr,a~d: and that the applicant (Anaheim Hills~ Inc.) requests F)anning Gummission ~cknowl~~cir~~nt of the recortrmendation by the Riding and Niking Trall Comnittec and the H(ii anv :.~nMon Municipal Adviso ry Committee that Lhe requirement for e:quest~ian trai ls wi *hin Trak,; Nos. 3744~ 9745 aRd ~)601 be deleted. AC71UN: Gommissioner ~:iny _+`fere~ a n~otio~~ seconded by Comrnissioner David and MOTION CARRIEU (Gommissioners Rarncs anc' Tolar being absent). that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereb;• ack-~a~vled,e that the revlew requirement with ~egard to trails ir~ the Tentative Tract Nos. ")~~4, 9745 and yb01 has been campleted ard that the Ridtng bnd H(king Trail CoaMntttee ar d the Ntll and Canyon Municipal Adviso ry Committe~ concur with the Plann(ny Co+nnissivn's decision to delete trails frem subJect t~~cts. G. CONUITIONAL USE °ERMIT' N0. 1942 - itequest far approva) of a specitic landscaping p an. rhe staff report to the Pla~ning Commission dated March 12~ 1~7~ was presented„ noting the applicant (E3eam Investment Company) requests approval af a speciflc landscaping plan on a roctangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres located at the s~utheast corner of La Jolla Street and Rsd Gum Stree~~ having ~pproximate frontages of 3I~z/79 MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ MARCN 12~ 1~79 79~218 REPORTS AND RCCUMMENOATIONS - ITEM G(continued) 2)8 feet on the south side of La Jolla Street and 1;5 fcet on the cast side af Red Gum Street~ and that Conditi~nal Use Permit No. 1~42 (to permit a truck rentat fecilit•y in the ML Zone wfth welver of requlred enclosuro of ~utdoor uses) wes ap~roved by the Planning Commission an Fe~rua ry 12~ 1~7~~ subject to thR condixion that the applicent would provide a sp~cific lanciscapiny plan for Planninc~ Conunisston review and approval~ sAld plan to Indicate dense planted areas alon,y Red Gum Street and Le Jolia Streek. ACTION: Cammissioner Ktny offered ~~ motian~ ser.ondad by Conn~~issloner pavid and MOTIO~~ CARit ~0 (Commissioners Barnes and Talar be(ng abse~t)~ thac the Anahelm City Plenning Comrnis:,lon docs hcrcby approvc spcclfic land;capiny plan~ fo~ Conditional Usc Pcrmtt N~~, 19~~2. CONUITIOt~AL USE P~kI~IIT IiQ. 19 1~ Requcst for approval of revised plans. The staff report Co the Planniny Conxnission date~ March 12~ 1~79 wos presented~ noting subject property is an irre~ular?y-shaped parccl of l~nd consisting of approximately 1.3 acres located at the nc~rtheast corner of Anaheim ~oulevard and Lemon Street~ having approxlmate froritages of 380 feet on tl~e north slde of Anal~etm Doulevard t~nd 1Q0 fe~t on the east sicie of Lemon Street, and that ttie petitioner requests approval of rcvised plans deleting commercial uses previously ap~~roved for Un(ts P and M of an existing industrial buile)ing and subslitutin9 a different commercial use for Units R and T. The petitioner~ James Libcrio~ 17~0 Wcst La Palma Avenue~ Anaheim, stated he is asking for the approval of revised plans for Conclltional Use Permit No. 1931 to allow 45~2 square feet for carpet s~les and warehousing rather than ti~~e 3030 syuare feet of van ~adio and air~conditi~~ning and auto leasiny operations. Rabert Henni~~ger~ Assistant Planne~r, furthcr explained that tlie previousiy-approved van radio and atr-conditioniny and auto leasiny operations have decided to relocate elsewhere and the petiti~ner would like to delete app~ovai of those uses. lie explained the parking requirements would be 9 spaces~ assurning tha[ 3~5~ square feet of tl~e proposed use is going to be strictly carpet warehousing, with the remainder for carpet sales. Commissianer Bushore indicated wncern regarding the pa~king for the tenant fn the corner whith blocks the driveway. Mr. Liberio stated a lot of parking speces have been ucilized by the electric motors operation on ad;acent property and he has yiven th~m notice to stop using those parking spaces. He explained the tenant referred to I~as been using his truck for advertising and is m~ving because he cannot have retail sales at this location. ACTION: Commissioner David offered a rtption~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTiON ~7C~0 (Commissioners Barnes and Tolar being absent), that the Maheim City Pla~ning Commission has determined that the substitutian of uses is in conformance with the (ntant of CAnditional Use Perrr~lt No, 1g31~ providinn for certain commercial uses in an industrial bui lding. Mr. ltberio asked if there would be a waiting period for this approval, an~ Annika S~ntalahti~ Assistant Girettor fo~ Zoning~ explained the normal 22-d~y procedure is ~ollowed In case the Council has any questions, 3/12/79 MINUTES~ ANAtIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 12~ 1~79 79-219 lt~PORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (continucd) I. VARIANCE N0. 1551 - Request. far terminot(on. The steff report to the Planning Commissi~n dated March 12~ 1979 was p~esented~ noting the applicant (Ulysses E. Bauer) raquests terminatlon af Varta~ce No. lyyt which wes granted by the Pianning Commtssion on March 4~ 1963~ tn permit e rnel estate office {n con,junctio~ w(th a single-tamily dwelling on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consls~ing of approximately 0.7 acre havinq a frontage of approxlmately 9G fect on the west side ~f deach ~oulevarci~ having a maximum depth of epp~oxlmately 295 feet. being located approx(mately 110u fCP.C narth ~f the centerline of Oall Road; that Conditlanal Use Permlt No. 1343~ to expand an existlna motel~ was gra~ted by tlie Pl~nn(ny Cortxniss(on on July 3~ 1978~ subJect to th~ reyulrement that the property owner submit a letter ~equesting termination of Varience No. ta~1. ACTION; Commissiuner Jol,nson offered Resolutlon No. PC79-S!~ and moved fur its passage and adopt~o~~ that tlie M aheirn Ctty Planning Commisslon docs herchy terminate Vartance No. 1551 es requested by the petitic~ner. On roll call~ the foreg~Iny resc~lution was passed by the folluwin~ vote: AYES: CONMISSIONERS: BUSHORC~ NUES: COMMISSIONERS: NOPIE ABSENT: COMNlSSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID~ HERt~ST~ JOti~~S~l~~ KIItG TO LAR J. COI~DITIONAL USE PER111T N0. 1~i43 - Request for appr~va) of spec(fic plans. The staff repurt to the Planning Comr~ission dated March 12~ 1919 was presented, noting the epplicant (Ulysses E. Beuer) requests appruval of sPecific plans for expanslon of an sxisting motel; that subJect property is a rectangulArly-sh~ped parcel of land cons(sting of approximately 1.3 acres having a frontaye of approximately i95 feet on tlie west side af Beach Boulevard~ having a maximum depth of approximately 295 feet~ beiny located approximately 1108 feet north of the centerline of Eiali Road; that Condltional Use Permit No. 1843 {to permit a 47-unlt~ two-building expansion of an exi~ting 29-unit motel) was g~a~nted~ in part, by the Planning Comnission on July 3, 197~. subject to the condition that the applicant submlt specific plans shaviny the ~xterior butiding wall f(nish along th~ south property line and the rr~tel buildiny location in relationship to the west property line; that the submltted sp~cific plans indicate that the exterlor treatment of the south wall of the two-sto ry addition will consist of stucco and redwood trir.~ ~nd an 8- foot high, single-sta ry structure located 16 feet from the west property line in conl~ormance with Code •equlrements relating to maxim~m structural height and minimum sett~ack for stryctures located ad}acent to single-family zon~s; and that a two-story motel addition located 11 feet~ 6 Inches from the wr.st property line was previously requested but denied by the Ptanning Commission. ACTION: Commisstoner Bushore offered a motion~ secondcd by Commissi~ner David and MOTION CARitIED (Gommissioners Barnes and Tolar bei~g absent), thaY the Anaheim City Planning Cortraission has determined that the specific plans are substantfally in accordance with the sti~~ulations made by the applicant at the time of the o~iginal appraval. 3/12/79 ~^ ~ M) NUTCS ~ AMAHE I M C 1'fY PIANN 1 NG COMMI SS I ON. MI1Rl".H 12 . 1') 79 REPOftTS AND RECOMMENUATIONS (contlnued) K. REPEAL SECTION 18.84.Q3~ OF TITLE 18. CHAPTER t~1.84 OF THE ANANEIM - - _ K _ 79-27.0 ICIPAL Annika Santalahti, Asslstant Director for ZonlnG~ explalned that due to recent prableMs regarding trees In the hill and canyon area~ tt~e Clty Councii and Pia~nning Commtssion had instructod the Ciky Attorney's Offtce ta revise the trc~e preservation ordlnance. The proposed ordinance w as presented and reviewed by the Canmtssion. AGTION: Comrnlssloner Johnson offered o rnotlon~ secnnded by Commisslaner ~ushore and '~Ib~ CARR~m~SSionmdoes~herebyArecommendTtaetheeGixy~Council chac the. proposcdCard~^~+nce Planning Co relatiny ta tree preservation be ado{~ted. OTIIER PIATTERS ~15CUSSEU sY TIIE PLAIINIt~G COMN~ISSION RECLASSIFICATION N0. J8- 7~'22 ' Status of the Diemer Intertie. Annika Santaiahti~ Assistant Director for 7oning, referred Lo a memorandum to the Planning Commission regarding the status of tl~e Di~mer Intertie and approxirna~ely 12 acres located southeasx of the Rtverside FreewaY~ Irnperial I~ighway exchange:~ and north of Vla Cortez, and i~dicated her correspondence was to apprise the t'lanniny Commtssion of tf~e situatlon wtiich had been discussed previously with Floyd Farano and to report that basically the City (s not (nvolved in this situation. She explalned bids have been received and it is her understanding r.hat It is possible the c~ntract wi11 be awarded with(n tlie next few weeks; that aPparently wt•~en Mr. Rlnker bEgan to discuss the possibility of taking the intertie nut of Via Cortez and puttiny it inta Mrs. Maa9's property~Mrs. Maag's att~rney had becrome quite upset and apparently ls suggesti~g that the Diemer lntertl•• be put back in Imperfal Hiqhway~ which the City is very unenthusiastic about because of traffic p rob 1 erns . Gha1ulationrwhileSthisiistbeinytconstructed~epointDng out~therentrance'COttherlarge ci rc shopping center wi 11 be blacked. Annika Santalahti explained this is t~ be a rapid devslopm~nt (approximately six months) and. geneve,to Srovideganyttiingnasclong as thecaccessnlstnotnCOmpletely blockedjded, but do not ha p It was the generai consens~~s of the Comm(ssto~, after brtefly discussing ~his situation, that no action need be taken ~ntil the other issues are resolved. WORK SESS~OP~: There was a brief discussian regarding a wark session for the canyan are~ regarding landscaptny, grading~ etc.~ and Robert Nenr~lnyer replied that there are three different issues to be discussed. Saturday, April 21st, was set as the tentative date for the work session. 3/12/79 ~Y .~ ,~ i ~ MiNUTCS~ ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOM~ MARCH 12~ 1979 79'221 ADJOURNMENT Th~ere being no ~urther busineas~ Conxnisaloner pavid offered d f110LIQf1~ seco~ded by Commissl~ner Kfng and MOTION CARRIED (Commissloners 8arnea and Tola~ betng absant) ~ that the meating bc ndJourned. The meettng was adJourned at 6;C0 p.m. Raspectfully submttted, ~~., ~ ~/~.~, Edith L. Ilarris. Secretary Anahetm City Plei~ning Commission ELH:hm 3/12/~9 ,f'~